2010-04-28
Madam Speaker Aagaard took the Chair at 10 am.
Continued from 25 February 2010.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, to outline this bill for members, the purpose, essentially, is to introduce measures to reduce alcohol-fuelled violence across the Northern Territory. It is accomplished by the creation of designated areas in the vicinity of licensed premises, and gives police the ability to issue banning notices for specific offences within the designated area, or the court to impose exclusion orders for the specific offences committed within that designated area.
The bill introduces four distinct concepts to the Liquor Act: new false ID offences to reduce underage access to licensed premises; facilitate accords between licensees to reduce alcohol-related violence; introduce designated areas, banning notices and exclusion orders to reduce alcohol-related violence; and removal from licensed premises.
There has been much focus in the media in recent times on the increasing levels of violence in licensed premises and licensed precincts in many of Australia’s metropolitan towns. Sadly, Darwin and other major Territory centres have not escaped this disturbing trend. There are regular all-out brawls involving up to a couple of hundred people on Mitchell Street. We see it regularly. Security guards are needed at the Mitchell Street taxi rank to prevent the regular fights that erupt after closing time when people are waiting for taxis.
It is estimated only 12% of trauma patients presenting at the Royal Darwin Hospital emergency department have not been a victim of alcohol-related violence. It is not just young, underage males initiating the violence. In a brawl reported in the Northern Territory News on 15 March 2010, it was a woman who initiated the assault on a bouncer refusing entry to her and her three companions; and two men arrested at that brawl were aged 27 and 30.
The opposition intends to support this bill as I believe we all agree that measures to curb alcohol-related violence are desperately needed. However, I cannot help but be concerned this government has, yet again, chosen to follow the path of introducing new legislation just to be seen to be doing something to address alcohol-related violence across the Northern Territory, rather than providing resources to enforce existing legislation. A failure of the Alcohol Court is one that springs to mind.
In 2006, the government introduced, with much fanfare and, may I add, they introduced the Liquor Amendment Bill, their latest and greatest attempt at stemming alcohol-related antisocial behaviour. The bill allowed local governments to apply to the Licensing Commissioner to have an area declared as a ‘dry area’, which was added on top of the existing 2 km law across the Territory. Dry areas were implemented in Darwin, Katherine and Alice Springs. If you take a walk down the Esplanade most days, you will still see itinerants drinking alcohol. There is no satisfactory enforcement of this legislation; that is pretty clear. The situation is repeated in Alice Springs. We see it time and time again in many of our public areas in Central Australia and Alice Springs. Alice Springs is a ‘dry town’. We see alcohol consumption and alcohol-related violence in the mall, the Royal Flying Doctor Service Park, Billy Goat Hill, and many other areas across Alice Springs, and presentations at the Alice Springs Hospital as a result of excess alcohol consumption.
Obviously, with the introduction of this bill and the escalation of antisocial behaviour for violence, things have become much worse, despite the intention and the implementation of public restricted areas and dry areas. In fact, there has been a whole raft of new legislation introduced by this government to control alcohol consumption and alcohol-related violence and harm, but with the absence of reinforcement on the ground. Without the resources, the legislation and government rhetoric to prevent drinking and alcohol-related violence is simply just hot air and worthless paper. With the declared areas, the banning notices, exclusion orders and false IDs seizure, I fear this bill will, again, be an empty promise to bring about change.
We see it all too often. It was a topic of debate yesterday in many areas, particularly to do with health reform. I fear we will see this as an attempt by the government to be seen to be doing something to curb alcohol-related violence across the Northern Territory.
My other main concern with this legislation is the government consistently adds layer upon layer of bandaid solutions and restrictions that either do not work or have not been given the required support so our coordinating new policies will work with the existing ones.
As I mentioned before, public dry areas were introduced to reduce alcohol-related antisocial behaviour. This was a layer added to the existing 2 km law. We already had the 2 km law in place, and now we have a dry town in place in Central Australia in Alice Springs, yet we are not seeing huge reductions in alcohol-related antisocial behaviour. One just has to walk down the street to see that.
We now have a new type of restricted area: the declared area that works in complete isolation to existing restricted areas. However, with the lack of enforcement of those laws, I am not confident this government has the backbone to follow through with these laws. How many extra police are going to be provided to operate in these declared areas, to hand out banning notices and charge people with the specified offences referred to in this bill?
The list of specified offences is quite extensive. I will read a list of offences for which a person may receive a banning notice if committed in a declared area. They are: failure to comply with direction to leave a licensed premises; returning to premises within 12 hours of removal under section 121; offences relating to riots, gross indecency in public, threats to kill, recklessly endangering life, recklessly causing serious harm, negligently causing serious harm; drink or food spiking; acts intended to cause serious harm or prevent apprehension; serious harm, harm; common assault; assault on police; sexual intercourse and gross indecency without consent; threats; assault with intent to steal; unlawful entry of buildings; persons found armed with the intent to unlawfully enter buildings; arson; attempts to commit arson; criminal damage in general; drinking in public; drinking by minors in a public place; offensive conduct; penalty for indecent exposure of the person; obscenity; carriage or use of controlled weapons; carriage or use of controlled weapons by a person under the age of 18; and carriage or use of offensive weapons.
As you see, that list is quite extensive. The question has to be asked: will the courts receive any extra support to deal with what I can only assume will be an influx of offenders as a result of those offences? What will happen to those offenders? Once they get nabbed, will they receive punishment or will they continue to offend once they have completed that banning order?
The whole premise is to reduce alcohol-related violence. Yet, there is no requirement for the offender to be intoxicated at the time of the offence. If they are intoxicated, there is nothing in place to address the underlying problem, which is that person’s inability to responsibly consume alcohol and limit their intake to a quantity that will not result in violence. This will only see a churn of the same offenders before the court, for the same offences because, as with the current situation with protective custody, the underlying behaviour that results in alcohol-related violence is not being addressed.
Madam Speaker, the opposition supports the intent of this bill. We would like to see the bill go further; that is, place people into rehabilitation. We need to be able to get control of the problem, not just ban those people who are unable to responsibly consume alcohol and limit their intake to a quantity that will not result in violence. That person, once they have completed their banning order or their exclusion order, is free to offend again and again. There is no mechanism in this bill to direct that person into rehabilitation. The problem will still exist without rehabilitation.
The opposition supports the intent of the bill but, as we advised the government prior to these sittings, we will be introducing committee stage amendments to address our concerns with this part of the bill. We have a number if amendments to get through, Madam Speaker. The opposition supports the intent of the bill, and we will continue in the committee stages.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I support the Liquor Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 (Serial 94). Before I go to my prepared comments as Police minister, I will go to some of the issues raised by the member for Greatorex. This is an initiative by this government, in partnership with the AHA and police, to work towards a practical solution to deal with a relatively small number of people who commit offences and antisocial behaviour in and around licensed premises and precincts, such as the Mitchell Street precinct. As the member for Greatorex said, in all jurisdictions in Australia these types of offences in precincts are becoming more prevalent. We entered into a discussion with the industry and with police to look to practical measures to exclude people from precincts and get the troublemakers out of premises and out of precincts.
I said on the radio this morning that this is targeting a relatively small number of people who drink too much grog on a Friday or a Saturday night and, at 2 am turn into someone totally different, and are hell-bent on ruining other people’s night out. We are not talking about this legislation being directed towards hundreds and hundreds of people. The member for Greatorex said there are regular, all-in brawls of up to 200 people on Mitchell Street. I can certainly say, as Police minister, I do not know what his definition of ‘regular’ is, but it is certainly not a ‘regular’ event to have all-in brawls of up to 200 people in Mitchell Street. That is just inflammatory language.
I am not saying it never happens, but it is certainly not a regular occurrence. What we do have is a handful of idiots whose idea of a good night out is to have a skinful of grog, and probably consume some other substances as well, and then pick on people for a rumble for enjoyment on a night out. This is what we are targeting here.
For getting the troublemakers out of precincts, of course, police have powers to charge people with specific offences outside of what this legislation is aimed to target. I would expect, if police do have evidence and a complaint of a serious violent assault, then that is what the person will be charged with, not be charged under this legislation.
The member for Greatorex pontificated about the resources we are putting in place here are all window dressing. It builds on a package of measures already in place. The government, with financial support from the federal government, has introduced comprehensive closed circuit TV coverage of the Mitchell Street precinct, the Darwin CBD, Casuarina, Palmerston and Alice Springs. It was this government that introduced CCTV. The latest brief I have from police is, already, about 40 specific briefs of evidence have gone forward for prosecution as a result of the CCTV coverage in our cities.
Also, the member for Greatorex might not be aware that it was this government which funded, in last year’s budget, a specific, dedicated City Safe police patrol for the Mitchell Street precinct. We already had, prior to this legislation, dedicated police patrolling Mitchell Street. That has been in place for at least six to eight months. So, this is not window dressing; this is, in partnership with industry and police, building on initiatives we already have in place to deal with a relatively small number of idiots who cannot have a good night out without getting involved in a blue. That is what we are putting in place here.
I also comment on his remarks regarding emergency department presentations; that only 12% of presentations do not include alcohol. I point out to the member for Greatorex, in dealing with this legislation which is confined to dealing with people on licensed premises and precincts, 80% of all alcohol consumed in the Northern Territory is sold off, not on, licensed premises. The vast majority of those alcohol-related presentations in our emergency departments are in relation to alcohol-related violence where the alcohol is consumed off premises, not on premises. Tragically, the vast majority of domestic violence which occurs is as a result of excessive consumption of alcohol. Trying to relate that issue with this bill is nonsensical.
He also talked about dealing with this in isolation. I point out that in the alcohol management plans we have in place in Groote Eylandt, Nhulunbuy, and Alice Springs, building on a package of measures, there has been a massive decrease in violence and antisocial behaviour on Groote Eylandt, and a significant decrease in Nhulunbuy as a result of the measures this government has put in place. In Alice Springs, there is still far too much alcohol being consumed and far too many problems; however, the consumption of alcohol has decreased by 20%, with a significant reduction in presentations to the emergency department.
Of course, we can always do more, and we will continue to do more. However, on this side of the House, we certainly will not support a policy of pouring more grog onto the problem and extending opening hours for the sale of alcohol off premises. That is the policy position of the opposition, and any comments they make in regard to alcohol have to be seen in the light that they have a specific and explicit policy of selling more alcohol off premises. That is in direct contradiction to all the evidence which clearly shows you need to constrain supply and, where supply is constrained and better regulated, there is a reduction in crime and antisocial behaviour. There are no studies which show, in my opinion, if you actually increased the amount of alcohol available and for sale in Alice Springs it would reduce the type of problems the opposition has claimed.
The member for Greatorex’s policy position is absolutely nonsensical and is not backed by any evidence-based approach to dealing with those issues. It is a whistle to a small section of the community in Alice Springs - and the opposition knows exactly who they are whistling to in Alice Springs. Any position they have on alcohol, until they get rid of that policy of ‘we need to sell more grog to reduce the problems associated with grog’, is completely nonsensical.
Mr Conlan: Go to the public bar of the Todd Tavern at 11.30 and see how much grog is being sold there?
Mr HENDERSON: I challenge the member for Greatorex …
Mr Conlan: Or the Gap View Hotel.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Conlan: Go and see how much grog is being sold there.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex!
Mr HENDERSON: … to produce any supportive statement from any physician, any doctor or any nurse in the emergency department in Alice Springs, any professional research person at the university in Alice Springs, from anyone who is in the front line dealing with those issues in Alice Springs who supports the CLP policy of more grog equals less antisocial behaviour, less violence and less domestic violence. That is the issue …
Mr Conlan: They are interested in controlling demand not supply. It is the demand for alcohol that you guys cannot get a grip on.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HENDERSON: The challenge is there for the member for Greatorex to provide me with any statement from any doctor at that hospital, any nurse at that hospital, anyone who deals in the front line with these issues who says the sale of more grog equals less domestic violence, more grog equals less antisocial behaviour, particularly when 80% of all of our alcohol is consumed off premises. It is a totally nonsensical position from the member for Greatorex, not backed up by any evidence, or any support from any professional body they have been able to provide.
Having dealt with the comments from the member for Greatorex, as the Attorney-General said …
Mr Mills: Not very well, though.
Mr HENDERSON: Well, if that is the policy you want to take to the election, good luck! I look forward to the television advertisements: more grog equals less domestic violence. I look forward to the TV ads during the next election.
As the Attorney-General said in her second reading speech, most people want to have an enjoyable social experience when using the services and facilities available from the hospitality industry. I said on the radio this morning that some 18 000 people - I think over the weekend, or was it over a night?
Ms Lawrie: Over the weekend.
Mr HENDERSON: Over the weekend. … enjoy a night out on Mitchell Street. That night out can be ruined because of a few idiots who cannot control their alcohol intake. That is what we are trying to deal with in this legislation.
People are entitled to enjoy themselves with their friends in entertainment venues and licensed premises. Many adults I know enjoy a social night out with their mates, share a few drinks, music, and entertainment. It is not that many years ago - in fact, it probably is too many years ago - when I used to enjoy a night out to the wee hours of the morning in and around the entertainment precinct of Darwin. When I first came to the Northern Territory you could stay up to 6 am. I did that on a number of occasions as well. I probably should not have, but I did, and I did not get into trouble and had a great night out. We have gone from 6 am to 4 am.
It is a reasonable expectation people can do so without being subjected to alcohol-fuelled violence and unacceptable behaviour. Under existing programs such as City Safe, police target antisocial behaviour of patrons in the vicinity of licensed premises and the compliance of licensees. As a government, we have also increased the number of licensing inspectors to add to the range of resources we have put to making these areas safe.
This bill delivers substantial new powers to police, liquor regulators, and licensees. These measures will reduce unacceptable behaviour associated with licensed premises and the consumption of alcohol. One of the key objectives of the bill is to eliminate patrons who cannot behave themselves in licensed precincts.
The introduction of amendments to the Liquor Act will provide police with another tool to reduce and minimise problems associated with alcohol-fuelled violence and antisocial behaviour across the Territory. The objectives also align with the priorities identified in the Territory 2030 strategy in the core area of Society for reducing personal and property crime.
Police will now have the power to direct a person from a licensed premises when intoxicated or involved in unacceptable behaviour where, previously, instruction was required by the licensee or their representative – section 121. A designated area can be declared and the specified offences committed in these areas can attract a banning notice. As I said before, if the offence is a serious assault, I would expect police to charge the perpetrator with a serious assault offence as opposed to using this legislation. I am sure they will.
Police can issue a banning notice, not exceeding a 48-hour period, when they suspect, on reasonable grounds, the person is committing or has committed a specified offence in a designated area. A banning notice will be an effective and reasonable way of preventing the continuation of offences in the designated area.
The Commissioner of Police can make an application to the court for an exclusion order for a period of not more than 12 months, if satisfied on three separate occasions within a period of 24 months before the application, the person receiving the banning notice in a designated area will receive an infringement notice in relation to a specified offence. The banning notice and exclusion orders will allow police to identify and remove participants who engage in alcohol-fuelled violence and antisocial behaviour within the community. This is, very explicitly, targeting the relatively small number of idiots whose idea of a good night out is to have a skinful and belt people up. Police will now be able to better deal with those people.
Police will monitor the issuing of banning notices and related offences to analyse their effectiveness and application, and will continue to work closely with other government agencies to reduce antisocial behaviour and alcohol-fuelled violence.
The majority of patrons in hospitality venues behave responsibly. These new provisions will strengthen the powers of police, regulators, and licensees to deal with the minority who behave unacceptably. This is a very targeted response to a specific issue with full consultation and cooperation with industry and police. It builds on a series of measures and investments by this government, including significant coverage of CCTV, the establishment of dedicated police patrols for the Mitchell Street precinct, the establishment of the taxi rank, and the targeting of that relatively small number of idiots whose idea of a good night out, as I said, is a skinful of grog and getting into a blue. Well, they are very much on notice now that if you behave like that, you are gone for 48 hours and, if you behave like that three times within 24 months, you could be banned for another 12 months.
Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to the House.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I need to speak in light of what the Chief Minister had to say.
We are all concerned about the behaviour of certain Territorians and the impact they have on our community. We acknowledge there is concern in all our communities – Alice Springs, Palmerston, Katherine – just to name three – and Darwin, of course. We acknowledge there is a response from government, and that response is what the community expects.
However, there is a clearly described difference between the two approaches. It may not be immediately recognised by the Chief Minister and this Labor team, who have a philosophical approach to matters such as the control of substances. I believe the premise on which they base their policy response is flawed; albeit the response is necessary and there are elements of the response which have already been indicated are supportable. However, the premise upon which your action is based is flawed, because of this: you believe alcohol itself is the problem therefore you would bring in measures to control alcohol because alcohol is the problem.
We beg to differ. We believe the inappropriate and reckless consumption of alcohol - decisions made by citizens for one reason or another - is the problem. It is not alcohol itself; it is the excessive drinking that is the problem. If you start from that premise, it results in a different approach and actions which recognise it is a consequence of decision-making and behaviour. It is behaviour which must change – not the supply, the demand issue.
Why is there such an excessive appetite, or thirst, for alcohol in our community? It is this question which needs to be properly understood, otherwise policy will not effect behavioural change. That is what we need to do: change behaviour. If we are going to cast this whole thing as alcohol itself being the problem, we are off to a wrong start.
We believe it is a consequence of decisions which are made. Labor would make excuses for those who make these decisions, because people are not responsible for their own decisions, it appears, when you track it back. I believe they are. They may need some assistance; they will definitely need rehabilitation; they need to be strengthened in their capacity to say no, or moderate their consumption. That is where the focus should be.
As a member of the substance abuse committee - and I have referred to this many times; it was very well led by the member for Macdonnell - if the Chief Minister is serious, if he is genuine in his call for evidence, just read that report. All we will do, if we follow this line based upon the logic ‘it is the supply of substance that is the problem, if we can control supply, we fix the problem’, you will see on every page of that report, that is a flawed approach. All you do is displace the presence of the substance to other places. You have dry towns, and you will have piles of cans on the outskirts, because you have not dealt with the underlying problem. That is why rehabilitation is at the heart of this, with the establishment of meaningful, serious consequences, and reminding people they have a choice in this matter. If they say: ‘I have no choice’, I say: ‘You are mistaken. You actually have a choice’.
I prefer to empower people to recognise the truth; they have a choice. If they feel they are unable to make that decision, that is why rehabilitation is required, so they at least have that capacity. To take that from people and say: ‘It is not really your fault, it is just some group of people over there - let us call them idiots if you like - and all the rest of us are just fine’, is misleading people. The truth is everyone has a choice in this matter and, if you do not have the strength to make that decision, that is why you have to go through a robust rehabilitation program.
The Country Liberals are serious about this and we understand the approach that is required. It is not a political problem, it is a social problem. Other societies, other communities, have taken this head on and been truthful about it and not misled people and wasted resources and ended up with no result. If the Chief Minister is serious, as he follows the logic of his approach through, he would then look at the prohibition in the US. The prohibition was the ultimate control of supply. Did that ultimate control of supply result in a fix to the problem? No, it gave rise to organised crime. I am using that as an example.
If you deal with supply and identify supply as the problem, and then control supply, you do not fix the problem, because it is the other element. There are the other elements, of course, reflected in the government’s approach, but the strength of their premise is based on the idea that supply of alcohol is the problem. It is not, of itself, the problem. The fundamental problem of balance in the strength of our position is it is the result of a decision that is made by a person, therefore, there must be a consequence. That is the strength of it. That applies in Palmerston, in Katherine, in Alice Springs, and in every one of us. The moment we reduce that, we waste resources, raise expectations and disappoint people, and do not provide leadership.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, the Chief Minister and I have been getting along pretty well in recent times. However, I think we are going to have a falling out in relation to this issue. I say at the outset, for the reasons outlined by my colleague, the member for Greatorex, we support the bill. However, we have some meaningful and useful amendments.
Having said that, there were some mischievous comments made by the Chief Minister …
Mr Conlan: Again.
Ms CARNEY: Again. … that, frankly, I just cannot let go. His contempt for the people of Alice Springs is very serious, indeed. The members for Braitling, Greatorex and Araluen, it is fair to say, did pretty well at the last election, getting between 60% and 70% or thereabouts, of the primary vote. You would have thought those opposite, if they were serious about ever trying to win a seat in Alice Springs, would think: ‘Those three are responding reasonably well to their community. Their community knows and understands them, that is why they vote for them. They are not barking mad’.
We have a range of policies that relate to Alice Springs, and we produce them for very good reason, not only because that is what our constituents want, but it is the right thing to do. It is very easy for those who do not live in our town to be contemptuous of ideas put forward by us and others of how to remedy some of the problems in our town. It is very easy when you are up here in Darwin, but I can assure members that my constituents, and those of my colleagues, are absolutely with us in selling alcohol earlier.
The Chief Minister issued a challenge. He said: ‘Where is the evidence it will work?’ Well, right back at you, Chief Minister: where is the evidence that it will not? We say - and police informally, off the record, have told us, as have security personal - if alcohol can be sold earlier, people will get drunk earlier in the day and, therefore, the problems will not move to the dark of the night. They would be dealt with during daylight hours.
One of the top three criteria for dealing with these problems for police and security personal is making sure you can see it. You can, arguably, stop women being bashed and stop homes being broken into in the daylight, as opposed to the night time.
I know the government is hell-bent on its hysterical rhetoric about the rivers of grog, blah, blah, blah. However, we have produced this policy in relation to the earlier sale of alcohol for good reason. The Chief Minister, if he is still Chief Minister at the next election – and the member for Karama will do all she can to ensure he is not, subject to permission granted by the member for Nelson - I would have thought he would need to get serious about responding to the issues and concerns of the people of Alice Springs.
The Chief Minister, as he is wont to do, selectively uses and misuses information. Here is the Moving Beyond the Restrictions, the Evaluation of the Alice Springs Alcohol Management Plan. Let me read some lines from it. The authors said:
Rock on, Chief Minister! However, you are just not right. I guess it is probably not dissimilar to a debate on does God exist? Both parties will say to the other ‘show me the evidence’; however, the anecdotal evidence of those who I know and trust in Alice Springs is very supportive of what we have previously proposed.
Excuse me for being cynical - and far be it for me to be cynical – however, I have a belief that, had the problems in Mitchell Street been occurring in Alice Springs in the same way, this bill would never have seen the light of day. This is part of a political solution to a social problem. This government, notorious for doing nothing on almost everything, has come up with something to appease the traders and some mums and dads in and around Darwin, whose sons and daughters are morons, go to Mitchell Street, get full of grog, and then behave despicably.
I am all for getting stuck into morons - and I suppose I am doing that now – however, this is a Mitchell Street phenomena and, magically, we see a bill. No wonder the people of Alice Springs say: ‘Those people in Darwin do not understand and do not respond to us in the way they should. If this was happening in Darwin something would happen’. I know members opposite think my constituents - and probably us - have a chip on their shoulder, but it is true. If the problems in Alice Springs were happening in Darwin you would have done something. An example: the liquor takeaway hours are very different. If you drive from the north to the south of the Territory, they are different all the way. There is no consistency, no consistent policy approach, and it is pretty cheeky for this government to have rules for those of us in the deep south, different to those in the northern suburbs.
I note, with interest, the Attorney-General’s media release dated 15 February. It is headed: ‘Cracking Down on Alcohol Fuelled Violence’. I reckon it should have said ‘cracking down on alcohol-fuelled violence in Mitchell Street’, because this is what it is all about. It is, as I say, partly a political answer to a social problem. The disingenuous nature of this government is as serious on the one hand as it is amusing on the other. What a headline: ‘Cracking Down on Alcohol Fuelled Violence’. Where has this government been on cracking down on alcohol-fuelled violence in Indigenous communities around the Northern Territory?
Let me take you back. On 15 May 2006, Lateline interviewed Dr Nanette Rogers. She talked about the culture of violence and intimidation that existed in many Indigenous communities around the Northern Territory. Clare Martin, Chief Minister at the time, not only did not bother to see the interview, or no one on the fifth floor evidently bothered to brief her, but her approach and the approach of you all at that time, was to just bat it away. Hence, we saw the Matthew Bonson memo with his scathing comments about how scathing he thought Clare Martin was in relation to Aboriginal people. In any event, you do not own any moral high ground when it comes to ‘cracking down on alcohol-fuelled violence’ anywhere in the Northern Territory.
Despite the rhetoric and the heart-on-the-sleeve nonsense, your form of cracking down on alcohol- and non-alcohol-fuelled violence, in Indigenous communities in particular, is pretty shocking. Of course, there is always an assumption, in the case of those Indigenous men who bash Indigenous women, they will not do so if they are not drunk. I have said before in this Chamber, and outside: sober men bash women. What this government has done for about the last five or so years is hide behind this alcohol stuff. They just tinker around the edges with alcohol because dealing with the more substantive issues - those raised for instance by Dr Nanette Rogers and others – is too hard for you. Well, shame on you - shame on you all.
What it leads to is the government’s comments on domestic violence. I remember some years ago the government did not always talk about domestic violence. Then the crime figures started to go up and up. I remember the first time a government minister - in fact, it was Peter Toyne - started to say: ‘The increased rates of assault have to do with domestic violence’. Now it has become part of the government language.
No doubt, alcohol has a great deal to do with domestic violence, but it is not, and should never be, just a throwaway line when it comes to violence against women or, indeed, the broader problems with respect to alcohol, particularly in Indigenous communities.
The Chief Minister had a go at my colleague the member for Greatorex and said: ‘You should not link domestic violence to this bill’. Well, government links domestic violence and alcohol to pretty much everything these days, particularly when the crimes stats come out and the assault rates have increased. They use the language, but they do next to nothing - very little - when it comes to addressing the culture of male violence against women. Let us not assume the violence, for that matter, that occurs in Mitchell Street is just a bunch of male morons getting stuck into each other; it also involves women.
Moving on, I remember at estimates last year I was somewhat stunned to learn from the Corrections minister that in 2008-09 only 111 prisoners - just under 10% of the prisoner population - participated in a total of 13 alcohol rehabilitation programs. So, fewer than 10% of the prison population participated in alcohol rehabilitation programs.
Government, to its credit, is saying our gaols are full and there are many people there because of alcohol-related violence. Of course, that is supported by ABS figures, and I refer in particular to the ABS stats December quarter 2008, published in March 2009, in which it referred amongst other things, to alcohol treatment programs. It said that between 70% and 90% of assaults in Alice Springs are alcohol- and drug-related. That is a very high number of prisoners in our gaols with, essentially, alcohol and drug problems. Yet, in 2008-09, we had the government only having 111 prisoners participating in alcohol rehabilitation programs. Given that government is talking increasingly about domestic violence and how it is alcohol-related, that the crime stats are going up and up, that our gaols are becoming even fuller because there is such a high number of offenders due to alcohol-related offences, you would expect, would you not, a government to then get on with producing more rehabilitation programs based around alcohol?
From a government and a social point of view, if that is enemy No 1, so to speak, you would expect any decent government to follow through. But no, they are happy to issue Darwin-centric media releases and not build in the infrastructure required to address the problem, as both the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Greatorex have already stated. It is really quite disgraceful. I do not know how this government gets away with it, but I am somewhat hopeful, at the next election, they will not.
Our view is - and I have stated this in the past and happily do it again – given that alcohol, for instance, is such an enemy No 1 everyone is concerned about, we would not only provide more rehabilitation programs, we would make it compulsory for repeat offenders. What is the sanction? The sanction is make it a condition of their parole. We believe, given the significance of alcohol and alcohol-related violence in the community and that our gaols are full of offenders who are there as a result of alcohol-fuelled violence, it should be made compulsory. We believe the time has come. We believe there should be, in essence, mandatory rehabilitation programs for a range of offenders. However, since we are talking about alcohol, I will limit it to just alcohol.
The government has overcome its difficulty with the ‘m’ word, and we have seen that in the context of domestic violence legislation and, from memory, a couple of others. The Northern Territory Labor Party is now able to mutter the word ‘mandatory’. Given they have jumped what was apparently, for them, a pretty high hurdle, we do not and will not understand - and it is a very stark point of difference - why the Northern Territory Labor Party will not make it compulsory for repeat alcohol offenders in gaol to participate in rehabilitation programs. You would have thought, if this bill was a fair-dinkum approach to dealing with alcohol, part of the package - whether it is in legislation or the minister could have issued half a dozen more media releases on 15 February or since, saying: ‘We are going to have more rehabilitation programs, such is our commitment to dealing with alcohol’.
I note the Corrections minister, on 29 October last year, said in this place, when talking about various strategies to deal with offenders: ‘The strategies outlined in this House are the basics of education and rehabilitation’. He also said his government was ‘increasing the rehabilitation of our prisoners’. Well, you would not know it - you just would not know it.
That is a fundamental point of difference. It is hard not to be cynical about this government, but I am cynical. I also note the ‘t’ word in the media release of 15 February - ‘t’ being ‘tough’, a word often used by this government. In fact, one day, someone with an enormous amount of time on their hands should do a search of all government media releases from August 2001 to today, and see how many times the word ‘tough’ has appeared in media releases. There are just so many instances. I remember youth gangs - oh very tough …
Mr Mills: They were going to crack down on those.
Ms CARNEY: Yes, they were going to crack down on them too. The words ‘cracking down’ and ‘tough’ are words this government really likes to use. Apparently, this is going to be very tough …
Ms Purick: A new era.
Ms CARNEY: ‘A new era’ is another expression that is coming to the fore. However, it is difficult not to be cynical.
Having said that, there are, as we said at the outset some positive aspects to this legislation. We are simply making the point that this government, which is the Northern Territory version of the Clampetts, could have done so much better. It is just typical - believe me, I have been here since day one, since August 2001 - and their form is just astonishing; you can set your watch by it. What they do is issue media releases with ‘cracking down’ and ‘tough’ in it, do the media, get a couple of good runs, and then they walk away. That is partly why things are so bad in Alice Springs, because you issued the media releases, and then you walked away. Then, months later, someone flew down from Darwin and said: ‘Oh things are pretty bad. Oh, well, we are going back to Darwin tomorrow’ – blah, blah, blah.
You really do have very predictable, yet remarkable, form when it comes to, not actually in a substantive meaningful way, dealing with the problems you say are so very important and so desperately need to be addressed by government.
I could go on and, quite frankly, I am tempted, but there are just a couple of other points that I should make such as the accord component of this bill. I do not know what overcame the Attorney-General and Minister for Alcohol Policy, because she did not say in her media release of 15 February - neither did she say, I believe, in her second reading speech - the alcohol accord was all her idea - most unlike her.
This idea came from a group of licensees in Alice Springs. I remember when the member for Casuarina was Alcohol minister; I had met with licensees and it was a great idea. I rang the member for Casuarina - who I do not ring often, but when I do, he is always good enough to take my call, for which I thank him. I said: ‘Kon, this is great. What they are doing down here is really good. This will even have application for you guys in Darwin’. He knew about it and he was keen to learn more. I thank the member for Casuarina, because I then reported to those licensees that the Minister for Alcohol Policy was in, he was fair dinkum, he was committed to it, and he was also committed to learning more and making it work. He, obviously, did his job extremely well on that occasion and passed it to the new Minister for Alcohol Policy. So, that is great. It is an initiative in Alice Springs. Those people really picked up the idea and ran with it, and those people should be congratulated.
There were points made by the Police Commander, I believe, about two months ago, where she said on radio the alcohol laws in Alice Springs need looking at. We know that; stupidly, those opposite do not tend to believe or agree with my colleagues and me from Alice Springs, but I reckon you would want to take the lead from your Police Commander. Presumably, we will not agree on everything, but when our community, the elected members, and a Police Commander say - even from a narrow perspective - things are not working, you need to do something, and I would have thought a decent government would look at those issues.
Having said that, and subject to the amendments my colleague, the member for Greatorex has, I say for the record that we are supportive of this legislation. Why? We think it will have application elsewhere in the Territory. Why? It mirrors some of the things we have been saying for some time need to be addressed. Of course, we are supportive of it; however, I cannot, in conscience, say: ‘Yes, yes, yes, good on you’, without pointing to the bleeding obvious, which is the government’s poor form when it comes to implementing policy; namely, issuing a media release and then walking away; the government’s predictability when it comes to using words in media releases, ‘cracking down’, and the word ‘tough’ and so on.
This government is not a very good government. Its first term was pretty good, second term pretty ordinary, third term shabby - very shabby, very sloppy. It is very disappointing for our constituents in Alice Springs.
On that note, Madam Speaker, I will conclude. I hope the Chief Minister and I can continue to get along well, notwithstanding our vehement disagreement on this particular issue.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the department for the briefing it gave us on the Liquor Act amendments. When I look at what the minister said in her second reading, these particular amendments are, I believe, only tinkering with the issue. I have heard it said part of the reason this particular legislation is being introduced is also to cover those people who are not affected by alcohol necessarily, but may enter a premises looking for a fight with people who have been drinking.
Although that is what I gather some people are saying, when I read the Attorney-General’s second reading I have no doubt the main reason for this legislation is to deal with alcohol-fuelled violence - not just violence from people who happen to wander into a licensed premises. The Attorney-General said:
Further, the Attorney-General said:
Further down it said:
And, further:
It is clear to me this is only tampering with what is a major problem in our society: the abuse of alcohol. Yet, for some reason, governments tend to walk away from the reality; that is, alcohol is misused. That is the key reason why we have not only violence: we have car accidents, straight-out aggression, domestic issues and, as the Attorney-General said, 59% of all assaults in the Northern Territory are alcohol-related. I believe the figures are higher for the number of people in prison due to alcohol-related issues. My understanding is we have the highest facial injury per head of population attending Darwin hospital. In other words, we have people who have broken jaws, broken noses and fractured skulls. We have some of the highest rates in Australia in relation to the violence which occurs, and we see that in the type of injuries which present at the hospitals.
I have to ask, and I have spoken about it before, why the government does not look at drunkenness as something which is not cool. It seems we are saying to people: ‘Have a good time; you can get drunk as long as you do not become violent’. Yet we know drunkenness can also cause health problems, and many people who do end up in RDH are people who have abused alcohol.
Some years ago we removed public drunkenness as an offence, as not being appropriate. Whether that is a good idea or a bad idea, I suppose we can still argue. But, we do seem to be reluctant to say drunkenness is actually lack of control. We are not willing to take the challenge and say to our young people - and we talk about binge drinking, and binge drinking is getting drunk – binge drinking is no good. We are not getting out there and saying that abusing alcohol, getting drunk, is not something cool. It is time the government actually started to say it is not cool, and the reason it is not cool is because of this, this, this, and this: you can end up in hospital; you can kill someone when you drive a car; and you can get pregnant if you leave yourself open to being caught in a state where you do not have control over yourself.
All those issues our young people need to be reminded of, especially when it comes to the dangers of binge drinking and the abuse of alcohol. Yet, we seem to just say: ‘We do not mind you drinking, we do not mind you getting drunk, but we will worry about you when you hit the bloke next door, or you smash a glass in someone’s face, or go into the street and start a fight’. We have to start to work on the sensible consumption of alcohol and until we do that we will just be tinkering around the edges.
No one is against people having a good time at a party, or enjoying a drink but, at times, I see people who, literally, are going to a party to get drunk. I am sure that is not something the government should promote. We should also be realistic about the fact that many people who abuse alcohol become dependent upon alcohol and end up being alcoholics. We know that is a very difficult thing for many people to overcome. It is also a costly blight on our society. It has economic ramifications, especially with people being unable to work, or unable to work to the efficiency they would normally be able to. So, there are other ramifications as well when it comes to the abuse of alcohol.
I come back to the bill which is before us. It is designed, generally speaking, to remove people who are causing problems in licensed premises. It deals with issues about false identification, etcetera, with banning notices, and with designated areas. The question I ask about designated areas is: is it the minister who makes a piece of land, or an area, a designated area? What concerns me is why should there not be some public consultation? If, in the Darwin CBD he said: ‘We will make Mitchell Street a designated area’, in theory, a person could go to Cavenagh Street and cause a problem there. Would it not be better to talk to the people in the area and say: ‘We are thinking of declaring a designated area. What should the boundary of that designated area be?’ There are other licensed premises in the CBD. Also, you might find some people abandon this area and go to Parap. So, should that be a designated area? If it is a designated area, who is going to physically check the people who were banned in this designated area are banned in that designated area?
Recently, there was a classic example in the paper of a person who was banned from a club on Bathurst Island. The reason that person came to Darwin was because she could still drink here. You could say Nguiu was a designated area, and if a person is banned from there, they cannot come to Darwin and do the same thing. Otherwise, what is the point? You just shift the problem from A to B. There needs to be a little more discussion on that as well.
The other area, of course, is the exclusion areas. Basically, this means the person, if they are guilty of three banning notices, can be excluded from an area for 12 months or more and have some conditions similar to bail or parole. I wonder whether these exclusion orders can apply to places like Marrara. In fact, I probably should have asked before about a place like the Marrara TIO Stadium. Just a few months ago, the Police Commissioner stated he believed that lower alcohol or light beer should be sold there rather than heavy beers. I hope I do not misquote him, but he was speaking about the amount of violence which had occurred at a particular football match. I have seen some of that violence firsthand. I am wondering whether the government regards the TIO Stadium as a licensed premises which, I presume, it is – it has Kantillas Function Centre and sells beer. Would it declare the whole Marrara area a designated area, and would it, therefore, say to people who have three banning notices they were excluded from that area for 12 months? Could it be used for that particular purpose?
The other area of alcohol violence is seen around residential areas. Perhaps this law does not cover it because a house is not generally regarded as a licensed premises. However, one of the areas I have seen in my own area which has caused violence is parties that have got out of hand, where Police and Emergency Services people have been stoned and forced to retreat because of alcohol-fuelled violence. I do not know whether you could have a designated area and the concept applied where this behaviour has occurred. The idea of these reforms was to reduce alcohol violence and, maybe, there are some other areas where these ideas could be applied.
Getting back to the exclusion orders where the court can sentence an offender, ban a person for 12 months from an area, or set bail conditions. I note the amendments presented by the member for Greatorex requiring, if the court is satisfied on the evidence before it that the offender was intoxicated when specified events were committed, an exclusion order may require the offender to complete an approved program within a specific period. I am not actually against what the member for Greatorex is putting forward; I would rather see a broader discussion on it.
I am saying that because we have a range of issues raised by this particular matter. We have the Alcohol Court where a magistrate can send someone off to approved programs. My concern is this debate needs to be broadened because we are just picking on one particular part of the bill in regard to alcohol-related violent offences.
There are other kinds of alcohol offences. There is the offence of being continually drunk. I know it is not an offence in the circumstance of a public place but, if people are being picked up continually in Darwin for being drunk - and I have said before that over a certain number of times then there should be a court order that requires these people to do a rehabilitation course ...
Mr Conlan: That is our habitual drunks policy.
Mr WOOD: Yes, I do not think we have done enough work in that area. I am willing to talk to the Country Liberals and the government about this issue. I have said, time and time again, there should be places where, instead of going to gaol, you can send them to a place, which might be a small farm …
Mr Conlan: That is our policy.
Mr WOOD: It has been my policy probably longer than your policy.
Members interjecting.
Mr WOOD: Leader of the Opposition, I was just having a mild dig.
I am saying that it has been around for a long time. The idea of having a small farm or a place of rehabilitation, I believe, is a good one. It is something the government needs to look at because, if people are going in and out the revolving doors time and time again, then there is a time and place when courts have to say: ‘If you cannot help yourself, then we are going to require you to do some rehabilitation’. If people do not want to do that then, perhaps, it is simply that they will go to gaol for a period of time and do their rehabilitation in prison.
I believe the notion of rehabilitation for habitual offenders is worth looking at. I am not satisfied that it should be an amendment to this particular bill, but I would like to work with the opposition to see whether we can take up, for instance, some of this discussion paper on Alcohol Court reforms.
If the government is going to tackle the issues that bedevil us in the Northern Territory in relation to the abuse of alcohol, you can only regard this bill today as a very small part of an issue that will require much more debate. Perhaps we even have to look for new ideas. We are constantly going around ideas which have been around for a while. I am not sure whether someone actually sits down and works out if some of these things have actually made a difference. The Chief Minister said if you go to hospital in Alice Springs you see there has been a reduction in the number of people being admitted to hospital. That might be so. I know when there was Thirsty Thursday in Tennant Creek it certainly saw a reduction in the number of people who attended because of violence fuelled by alcohol abuse.
I believe the issue for us really is the overall attitude in society to alcohol. How many of our sporting clubs rely on the profits of alcohol? I remember the previous member for Katherine, Fay Miller, explaining how the Katherine Football Club had decided there would not be alcohol served at the Katherine football ground, and numbers dropped off immediately. That is an example of why many clubs are so dependent on alcohol, because they simply do not have the funds to continue their sporting activities without that extra income which comes with alcohol. With that, of course, comes a culture that alcohol and sport work hand-in-hand.
I am happy to support this bill today. We might have this bill put out as a major reform. I believe it is a reform - I would not say it is a major reform. I did have a little chuckle when I read the second reading speech where the minister said:
I thought that was a bit rich; it sounds like they are not going to exist anymore. There might have been a better word used there instead of ‘eliminating’. I know some people might be tempted to say that.
The reality is we are not going to get rid of all these problems, even with all these laws, just like you push with tobacco being unhealthy. How many millions of dollars are being put into programs to tell people that smoking is unhealthy, that it is not a good lifestyle? We have not banned tobacco, but we have promoted that tobacco is a drug which can cause major health problems. Why have we not done the same with alcohol? Have we been scared of the big breweries? Are they so powerful governments are not willing to say the abuse of alcohol will cause major problems, it will cause social problems, and it will destroy families in some cases? We know that. It will also put extra pressure on our prisons.
The government has to bite the bullet when it comes to saying there are some down sides to alcohol. We had a great campaign years ago - the Living with Alcohol program. There would be no harm in revisiting that type of program. I believe it was successful; however, it depended on a taxation system where light beer was cheaper than full-strength beers. I was speaking to a fellow in the pub at Howard Springs recently who said light beer is nearly the same price as full-strength beer. Why bother buying light beer if I can get carton of full-strength beer for nearly the same price? I do not know whether that is a recent phenomenon, but I would certainly be concerned if light beer has now become nearly the equivalent price of full-strength, because that was a key plank to the Living with Alcohol program.
In summary, the government should look much broader than it is. I know it is talking about its alcohol management plan. I am not sure who is developing that plan or who is able to comment on that plan. I know there are alcohol management plans in some parts of the Territory; usually they are small communities. I am interested to see how it will work in a larger community like Darwin. I am interested in some of the details. I am interested to see why, in some cases, you need a court to look at reducing hours if all the pubs said they were going to close at 2 am. The Licensing Commission can tell them that today.
I support the bill, but we need to go much further. The idea of compulsory rehabilitation should be looked at in certain circumstances where people are repeat offenders. Whether it is because they have been given three banning orders, they are continually being picked up by the police or the Night Patrol, or whether they continually have DVOs, where people are repeat offenders there needs to come a time where the courts can require them to do programs to change their lives around. They are costly to society; they are also a pest, generally speaking. They drive people mad because they are drunk all the time and are offensive. Society has to be tough in some cases – they call it tough love. I do not know whether it will solve everything, however, we have to try to have rehabilitation programs for people who cannot help themselves. If you cannot help yourself, someone else has to put their hand out and say: ‘We will help you, but you will be forced to go through this program’. Whether that will work or not, only time will tell. At the moment, I do not believe we are doing enough with that particular side of the problem.
Madam Speaker, I support the bill as it is.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I was not intending to contribute to this debate, however, the comments from the member for Nelson have inspired me to my feet. I confess I am not surprised to hear us talking about alcohol in this Chamber again.
In fact, purely at random - and I apologise for walking in front of you; however, I was aware the time limitation being applied was forcing me to do that to obtain the oldest bound copy of Hansard I can find on the table. On page 23 of the oldest copy of bound Hansard we can find on the table is a petition. This, by the way, dates back to 22 September 1977. One of the first things we find people complaining about – the full sum of my research is to walk over there, grab a book at random, walk back over here - on page 23, is a petition being presented by Hon Roger Steele. Basically, it is complaining about the behaviour of the people at Bagot community - the excessive noise, foul language, and unsightly littering by the residents of the Bagot Aboriginal Reserve, as it was called at the time. You can quickly read between the lines at what that was a reference to.
I lament the fact we stand here - parliament in parliament out, sittings in sittings out, sessional period in sessional period out - having this debate when we so often talk about it without mentioning one of the most fundamental contributors to the cause of alcohol-fuelled violence and alcoholism in our community. That is this bizarre situation the federal government has created which, on a fortnightly basis, pours tens of millions of dollars into the pockets of so many Territorians who we know are going to pee it up against the wall within the next few hours.
If I open the last annual report of Northern Territory Police, it tracks back over a few years the number of people who have been arrested for protective custody. In the last financial year, we arrested 30 000 Territorians for being drunk. That is 12% of the population, if my little mental arithmetic works at this stage, and it is three times the number in the year 1999-2000. Some people would argue - I know the government would - we are putting more police resources into locking these people up. However, it is also true we are now selling a lot more alcohol than we were a few years ago. I can tell you, even a few years ago, even in 1977, we were selling too much.
That is what this debate comes down to: we have a system of government where, at one level, we see tens of billions of dollars coming to the Northern Territory on a fortnightly basis going to the pockets of people who then spend it on grog; then the second tier of government, namely us, spend hundreds of millions of dollars every year fixing up the mess caused by the first level of government pouring tens of millions of dollars on a fortnightly basis into the pockets of Territorians who want to go and pee it up against the wall ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, you should rephrase.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay, Madam Speaker. … who want to spend that money on alcohol. But the fact is, that is exactly what occurs; it is a bizarre situation. Not once do I hear members of this government say they are going to do something to address this ludicrous situation where we have one level of government funding the problem so the other level of government has to fund the fix. Here is a sad truth: the vast majority of people who are apprehended for being drunk in our streets are, sadly, Aboriginal people - some 90% of them if you look at the police statistics because they break them up into Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal statistics. Yet, we do not hear a single word uttered about that fascinating situation.
I can tell you, until we address the way welfare is paid - and this is one of the things we hear Noel Pearson talking about all the time; passive welfare being a toxin, a malignant cancer, on the people who receive it, because it is, in many respects, killing more Aboriginal people than all of the negative policies in the past, put together, have ever managed to achieve.
The Chief Minister is entirely right when he walks into this place and says: ‘You ought to see what happens in Alice Springs Hospital on a Friday night’. I know what happens at Alice Springs Hospital. I used to take the bleating wrecks in the back of my police van to that particular hospital with their stab wounds which we jerry-rigged a bandage over the top, or their fractured limbs or whatever, because we could not get ambulances because the ambulances were too busy picking up drunks who had belted each other up.
Now, all of a sudden, we have another announcement from government saying ‘We are going to fix the problem’. Well, announcement one from government should be: ‘We are going to Canberra and we are going to change the way these welfare payments are paid in a direct attempt to affect these outcomes’. That has now started to occur to a degree, but nowhere near enough.
I can tell you why: because when I look at the police statistics I still see 30 000 people being arrested every single year for being drunk. Actually it is not 30 000. We have not arrested 12% of the Territory population, we have arrested about 350. If you believe the Chief Minister’s numbers, 250. I believe it is more - closer to 350 to 400 people, 30 000 times. It is the same mugs you see turning up to the police cells every single time they go on shift – same faces. If you sit in the mall, you can see the people who are going to be the recipients of this police attention. So common is the attendance of these particular individuals at a police station, they should get their mail sent to the watch-house because that is their most regular place of abode.
What have we done at this particular level to deal with it? The former Territory government has conceded, to a degree, defeat. It was picked up by the member for Nelson, because he pointed out it is no longer a criminal offence. The volume of people taken into custody for being drunk was so great there is insufficient time for police officers on duty to do the prosecution files for people being arrested for drunk and disorderly, which is why we got rid of it. It is just easier to lock them up for six hours and chuck them out the next morning.
Now, of course, we have even introduced a level of humanity to it, so not only do we arrest them and take them into custody, they end up often at a sobering-up shelter. When they end up at that sobering-up shelter, they get a feed, their clothes washed, and they get a place to camp for the night. I think they get breakfast in the morning. Even in the police cells, I believe there is some token effort made to feed these people in the morning before they are released. As we wave them out the door we say: ‘See you tonight’, because that is pretty much how it works.
If you want to do something about that level of drunkenness on our streets, then you start targeting those individuals who keep coming back into our police cells. That is the essence of the Country Liberals’ policy, long-since released - in fact, replicated by way of promise by the former Chief Minister, Clare Martin; however, never introduced as a policy. The structure of a policy like this is not inherently difficult. It may be unpopular, but the structure of achieving something like this is not inherently difficult.
It should work something like this. When you are apprehended for protective custody, rather than simply not being fingerprinted, photographed or in any other way identified, you are identified. So, when you are brought to a sobering-up shelter or brought to a set of police cells, you are identified by some mechanism which establishes your identity and you are recorded on a computer system. What happens then is, if you come back to that facility on a subsequent occasion and then another subsequent occasion – namely, three occasions within a six-month period - a flag comes up on your name. On the third occasion after a six-month period, you are then brought before a tribunal. This tribunal, which will meet and sit on a daily basis, will have representatives from the legal fraternity as well as the community, and will make an order which is applicable to each individual case.
It will not be a difficult order; it will be a simple order. The order will say something like: ‘You will not drink’. Of course, if we are talking of people of an alcoholic disposition, it is unlikely they will comply with the order. However, at that point, they have an opportunity to do so. No criminal liability whatsoever flows out of complying with the order. We would hope - against hope I imagine - that, as a result of that order being applied to a person, they would say to themselves: ‘It is time for me to wake up’. I am not so nave as to believe, for one second, most of these people would wake up to themselves. The order would be nothing more than a beer coaster for their next drinking session.
So, you change the legislation and you make it an offence to breach that order, and that then induces the criminal justice process. When you are then re-apprehended on your fourth occasion, whilst an order is applicable, you then find yourself not going through the spin dryer, not going through the section 128 process, but you find yourself charged with the offence of breaching a tribunal order. When you find yourself charged with that offence, you are then accommodated with all of the liberties and rights that are extended to any accused person. But, ultimately, you end up in front of the beak and, should you be convicted of breaching that order. Then what occurs is that you get - dare I say it? - a mandatory three months, not in a gaol, but in a facility that government should build in the area of Katherine perhaps, some 30 km or 40 km away from Katherine - a low-security facility, a farm perhaps, member for Nelson.
During the day, in this particular institution, because you have been declared and convicted of being an habitual drunk, you will contribute to the overall welfare of the prison system by engaging in farming activities. During the evening, you have the medical intervention; you will go to mandatory programs, where you will be sat down and told all the things you are doing to yourself. After a three-month period, you are released. You are sent back to whatever community you came from, or would choose to go to, and, hopefully, you would be thinking to yourself by this stage: ‘Oh gee whiz, I will not go back there again because that was a real pain in the backside’.
Of course, it is entirely likely many of these people will be frequent flyers even into this program. So be it. The fact is, within a few weeks, those 400 individuals who, on a daily basis, come into our protective custody regime, will find themselves subject to these orders and, in every likelihood, in this institution where a health intervention will be imposed, using the vehicle of the criminal justice system - a hybrid. As a result of this is, within a few weeks, I would expect to see our parks, our public places, and other public environments being devoid of the drunks that so offend us all.
If I go across from this House into Bennett Park, just across the way here next to the Chan Building, I will almost certainly be able to find a drunk or two sitting there sipping on their coke bottle full of wine. If I go into the mall, I will sit opposite Raintree Park - in the mall there are the benches - and I will see these guys sitting around waiting for the first opportunity to lay their hands on their next box of monkey blood. If I go down to Alice Springs and I walk the mall in the evening, as I did the other night, I will be plagued by people who are drunk - many of them will be sober, they are of no interest to me, but those who are drunk, sadly, 90% will be Aboriginal. If we bite the bullet and take these steps, in tandem with a system of welfare payments that target the people who are identified as habitual drunks, we will go a long way to resolving issues we have not been able to resolve since 22 September 1977 and, I dare say, even long before that.
If you go through the history of the British parliament, you can see a long history of their debates in relation to similar issues. In fact, Hogarth’s lithograph of Gin Lane - and I urge members to Google it if you do not know what I am referring to - will look very familiar to members of this House. This problem is as old as people itself, and the business of controlling illicit substances and alcohol and those types of things, will go on as long as people are people.
The question is: how much are we prepared to tolerate? It is a balancing act. If we believed in an open market environment in its entirety when it came to these types of things, we would have what they have in Tokyo: a vending machine where you stick in a few yen and buy a beer at a railway station. If you believed the other end of the argument, you would ban alcohol, which was tried in the United States in the 1920s, and all that helped to do was establish the underworld in a way it had not been established prior to that time.
The question will never be, for the people in this House, whether we should take one absolute position or another, but what degree of intervention should we apply. I argue for an intervention which targets those individuals who are the source of the problem. This legislation, by another means, attempts to so do.
The policy I have outlined has been outlined before. In fact, we outlined this policy for the 2008 election. We very much believe this system will seriously affect those people who actually stay drunk on our streets, and who regularly come to notice. It is part of an overall solution but, as the member for Greatorex quite rightly suggested, it is a question of targeting supply and demand. Government would attack supply; the member for Greatorex argues for a control on demand. That is what this policy talks about; those people who demand alcohol in sufficient volume are the ones these types of policies should target. Those policies which target supply just change drinking behaviours in those who demand it.
I am broadly supportive of the legislative instrument before the House at present, as I am aware we all are. Unless we address the way this problem is funded in our jurisdiction, which means working with the Commonwealth and getting the Commonwealth to make some real decisions, as well as targeting those individuals who are the source of the problem, we are otherwise wasting our time. In the year 2050, some parliamentarian will be quoting from the Legislative Assembly in the year 2010 saying: ‘Well, bugger me, not much has changed’.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I agree wholeheartedly with the member for Port Darwin on the points he made in relation to this, and also the member for Greatorex.
Some weeks ago, I found myself in hot water in the media because of comments I put on a Facebook site, which was:
I doubt there would be a person in this Chamber who was not aware of those comments. They may not have seen it firsthand, however I am certain, every member here read of those comments in the local newspaper or heard about them on the radio or television.
I have to say I was quite surprised at the response to those comments, because it was only a …
Dr Burns: From your leader?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: I beg your pardon, minister? I missed that.
I was surprised at the level of response I got to those comments. In a matter of hours, I had dozens of comments on my Facebook site. I looked on the NT News online site; they had dozens of comments on the stories they have written, and I know on talkback radio it sparked off a whole debate. Like the member for Port Darwin, I was scratching my head in surprise at this because this problem is not a new problem; it has been around for a very long time. It would be wrong to blame this government for the creation of the problem. I know it has been with us for a long time.
However, as the member for Port Darwin pointed out, in the last financial year 30 000 drunks were arrested. That is more than three times the number when this government came to power. Whilst we recognise this problem has been around for a long time, we need to do more than just pay it lip service by talking; in 2007, for instance, buying back licences of all those corner stores which sell alcohol. I am not exactly certain how many licences this government has bought back …
Mr Conlan: None.
Mr TOLLNER: … but I am reliably informed by my colleague, the member for Greatorex, it is – how many?
Mr Conlan: None.
Mr TOLLNER: None. This government, in so many ways, is all talk and no action. They rock into this joint talking about how the Country Liberals want to open the rivers of grog, pour alcohol onto the problem, and spin their way out of this in some way, completely misconstruing, misrepresenting, twisting, canting - whatever you want to call it - the policies of the Country Liberals.
Nothing could be further from the truth. It is quite shameful this government is prepared to go down that path of misrepresenting, twisting and misconstruing their political opponent’s agenda to somehow suggest we want to bar alcoholics and alcohol. What a ridiculous assertion.
The fact is, as that comment pointed out to me and all Territorians, this is a real issue - this issue of public drunkenness. It does not matter where you go, whether you are in the war zone in Karama - as the member for Karama once described her own electorate - or Barkly, or Alice Springs, or Katherine, or Ludmilla, or the city, the length and breadth of the Northern Territory, public drunkenness is rife everywhere. What this government is actually doing about it, apart from bagging the Country Liberals, is nothing.
Three years ago, they promised to do something about the licences of corner stores. What have they done? Nothing - absolutely nothing. It is worthwhile taking a step down memory lane in relation to these liquor licences that corner stores have. I would like to see a bit more debate in this particular area. When those stores first got those licences, they were deemed to be convenience stores - a store where you would go in the afternoon to get your milk and bread, and maybe a bottle of wine if you were having dinner, or a half a dozen beers, or whatever, as a matter of convenience. They were never meant to be bottle shops or takeaways as such.
A debate about what would be a reasonable amount of alcohol sales as a percentage of turnover these shops are allowed to operate under would be a far better debate. For instance, if we said as a convenience store, you can sell up to 20% of your turnover as alcohol, then if you go over that, you lose your right to be a convenience store; you then become a bottle shop. You do not have a licence to be a bottle shop, therefore, you forfeit your licence as a convenience store to sell alcohol. They were never meant to be bottle shops or takeaways.
The fact is, with some of these convenience stores, that is predominantly their line of sales. In some cases, it is the only line of sales they have. They are not bottle shops. They are not takeaways. They are convenience stores and they should be regulated and policed as such. Many people - in some cases the elderly or the disabled - find difficulty getting around town and it would be a terrible thing and an impost on them if these corner stores could not sell alcohol. On the other hand, I do not think those corner stores should be a purveyor of alcohol only products.
The way this government deals with public drunks is absolutely appalling. We see organisations funded by this government handing out swags, tents, and food to people who have done nothing more than spend their total pay packet - in most cases welfare cheques - on alcohol. Because of poor budgeting they have left themselves nowhere to sleep, no food to eat, and no shelter. What is this government doing? Rather than address the problem of alcoholism, they support them by giving them swags, tents, and food. Goodness me, look at these things that they call spin dryers out there – their sobering-up shelters. They collect a drunk off the street, a person obviously intoxicated, take them in, strip them down, give them a feed and a bath, put them to bed, make sure they get a good sleep and, in the morning when the person wakes up their clothes are washed, laundered and ironed in many cases. They are given breakfast, a few bucks are stuck in their back pocket, and they are sent back out on the street.
It is hardly a way to deal with people who have a serious illness; that illness being alcoholism. It is wrong to suggest this is a race-based argument. This does not apply to any particular race at all; this is about drunks and dealing with drunks. It should not matter whether the person is black, white, blue, brindle, any colour, any race, any religion, any creed - if you are a drunk, you need to be treated properly, and treated as a drunk. The best way to treat a drunk is to grab them and put them in rehabilitation.
I have to say, as part of the group which was involved in the federal government in the lead-up to the Northern Territory intervention, I was a little concerned about some of the alcohol restrictions the federal government had cooked up as part of the intervention. I thought it had to be very difficult to see them work the ID system and the $100 limit and all of that stuff. I made my thoughts clear to Mal Brough and the Prime Minister at the time. However, they saw that alcohol was such a big issue something had to be done; they had to be seen to be acting on alcohol.
I do not think anyone realised the level of alcoholism in the Northern Territory, particularly on those remote communities, most of which have been dry for a number of years in any case. Since the intervention, we have seen a whole range of people flocking to the urban centres in Katherine, Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, and Darwin to buy alcohol. I have talked to my federal Coalition colleagues about the need to recognise this and to look at funding major rehabilitation centres as part of the intervention. I can see this is an area which was a shortfall in the emergency intervention legislation, bearing in mind, I suppose, we forgive ourselves because it was seen as a national emergency and we had to act quickly, with certainty, and with force. That is exactly what happened.
Unfortunately, it caused, as we now know, the intervention being wound back and it has almost become a joke. You wonder what has changed in these communities following the election of Labor and the way they have managed to roll back key measures of the intervention. However, I digress.
Alcoholism is a real problem in our community and it must be addressed. We need to tackle this issue as legislators as a matter of urgency, because Territorians have had a gutful. They have had enough of not being able to use their parks, not being able to take the kids to use the swings in the afternoon after school, not being able to walk down the street without being hassled, not being able to walk up and down the beaches in the northern suburbs, and of being scared to go to the shops at night.
Every single person in this room would know of people in those situations; people who will not go to the shop once it gets dark, people who are afraid to walk on the streets at night. The situation is getting that way now people are afraid to walk on the streets during the day, let alone at night. We hear about people being bashed and robbed. It is not just the member for Karama’s electorate that is a war zone. There are many places in the Territory that are war zones, and it is not just Mitchell Street.
The issue we talked about, Mitchell Street: ‘Oh these drunks are terrible’, and all of that. The fact is the people who are being spewed out of nightclubs on Mitchell Street on a Thursday, Friday, and Saturday night, generally have jobs, homes to go to, and are contributing to society in some way. That is not to forgive their behaviour in any particular way, but these people are not the ones who are constantly being locked up. They are not part of those 30 000 drunks who are arrested each year that the member for Port Darwin spoke about. Maybe there is a handful of those amongst them, but the 30 000 people the police are arresting are the people who are living in the long grass, and let us not make any bones about it, that is the reality.
It does not matter where you go around Darwin, there would not be a capital city in Australia that would tolerate the level of homelessness, alcoholism, and antisocial behaviour we have in Darwin. Not a capital city in Australia, let alone government, council and people in authority, would collect a whole bunch of drunks, give them free hair cuts, foot massages, put on entertainment, feed them full of food, and celebrate them as some wonderful contributor to the community. How absolutely ridiculous!
I went to the event in the Water Gardens and I was absolutely horrified. I could not believe that the Darwin City Council would be spending ratepayers’ money on something like this. How many of those people have paid rates? How many of those people look after our community? How many of those people clean up their mess, rubbish and junk? Very few. Obviously, there is a percentage of people who are homeless, not through alcoholism or the like, but because life has dealt them a poor hand. Obviously, we should feel sorry and compassionate for those people.
But those other ones who spend their whole dole cheque on alcohol, who - I do not even have to go into it here, I am sure you would pull me up for using unparliamentary language. We all know the behaviour some of these people get up to - and it is only a few. But, what do we do with them? We take them to the spin dryer, we wash their clothes, we give them a feed, we put money in their pockets, we give them swags or tents, or we put on some show at the Water Gardens with entertainment for them, give them free hair cuts, and massages. This is just getting out of hand - absolutely out of hand. Here we have a government which has the audacity to stand up and say they are tough on drunks. What an absolute joke!
And they are going to get rid of licences from takeaways. What a joke! How many have they got rid of? None, zero. Every time they stand up they tell mistruths about the Country Liberals policy. Goodness me, get a grip of yourselves, you guys. Sort yourselves out, get tough on drugs, actually act and do something.
If you want to be compassionate to the homeless and the alcoholics, get in proper rehabilitation services. That is the compassionate thing to do. That is what you do with someone who has an illness, a sickness. For a person who cannot make proper decisions for themselves, sometimes you have to make those decisions for them - and they are tough. You have to say: ‘Come on, son, you have had a few too many tonight, you had a few too many last night. In fact, the last few years you have had a few too many, and it is time we sorted you out. You are going into mandatory rehab and we are going to get you off the grog. Whilst you are in there, we might even try to give you a bit of an education, make you work ready, and get you to become a contributing member of society’. That is the compassionate, fair thing to do.
It is not compassionate to say in this House the Country Liberals want to pour grog on the problem. That is lies and mistruth! It is just wrong. It is running and ducking for cover! It is like the health matter where you threw up your hands and said: ‘It is all too hard for us. Let us give it to Kevin’ - duck and hide; find someone else to blame. 30 000 drunks in a year!
If I had time I would read through some of the comments I have received on my Facebook page. I can tell you people have had an absolute gutful of this problem. They are sick of politicians burying their heads in the sand and ignoring it, and being politically correct and saying what they think the newspaper will put out as a nice story. They refuse to take the hard decisions and do what is right and what is compassionate; that is, to get these people, sort them out, put them into mandatory rehabilitation, and fix up some of these licensing problems we have in corner stores. Obviously, if you have a buy-back of licences, you are going to have a real hard time negotiating some of those buy-backs. You are probably even facing some court action with disputes. If you want to turn your attention to, somehow, readjusting those licences, and acknowledging these stores are convenience stores, not takeaways, not bottle shops, you might be able to address the problem of the level of alcohol being sold out of some of these places.
I have looked at the pubs around Darwin. I know it is fashionable to belt publicans. I note every time poor old Mick Burns appears in the media he is defending publicans from ‘it is the publican’s fault people are getting drunk’. There is very little effort being put into assisting those people. I have to say, when it comes to publicans - and I have spoken to quite a few of them around the Territory - most of them are responsible sellers of alcohol. The way the licensing regime works in the Northern Territory, and the way the liquor Licensing Commission works, is they are very tough on publicans. The same does not seem to apply to those corner stores.
There is a local bottle shop in Parap and I often go in on a Friday afternoon to grab a carton of beer. I have seen the people working at the Parap bottle-o, and there are intoxicated people they refuse to serve. I have seen those people turned away on numerous occasions. When they are turned away, where do you think they go? They toddle straight across the road to the little corner store and buy up everything there. In most cases, those people who are obviously intoxicated do not even bother going to the bottle shop because they know they are not going to be served. They walk straight into that corner store. The member for Fannie Bay will be sitting there silently nodding at some of these comments I am making, because he quietly knows that I am correct ...
Dr Burns: I hope you have reported to the Licensing Commission what you have witnessed. I hope you have done that.
Mr TOLLNER: Here we go. We have the minister chiming in saying I have not reported this to the liquor commission. It is my fault! Here we go, here we go ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, I will conclude my comments here. Needless to say, I support the position of this side of the House, although I am reluctant to say the government will get on and do the job. They have proven time and time again they are all talk and no action.
Debate suspended.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Essington School Year 10, Stage 1 Legal Studies students accompanied by Ms Lyn Hollow and Miss Mali Grossman. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I received a document relating to pairs for today from 5.30 pm to 7.30 pm for the members for Daly and Araluen. It is signed by the government and the opposition Whips.
Continued from earlier this day.
Ms LAWRIE (Racing, Gaming and Licensing): Madam Speaker, I thank all speakers in the debate. I thank the members opposite, the Independent member for Nelson, and the members of the CLP for their support of this important legislation before the House. I listened intently to the debate, and there is more in this debate that unites than divides us. We made absolutely no pretence this particular raft of amendments was directly focused at the specific problem of alcohol abuse in our communities, whether it is in Mitchell Street, Alice Springs, Palmerston, Tennant Creek, or Katherine, where you have pubs and clubs precincts. This was not just a Mitchell Street response as has been alleged during debate.
I had every intention, as the minister, of bringing these amendments forward. In all the discussions I held with the police and the Australian Hotels Association - people on the front line - and with my Racing, Gaming and Licensing officers who had been discussing practical measures to crack down on violence in and around pub and club precincts across the Territory, this raft of measures seemed to be the most practical approach to take. I make no pretence these measures go to the broader issue of the scourge of alcohol misuse across our communities, whether that is in regional towns or our large urban centres. Clearly, our government has a track record of pursuing local alcohol management plans with a more holistic approach to the broader issue of off-licence behaviour. This was a response to on-licence behaviour, and behaviour that spilled out of the licensed premise on to the street.
I was very clear in every step I took in coming to these amendments, in talking to key stakeholders, and in announcing these measures, that this was a targeted and specific approach to a specific issue. It was a not a broader reform of the Liquor Act nor was it an alcohol management plan for Darwin and Palmerston, a large area where we have yet to put a plan in place. We stand on our record. We have significant alcohol management plans in place across our large regional centres. They have been the subject of much lengthy debate in those centres. Critical reforms have come through those alcohol management plans. I recognise the hard work done by Racing, Gaming and Licensing, by the Licensing Commission, and also by officers of the Department of Justice in the Alcohol Policy area.
Is there more to be done? Yes, there is. We have an unacceptable level of drinking in our community. Even if you look at the non-Indigenous and Indigenous fit, it is unacceptable. It is far too high, and we are wearing the social and health consequences of the level of alcohol consumption in our community. I am not going to stand here as Minister for Alcohol Policy and say I believe in prohibition. I do not. Prohibition does not work. Our government’s raft of responses will not just be around supply issues; they will also be around the issues of demand members opposite so often talk about.
If you look at the action I have taken since picking up the Alcohol Policy portfolio and the Racing, Gaming and Licensing portfolio in the reshuffle late last year, it has been simply to go straight to hot-ticket-item issues in the area which need to be addressed, and addressed quickly, which is why we have these amendments before us today for debate.
Also, I have clearly said, whilst government can put in place the tools, whilst the police can enforce the law, whilst the hoteliers and licensees can do their bit, at the end of the day, it is the individual’s responsibility to change their behaviour and to be responsible for their behaviour. I believe the unity to address the demand and the behaviour of individuals is there. People will want to play politics with this issue. While there is much more work on my agenda as Alcohol Policy Minister, I am very interested, as the policy initiatives play out, in the response from the opposition, if they are fair dinkum in this, in tackling the scourge of alcohol across the Territory in the misuse of alcohol. Yes, there are many people who are doing the right thing, who are reasonably consuming alcohol, who are not affecting other people’s lives through their consumption, but we know there are alcoholics, recidivist behaviours which are unacceptable, the antisocial behaviour consequences which are absolutely unacceptable, and the intolerable assaults occurring in our community, both domestic violence and other assaults against the person.
I am fair dinkum as a minister. What I have done - and I have not hidden this – is, first and foremost, went to a particular issue which was the issue of violence in our licensed premises and the precincts around our licensed premises. I picked up on the very good work that had been done by police officers working with hoteliers, clubs, and with Racing, Gaming and Licensing, which is why I have brought together this raft of measures.
This is not a panacea to the broader issue in the debate we heard raging in the Chamber this morning about the broader alcohol scourge across our communities, and the misuse of that alcohol. This is not to tackle rehabilitation and issues of rehabilitation. I am not in here pretending that is what this is about. This is to tool up our inspectors and our police to deal with the few troublemakers who are out there ruining it for everyone else in the licensed premises, and spilling that behaviour out into the precincts.
Why we are taking on these measures is because these measures have been picked up and used elsewhere in Australia, and have proven to be effective tools for the police and for our inspectors who are coming in and out of the licensed premises. So, yes, proven response, tough measures, indeed. I make no apology for the use of ‘tough’, because it is tough. These are going to the heart of a person’s right to go in and out of these precincts.
A 48-hour ban is no small measure; a $130 on-the-spot fine is no small measure. I expect a fair amount of kickback from people when this comes into place, because it is not going to be a whole lot of joy for the punter who is going into a licensed premise, misbehaving, not listening to the security staff in the place in getting them out, and they face the on-the-spot fine and the bans. If they take that behaviour into the streets as well, they can be banned from the precinct. The 48-hours is a pretty tough ban by anyone’s measure; you are wiped out for the weekend.
Will this be effective? We have put in place measures to say if you keep on repeating this behaviour, if you continue to get these bans from the police, then you can be hauled before the courts, and you can certainly be given a much longer time banned from the precinct.
We have carefully considered all of the actions in and around this. This is not the only thing we are doing in this space. We have put in place a significant public awareness campaign targeting the young cohort who tends to be the troublemakers in these licensed precincts. We kicked off the Moves campaign in February this year, and we are putting significant resources into that campaign. We picked up on a similar campaign in Victoria. We have made no bones that we have picked up on the Victorian campaign with their permission. We are investing around $500 000 in that advertising campaign across television, radio, newspaper, and Internet ads, so people might know you have the moves, you have the muzzle move, and you have the lasso move. It is a campaign that, whilst it might not necessarily tickle my funny bone because I am a middle-aged mother of three living in the burbs, I have had some positive feedback from the young audience at which it is targeted. It is well recognised and talked about. That is what you want in a public awareness campaigns. You want people to recognise and talk about them and maybe think about the messages they are delivering.
The legislation before us is not the only thing this government is doing. We have a proud track record of continuing to move where no other jurisdiction has gone in our nation in tackling alcohol. We are putting in alcohol management plans across our regions; we have brought in very strict measures through many of those alcohol management plans that do not exist elsewhere in Australia. We are the ones at the forefront, ensuring we are taking on the hard measures to tackle the scourge of alcohol in our community.
This bill is addressing alcohol-fuelled violent behaviour in and around licensed premises. It gives police and licensees the means to combat that behaviour. This bill is not the broader liquor reforms the government is in the midst of undertaking. When I say in the midst of undertaking, you heard members opposite talk about their policy, that maybe it is a policy but you do not know these days because, sometimes, they say: ‘Oh, it is not the full policy’. You heard them talking about cracking down on recidivous drunks, people going into protective custody. The reality is the government, despite the naysayers opposite, became fairly innovative in actions in our nation by introducing an Alcohol Court. We are not today pretending the Alcohol Court has been a great panacea, but it has made inroads - prohibition notices are issued, bans are in place on people who come before the Alcohol Court who have been the offenders in our community, who are alcoholics who have a problem, and people have been referred to rehab treatment through the Alcohol Court. What do we want to do? We want to strengthen those measures.
This Labor government which put in place the Alcohol Court in the first place against the naysayers of the opposition has now stepped out with a discussion paper I launched late last year in Alice Springs and said: ‘Here are some issues around the operation of the Alcohol Court, where we would want our community to consider how we can toughen it up.’ I refer to the discussion paper regarding the Alcohol Court and infringement notices where it goes to that deterrent issue for habitual drunks who do not appear through offences, but rather, were repeatedly engaged in antisocial behaviour and committing minor offences related to alcohol consumption. It goes to the issue of the three strikes rule being considered as addressing that antisocial behaviour. It talks about various options of how you would deal with the three strikes: you enter protective custody three times, you have not learned your lessons, you are picked up, you are put before the Alcohol Courts and you are dealt with in mandated rehabilitation and treatment programs.
The theatre I saw opposite is actually in real detail, really on the table before our community through the discussion paper this government issued around its own Alcohol Courts we had the initiative to implement. We are getting on and doing the work while they just simply grandstand.
That is a broader issue, but it is an issue the member for Nelson raised in the context of the rehabilitation committee stage amendment proposed by the member for Greatorex. We will not be agreeing to the member for Greatorex’s committee stage amendment. We have already on the table in the public domain mandated treatment proposals for the Alcohol Courts. That is where we see it appropriately fitting, not through some narrow measure within the Liquor Amendment Bill we have before us today, which is to address a quite specific issue.
We are not pretending the amendments we have before us address all of the range of bigger issues in our community. We have been very clear about this; this is targeting alcohol-fuelled violence in and around licensed premises and precincts. Yes, we will be creating designated areas in the vicinity of the licensed precincts and, again, we will not be picking up suggestions by the member for Greatorex it is going far broader than our targeted response and will enter into all sorts of confusion and problems out there. However, we have been very targeted. A designated area will be declared. The police will then have the power to ban individuals from that area for 48 hours if that individual engages in drunken, unruly behaviour.
Let us be clear about this. If someone is committing an assault, then they will be charged with assault and they will be pursued accordingly. We are talking about drunken, unruly behaviour. This is the sort of behaviour we are targeting and, yes, we do have a very significant list of offences we have attached in here. We have been very thorough in looking at what offences trigger actions within these amendments. We have looked at how this operates in Victoria, and the types of offences they have in place in Victoria. I will go through that in more detail in committee stage debate, which I am sure we will move to soon.
The type of offences we picked up in our specified offences go to failing to leave premises when asked to do so by police or an inspector, and returning to premises after being asked to leave. We have strong support from the Australian Hotels Association and the clubs in these measures. We have also picked up those other Criminal Code offences regarding riots; gross indecency in public; threat to kill; recklessly endangering life; recklessly endangering life causing serious harm; negligently causing serious harm; drink or food spiking; acts causing serious harm or preventing apprehension; serious harm; harm; common assault; assaults on police; sexual intercourse and gross indecency without consent; threats; assault with intent to steal; unlawful entry to building; persons armed with intent to unlawfully enter building; arson; attempt to commit arson; and criminal damage.
Then, there are the summary offences we have picked up: drinking in a public place; drinking by minors in a public place; offensive conduct; disorderly behaviour; violent disorder; indecent exposure, and obscenity. We have, under the Weapons Control Act: illegal possession of controlled weapons; illegal possession of weapons by persons aged under 18; and illegal possession of offensive weapons.
We have put the courts in the picture in extending the bans beyond 48 hours. If you are a repeat offender, you can be called before the courts, and you can face bans for up to 12 months. We are ensuring we have picked up on a suggestion by licensees to make it clear club management can remove their own members, regardless of what rights those members may have as members of the association. That was a particular concern of the clubs.
Section 121 is amended to give police the power to act, without the invitation of a licensee, in order to remove troublemakers from licensed premises. Again, that was picked up as a suggestion from the Australian Hotels Association after they had discussions with the police; both are keen to see that come in.
The bill creates a new offence of re-entering, or attempting to re-enter, a licensed premises if a person has been asked to leave the premises. Again, we picked up on that suggestion by the Australian Hotels Association. It has been an issue they have had to face.
In short, unruly, drunken, violent behaviour will no longer be tolerated, and the police and the courts will now have extra powers and extra tools to deal with such behaviour. The bill also enables the establishment of the liquor accords, and provides that liquor accords may be entered into without breaching the anti-competitive behaviour provisions of the Trade Practices Act 1974; that being the Commonwealth.
The liquor accord has been a great tool and initiative in Alice Springs, brought about by the licensees working with officers from Racing, Gaming and Licensing. I have paid due recognition to the good work done in Alice Springs by the licensees, with the support and facilitation of officers of Racing, Gaming and Licensing. We knew there was concern from the industry around taking accords and putting them in place in other parts of the Territory because of the Trade Practices Act 1974. This bill specifically ensures that barrier no longer exists, and accords can be rolled out, if licensees want those accords facilitated, by Racing, Gaming and Licensing officers.
Such accords would need the approval of the Director of Licensing, and I would certainly be interested in any further discussions between licensees, our Director of Licensing, the Commissioner of Police, local councils, and community and business groups, to get behind such accords. I welcome them; that is why we have put accords into the raft of amendments.
The bill also addresses the use of false IDs by underage people in licensed premises. We have picked up on this issue as a result of approaches by the licensees. The bill provides for penalties for the use and manufacture of false IDs, and for the confiscation of false IDs. It addresses problems we have seen in restricted areas. Instead of having to excise liquor licensed areas from both the Territory and Commonwealth restricted areas, a defence has been created for operating in accordance with the licences. It is simplification of an issue which has existed out bush.
The bill also changes the infringement penalty in the liquor regulations from $100 to one penalty unit; which is currently $130 until 1 July this year. CPI thereafter will take it to $133 from 1 July. The Department of Justice will work with key stakeholders to develop education newsletters, education information packages for industry, and we will put information on the Department of Justice website.
As I mentioned, this legislation has the full support of the police and the Australian Hotels Association. I want to refer to some correspondence I received from the Australian Hotels Association, and I table the letter. It is correspondence received from the AHA, the peak industry body for the hospitality industry, including hotels and community clubs across the Territory. They confirm their support for the amendments, which they say are:
They say there are specific things in here they think will be very good, and they are certainly pleased to see a raft of measures coming through. The letter ends:
That was from the CEO of the AHA, Amy Williamson. I thank them for their support for this. I have enjoyed working closely with the AHA to bring these measures before the House.
Regarding the police, ultimately, this will work because of the good officers we have in our force. I made sure, at every stage, officers of Racing, Gaming and Licensing and the Department of Justice worked closely with the police to ensure they were satisfied with the measures in the bill. Discussions with the Police Association led me to come before the House with committee stage amendments with further discussions at police officer level. We have put in some provisions to provide legal protection for police officers in plain clothes. The Police Association had a view of how that could be better worded. We picked up their suggestions and the committee stage amendment is based on a suggestion by the Police Association and the police officers. It is a practical suggestion and I was happy to pick it up. We will deal with it in committee stage.
I would like to deal with quite a few matters raised during the debate. There was a prevailing view from the opposition that you can put these measures in place but, then, as a government, we are just going to walk away from them. Nothing could be further from the truth. These are tough measures and we expect these tough measures to be enforced by the police. We have been putting extra resources into the police. Our police numbers are up by 399 or 43% since 2001. We now have the highest proportion of police per capita in the nation. We have a targeted Safe Streets strategy, $9.3m worth, which provides an extra 25 police dedicated to street patrols, and an extra 10 officers to support frontline police in the Communication Centre. In Darwin and Alice Springs, we are rolling out those Police Beats. The Chief Minister talked about the importance of the CCTV monitoring that we have put in place, and we have a raft of other measures I referred to, including the Alcohol Court.
There is a view we are not backing this up with licensing inspectors. Nothing could be further from the truth. An additional 12 licensing inspectors were recruited in 2008. Currently, we have 31 licensing inspectors in the Territory; of those, 28 are Northern Territory government funded, and eight are Commonwealth funded. We have 11 based in Darwin, eight based in Alice Springs, four across the Territory, and eight Commonwealth officers across the Territory. In addition, there are also licensing officers who support those inspectors. The reality is we are fair dinkum about putting the resources in place so we have the teams of inspectors and police in and around these licensed venues and on the streets to tackle any unruly drunken behaviour. This legislation is about giving them the extra tools to bring those people to account for their individual behaviour.
In debate there were issues regarding alcohol management in Alice Springs. Clearly, there is a divide on this matter in the government’s approach versus the opposition’s approach. Since the introduction of the Alice Springs alcohol management plan in 2008, serious assaults in Alice Springs have dropped by 21%, and the Menzies report shows there has been an 18% drop in pure alcohol sales. What is that equivalent to? Fifty thousand fewer cans of full strength beer being drunk a week. An 18% drop in pure alcohol sales is the equivalent of 50 000 fewer cans of full strength being drunk a week. If you want to look at it since 2006, there has been an 85% drop in the sale of cask wine in Alice Springs. That is the equivalent of 330 four-litre wine casks being drunk a day. By any stretch, that is a significant tackling of the consumption of alcohol through an alcohol management plan in Alice Springs.
In addressing alcohol abuse - and there was much discussion about treatment and rehabilitation, and members opposite would have you think this government has been vacating this space. Quite the opposite: $2.5m has gone into sobering-up shelters in all five regional centres. There are 217 rehabilitation beds across the Territory, and we put $15m in this year’s budget to help combat domestic violence. I know domestic violence was raised. We have put stringent measures in place: mandatory reporting; additional crisis accommodation; increased domestic violence counselling services; and continuing public education campaigns across a whole raft of measures. We are serious about this.
The increase in rehab beds and increasing sobering-up shelter beds is work we have been doing in collaboration with the Commonwealth government, which is the significant funder in this area. I have met with minister Macklin on a number of occasions, and put to her a raft of suggestions to continue the good work which has already been undertaken by the federal Labor government working collaboratively with the Territory Labor government in the area of sobering-up shelters and rehabilitation. Whilst a much work has been done in this area, we are up for doing more work in the area of rehabilitation, both inside and outside our Correctional system.
The member for Nelson made the point of the importance of sending a strong message to young drinkers about the dangers of binge drinking and the like. I was pleased to hear his comments in that regard because it took a federal Labor government to have the political will to take this on in a very big way. Under the Howard regime, they had ducked and weaved and not bothered to tackle this significant issue at all. However, thanks to the federal Labor government, there is a national binge drinking strategy which is a community-level initiative. It provides $53.5m to address binge drinking among young people.
A number of us recognise those confronting advertisements you see in magazines, in newspapers, of those young women smashing through glass and the like, and being exposed to questionable sexual behaviour. That is all a result of a $20m spend on advertising, courtesy of the Labor federal government, that confronts young people with the costs and consequences of binge drinking.
Is there a political will by Labor governments? Yes, there is. We are working very collaboratively with the Commonwealth government. Our spend is targeted around young people, licensed premises and the Moves campaign. The Rudd spin is targeted around those broader consequences of the cost of binge drinking, which are complementary, very public awareness campaigns targeting our young drinkers.
We have a comprehensive communication strategy rolling out in and around the liquor amendment measures we have before the Chamber today. We will be working very closely with the police and licensees to ensure the message well and truly gets out that there are going to be significant consequences for any drunken and unruly behaviour in and around licensed premises, and the precincts around licensed premises. To think this will only happen in Mitchell Street would be wrong.
I have already spoken to the Lord Mayor of Darwin, the Lord Mayor of Palmerston, and the Mayor of Alice Springs, prior to making a public announcement around these measures, about my intention to ensure we, as a government, work closely with them to identify the designated areas within those municipalities. They are the first three cabs off the rank at Darwin, Palmerston and Alice Springs because they have the larger populations and, therefore, the larger number of licensed premises and the larger issue.
I am not leaving out of that picture Katherine or Tennant Creek but, clearly, you have to start. So, you set your priorities and cut through that list. My agency and the mayors of those three jurisdictions are on notice that when this passes, we will get cracking on working together with key stakeholders in identifying the designated areas to which these precincts will apply.
People will have their views, and I am going to ensure, as minister, those views are listened to. The member for Nelson raised this issue regarding consultation of the designated areas. Clearly, the councils need to be involved in these discussions. Also, the Australian Hotels Association would need to be involved in the discussions as they are the licensees affected by the designated areas. What I have also said is, for example, if there is a range of restaurants in the precincts …
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Speaker, I move an extension of 10 minutes for my colleague to continue, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Ms LAWRIE: I thank the Minister for Health for the additional time to complete my remarks.
For example, in the consultation, if the designated area scopes in many of restaurants, you want someone representative of the restaurants at the table talking about it; so horses for courses. Retail trades will be within those precincts as well and if they are open at night they may well be affected.
There are checks and balances right through this legislation to ensure, as much as possible, it is applied in a fair and reasonable way. I will give an example. We are the only place in Australia where the false IDs will be removed; that will actually give people a card to give them advice of where they can retrieve an ID from. That does not happen elsewhere; the ID is gone. By the way, you will not be getting a false one back but, if you have a genuine one, there is a process to get that back if it is not being used for evidence.
That is the point of divergence with the committee stage amendment from the member for Greatorex. We will not be ceding to that particular one because there will be occasions where you need to keep the genuine ID for evidence. That is advice provided to me by the Department of Justice in consultation with police. So, we get your drift there, and we absolutely do want a provision to ensure the ID goes back. That is why we have the card system we will put in place to ensure people can retrieve genuine IDs if they are not being used for evidence.
I get the thrust of the amendments by the member for Greatorex, and we will be going through those in detail. However, we are not saying no for the sake of saying no. I am actually genuine about going through this in as united a way as possible, because I recognise the support members opposite are giving to this critical legislation. All the new powers and tools are quite onerous, and I truly appreciate the fact we are getting stuck into this particular problem in our community together, leaving aside the areas of political difference we will, ultimately, have as major political parties in the Territory.
In short, the member for Greatorex dealt with the whole issue of resources. I have tackled the issue of resources in both police and licensing inspectors. The Leader of the Opposition dealt with the issue of the consequences to the individual. This is legislation targeting the behaviour of an individual; it is not the supply side legislation. It is legislation around the behaviour of an individual.
The member for Araluen dealt with domestic violence; I have touched on that in our commitment regarding domestic violence. I also dealt with rehabilitation beds, and I have also dealt with the fact this is Territory-wide legislation. I have already spoken to the Mayor of Alice Springs prior to going public with it, in how it could be applied in Alice Springs. I have to say that was a very positive conversation we had.
Regarding the issued raised by the member for Nelson, I have also dealt with the issues which were similar to ours: the broader issues of alcohol and the scourge of alcohol in our community, particularly that issue of consultation around the designated areas.
I have dealt with the issue of the mandated rehabilitation through the Alcohol Court discussion paper. Our government’s view is that we would deal with mandated rehabilitation rather than a specific amendment within the Liquor Act.
The member for Port Darwin dealt with the three strikes and you are out. Again, I have referred to the provision within our discussion paper of the Alcohol Court that deals with that.
I guess one way to describe the member for Fong Lim’s contribution would be that of fear and loathing; he likes to whip it up when he can. We heard his appalling remarks on his Facebook site of ‘parasites’ repeated in the Chamber today.
I had hoped we would achieve a level of maturity in debate around alcohol, and the harm of alcohol in our community, where we could enter into reforms of alcohol without fear and loathing and the politics of division of the past. It seems there is a rump within the CLP that exists, despite the efforts of the Leader of the Opposition to pull the rogue member for Fong Lim into line in this regard. It is disappointing. Regardless of the fear and loathing politics he will want to peddle, we are singularly determined to proceed with alcohol reforms. We do not want to continue to see the harm people are perpetrating on themselves, on their families, and indeed, our broader community through antisocial behaviour.
I made no pretence when I came forward with these amendments to the Liquor Act that this was a specific and targeted raft of tools to tackle antisocial and drunken unruly behaviour in and around licensed premises and their precincts. It is not the broader reforms I have under way with Alcohol Courts and, indeed, the broader alcohol management plan reforms I have under way with the mayors of Darwin and Palmerston. We are getting close to, hopefully, going public on a raft of suggestions for public consultation on the alcohol management plan for Darwin and Palmerston.
I pick up on the valid point made by members opposite, that there are measures in place elsewhere in the Territory which are not in place in the Top End. I am keen to see a mature debate around what measures should be in place in the Territory, what consistency should exist across alcohol management plans. It will be interesting to see how mature that debate, at the political level at least, can be, bearing in mind - I hope - we are all on the same page in what unites us. We want to see dramatic change in the Territory in the effects of alcohol on our lives, on individual lives, on their family life, and on our communities.
Madam Speaker, we will need to go into committee. I have some minor committee stage amendments, and we will be dealing with the member for Greatorex’s committee stage amendments.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Mr CONLAN: Madam Chair, I seek leave to speak from this chair?
Madam CHAIR: Leave is granted.
Honourable members, the committee has before it the Liquor Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 (Serial 94), together with Schedule of Amendments No 34 circulated by the Minister for Racing, Gaming and Licensing, Ms Lawrie; and a Schedule of Amendments No 35 circulated by the member for Greatorex, Mr Conlan.
Clauses 1 to 4, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 5:
Mr CONLAN: There are some questions regarding the identification in clause 5. Can you specify if it is just pubs and clubs, or can ID be seized if it is presented at a takeaway outlet, or at Woolies, or what have you? Is it takeaways, or just pubs and clubs?
Ms LAWRIE: The provision applies to all licensed outlets, so takeaways as well.
Mr CONLAN: Can ID seized be presented in a gaming area, or just in relation to other areas where alcohol is consumed?
Ms LAWRIE: Yes, it affects the liquor licence areas. The gaming areas would be dealt with differently.
Mr CONLAN: How will the gaming areas be dealt with?
Ms LAWRIE: There is no proposed change in relation to gaming areas; it is simply illegal for a minor to be in there.
Mr CONLAN: What additional resources are going to be provided to assist licence holders in identifying false identification? Is it going to be left to the discretion of the bouncer, or the person on the door, or whoever?
Ms LAWRIE: There are a couple of levels of support. Racing, Gaming and Licensing has already provided licensees with a special light that highlights alterations to IDs, and training information on the falsification of IDs. They will continue to provide that training support. With the passage of this legislation, a card will be created to provide to licensees so, if a false ID is seized, or an ID is seized, the person that ID is seized from is given the card which indicates to them the timing of the seizure and who they should contact to attempt to retrieve the ID.
Mr CONLAN: Okay. So that is to be given immediately by the person who seizes the ID? It is a receipt of sorts?
Ms LAWRIE: Exactly.
Mr CONLAN: Yes. You said the light – will licensees have to pay for that themselves?
Ms LAWRIE: No.
Mr CONLAN: No. To be provided by the …
Ms LAWRIE: Yes, it already has been.
Mr CONLAN: Yes, okay.
Minister, in the situation of a person visiting temporarily, or living at one address but their ID is still registered to their permanent address in another jurisdiction, are there any measures in place to ensure that ID is returned to that address? Is it up to that person to tell the bouncer that it has to go on the receipt? What safeguards are in place there?
Ms LAWRIE: Yes, the legislation has a provision that the director is required to make reasonable efforts to return the ID so, of course, that is the case. As I said in my summing up, all the other jurisdictions have this seizure of ID in place. We are the only one which is going one step further in the card receipt method designed to assist the person whose ID is seized to be able to retrieve it. In the example you gave then, not only is the director required to go to all reasonable efforts but the person who has had the ID taken from them knows exactly who they can go to, to get that ID back.
Mr CONLAN: Okay. In, I guess, a hypothetical - and I am sure it happens - if an older sibling has found out a younger sibling has stolen their ID to use at the pub and that has been confiscated, what methods are in place to ensure that ID is properly returned to the older sibling, considering the person has used a false ID which is actually a genuine ID of someone else?
Ms LAWRIE: The same measures would be in place. The director is required to make all reasonable effort to return the ID.
Mr CONLAN: Okay. Can you expand on what is a reasonable effort?
Ms LAWRIE: Contacting them.
Mr CONLAN: I am only asking because this is still a genuine ID. It is not actually a false ID, even though it is being used by someone falsely.
Ms LAWRIE: Sure, contacting them is a reasonable effort.
Mr CONLAN: Contacting the person on the card?
Ms LAWRIE: On the ID.
Mr CONLAN: Right.
Ms LAWRIE: By the nature of the ID they have an identifiable contact address, etcetera, so all reasonable effort is made to contact them. This is a system which has been working elsewhere in Australia for quite a while.
Mr CONLAN: You are saying that what is happening now is, if an ID is taken from someone who has pinched it from their older sibling, etcetera, it is still a genuine ID, then that bouncer or whoever has taken it will - what?
Ms LAWRIE: Under the provisions, what it shows you is, within 72 hours that has to go to the director. The director then has to take reasonable measures to return the ID. So, it has to go from point of seizure, which is the bouncer or the takeaway licensee and, within 72 hours, they have to get that to the Director of Licensing, who then has to take reasonable measures to return the ID.
Mr CONLAN: Madam Chair, I move amendment 35.1.
In reading the bill, we were concerned about the inevitable situation where a person’s genuine ID would be mistakenly taken from them, assumed to be a fake, or used by someone other than its genuine owner. The department mentioned they are looking at a type of receipt for seized documents, one in exchange from the person seizing the document. That was a good amendment which was mentioned in the briefing we had. That was picked up.
Amendment negatived.
Mr CONLAN: Madam Chair, I move amendment 35.2. This amendment relates to my previous amendment, and ensures, once a genuine ID is seized, appropriate steps are taken to have it returned to its rightful owner. Even if the rightful owner of the document knowingly provided it to another person to contravene the act, it is still their document and should be returned. There are penalties to be applied to a person who illegally provides their ID to another, but those penalties should not include withholding indefinitely what could be their only form of identification.
They were our concerns and, hence, our amendments. I understand the minister is not going to accept those amendments, which is a shame. We think it strengthens this act to a large degree. Nonetheless, Madam Chair, we move that amendment.
Ms LAWRIE: I would not mind responding to that because there was a misrepresentation of our position on that. I made it very clear, in the summing up, the reason why we would not be agreeing. It is a very valid reason, which is why I repeat it at this point.
A genuine ID seized may need to be used in evidence in the prosecution of a brief. That would be the responsibility of the police or the prosecuting authority to decide what should happen to it. The Victorian legislation has a similar requirement to the Territory to return non-contentious ID. However, it also allows the ID’s retention by the director where: the person who produced the ID is not the person to whom it was issued; the ID contains false and misleading information; the ID is fraudulently altered; or the ID has been used in contravention of the act. That is the reason why a decision is to be made of whether or not it would be evidence and required for evidence. That is where we differ on this point.
Mr CONLAN: Madam Chair, that is fair enough, and is a very valid point. Of course, it makes sense. However, if that is the concern, minister, why do you not put that into legislation? Why do you not put a clause in? You could leave our clause in here, and then put an additional clause saying exactly that; if it is required for evidence, etcetera. What is wrong with that?
Ms LAWRIE: Because the advice I received is, by putting this clause in, it could actually make a penalty for the director. The director could be in breach of the act if the genuine ID is not returned but, in fact, the genuine ID is being held for evidence. That is why.
Mr CONLAN: Where is the certainty of return then, minister? That is the point. There is no certainty of return in this.
Ms LAWRIE: The clear intent is that, if a genuine ID does not need to be held for evidence purposes, all reasonable steps are taken to return it. If, indeed, it is held for evidence, it is often returned as part of other legislative provisions in what occurs to items that are held as evidence.
Mr CONLAN: I guess we are just going to take your word for it because it is actually not in the bill that there is any real certainty of return. I cannot see why we cannot leave the opposition’s amendments in there, which are quite reasonable and then put your concerns in there regarding if that ID has to be retained for evidence.
Nevertheless, I know you are not going to budge on that. Those people who have their ID taken from them and need it, will just have to take the minister’s word that it will be returned.
Amendment negatived.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6:
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I move amendment 34.1.
There is a typographical error in proposed section 120D(6), the word ‘the’ is removed and is replaced with ‘a’. We thank the staff member from Gerry Wood’s office for pointing this out.
Amendment agreed to.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, further, I move amendment 34.2.
This amendment inserts proposed section 120J(5) and (9), and omits, in clause 6, the proposed sections 120J(5) and (9), which provide respectively, (1) a police officer who is not in uniform must, when proposing to give a banning notice, produce proof of his identity and official status; and (2) failure to provide such proof is not in breach of the act, but is a breach of discipline that may be dealt with under the Police Administration Act.
The NT Police and the NT Police Association questioned these amendments, first on the basis it may not be clear what needs to be done to approve official status. The government agrees the proposed policy of a provision will be plainer if the words about proof are removed and replaced by the simple requirement that police produce their police identification. In practice, this means they will produce their police badge. Accordingly, proposed section 120J(5) is to be removed from the bill. It will be replaced by new section 120L(1). Section 124 of the Liquor Act provides the failure to comply with the act is a breach of the Liquor Act with a maximum penalty being up to 12 months imprisonment or a $2000 fine.
The intention behind proposed section 120J(9) and a number of other similar provisions in the bill was to make it clear the breach was not a crime, but a matter for discipline.
The intended operation of the provision was the Commissioner of Police would have, as per any other alleged disciplinary matter, discretion under section 76 of the Police Administration Act. However, the provisions, as drafted, do not make this obvious. Accordingly, it is proposed this provision and others like it be removed and replaced by provisions that simply state a breach of the procedural provisions is not an offence; it is something that can be dealt with under the Police Administration Act. In the case of section 120J(9), it is to be removed and replaced by new section 120L(8).
Madam Chair, I will go on, because these are consequential, and move amendment 34.3.
Proposed new section 120L(1) provides for much the same outcome as described for proposed section 120J(5). It is to be removed and replaced with the reasons given for section 120J(5).
Madam Chair, I also move amendment 34.4.
Proposed new section 120L(3) suggests a person seeking evidence of a police officer’s status can demand it be provided in writing. It may not always be practical for officers to provide the evidence in writing. Accordingly, it is proposed that the police officers only have to state the required information.
Madam Chair, I move amendment 34.5.
Proposed new section 120L(4)(d) states that an officer must not fail to comply with any request regarding status to be made in writing. Given the amendment described earlier for section 120L(3), this provision is unnecessary. Accordingly, it is to be removed from the bill.
Madam Chair, I also move amendment 34.6.
Proposed section 120L(8) provides, similarly to proposed section 120J(9), that a failure to provide proof of identity is not a breach of the act but is a breach of discipline which may be dealt with under the Police Administration Act. Section 120L(8) is to be amended so this provision is removed and replaced by a provision that simply states that, a breach of procedural provision is not an offence but is something that can be dealt with under the Police Administration Act.
Madam Chair, I move amendment 34.7.
Proposed section 120P(4)(a) relates to police officers giving directions to banned persons to leave a designated area or licensed premises. It provides, similar to proposed section 120J(5), a police officer must produce proof of his or her official status. Section 120P(4)(a) is to be removed and replaced by a provision which states the officer must produce his or her police identification unless the officer is in uniform.
Madam Chair, I move amendment 34.8.
Proposed section 120P(7) relates to police officers giving directions to banned persons to leave a designated area or a licensed premises. It provides, similar to proposed section 120J(9) and section 120L(8); that a failure to provide proof of identity is not a breach of the act, but is a breach of discipline which may be dealt with under the Police Administration Act. Section 120P(7) is to be amended so this provision is removed and replaced by a provision which simply states a breach of the procedural provision is not an offence, but is something which can be dealt with under the Police Administration Act.
Madam Chair, I move amendment 34.9.
Proposed section 120U(4)(a) relates to police officers giving directions to excluded persons to leave designated areas or licensed premises. It provides, similar to proposed section 120J(5), that a police officer must produce proof of his or her official status. Section 120U(4)(a) is to be removed and replaced by a provision that states the officer must produce his or her proof of identification unless the officer is in uniform.
Proposed section 120U(6) provides that a failure to provide proof of identity when seeking to remove an excluded person is not a breach of the act, but is a breach of discipline which may be dealt with under the Police Administration Act. Section 120U(6) is to be amended so this provision is removed and replaced by a provision which simply states a breach of the procedural provision is not an offence, but is something which can be dealt with under the Police Administration Act.
Mr CONLAN: Happy with the amendments, Madam Chair.
Amendments agreed to.
Mr CONLAN: Madam Chair, I move amendment 35.3. It was felt by the opposition there was a startling omission in the minister’s bill. While the director is required to notify the coordinator of an accord to any changes of the accord’s termination, there was no requirement for the coordinator to communicate those changes to other parties in the accord.
While it would be assumed communication of changes or termination would be an obvious action for the coordinator, I am concerned about the resultant confusion if all changes or termination are not clearly stated to all parties. It would defeat the purpose of the whole accord if they were not in unison.
To avoid a situation similar to Chinese whispers, as things happen around our pubs and clubs where confusion can easily arise, and the story and the situation changes from one place to another, I feel these amendments should be supported so all parties of the accord are aware when changes are made, or if the accord has been terminated by the director.
Ms LAWRIE: Similar intent, different approach, is the best way to describe our difference on this one. Of course, all parties to the accord should be notified of any variation or termination. That aspect of intent is agreed; however, the provision in the amendment to the act is not agreed. I will state the purpose for that.
The purpose of the proposed amendment is to require the coordinator of a local liquor accord to notify each party to the accord if the director terminates or varies the accord. This is where we have an issue. To legislate this requirement makes a breach an offence carrying a penalty of $1000, or six months imprisonment for a first offence. It is expected, as a matter of common sense, the coordinator would notify the other members of the accord; however, to penalise in such manner a failure to do so is needlessly criminalising what should not be a criminal offence.
Administrative processes will be put in place so that, if the director varies or terminates an accord, then the director will notify each of the parties to the accord of this, in writing.
Mr CONLAN: Madam Chair, I move amendment 35.4. I mentioned in my earlier speech today …
Ms LAWRIE: Are we going to deal with it separately?
Mr CONLAN: I was following your lead.
Ms LAWRIE: Okay, I was just asking the question. If you want to move them in bulk, that is fine.
Mr CONLAN: I want to go 35.4; I was just moving to it.
Madam CHAIR: Do you want to go through the process to put the question that the words proposed?
Mr CONLAN: Yes. Sorry. Yes.
Amendment negatived.
Mr CONLAN: Madam Chair, I move amendment 35.4.
As I said in my second reading speech, our view of the government’s ad hoc approach to alcohol management policy and their inability to coordinate existing alcohol management strategies with new and emerging strategies is a scatter-gun approach to alcohol management.
The amendment proposes to allow the minister to make an existing dry area, such as The Esplanade, a designated area for the purpose of banning and exclusion notices. The intent of the legislation introduced in 2006 to create public dry areas was to curb antisocial alcohol-related behaviour. Violence due to alcohol is no less a problem when it occurs in a park on a Friday afternoon than when it occurs on Mitchell Street at 2 am on Saturday. I do not see a big difference with what is happening in Mitchell Street as opposed to what is happening on The Esplanade at any particular time of the day. Why can The Esplanade not be considered a designated area as other parts of the Northern Territory, particularly those which have been declared dry areas?
What we have now is a situation where we have a dry area in Alice Springs and, on top of that, we are now having a designated area - so, a designated area on top of a dry area which was already on top of the 2 km law. It may not affect the same volume of people, but it inhibits members of the community from feeling safe to utilise a public space. It is the belief of the opposition that new alcohol policy cannot be introduced in isolation from existing policy.
The reams of legislation to moderate destructive alcohol-related behaviour must present a unified approach to what is becoming an ever-increasing problem with our community. We do feel it is quite scatter-gun; nevertheless, we move amendment 35.4.
Ms LAWRIE: The government cannot agree to this proposed amendment. It is far broader than the intent of this legislation. This is designed specifically in terms of licensed premises and the precincts adjacent to licensed premises. To seek to add a public place that is a public restricted area to the list of areas which can be declared designated areas if alcohol-related violence occurs in them would tend to make those designated areas too large. They do not need to be near licensed premises. We believe that would dilute the focus of this act in these amendments and these tools.
Another unintended consequence could be it would ban people unnecessarily, we believe, from access to essential services like health. So, we were very focused and targeted in the consequences of the banning notices, 48-hour ban, ensuring they targeted designated areas in which they applied.
I understand the broad intent of where the opposition is coming from with this one, but the consequences are far broader than we would want to take up in regard to the specific tools and measures we have before us in this particular amendment and this act.
The broader debate around those public dry areas will be dealt with in the alcohol management plan.
Amendment negatived.
Mr CONLAN: Madam Chair, I move amendment 35.5. Again, the government is introducing penalties and restrictions without properly addressing the underlying cause. As in many of their other policy initiatives, they are treating the symptoms and allowing the causes to run unchecked. That is the opinion of the opposition. Allowing the root cause of alcohol-related violence to go unchecked will result in yet another churn cycle through the justice system.
We heard today about 350 people arrested 30 000 times a year. If a specified offence which has given rise to an exclusion order can be attributed to the intoxication of an offender, then it is a signal the person is incapable of controlling their alcohol intake and managing their behaviour while under the influence of excessive alcohol.
Just imposing restrictions on the person will not address their alcohol consumption. We have seen that; the evidence is very clear. The opposition amendments will address this in two ways. First of all, if a court makes an exclusion order in sentencing an offender in relation to a specified offence, and intoxication was a factor in that offence, then that exclusion order must include the offender undergoing an alcohol rehabilitation program.
Second, if an exclusion order is made on the request of the Commissioner of Police for a person who has a history of banning notices or infringement notices, and intoxication was a factor in any of those offences, then the court may include a rehabilitation program as part of that exclusion order.
The opposition believes a holistic approach is needed to address alcohol-related violence in the Territory. The cause must be treated, as well as punishing the effect. We believe things do not go far enough; it should be a whole approach. I do not see why this particular legislation cannot trigger rehabilitation for some of the most vulnerable of Territorians.
Ms LAWRIE: In process, Madam Chair, what I suggest - and it is obviously up to the member for Greatorex – is we deal with amendments 35.5, 35.6, and 35.7 together, because they all go to rehabilitation in process. Are you okay with that?
Mr CONLAN: Yes, I guess the ...
Ms LAWRIE: They are all interrelated. If you defeat one, you defeat the lot.
Mr CONLAN: Yes, okay. All right.
Ms LAWRIE: Yes?
Mr CONLAN: Yes.
Ms LAWRIE: Okay. I will speak to the proposed amendments 35.5, 35.6, and 35.7.
I get the intent. We vary in the approach to be taken on this one. The government sees this issue as a need for rehabilitation for people who are, basically, alcoholics, and have issue with the way they fail to manage alcohol consumption. We believe the Alcohol Courts and the associated legislation with that, is the government’s approach to address it. Clearly, what we are saying is, whilst we understand the intent and the desire to get people into rehabilitation - and we do not actually have a fundamental argument in and around the importance of rehabilitation - what we would not be seeking to do is use this Liquor Act for a narrow, one class of person to be picked up within the act.
We have a very clear stated policy intent of using the Alcohol Court and the legislation supporting it, to pick up the issue of recidivist offenders, alcoholism, treatment orders, prohibition orders, and rehabilitation through the Alcohol Courts.
I referred, during my wrapping up, to the Alcohol Court reforms; the discussion paper I released in October 2009. I did not release that lightly, and I quite specifically released it in Alice Springs where we have significant issues. I am not saying those issues do not exist in Tennant Creek, Katherine, Darwin, or Palmerston. They do. Indeed, we recognise through the release of quarterly crime statistics, the additional police stations in the bush and the alcohol restrictions in the bush have brought those alcohol issues more and more to the fore in our regional and main urban centres.
That is why we are fair dinkum about the reforms we put on the table regarding the Alcohol Courts. We are choosing that path in rehabilitation, and triggers to rehabilitation, rather than this narrower pick-up you have here before us in these proposed amendments 35.5, 35.6, and 35.7.
Government will not be agreeing to this although we get the intent. We are not opposed to rehabilitation. You might want to deal with that however you want to externally. We are not opposed to rehabilitation; we will be consistently saying that, but are doing it through the Alcohol Court reform process, rather than through this amendment.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Chair, I cannot allow the comments that have just been made by the minister to pass without response. The claim that the Alcohol Court reform process is, in some way, going to fix the requirements for rehabilitation is nothing shy of arrant nonsense. For one thing, the Alcohol Court reform process is not a process at all. It is a structure which has been introduced as a legislative instrument to be tough on alcoholism in our community. In fact, it is a vehicle by which people - who would, under normal circumstance go to gaol - avoid a custodial sentence so they might be redirected by the court because of their alcoholic predisposition. To label it and to claim it is anything other than that is to misrepresent it - but, of course, the Alcohol Courts have been misrepresented to the public since day one by this government. They have been misrepresented as a tough option. No, they are not. They actually soften the option - they prevent custody from occurring where it would otherwise occur.
I note the Attorney-General spoke highly and in a praiseworthy fashion of the new Supreme Court Justice, Justice Blokland. During Justice Blokland’s investiture the Attorney-General praised her for her efforts in relation to restorative justice. Justice Blokland, single-handedly I argue, was responsible for the introduction of the credit court system in the Northern Territory. Whilst I confess to harbouring some reservations about the credit court system, it is probably more in line with what you claim Alcohol Courts would do. I suggest to the Attorney-General, if you want the Alcohol Courts to do what you claim they are going to do, you turn to the credit court system which, by the way, exists and operates independent of any legislative structure you have created.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, the member for Port Darwin is picking up on the Alcohol Court as we had it. My comments were in relation to the Alcohol Court reforms proposed and contained within the government’s discussion paper released in October 2009. In that, certainly the Alcohol Court as we have it would not be dealing with the rehabilitation provisions as proposed here by the member for Greatorex. But, if you go to the discussion paper released in October 2009, the Alcohol Court reforms proposed, on the table, out there for public debate and consultation, are active within government. I pick up on the rehabilitation program triggers in recidivists who are not necessarily committing offences but are dealing with, for example, protective custody.
I pick up and take on your issue of the credit court. Actually, what has been very useful in the debate around the proposed Alcohol Court reform processes is how, in fact, the court is working and how we could have an improved process with picking up the strengths of the credit court. So, I do not think your views on that diverge widely from the reform process the government has already embarked upon which I put into the public domain in October 2009
As I have said before in my summing up, what we have before us here in this raft of amendments is not that broader issue. We never intended it to be; we never intended it would be. These are specific targeted measures at drunk and unruly behaviour in and around licensed premises and precincts. The important issue of rehabilitation we are proposing to deal with through the closed Alcohol Court reforms. We have gone some way in the existing court, but the government has recognised further reforms are required. That is why we went to the extent of the discussion paper, and it went out into the public domain. That is the work I have before me, as Minister for Alcohol Policy and Minister for Justice and Attorney-General, separate to these amendments before the House.
I would be happy to offer any members opposite a briefing on the process the government is following regarding the Alcohol Court reforms if, indeed, you wish to take it up.
Madam CHAIR: Member for Port Darwin, if I could just note for the benefit of Hansard that you are actually at the desk of the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr ELFERINK: Sorry, that is the normal thing we organise.
I cannot forbear, then, to make one observation. You are reforming the Alcohol Court system, which was going to be the great vehicle to change so many things in relation to the systems of sentencing we have in place, only to now admit, within a couple of years of introducing that particular policy, it not only needs to be reformed, but comprehensively reformed.
I recall the media releases of the time claiming that the Alcohol Courts were going to be, if you like, the panacea for all things villainous and evil when it came to matters of alcohol before the courts. Now, we discover the government has, essentially, admitted their own Alcohol Courts package has not come close to achieving any of the goals ascribed to it when the thing was being packaged, dressed up, and spun out to the people of the Northern Territory.
I hope they would take a more serious approach in relation to the amendments they bring before the House today because, if this is just another case of, ‘See! We are doing something to protect the people of the Northern Territory’, and you throw no real intellectual weight or rigour behind it, then you will find yourself having a Liquor Legislation Amendment Act reform package in a discussion paper out for people to consider at some point in the future.
Ms LAWRIE: Obviously, I disagree with the member for Port Darwin. He comes in here and he beats his chest and talks utter nonsense. The government is justifiably proud of the Alcohol Court we put in place. It was our initiative and it is good. Prohibition orders have occurred through the Alcohol Court; rehab and treatment has occurred through the Alcohol Court. Good reform, good court, good process.
What we are doing, and what we have in the discussion paper on the reforms out there, is going to make it even better. That is part of what you do in government; you do something good and, then, you get the opportunity and you make it even better. Simple as that.
What the member for Port Darwin said is nonsense. Actually, I will put it on notice - yes, I will be back at some stage before the parliament with reforms of the Liquor Act because this is not the broader reform of the Liquor Act; this is clearly targeted to specific measures to tackle issues in and around licensed premises. There will be Liquor Act reforms coming. This is not the broader reforms of the Liquor Act.
Ms CARNEY: Madam Chair, just two quick questions. One is, since the issue of the Alcohol Courts has come up, minister, are you able to advise, noting that the discussion paper was released in October 2009, when you are likely to announce a reform package? Subject to that, I will ask my second question.
Ms LAWRIE: I currently have a Cabinet submission in active process that came out as a result of the options in the discussion paper and the responses to that. I am anticipating having that before Cabinet by the middle of this year. I will then be in a position to put it out into the public domain. The only thing it is contingent on is the work I have going on with the alcohol management plan in Darwin and Palmerston.
I also have a mid-year time line for these two significant bodies of work. I am pretty keen on both of them ASAP. I am making my Department of Justice and Racing, Gaming and Licensing officers work very hard at the moment. I am aiming for mid-year, and the only thing that is going to get in the way of that would be internal workloads, but I am pretty hopeful of mid-year.
I ask that you clarify what you said in relation to rehabilitation. As I understood it - and if I have it wrong, please tell me - some of your answers indicate your future reforms may include what is commonly called mandated alcohol rehabilitation programs for people who find themselves before the courts. I see you nodding, so that is a yes?
I am happy to talk to it. Within the discussion paper on the Alcohol Court reforms, if you go to about the last page, Item 10, Alcohol Court and Non-Offenders, it goes to options for resolution and talks about a tribunal process which would hear applications for prohibition and treatment orders for individuals who have not committed an offence but are a danger to themselves or the community as a result of alcohol dependency. Orders made by this type of tribunal could include Centrelink and other financial payment restrictions.
Item (b) goes to new provisions which could be drafted for insertion into the act or another statute that would allow applications to be made directly to the Alcohol Court for orders where individuals have not committed an offence but are a danger to themselves or a community as a result of alcohol - similar to the Volatile Substance Abuse Act process that applies to the court for treatment orders. This would involve warrants being issued for persons absconding from treatment. Once in the Alcohol Court system, such persons would be treated the same as offenders within the system.
That is clearly an issue the government has put on the table in Alcohol Court reform. I am not going to say where the government has landed on this. What I have clearly said is reforms for non-offenders are front and centre of the Alcohol Court reforms; requiring treatment as a result of orders is within the body of the reforms which are in the public domain.
Ms CARNEY: Thanks. The document you are quoting from, that is the alcohol discussion paper? Yes. I have it, I have read it, but I have not looked at it for some time. The reforms only extend to non-offenders? In the context of this debate - I think you will answer it - have you given any consideration to mandating alcohol treatment programs for those people incarcerated; that is, the offenders as opposed to the non-offenders?
Ms LAWRIE: I am not going to cut across the Minister for Correctional Services here but, clearly, the government is putting significant resources into the – dare I say it? – new era in Corrections. The emphasis there is around treatment programs. I will leave that matter for the Minister for Correctional Services, but the government’s focus is on providing the resources for treatment programs within the Corrections system.
Ms CARNEY: So, providing the resources, but not giving any consideration whatsoever to mandating? Correct?
Ms LAWRIE: I made it pretty clear: I am not going to speak on behalf of another minister. The Minister for Correctional Services has …
Ms CARNEY: I look forward to him answering that question - not that he is terribly good at answering questions, but I will give it a go at estimates and see how I get on.
Ms LAWRIE: He is good at answering questions.
Ms CARNEY: Not answering the questions that have been asked. But, anyway …
Ms LAWRIE: He is up-front.
Ms CARNEY: Right. Interesting.
Mr CONLAN: I thank my colleagues for their contribution. We have covered a bit of ground there.
Madam Chair, I move amendments 35.5, 35.6, 35.7 and 35.8. Would that be appropriate?
Madam CHAIR: Yes, it is.
Amendments negatived.
Mr CONLAN: Madam Chair, I move amendment 35.9.
In the interests of openness and transparency, we applaud the government’s attempt to publish the statistical information; that is a great step relating to banning notices and exclusion orders. For the government – a can-do government that says they are open and like to be transparent in the interests of Territorians and, indeed, this parliament, they have pushed the tabling times past the point of being, we believe, reasonable. Requiring a report to be tabled within seven sitting days of the minister receiving it will cause months of delays in releasing the statistical data to the public. Seven days will allow at least two sitting days to elapse before the information is tabled. Information must be released when it is still current and valid, not a couple of months later.
At least if it was the six days as requested, it means if it was tabled, then we could see that information at the next sittings, not the sittings after or, possibly, the sittings after that. We would like to see the government stop delaying the release of this information to the public, or at least stop the delay, whether it is intentional or not. If it is not intentional and the government is genuine and fair dinkum about being open and transparent and providing this information while it is relevant, the government, hopefully, will agree to six days.
I understand you flagged in your speech that you will not support it. I would like to hear your reasons why we cannot have it six days instead of seven days.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, the government is following normal process here. We have no problems with accountability. We will be tabling the number of banning notices and exclusion orders within the normal period of seven sitting days. That is the normal process we follow; we are not going to change the process here.
Mr CONLAN: Minister, are you satisfied an offence could take place on 7 May, yet not be reported until the middle of August? Do you find that satisfactory?
Ms LAWRIE: I have given my answer.
Mr CONLAN: Sorry?
Madam CHAIR: The minister has just answered the question.
Mr CONLAN: I did not hear the answer, sorry.
Ms LAWRIE: I have provided you with the government’s position on this - pretty clear, unambiguous.
Mr CONLAN: So, that is a yes. We can take that as a yes?
Ms LAWRIE: Take it any way you want.
Mr CONLAN: Well, clearly, that is a yes.
Ms LAWRIE: Any way you want.
Mr CONLAN: Okay. Madam Chair, I move amendment 35.9, a very appropriate, practical and sensible amendment.
Amendment negatived.
Ms LAWRIE: Just a point of clarification, Madam Chair. When you said the question is now that the clause stand as printed, I am assuming you meant the clause stand as amended, as per amendments 34.1, 32.2, 33.3, 34.4 etcetera, because I did move a range of amendments to clause 6. It is as per amended to schedule No 34.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 7 to 10, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 11:
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I move amendment 34.11. Clause 11 amends Regulation 3 of the Liquor Regulations. Regulation 3 prescribes the offences under the Liquor Act which may be dealt with by way of an infringement notice. This clause prescribes section 102N and 102T as such offences - there are no such sections. The intention was to prescribe section 120N and 120T. Clearly, that was a typographical error.
The references to the proposed infringement notices in sections 120P and 120U also have been more specific by identifying them as, respectively, sections 120P(3) and 120U(3).
Amendment agreed to.
Clause11, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.
Ms LAWRIE (Racing, Gaming and Licensing): Madam Speaker, I move the bill be now read a third time.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, it is disappointing those very practical and sensible measures the opposition put forward to strengthen this bill - which we say is pretty good - were not included. We agree with most of it; we would just like to take it further. Those measures we introduced in the committee stage in the amendments tabled are not a bridge too far. They are very sensible, particularly relating to alcohol rehabilitation.
It is unfortunate the government will not commit to alcohol rehabilitation, or tie alcohol rehabilitation to a bill such as this. It would be a very simple measure, we believe, to identify those people we need to identify on our streets, in our parks - all around the Territory, in fact - and move those people into rehabilitation and provide them with a meaningful life once they are in rehabilitation. Obviously these are repeat offenders. If you are just drunk and causing a problem in a bar, and you have been banned by the police for 48 hours, well, so be it. You might be a threat not only to society, but also a threat to your own health and wellbeing.
But, if you are picked up continuously - and I know there is a measure there, if you are picked up in a 24-month period a couple of times and identified as being intoxicated, etcetera, all this legislation will do is stop you from entering that licensed premises for 12 months through an exclusion order.
We think it should go further to provide that person who is, obviously, a repeat offender, with the pathway to a better life through rehabilitation - not only drying out from the drink, but also equipping that person with some life skills, some education, some basic literacy and numeracy skills, and some job skills so they can contribute meaningfully to society.
We believe this bill is very good. As it stands, it is a step in the right direction. I believe it does not go far enough to address some of those most vulnerable Territorians, and that is a real shame.
We see legislation, layer upon layer. As I said, we have seen the 2 km law; we have seen the dry town legislation, and now we see this designated area legislation. It is a little too scattergun for the opposition. Nevertheless, the government feels this is good enough and it is going to address that problem. We do not have as much confidence in this legislation to deal with the serious issues we are seeing not just in Mitchell Street, but also other parts of the Northern Territory, and also the serious antisocial alcohol-fuelled violence problems which are very much part of our Territory life.
Madam Speaker, it is a shame the government has not accepted all those amendments. I do not really understand why. It was predictable the government would not accept these amendments, I guess I could see it coming in discussion with the department at the briefing I had on a commonsense approach to the tabling of the offences and those reports. To allow that to blow out to what could be a two- or three-month period, I believe is unreasonable and unacceptable. Look at the practical implications of that: an offence committed in May, and the parliament does not hear about it until what could be mid-August. I do not think the minister provided a satisfactory explanation for that. I know she is shaking her head, but all you have to do is do the maths; seven days is not one sitting period. I do not believe she provided a satisfactory explanation for that, and it is something the government should consider. I would like to see the practical implications of that as this rolls out.
Nevertheless, it has been a pretty good debate today. The government threw up its usual line about the CLP, and the rivers of grog, and the minister again talked about statistics and the amount of alcohol which is being consumed and not being consumed. The minister fails to recognise, while there may be a decrease in takeaway sales, all that is happening is those takeaway sales are being substituted for bar sales. The amount of grog consumed between those restricted hours of takeaway trading - 11.30 am to 2 pm - is nothing short of staggering.
The enormous and quite easily counteracting figure you brought forward today is the pure alcohol sales which, in Alice Springs alone, equate to something like 10 000 L of pure alcohol per year that are not accounted for in your data. That is very easy information to access. You simply have to find out how many people are ordering wine, through wine clubs, how much of this stuff is coming through independent freight operators and, then, just do the maths again. That is not being accounted for in the data sprouted by the government.
We do not believe the alcohol restrictions are working. I know the government is convinced supply is the answer; if we can cut off and deal with the supply of alcohol, then we are going to see a real change. It is, clearly, not the case. History has proven it. We talked about prohibition today and a range of measures where supply has been restricted, and it does not provide any real long-term solutions.
The alcohol restrictions in Alice Springs seem to be forever and a day. They are here to stay, by the looks of it. We are not making any serious inroads to a point where we are actually getting this under control, where this is being stamped out. The way to address this is to reduce the demand people have for alcohol. The way you do that is through rehabilitation. The way you do that is use any legislation that is practically possible and tie rehabilitation into that.
The government is not doing that. They will not see or accept that. I do not know if it is just pig-headedness by the government, arrogance, or they are just nave. I do not understand why they will not accept that demand is the issue, not supply. As I said, the way you reduce demand is to reduce a person’s addiction to that particular product. The way you do that is rehabilitate that person and give them a meaningful life through rehabilitation - not only drying them out, but giving them a basic education and some basic job skills so, like us, they can get out there in the community and have a good life.
Unfortunately, the government missed an opportunity here. I hope, as time goes on, we can see the practical implications of this and come back here to amend and strengthen some of this legislation. I know a discussion paper was released by the minister last year and, here we are a few months later, making amendments. Well, maybe we can do that again down the track.
I thank everyone on this side for their contribution and thank you, Madam Speaker.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 25 February 2010.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I always find it difficult, with respect, Mr Clerk, to hear you. This is the Justice Legislation Amendment (Penalties) Bill? Correct?
Madam SPEAKER: Indeed.
Ms CARNEY: Just making sure. I did not want to make the same mistake the member for Daly made yesterday ...
Dr Burns: You have made that mistake yourself as well!
Ms CARNEY: I guess it has happened to all of us. The member for Johnston is perfect in every way, but it has happened to all of us. I did not want to make the same mistake.
In any event, here we are, Madam Speaker, with the Justice Legislation Amendment (Penalties) Bill. I will make a number of points in relation to this bill.
Under a bill of the same name introduced in the September 2009 sittings, 62 acts and seven regulations were amended as a result of government policy to go through much legislation to change from dollar amounts to penalty units. As members will recall it caused, in many instances, dramatic increases in the maximum penalty and periods of imprisonment, particularly in the Summary Offences Act, the Trespass Act and the Small Claims Act.
The excessive nature of some penalty increases led to questioning whether the government was trying to achieve a revenue-raising strategy. I believe that went unanswered by government. I guess it is for our fellow Territorians to work out. In addition to sound drafting, which is always important, I believe the view may still be held by some this could be an attempt by government to continue to raise revenue on the side.
This bill repeals the Justice Legislation Penalties Act 2009 and, as stated by the Attorney-General, amends the penalty provisions of about, I believe she said, 69 Department of Justice acts and regulations.
As with the 2009 act, many of the changes are restricted to exchanging the phrase ‘penalty’ for ‘maximum penalty’ and changing ‘dollar value penalties’ to ‘penalty units’ using a different formula. The new formula was described by the Attorney-General in her second reading speech, and has restricted total increases to 15% of the current monetary value. The increased dollar amount is then converted to the closest whole penalty unit, and then rounded down to the closest five penalty units. The smaller fines, in the event of rounding down to the closest five penalty units, would result in a decrease in the actual monetary value of the fine. The penalty is rounded to the closest 0.5 of a penalty. If this still results in a value below the current fine amount, the fine will be rounded to the nearest 0.1 penalty unit above 0.5. In the event that conversion to a penalty unit results in a penalty unit less than 0.5, the dollar value will remain in the legislation.
There were some other changes referred to by the Attorney-General in her second reading speech. The opposition supports this bill. The formula applied is a more conservative, but consistent, change across the identified legislation, and the proposed increase of 15% is better than the many increases proposed under the 2009 bill. The anomalies of some amended penalties being less than their original worth have been corrected, and all imprisonment increases have been removed with the exception of those in the Criminal Code, to which the Attorney-General referred in her second reading speech.
The 2009 bill amended - when we counted them - 62 acts and seven regulations. I said before the Attorney-General referred in her second reading speech to the present bill amending 69 acts and regulations; we believe that figure is probably wrong because there is one piece of legislation missing; that is, our good friend the Summary Offences Act. It, not unlike the member for Stuart, the minister for the Environment, is missing in action.
The Attorney-General made the point in her second reading speech, when she said this:
The Attorney-General may well be saying - if I understand that sentence – that those matters which were amended in the Summary Offences Act under this bill in October of last year will not be further reviewed until 2013. She did, however, make the point:
Therefore, I am at a loss as to when exactly those matters contained in the Summary Offences Act will, in fact, be reviewed. It could be by the end of 2010; equally, it could be sometime in 2013.
The matters dealt with in the Summary Offences Act when we were last debating this in October, curiously, are not included in this bill. Members will recall the Attorney-General stood by some quite outrageous increases in penalties under the legislation that is today being repealed. In other words, in October last year, the Attorney-General said: ‘No, we have this legislation right’. A few months later, she is here again saying: ‘We are repealing the whole act that we debated in October. This time we have it right’.
Members will recall, in particular, the increase of 1200% for a fine for the offence of begging. The Attorney-General received some reasonably scathing and unflattering publicity as a result of media coverage following her prosecuting the government’s case it was reasonable for beggars to face a fine of $6500 – I will say that again, $6500 – or six months imprisonment. Of course, part of the reason it was so interesting at the time was the Chief Minister said some months prior, in relation to the proposal from the Alice Springs Town Council to impose or increase fines on those people begging, that it was – well, in fact, let me quote exactly what the Chief Minister said:
Rather an unfortunate use of word:
That was a very small fine; it was $130 proposed by the Alice Springs Town Council at the time. The Chief Ministerial aspirant came into the Chamber in October last year and said: ‘No, we think $6500 for beggars is just fine’ - good member - I believe of the left - of the Labor Party, so we were genuinely surprised. I know many other people were. As I am sure members will recall, we went into the committee stage and I did try to suggest to the Attorney-General that $6500 was a great deal, but she really would not have a bar of it.
I also suggested – and I think drew her attention to the fact - there was some other curious increases. The fine for the dumping of eskies went from $200 to $13 000 - that is a maximum increase of $6400. The list goes on. Anyway, some really incredible increases.
Such is the Attorney-General’s arrogance and her commitment to herself that everything she does is right, she said a number of things in the parliament that would be noteworthy and important for me to read again on the Parliamentary Record because, of course, we do not know when we might be here next repealing this bill and starting all over again. Therefore, it is important these matters be put, once again, on the Parliamentary Record. The Attorney-General said on 13 October 2009:
I thought that was terribly interesting. She went on to say various changes in the 2009 bill reflected the current policy applied by the Department of Justice to penalties to be imposed in the legislation - so, current policies. Yet, here we are repealing that act, and those matters contained under the Summary Offences Act are missing in action from the bill today. The Attorney-General then said they went through this in a methodical, clear and precise fashion, not sloppy, not cavalier; quite the opposite. Justice officers went through this in a clear and precise fashion with the instructions she set as Attorney-General, with the parameters to not just look at the penalty units applying to go forward, but back cast to see which ones were out of kilter because they had not been adjusted for a number of years.
She kept going. She was absolutely adamant what she, as Attorney-General, introduced a couple of months prior to October last year was rock solid and was the right thing to do. She said elsewhere in the same debate that there was a very thorough process. She went on to say:
Presumably, that is the existing policy inter alia of increasing by 6400% penalties for people who dump eskies, and 1200% for beggars. Anyway, that was the policy because she, the Attorney-General, said it was so. She went on again:
And she was very happy to table the list of penalties.
Well, bully for her. It does illustrate - does it not? - how rusted on the Chief Ministerial aspirant and current Attorney-General was in relation to the legislation she brought into the Chamber. We had an experience late last year of a health matter - and it was incredibly obvious the Minister for Health just had not read or got himself across the issue.
What we have heard is ministers saying: ‘I do this, I do that’ but, in fact, either not giving the right instructions - they are paid to do it - or just not reading and understanding, or even bothering to ask their staff to give them reasonable advice in relation to matters coming through from the department. So, we had an embarrassing situation - and it was embarrassing for the Territory, as it has been, generally, over the last eight years, because that story went national. The story about thousands of dollars for a beggar, perhaps not surprisingly, went all around the country. We were embarrassed and the Attorney-General should have been.
The Attorney-General will remember we raised these issues in committee. Why did we not support this bill then amending 69 acts? Because we are into sound drafting; we think it should be reasonable. When the Attorney-General says: ‘No, this is our policy’, well, that is the government’s policy, that is their problem.
What is interesting was when the Attorney-General said:
You have one member of government thinking slugging beggars thousands of dollars is just going hard and, yet, the current Chief Minister indicated in previous comments in relation to the proposed penalties the Alice Springs Town Council wanted to implement, he was not in favour of it. I guess that is for the back room of the Australian Labor Party and for this government. You never know, we might see more people leaving the government this year, as we did last year. However, it does demonstrate the Attorney-General is not across her portfolio.
When the Chief Minister was advised of this debate - or he may have been in the room at the time, I cannot remember - he was then asked by media; from the ABC website on 19 October 2009 the story starts as follows:
Then she said:
Where do these people get off? How can you even pretend to stand in parliament one day and say: ‘No, no, you are wrong. We have it all right. We are perfect. I have done this; I have done that’ and, then, 24 hours later say: ‘Oh, we are happy to amend it’. That is the shallow, shabby approach of members opposite and, in particular, this Attorney-General. Territorians have every right to expect so much more from the Territory’s first law officer.
It became worse. I have a couple of friends in the Department of Justice, in particular, who raised this with me. I saw the interview and nearly fell off my chair. There was a Stateline interview, I think at the end of that week, and it was a shocker. The Attorney-General was asked about this and the interviewer was trying to suggest the minister do something really courageous such as take responsibility and acknowledge the stuff-up. What the Attorney-General did was - and I do not have the transcript with me but it was very clear - just pushed it on to the department. Pushed it on to them; how she had spoken to the staff - or whatever the comment was, it was pretty close to that. So, it was pretty shabby that the Attorney-General – or, indeed, any government minister - came in here said: ‘Me, me, me,’ with respect to legislation, does not listen to other arguments about how something might be a bit bizarre and stupid and, 24 hours later, gets done over by her boss: ‘Gee, you had better fix this’, and then goes on television and says it is the staff. What a sad and sorry chapter!
We have had a very interesting few years with this government and its legislation. It is hard to take too much of what they do seriously because, over the years, we have seen - and I have advised the parliament before - what we call oops bills, where the government comes in, says something is all kosher and ready to go and, within a few months or 12 months later, we come back and have to fix it. I hope this is not like that.
I look forward to the revised penalties in the Summary Offences Act one day - maybe later this year, maybe 2013, maybe never. I do not know. Maybe it has been such a shame job for the Attorney-General that she is not allowed to touch it. Maybe she has been told to just leave everything the way it is. I do not know and, I guess, it is none of my business. This has been the worst chapter of government bringing bills into the parliament. For our part, we just wish they get them right. Whilst the Chief Minister, to his credit, said: ‘We do not get it right all of the time’, Territorians expect much more from the government than they have been provided with. All of the resources that have been involved in doing the first bill and, then, organising its repeal - and here we are again talking about it. I am very interested to know how many other parliaments went through this type of business for a bill like this.
There are my comments. I am not sure whether any of my colleagues would like to contribute. I feel certain the Attorney-General will contribute. She will make a contribution and be very firm in her resolve that everything she did was right. I look forward to it, Madam Speaker.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, what a delightful contribution from the member for Araluen. She just cannot help herself. But you get that when, I guess, most of your life is spent in extreme frustration on the opposition benches.
This bill repeals the Justice Legislation Penalties Amendment Act 2009 that was amending the penalty provisions in most of the acts administered by the Department of Justice. It was meant to be a simple process of converting existing penalties in the offence provisions into penalty units. The application of the policy processes, particularly as they apply to the Summary Offences Act, did certainly skew somewhat the penalties occurring in that Summary Offences Act.
The Chief Minister was quite right in the statements he made; that is why I am back in here repealing that 2009 act and undertaking a simple conversion in Justice legislation penalties by ensuring the penalties are converted to penalty units, and that none go higher than the 15% increase to capture CPI since they were last converted.
This is quite a straightforward process we are following here today, stripping out the summary offences. For clarification’s sake, for the member for Araluen, the Summary Offences Act, as I have stated publicly and will state again in the Chamber today, is currently being reviewed. I made the decision to proceed with this conversion to penalty units ahead of that review. The Summary Offences Act, by its nature, will be complex review work undertaken by the Department of Justice. As Attorney-General, I expect it to go out into the public domain for consultation. That will be a longer body of work than a simple process of converting to penalty units here.
That being said, I am hopeful the summary offences review will be out into the public domain in the second half of this year, with the view to legislative reform, if required, around late 2010 or early 2011, depending on the consultation process in the second half of this year and the results of that. It is good. I made a mistake in accepting a body of work I should not have accepted in its entirety - and I have said on the public record it is my mistake. I know the member for Araluen would like to have it thought otherwise; that I have been pushing the blame elsewhere. I have not; I have taken it on board myself. I am not beyond admitting to mistakes. It was a mistake to do it in its entirety the way I did the last time round. In that respect, it was a useful process for government to undertake, whereby you put in place additional processes to double check and triple check what you are doing with legislation.
I have certainly ensured that has occurred, not just in my own actions, but my staff’s actions and, indeed, the department’s actions. All of us can get into a comfort zone, and we are well and truly shaken out of that comfort zone as a result of the work that occurred in the penalties in 2009. In a perfect world I probably would not have wanted to go through that. As Attorney-General, I have to stand today and say I am glad I did, as strange as that sounds. It has been a good, important lesson for me to learn from that mistake.
I have often said, in all the workplaces I have worked as a boss over the years, to all of my staff, if you make a mistake it is not the end of the world. The end of the world is not admitting to the mistake because it just compounds it. So, in this sense, I am living by what I have always said. I made a mistake in proceeding as I did with that 2009 penalties bill. I have learned dearly from that and, yes, I was pretty horrified where it ran to. I have pulled it back. I have stripped the summary offences aspect out.
It is timely and good to review summary offences. There are many offences in there I would have thought, in contemporary practice, may not stand the test of time such as singing on the street corner. If the council wants to do a by-law for that, maybe they could, but it does not necessarily fit within summary offences. You have a question about letting the goats out. I think of Kezia and her family. What is wrong if the goats are doing a bit of a run? But someone could come forward with some strong arguments during the public consultation process about why you would have an offence of letting the goats out. That is a particular favourite of mine.
It was, and is, very much the catch-all body of legislation and summary offences. It is certainly timely to do the review. The Department of Justice officer who has been tasked broadly with that review has done the review work internally very diligently. I have to admit, I know he has had a bit of fun doing it. I understand I am about to receive his initial body of work to go through, and it is highly entertaining reading because of the nature and the age of the many offences which were there. I am learning much about the law through that review work. I am learning that lawmakers in the past named particular provisions after themselves. There will not be a Lawrie aspect to any of the summary offences work, other than recognising the penalties in 2009 were a mistake.
That is why I have this before us here today; to simply do the penalty conversion as I had intended, strip out summary offences to do that broader comprehensive review, and look at where the summary offences should be, and what type of offences should be in it and, if you have offences within it, what are the relative rankings in the severity of those offences; and do that policy work thoroughly.
That is currently being undertaken by the department officers, and they are in close communication with my office. I have been enjoying the learning experience in regard to summary offences that I have undertaken as the Attorney-General.
The intention is - with all the other Department of Justice legislation to be converted into penalties - that they would progressively do that through 2010 and try to have that worked on by 2011. I am indicating the legislation across government converting to penalties, hopefully, will all be done and dusted by 2013. That is a great deal of legislation and work. I am setting in place processes and systems to get that work done in a consistent manner. Obviously, the Department of Justice and Treasury are two key agencies capable of providing assistance to all government agencies in that body of work.
Why is it good to do? It is good to do going forward because it will keep penalties contemporary. The bill I passed as Treasurer last year regarding the budget made sure that CPI kicks in, in penalty units, every year. This is not just work we are doing short term. It is work that, long term, will yield real benefits for any government in keeping penalties up-to-date with what and how they should be. That, of course, does not prevent broader policy work being undertaken in any legislation; whether it is traffic offences or summary offences. That work, by its nature, should occur from time to time.
I am eating humble pie today. I am doing so without reservation, though. As I said, I am strangely pleased I made a mistake fairly early in the piece as Attorney-General because I have certainly learned from that mistake, and put processes in place to ensure I do not make that mistake again nor, systemically, will we have the issues we had previously.
I thank the member for Araluen for drawing it to our attention. I find it curious they were able to support it in the first place, but I understand they picked through it in detail during committee stage amendments. It was one of the more edifying experiences of my life. We move forward, and we are getting it right today. We are pleased to be here today to sort this one out in an appropriate way.
Madam Speaker, I commend the legislation to the House.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General) (by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 23 February 2010.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I thank the Auditor-General for his report to the Assembly on matters arising from audits conducted in the period 1 July 2009 to 31 December 2009.
My ministerial colleagues and I value the work of the Auditor-General in assisting the process of transparency and accountability through independent analysis and drawing our attention to matters of interest.
In respect of the audits of financial statements, which are conducted to provide a level of assurance those statements are presented fairly, all audits resulted in unqualified audit opinions, compliance with relevant accounting standards, and no matters of significance or material weakness, with one exception, NT Build.
The Auditor-General was unsatisfied all revenues due had been recognised in NT Build’s financial statements. This was largely due to the nature of building approval processes and some doubts as to whether NT Build has been advised of all construction work that might fall within the scope of the Construction Industry Long Service Leave and Benefits Act. The board of NT Build was well aware of the problem and, whilst confident there is a high level of compliance, continues to pursue solutions to the problem.
The four information technology audits and controls and compliance audits conducted during the reporting period all resulted in positive and unqualified audit opinions, notwithstanding issues identified for further improvement. For records management in the Department of Business and Employment, whilst the system controls were satisfactory, there was a need to standardise policies and procedures to distribute information to system users, and to develop disaster recovery procedures.
For the human resource management application, MyHR, whilst the system controls could be relied upon, a number of opportunities were identified for DBE to improve application security controls.
For the management of the Alice Springs Masters Games and the Arafura Games, there were no significant issues with the Northern Territory Major Events Company’s financial management. Some issues were identified in the transfer process from the Department of Local Government, Housing and Sport, and a lack of assistance to identify, assess and report on the achievement of performance goals.
In consultation with the Northern Territory Major Events Company, the Department of the Chief Minister undertook a comprehensive review of the Arafura Games, which will result in clear performance goals.
It is pleasing to note that, for the whole-of-government information technology outsourcing initiative, DBE’s approach to restructuring and re-tendering of contracts for the provision of IT services, was both formally defined and consultative. This was further supported by a defined governance structure and formal approach to project management.
The Auditor-General’s February 2010 Report provides over 100 pages of information and analyses on audit activity conducted over the reporting period, which provides an assurance to parliament and all Territorians that government agencies are transparent and accountable for managing the resources under their control, and have been subject to the highest levels of scrutiny.
On behalf of my colleagues, I thank the Auditor-General for his latest report, and take this opportunity to express my full support for the Auditor-General for his continued independent analysis of governance and accountability on behalf of the Assembly, the government and the Territory community, and in continuing to draw our attention to matters of importance. The role of the Auditor-General and the ongoing program of audits of financial statements, controls, and compliance across agencies and entities is one of our most vital components in maintaining an open government policy.
Madam Speaker, I commend the Auditor-General for his report.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I respond to the minister’s statement. I find it curious that the minister said there are no adverse findings in the report and, then, promptly went on to explain all the areas of interest that had to be addressed as a result of the Auditor-General’s report. And there are areas of interest and concern in this report.
There were adverse findings which caused the departments to respond to some of the findings by the Auditor-General. Once again, we are getting used to the language of the Chief Minister. He is quite happy to say there are no adverse findings except this, this, this and this. By the time it finds its way into the public domain, all he will end up saying is there were no adverse findings.
There were no major issues that arose out of this report, but there were compliance issues. I note the Chief Minister started with NT Build. That will never get an unqualified audit opinion. Whilst it is near the back of the report and I will have to find it if I am going to refer to it, I notice NT Build has been forced, by virtue of the comments of the Auditor-General, to put in one of the longest responses to the Auditor-General’s findings.
The amounts of money involved in NT Build are not insubstantial. At the time of the audit, some $11 848 410 was the amount of contributions made into the portable long service scheme. I also point out comments from the Auditor-General in relation to the NT Build scheme - and I quote from page 86 of the report:
The reason for this is quite straightforward. It is because this scheme, which was introduced to create a system of portable long service leave arrangements inside the building industry, for some strange reason - and I digress for a second. The building industry is the only industry which the government seemed to be paying any attention to, yet there is any number of industries where there is a portability of staff that far exceeds the normal stay of employees, tourism not being the least of these type of cases. The problem is, whilst NT Build has promised to ‘strengthen the NT Build’s ability to maximise compliance’ the fact is there will always be ‘a level of uncertainty that may always exist’. That is because you cannot be certain as to whether the people out there in the construction industry are fulfilling the requirements of the legislation.
Whilst NT Build may go out and audit, from time to time, various construction agencies and industries as to how they are proceeding, we will never truly know the drawdown on the budget into the future of people who will come back to the Northern Territory and claim to be owed long service as a result of this portability scheme. It is just not a clearly definable proposition. Consequently, there will always be this question mark as to how heavy the drawdown is going to be in the future on a portable long service scheme. That is why NT Build will never get an unqualified report from the Auditor-General, which is acknowledged both by the Auditor-General and NT Build.
It is an area which deserves examination. You have to remember, of course, this system was introduced because the new Labor government at the time, under the tutelage of the Treasurer, Syd Stirling, who was very keen to satisfy the demands of his union mates, introduced this particular scheme in the building industry.
I also note the Department of the Chief Minister received some comment in relation to the amalgamation of the part of Sports and Recreation and the Major Events Company, particularly pertaining to the management of some of the more known events which occur in the Northern Territory such as the Honda Masters Games and the Arafura Games, and the like. A certain element of risk was identified when this amalgamation occurred and these risks were considered. Of the 22 identified risks, 13 of the risks were considered to have a high probability of occurring. Of the 13 risks considered as highly likely to occur and have major consequences, 10 actually manifested themselves.
Of the 18 staff transferred under this particular arrangement, after a 12-month period, there was only one left. One can only imagine how unhappy or how difficult an environment this particular amalgamation created within the Major Events Company, as well as in relation to the Department of the Chief Minister. I note the Department of the Chief Minister responded to this by saying:
Hang on! Did I not just hear the Chief Minister say there were no adverse findings? Yet, here I find the words ‘adverse findings’ in the report the Chief Minister says has no adverse findings in it. Clearly, once again we have the Chief Minister being less than fulsome with this House and Territorians when he is making utterances in this place, and I suspect outside of this place. In fact, I know outside of this place. The department acknowledges the amalgamation did not run smoothly. I suspect that is part of the reason you saw such a large shift of staff move to other agencies as a result of this amalgamation. Things, clearly, were not managed particularly well during that time.
I also wish to make some observation - and I am mindful of the time - in relation to the Darwin Port Corporation which has been very much in people’s minds in the last couple of days. Before I start talking about the Darwin Port Corporation, regarding what the Auditor-General had to say; in an attempt at distancing themselves from the Darwin Port Corporation, this government has exercised an almost absurd level of trickery when it comes to this particular organisation. One would be convinced, from the comments by the minister for the Environment, the Darwin Port Corporation had absolutely nothing to do with government at all. However, it does not take you long to look into the budget papers and discover the Darwin Port Corporation is actually the property of the Northern Territory government. They own it. As the owners of an organisation, surely, you would think they would carry some responsibility for the conduct of the management. Whilst I appreciate there is a board of the Darwin Port Corporation, the ultimate owner is the Northern Territory government. For them to try to say: ‘It is nothing to do with us’, is nothing shy of patently absurd and is, essentially, quite dishonest.
In any instance, the Darwin Port Corporation, as far as the Auditor-General is concerned, has not provided any major areas of concerns in its financial records. I question how deeply the Auditor-General had a look at these particular accounts. I am intrigued to know whether the Auditor-General had dug any more deeply than simply doing a form of desk audit, because I have some concerns about stories which have come to my attention in relation to expenditure by the Darwin Port Corporation, particularly in its executive area, for meals and travel, whether that particular expenditure is properly justified.
I certainly hope the Auditor-General is listening to this, and he may consider revisiting the audit of the Darwin Port Corporation and satisfying himself the expenditure in some of these areas reflected requirements for the proper operation of the Port Corporation, or whether he wanted to pass some other judgment on any aspect of the expenditure of such monies.
Madam Speaker, I note there is two minutes to go. I have much more to talk about, particularly in relation to the Power and Water Corporation. Considering the time and continuity of comment, I ask that I may be permitted to continue my comments at a later date.
Madam SPEAKER: We can continue to 5.30 pm, which is when General Business comes on, member for Port Darwin.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I will be halfway through a technical argument, and it would not produce a particularly good result from that point of view.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I move the bill be now read a second time. In doing so, I advise this bill, for all good intents and purposes, replaces the Traffic Amendment Bill (Serial 38).
The reason for doing that is, through negotiations with both the Minister for Transport and the member for Nelson during the Alice Springs sittings, we reached a point where recommendations were made by both the member for Nelson and the Minister for Transport. We thought we had reached some approach where I could take away and redesign the bill, or come up with amendments. However, I decided to completely redesign the bill and come forward with the new bill, because the amendments and the decisions we had negotiated were of such difference to the Serial 38 bill I did not believe it was good practice to go forward with that bill.
That is why we have this serial 97 bill on the table today in this Chamber. I trust the new measures within this bill reflect the conversations and ideas put forward by the member for Nelson. We very intently followed his advice and concerns, and have sought to reflect that. We have also sought to reflect concerns raised by the advisors and the Minister for Transport in that regard.
Our previous bill said we had what you might call a three strikes policy where, if you had three drink-driving offences in five years, you would lose your vehicle, if one of those offences was a high-range offence. This bill attaches a penalty point system to drink-driving offences, and the accumulation of points will determine different penalties in that process. For example, a low-range offence will attract one penalty point, a mid-range offence will attract two penalty points, and a high-range offence will attract three penalty points. These points will be placed on a central register and remain active for five years from the time the offender has been found guilty of that offence.
When a person commits drink-driving offences where their total points at the finding of guilt for each offence equals three, four, or five points, an application will be made to the court to have their vehicle impounded for 48 hours. When a person accrues six or more points, an application will be made in the court to have their vehicle forfeited.
A stepped approach was a result of our discussion with the member for Nelson, who raised concerns about going straight to forfeiture without warning of having the vehicle impounded. In the interest of that bipartisan approach, we accepted his comments and redrafted our bill to allow for the period of impounding, to allow an offender to face the reality of their actions, learn from their mistakes, and not re-offend; the idea being if you have your vehicle impounded, you should not re-offend and have it taken.
Many of the administrative provisions are taken directly from the government’s hooning provisions; we have sought to marry up in that case. Hardship provisions are one such example in relation to the forfeiture orders. Where a court believes a forfeiture order will cause severe financial or physical hardship on a person, the court has the discretion to impose an impounding order of between 14 days and six months. The court also has the discretion to delay the commencement of an order until after a period of imprisonment, licence suspension or disqualification, or until after an alcohol ignition lock period.
It is also a requirement for the statistical data relating to penalty points to be incorporated into an annual report. It is not the intention to publish data which would identify repeat drink-drivers, but so policy and awareness campaigns can be more effectively developed and delivered to target audiences. In one of my earliest briefings on drink-driving offenders, I asked the question: who are the people who continually repeat drink-drive, particularly high-range offenders? The department answered: ‘People with an alcohol problem’. That much is obvious, of course, but to better target awareness campaigns and develop policy, a clear picture is needed of the demographic we are appealing to. That is why we have sought to publish that data; so we can have an understanding of how we target our awareness campaigns.
The government raised concerns their alcohol ignition lock policy should be allowed to run its course. One of the key omissions in their AIL legislation is the inability of a low-level offence to be considered as a previous offence to subsequent mid- and high-range offences. I have included a minor amendment to sections 21 and 22 so all previous offences are considered relevant and an AIL device can be used sooner rather than later.
Key sections in this bill relating to impounding and forfeiture orders include:
section 29AAYG provides for points to be attributed to an offence under this part for the purpose of impounding and forfeiture;
section 29AAYM allows for the forfeiture order to be applied to a person who has accrued six or more active penalty points;
The remaining sections incorporate the administrative provisions introduced by the minister under his hooning legislation, and they include: clarifying that the rights of a credit provider will not be affected by an order; allow persons with an interest in the vehicle to stake their claim if the vehicle is forfeited and they were not notified of the proposed forfeiture; sets out how a person can reclaim their vehicle at the end of an impounding period; what will happen to a vehicle if it is not claimed at the end of an impounding period; and the method for disposing of a forfeited vehicle.
I believe these amendments provide a sound balance of negotiations and good intention between me, the Minister for Transport, and the member for Nelson. Members in this Chamber would be very well aware I have been very active on road safety reform since being elected to parliament in 2008. Members of the public would be aware of my stance on drink-driving. I know low-range drink-driving is an issue, and some people can accidentally go over 0.051% or go to 0.051%, and we have a bit of leeway in the system. They get the message: you get caught once, you do not do it again. Then, if you do it again, you simply have not learned. If you continue to disregard drink-driving laws, particularly repeatedly high range, you are just a bloody idiot.
Speaking of idiots and of road safety, it is quite timely to reflect on other road safety measures. I have said people can be given the benefit of the doubt for making a first small mistake if it was not undertaken purposely. The attempts to do 60 km/h can sometimes be difficult and I often find myself doing 55 km/h to 58 km/h and, sometimes, might creep over 62 km/h or 63 km/h. That is what we try to do; moderate speed at the right level.
I have often thought about what the benefits might be if you change the way speeds are limited to 60 km/h: should you have a band and how might that work better? It is very difficult to come up with and also to do exactly the right speed limit. People in this Chamber may wonder why I am talking about other road safety measures. The reason I am talking about other road safety measures is because I am not sure the community has confidence in the Transport minister to fully undertake his responsibilities. Some may ask why? There are some serious questions around his ability to do his job and, after today’s Question Time, it is no wonder.
This is the minister of an alleged new era; the minister with alleged gusto; the minister with an alleged firm commitment to road safety. That seems to have gone out the window. He has lost confidence in the community by his failure to lead by example. He used to be a teacher. What would he say to his class? ‘Do as I do, not as I say’, or would it be ‘Do as I say, not as I do’? When the minister was charged with speeding - not just a little mind you, he was completely wringing the neck of the car - he was a long way over.
On ABC radio he said he had taken his eye of the speedo and was listening to the Hoodoo Gurus - like, wow, wipe out! He said he had taken his eyes off the speedo. Does that mean he was driving negligently? Should that be another fine for not watching his speed? He was caught driving at 149 km/h - or should I say he was ticketed at 149 km/h. I must say that that is pretty quick, especially for a troopie. He was not driving a Porsche; he isn’t Michael Schumacher driving a Ferrari, and he was not in the Cannonball Run revving a Lamborghini. He was wringing the neck of a troopie.
A question must be asked: how hard is it to get the troopie up to 150 km/h? It is not easy. You do not take your eye off the ball. You have to get it there. The question must be asked: how fast was he really going when pulled over before discretionary powers cut back in? Let us see if the minister ‘fesses up to whether he was doing 149 km/h or going faster than 149 km/h. I know what the ticket must say, 149 km/h. I do not want to speak against police discretionary powers because the warning system is a really good system.
I believe when we a see an officer the sweats get up, the heart is in the mouth, you take a deep breath, and learn from the mistake whether you are doing the wrong thing or the right thing. That is what happens when you see an officer doing a speed check. We all learn from that. However, the minister was going 149 km/h. Sorry, he was charged at 149 km/h - mind you, in the Wet, with flood warnings for all Central Australia. In the old system of open roads, people would make a conscious decision to drive to the conditions of the road. People would not be doing 150 km/h coming into a flood warning. This minister did not do that, let alone drive to the speed limit or - should I say, drive to his speed limit as the Transport minister.
How can the minister now be in charge of speeding, drink-driving and road safety? It poses some serious questions as to his suitability to fulfil his duties. How can we not ask other pertinent questions such as, has the minister ever drunk and driven? Has he ever been caught drink-driving? Has he run a red light camera? Has he not gone over a speed limit? I could go on, but it is the role of the minister to ‘fess up on these issues. However, I digress. It is an important digression but I do digress.
It is interesting, when you go through and look at some of the debates in this Chamber since I have been in here, and read the debates from others and of the Minister for Transport. I reflect on 18 August 2009 in a debate about the reinstatement of open speed limits put forward by me. I look straight to the Transport minister’s comments where he said:
Well, I am sure he said sorry for speeding:
In other words, by excessive speeding - which I would say 149 km/h is, going by his speed limits - he behaved recklessly, stupidly and dangerously. But, we are still going to keep him as a Transport minister. He said:
Well, the speed limit might be responsible, but the minister certainly was not. He went on further:
He is blaming the Leader of the Opposition there, Madam Speaker. Quite clearly, the shoe is on the other foot. He said:
Well, let me tell you, he is not getting from this side. It is coming clearly from the other side, leading by example. The Chief Minister’s reluctance to do anything about this shows it is the Chief Minister who is indecisive on this matter and he is leading by example.
Then he said in the same debate, and this is where the minister spoke personally, which I appreciate. He said:
I am pretty sure the young man will follow the example of his father.
It just keeps going and I have a few more examples here, I will just rattle on. This one here is a story by Tara Ravens on 18 August 2009 responding to comments, as quoted in the article:
Well, he was not prepared to make the toughest one. Then, on 3 September 2009, there was a media release by the Minister for Transport titled ‘Red Light Speed Camera Switched On for Trial’. I will just quote a couple of lines out of there. When Mr McCarthy was talking about what he hoped his speed cameras would achieve, he said:
Well, that must be a 149 km/h ticket. Then he said:
This is the one I like, in particular:
Driving within the speed limit, Madam Speaker:
Madam Speaker, if the minister went over a little, I would not be talking about it. If the minister was not the Transport minister, it would not be of such concern to me; he would have made the wrong decision. But, this is the Transport minister who fought so hard for us not to have an open speed limit - fought long and hard - and he has clearly broken his own rules. If he stood by his convictions and his principles, he would stand aside; we would not be asking the Chief Minister to stand him aside from his Transport portfolio.
This is just crazy and it goes further. In the Tennant & District Times on 18 September 2009 he made reference to the George Institute and talked about the real challenges in changing drivers’ behaviours. Clearly, he cannot change his own unless he has come down from 200 km/h. Then he said - and this is where my heart nearly fell out:
His position is untenable. Mark my words! How can he say these things and completely go over the top against his own rules? How can he do that? He also said:
It is quite ironic, Madam Speaker. In a ministerial statement by the Transport minister on 22 October 2009 he said:
Well, that has not happened:
Here we go. ‘I will educate you on speeding at 149 km/h’ - the ticketed value actually, not the real speed. Start with education and awareness; he let everyone know he was speeding. With all good grace, he did apologise for it and I respect that. But, minister, how can you stand here today as the Minister for Transport, when you try to promote road safety messages, condoning anyone who speeds, calling them idiots, and you sit there with your glum look on your face, not moving, clearly unable to sell the road safety message any more. Any person in this Chamber must stand by their own convictions, minister.
It said in the same statement:
I am selectively quoting this paragraph:
‘Idiots’, Madam Speaker. Well, we know who the idiot is.
…
Oh, the dangerous Country Liberals. Clearly, you like our policy.
Maybe you have not read that evidence:
He went on further to say:
He put it in concrete, ‘speed kills’, but I will do it anyway. He went on further to say:
These are the minister’s words; I am not a plagiarist. These are his words; he must stand by his convictions. He said:
Well, you cannot really if you do it yourself. You are No 1; how can you set it zero if you are the one speeding, minister?
Well, clearly we have. We support open speed limits and so do you. Well done, come on over! You were talking here about recommendations in the report:
This is about the speed limit debate:
You are telling me the evidence said 110 km/h, but you still did 149 km/h – ticketed:
Well, it might be grieving you now. I look at comments made by a former Transport minister - I will just make sure I have the date right here so I can quote; I would not want to get done for plagiarism or incorrectly quoting, or anything like that. I am pretty sure it must still be in the same debate from 2009. I am positive it is. If it is not from that debate, I am quoting the right person but it may be the wrong debate. I think it is the right debate. The previous Transport minister, the member for Johnston, quoted Churchill. He said:
I am assuming he is talking about 130 km/h:
We have seen the results, Madam Speaker! The member for Nhulunbuy said:
Oh, that one makes me laugh. The member for Nhulunbuy also said:
You welcomed the end of open speed limits, just not your colleagues adhering to them:
Well, I have an argument that sometimes it is and sometimes it is not. There are plenty of times on the Stuart Highway where 130 km/h is too fast, but there are other times when it is not. The member for Nhulunbuy went on further to say:
We have a philosopher. I will not go on to talk about Hector the Road Safety Cat; he had a good run last time.
The minister went on to say at the end:
Madam Speaker, I will tell you what else it united - a troopie and the Minister for Transport at 149km/h …
Mr Mills: Ticketed!
Mr GILES: Ticketed.
The Minister for Transport went further on Friday, 16 April 2010 in the Tennant & District Times after the incident where he was caught - sorry, ticketed - at 149 km/h. I quote from the article in the paper:
Pretty honest. Then, he goes on further to refer about how his speeding ticket has ‘become a topic clouded by journalistic licence’. Well, you know, it deserved to be, to be quite honest. He went on further to say:
He has failed in his responsibility as Transport minister, and the Chief Minister decided to keep him on. How can any minister admit he failed his responsibility and keep his responsibilities? He kept his responsibilities. Let me tell you what the worse case of double standards is: not the hypocrisy of the Transport minister arguing for 130 km/h speed limits; calling the opposition reckless and careless; calling speeding people idiots and then he does it, the fact he says it was irresponsible in this process; or that the Chief Minister is indecisive and will not act; the thing that really aggrieves me is the double standards in Tennant Creek, the drink-driving policeman - no one should drink and drive - who gets done at 0.052% and gets sacked from the service.
Here is a bloke doing 150 km/h, as the Transport minister, and keeps his job. The worst he got was a kick up the butt, or something like that, I believe were the words. That is all he got from the Chief Minister. These two are both in Tennant Creek. The police officer, who works hard for Tennant Creek made a mistake - and I do not condone what he did – at 0.052% was sacked from the force, and the Transport minister kept on - given a bit of a rub and tickle by the Chief Minister. I cannot understand the hypocrisy and the double standards of this. Here we have a man who makes the law, who does not get sacked for breaking it, but one man who tries to uphold the law gets sacked for slightly breaking it, for just going over the speed limit. I am sure a police officer has not been standing up in this Chamber saying: ‘Anyone who drink-drives is reckless, dangerous, and a bloody idiot.’
How can you have that? How hard is it to get police officers in Tennant Creek? Sure, he should have been disciplined and sanctioned and all those other things the Police Commissioner has the ability to do. I am not condoning what the Police Commissioner did …
Dr Burns: Say that again!
Mr GILES: I am not complaining about what the Police Commissioner did …
Dr Burns: You seemed to be.
Mr GILES: No, no, I am talking about the hypocrisy.
The officer gets sacked for trying to uphold the law. He has done the wrong thing and the decision was made. The Transport minister, who is in charge of that law, does not get sacked ...
Dr Burns: Just think about what you just said.
Mr GILES: I will check my words in here to see if I have not repeated them correctly. I will say it again.
The police officer trying to uphold a law gets sacked for doing the wrong thing by a little, while the Transport minister, who breaks his own law, gets no punishment. I do not understand how that works.
But let us go on to one more - and this is my favourite one, I saved it to the end. This is what we call a dorothy dixer, put forward on 15 October 2009. I am sure members on this side of the Chamber will like this. This was a question from the member for Fannie Bay. It was a very detailed question and it might take me a while to read it. It says:
That is it. The Minister for Transport answered that he made mention of it being a driving policy which has to be changed, making reference to some of the concerns on our roads. He said that part of the world’s best practice approach is the need for this to be a bipartisanship effort. We have spoken about that. We support speed limits, open speed limits and the minister does not, but he just drives like he does:
It is not the point if the member for Fong Lim was going 2 km/h over the limit or someone over here was going a couple of kilometres over the limit. That is not what it is about. He made the law! He fought for the law! 149 km/h, Madam Deputy Speaker! You have to stand by your principles. If you draw the line in the sand, you stick by the line in the sand.
The Transport Minister went on further to say, and I think the members on this side will remember this day:
Well, if anyone is to show leadership it is the Chief Minister:
These are open speed limit stickers we have on our laptops, for the listeners out there:
How jealous you must be, Minister for Transport!
Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to table the sticker for the Minister for Transport.
Leave granted.
Mr GILES: Madam Deputy Speaker, I go further. I have one here for the Chief Minister too. I seek leave to table a sticker for the Chief Minister.
Leave granted.
Mr GILES: Madam Deputy Speaker, I have another one. This one I give to the member for Johnston, the previous Transport Minister. I seek leave to table a sticker for the member for Johnston …
Dr Burns: I do not want it. You know where you can put that, mate. This is all about saving people’s lives. And you need to get that through your head!
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr GILES: Oh, come on! I pick up the interjection. I believe he is referring to putting it on the back of the Transport Minister’s car. I think this is what he is referring to. There are stickers on these laptops.
‘Show some leadership, Leader of the Opposition’, the Transport Minister talked about. Well, he can show leadership and reflect on practicing what he preaches.
Madam Deputy Speaker, this is a good bill that has been developed through negotiations with both the Transport Minister and member for Nelson. That is the way it has been done. The penalty and point system is a good model; it reflects the real drive by the member for Nelson. It may seem complex. I have a spreadsheet that describes how one penalty for ‘low’ and second for ‘medium’, and how they all add together, and what the penalty can be, including 48 hours, AIL, and forfeiture on AIL, and how that works together.
It is a complicated system, but not without merit. The only person who needs to understand how the system works is a legislator and a drink-driver. If you are not a drink-driver and you are not in parliament, just know there is trouble ahead if you do the wrong thing. I seek leave to table it so everyone can have look at it, especially the Transport Minister so he can see what it actually looks like; what it is about.
Leave granted.
Mr GILES: Madam Deputy Speaker, this bill will go a long way to encouraging people to slow down on our roads, which is the ultimate aim but, more importantly, not drink and drive. If the government supports this Serial 97 bill it will send a clear message to those who may choose to drink-drive on our roads that, if this goes through, there will be forfeiture of vehicles ahead if you have done the wrong thing. If you just have a second go at it or are medium range, you have 48 hours, or the legislation the minister put through last year with AIL. There will be some serious measures here that people will have to be compliant with. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Deputy Speaker, today I put forward something I believe to be a very important motion. It is a motion that stands up for the little people in the Northern Territory. I move – That:
3. establish a fund to cover the costs of works for those people whose homes are not completed due to the de-licensing of Mr Carey and the entry into liquidation proceedings of Carey Builders; and
As I said, this is a very important matter. Some people may be aware - I know the minister is and there are other people aware in this Chamber - of what that situation is. It is my job, as an elected official, to stand up for people who are constituents in the electorate of Braitling. This is the reason I bring this to the table today. It was not a direct action I decided to bring it to parliament, but I thought it was important enough to talk about it today.
People often criticise governments and politicians about their role and what they actually do. People often get left behind by the system. The system which is in place is designed to protect the people of the Northern Territory, or whatever other jurisdiction people may be in. It is important for those local people to be able to go to their local member - and I am not praising myself, I am talking about anyone - and fight for those issues. I know the member for Nelson fights for certain constituent matters - some I agree with and some I do not agree with. These are important issues.
When I asked myself the question: ‘Should I be taking this motion forward?’ I thought: is this the sort of thing I would do if I was in government? Would I want to take it, would I want to move this motion, and would I take it to my Cabinet team and say: ‘This is what I think we should be doing?’ I found myself saying: ‘Yes, this is the right thing to do; this is what I would do if I was in government. This is how I would do it.’ So, I took it to the party room and explained the situation to the party room in relation to Randal Carey and Carey Builders, and received a resounding yes from the party room. I know I have the full support of the Country Liberals in bringing this matter forward.
The resounding feeling of the shadow Cabinet was there was heartfelt compassion for the victims of the Northern Territory government, Randal Carey and Carey Builders. These victims are not just financially distressed, but they are emotionally distressed. I will give a brief overview about what has happened in the situation to these people who are victims in Alice Springs - about a dozen people.
I am not going to reflect on home warranty insurance because that is an important matter for government to work through. I am happy to work through it, but at a later date. Having said that, I feel if there was a suitable home warranty insurance scheme in place in the Northern Territory, these victims would have been covered by such a scheme. I know there are some failed schemes interstate, and there are some successes in Queensland. While not everything is right with that scheme, if there was a suitable scheme in place I believe these people would have been covered. As we do not have a scheme in place, I am led to believe the government has a responsibility. I know they are pursuing this man, but I believe the government has a responsibility.
In essence, what happened in this issue is Randal Carey was an undischarged bankrupt from interstate who had previously worked in the building industry. He applied for a builder’s licence in the Northern Territory; he was given a licence. I will go through this step by step in a minute. He was given a licence, undertook building works, someone made a complaint about him, his licence was cancelled, government never told anyone, and people kept paying him money. While those people paid him money, his bills were not being paid - such as glaziers, tilers, cabinet makers and so forth - and people took him to court. Government knew people were taking him to court, but the people who were taking him to court were suppliers, not the people who were paying him to build their homes. The people paying him to build their homes did not know this man was in the situation he was in. Government knew, but they did not tell these people.
His wife was, supposedly, in charge of the company he was working for, which was Carey Builders Pty Ltd. That company went broke, or went into liquidation in March this year, and those people have paid up to 95% for their homes to be completed. I am told some of those houses are only 20% or 30% built, in dollar value, and the majority of these people cannot get more finance to finish their homes. They have no more equity in their land or in their house at the moment to borrow money, plus they do not have the financial capacity to pay that money back.
That is why I thought it was important to bring this here, because I believe it is the system that let these people down, and the system really needs to come forward and recognise that problem and do something about it. I got involved in this, this year. I was not involved in it before. I was not really aware of the situation. I was not made aware of what was going on to these people who were trying to build houses, but I have been made aware and have participated in talking to these people on many occasions, at meetings. The minister was at one of those meetings, and I thank him for coming to that meeting. In correspondence with the minister, I have asked for his assistance in a number of areas. That assistance has not been forthcoming, unfortunately, but I still hold out the hope the passage of this motion today could, possibly, see us in a position where that assistance may occur.
I will just go through some important steps. This is not about antagonism toward government or politics; this is about trying to help these people. The correspondence I sent to the minister on 25 March 2010, asked for a number of things. In particular, I asked for - I will just read it:
That is an important point that I will come back to.
Just as a side issue, I understand that will cost about $3000 each or $36 000 for these 12 homes:
I have not had a response to that letter as yet, but I look forward to that actually coming forward.
I will quickly show some houses here for people in the parliament and anyone watching on the webcam. There are houses here partially completed at Jennerae Drive, Zeil Street, Wedelia Place, and on Albrecht Drive subdivision. I seek leave to table those just so people can have a look at them.
Leave granted.
Mr GILES: Madam Deputy Speaker, that is the correspondence I have sent.
I am reading from the Territory website:
When the government introduced the legislation in 2006, which was a good idea - and I have this information from a briefing I had with the department - the only criteria to get a licence was you had to have built three homes before, and you had to have the ability to get $50 000 if needed in a situation. Now, that was it, there were no further searches, nothing else ever done.
A simple search on the Builders Licensing website will show - it says here, and in flashing lights:
If you go through to check why his registration was actually cancelled in Queensland, it says on the back page, the reason was section 48(i). So, you have a look at what section 48(i) says:
I do not have all the communications to table today; I will just go through some of it. There was a six-month grace period for people to apply for licences in 2006 because there was a high demand. Between 700 and 800 people applied for licences – people and companies - so they extended the grace period for people applying for licences, and the licence was issued in January 2007.
In January 2009, Randal Carey applied to renew his licence but, prior to that, there had been numerous complaints from companies which had been trying to get money out of Randal Carey saying: ‘Is this bloke a bankrupt or what is happening? He is licensed with the Northern Territory government. What is happening with this bloke?’ So much so, they took it to the CEO of CAL, Mr Stephen Ward, who wrote a letter to the Northern Territory government on 19 November 2008. I will read this letter out. It says:
[Barry Chambers, the Chairman of the Building Practioners Board]:
This concerns me. All the people who wanted to use Randal Carey through Carey Builders had to go through the Northern Territory government to advise the government they were using Randal Carey. They have been doing that right up until the time he lost his licence, and even after that. This process of advising the Northern Territory government is part of the way building works are undertaken in the Northern Territory. The government, the registration board, had a database of every person who had contracted to use Randal Carey in the Northern Territory. They knew exactly who the person was. In November 2008, they received a letter saying: ‘This bloke is a bankrupt. What are you doing?’ I know in January 2009 they did not renew his licence, although he did reapply up until August 2009, when they finally said: ‘No, you do not have a licence’. However, they knew this bloke was a bankrupt – they knew.
This is why I brought this forward because the little people on the ground who have saved up all their hard-earned money, especially - I will not mention names - the older couple who have never built a home in their life, and now they are in limbo with the home they are building. Yet, in 2008, the government could have said: ‘Do not let this bloke build a home’. They could have sent a letter to everyone who was using him saying: ‘This is a troublesome position; do not use this bloke because he is a disclosed bankrupt. These are some of the issues we have had a look at’. However, they did not, and that is my argument. That is why I am asking the government for assistance.
I have information here from Flavell Plumbing, a company based in Alice Springs, which was doing work with Randal Carey and was in conversation with the Northern Territory government many times. Even after contacting the Building Licensing Board to advise them of the situation of Carey Builders, they still continued to allow Carey Builders to operate even though he was not registered or authorised. These things go on. This bloke says it has been reported to ASIC, the Builders Licensing Board, DIPE, CAL and other authorities and registrations - back to February 2009. This is a bloke who has taken Randal Carey to court trying to get money.
The government knew about it and did not do anything to tell the people who were planning to build a house. He has taken money from people to build their house and is not even paying the suppliers of all the materials. The government knew this and did not tell anyone. I understand privacy laws, but it is not good enough. It is not as if the government can say they did not know anything. It is not as though the advisors who go through the papers can say they do not know anything.
On 17 March 2009, there was a story in The Centralian Advocate saying Randal Carey puts to bed the rumours he is not doing his job properly, when he did not even have a licence, and he comes out saying everything is all fine and dandy. The Northern Territory government should have seen that and said: ‘Hang on a second, something is not right here’. They see these things.
There is a story here from 14 May 2009 in the Alice Springs News reporting allegations and outstanding debts, but people were too scared to put their names to it because they thought there might be repercussions later. In May 2009 they were talking about Randal Carey. On 27 May 2009, one of the people who was paying Randal Carey to build a house, which is nowhere near 50% finished, said:
He raised concerns he was having with the builder, and they could not even tell him the builder was not even licensed. They could not even say: ‘Mate, you should not be putting your money into this’. That was a direct contact.
On 4 June 2009, Alice Springs News reported again. They did quite a good job. They got comment from Graeme Kemp from the TCA. He is quoted as saying:
The story names one of the government officials here. I will not name him, but I will just go to that part of the story. It says:
I do not believe either due process was followed or that there was an appropriate due process in this matter.
I will not go through all of the information here, but there is information from an accountant to ASIC which found its way to the Northern Territory government. He said:
I have more information here from ASIC which has found its way to the Northern Territory government - back to David Pemberton. I have some information here from 8 July 2009 from one of the people who had been affected by Carey Builders complaining about the processes and the actions which had been undertaken by Randal Carey; they were talking about information on the company name of Carey Builders and they have been in contact with the Northern Territory government on that. There is information here on conveyancing. There is a legal notice in South Australian papers for Carey Builders to be wound up in South Australia from 4 August 2009. There is information here from another one of the people affected from 11 November 2009. The Northern Territory government had started liaising with people about legal action against this bloke, but they had not told people not to use him.
This is from an NT government staff member; I will not name her. It says:
Attached to the back of this is a statement talking about what happened and how the process went with Randal Carey and Carey Builders. The government knew then and did not advise people how much trouble they were in, so people did not understand.
I have information here from Alice Kitchen Cabinets where the same lady from the Northern Territory government was coaching people on how to compile a statement for the purposes of court action. It says:
Dodgy cheques.
There is a story from Nigel Adlam in the Northern Territory News about the Red Centre builder going belly up. There are stories that continue and continue. They are just endless, but no one picked it up.
This motion has four parts. I have quite clearly explained there has been a problem with the process. I am not blaming anyone in particular; I believe the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. I displayed before a picture of an Albrecht Drive house. The builder lost his licence in January 2009 but, in September 2009, the Planning department was giving out titles for land in Albrecht Drive, for which a family was using a builder who did not have a licence to build a house in the same street. Surely, people are not talking to each other. I am not laying blame here, but this is a real issue.
That is why I have included recommendation No 4; not to try to get anyone, but trying to identify what the problem is. Whether the Ombudsman is the right person or not, I am sure the member for Nelson will have something to say on that. There is a problem with the system, and the little people have been hurt.
I am asking for an engagement of the quantity surveyor. The reason I have asked that is these people need to know how much money is outstanding to complete their works. Some people believed they have $100000 left to do, and are now being told $280 000 to finish the works. It is almost like a SIHIP house. They do not know. If they want to pursue legal matters, or if they were able to get new finance, they need to know how much money they actually need for legal reasons. That is why I wrote that letter to the minister asking if government could provide a quantity surveyor because we do not have one in Alice Springs. Government has one; can they not send him down to just give assistance? However, we could not get that.
The second one is the need for the necessary provision to ensure certification capacity. I am running out of time, and I do not think I can get an extension in this. The reason I have asked for that provision is, when the minister came down with a couple of DPI staff, people spoke about concerns with certification. As I understand it, one of the issues - and I will confess, I am finding my way through this process – is, for houses that are not complete, no builder will sign up to take on the responsibility of the partially completed works - no builder will sign on. We have asked government if it will take on the responsibility of that, and I believe that is still up in the air at the moment; I am not quite sure.
The final component, because there is no builder and if people finish it themselves, they cannot get a builder to take the responsibility to sign-off on the property. That means they will be living in a house without a Certificate of Occupancy. Government said, at that meeting, they will look to try to make changes. What they have done is put a builder’s note out to say they will do that. In the building note, it says - and I will just quickly quote one part:
The people have since met with one person from the department and say this change to the legislation will take up to, or at least, one year before they can actually get a Certificate of Occupancy. People may ask: ‘Why is that important?’ These people cannot actually sell their house; it is pretty hard to sell a house without a Certificate of Occupancy. That is why I have put No 2 in there. If these are the right changes that need to happen, I want the government to commit to doing this straightaway, because these people are in a tough position. I have received legal advice, and this is what the legal advice says about this building note:
It points to the same amendment again. It will take more than a year. I have provided the case that says there is a problem with this process; that we need to have support. The problem with the process needs to be looked at. There is a problem with support to get people quantity surveyors so they know how much work is outstanding. There is definitely a need to end the concerns involving the certification of these houses that are partially completed, when they are completed.
The big issue is: how are these people going to pay for their houses to be completed? Some people are mortgaged up to the hilt. One family now has less than $3000, and they have still have 40% of their home to be completed. I know it is not normally government’s role to say: ‘We will finish those houses for you’ - I know that. However, government should admit some responsibility, because this builder should never have been licensed in the first place. A civil check of the Queensland website would have shown this bloke was an undischarged bankrupt from interstate. That is all that had to be done, and he would not have obtained a licence. I know other builders who have gone through this process, and they have had to go to hell and back trying to get some answers. But this bloke was licensed, and he should have never been licensed. People will say: ‘Oh, it is the real estate, or it is this, or it is that’. It is not that; he should never have been licensed.
I note the Chief Minister was on the radio on 8HA in Alice Springs. He was asked this by the DJ Adrian Renzi, and the Chief Minister said - and I am not quoting him - it was the fault of the real estate. People should get the professional indemnity off the real estate. There is only one way to do that: you have to take extensive and expensive legal action against the real estate. I can tell you, the real estate also employed this person, because they sold the house and land package. They checked the licence. They checked the licence and this bloke was licensed, and he was registered with HIA. The HIA relied on the licence check. This is where the system goes wrong.
For the Chief Minister to say: ‘Get the indemnity insurance off the public indemnity liability insurance of the real estate’, is not good enough. Imagine the lengthy court case it would have to take. These people do not even have $3000 and they have 40% of their house to finish. These people are in dire straits. The banks will end up foreclosing on these people unless we can come in and help. That is what I would like to see.
I know the government is working on the home builder insurance scheme. I believe if the right scheme is in place these people would be covered now. I am begging government to assist me to establish a fund to help cover the cost of work for these people. Project manage it if you have to, whatever, but just help some of these people. These people will lose their homes. They have saved all their lives, and if this bloke was never licensed in the first place, this would never have happened.
Madam Speaker, I will leave it there. I commend the motion. I know I have the support of 11 members in this Chamber, and I hope I get support of the other 14 members.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I support my colleague, the member for Braitling, in regard to this motion, in particular part 1, engaging a quantity surveyor, and also to establish a fund to cover the cost of works for those people whose homes are not completed due to the licensing of this particular builder.
Whilst I will not go into detail in regard to the situation and the issues of Carey Builders’ debacle in Central Australia, I wish to comment on a similar situation which occurred in the Top End, in the Darwin region in particular, which goes to the core of some of the problems we currently have with builders registration, parts of the Building Act, the lack of home warranty insurance, and the lack of this government’s attention to the construction industry and its regulation as a whole.
Recent building industry failures in the Territory highlight, yet again, this government’s failure to manage its own departments, failure of its own system of registration, failure to implement its own legislation properly, and failure to provide proper consumer protection. Wherever we look in the Territory, we see failures by this government in the building industry. They have failed in the area of builders’ registration, despite high hopes in 2006 that registration would work and would protect consumers. They have failed in certification, and we only have to mention the words ‘Red Rooster’ from Tennant Creek and the fact that most of the buildings in the town, including government buildings, were not compliant.
Then, as that matter progressed, we found that many buildings in the Territory were not compliant, and the government knew about this and, yet, did nothing. At the same time, the government allowed their departmental officers to go around the rural area terrorising families for living in sheds, even though they were built to code and structurally sound.
In response to this debacle about compliance, the government put in place a moratorium so that dwellings could become authorised and/or compliant for occupancy by June 2011. However, the government has not given details about what it is going to do at the end of June 2011 with the dwellings that cannot, or do not, meet compliance. I am sure many dwellings will not be compliant due to many factors out of the control of families, including dodgy builders going bust, such as Carey Builders in Alice Springs, and the Poretti Property Group in Darwin.
The government also set up a task force to find out how many government buildings were not compliant, and this report showed, from memory, most schools in the Territory were not compliant, including Darwin schools, along with many police stations. About 30% of government-owned and occupied buildings were not compliant. I know most of these building are, and were, generally, safe to occupy. However, that is not the point here. The point is this government is sloppy in its work and in implementing its own legislation on itself and its own properties.
Then, the government released a discussion paper on building regulations in the Territory and set up a reference group to oversee this review. I have no issue with that; it was a welcomed move. The reference group comprised industry people, which is only right and proper. It sounded pretty good; however, now the report is with the minister - and I know the report is with the minister - I ask the report and its recommendations now be made public as soon as possible.
Key areas the review was to cover can broadly fall into three categories: registration, certification and consumer protection. This latter item is interesting, as this Labor government promised to set up home warranty insurance. I quote from the media release of the minister at the time:
January 2007 - and what are we now? 2010 and still no scheme.
The government will argue it is complex and complicated and, yes, it is complex and complicated to set up a warranty insurance scheme. However, all other jurisdictions, or the majority of them, have been able to set up schemes and they have done it well. In most states, the consumer of domestic building work is protected against their builder’s faulty workmanship or the inability to complete a job. While each legislation is different, the fundamentals of protection are the same and they are: the protection of failure to rectify defective workmanship and/or failure to complete building work. Why has it been four years since the minister’s promise to set up a home warranty scheme in the Territory and nothing has happened? Why has this Labor government failed Territory families by not providing protection from dodgy builders?
They have been lobbied by industry, families and other stakeholders who have suffered as a result of rogue builders. Why have they not reviewed and tightened the builders’ registration scheme and checked whether a builder has been declared bankrupt interstate and recommended not to be reregistered elsewhere? Many questions; however, no answers. This government has stood aside and let rogue builders ruin families’ lives, and they should be ashamed of themselves.
Previously, I have spoken on the Poretti Property Group in Darwin. I can advise the company has finally been caught by ASIC and put into liquidation, but not without severe financial and emotional loss to at least five families in the Darwin region I know about and have tried to assist. Time and time again, I have spoken on this matter and this particular builder. I wrote letters; families wrote letters. Subcontractors tried to get their payments. Numerous small claims were put into the court system. Numerous complaints were made to the department and the minister’s office. Even the Chief Minister’s Chief of Staff got involved. All to no avail, as this government did nothing when everyone in town and in the industry knew this fellow was dodgy.
What does it take to get any action under the legislation and regulation? Now we have half-completed houses, non-compliant, and the government says it will take upwards of 12 months to get amendments through to sort that problem out. Why was there not a full investigation and audit of this company when it was obvious something was wrong? All I can think is the department is grossly under-resourced to undertake their duties perhaps or, more importantly, the minister was not on top of the portfolio and not really concerned or interested in what was happening to Territory families.
Let me give some details of the businesses - and this is not an extensive or exclusive list – which had to report and spend money taking the Poretti Property Group to the Small Claims Court for tens of thousands of dollars: Ozblock, a lighting shop, Kitchen Concepts, plumbing, Darwin Plumbing Supplies, aluminium places, pest control places, window people, tiling people, steel line people, metal industries, welding, grind techs, concreting, plastering, reinforcement rods, more plastering, screen builders, pool people - and the list goes on. This information is on the public record. That should have sent signals to government. This fellow was in and out of the Small Claims Court every second week as we were tracking it; hence, the names of these companies.
Madam Speaker, I support this motion in total. I urge the government and the minister to get on top of this whole issue of builders’ registration and home warranty insurance and compliance as quickly as possible because we need to do it better. We need to make the system better so people can have comfort when they make the biggest financial decision of their lives; that they will end up with a house, and a house that is sound and compliant.
Mr McCARTHY (Construction): Madam Speaker, the government will not be supporting this motion in its entirety. We will be seeking to amend the motion and will be supporting part 2. This is the best means to help affected families get their homes back on track and completed. Part 2 is already under way, and my department will be speaking directly to the home builders about providing assistance for certification. I have met with the residents group, and what I am focused on is helping these people through their ordeal.
The Department of Lands and Planning has set up a hotline and affected owners have been able to call and receive assistance in the form of general advice about moving forward with a view to completing their homes. To date, 10 of the 13 families affected have taken advantage of the hotline.
I have been to Alice twice to hear the concerns of the affected parties. On the first trip, I agreed the first course of action was to arrange for a senior representative from the Department of Lands and Planning to visit Alice Springs to meet personally and individually with those affected. This happened last week, with the meetings focused on discussing options to get the incomplete homes fixed. Seven families took advantage of the visit and met to discuss their personal circumstances and their options for moving forward. The circumstances between families vary and included: one whose home is completed and certified; two families whose homes are nearly completed - plumbing, electrical and cabinet works outstanding - and the indications are these can be completed without the aid of another builder; and four families whose houses are at lock-up but require considerable internal and fit-out works. The department will continue to be available to provide advice, and will contact families to check on their progress.
From a building certification perspective, there is no purpose in engaging a quantity surveyor. It is the cost of the remaining works that is important to finishing the project, and this can be established through quotes from builders willing to undertake the work.
The Department of Lands and Planning can assist people through the building certification process to assess the building works undertaken by Carey Builders. Through providing assistance with certification the owners of unfinished homes will be able to take the appropriate documentation to a new builder and get the work completed. In the past, it has proven very difficult to attract other builders to complete partially built homes as the new builder is unsure about the building works to date and their compliance with the Building Code.
Government is committed to the impasse relating to the requirements for a builders’ declaration by amending the Building Act. Urgent consideration is being given to the drafting of amendments to the Building Act which I will be introducing into the House for consideration in the near future. As the process of amending legislation may take some time, government, nevertheless, wants to assist owners through this difficult period and has provided direction and assurance to affected parties. The Director of Building Control has issued a building note to the building certification industry and has written to affected homeowners who have reached an impasse on current building projects advising the government will address the deficiencies in the act, and specifying the circumstances under which building works can proceed in the meantime.
There have been calls for the government to provide financial assistance to affected owners. Government will not be providing financial assistance. This is consistent with the response of government in previous cases where a building firm has ceased operations and property owners were similarly affected. It is inappropriate for government to use taxpayers’ money to prop up failed contractual obligations. While government will not be providing financial assistance, there are ways to help those affected. As I have already mentioned, providing timely and accurate professional advice is the best means to help the affected owners through this time.
Many owners have already contacted the department through the hotline and received general advice about moving forward with a view to completing their homes. Second, we are helping people through the building certification process by helping with the cost of engaging independent certifiers to assess the works performed by Carey Builders.
As mentioned previously, we will move to improve the Building Act to remove the impasse that has occurred where a builder is no longer able to sign the final declaration required for the issuing of an occupancy permit. I hope to receive the support of the opposition when I introduce these amendments.
On the final matter of the referral to the Ombudsman, I will not be referring the matter of registration of Mr Randal Carey to the Ombudsman or the Auditor-General for further investigation. I advise the member for Braitling the referral of an issue to the Ombudsman does not take a motion in parliament. Any person aggrieved by the actions of a department can refer the matter to the Ombudsman for investigation. This is appropriate and exactly why we have an Ombudsman.
The builder has gone into liquidation and, as such, it is not an issue of the failure of registration, nor the conduct of the department. Mr Carey is being prosecuted by the Director of Building Control for working as a building practitioner while not being registered. Given that court action is under way, it is not appropriate to comment further on this matter. What I can say is the court proceedings are continuing and Carey Builders will again be in court this week. Government’s role is to hold this builder accountable for unlawfully building and, in our view, unlawfully entering into contracts with individuals.
We will continue to provide advice and assistance to affected families to enable them to complete their homes. The department will also increase communication to the public to ensure people do their research and carry out checks before engaging a builder, including getting legal advice on a building contract.
Madam Speaker, I move the following amendment to the motion:
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, before you sit down, do you have the amendment there, and signed it? Thank you. If you can get that circulated very quickly, thank you.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I seek leave to move an amendment first, and have it dealt with first, before we debate the government’s amendment.
Madam SPEAKER: I do not think you can do that. I will just get some advice on that.
Of course, if you are seeking leave, if there is one voice that is dissenting, you cannot do that. Member for Nelson, sorry, I just ask what it is you want to do first.
Mr WOOD: I have an amendment I am going to put to the House, which contains the amendment the minister is putting forward in his amendment, added to which I have two more sections. It would make sense my amendment was dealt with first, and the government can consider whether it will support my amendment, which includes the government’s amendment. If it is defeated, you can still come back and vote on the government’s amendment.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, would you mind just resuming your seat? I am just going to seek advice. No one has ever asked to do this before.
Dr BURNS: It is hard to know whether I am speaking to the amendment.
Madam SPEAKER: You are like me; you do not know what the amendment is.
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! It seems to me the minister has laid his amendment on the table. The member for Nelson has said that, substantially, his amendment mirrors that but it has two extra parts to it, as I understand. It is a bit hard to judge when you are on your feet. My suggestion would be we deal with the minister’s amendment first and, then, we can deal with the other two issues put forward by the member for Nelson after that.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, it is possible for you to move an amendment to the amendment.
Mr WOOD: I can move the amendment to the amendment. I suppose when you see the amendment, I do not know whether …
Madam SPEAKER: You need to stand, member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD: Sorry, Madam Speaker. I am happy to do that. I will let others work out whether that makes it more complicated to debate, but I am happy to move an amendment to the amendment.
Madam SPEAKER: That is the normal process. If you want to move an amendment to the amendment, then we listen to your speech, then we put the amendment to the amendment, and then the amendment. Member for Nelson, if you would like to so move.
Mr WOOD: I now have to try to work out how to make this clear, Madam Speaker, so one …
Madam SPEAKER: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in the debate, if that is easier? No, they do not. Okay, member for Nelson.
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I am just trying to clarify; not trying to obstruct the member for Nelson here. The member for Nelson will be speaking to the minister’s amendment and his own amendment to the amendment?
Madam SPEAKER: And the original motion. Anyone who speaks from now on is speaking on those. Once the member for Nelson has given his speech, moves the amendment to the amendment, then we will move the motion. I will put the motion of the minister’s, then I will move the motion of the minister’s with the amendment, and then after that, we are all debating whatever happens.
Dr BURNS: Yes, the former member for Greatorex called it a telescopic situation, but he is right. I am just trying to also clarify whether the member for Braitling has speaking rights to the amendment to the amendment.
Madam SPEAKER: He does. He has speaking rights from now on, because he has not spoken to either the amendment, or the amendment to the amendment. As a person who has spoken in the debate, he is allowed to speak on the amendments, as is the member for Goyder, but other members who speak after this point can only speak once in a debate. I think we are there.
Dr Burns: I believe we are all clear on that, Madam Speaker.
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, I just need a point of clarification. My amendment originally was to amend the member for Braitling’s motion. If you are saying I am amending the minister’s amendment, then perhaps I have to word this differently. That is the only thing …
Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry, member for Nelson. I thought you said you wanted to amend the minister’s motion that included the minister’s motion. That is why we thought it was an amendment to an amendment.
Mr WOOD: I can put forward what I have here, and I will take advice from you or the Clerk as to whether this is a suitable amendment.
Madam SPEAKER: That might be the easiest if it is an amendment to an amendment.
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, I move the motion be amended as follows: omit all words after ‘immediately’ and in their place insert:
Madam SPEAKER: And you so move. Sign that, member for Nelson, and we will get a copy circulated.
Mr WOOD: Certainly. Do I now speak to that?
Madam SPEAKER: You speak to that, member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD: I have listened to the member for Braitling discussing a really important issue. The member for Braitling is doing what we all do as local members regardless of our politics; that is, we try to influence and help those people in our electorates who are in need. Of course, sometimes people get themselves into problems by lack of judgment and find themselves in difficulties they wish they had not got into. In this particular case, some of the people who have lost out because of the deregistration of this company, may fall into that category. Others may have been doing the right thing and still found themselves in difficulty because they have paid their money up to a certain point and the house still has not been completed.
The government is not necessarily a charitable organisation or the same as a bank, but there are times when the government has to look at the situation based on merit, and this is one of the particular cases where it should.
The member for Braitling has quite clearly outlined there has been a number of issues in relation to how this company came to operate in the Northern Territory. I certainly think the government has to answer some of those questions as to why this company slipped through the net and how it was allowed to operate in the Northern Territory.
The facts are we can argue the toss about who is to blame for this and who is to blame for that, but the reality, as the member for Braitling said, is we have some Territorians who have invested money into getting a house built in Alice Springs; a company has gone broke; these people have lost their money and they have houses they cannot live in because they cannot bring those houses up the standard to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy.
What is the answer? They cannot get a certificate for the house at the present time; the house is not completed. There are some complications about whether another builder can take over in relation to registration. There are basic difficulties. If a person walks away from this house, what happens to it? They lose all their money and have a half-completed house or a two-thirds completed house. What is the benefit to the community in just wiping our hands and saying too bad? I do not think there is any benefit.
Governments need to have some compassion. They do not need to look at everything from a purely legalistic point of view. On the other hand, I realise it is not their job just to hand out money to anyone who has got into strife because, if that happened - and we have had a number of housing companies go bust - there may be other reasons people get into financial difficulties, outside of building. The government is not set up to be some charitable organisation which just gives people money willy-nilly. However, in this case, the government can help, not by giving people a free handout, but by giving people an adequate amount of money to complete their houses.
I do not believe it would be too much to ask the government to engage a suitably qualified person - whether that is a building surveyor, a quantity surveyor, an engineer, or a licensed builder - to go to each one of these houses and give an estimate of how much it will cost to bring these houses up to a standard where they could be given a Certificate of Occupancy. My understanding, in the scheme of things, is it would not be a huge amount of money. It would be a reasonable amount of money, but it is not the sort of money that is going to break the government. The first thing we need to agree on is the government would put in someone to find out how much to get these houses up to a standard where a Certificate of Occupancy could be signed off on.
There are issues in relation to the second item, which is to:
My understanding, from some discussions I have had, is the government can change that and make it a much quicker process. The word that the member for Braitling has been given is this could take anywhere between 12 and 18 months. That is not good enough. You are leaving houses out in the weather that have not been completely sealed, which means the houses would deteriorate and the value of those houses would diminish. Obviously, the minister who has put forward a motion supporting that particular section of the original motion will be able to explain whether this period can be shortened. That is the very reason it is in the motion, and it is in my motion. We are trying to make this system work quicker so people are not further disadvantaged by waiting for particular legislation to come into place, which might be 12 to 18 months. It is good the government is actually supporting that second provision.
The third provision is that the government provide the necessary funds calculated by the relevant qualified person, as in part 1, to complete these unfinished houses, and that amount be held as a covenant on the title of the land to be recovered on the sale of the property. That concept is something I was used to seeing when I was the President of the Litchfield Shire Council. We would get people, especially pensioners or older people, who may not have had the ability to pay the rates, for instance. We might have had some people also who did not realise they should have been paying rates and they built up quite a debt. What the council did then was say they did not want to put people into too much financial stress; if they did not have the ability to pay. We would put that amount on to the title as a covenant so, when either the person passed away and the property was sold, or the person decided to move on, that payment was immediately made to the council.
What I am saying is here is a way of the government helping people, showing their compassion, but not, at the same time saying, ‘Here is a freebie’. Obviously, it will help these people in the short term because they will be able to complete their house.
They will have lost money in the sense they will be paying off money from the bank for a house that originally was never completed. The government has stepped in and said: ‘We will give you enough money to complete the house, but what we will do is put that money on the title of your block as a covenant’. When the block is sold they will have to pay that amount of money back. That will be a decision for the people who live in that house, but it gives them a chance to finish their house, to put a roof over their heads, and to think about where they want to go - if they want to stay or if they want to sell their house. However, at least it has taken the stress off the people because, to complete the houses now is probably impossible, unless they can get some extra money from somewhere. I imagine most people are stretched to the hilt just to build the house. If they have to get another $50 000 or $60 000 or $70 000, or whatever it is to complete the house, that may be just totally impossible. Their financial situation may not allow that to happen.
This motion says the government understands people are in dire straits. They are not saying: ‘We are just giving you a freebie’. That would be a dangerous precedent. It is saying: ‘We will allow you to build your house, complete your house, continue your life without the stress that is caused by a company over which there is some concern, as it has slipped through the systems and been allowed to operate in Alice Springs without people fully understanding this company has gone bankrupt in Queensland’.
The government should really support this motion. The member for Braitling has done what any other member in this House would do when they find there are people in their community who are having tough times. It is not saying to those people: ‘We are covering up your mistakes’. If people have made a mistake that is something they are going to have a look at the next time they get a loan. I suppose once bitten twice shy, but the point is they are not getting the funds free in the sense that, at some stage in the future, the money will be given back to the government when the land is sold. We know land and property is continually going up, so there is a fair chance that amount of money will be able to be paid back without people having serious loss in earnings when they sell their property.
The other side of this debate is, I was one who thought the compulsory home building insurance scheme was in operation. We debated this in parliament some time ago. It came as a surprise to me to realise it basically had been shelved. My understanding is it had been shelved because there had been a Senate report which said these schemes are not very good; they are not that successful. That may be the case, but there could have been a little more publicity from the government in relation to that, to tell people the reasons why the particular insurance program which was going to be put in place through this legislation was not going to be enacted.
If we do not have that particular type of insurance, what are we going to have? We do not want the same thing that has happened in Alice Springs to occur again. I do not want the government having to fork out money for people getting into difficulty all the time; that would be a ridiculous situation. We need to look at the situation when it comes to compulsory home building insurance. I certainly am interested, in this debate, if the minister could update us with where we are in relation to that type of insurance and if there is anything that will make the government move quicker on finding a solution to the compulsory home building insurance issue. You would not want them to be handing out money all the time to fix up the collapse of various housing companies in the Territory; you would want to ensure onus of responsibility was not yours, but was part of an insurance strategy which was set in place.
There are two sides to this motion. One is the government could help those people. I do not believe it would put the government under any great financial strain, knowing they will get that money back anyway. The other part of this debate is what we are going to do about housing companies that collapse. What is the solution? Does the government have a solution? Are they working through a new process? We need to hear what the government is doing. We have had companies in town, in Darwin, collapse recently; and this company has collapsed. We do not want this to recur.
We have discussed this issue in parliament before, and something needs to happen because there is a record of housing companies collapsing in the Northern Territory - going right back 10 years ago a company collapsed and caused heaps of problems for the people who bought houses through that company.
Madam Speaker, I hope the government will support this motion; it is a way around the government giving a handout and the government is saying it understands the difficulties these people have. I do not really see any other solution to fixing this problem. The government would show the community great compassion. I do not think it sets a precedent; you have to look at the situation on its merit. If the government is concerned about a precedent, then let us get the compulsory home building Insurance system up and running so we do not have to go through this whole sad affair again.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, could I just get a clarification on what we are talking about?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, I will call you for both your final comments and also your comments on the amendment, and the amendment to the amendment.
Mr GILES: Now I am confused. So I am talking to all three things?
Madam SPEAKER: You are speaking to your final comments, including the two amendments.
Mr GILES: I thank the member for Goyder for her comments. I thank the minister for his comments, and the member for Nelson for his comments. We have some argy-bargy politically here, and none of it is personal inside the Chamber. But this is an issue where the person wears the issues on their sleeve. This is an important issue. All three speakers have taken it in that way, although the member for Goyder spoke more in regard to the home warranty insurance matter.
In relation to the amendment put by the minister, he spoke in regard to urgency around certification, which I understand is the process that has been put to try to fix that certification issue. However, that is not a speedy process. I take the advice the member for Nelson has provided in regard to that motion put by government; that this can be done in a more timely fashion, rather than 12 to 18 months for the passing of that legislation. So, as it reads - if the necessary provisions to ensure certification capacity for those builders completing the outstanding works on those houses identified so as to complete full building certification of these homes - if that can be done in a timely manner, that is thoroughly acceptable.
That was the issue the owners of the buildings had, and what the legal advice was: (1) we were not sure whether the building notes said were quite right, and (2) in particular, the timeliness of it. I am happy to take the minister on his word it will be done with urgency. He did say he hopes he gets our support, and he will get our support in that matter. Of course, we will have to look at it first to ensure there are no other red herrings in there. You will get support on that matter, I can say in good faith, minister.
I also note the minister spoke about an improved communication process to the public. I believe that is a very important issue; that was something which was lacking in this. I will jump between what the minister said and what the member for Nelson said. This is an isolated case, and we do not want to set a precedent of helping people who have fallen victims under a ‘buyer beware’ situation, or people who could have been covered under the home warranty insurance scheme if it was up and running. This is a separate issue where there were some problems inherently wrong in the process. Whether it was the process itself, or whether the process was not properly designed, or whether it was not followed, are different areas to consider.
However, this is a different case. This is different to Augusto, and it is different to what the member for Goyder spoke about. This is a situation where we should not let the little people down. The minister has said he will work on a model to improve communication to the public, and I assume that means both by the department and the Builders Registration Board. I will take him on his word that he will seek to improve those situations. I am happy to sit down with the minister at any time and talk about some of the intricacies I have found to be a concern, and try to work together to make these things happen.
In relation to the comments made by the member for Nelson about the home warranty insurance scheme, that has been quite an interesting web. I have spent a great deal of time going through all that information, through all different jurisdictions’ models, through the changes in models in Tasmania, New South Wales and Victoria, and potential changes in Western Australia. I also had a good look at Queensland.
I have been on the record before saying this Chamber could do with an investigative committee structure to work on things outside the Chamber in a more collegial fashion to try to overcome some of the issues we have ...
Mr Wood: The CTC.
Mr GILES: Well, I did; I proposed the CTC. You were not interested in that.
I believe a home warranty insurance scheme is an issue both sides of parliament want to work on. If I had found a mechanism to recommend the home warranty insurance scheme go to a committee so members of this Chamber could work together to find a solution, I would have done that.
That option is not there now, but I encourage the minister to have his department investigate that - I would not say ‘emergency’ - in terms of urgency. I do not mean tomorrow, but get it under way pretty quickly because there are other people who are still building their houses. If land is released and more people build their houses, this is going to be an issue for many more people. People would like to think they have the appropriate cover. I encourage the minister to have a good look at Queensland. That is a good starting point we can go from in relation to the home warranty insurance scheme. I am more than happy to work with him on a bipartisan basis, no guns, to work out a solution to solve some of that issue; if you would like that, minister.
In relation to item No 1 in the amended amendment:
I support that amendment. With regard to a suitably qualified person, I am happy to take advice from the minister or his department. I understand - and I had a quick chat to the member for Nelson - it needs to be a quantity surveyor. I could be wrong, but I understand that is the requirement. If that is not the requirement, and a qualified, appropriately licensed builder or a structural engineer - whoever it needs to be; I would take advice - 14 days is fantastic. That person can get down there urgently and identify exactly how much is required to complete the unfinished works.
I am a little reluctant to support a licensed builder for several reasons; mainly, they see this as an open cheque book and they can write whatever amounts they want. I have concerns with that. I also recognise some of the other things.
In relation to No 3:
It is a really good medium between where I started from and what the government’s position was. This is a way we can send the signal we are not giving out free money. I have not been a supporter of free money, but what I have been trying to do is identify a solution that could help these people get their homes built.
The reasons an interest-free loan, or loan of any kind, was not suitable was (1) many people did not have the capacity to borrow against some sort of equity - their equity was already tied up, or (2) they simply could not afford the repayments. People have offered to give money. There has been an offer out there before: ‘We will loan you $100 000 but you have to pay it all back’. People cannot pay that back within one or two years, or they cannot afford the repayments, or all those things. This solves some of those concerns, and people will have to pay it back on the sale of the property - which is a fantastic idea and one which I had not thought of at the start; so, well done. Putting that money in interest free, and government knowing it will get it back at a later time is a sound idea, and I commend the member for Nelson for suggesting it.
Finally, I say ‘sordid’ is a word which has many negative connotations that promote disrespect. I do not mean that, but it has been a sordid affair for these people from an emotional perspective. Some people are strong; some people are not so strong with that emotional component. I have actually witnessed, over the last six weeks, people going from: ‘She’ll be right,’ to being just devastated. We know what happens to some people in that devastation phase.
I thank the Chamber for giving me a sounding board, and the compassion to air my grievances in this manner. I thank the member for Goyder and particularly the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Blain, for allowing me to bring this to the opposition table. It is not something which normally gets pushed forward, and I have had full support from my team. I have had conversations with the member for Macdonnell - thank you for your support. Member for Nelson, thank you for your amendment.
I am not sure how to say what I support because I support what the member for Barkly, the minister, has put forward, and I support what the member for Nelson has put forward, which includes what the member for Barkly put forward. So, while I do not have to vote at this point of time, I thank the minister for putting his amendment forward with that one component, and I thank the member for Nelson for his other two.
Before I wind up, regarding the fourth part of the motion for the referral – to put it in a nutshell - to the Ombudsman. I did not really want this to go to the Ombudsman; what I wanted was someone to have a good look at the system and the process. I wanted someone to have a look at how Randal Carey was licensed and how we can improve that system; what sort of conciliation body there is for when people have concerns with their builders and how that may be better arbitrated in the future. That is a good point to come out of this whole system. It would be good to have a look at the processes of bank payments, certifiers, and real estate people, and ensure if there are any issues, we can tidy it up so it does not happen again. Our role is to try to protect people in a regulatory sense with some type of external review; whatever body that may be, would be good for this.
The government is involved in legal action on one, or possibly more, fronts about this. I will not go into those details. However, unfortunately for government, it will spend a lot of money on that legal process. It would have been better if this whole situation had not started in the first place. I encourage them, while I let No 4 go, to get some advice about how they can improve this for the future.
Madam Speaker, once again, I thank our members for their support and for their encouragement and for listening to this matter.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, we have a more complex situation than normal here. We have an amendment to an amendment but, in reality, it is an amendment to the original motion. Then we have an amendment moved by the minister.
Just so you know what is going on here, if the first amendment is passed and the second one is passed, that becomes part of the whole amendment. Then, we put the question of the amended motion.
I am quite happy to take questions.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes. Could you run through that one more time for me, please – without trying to be funny about it?
Madam SPEAKER: Yes. In fact, what we have before us is the member for Nelson moved an amendment to an amendment. However, when you look at the words, it is actually an amendment to the original motion.
Mr Elferink: That is correct.
Madam SPEAKER: The Minister for Construction moved an amendment to the original motion as well. I do not know how this is going to play out but, say, for example, the member for Nelson’s motion passes, then that is immediately an amendment to the original motion. Then I still have to put the motion relating to the Minister for Construction. If that is passed, then that is added to the amendment as already passed by the Assembly.
Mr Elferink: It is added to?
Madam SPEAKER: It gets added to because of the wording, because it is a part of the motion. Then, we put the motion of the amended motion. So, I am hoping for the best here.
Mr Giles: May I ask a question?
Madam SPEAKER: Yes. This is not the normal way we do things.
Mr GILES: No, no. But if I supported the member for Nelson’s motion, and then the minister’s motion comes up, and if we support that, does that mean we override the original support for the member for Nelson?
Madam SPEAKER: No, the advice I have received is the wording for that one would then go on to the amended motion, and then we put the motion again.
Mr Elferink: As a whole?
Madam SPEAKER: As a whole, so it would be 1, 2, 3, 4 instead of 1, 2, 3. That is what I understand.
Mr ELFERINK: Just by way of clarification, should both amendments be successful then the motion will read as incorporating the amendments of the member for Nelson as well as the minister, and then the whole thing is put to the House? Is that correct, Madam Speaker?
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! We will be able to help clarify the situation for members of the House. Scenario A: we deal with the amendment put by the member for Nelson first. In that scenario, if it is passed, then this becomes the new motion on the table. The member for Nelson’s words replaces the member for Braitling’s words, and it is on the table.
Then, we deal with the amendment put by the minister for Infrastructure. If, under this scenario, it was accepted, it would replace all of these words, and only this would lie on the table …
Mr Mills: Yes, it replaces it.
Ms LAWRIE: Okay? Because it is omitting the words following ‘that’. So, if you do not want what the Infrastructure minister has put on the table, then you defeat this one.
Mr Mills: Yes, that is right.
Ms LAWRIE: Yes?
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, we understand that, so I ...
Madam SPEAKER: I am glad somebody understands.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, the first question, in that case, will be whether the member for Nelson’s amendment be agreed to, I suspect.
Madam SPEAKER: That is right. So, the question is that the amendment, as moved by the member for Nelson, be agreed to.
Amendment agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: The question now is that the minister’s motion be agreed to.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 12 Noes 13
Mrs Aagaard Ms Anderson
Dr Burns Mr Bohlin
Mr Gunner Ms Carney
Mr Hampton Mr Chandler
Mr Henderson Mr Conlan
Mr Knight Mr Elferink
Ms Lawrie Mr Giles
Mr McCarthy Mr Mills
Ms McCarthy Ms Purick
Ms Scrymgour Mr Styles
Mr Vatskalis Mr Tollner
Ms Walker Mr Westra Van Holthe
Mr Wood
Amendment negatived.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, we have a third motion to pass now. The question now is that the motion be amended.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! So the question, I thought the …
Madam SPEAKER: I think you still have to have a third motion, do you not?
Mr ELFERINK: No, no. It is my understanding that there is no other question before the Chair at the moment.
Mr Wood: Yes, there is.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! You are voting on the amended motion now, because you have accepted an amendment. You have defeated an amendment, and now you vote on the amended motion.
Mr Elferink: Oh, so, the motion, as amended, be agreed to?
Ms LAWRIE: Yes.
Madam SPEAKER: Indeed, it was what I was saying. The question is that the motion, as amended, be agreed to.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
There are a couple of minor changes to this bill which were introduced when the bill was introduced last year to expand the definition of ‘appropriate authority’ to make it consistent for use throughout the bill, and to change the penalty regime so the penalty regime reflects units rather than a dollar amount. It is introduced with those amendments, from when it was before this House previously.
Members will recall the bill was before the House recently. I noticed the member for Karama raised her eyebrows when I gave notice of it yesterday. I noticed another remark from the member for Karama who seemed to believe it has been brought before this House for the third or fourth time now. Of course, there are reasons for doing that.
First, it is an amended version of what was brought before the House previously. Also, the Country Liberals have a commitment to provide Aboriginal people with a mechanism and a regime that allows them to be far more empowered than they are presently under the Aboriginal Land Act, and to give them some further choices in how they deal with permits. That is quite contrary to what we are seeing from Labor governments, both federally and in the Northern Territory. I shall go on shortly to explain more about that.
Since the time this bill was introduced last, around 12 months ago, circumstances have changed and more information has come to light which makes this bill even more relevant than it was last time it was before the House. It is appropriate to revisit this legislation.
I am not going to make this debate terribly lengthy and, rather than regurgitate what I said in my second reading speech on 29 April 2009, all of which still applies, and what I said in my closing debate on 24 February 2010, which also still applies, I simply add the information that has come to my ears, and also to the ears of other members of the Council of Territory Cooperation chaired by the member for Nelson.
We all know, and it is widely accepted - I do not know too many people who would disagree with this - one of the major impediments to economic development in Indigenous communities is the permit system on Aboriginal land. The raising of permits can, and certainly does, stymie development of Indigenous communities, Indigenous lands, and the economic opportunity contained therein.
There was an attempt by the Howard federal government to address this issue under the Northern Territory Emergency Response where five-year leases were taken out over those communities and areas within the NT which were affected by the intervention. The requirement for Aboriginal land permits was, in fact, lifted. This applies to common areas of those areas under the leases, and also access ways to those leases as well. No sooner did the Rudd government come to power than the minister responsible - that is minister Macklin - removed the lifting of the requirement for permits to access points, along access routes to those areas affected by the five-year leases. We had a situation where there was no permit required to enter a lease, but you could not get to a lease if you were travelling on a public road on Aboriginal land to get there.
The classic example of that is, I believe, Peppimenarti. There are two leases at Peppimenarti - one over the community and one over the airstrip. As it happens, the airstrip is about 1 km or so from the community. If you land at the airstrip you do not need a permit, currently. If you can magically teleport into the community itself you do not need a permit for that either. The fact is you cannot actually drive from the airstrip to the community without a permit even though it is only about 1 km away. That is absolutely ridiculous. I do not know whether that particular case is common knowledge. I suspect it is not, but it ought to be.
But it gets better. There are now, over some communities, 40-year and 99-year leases; that is, some of those communities that were subject to the intervention five-year leases. Those new leases – 40-year and 99-year leases - are being negotiated by the Office of Township Leasing, the federal authority set up to manage this task specifically. What we find being negotiated back into those leases is the requirement for permits to enter those communities. What has actually happened is John Howard opened those communities up; Macklin closed them down one step and stopped people getting to the communities; and the Office of Township Leasing is taking the final step, now stopping anyone from going to those communities without a permit. What we have done is a complete 360 on this, burying those communities under the weight of the permit system once again.
This information came to my ears and to the other members of the Council of Territory Cooperation through Mr Pat Watson who gave evidence before the committee on 14 April 2010 where he said - and I quote from the transcript. I do know whether this is a corrected transcript but I quote from the information I have. He refers to leases negotiated under the Office of Township Leasing. The Chairman said:
Which is what was being referred to at the time:
Mr Watson replied:
The Chairman said:
So that town is not an open town?
Mr Watson said:
Then later in the evidence that was given, Mr Chairman said:
I said: ‘Not so much as a permit but as a condition of the lease’, thinking that that is how the permit system is being brought back into it through that lease system. The Chairman continued:
Mr Watson said:
It is abundantly plain and obvious that permits to these communities which are now being struck under 40-year and 99-year leases will have the full weight of the Aboriginal permits legislation upon them. It really defeats the entire purpose of the original intent of the intervention in respect to opening up Aboriginal communities and lands to normalise them. That is a term I am sure I have heard the other side of the House use as well. They were looking, through their Growth Towns Strategy, to normalise Aboriginal communities. You cannot normalise any place if you make it different from what is considered to be the norm, or the mainstream, in the Northern Territory. The permits system caused those communities to fall into that trap.
Once again, these communities become a closed shop. So much for the openness and accountability that is supposed, allegedly, to be the hallmark of this government. No longer will media crews - and I believe there was a Channel 7 media crew sent out to report on the progress on SIHIP - have access to those communities where the Office of Town Leasing leases have had the requirement for permits reinstated. No longer will they be able to report on the appalling state of the failed Rudd and Henderson SIHIP project.
Originally, this amendment was put together for the purpose of facilitating access to a class of person - namely fishermen, as an example - to Aboriginal intertidal waters. In its current state, that remains quite true. The situation regarding the reinstating of permits under the Office of Township Leasing leases changes those circumstances considerably. I can flag that, perhaps, there may even be some amendments to this bill later to better deal with the changes of a permit situation under the aforementioned leases.
You can plainly see the current regime of Labor governments, both federally and in the Northern Territory, support the introduction, or the reintroduction, of permits in all Aboriginal communities. There has certainly been no evidence given to me to make me believe otherwise. It goes to the rhetoric and spin we hear from the other side of the House. They say they are interested in economic development within Aboriginal communities. They have a whole policy around growth towns, but I fail to see - and I suspect Territorians and Aboriginal people themselves will fail to see - just how economic development can take place in these communities under the current regime of Aboriginal permits.
The amendment I have brought to the House today reflects only in relation to the intertidal waters. However, it is the beginning of a continuing commitment from the Country Liberals to try to open up the Northern Territory to economic development by not necessarily lifting the permit system, but certainly making it easier for Aboriginal people to determine who may come on to their land, into their communities, and the ease by which they can achieve that.
I wonder whether Indigenous residents in some communities, and some land councils, might like to be able to issue a blanket permit for - wait for it - these type of people, these classes of people. Would it not be great if they could issue a blanket permit to builders and tradesmen? Leave the fisherman aside. Yes, they can have, if this were to be passed, access to the intertidal waters. However, would it not be nice if we could get to a situation where a land council could say: ‘Yes, we can issue one permit to all the employees of a specific company working at Wadeye’, for example, or ‘We could issue one blanket permit to a group of contractors who are engaged with a specific alliance’, rather than having to issue permit after permit after permit because the Aboriginal Land Act says at the moment you can only issue a permit to an individual. There is no provision within that act to do anything other than issue a permit to an individual. You cannot issue a permit to a group or a class of people. With this amendment to the Aboriginal Lands Act, that is just what we are trying to achieve.
Once again, please let me reassure all members of this House this amendment is not designed to facilitate a carte blanche circumnavigation of the permit system. Quite the contrary. It is designed in an attempt to provide a vehicle by which traditional owners or relevant land councils can open up, by way of a general exemption, Aboriginal land - specifically in this case intertidal zones - to the general public or a particular class of the public. Again, the proposed amendment does not in any way derogate from current provisions of the act, but provides a new section that complements the existing provisions.
I maintain this proposed amendment should not be considered controversial, yet, I suspect it will not attract the support of the government; the current permit system will remain just as it is. If this amendment to the Aboriginal Lands Act is passed, it just gives Aboriginal people more power to determine more easily who can come on to their land.
Madam Speaker, I commend the Aboriginal Land Amendment (Intertidal Waters) Bill to honourable members. I table a copy of the bill and accompanying explanatory memorandum.
Madam SPEAKER: You need to seek leave to table that, Member for Katherine.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I seek leave to table a copy of the bill and a copy of the explanatory memorandum.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
MOTION
Establishment of Standing Committee
Territory Indigenous Expenditure Review Committee
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I move - That –
1. The Assembly establish a Standing Committee to be known as the Territory Indigenous Expenditure Review Committee.
Madam Speaker, you will recall, in the last sittings of this parliament, I brought this motion to the House for consideration only for it to be rejected by the members of the Labor government and the Independent member for Nelson. At the time, I was saddened at the decision to reject this worthwhile and necessary motion because I believed it was a significant opportunity missed by this parliament to introduce a higher level of scrutiny of where money allocated to Indigenous Territorians is expended.
This watchdog role would have worked on two levels. First, it would have ended the blame game when it came to attacks on government of all persuasions in relation to where Indigenous money is spent. It is no secret this Labor government has received a large measure of scrutiny from inside and outside this parliament about the spending of federal and Territory monies over a number of years. Academia, the Northern Territory Council of Social Services, the Commonwealth Grants Commission, even the federal government have all, at different times, asked the very basic question: where is the money going? They do this because they see bucket loads of money being allocated for Indigenous programs - including housing, education, health, law and order - that appear never to reach their intended target.
On the eve of another budget, it is worth revisiting some of the figures that came out of the Treasurer’s 2009-10 statement. It will involve the expenditure of $4bn, including more than $1bn on Health; $808m for Education; $447m on Local Government and Housing; and $279m in Planning and Infrastructure portfolios. It goes without saying this is a very large budget - an enormous budget - for a jurisdiction of just 220 000 people.
Then, there is Commonwealth money allocated to Aboriginal Territorians outside of our own budget. The figure is vague, but it too is in the order of billions of dollars spent independent of the Territory government and targeting specific Aboriginal needs. The reason our per-capita budget is so large is to address disadvantage amongst the poorest Territorians, many of whom, of course, are Aboriginal people.
I was in the mall in Darwin on Saturday with the former member for Port Darwin, Kerry Sacilotto, and two Aboriginal people come up to me to report they had just been flogged for their basic cards here in the city of Darwin.
As I said in this parliament in February, the Territory government receives about $300 000 more per person than New South Wales from the federal government. The reasons for these high levels of disadvantage I mentioned earlier are too many to mention. Rather than trawl back through the history to find those answers, let us look at the present and what that disadvantage means at a human level.
Conditions on many Aboriginal communities across the Northern Territory are the poorest in the country. The leader of the federal opposition, Tony Abbott, discovered this firsthand when he visited a town camp in Alice Springs during the storm earlier this year, and despaired at Indigenous people living under tarpaulins just a few minutes drive from a town with a population of around 25 000 people. How could Tony Abbott and the members of his party, who had travelled to the Territory from Canberra, not have been bewildered by that phenomenon? There at Hoppy’s Camp was a microcosm of many issues that affect Aboriginal people today, and have done so for the best part of the generation: chronic alcoholism, unemployment, disability, poor health, poor education, and a level of under-achievement which would surprise many in white middle-class communities. Despite the considerable sums of money allocated at both Territory and Commonwealth levels, there has been no significant improvement in conditions over a long period.
Over the three-and-a-half weeks I have visited Alparra, Ampilatwatja, Alcoota, Harts Range, Mutitjulu and Docker River, and those people are living in the poorest of conditions: no air-conditioners, as you would have read in the Northern Territory News from Alcoota; sewage being dumped at Ampilatwatja - only a couple of days before the minister himself visited that community, and no media done by the minister outlining the situation; sewage being dumped again at Harts Range just a couple of days apart; and at Docker River, people live in absolute squalor. There is a house just in front of the Docker River office belonging to a lady called Arfa, who has a child with a disability, where water has been leaking for the last few months. Hundreds of rubbish bins bought by the MacDonnell Shire are all locked up inside the compound of MacDonnell Shire at Docker River.
As their local member, who has been their local member for six years, I have never ever seen Docker River in such a disgraceful situation’ where there is no power in half of the houses, no windows in the houses, and rubbish everywhere. I have gone to the CEO of the MacDonnell Shire, Graham Taylor, and said that it is just not necessary and they should start doing things a little more for the people. In this very House, I supported the shire model, but the shire is too top heavy. It is not working and we are getting calls from places such as Barunga, Maningrida, Tiwi Islands, Ali Curung - so it is not just in the MacDonnell Shire, it is in the Central Desert Shire and in the Barkly Shire.
There has to be an opportunity or a scope for us, as politicians in this House, to have a look at changing the way the shires are working, or scrutinising the way services are being delivered to remote Aboriginal communities.
If you have a look at Docker River, it is just so way out of reach for anyone. It is only 8 km this side of the WA border. They get people who fly in on the charters for the day, and fly out - like the minister did at Ampilatwatja. She would not know what the road is like between Alparra and Ampilatwatja because she flew from Alparra to Ampilatwatja. The roads are absolutely disgraceful, and these people are expected to travel down those roads every day. Yesterday, we spent hours and hours talking about the health and closing the gap. You are not going to close the gap because you are not delivering the service.
I said in parliament in February there is very little evidence of progress on the ground, and that the streams of federal money dry up before they reach the communities. The bush misses out. This is not the case in Darwin and Alice Springs. Therefore, the formation of a Territory Indigenous expenditure review committee would allow for increased scrutiny of where the money has gone and - to bastardise a phrase made popular recently by the Prime Minister - it would help end the blame game.
The second level on which the committee would work would actually benefit those Indigenous people whose everyday life is a struggle - people like David Wintjanana and Michael Gorey, the two men whom Tony Abbott spoke with under their tarpaulin in the rain. It was shown on television around the country as examples of the disadvantage experienced by Aboriginal Territorians. During that visit, Tony Abbott did what only a handful of federal politicians have done in the past: he mixed with one of the poorest sections of the Australian community with a view to raising the profile of displaced and desperate Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory.
We have not seen the minister go to Hoppy’s Camp and see David Wintjanana and Michael Gorey living underneath the tarpaulin. We did not see the former minister for Housing go to see them either. And guess what? We have not seen the member for Lingiari ever go there. We only see him every four years when he is due to go for election. Well, he has a big surprise coming this election.
But it is not just men like David Wintjanana and Michael Gorey who would benefit from the establishment of the Territory Indigenous expenditure revenue committee. The major beneficiaries would be the littlies - the little, tiny kids currently living on Indigenous communities in squalid conditions that the Commonwealth and the Territory governments are charged with improving. Children who, unless the money reaches the communities and is wisely spent, will live in similar squalor to David and Michael.
When this issue was debated in a similar form in this parliament last time, the committee was to be made up of Indigenous members and the current members of the Legislative Assembly. This provision was, in part, to ensure that people who had to witness every single day the squalor of Aboriginal poverty would be able to have a direct say in how Aboriginal money was spent. Unfortunately, this initiative did not wash with Indigenous Development minister, for reasons that smacked not of idealism and equality, but of politicisation and naivety. To illustrate that point, I will quote directly from the Parliamentary Record of that day:
The minister then continued in a somewhat patronising manner:
You have already put race first. When your Chief Minister went to COAG, he took money based on race, based on black people - on your people, your so-called ‘people’, that you said quite honestly were your people; that you knew their disadvantage. I am afraid I have to tell you, you do not know their disadvantage. It is here, minister, that you have totally misread the intention of my motion. It is not about race; it is about change. It is about doing things differently and not mirroring ourselves in the mediocrity of the past.
The minister appears to have no insight to bring about this fundamental change, so I have gone some way to helping bring her around to this new way of thinking. While rejecting outright her promise that, somehow, that motion was based on race, I have created a new motion so the wording is clear and the intent is enhanced.
The committee is to be made up of those members of the Legislative Assembly from the non-urban seats of Daly, Arnhem, Arafura, Barkly, Macdonnell, and Stuart, and those otherwise agreed to by the Assembly so as to make up a committee of no less than seven members. What that means is it will be made up of members from the largest electorates of the Northern Territory, those which have the most disadvantage and cover the huge expanse of remote and rural communities, and any other member who wants to provide the appropriate scrutiny for Indigenous expenditure.
I will say again, I was extremely disappointed the minister took such a negative approach to the first version of this motion when it was debated in the Assembly in February. I will just go back to spending time with Rosie Kunoth-Monks at Alparra, and the letter she got last week from the minister. When Rosie Kunoth-Monks met with the Chief Minister, the member for Arnhem, and the member for Arafura in the November sittings in Alice Springs, she asked the Chief Minister to either have NORFORCE or prisoners go out to clean Alparra. She was not talking about garbage, minister. She was not talking about the papers and the cool drink cans at Alparra. How dare you patronise that community? To say that you will go out there and pick up the rubbish, and have even invited me to go and help you pick up the rubbish is putting your own people down. What Rosie Kunoth-Monks meant was she wanted someone to go and clean up the bigger rubbish - the rubbish of all the sheets of iron that are graded into the side of the roads and in the community. Are you going to pick that up and put it on your back and carry it all back to Darwin?
I say again, I was extremely disappointed the minister took such a negative approach to the first version of this motion, when it was debated in the Assembly in February. In her heart, I suspect the minister actually supports this position, but is toeing the line laid down by political masters. In a former career, the minister was a newsreader who read from an autocue, basically mouthing the words without feeling. It is a shame she continues to read from an autocue which has been programmed by the Chief Minister and the Labor Party hierarchy.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am determined, though, to get this committee operating for the benefit of Aboriginal people across the Northern Territory. It is for that reason I have made this significant change to this motion.
Ms McCARTHY (Indigenous Development): Madam Deputy Speaker, I speak against this motion brought on by the member for Macdonnell. When we stood here on 25 February, there was a general feeling of, as the member for Macdonnell quoted from my speech: ‘What is important about this motion is that we needed to find a way forward’. It is important to look at how we try to progress and move the intent of the member for Macdonnell’s motion for the Indigenous expenditure review, and in the way money is spent by both the Northern Territory government and the federal government. I will focus on that part first, and try to bring some facts to the member for Macdonnell with some of the personal issues she wanted to touch on regarding the Barkly area.
In my response in February, I made it very clear that we, as a government, are working for all people of the Northern Territory; and are very aware in our spending - be it on Indigenous people or otherwise – that we are accountable to the people of the Northern Territory, to the taxpayers across Australia. In that accountability, we have to be accountable to the parliament, in the very processes of the Westminster system we are governed by. Those processes are about the committees of the parliament, the parliament itself, and the estimates process, where each and every minister on this side of the House in government has an opportunity to be scrutinised, to express in detail the way money is spent, the way money is not spent, and the very activities of each agency. These are the fundamental tools of our democracy - important instruments which allow Australians in this country to believe in a particular process.
At no stage did I ever say to the member for Macdonnell this was not important; that the motion and her intent behind it was not important - at no stage. It is very important. It is absolutely crucial this parliament always considers the way it spends any money for any person, any group, or any organisation.
In my previous responses to this motion, I urged the member for Macdonnell to take it to the appropriate committee, the Council for Territory Cooperation - take it to the very committee of which she is a member. She can self-refer; it is not difficult. We do not need to have more committees; we need action, and that is exactly what I am doing with A Working Future across the Northern Territory. That is exactly what I am doing, in not only the 20 growth towns across the Northern Territory, but the 73 communities, including the 400 to 500 outstations. That is the action our government is putting in. That is the effort I am working on.
I do not say any member of this parliament should not be bringing forward a motion of importance, but let us be sensible about what we are trying to do here. Let us be sensible and use the very instruments which are set up already, which exist already. This is nothing short of just putting on a display, when we know there are mechanisms in place where this can be taken.
Our government is a government of action. We recognise we must always scrutinise and be scrutinised, and we do not shy away from that. I will continue to travel, and I will continue to get to any place across the Northern Territory - be it by car, plane, or train, I will get there and I will do the best I can as the minister in this portfolio, carrying the largest reform the Northern Territory has ever seen for the regions. I will not run away from it; I will not let the Indigenous people down. I will stand and fight to the best of my ability on their behalf. I will not run away from them, no matter how hard it gets, no matter how tough it gets, and no matter what people say. I am not afraid to stand and fight for them in this Cabinet, in this government.
Madam Deputy Speaker, let me tell you about my trips across the Centre. It was wonderful to get to Utopia; it was beautiful to spend the time with people at Alparra. I was able to see the river, and how green the place looked after such magnificent rain. But, it was a sad time, because they did lose people in the floods in the region, and I was mindful of that. I was also informed by the people of Utopia: ‘Do not drive, minister, the roads, you cannot get in. Do not drive’. So, on their advice, I did fly in, and I spent a fantastic day with them.
I understand what Rosie Kunoth-Monks meant when she said: ‘We want to tidy up our community’. I know she means getting the big old cars which have been left by the side of the road and in the bushes, and the tin that is lying around. I know she means that, but one of the things they said to me was: ‘We need to also pick up the small stuff’. I said: ‘Hey, this is not about people coming in and working and doing it for you, let us do this together’. It was in that spirit of cooperation and initiation, of getting up and saying: ‘Hey, let us all get in to this together’, that I said I was more than happy to go back and work with them on it.
It is not patronising; it is an energy and enthusiasm I have, and I make no apology for that. I am not ashamed or afraid of that. If that kind of enthusiasm and energy is infectious for others to want to do something, then that has to be a good thing, surely? That has to be a good thing for the future of the Northern Territory. That has to be a good thing to, hopefully, inspire other people to get up and do it themselves and have a go - to get the young people up, get the kids up. ‘Hey, let us play a game of football’. ‘Hey, let us have a barbecue after the game of football’. ‘Let us get NORFORCE in, let us get all of this other mob in. Why don’t we all jump in? Let us pitch in, let us do it together’. What is wrong with that attitude, Madam Deputy Speaker?
Please do not tell me that that is a bad attitude to have. Please do not tell me that. I will continue to go across the Northern Territory with exactly that kind of attitude, with the energy and enthusiasm to try to encourage and give hope where I can without demoralising and rejecting people along the way. I am not perfect, our government is not perfect but, hey, we are out there and we are giving it the best we can.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Deputy Speaker, I congratulate the member for Macdonnell in her attempt to bring this matter back before the House …
Mr Westra van Holthe: And her courage.
Mr GILES: And her courage. Her passion is encapsulated in her comment in our previous debate where she said:
That comment resonated around the community. Here was a former minister for Indigenous Policy categorically stating:
She went on to say:
This was said by someone who worked on the inside of this Territory government as a minister. Labor talks constantly about Aboriginal people but what it is really good at is spending Aboriginal money.
This is a gargantuan request, as you can clearly see by the definition of the proposed standing committee’s task; that is:
As I have noted before, we remain in a predicament where all Territorians, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, are looking for leadership and for actions equalling resolution. There must be a template, a guide to a form of the work to be executed in order to provide an understanding of the route to be taken.
The member for Macdonnell wants the committee to report at least quarterly, and here is a template for a much-needed permanent watchdog to guard Indigenous expenditure, its role being to match related expenditure allocation with actual expenditure and to evaluate the outcomes achieved. Just think for a minute of the scale of this task and its ramifications. I will take the ramifications first. Here I am reminded of Professor Mick Dodson’s comment where he said:
That is hard hitting but it is how the last year’s Australian of the Year sees it. This is where the community at large has immense concerns. They perceive a situation of funds constantly being thrown towards Indigenous issues. Look at some of these numbers. The reality is Indigenous-specific funding represented less than 2% of total Australian government spending in 2006-07. The man and the woman on the street emphatically disbelieve less than 2% is being spent. I can understand that and I know it. Mal Brough, in his media release in May 2007 stated that:
Based on the ABS Census figures for 2006, the Indigenous population totalled 517 200, so this averages roughly $1446 per person. In other words, the total Australian government spending on Indigenous-specific funding was well under 2% - impossible, any man or woman on the street would emphatically disclaim.
This is our problem; this is the size of the task. A very big chunk of the Australian government spending is on that colossal stuff-up, SIHIP. Let me pause for a minute and talk about the extent of this inquiry that is required to be undertaken. SIHIP is a good example of how you can look at that. I will not go SIHIP-bashing or anything like that.
If you take into account the bureaucrats in Canberra who would have been working for Mal Brough at the time where he originally announced $850m would go into housing as part of the intervention in the Northern Territory, before it was downgraded to $572m by federal Labor, what would have happened then is the majority of bureaucrats who were working for Mal Brough - although 100% of their time was not working on this announcement or getting this money - would have been non-Indigenous. This is not a black or white argument about bureaucrats - that is not what it is. But a portion of their salaries would have paid for the time they worked on that announcement - even just writing that media release would have been attributed to Indigenous expenditure.
They would have rung up the Chief Minister at the time, Clare Martin, who would have put her bureaucrats from the Chief Minister’s Indigenous Policy Unit on board. They would have started crafting a media release, and started looking at what this would mean. Their work is 100% involved in Indigenous policy even though the majority of them are not Indigenous. Those people’s salaries would go to the Indigenous Affairs budget.
They would have rung up the Department of Housing, Territory Housing, DPI or whoever the first point of call was and said: ‘We have a pot of money here from Indigenous Housing. Can you work something out, come up with a model of how to put money out?’ Unfortunately, they put the alliance model up. So, all of the staff who worked on that, who were non-Indigenous, would have had their wages or portions of it attributed to Indigenous Affairs expenditure.
They handed out to Parsons Brinckerhoff, which is the management company which project managed the start of the alliance program, and is still doing it. All their consultancy fees, wages, salaries, and everything is apportioned to Indigenous Affairs. They are non-Indigenous; they are from America. Those people are going to contract the alliance companies. The three alliances, Earth Alliance - which is now gone, and the other partners of alliances, including people like Force 10, Sitzlers, McMahon, or whoever - the people who head up those companies are not Indigenous but all their money is classified as Indigenous money. Then, there is the next layer down.
So, it gets down to the bottom level and you get to a house in Ali Curung and you have trainees coming in from Tennant Creek. You are also flying in squillion-dollar experts from Queensland to fix these places - nothing against them personally – who are non-Indigenous. You might find a couple of CDEP people or a couple of people on labour hire but, all of a sudden, we have a $672m program for a house that does not have a lid on the septic tank and stainless steel bench, and you have a bit of paint there that could have been done by the local CDEP people.
This is what we are talking about, and this is why this is important. We spent all these squillions of dollars for not much at all. That is why this is important. If we are going to change this whole process, if we are going to have real change on the ground, this whole system needs to change. That is not to condone, belittle, or poorly cast upon those bureaucrats who may be in that role. Yes, there does need to be more Indigenous employment within the public sector. Yes, these things do need to happen. However, it seems to me we have the model upside down.
It is interesting when we look at this committee, and what it is actually trying to do. What this committee is trying to do is provide transparency for improvement. That is what democracy is about. That is why we have discussions about estimates; that is about providing transparency. That is why we talk to the media. We debate it publicly, privately, and we have transparency in the whole area.
I identify SIHIP as an example to see how all this money trickles down this train to the end point where the kids are still falling in a septic tank with no lid on it. Then we have to go to COAG and try to get $20m for 14 beds. It is all linked. This is a very important component.
Let us just rewind for a minute. If the Australian government cannot manage their tiny percentage of spending on Aboriginal affairs, then how can we possibly say to our Territory government: ‘Okay, we trust you as 40% to 50% of our budget … - allegedly – ‘… being spent on Indigenous affairs’? The Indigenous Expenditure Review of September 2006 – now, surely, is going to be updated - noted in the executive summary that:
The perception is of vast quantities of monies being thrown around. The reality is the lack of transparency, as I just said, and the lack in the Northern Territory of a required paper trail. People would know, as I am sure the member for Johnston knows - the minister for Housing across the Chamber - I took Channel 7 recently to Willowra, Six Mile, and Ali Curung. Whether those people were allowed to go or not, I am not sure; I heard the member for Katherine talking in relation to the permit system. The clear purpose of this committee we are talking about now is to provide greater transparency to see where the money goes.
By Channel 7 being allowed to go out there, or not allowed - I am not sure of the rules of the permit system these days in particular – those people exposed an issue. Whether the minister for Housing and I agree or disagree - and I believe we both know where we stand on this - they actually provided a level of transparency. Those two Channel 7 articles went right around Australia. The leaked e-mail from the government business manager from Willowra was in The Australian – I am not sure what page it was on – on a couple of days. That went around Australia. It gets people talking about it.
If I was on the government side, I would be upset because it is putting criticism on government. However, what it actually does is provide a level of argument between us so we can improve the program in the future. That is why it is important for transparency.
That is why this review committee is important, because we can have a good look at it. Sure, there will be political point scoring and a settling-in period, but it will see us get better outcomes on the ground. All we ever see is more and more announcements of funding into Indigenous affairs. but all we ever get is more people to come and manage those programs, while poor Johnny, Mary, or whoever it is on the ground, get nothing - like Jimmy Friday and Nancy Martin at the back of house No 206 in Ali Curung: ‘Government said they have no money for tin sheds, so we are just going to live in this squalor’. That is what is not working.
As an aside, let me read you this extract from the website established by Reconciliation Australia:
It went further:
I know how this works, and I am sure the minister for Housing does:
That example in the Kimberleys is exactly what happens.
A tender was recently released for supervision of roadworks in, I believe, the eastern region in the southern part – the Harts Range area; somewhere around there. I do not have the tender in front of me right now, member for Karama. The value was approximately $725 000. It was supervised roadworks continuing throughout the rest of the year. It was a point I was going to bring up in the previous debate. For $725 000, you employ one manager and four staff, you give them five cars - one car each - and they drive around and inspect the roadworks that have been done. We have project managers with the department who oversee that work. We have certifiers who have to come and check. You have the contractors who have to come and do the work and ensure the work is done properly. Here, we have just spent $725 000 which, while I am not condemning the project or the tender; I fail to see how we are achieving value for money out of that. This is all in the area where there are Indigenous communities.
That road that goes from Stuart Highway to Harts Range will be classified as Indigenous expenditure. That is what is not working. I understand the argument about roads and Indigenous and non-Indigenous - I understand that. However, this is a tender that has gone out to supervise roads. I do not see how that particular tender I have just mentioned is actually improving the lives of anyone. It is quite clear the community sees transparency but, as for this government, it seems not.
At this point, let me diffuse any misconceptions. This is not pointing the finger at any particular sector of our society; it is not a case of casting aspersions at any particular department or agency. Let me remind you of the member for Macdonnell’s motion:
Part (a) is quite important, but (b) is the really important item. They will actually track the money that goes in. Is it hitting the ground? Not hitting the ground as a house, but is it hitting the ground the way it is meant to hit the ground in the first place? Let me give you a simple example. You have a mixed-use building which has an overall body corporate charged with managing the entire building. Then, it has a body corporate for the shops within the building, another one for the offices, another for the residential component, and another body corporate for the serviced apartments. The smaller entities expect a detailed budget from the overarching management group. The main body corporate expects an exact detailed accounting of the body corporate income right down to how regularly light bulbs have had to be replaced in the common areas.
This is what needs to be achieved in the Northern Territory with every single line item within the Territory government’s budget. What we do not have is reporting relating to Indigenous expenditure. How amazing when one thinks of how Indigenous experience is right at the forefront of the thoughts of all members within this House - and referred to quite frequently in the health statement yesterday.
I support the member for Macdonnell’s motion to establish a standing committee to be known as the Territory Indigenous expenditure review committee, but I suggest some additional grounds to the committee. I am hoping this committee is a bipartisan committee and takes all the argy-bargy out of it. This approach has to be retrospective as well. Without any form of historical value, there can be no indications of trend. Retrospective as far back as actual financials for 2007-08 would be fine. That could be the starting point for comparisons, I believe. Have the departments come clean on this historical expenditure? If they have not, I believe they should.
The government spoke against the committee make up, as suggested by the member when she spoke of those people who recognise themselves as Indigenous people and are current members of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. Can the government, as suggested in the motion today, support a committee made up of members of the Legislative Assembly from the non-urban Labor seats of Daly, Arnhem, Arafura, Barkly, Stuart and the member for Macdonnell, with just one other? I believe members in this Chamber will recognise that those seats, apart from the Independent member for Macdonnell’s, are all Labor seats. So, this is not a party thing, it is just trying to get to the bottom of it.
Members on this side of the Chamber can see that is a good idea. This is far too important a subject for the Northern Territory to be anything else but a non-partisan committee. We all have an interest in the complete transparency across all the departments, agencies and outcome groups. I just add that bureaucrats who are involved in this process have a vast interest and a calling for this. They will not call it for the proper thing, but that is what they call for when they talk to you; they want better.
I remind the member for Macdonnell of her words earlier this year when discussing the budget papers for Indigenous affairs:
What must transpire as a result of the standing committee is an income and expenditure document for every single department, agency, and output group, but much more comprehensive than that provided by the Australian government’s tables. Each department, agency and outcome group must come to the table with every single detail - yes, with every single detail right down to where the Toyota Land Cruisers went, where the trips were paid for and why, and what infrastructure was completed. Then, the next step is the Indigenous expenditure budget paper, because at last we will know the exact distribution and use of government resources.
We will, at last, have a measure. We will, at last, have proof of that appropriation, money set aside by formal action for specific use. This is what anyone in business would expect to see, line by line, on their financial accounts. It is a form of protection beyond any other because we can, at last, lift the curtains of secrecy, misinformation, mischief and doubt - not least a big concern in the communities where nothing is being seen despite the rhetoric and claims to the contrary. No wonder they are losing the hearts and minds of Aboriginal Territorians.
Madam Speaker, this motion is timely. Let me quote you from the Australian Productivity Commission website:
Mr CHANDLER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move the member be given additional time, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr GILES: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I did not believe I could get 10 minutes extra.
In December 2007, Council of Australian Governments (COAG) committed to reporting transparently on expenditure on services to Indigenous Australians.
I understand it is the same process in the alliance model where they have an open, transparent book process - although that information will not come out from the government. If we had an opportunity to see that we would know where the performance is and we could debate on how to improve it. Yes, there would be some argy-bargy, but we could go forward stronger together and look for the next area of improvement and, then, the next area of improvement. Then we would have change.
I go back to that point about the change of permit system allowing the media in. The media provide a level of transparency. Sure, there will always be some dodgy media people who exploit Indigenous people, and we must try to stamp that out; and we will always be tough on that measure. However, where that transparency is provided, we have improvement.
While we have not had a SIHIP debate in this Chamber for a couple of parliamentary days, no doubt it will come up again and, out of that, we will again see more improvements. If that first debate on SIHIP - where they spent $50m with no houses being built - had not come up we would not have seen improvements through a review process. If we had not had another argument come up, we would not have the CTC. All these other improvements are in place because we have become more transparent. That is how we improve our policy and our performance.
Madam Speaker, I commend the motion by the member for Macdonnell. She is being very brave by talking about this. She has been very open and transparent by detailing the works she has done in the past as a previous Labor government minister. I support the motion. I hope my colleagues on this side of the Chamber support the motion, and I hope my colleagues on the other side of the Chamber support the motion. I commend the motion to the House.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, this motion has been discussed previously, but I would like to raise a number of issues that I believe are important in this debate.
There is much being said in this parliament about where the government spends its money, especially in Indigenous areas. I remember hearing calls from members of the opposition, member for Macdonnell, who has put this motion forward before, the CLC, NTCOSS, and Lex Hall, the relatively new writer for The Australian. In November last year, he wrote an article regarding the spending which was headed, ‘How the NT has ignored federal recommendation on the spending of GST funds’. He used graphs that came from the Commonwealth Grants Commission. I have heard people say: ‘Here is the proof government has not spent money in Indigenous areas’. If I were a lay person looking at that I would probably say yes, that appears to be the case.
What started me thinking this particular table is not what it really appears to be on the surface is there is no section on education. One of the key factors in Indigenous spending, surely, is education? There is no section here on law and order and that is another key factor in Indigenous matters. Why is that not in there? If you are talking about Commonwealth Grants Commission why are some of those major items not there? I was always somewhat suspicious of this particular graph which has been used. I have heard it debated in this House, and publicly, that there is the proof government is not spending its money.
Then, I came across this document which I have spoken on before - the 2006-07 Indigenous Expenditure Review. I am not an expert to look at that and to work it out. It is a fairly complicated graph actually, once you find out what it is all about. I looked around to find out what the answers are, and you could not get better than our own Auditor-General. He has done two reports and I would like to read sections of his report because, as I said, I am not an expert. Here is a person who has written two reports, and I will quote sections from this report. Some of those quotes will explain what that graph is all about. On page (i) he said:
He said the information in this document shows how much money has been spent on Indigenous people in the Northern Territory. I will just read sections of the executive summary. He said:
Further down it said:
This second IER …
which is the one I am reading from:
He is referring there, I believe, to the Northern Territory emergency response:
He then said:
From that, he produced these two tables which show the key findings of the 2006-07 IER, and they can be summarised as: 52.4% of the Territory expenditure in 2006-07 was Indigenous related; 44.4% of the Territory’s revenue in 2006-07 was Indigenous related; Indigenous related expenditure exceeds that of revenue by 8% or around $248m; and on a per-capita basis, spending on Indigenous Territorians is 2.5 times that of non-Indigenous Territorians.
It goes on and explains more about those particular matters. However, I also, in the time I have, need to explain what methodology the Auditor-General used. He has – as he does in many reports - sections and shaded areas where he puts in an explanation. This section is called Measuring Indigenous Related Expenditure:
I leave other people to look at that as well.
I know I am reading a fair bit from the document but it is written by a person who has much more knowledge than I have. It has a section here called ‘Commonwealth Grants Commission Assessed and Actual Expenditure’. This relates to the graph I started off this debate with. It said:
That is what people were taking from this particular graph:
Madam Speaker, as I said, I am not an expert. I understand where the member for Macdonnell has come from, and that she has concerns. It is a complex issue, but we do have an Auditor-General who has written two of these reports. I do not have an axe to grind politically about this. We all want to ensure money is spent in the right place for the right purpose. I hope there is another one of these coming out soon because, in the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs hearing on 15 September 2008, it referred to this Indigenous Expenditure Review, and said it would be biennial. I hope to see one, or something similar, come out in 2009-10, although I imagine the wisest thing would be to wait for the Grants Commission to bring out its 2010 report so the IER would be able to use the figures the Grants Commission puts out for the 2010 year.
The member for Braitling was talking about issues regarding spending money at Willowra in relation to upgrading of houses. They are specific issues that certainly need looking at. It is an issue that the CTC, I believe, will need to assess. However, the thrust of this particular motion before us today is about - and No 2 summarises that:
Those are important issues - whether money is being spent reasonably, and could work be done cheaper. I call those more specific issues that could be looked at by either the CTC or by departments, to find out if some of their refurbishment programs are being ripped off, if you want to put it that way. I do not know, for instance, what standard the Willowra refurbishments mentioned by the member for Macdonnell are; I have not seen them. I would prefer a builder to be asked to compare the standard of refurbishments there with the standard of refurbishments over here. They could be of a less quality; they still could look good. They might be using better materials over here; I do not know. It is important to find out those things. This person might have fewer overheads than the other person, because they may be local, and these people may be coming from another place where they have to travel. It is not always easy just to say: ‘This mob here is able to do it cheaper than this mob’. I do not know what all the details are. Certainly investigate it because you do not want money wasted, you want the best value.
As this statement has said, if we are looking at what the Indigenous expenditure in the Northern Territory is, why set up another committee? If you read just what I read today, you will understand it is pretty complex; it is not a simple issue. The member for Braitling commented on the road out to Haasts Bluff. Start dividing up roads into how many Indigenous people use that road against how many non-Indigenous people use that road because, if you are talking about Indigenous expenditure, that is exactly what you have to do.
I actually do not like this idea, to be honest with you. I do not even like the idea of having something that says we need to review this expenditure. I would prefer it on a needs basis; there are poor people who need some help - whether they are white or black, that is how we should spend our money. Unfortunately, this is the way society goes; we have to show this money is used for these particular purposes. There are wealthy Indigenous people as well as poor Indigenous people. There are wealthy non-Indigenous people and there are very poor non-Indigenous people. The way we allocate our funds should be based more on need rather than race.
However, that is not the issue before us today. The issue is how we assess whether money allocated from the Commonwealth is being used in the areas the Commonwealth expects us to use it. You have all those issues of tied grants and untied grants, and that complicates matters as well. You have small issues such as those I raised before. People are saying all the money is spent in the northern suburbs of Darwin and that does not help the people of Central Australia. Sure enough. But, how many Aboriginal people use the Leanyer lakes? I go past there and there are many young Aboriginal kids who love the Leanyer recreational pool. How do I actually work out what the Indigenous expenditure’s proportion of building that recreation lake is? I do not know and, to be honest, I really do not care as long as it is a place where young people can enjoy themselves, where families can go - whether they are black, white, Chinese, or you-know-what. I do not care.
As I said before, this is the issue before us. I believe the Auditor-General is the non-political, independent person who can do the job. He has issued two of these reports; they are detailed reports, and that is the way this particular matter should go. I encourage the government to ensure we continue to have biennial reports on Indigenous expenditure because that way it is bipartisan and free of political influence. For me, it is much better than taking a graph out of a newspaper and trying to interpret it without any knowledge of what that graph actually means. Many people have used that particular graph and interpreted it wrongly. That is exactly what the Auditor-General is saying. Unfortunately, that is where the politics comes into it.
We should stick with the Auditor-General as the independent assessor. He will say where the money is going. If people have concerns and they know the Auditor-General is doing this IER, then they should write to the Auditor-General and say: ‘We have concerns that, in these certain areas, money is not being spent as it is being allocated’. At least you know you are going to get a fair hearing from an independent person – our own Auditor-General.
Debate adjourned.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, it being 9 pm, under Standing Order 41A the House does now adjourn and the matter that is before us goes onto the next General Business Day.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Speaker, tonight I cover a couple of things. The first is a couple of thank yous, and the second is on the federal government’s decision to delay the Emissions Trading Scheme.
The Minister for Transport, Mr McCarthy, has had a rough day; he has had a few things thrown his way. I first thank him because, recently, I wrote to the minister and asked him to look into a situation in my electorate which involved floodwaters and damage to property. After finding out who owned the property, where it was, and talking to the council, the bottom line was this water had damaged fencing and was undermining other properties. To his credit, after I sent photos, he arranged to have the area fixed and replaced. I thank you for that.
I also sent another letter in regard to a roundabout in Palmerston on the corner of University and Elrundie Avenues, and suggested that until it is fixed properly a couple of warning signs are put prior to the …
Mr Bohlin: We have warning signs now.
Mr CHANDLER: The warning signs are now up. Again, I thank the minister for doing that. So, it is not all criticism from this side of the House when things are done correctly. Thank you very much for doing it.
In regard to the federal government’s decision to delay an Emissions Trading Scheme by a full three years raises the question of the credibility of the Territory government. The Territory government had decided to await the Emissions Trading Scheme, thus creating a chicken-and-egg scenario. We know that. The Territory government is not ready to move forward, has done nothing, and has put it in the too-hard basket and buried its head in the sand. The Territory government will no doubt now have even less drive to accomplish anything at all. What is the Territory government doing to plan towards an increased greenhouse gas reduction target of 25% by 2020?
Within the Country Liberals renewable energy policy, we committed to develop 100 MW of renewable capacity across the Territory by 2025 with an annual $10m contribution. As I noted a year ago, it beggars belief that nine years after the Commonwealth and state and territory governments had agreed to renewable energy targets, Labor has done virtually nothing to keep its side of the bargain. They have sat on their hands for the past nine years and done nothing to fulfil our renewable energy commitments. They should have paved the way for alternative energies. Where are the plans for new solar power stations? Conspicuous by their absence. Instead, we have the commitment of the Northern Territory government to pay $120m for two new 45 MW turbines. Where is the announcement of a fund to support the research and technological development required to cut greenhouse gas emissions from our energy sector?
Unbelievably, on 30 April 2009, in answers to questions on the COAG energy target scheme, the Deputy Chief Minister stated:
Leading by what example, I ask. On 26 November 2009, minister Gerry McCarthy said:
Well, minister, where is the action? Even your own boss, Big Kev, the Prime Minister of our country, has decided the greatest moral obligation of our times: ‘We will put it back a few years’. That is how serious they are.
On 7 December 2009, Karl Hampton, the Minister for Climate Change, insisted the Country Liberals must say whether they support a National Emissions Trading Scheme. The question probably today is: what National Emissions Trading Scheme? What are we talking about? The Territory government has been hamstrung. They have been followers of carbon climate change instead of leaders - carbon climate change cowards. When the Country Liberals launched the policy titled Growth, Sustainability and the Climate Change Challenge, the Chief Minister, Paul Henderson, was quoted on ABC on 9 December as saying a climate change policy without an emissions trading scheme is doomed to failure. He also stated that, without an ETS you cannot enforce any reduction thresholds and you cannot establish a carbon market where carbon is priced and penalties are paid if industry does not meet the emissions target. Again, the question is: where is the ETS?
The Country Liberals have already demonstrated you can, as recently as the policy announcement last week, introduce sustainable solar power capacity into Parliament House. Is the Territory government going to announce their support for this policy? If not, why not? It is because they are, indeed, carbon climate change cowards. The Country Liberals will continue to develop meaningful climate change policy. It is very hard to take any Labor government in this country seriously when they talk about climate change today - this government, in particular, which has done nothing, sat on its hands, done nothing, sat on its hands. Now, we have the Prime Minister come out and, basically, say: ‘We will put it back a few years’.
The Territory government Climate Change Policy simply says:
Well, our policy proves you can have goals and you can achieve them without the ETS. You mob do not want an ETS. Your Prime Minister does not want an ETS; that is obvious. So, any time you talk now - much like your Transport minister when he talks about speeding and taking responsibility - you have an Environment minister who does the same. How can we take you seriously? How can we take our Prime Minister seriously when he said this was the greatest moral dilemma of our time - but we will just put it back a few years; it is a little tough for now. We cannot take this government or the federal government seriously when they talk about their credibility when it comes to climate change.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, like other members who spoke in the Chamber last night about Anzac Day, I too wish to speak on this subject. As services around the Territory were well attended and numbers on the increase, so too was the case in Nhulunbuy.
The Dawn Service of the 95th anniversary to commemorate the Gallipoli landings held at Gove Yacht Club drew a huge crowd, which assembled on the lawns of the yacht club looking out over the waters of Melville Bay, as still as a mill pond and breathtakingly beautiful in the dawn sunrise. It was a contrast to the previous year when it bucketed down with rain.
An even bigger crowd gathered at the Cenotaph ready for the 11 am service, and it was moving to see past and present servicemen and women from Army, Navy and Air Force march with St John personnel and children from Cubs and Scouts. It was a very hot morning, so thank goodness our St John volunteers where on hand because they did have to deal with a few casualties overcome by the heat.
Special thanks must go to the following people:
Ivor Alexander and Mo McKay who, for more years than I can remember, have coordinated the services with, I might add, military precision right down to coordinating the purchase and transport of wreaths of fresh flowers from Darwin. In addition, they also look after the Kapyong Memorial Service which is held each year on 24 April;
It is a truly significant day in our local calendar in Nhulunbuy, on the Territory, the national, and even the international calendar. Like the member for Katherine, I too watched the ABC program Q&A on Monday evening and was dismayed by some of the commentary that was delivered. I thought it a shame the former head of the ADF, Mr Peter Cosgrove, and the female Brigadier responsible for ADF public relations, Alison Creagh, had to defend the position and recognition that goes with the ANZAC tradition, when so many of us do not question it. I also call into question the comments made by Germaine Greer. I dare say she has had some flack about the comments she made regarding the fact that our Corrections facilities and mental health institutions were full of ex-service people.
Continuing in that proud tradition of service, the Nhulunbuy St John Ambulance annual inspection was held on Monday, 19 April and, fittingly, opened with a minute’s silence for the late Bern Kilgariff, AM JP KStJ, who was a board member of St John from 1987. The inspection was conducted by Commissioner Steve Peers who travelled from Darwin with St John Ambulance CEO, Ross Coburn, and the evening’s MC was our local officer-in-charge, Mark Ferguson.
As local member, I was pleased to attend and present perpetual trophies to Cadet Member of the Year, Kasey Baker, and Adult Member of the Year, Kylie Newport. I place on the record the names of the current members who put in so much work to support our community through their volunteer service. The current adult members are: Kathryn Auger, Sheridan Bell, Michael Davy, Rebecca Dexter, Brad Dillon, Mark Ferguson, Teresa Holdsworth, Shawn Jurd, Jamie Kokles-Ridgway, Ann-Marie Murphy, Kylie Newport, Julie Nicklin, Libby Rayner, Ray Roles, Phil Sampson, Ena Tyson and Robert Webster.
Incredibly, the adult division in 2009 put in 5015 hours of volunteer service. Of these hours, Kylie Newport put in amazing 1283 hours. She is a single mother of two boys and, for most of the year of 2009, worked as coordinator for Nhulunbuy Community Neighbourhood Centre and, somehow, found the extra time to boost her training and volunteer commitment to St John. Well done, Kylie.
Within the ranks of the current cadet members coordinated by Cadet Superintendent Mandy Paradise - who, I should add, is responsible for restarting the cadets program a couple of years ago and does an amazing job - within those ranks we have Ky Baker, Kasey Baker, Ashleigh Baker, Emily McIntyre, Ashleigh Matthews, Caitlin Lobenwein, Clifford Timms, Gabbi McGrath, Hannah Reardon, Joshua Dawidowicz, Lucy Hauff, Makaela Hockings, Sharna Alley and Meagan Morris - Meagan being recognised as the Most Improved Cadet.
I also acknowledge the efforts of Mandy Paradise, with Mark Ferguson, in starting up a Cadet Members Division at Yirrkala, which includes Dhimurru Mununggurr, Salome Marika, Nelita Foster, Rokuwuy Garrawurra, Denise Foster, Djayila Marika, Butjarri Bururrwanga and Guyurrminy Maymuru.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I continue on the theme of community service and place on the public record the achievements of Ms Bernie Whelan, who has lived in Gove for more years than she cares to remember, and has recently been made a life member of Surf Life Saving Northern Territory. I will read the following extract from the online newsletter, Northern Territory Surf Line from 18 March 2010. It reads:
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, this is certainly fantastic and well-deserved recognition for Bernie, who has worked so hard for Surf Life Saving for so many years. I also add that, like so many volunteers, she does this outside of her full-time work as a registered nurse. Bernie Whelan, congratulations to you and we look forward to more years of service.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I talk on a serious matter which I believe warrants some very close attention and some action on behalf of the Minister for Sport and Recreation. It is in regard to the Wongabilla Equestrian Centre, which is a community-based, not-for-profit organisation and a branch of the Police and Citizens Youth Club.
It has had a long history; it was started in the 1960s. What concerns me and, more importantly, the committee of Wongabilla and the hundreds of families and children who use Wongabilla, is the Commissioner of Police has decided to take the police out of Police and Citizens Youth Club, and he wants to take the police presence and involvement out of the Wongabilla Equestrian Centre, which is currently involved with the Police and Citizens Youth Club. The centre, if this is to occur, will lose both the Senior Constable and an established manager, and also Nicole Muttimer, a very accomplished horsewoman and the main trainer of the young people. A manager from - I suppose you could say - the broader community will take over - if one can be found for the money that would be applied - and to pay for vehicles, maintenance, the horses, instructors and staff, fees will need to rise sharply.
Wongabilla has about 100 juniors or young teenagers going to the centre to learn not only horse skills and to understand about riding, but it also provides an opportunity for many young people to learn about possible careers involving horses which include the racing industry, the pastoral industry, and the cattle industry, to name a few. Any manager who is appointed to this centre will not be under the supervision of a senior police officer and it is unlikely the centre will continue to run in its present form. Most likely, it will close.
The last time Wongabilla was managed by a civilian committee in the mid-1990s, it nearly closed because of each committee member having their own agenda, which did not include introducing other young children to animal care and riding. It is important for the minister for youth to know this is the only establishment which consistently trains the youth of the Top End in horsemanship, providing training for the cattle industry, racing, the show circuit and many other sports.
More importantly, the centre is registered for youth diversion and handles alternate education, disengaged children, family services, and basic training for several schools. There are around 10 to 12 young people each year allocated to the Wongabilla centre, mostly from FACS’ youth diversion centres. It is the presence of the police and the constabulary that helps them get back on to the straight and narrow path.
I would be exceptionally disappointed if this new Police Commissioner has come to town with some fancy ideas from Western Australia of how things could be run better, or how they could be run similarly to how they are run in WA. We are not like Western Australia, and this centre has had a long and successful history.
In fact, perhaps if he went back into the history he would know that Wongabilla has had a close working relationship in the past years with Kormilda College, in particular, the Indigenous students who went through that college. 1984 and 1985 saw the first graduates from Wongabilla’s stock handlers’ course, so they have actually achieved some very good things. I just find it amazing that this person has come into town for only a short period of time and has decided to take the police out of the Police and Citizens Youth Club.
To believe that saving a few dollars by removing constables and leaving this service in the hands of untrained and underpaid civilians is just sheer folly. In Western Australia, the home of this Police Commissioner, they recently published figures that juvenile detention costs are nearly $500 per day per person. Therefore, every youth who successfully completes diversion at Wongabilla establishment greatly assist in making up any difference in the salaries required to run this centre. I personally do not have experience, but I know from talking with people regarding Wongabilla centre that many disturbed juveniles actually need the authority figure that comes with police constables, or sergeants for that matter, and they figure prominently, presented by the people running this facility.
I also looked at some of the annual reports of the Northern Territory Police. I saw in their latest and previous glossy reports that the horsemanship and the mounted police features strongly, not only in their photographs but also in reporting of their activities. If we are going to encourage people into the police force from any background throughout the Northern Territory and we want them to be involved in the mounted police then, surely, somewhere like Wongabilla is the place where these young people can start.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, if the minister’s office is listening to this, I know he has received representations from the committee of Wongabilla. I urge him to meet with the committee and, more importantly, to talk to the Commissioner of Police to get this decision rescinded if, in fact, it is a final decision to take the police out of Police and Citizens Youth Club. I believe it is a nave decision and I am extremely disappointed the Commissioner of Police made this decision after being in the Territory for only five minutes.
Mr KNIGHT (Daly): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, the member for Sanderson, shadow minister for Senior Territorians, was interviewed by Annie Gastin on ABC radio this afternoon. The member for Sanderson told Annie there was a petition circulating on the NT Pensioner and Carer Concession Scheme. From what the member for Sanderson said, it appears this petition is being circulated in opposition members’ electorate offices. I have not seen the wording of the petition but the member for Sanderson said the petition refers to the travel concession component of the scheme.
Members of the NT Pensioner and Carer Concession Scheme are eligible for interstate and overseas travel subsidies. The subsidy is a 50% concession on a standard economy airfare every two years. I absolutely endorse petitions. They are a legitimate form of public expression.
However, any petition, particularly one endorsed by a politician, needs to be based on an accurate premise. The member for Sanderson does not appear to have managed on this occasion. The member for Sanderson told Annie Gastin today: ‘We are calling on the government to reverse a recent decision to exclude intrastate travel; that is, travel that occurs within the Northern Territory’. When Annie asked him when the decision was made he fumbled about a bit and came up with this response: ‘Um ah, the decision was made - ah, I am trying to find the actual date here, uh - it was the 1 July 2009’. Well, member for Sanderson, there was no decision taken on this matter recently or otherwise. Intrastate travel has never, ever been part of the Northern Territory Pensioner and Carer Concession Scheme. So, member for Sanderson, you have it wrong.
By your own admission, you have attracted hundreds of signatures on this petition. That means you have unnecessarily alarmed many senior Territorians. If you are going to endorse a petition, it is absolutely incumbent upon you, as a member of this House, to get your facts right. It is very embarrassing with your carriage of this shadow portfolio.
By the way, you also seemed to imply today - actually, you said it - there was no overseas travel allowed under this scheme. That is totally wrong also! As I have already mentioned, overseas travel is available under this scheme.
Member for Sanderson, the government is actually considering the introduction of intrastate travel as part of the scheme, not from lobbying from you, but from consultations we had with the sector - COTA, National Seniors and the Senior Territorians Advisory Council - which I meet on a regular basis. If you have done a little research - even talked to those people - you might have found out what is covered in this scheme. You could have saved yourself a lot of effort and a lot of embarrassment.
I move to Anzac Day. Anzac Day is a time to recommit our gratitude and acknowledgement of the sacrifice of our armed forces and other Defence Force personnel in our past and current conflicts. I was very proud, as local member, to attend the Dawn Service held at Adelaide River War Cemetery with over 2000 other people. It is pleasing to see so many of our younger generation taking on the task of keeping the ANZAC spirit alive, of being a part of the service held around the country.
Scouts NT escorted many through the dark towards the War Cemetery in Adelaide River. I was very pleased to assist them with selling poppies and candles at the entrance. Taminmin College choir, led by Tanya Ham, sang the hymn and then concluded at the end of the proceedings with And the Band played Waltzing Matilda, a very moving song for everyone who attended. The very talented Lana Kains, who is only 12-years old, played The Last Post - she started playing last year at the age of 11. Young Jack Thorne read The Ode, and our National Anthem was sung by 16-year old Coreena Reeves from Taminmin. This shows what a great participation we have from the rural youth.
I was very pleased to see Dick Perry from Daly River at the Dawn Service. Dick had brought the group of cadets from the Daly River Remote Army Cadet Unit 75. The day started at 3 am for the young Corporal Tim North, Cadet David Liddy, Cadet James Tomelty and Andrew Tomelty. Corporal North and Cadet Tomelty laid the wreath and, at the conclusion of the formalities, cadets joined the hundreds of others at the Adelaide River Show Society free breakfast. It was a great effort for them to come all the way from Daly River. I know they had a little trouble along the way, with one of the young fellows getting sick, but they made it there in time.
At the Adelaide River Show Society there was the breakfast, as I said. Patsy Fawcett, the great matriarch of the community there, cooked up her famous savoury mince. She had about 40 kg to 50 kg, and it all went. As I usually do, I helped serve up the delicious breakfast, along with many other volunteers including Linda McIntosh, Patty who is Patsy’s daughter, and while we fed the masses, Katarina, Jodie and Mark were kept very busy at the bar.
A huge thank you goes to the fantastic efforts of the Adelaide River Show Society committee, particularly Sandy Maclean – it is the first time in over a decade she has missed the breakfast; Vice President, Jackie Rixon; Treasurer, Sue O’Hagan; and Secretary, Annette Rixon; and all the other members including Katarina Jaques, Russell Muirhead, Ian Rixon, Mark O’Hagan and Mgahl Eather. Congratulations to all those great volunteers.
There were some new faces on the council. Congratulations to the new CEO, John Hughes, for coming, Tamra Caruana, who is the events coordinator who took over this year, and all the staff from Coomalie. I saw Whiskers down there, and Kevvie. They come in nice and early to set up, and they ran a great event for the Dawn Service.
I also acknowledge some other people who helped with the service. We had RAAF 44 Wing Detachment Group Captain Forster Breckendridge, RAAF 44 Wing Darwin; NORFORCE Darwin; and Squadron Leader Jim Larkham, a Chaplain who attended. The war graves were beautifully kept and it is a great facility for all Australians to see. For some 450 soldiers, it has become their last resting place.
Thanks to Jack Thorne and everyone from Adelaide River and Batchelor FERG Unit for volunteering their time. Also to Bruce Jones who came with his lovely wife and read a poem at the service, and Lucinda Hooper and Karina Brink who had brought their horses, and were part of the whole event. Congratulations to them.
I will move quickly on to the monthly awards. I present monthly awards and book vouchers to the Taminmin Middle School. I am very pleased to be able to include the seniors from Taminmin. I have presented, for the first time during March, a monthly award to Taminmin senior students, Zachary Rubock, Craig Pettifor and Patrick McCrory.
During April, my monthly student award went to Blake Willis, Denis Staunton, Florence Chambers, and Rhiannon Cantle from Berry Springs Primary School; and to Taminmin seniors, Patrick Dunstan, Matt Trnka and Samantha Hinnen. Congratulations to all these students.
I am looking forward to the next Taminmin Middle School assembly, when I can present awards to another three students from Years 7, 8 and 9.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Deputy Speaker, I wanted to raise tonight a decision of the Supreme Court made by Her Honour Justice Kelly, delivered on 18 March 2010. I will deliberately use the initials of the applicant RB because I understand a suppression order is being sought. It may have already been ordered, but I am erring on the side of caution. Citation is 2010 NTSC08.
This is a case where the applicant, RB, appealed, pursuant to section 48(1)(b) of the Victims of Crimes Assistance Act. She appealed against the assessor’s determination and a number of questions of law were reserved for determination by the Supreme Court.
The applicant sustained a number of serious injuries over a period of months, including sexual intercourse without consent. Her Honour Justice Kelly went to considerable detail to outline the sections and regulations of the act that guide an applicant. Her Honour’s judgment is a detailed and comprehensive judgment and a 10-minute adjournment speech certainly will not do it any justice.
However, Her Honour traversed a number of issues, and those considered were complex and varied, but they included consideration of the legislative intent with respect to whether an award of financial assistance should be assessed as though it were compensation or common law damages. Her Honour also considered ‘the choices a victim has with respect to applying for compensation for the mere commission of a compensable violent act without the necessity of proving any particular injury’, or whether ‘he or she may elect to apply for an award for one or more compensable injuries suffered as a direct result of the offence’.
Her Honour further considered the meaning and effect of ‘a compensable violent act’, and ‘compensable injuries’, insofar as seeking compensation for sexual offences, and having regard to the regulations and various sections of the act. Her Honour also considered the effect of ‘limitations with respect to a compensable violent act, or one or more compensable injuries suffered as a direct result of a violent act’, and what is meant by ‘a series of related criminal acts’.
To a large extent, it can be said Her Honour’s judgment considered a number of matters, some of which I have included, and her 40-or-so-page judgment is somewhat complex. However, in my view, it is an exceptionally good judgment. Her Honour observed, importantly, an approved form - that is, a form required by the act an applicant must complete in order to make an application for assistance - was, as she said, ‘intrinsically misleading’. It was intrinsically misleading for certain applicants; namely, those who wish to claim for a compensable violent act. Her Honour referred to the scheme, ‘as the scheme of assistance to victims of crime provided under the act is complicated’.
While a number of legal issues have been resolved, it is clear the act needs to be changed. This was the act that Peter Toyne introduced in 2006. The opposition was opposed to it for a raft of reasons. However, as Her Honour correctly observed, the act is due for review in May - and May is only a couple of days away. It is clear, from my reading of the judgment, Her Honour encourages the government to attend to that review as soon as it practically can. It is clear from her comments with respect to the forms that applicants have to fill out in certain instances, and her comments that it is intrinsically misleading, should be a concern to government. I urge government, as well, to get on with the review of this act.
This act was meant to be straightforward. In the first paragraph of Peter Toyne’s second reading speech on 29 March 2006, he said: ‘These reforms provide a fresh focus and approach to the needs of and support for victims of crime’. Well, it might have been a fresh focus back then, notwithstanding our opposition to it, but the reality is this scheme is very complicated and, while it assists some victims of crime, it is not assisting all victims of crime, and we should all be very concerned about it.
I note, in the most recent Department of Justice Annual Report, at page 74, refers to 580 applications received under the Victims of Crimes Assistance Act in 2008-09, and that the estimate for 2009-10 is 650. That is a lot of applications in a year, and many victims of crime. It is beholden, I believe, on government to really fast-track the review of the act. Interestingly, there is a footnote on page 75 of the annual report referring to the increase in the applications anticipated for 2009-10, and it says: ‘Increase is reflective of the simpler scheme in place which has increased access’. Well, for those minded to read a somewhat mind-bending but, nevertheless, very good judgment by Her Honour Justice Kelly, would come to the conclusion the scheme is anything but.
While I am on the subject of violence against women, I was appalled today when the member for Johnston, the Leader of Government Business, desperate for one of his colleagues not to answer a question, said to one of my colleagues: ‘Did you beat your wife?’ It reeked of desperation and was intended as a political jibe. It was, however, offensive and outrageous.
It says something about some men’s attitude to women that they would belittle the issue of domestic violence. It says a great deal about the attitudes of some male members of this Labor government. The minister, when he was Attorney-General, introduced, amongst much other legislation, the Domestic and Family Violence Amendment Bill on 26 November 2008. He said that legislation was
The Leader of Government Business should change his own attitude, and he should do so immediately.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Deputy Speaker, I have a short adjournment. I will address the issue raised by the member for Araluen at the end of my adjournment.
As mentioned in my last adjournment, the weekend before last I had the pleasure of joining the Australian-Burma Friendship Association of the Northern Territory at the Thingyan Water Festival in the Jingili Water Gardens. I will also talk about this festival and its delightful history.
In Burma, each month of the year has a special significance and it is commemorated with a special event. The first month of the Burmese calendar is Tagu and it falls in April. The Thingyan Festival celebrates, for three to four days in the middle of April, to welcome the New Year by throwing water on each other. Water is the symbol of coolness and cleanliness, and the act of throwing water is to clean all misdeeds or evils of the old year and to welcome the New Year with good resolutions and begin life afresh. There is a belief that Thingyan water brings long life, beauty, prosperity, and authority.
‘Thingyan’ means change; the change from the old year to the new. It is not a religious festival and the word comes from the Sankrist Sakranta, which means a changing over. The tradition comes from Hindi and has been observed in Burma since the Tagaung period, 1588 to 850 BC, and became prominent in the Bagan period, 1044 to 1287 AD. There is a popular belief in Burma that at the time of Thingyan, the king of celestial beings, Thagyamin, comes down to earth to see if people are doing good deeds. He records the names of those who have done good deeds in the gold parchment and the names of the evil doers in the dog skin parchment. The time of day Thagyamin descends to earth is the beginning of the change, and the time of day he returns is the end of Thingyan. The next day is the New Year day.
During the festival time, decorated floats can be seen everywhere in big cities, people singing and dancing on them. There are many centres called Mandat, and they have their own singing and dancing groups, and some participate in water throwing only. One distinct feature is the sound of Thingyan music. It is unique in itself with the beat of the Burmese drum. Thingyan is not only for fun but for merriment as well. Buddhists go to the monasteries, observe precepts or engage in meritorious deeds in accordance with the teachings of Buddha. The water festival is also celebrated in Cambodia, Laos and Thailand.
According to the 2006 Census, there were 12 380 Burma or Myanmar people in Australia, with 70 of them residing in the Northern Territory. Many of them have arrived as humanitarian entrants. There are about 135 ethnic groups in Burma each possessing its own dialect, and distinctive customs and traditions. The Burmese community members in the Northern Territory are from the Karen, Karenni and Burman ethnic groups, and Burmese is the predominant language used in the community in Darwin.
I congratulate Dr Paul Webb, the President of the association, on this special event and give particular mention to Mr George Tint, Treasurer, and Mrs Gwen Daye, Secretary, for all their hard work in putting this festival together and securing funding from the Office of Multicultural Affairs under a Quick Response grant.
Altogether, over 150 friends attended the Burmese New Year Water Festival celebration. Together with Dr Webb and George, I had great pleasure in meeting up with George’s wife, Betty Tint, Dr Ohn Kyaw, Dr June and Nelson Minn, Jey Lamech, Buddhist monk Ven Pannyawarra, Secretary of Buddhist Society, Dr Jeannie Devitt, Society ex-president Ms Audrey Ko, members of the Burmese ethnic communities of Karen, Karenni, Shan, Rakhine, and also members from the Australian, Chinese, Indian, and Vietnamese communities in Australia.
This is what Darwin is all about it. Its multiculturalism is alive and well, and the coming together of so many different cultures to celebrate together is fantastic. It was fantastic there. It was a great group. There were probably over 100 people, with many children really enjoying themselves. The food served was absolutely fantastic, prepared by different families of all the people who attended. I certainly secured a number of recipes on that day to cook some of those delightful dishes myself.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I turn to the issue raised by the member for Araluen. I believe the remarks I made have been taken completely out of context. The statement I made was a purely rhetorical statement not demanding any sort of reply from anyone. That particular question is a well-known artifice amongst legal circles, and is well-known as being a loaded question. It referred to the line of questioning which was being engaged in by the member about the construction and infrastructure around the port. If anyone has taken offence to that, I regret that, but the remark was not directed to any particular person. It was rhetorical question and most people in this place know what a rhetorical question is ...
Ms Carney: The member for Brennan was asking the question and you directed it to him.
Dr BURNS: Do not interrupt; you had your chance. It is a classic loaded question to illustrate the line of questioning.
I believe there is a bit of spin being engaged here, pious wrist wringing and outrage. People should sit down, take a deep breath and just recognise colloquialisms, rhetorical questions, and the use of the English language in a non-offensive way.
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Madam Deputy Speaker, this evening I commemorate the life of a young man from Central Australia, Kwementyaye Ryder, and acknowledge the devastating loss of this son and enormous ongoing grief of his mother, Mrs Therese Ryder.
We have heard a lot about the death of Mr Ryder since the tragic morning of 25 July 2009, but we have not heard much about his life. In Mrs Ryder’s own words to the media outside the court last Friday, and I take this quote from the Alice Springs News:
Now is the time to hear more of the story of Kwementyaye Ryder’s life.
Mr Ryder was born at Alice Springs Hospital on 25 September 1975. He had three brothers and five sisters, and he was Therese Ryder’s second eldest son. Mr Ryder grew up in Alice Springs and attended OLSH Primary School and the Catholic high school. Two of the teachers who knew him well were Nicole Traves and Michael Bowden. Mr Ryder was also a close mate of Michael’s son, Sean Bowden, who referred to him always as a brother. He was a clever student and picked up new ideas quickly. When a conversation stopped he would quickly fill in the gap. In fact, Mr Ryder spoke at least four languages; he was very well spoken in English and Arrernte and could also speak a bit of Anmatjere and Adnyamathanha, the language near Port Augusta. He once surprised family members from South Australia who were visiting Alice Springs by sneaking up behind them and starting to speak in their language. They were amazed to hear it in Alice Springs, until they saw he was the speaker.
Mr Ryder had a keen interest in stock work which he learned on Murray Downs Station with his younger brother. Later, he worked on Idracowra Station and at Amata in South Australia with his brother, Henry Bloomfield. He also worked on a fencing contract near Ti Tree, and the supervising contractor later told the family that Mr Ryder was one of the best workers.
Mr Ryder’s traditional lands included Corroboree Rock, N’Dhala Gorge, Trephina Gorge, and Ross River area. This country, with its great tourist spots, inspired Mr Ryder to train to be a park ranger. He developed good relationships with many Parks and Wildlife rangers, including Graeme Horne, Hugh Woodbury, and Garth Forrester, as he worked and trained in Alice Springs and at Trephina Gorge.
Mr Ryder, with his three brothers, was a long-time Federals Football Club player and supporter. He loved spending time with his family; he could not walk past a family member’s house without stopping and talking for a while. Mr Ryder was devoted to his nieces and nephews and liked to entertain all of the kids. His favourite music was modern country, and he would sing along to Mark Chestnutt, Clint Black and Alan Jackson, to name but a few. He would pick up the words to new songs straightaway, and all of the family would sit and listen to him sing.
Kwementyaye Ryder loved to dress up when he went out on the town. He would dress to the nines in his Western wear, complete with Akubra hat and boots. This is how his fiance, Jade, first met him at Bojangles in Alice Springs. This is how he was pictured in all the newspapers after his death. That same photo shone with his personality; everyone commented that was how they remembered Kwementyaye Ryder - his positive attitude and cheeky sense of humour.
There are no winners in this story, but there is a hero - a forgotten hero. I thank Mrs Therese Ryder, with whom I spent much time over the past month. Therese is the person who has held Alice Springs together during this horrible period. She has been warm, calm, loving, and kind, even when her whole world has been falling apart. Therese has stayed so strong through such a painful time she is an inspiration to all of us.
The grief of a mother who loses a child never goes away. In fact, some days it must seem too much to bear. We, as a community, need to remember this and respect that Mr Ryder’s family and friends are mourning, and will be mourning for a long time.
A mother’s grief is best expressed in her own words. This is how Therese Ryder described it:
Mr Ryder was important to many people: his partner, his family, his friends, his work mates and, of course, his mother. He influenced many people during his lifetime through his consistently positive personality and sense of humour.
Mr Ryder will be sorely missed and I cannot think of his death without a sense of great loss and regret for a life taken too soon.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Deputy Speaker, quite often, we have to stand in this House and raise issues in order to get the Northern Territory government members to get off their backsides to actually do something.
I would like to raise this issue and quote from a Letter to the Editor in last week’s Katherine Times, April 21, titled ‘Where is the report?’:
I am sure Ms Tapp Coutts will not mind me reading her Letter to the Editor into the Parliamentary Record of this parliament. I do not believe she has been contacted by anyone from the Northern Territory government to acknowledge her letter or her concerns about the fact that, once again, Katherine - and, in fact, for that matter, anywhere below Berrimah or Palmerston, or whatever seems to be the current demarcation line this government likes to work behind - is left languishing without not even a common shred of decency to provide us with simply a report.
At this point, I am not even asking for anything to be done - for goodness sake, not even a copy of a report or anything!
I have a few pages from the website printed today, dated 28 April 2010, the printing date, which talked about, on page 1, Katherine Planning for the Future Forum, issues impacting the future use and development of land in Katherine would be discussed at a forum to be held on 28 November 2008. Another page went on to talk about the program and what activities would be on. It talked about the timetable for the day, starting at 8.30 am going through to 4.30 pm. It has a few questions to start people who went along thinking - and that was 60-odd people from Katherine who came along.
Some of the questions were: ‘What do you consider are the issues for the future growth of Katherine? What are the requirements for future land use? What options do you consider are available? Do you have any suggestions for small changes that may make a big difference?’ Then it goes on another page telling us who was coming along to give presentations. There were guest speakers invited to the forum. They included the Mayor Anne Shepherd; the Director of Water Management, Ian Lancaster; Regional Director for Planning and Infrastructure, Mr Graham Newhouse - that is how long ago this was, Mr Newhouse has now left the Northern Territory government, retired; Project Manager Strategic Planning Department, Del Batten. It talked about another person who was invited along here – now, where is it? Oh, yes, morning tea. There is a page where it said the program after morning tea at 10.45 am was going to be a ministerial address.
I do not know if the ministerial address actually happened, but it would not surprise me that this bloke’s name is all over it, as we have seen many times in the past. If you can point at a Northern Territory government stuff-up, you will find minister Knight, or the member for Daly, Mr Rob Knight MLA listed as giving the ministerial address.
The final page I would like to bring to the attention of the House is called ‘Katherine Planning for the Future Forum Outcomes’. There it is. It says here, and I quote from the web page printed today - Lord knows how many months after this was supposed to be done: ‘The outcomes of the forum will be available on this page after the forum’. Well, I do not suppose this page is lying. ‘The outcomes of the forum will be available on this page after the forum’. No one fully expected the outcomes would be more than 12 months delayed in getting on to this web page.
I encourage the Northern Territory government, whoever has carriage of this matter now - I am assuming they are talking about planning matters, which would probably be the minister for Planning, Infrastructure or Construction, or whatever he is these days - to take a look at the website, take a look the work that has been put in during the course of the future forum, have a look at the submissions which were made by the 60 or so people from Katherine who attended, and have a look at the submissions and the speeches, the presentations that were made by various members of the Northern Territory departments who came along.
For goodness sake, can the government please pass on a report or some kind of document the people of Katherine can hang their hat on and say: ‘Isn’t it nice the Northern Territory government has actually done something for Katherine?’ We know it is a rare occurrence to see anything done - anything around Katherine or anywhere below the Berrimah Line. I wait with bated breath on that topic to see just what the budget might bring to Katherine. I have said to the newspaper in Katherine as recently as the other day I am hopeful Katherine and its region will get a good slice of the budget pie - but to quote what I said, I am not holding my breath.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
LIQUOR LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 94)
(Serial 94)
Continued from 25 February 2010.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, to outline this bill for members, the purpose, essentially, is to introduce measures to reduce alcohol-fuelled violence across the Northern Territory. It is accomplished by the creation of designated areas in the vicinity of licensed premises, and gives police the ability to issue banning notices for specific offences within the designated area, or the court to impose exclusion orders for the specific offences committed within that designated area.
The bill introduces four distinct concepts to the Liquor Act: new false ID offences to reduce underage access to licensed premises; facilitate accords between licensees to reduce alcohol-related violence; introduce designated areas, banning notices and exclusion orders to reduce alcohol-related violence; and removal from licensed premises.
There has been much focus in the media in recent times on the increasing levels of violence in licensed premises and licensed precincts in many of Australia’s metropolitan towns. Sadly, Darwin and other major Territory centres have not escaped this disturbing trend. There are regular all-out brawls involving up to a couple of hundred people on Mitchell Street. We see it regularly. Security guards are needed at the Mitchell Street taxi rank to prevent the regular fights that erupt after closing time when people are waiting for taxis.
It is estimated only 12% of trauma patients presenting at the Royal Darwin Hospital emergency department have not been a victim of alcohol-related violence. It is not just young, underage males initiating the violence. In a brawl reported in the Northern Territory News on 15 March 2010, it was a woman who initiated the assault on a bouncer refusing entry to her and her three companions; and two men arrested at that brawl were aged 27 and 30.
The opposition intends to support this bill as I believe we all agree that measures to curb alcohol-related violence are desperately needed. However, I cannot help but be concerned this government has, yet again, chosen to follow the path of introducing new legislation just to be seen to be doing something to address alcohol-related violence across the Northern Territory, rather than providing resources to enforce existing legislation. A failure of the Alcohol Court is one that springs to mind.
In 2006, the government introduced, with much fanfare and, may I add, they introduced the Liquor Amendment Bill, their latest and greatest attempt at stemming alcohol-related antisocial behaviour. The bill allowed local governments to apply to the Licensing Commissioner to have an area declared as a ‘dry area’, which was added on top of the existing 2 km law across the Territory. Dry areas were implemented in Darwin, Katherine and Alice Springs. If you take a walk down the Esplanade most days, you will still see itinerants drinking alcohol. There is no satisfactory enforcement of this legislation; that is pretty clear. The situation is repeated in Alice Springs. We see it time and time again in many of our public areas in Central Australia and Alice Springs. Alice Springs is a ‘dry town’. We see alcohol consumption and alcohol-related violence in the mall, the Royal Flying Doctor Service Park, Billy Goat Hill, and many other areas across Alice Springs, and presentations at the Alice Springs Hospital as a result of excess alcohol consumption.
Obviously, with the introduction of this bill and the escalation of antisocial behaviour for violence, things have become much worse, despite the intention and the implementation of public restricted areas and dry areas. In fact, there has been a whole raft of new legislation introduced by this government to control alcohol consumption and alcohol-related violence and harm, but with the absence of reinforcement on the ground. Without the resources, the legislation and government rhetoric to prevent drinking and alcohol-related violence is simply just hot air and worthless paper. With the declared areas, the banning notices, exclusion orders and false IDs seizure, I fear this bill will, again, be an empty promise to bring about change.
We see it all too often. It was a topic of debate yesterday in many areas, particularly to do with health reform. I fear we will see this as an attempt by the government to be seen to be doing something to curb alcohol-related violence across the Northern Territory.
My other main concern with this legislation is the government consistently adds layer upon layer of bandaid solutions and restrictions that either do not work or have not been given the required support so our coordinating new policies will work with the existing ones.
As I mentioned before, public dry areas were introduced to reduce alcohol-related antisocial behaviour. This was a layer added to the existing 2 km law. We already had the 2 km law in place, and now we have a dry town in place in Central Australia in Alice Springs, yet we are not seeing huge reductions in alcohol-related antisocial behaviour. One just has to walk down the street to see that.
We now have a new type of restricted area: the declared area that works in complete isolation to existing restricted areas. However, with the lack of enforcement of those laws, I am not confident this government has the backbone to follow through with these laws. How many extra police are going to be provided to operate in these declared areas, to hand out banning notices and charge people with the specified offences referred to in this bill?
The list of specified offences is quite extensive. I will read a list of offences for which a person may receive a banning notice if committed in a declared area. They are: failure to comply with direction to leave a licensed premises; returning to premises within 12 hours of removal under section 121; offences relating to riots, gross indecency in public, threats to kill, recklessly endangering life, recklessly causing serious harm, negligently causing serious harm; drink or food spiking; acts intended to cause serious harm or prevent apprehension; serious harm, harm; common assault; assault on police; sexual intercourse and gross indecency without consent; threats; assault with intent to steal; unlawful entry of buildings; persons found armed with the intent to unlawfully enter buildings; arson; attempts to commit arson; criminal damage in general; drinking in public; drinking by minors in a public place; offensive conduct; penalty for indecent exposure of the person; obscenity; carriage or use of controlled weapons; carriage or use of controlled weapons by a person under the age of 18; and carriage or use of offensive weapons.
As you see, that list is quite extensive. The question has to be asked: will the courts receive any extra support to deal with what I can only assume will be an influx of offenders as a result of those offences? What will happen to those offenders? Once they get nabbed, will they receive punishment or will they continue to offend once they have completed that banning order?
The whole premise is to reduce alcohol-related violence. Yet, there is no requirement for the offender to be intoxicated at the time of the offence. If they are intoxicated, there is nothing in place to address the underlying problem, which is that person’s inability to responsibly consume alcohol and limit their intake to a quantity that will not result in violence. This will only see a churn of the same offenders before the court, for the same offences because, as with the current situation with protective custody, the underlying behaviour that results in alcohol-related violence is not being addressed.
Madam Speaker, the opposition supports the intent of this bill. We would like to see the bill go further; that is, place people into rehabilitation. We need to be able to get control of the problem, not just ban those people who are unable to responsibly consume alcohol and limit their intake to a quantity that will not result in violence. That person, once they have completed their banning order or their exclusion order, is free to offend again and again. There is no mechanism in this bill to direct that person into rehabilitation. The problem will still exist without rehabilitation.
The opposition supports the intent of the bill but, as we advised the government prior to these sittings, we will be introducing committee stage amendments to address our concerns with this part of the bill. We have a number if amendments to get through, Madam Speaker. The opposition supports the intent of the bill, and we will continue in the committee stages.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I support the Liquor Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 (Serial 94). Before I go to my prepared comments as Police minister, I will go to some of the issues raised by the member for Greatorex. This is an initiative by this government, in partnership with the AHA and police, to work towards a practical solution to deal with a relatively small number of people who commit offences and antisocial behaviour in and around licensed premises and precincts, such as the Mitchell Street precinct. As the member for Greatorex said, in all jurisdictions in Australia these types of offences in precincts are becoming more prevalent. We entered into a discussion with the industry and with police to look to practical measures to exclude people from precincts and get the troublemakers out of premises and out of precincts.
I said on the radio this morning that this is targeting a relatively small number of people who drink too much grog on a Friday or a Saturday night and, at 2 am turn into someone totally different, and are hell-bent on ruining other people’s night out. We are not talking about this legislation being directed towards hundreds and hundreds of people. The member for Greatorex said there are regular, all-in brawls of up to 200 people on Mitchell Street. I can certainly say, as Police minister, I do not know what his definition of ‘regular’ is, but it is certainly not a ‘regular’ event to have all-in brawls of up to 200 people in Mitchell Street. That is just inflammatory language.
I am not saying it never happens, but it is certainly not a regular occurrence. What we do have is a handful of idiots whose idea of a good night out is to have a skinful of grog, and probably consume some other substances as well, and then pick on people for a rumble for enjoyment on a night out. This is what we are targeting here.
For getting the troublemakers out of precincts, of course, police have powers to charge people with specific offences outside of what this legislation is aimed to target. I would expect, if police do have evidence and a complaint of a serious violent assault, then that is what the person will be charged with, not be charged under this legislation.
The member for Greatorex pontificated about the resources we are putting in place here are all window dressing. It builds on a package of measures already in place. The government, with financial support from the federal government, has introduced comprehensive closed circuit TV coverage of the Mitchell Street precinct, the Darwin CBD, Casuarina, Palmerston and Alice Springs. It was this government that introduced CCTV. The latest brief I have from police is, already, about 40 specific briefs of evidence have gone forward for prosecution as a result of the CCTV coverage in our cities.
Also, the member for Greatorex might not be aware that it was this government which funded, in last year’s budget, a specific, dedicated City Safe police patrol for the Mitchell Street precinct. We already had, prior to this legislation, dedicated police patrolling Mitchell Street. That has been in place for at least six to eight months. So, this is not window dressing; this is, in partnership with industry and police, building on initiatives we already have in place to deal with a relatively small number of idiots who cannot have a good night out without getting involved in a blue. That is what we are putting in place here.
I also comment on his remarks regarding emergency department presentations; that only 12% of presentations do not include alcohol. I point out to the member for Greatorex, in dealing with this legislation which is confined to dealing with people on licensed premises and precincts, 80% of all alcohol consumed in the Northern Territory is sold off, not on, licensed premises. The vast majority of those alcohol-related presentations in our emergency departments are in relation to alcohol-related violence where the alcohol is consumed off premises, not on premises. Tragically, the vast majority of domestic violence which occurs is as a result of excessive consumption of alcohol. Trying to relate that issue with this bill is nonsensical.
He also talked about dealing with this in isolation. I point out that in the alcohol management plans we have in place in Groote Eylandt, Nhulunbuy, and Alice Springs, building on a package of measures, there has been a massive decrease in violence and antisocial behaviour on Groote Eylandt, and a significant decrease in Nhulunbuy as a result of the measures this government has put in place. In Alice Springs, there is still far too much alcohol being consumed and far too many problems; however, the consumption of alcohol has decreased by 20%, with a significant reduction in presentations to the emergency department.
Of course, we can always do more, and we will continue to do more. However, on this side of the House, we certainly will not support a policy of pouring more grog onto the problem and extending opening hours for the sale of alcohol off premises. That is the policy position of the opposition, and any comments they make in regard to alcohol have to be seen in the light that they have a specific and explicit policy of selling more alcohol off premises. That is in direct contradiction to all the evidence which clearly shows you need to constrain supply and, where supply is constrained and better regulated, there is a reduction in crime and antisocial behaviour. There are no studies which show, in my opinion, if you actually increased the amount of alcohol available and for sale in Alice Springs it would reduce the type of problems the opposition has claimed.
The member for Greatorex’s policy position is absolutely nonsensical and is not backed by any evidence-based approach to dealing with those issues. It is a whistle to a small section of the community in Alice Springs - and the opposition knows exactly who they are whistling to in Alice Springs. Any position they have on alcohol, until they get rid of that policy of ‘we need to sell more grog to reduce the problems associated with grog’, is completely nonsensical.
Mr Conlan: Go to the public bar of the Todd Tavern at 11.30 and see how much grog is being sold there?
Mr HENDERSON: I challenge the member for Greatorex …
Mr Conlan: Or the Gap View Hotel.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Conlan: Go and see how much grog is being sold there.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex!
Mr HENDERSON: … to produce any supportive statement from any physician, any doctor or any nurse in the emergency department in Alice Springs, any professional research person at the university in Alice Springs, from anyone who is in the front line dealing with those issues in Alice Springs who supports the CLP policy of more grog equals less antisocial behaviour, less violence and less domestic violence. That is the issue …
Mr Conlan: They are interested in controlling demand not supply. It is the demand for alcohol that you guys cannot get a grip on.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HENDERSON: The challenge is there for the member for Greatorex to provide me with any statement from any doctor at that hospital, any nurse at that hospital, anyone who deals in the front line with these issues who says the sale of more grog equals less domestic violence, more grog equals less antisocial behaviour, particularly when 80% of all of our alcohol is consumed off premises. It is a totally nonsensical position from the member for Greatorex, not backed up by any evidence, or any support from any professional body they have been able to provide.
Having dealt with the comments from the member for Greatorex, as the Attorney-General said …
Mr Mills: Not very well, though.
Mr HENDERSON: Well, if that is the policy you want to take to the election, good luck! I look forward to the television advertisements: more grog equals less domestic violence. I look forward to the TV ads during the next election.
As the Attorney-General said in her second reading speech, most people want to have an enjoyable social experience when using the services and facilities available from the hospitality industry. I said on the radio this morning that some 18 000 people - I think over the weekend, or was it over a night?
Ms Lawrie: Over the weekend.
Mr HENDERSON: Over the weekend. … enjoy a night out on Mitchell Street. That night out can be ruined because of a few idiots who cannot control their alcohol intake. That is what we are trying to deal with in this legislation.
People are entitled to enjoy themselves with their friends in entertainment venues and licensed premises. Many adults I know enjoy a social night out with their mates, share a few drinks, music, and entertainment. It is not that many years ago - in fact, it probably is too many years ago - when I used to enjoy a night out to the wee hours of the morning in and around the entertainment precinct of Darwin. When I first came to the Northern Territory you could stay up to 6 am. I did that on a number of occasions as well. I probably should not have, but I did, and I did not get into trouble and had a great night out. We have gone from 6 am to 4 am.
It is a reasonable expectation people can do so without being subjected to alcohol-fuelled violence and unacceptable behaviour. Under existing programs such as City Safe, police target antisocial behaviour of patrons in the vicinity of licensed premises and the compliance of licensees. As a government, we have also increased the number of licensing inspectors to add to the range of resources we have put to making these areas safe.
This bill delivers substantial new powers to police, liquor regulators, and licensees. These measures will reduce unacceptable behaviour associated with licensed premises and the consumption of alcohol. One of the key objectives of the bill is to eliminate patrons who cannot behave themselves in licensed precincts.
The introduction of amendments to the Liquor Act will provide police with another tool to reduce and minimise problems associated with alcohol-fuelled violence and antisocial behaviour across the Territory. The objectives also align with the priorities identified in the Territory 2030 strategy in the core area of Society for reducing personal and property crime.
Police will now have the power to direct a person from a licensed premises when intoxicated or involved in unacceptable behaviour where, previously, instruction was required by the licensee or their representative – section 121. A designated area can be declared and the specified offences committed in these areas can attract a banning notice. As I said before, if the offence is a serious assault, I would expect police to charge the perpetrator with a serious assault offence as opposed to using this legislation. I am sure they will.
Police can issue a banning notice, not exceeding a 48-hour period, when they suspect, on reasonable grounds, the person is committing or has committed a specified offence in a designated area. A banning notice will be an effective and reasonable way of preventing the continuation of offences in the designated area.
The Commissioner of Police can make an application to the court for an exclusion order for a period of not more than 12 months, if satisfied on three separate occasions within a period of 24 months before the application, the person receiving the banning notice in a designated area will receive an infringement notice in relation to a specified offence. The banning notice and exclusion orders will allow police to identify and remove participants who engage in alcohol-fuelled violence and antisocial behaviour within the community. This is, very explicitly, targeting the relatively small number of idiots whose idea of a good night out is to have a skinful and belt people up. Police will now be able to better deal with those people.
Police will monitor the issuing of banning notices and related offences to analyse their effectiveness and application, and will continue to work closely with other government agencies to reduce antisocial behaviour and alcohol-fuelled violence.
The majority of patrons in hospitality venues behave responsibly. These new provisions will strengthen the powers of police, regulators, and licensees to deal with the minority who behave unacceptably. This is a very targeted response to a specific issue with full consultation and cooperation with industry and police. It builds on a series of measures and investments by this government, including significant coverage of CCTV, the establishment of dedicated police patrols for the Mitchell Street precinct, the establishment of the taxi rank, and the targeting of that relatively small number of idiots whose idea of a good night out, as I said, is a skinful of grog and getting into a blue. Well, they are very much on notice now that if you behave like that, you are gone for 48 hours and, if you behave like that three times within 24 months, you could be banned for another 12 months.
Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to the House.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I need to speak in light of what the Chief Minister had to say.
We are all concerned about the behaviour of certain Territorians and the impact they have on our community. We acknowledge there is concern in all our communities – Alice Springs, Palmerston, Katherine – just to name three – and Darwin, of course. We acknowledge there is a response from government, and that response is what the community expects.
However, there is a clearly described difference between the two approaches. It may not be immediately recognised by the Chief Minister and this Labor team, who have a philosophical approach to matters such as the control of substances. I believe the premise on which they base their policy response is flawed; albeit the response is necessary and there are elements of the response which have already been indicated are supportable. However, the premise upon which your action is based is flawed, because of this: you believe alcohol itself is the problem therefore you would bring in measures to control alcohol because alcohol is the problem.
We beg to differ. We believe the inappropriate and reckless consumption of alcohol - decisions made by citizens for one reason or another - is the problem. It is not alcohol itself; it is the excessive drinking that is the problem. If you start from that premise, it results in a different approach and actions which recognise it is a consequence of decision-making and behaviour. It is behaviour which must change – not the supply, the demand issue.
Why is there such an excessive appetite, or thirst, for alcohol in our community? It is this question which needs to be properly understood, otherwise policy will not effect behavioural change. That is what we need to do: change behaviour. If we are going to cast this whole thing as alcohol itself being the problem, we are off to a wrong start.
We believe it is a consequence of decisions which are made. Labor would make excuses for those who make these decisions, because people are not responsible for their own decisions, it appears, when you track it back. I believe they are. They may need some assistance; they will definitely need rehabilitation; they need to be strengthened in their capacity to say no, or moderate their consumption. That is where the focus should be.
As a member of the substance abuse committee - and I have referred to this many times; it was very well led by the member for Macdonnell - if the Chief Minister is serious, if he is genuine in his call for evidence, just read that report. All we will do, if we follow this line based upon the logic ‘it is the supply of substance that is the problem, if we can control supply, we fix the problem’, you will see on every page of that report, that is a flawed approach. All you do is displace the presence of the substance to other places. You have dry towns, and you will have piles of cans on the outskirts, because you have not dealt with the underlying problem. That is why rehabilitation is at the heart of this, with the establishment of meaningful, serious consequences, and reminding people they have a choice in this matter. If they say: ‘I have no choice’, I say: ‘You are mistaken. You actually have a choice’.
I prefer to empower people to recognise the truth; they have a choice. If they feel they are unable to make that decision, that is why rehabilitation is required, so they at least have that capacity. To take that from people and say: ‘It is not really your fault, it is just some group of people over there - let us call them idiots if you like - and all the rest of us are just fine’, is misleading people. The truth is everyone has a choice in this matter and, if you do not have the strength to make that decision, that is why you have to go through a robust rehabilitation program.
The Country Liberals are serious about this and we understand the approach that is required. It is not a political problem, it is a social problem. Other societies, other communities, have taken this head on and been truthful about it and not misled people and wasted resources and ended up with no result. If the Chief Minister is serious, as he follows the logic of his approach through, he would then look at the prohibition in the US. The prohibition was the ultimate control of supply. Did that ultimate control of supply result in a fix to the problem? No, it gave rise to organised crime. I am using that as an example.
If you deal with supply and identify supply as the problem, and then control supply, you do not fix the problem, because it is the other element. There are the other elements, of course, reflected in the government’s approach, but the strength of their premise is based on the idea that supply of alcohol is the problem. It is not, of itself, the problem. The fundamental problem of balance in the strength of our position is it is the result of a decision that is made by a person, therefore, there must be a consequence. That is the strength of it. That applies in Palmerston, in Katherine, in Alice Springs, and in every one of us. The moment we reduce that, we waste resources, raise expectations and disappoint people, and do not provide leadership.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, the Chief Minister and I have been getting along pretty well in recent times. However, I think we are going to have a falling out in relation to this issue. I say at the outset, for the reasons outlined by my colleague, the member for Greatorex, we support the bill. However, we have some meaningful and useful amendments.
Having said that, there were some mischievous comments made by the Chief Minister …
Mr Conlan: Again.
Ms CARNEY: Again. … that, frankly, I just cannot let go. His contempt for the people of Alice Springs is very serious, indeed. The members for Braitling, Greatorex and Araluen, it is fair to say, did pretty well at the last election, getting between 60% and 70% or thereabouts, of the primary vote. You would have thought those opposite, if they were serious about ever trying to win a seat in Alice Springs, would think: ‘Those three are responding reasonably well to their community. Their community knows and understands them, that is why they vote for them. They are not barking mad’.
We have a range of policies that relate to Alice Springs, and we produce them for very good reason, not only because that is what our constituents want, but it is the right thing to do. It is very easy for those who do not live in our town to be contemptuous of ideas put forward by us and others of how to remedy some of the problems in our town. It is very easy when you are up here in Darwin, but I can assure members that my constituents, and those of my colleagues, are absolutely with us in selling alcohol earlier.
The Chief Minister issued a challenge. He said: ‘Where is the evidence it will work?’ Well, right back at you, Chief Minister: where is the evidence that it will not? We say - and police informally, off the record, have told us, as have security personal - if alcohol can be sold earlier, people will get drunk earlier in the day and, therefore, the problems will not move to the dark of the night. They would be dealt with during daylight hours.
One of the top three criteria for dealing with these problems for police and security personal is making sure you can see it. You can, arguably, stop women being bashed and stop homes being broken into in the daylight, as opposed to the night time.
I know the government is hell-bent on its hysterical rhetoric about the rivers of grog, blah, blah, blah. However, we have produced this policy in relation to the earlier sale of alcohol for good reason. The Chief Minister, if he is still Chief Minister at the next election – and the member for Karama will do all she can to ensure he is not, subject to permission granted by the member for Nelson - I would have thought he would need to get serious about responding to the issues and concerns of the people of Alice Springs.
The Chief Minister, as he is wont to do, selectively uses and misuses information. Here is the Moving Beyond the Restrictions, the Evaluation of the Alice Springs Alcohol Management Plan. Let me read some lines from it. The authors said:
- While responses indicated that the community believed that the town was quieter during the day, they indicated the trial had had little effect on alcohol consumption. Furthermore, the later takeaway trading hours had shifted the problem to later at night, a point also made about increased activity on town camps to later in the evening.
Rock on, Chief Minister! However, you are just not right. I guess it is probably not dissimilar to a debate on does God exist? Both parties will say to the other ‘show me the evidence’; however, the anecdotal evidence of those who I know and trust in Alice Springs is very supportive of what we have previously proposed.
Excuse me for being cynical - and far be it for me to be cynical – however, I have a belief that, had the problems in Mitchell Street been occurring in Alice Springs in the same way, this bill would never have seen the light of day. This is part of a political solution to a social problem. This government, notorious for doing nothing on almost everything, has come up with something to appease the traders and some mums and dads in and around Darwin, whose sons and daughters are morons, go to Mitchell Street, get full of grog, and then behave despicably.
I am all for getting stuck into morons - and I suppose I am doing that now – however, this is a Mitchell Street phenomena and, magically, we see a bill. No wonder the people of Alice Springs say: ‘Those people in Darwin do not understand and do not respond to us in the way they should. If this was happening in Darwin something would happen’. I know members opposite think my constituents - and probably us - have a chip on their shoulder, but it is true. If the problems in Alice Springs were happening in Darwin you would have done something. An example: the liquor takeaway hours are very different. If you drive from the north to the south of the Territory, they are different all the way. There is no consistency, no consistent policy approach, and it is pretty cheeky for this government to have rules for those of us in the deep south, different to those in the northern suburbs.
I note, with interest, the Attorney-General’s media release dated 15 February. It is headed: ‘Cracking Down on Alcohol Fuelled Violence’. I reckon it should have said ‘cracking down on alcohol-fuelled violence in Mitchell Street’, because this is what it is all about. It is, as I say, partly a political answer to a social problem. The disingenuous nature of this government is as serious on the one hand as it is amusing on the other. What a headline: ‘Cracking Down on Alcohol Fuelled Violence’. Where has this government been on cracking down on alcohol-fuelled violence in Indigenous communities around the Northern Territory?
Let me take you back. On 15 May 2006, Lateline interviewed Dr Nanette Rogers. She talked about the culture of violence and intimidation that existed in many Indigenous communities around the Northern Territory. Clare Martin, Chief Minister at the time, not only did not bother to see the interview, or no one on the fifth floor evidently bothered to brief her, but her approach and the approach of you all at that time, was to just bat it away. Hence, we saw the Matthew Bonson memo with his scathing comments about how scathing he thought Clare Martin was in relation to Aboriginal people. In any event, you do not own any moral high ground when it comes to ‘cracking down on alcohol-fuelled violence’ anywhere in the Northern Territory.
Despite the rhetoric and the heart-on-the-sleeve nonsense, your form of cracking down on alcohol- and non-alcohol-fuelled violence, in Indigenous communities in particular, is pretty shocking. Of course, there is always an assumption, in the case of those Indigenous men who bash Indigenous women, they will not do so if they are not drunk. I have said before in this Chamber, and outside: sober men bash women. What this government has done for about the last five or so years is hide behind this alcohol stuff. They just tinker around the edges with alcohol because dealing with the more substantive issues - those raised for instance by Dr Nanette Rogers and others – is too hard for you. Well, shame on you - shame on you all.
What it leads to is the government’s comments on domestic violence. I remember some years ago the government did not always talk about domestic violence. Then the crime figures started to go up and up. I remember the first time a government minister - in fact, it was Peter Toyne - started to say: ‘The increased rates of assault have to do with domestic violence’. Now it has become part of the government language.
No doubt, alcohol has a great deal to do with domestic violence, but it is not, and should never be, just a throwaway line when it comes to violence against women or, indeed, the broader problems with respect to alcohol, particularly in Indigenous communities.
The Chief Minister had a go at my colleague the member for Greatorex and said: ‘You should not link domestic violence to this bill’. Well, government links domestic violence and alcohol to pretty much everything these days, particularly when the crimes stats come out and the assault rates have increased. They use the language, but they do next to nothing - very little - when it comes to addressing the culture of male violence against women. Let us not assume the violence, for that matter, that occurs in Mitchell Street is just a bunch of male morons getting stuck into each other; it also involves women.
Moving on, I remember at estimates last year I was somewhat stunned to learn from the Corrections minister that in 2008-09 only 111 prisoners - just under 10% of the prisoner population - participated in a total of 13 alcohol rehabilitation programs. So, fewer than 10% of the prison population participated in alcohol rehabilitation programs.
Government, to its credit, is saying our gaols are full and there are many people there because of alcohol-related violence. Of course, that is supported by ABS figures, and I refer in particular to the ABS stats December quarter 2008, published in March 2009, in which it referred amongst other things, to alcohol treatment programs. It said that between 70% and 90% of assaults in Alice Springs are alcohol- and drug-related. That is a very high number of prisoners in our gaols with, essentially, alcohol and drug problems. Yet, in 2008-09, we had the government only having 111 prisoners participating in alcohol rehabilitation programs. Given that government is talking increasingly about domestic violence and how it is alcohol-related, that the crime stats are going up and up, that our gaols are becoming even fuller because there is such a high number of offenders due to alcohol-related offences, you would expect, would you not, a government to then get on with producing more rehabilitation programs based around alcohol?
From a government and a social point of view, if that is enemy No 1, so to speak, you would expect any decent government to follow through. But no, they are happy to issue Darwin-centric media releases and not build in the infrastructure required to address the problem, as both the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Greatorex have already stated. It is really quite disgraceful. I do not know how this government gets away with it, but I am somewhat hopeful, at the next election, they will not.
Our view is - and I have stated this in the past and happily do it again – given that alcohol, for instance, is such an enemy No 1 everyone is concerned about, we would not only provide more rehabilitation programs, we would make it compulsory for repeat offenders. What is the sanction? The sanction is make it a condition of their parole. We believe, given the significance of alcohol and alcohol-related violence in the community and that our gaols are full of offenders who are there as a result of alcohol-fuelled violence, it should be made compulsory. We believe the time has come. We believe there should be, in essence, mandatory rehabilitation programs for a range of offenders. However, since we are talking about alcohol, I will limit it to just alcohol.
The government has overcome its difficulty with the ‘m’ word, and we have seen that in the context of domestic violence legislation and, from memory, a couple of others. The Northern Territory Labor Party is now able to mutter the word ‘mandatory’. Given they have jumped what was apparently, for them, a pretty high hurdle, we do not and will not understand - and it is a very stark point of difference - why the Northern Territory Labor Party will not make it compulsory for repeat alcohol offenders in gaol to participate in rehabilitation programs. You would have thought, if this bill was a fair-dinkum approach to dealing with alcohol, part of the package - whether it is in legislation or the minister could have issued half a dozen more media releases on 15 February or since, saying: ‘We are going to have more rehabilitation programs, such is our commitment to dealing with alcohol’.
I note the Corrections minister, on 29 October last year, said in this place, when talking about various strategies to deal with offenders: ‘The strategies outlined in this House are the basics of education and rehabilitation’. He also said his government was ‘increasing the rehabilitation of our prisoners’. Well, you would not know it - you just would not know it.
That is a fundamental point of difference. It is hard not to be cynical about this government, but I am cynical. I also note the ‘t’ word in the media release of 15 February - ‘t’ being ‘tough’, a word often used by this government. In fact, one day, someone with an enormous amount of time on their hands should do a search of all government media releases from August 2001 to today, and see how many times the word ‘tough’ has appeared in media releases. There are just so many instances. I remember youth gangs - oh very tough …
Mr Mills: They were going to crack down on those.
Ms CARNEY: Yes, they were going to crack down on them too. The words ‘cracking down’ and ‘tough’ are words this government really likes to use. Apparently, this is going to be very tough …
Ms Purick: A new era.
Ms CARNEY: ‘A new era’ is another expression that is coming to the fore. However, it is difficult not to be cynical.
Having said that, there are, as we said at the outset some positive aspects to this legislation. We are simply making the point that this government, which is the Northern Territory version of the Clampetts, could have done so much better. It is just typical - believe me, I have been here since day one, since August 2001 - and their form is just astonishing; you can set your watch by it. What they do is issue media releases with ‘cracking down’ and ‘tough’ in it, do the media, get a couple of good runs, and then they walk away. That is partly why things are so bad in Alice Springs, because you issued the media releases, and then you walked away. Then, months later, someone flew down from Darwin and said: ‘Oh things are pretty bad. Oh, well, we are going back to Darwin tomorrow’ – blah, blah, blah.
You really do have very predictable, yet remarkable, form when it comes to, not actually in a substantive meaningful way, dealing with the problems you say are so very important and so desperately need to be addressed by government.
I could go on and, quite frankly, I am tempted, but there are just a couple of other points that I should make such as the accord component of this bill. I do not know what overcame the Attorney-General and Minister for Alcohol Policy, because she did not say in her media release of 15 February - neither did she say, I believe, in her second reading speech - the alcohol accord was all her idea - most unlike her.
This idea came from a group of licensees in Alice Springs. I remember when the member for Casuarina was Alcohol minister; I had met with licensees and it was a great idea. I rang the member for Casuarina - who I do not ring often, but when I do, he is always good enough to take my call, for which I thank him. I said: ‘Kon, this is great. What they are doing down here is really good. This will even have application for you guys in Darwin’. He knew about it and he was keen to learn more. I thank the member for Casuarina, because I then reported to those licensees that the Minister for Alcohol Policy was in, he was fair dinkum, he was committed to it, and he was also committed to learning more and making it work. He, obviously, did his job extremely well on that occasion and passed it to the new Minister for Alcohol Policy. So, that is great. It is an initiative in Alice Springs. Those people really picked up the idea and ran with it, and those people should be congratulated.
There were points made by the Police Commander, I believe, about two months ago, where she said on radio the alcohol laws in Alice Springs need looking at. We know that; stupidly, those opposite do not tend to believe or agree with my colleagues and me from Alice Springs, but I reckon you would want to take the lead from your Police Commander. Presumably, we will not agree on everything, but when our community, the elected members, and a Police Commander say - even from a narrow perspective - things are not working, you need to do something, and I would have thought a decent government would look at those issues.
Having said that, and subject to the amendments my colleague, the member for Greatorex has, I say for the record that we are supportive of this legislation. Why? We think it will have application elsewhere in the Territory. Why? It mirrors some of the things we have been saying for some time need to be addressed. Of course, we are supportive of it; however, I cannot, in conscience, say: ‘Yes, yes, yes, good on you’, without pointing to the bleeding obvious, which is the government’s poor form when it comes to implementing policy; namely, issuing a media release and then walking away; the government’s predictability when it comes to using words in media releases, ‘cracking down’, and the word ‘tough’ and so on.
This government is not a very good government. Its first term was pretty good, second term pretty ordinary, third term shabby - very shabby, very sloppy. It is very disappointing for our constituents in Alice Springs.
On that note, Madam Speaker, I will conclude. I hope the Chief Minister and I can continue to get along well, notwithstanding our vehement disagreement on this particular issue.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the department for the briefing it gave us on the Liquor Act amendments. When I look at what the minister said in her second reading, these particular amendments are, I believe, only tinkering with the issue. I have heard it said part of the reason this particular legislation is being introduced is also to cover those people who are not affected by alcohol necessarily, but may enter a premises looking for a fight with people who have been drinking.
Although that is what I gather some people are saying, when I read the Attorney-General’s second reading I have no doubt the main reason for this legislation is to deal with alcohol-fuelled violence - not just violence from people who happen to wander into a licensed premises. The Attorney-General said:
- … I announced a major, new initiative in the fight against alcohol-fuelled violence in our community. That package mooted this bill and a substantial new effort to communicate with young people about these issues. Fifty-nine percent of all assaults in the Northern Territory are alcohol-related.
Further, the Attorney-General said:
- This will enable people to go out and enjoy themselves over a few drinks with their mates and have a good time without being subjected to alcohol-fuelled violence and unacceptable behaviour.
Further down it said:
Continual media reports clearly demonstrate the cost of alcohol-fuelled violence.
And, further:
- The purpose of the bill is to amend the Liquor Act to assist licensees, police, licence regulators and the courts in the reduction of antisocial behaviour associated with … the consumption of alcohol.
It is clear to me this is only tampering with what is a major problem in our society: the abuse of alcohol. Yet, for some reason, governments tend to walk away from the reality; that is, alcohol is misused. That is the key reason why we have not only violence: we have car accidents, straight-out aggression, domestic issues and, as the Attorney-General said, 59% of all assaults in the Northern Territory are alcohol-related. I believe the figures are higher for the number of people in prison due to alcohol-related issues. My understanding is we have the highest facial injury per head of population attending Darwin hospital. In other words, we have people who have broken jaws, broken noses and fractured skulls. We have some of the highest rates in Australia in relation to the violence which occurs, and we see that in the type of injuries which present at the hospitals.
I have to ask, and I have spoken about it before, why the government does not look at drunkenness as something which is not cool. It seems we are saying to people: ‘Have a good time; you can get drunk as long as you do not become violent’. Yet we know drunkenness can also cause health problems, and many people who do end up in RDH are people who have abused alcohol.
Some years ago we removed public drunkenness as an offence, as not being appropriate. Whether that is a good idea or a bad idea, I suppose we can still argue. But, we do seem to be reluctant to say drunkenness is actually lack of control. We are not willing to take the challenge and say to our young people - and we talk about binge drinking, and binge drinking is getting drunk – binge drinking is no good. We are not getting out there and saying that abusing alcohol, getting drunk, is not something cool. It is time the government actually started to say it is not cool, and the reason it is not cool is because of this, this, this, and this: you can end up in hospital; you can kill someone when you drive a car; and you can get pregnant if you leave yourself open to being caught in a state where you do not have control over yourself.
All those issues our young people need to be reminded of, especially when it comes to the dangers of binge drinking and the abuse of alcohol. Yet, we seem to just say: ‘We do not mind you drinking, we do not mind you getting drunk, but we will worry about you when you hit the bloke next door, or you smash a glass in someone’s face, or go into the street and start a fight’. We have to start to work on the sensible consumption of alcohol and until we do that we will just be tinkering around the edges.
No one is against people having a good time at a party, or enjoying a drink but, at times, I see people who, literally, are going to a party to get drunk. I am sure that is not something the government should promote. We should also be realistic about the fact that many people who abuse alcohol become dependent upon alcohol and end up being alcoholics. We know that is a very difficult thing for many people to overcome. It is also a costly blight on our society. It has economic ramifications, especially with people being unable to work, or unable to work to the efficiency they would normally be able to. So, there are other ramifications as well when it comes to the abuse of alcohol.
I come back to the bill which is before us. It is designed, generally speaking, to remove people who are causing problems in licensed premises. It deals with issues about false identification, etcetera, with banning notices, and with designated areas. The question I ask about designated areas is: is it the minister who makes a piece of land, or an area, a designated area? What concerns me is why should there not be some public consultation? If, in the Darwin CBD he said: ‘We will make Mitchell Street a designated area’, in theory, a person could go to Cavenagh Street and cause a problem there. Would it not be better to talk to the people in the area and say: ‘We are thinking of declaring a designated area. What should the boundary of that designated area be?’ There are other licensed premises in the CBD. Also, you might find some people abandon this area and go to Parap. So, should that be a designated area? If it is a designated area, who is going to physically check the people who were banned in this designated area are banned in that designated area?
Recently, there was a classic example in the paper of a person who was banned from a club on Bathurst Island. The reason that person came to Darwin was because she could still drink here. You could say Nguiu was a designated area, and if a person is banned from there, they cannot come to Darwin and do the same thing. Otherwise, what is the point? You just shift the problem from A to B. There needs to be a little more discussion on that as well.
The other area, of course, is the exclusion areas. Basically, this means the person, if they are guilty of three banning notices, can be excluded from an area for 12 months or more and have some conditions similar to bail or parole. I wonder whether these exclusion orders can apply to places like Marrara. In fact, I probably should have asked before about a place like the Marrara TIO Stadium. Just a few months ago, the Police Commissioner stated he believed that lower alcohol or light beer should be sold there rather than heavy beers. I hope I do not misquote him, but he was speaking about the amount of violence which had occurred at a particular football match. I have seen some of that violence firsthand. I am wondering whether the government regards the TIO Stadium as a licensed premises which, I presume, it is – it has Kantillas Function Centre and sells beer. Would it declare the whole Marrara area a designated area, and would it, therefore, say to people who have three banning notices they were excluded from that area for 12 months? Could it be used for that particular purpose?
The other area of alcohol violence is seen around residential areas. Perhaps this law does not cover it because a house is not generally regarded as a licensed premises. However, one of the areas I have seen in my own area which has caused violence is parties that have got out of hand, where Police and Emergency Services people have been stoned and forced to retreat because of alcohol-fuelled violence. I do not know whether you could have a designated area and the concept applied where this behaviour has occurred. The idea of these reforms was to reduce alcohol violence and, maybe, there are some other areas where these ideas could be applied.
Getting back to the exclusion orders where the court can sentence an offender, ban a person for 12 months from an area, or set bail conditions. I note the amendments presented by the member for Greatorex requiring, if the court is satisfied on the evidence before it that the offender was intoxicated when specified events were committed, an exclusion order may require the offender to complete an approved program within a specific period. I am not actually against what the member for Greatorex is putting forward; I would rather see a broader discussion on it.
I am saying that because we have a range of issues raised by this particular matter. We have the Alcohol Court where a magistrate can send someone off to approved programs. My concern is this debate needs to be broadened because we are just picking on one particular part of the bill in regard to alcohol-related violent offences.
There are other kinds of alcohol offences. There is the offence of being continually drunk. I know it is not an offence in the circumstance of a public place but, if people are being picked up continually in Darwin for being drunk - and I have said before that over a certain number of times then there should be a court order that requires these people to do a rehabilitation course ...
Mr Conlan: That is our habitual drunks policy.
Mr WOOD: Yes, I do not think we have done enough work in that area. I am willing to talk to the Country Liberals and the government about this issue. I have said, time and time again, there should be places where, instead of going to gaol, you can send them to a place, which might be a small farm …
Mr Conlan: That is our policy.
Mr WOOD: It has been my policy probably longer than your policy.
Members interjecting.
Mr WOOD: Leader of the Opposition, I was just having a mild dig.
I am saying that it has been around for a long time. The idea of having a small farm or a place of rehabilitation, I believe, is a good one. It is something the government needs to look at because, if people are going in and out the revolving doors time and time again, then there is a time and place when courts have to say: ‘If you cannot help yourself, then we are going to require you to do some rehabilitation’. If people do not want to do that then, perhaps, it is simply that they will go to gaol for a period of time and do their rehabilitation in prison.
I believe the notion of rehabilitation for habitual offenders is worth looking at. I am not satisfied that it should be an amendment to this particular bill, but I would like to work with the opposition to see whether we can take up, for instance, some of this discussion paper on Alcohol Court reforms.
If the government is going to tackle the issues that bedevil us in the Northern Territory in relation to the abuse of alcohol, you can only regard this bill today as a very small part of an issue that will require much more debate. Perhaps we even have to look for new ideas. We are constantly going around ideas which have been around for a while. I am not sure whether someone actually sits down and works out if some of these things have actually made a difference. The Chief Minister said if you go to hospital in Alice Springs you see there has been a reduction in the number of people being admitted to hospital. That might be so. I know when there was Thirsty Thursday in Tennant Creek it certainly saw a reduction in the number of people who attended because of violence fuelled by alcohol abuse.
I believe the issue for us really is the overall attitude in society to alcohol. How many of our sporting clubs rely on the profits of alcohol? I remember the previous member for Katherine, Fay Miller, explaining how the Katherine Football Club had decided there would not be alcohol served at the Katherine football ground, and numbers dropped off immediately. That is an example of why many clubs are so dependent on alcohol, because they simply do not have the funds to continue their sporting activities without that extra income which comes with alcohol. With that, of course, comes a culture that alcohol and sport work hand-in-hand.
I am happy to support this bill today. We might have this bill put out as a major reform. I believe it is a reform - I would not say it is a major reform. I did have a little chuckle when I read the second reading speech where the minister said:
- This government is determined to follow two basic policy pathways. The first is about eliminating people who cannot behave themselves …
I thought that was a bit rich; it sounds like they are not going to exist anymore. There might have been a better word used there instead of ‘eliminating’. I know some people might be tempted to say that.
The reality is we are not going to get rid of all these problems, even with all these laws, just like you push with tobacco being unhealthy. How many millions of dollars are being put into programs to tell people that smoking is unhealthy, that it is not a good lifestyle? We have not banned tobacco, but we have promoted that tobacco is a drug which can cause major health problems. Why have we not done the same with alcohol? Have we been scared of the big breweries? Are they so powerful governments are not willing to say the abuse of alcohol will cause major problems, it will cause social problems, and it will destroy families in some cases? We know that. It will also put extra pressure on our prisons.
The government has to bite the bullet when it comes to saying there are some down sides to alcohol. We had a great campaign years ago - the Living with Alcohol program. There would be no harm in revisiting that type of program. I believe it was successful; however, it depended on a taxation system where light beer was cheaper than full-strength beers. I was speaking to a fellow in the pub at Howard Springs recently who said light beer is nearly the same price as full-strength beer. Why bother buying light beer if I can get carton of full-strength beer for nearly the same price? I do not know whether that is a recent phenomenon, but I would certainly be concerned if light beer has now become nearly the equivalent price of full-strength, because that was a key plank to the Living with Alcohol program.
In summary, the government should look much broader than it is. I know it is talking about its alcohol management plan. I am not sure who is developing that plan or who is able to comment on that plan. I know there are alcohol management plans in some parts of the Territory; usually they are small communities. I am interested to see how it will work in a larger community like Darwin. I am interested in some of the details. I am interested to see why, in some cases, you need a court to look at reducing hours if all the pubs said they were going to close at 2 am. The Licensing Commission can tell them that today.
I support the bill, but we need to go much further. The idea of compulsory rehabilitation should be looked at in certain circumstances where people are repeat offenders. Whether it is because they have been given three banning orders, they are continually being picked up by the police or the Night Patrol, or whether they continually have DVOs, where people are repeat offenders there needs to come a time where the courts can require them to do programs to change their lives around. They are costly to society; they are also a pest, generally speaking. They drive people mad because they are drunk all the time and are offensive. Society has to be tough in some cases – they call it tough love. I do not know whether it will solve everything, however, we have to try to have rehabilitation programs for people who cannot help themselves. If you cannot help yourself, someone else has to put their hand out and say: ‘We will help you, but you will be forced to go through this program’. Whether that will work or not, only time will tell. At the moment, I do not believe we are doing enough with that particular side of the problem.
Madam Speaker, I support the bill as it is.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I was not intending to contribute to this debate, however, the comments from the member for Nelson have inspired me to my feet. I confess I am not surprised to hear us talking about alcohol in this Chamber again.
In fact, purely at random - and I apologise for walking in front of you; however, I was aware the time limitation being applied was forcing me to do that to obtain the oldest bound copy of Hansard I can find on the table. On page 23 of the oldest copy of bound Hansard we can find on the table is a petition. This, by the way, dates back to 22 September 1977. One of the first things we find people complaining about – the full sum of my research is to walk over there, grab a book at random, walk back over here - on page 23, is a petition being presented by Hon Roger Steele. Basically, it is complaining about the behaviour of the people at Bagot community - the excessive noise, foul language, and unsightly littering by the residents of the Bagot Aboriginal Reserve, as it was called at the time. You can quickly read between the lines at what that was a reference to.
I lament the fact we stand here - parliament in parliament out, sittings in sittings out, sessional period in sessional period out - having this debate when we so often talk about it without mentioning one of the most fundamental contributors to the cause of alcohol-fuelled violence and alcoholism in our community. That is this bizarre situation the federal government has created which, on a fortnightly basis, pours tens of millions of dollars into the pockets of so many Territorians who we know are going to pee it up against the wall within the next few hours.
If I open the last annual report of Northern Territory Police, it tracks back over a few years the number of people who have been arrested for protective custody. In the last financial year, we arrested 30 000 Territorians for being drunk. That is 12% of the population, if my little mental arithmetic works at this stage, and it is three times the number in the year 1999-2000. Some people would argue - I know the government would - we are putting more police resources into locking these people up. However, it is also true we are now selling a lot more alcohol than we were a few years ago. I can tell you, even a few years ago, even in 1977, we were selling too much.
That is what this debate comes down to: we have a system of government where, at one level, we see tens of billions of dollars coming to the Northern Territory on a fortnightly basis going to the pockets of people who then spend it on grog; then the second tier of government, namely us, spend hundreds of millions of dollars every year fixing up the mess caused by the first level of government pouring tens of millions of dollars on a fortnightly basis into the pockets of Territorians who want to go and pee it up against the wall ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, you should rephrase.
Mr ELFERINK: Okay, Madam Speaker. … who want to spend that money on alcohol. But the fact is, that is exactly what occurs; it is a bizarre situation. Not once do I hear members of this government say they are going to do something to address this ludicrous situation where we have one level of government funding the problem so the other level of government has to fund the fix. Here is a sad truth: the vast majority of people who are apprehended for being drunk in our streets are, sadly, Aboriginal people - some 90% of them if you look at the police statistics because they break them up into Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal statistics. Yet, we do not hear a single word uttered about that fascinating situation.
I can tell you, until we address the way welfare is paid - and this is one of the things we hear Noel Pearson talking about all the time; passive welfare being a toxin, a malignant cancer, on the people who receive it, because it is, in many respects, killing more Aboriginal people than all of the negative policies in the past, put together, have ever managed to achieve.
The Chief Minister is entirely right when he walks into this place and says: ‘You ought to see what happens in Alice Springs Hospital on a Friday night’. I know what happens at Alice Springs Hospital. I used to take the bleating wrecks in the back of my police van to that particular hospital with their stab wounds which we jerry-rigged a bandage over the top, or their fractured limbs or whatever, because we could not get ambulances because the ambulances were too busy picking up drunks who had belted each other up.
Now, all of a sudden, we have another announcement from government saying ‘We are going to fix the problem’. Well, announcement one from government should be: ‘We are going to Canberra and we are going to change the way these welfare payments are paid in a direct attempt to affect these outcomes’. That has now started to occur to a degree, but nowhere near enough.
I can tell you why: because when I look at the police statistics I still see 30 000 people being arrested every single year for being drunk. Actually it is not 30 000. We have not arrested 12% of the Territory population, we have arrested about 350. If you believe the Chief Minister’s numbers, 250. I believe it is more - closer to 350 to 400 people, 30 000 times. It is the same mugs you see turning up to the police cells every single time they go on shift – same faces. If you sit in the mall, you can see the people who are going to be the recipients of this police attention. So common is the attendance of these particular individuals at a police station, they should get their mail sent to the watch-house because that is their most regular place of abode.
What have we done at this particular level to deal with it? The former Territory government has conceded, to a degree, defeat. It was picked up by the member for Nelson, because he pointed out it is no longer a criminal offence. The volume of people taken into custody for being drunk was so great there is insufficient time for police officers on duty to do the prosecution files for people being arrested for drunk and disorderly, which is why we got rid of it. It is just easier to lock them up for six hours and chuck them out the next morning.
Now, of course, we have even introduced a level of humanity to it, so not only do we arrest them and take them into custody, they end up often at a sobering-up shelter. When they end up at that sobering-up shelter, they get a feed, their clothes washed, and they get a place to camp for the night. I think they get breakfast in the morning. Even in the police cells, I believe there is some token effort made to feed these people in the morning before they are released. As we wave them out the door we say: ‘See you tonight’, because that is pretty much how it works.
If you want to do something about that level of drunkenness on our streets, then you start targeting those individuals who keep coming back into our police cells. That is the essence of the Country Liberals’ policy, long-since released - in fact, replicated by way of promise by the former Chief Minister, Clare Martin; however, never introduced as a policy. The structure of a policy like this is not inherently difficult. It may be unpopular, but the structure of achieving something like this is not inherently difficult.
It should work something like this. When you are apprehended for protective custody, rather than simply not being fingerprinted, photographed or in any other way identified, you are identified. So, when you are brought to a sobering-up shelter or brought to a set of police cells, you are identified by some mechanism which establishes your identity and you are recorded on a computer system. What happens then is, if you come back to that facility on a subsequent occasion and then another subsequent occasion – namely, three occasions within a six-month period - a flag comes up on your name. On the third occasion after a six-month period, you are then brought before a tribunal. This tribunal, which will meet and sit on a daily basis, will have representatives from the legal fraternity as well as the community, and will make an order which is applicable to each individual case.
It will not be a difficult order; it will be a simple order. The order will say something like: ‘You will not drink’. Of course, if we are talking of people of an alcoholic disposition, it is unlikely they will comply with the order. However, at that point, they have an opportunity to do so. No criminal liability whatsoever flows out of complying with the order. We would hope - against hope I imagine - that, as a result of that order being applied to a person, they would say to themselves: ‘It is time for me to wake up’. I am not so nave as to believe, for one second, most of these people would wake up to themselves. The order would be nothing more than a beer coaster for their next drinking session.
So, you change the legislation and you make it an offence to breach that order, and that then induces the criminal justice process. When you are then re-apprehended on your fourth occasion, whilst an order is applicable, you then find yourself not going through the spin dryer, not going through the section 128 process, but you find yourself charged with the offence of breaching a tribunal order. When you find yourself charged with that offence, you are then accommodated with all of the liberties and rights that are extended to any accused person. But, ultimately, you end up in front of the beak and, should you be convicted of breaching that order. Then what occurs is that you get - dare I say it? - a mandatory three months, not in a gaol, but in a facility that government should build in the area of Katherine perhaps, some 30 km or 40 km away from Katherine - a low-security facility, a farm perhaps, member for Nelson.
During the day, in this particular institution, because you have been declared and convicted of being an habitual drunk, you will contribute to the overall welfare of the prison system by engaging in farming activities. During the evening, you have the medical intervention; you will go to mandatory programs, where you will be sat down and told all the things you are doing to yourself. After a three-month period, you are released. You are sent back to whatever community you came from, or would choose to go to, and, hopefully, you would be thinking to yourself by this stage: ‘Oh gee whiz, I will not go back there again because that was a real pain in the backside’.
Of course, it is entirely likely many of these people will be frequent flyers even into this program. So be it. The fact is, within a few weeks, those 400 individuals who, on a daily basis, come into our protective custody regime, will find themselves subject to these orders and, in every likelihood, in this institution where a health intervention will be imposed, using the vehicle of the criminal justice system - a hybrid. As a result of this is, within a few weeks, I would expect to see our parks, our public places, and other public environments being devoid of the drunks that so offend us all.
If I go across from this House into Bennett Park, just across the way here next to the Chan Building, I will almost certainly be able to find a drunk or two sitting there sipping on their coke bottle full of wine. If I go into the mall, I will sit opposite Raintree Park - in the mall there are the benches - and I will see these guys sitting around waiting for the first opportunity to lay their hands on their next box of monkey blood. If I go down to Alice Springs and I walk the mall in the evening, as I did the other night, I will be plagued by people who are drunk - many of them will be sober, they are of no interest to me, but those who are drunk, sadly, 90% will be Aboriginal. If we bite the bullet and take these steps, in tandem with a system of welfare payments that target the people who are identified as habitual drunks, we will go a long way to resolving issues we have not been able to resolve since 22 September 1977 and, I dare say, even long before that.
If you go through the history of the British parliament, you can see a long history of their debates in relation to similar issues. In fact, Hogarth’s lithograph of Gin Lane - and I urge members to Google it if you do not know what I am referring to - will look very familiar to members of this House. This problem is as old as people itself, and the business of controlling illicit substances and alcohol and those types of things, will go on as long as people are people.
The question is: how much are we prepared to tolerate? It is a balancing act. If we believed in an open market environment in its entirety when it came to these types of things, we would have what they have in Tokyo: a vending machine where you stick in a few yen and buy a beer at a railway station. If you believed the other end of the argument, you would ban alcohol, which was tried in the United States in the 1920s, and all that helped to do was establish the underworld in a way it had not been established prior to that time.
The question will never be, for the people in this House, whether we should take one absolute position or another, but what degree of intervention should we apply. I argue for an intervention which targets those individuals who are the source of the problem. This legislation, by another means, attempts to so do.
The policy I have outlined has been outlined before. In fact, we outlined this policy for the 2008 election. We very much believe this system will seriously affect those people who actually stay drunk on our streets, and who regularly come to notice. It is part of an overall solution but, as the member for Greatorex quite rightly suggested, it is a question of targeting supply and demand. Government would attack supply; the member for Greatorex argues for a control on demand. That is what this policy talks about; those people who demand alcohol in sufficient volume are the ones these types of policies should target. Those policies which target supply just change drinking behaviours in those who demand it.
I am broadly supportive of the legislative instrument before the House at present, as I am aware we all are. Unless we address the way this problem is funded in our jurisdiction, which means working with the Commonwealth and getting the Commonwealth to make some real decisions, as well as targeting those individuals who are the source of the problem, we are otherwise wasting our time. In the year 2050, some parliamentarian will be quoting from the Legislative Assembly in the year 2010 saying: ‘Well, bugger me, not much has changed’.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I agree wholeheartedly with the member for Port Darwin on the points he made in relation to this, and also the member for Greatorex.
Some weeks ago, I found myself in hot water in the media because of comments I put on a Facebook site, which was:
- David Tollner is sick to death of drunken itinerants and other bums terrorising decent citizens. The fun will be over for these parasites on the very day we get a Country Liberal government in the Territory.
I doubt there would be a person in this Chamber who was not aware of those comments. They may not have seen it firsthand, however I am certain, every member here read of those comments in the local newspaper or heard about them on the radio or television.
I have to say I was quite surprised at the response to those comments, because it was only a …
Dr Burns: From your leader?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: I beg your pardon, minister? I missed that.
I was surprised at the level of response I got to those comments. In a matter of hours, I had dozens of comments on my Facebook site. I looked on the NT News online site; they had dozens of comments on the stories they have written, and I know on talkback radio it sparked off a whole debate. Like the member for Port Darwin, I was scratching my head in surprise at this because this problem is not a new problem; it has been around for a very long time. It would be wrong to blame this government for the creation of the problem. I know it has been with us for a long time.
However, as the member for Port Darwin pointed out, in the last financial year 30 000 drunks were arrested. That is more than three times the number when this government came to power. Whilst we recognise this problem has been around for a long time, we need to do more than just pay it lip service by talking; in 2007, for instance, buying back licences of all those corner stores which sell alcohol. I am not exactly certain how many licences this government has bought back …
Mr Conlan: None.
Mr TOLLNER: … but I am reliably informed by my colleague, the member for Greatorex, it is – how many?
Mr Conlan: None.
Mr TOLLNER: None. This government, in so many ways, is all talk and no action. They rock into this joint talking about how the Country Liberals want to open the rivers of grog, pour alcohol onto the problem, and spin their way out of this in some way, completely misconstruing, misrepresenting, twisting, canting - whatever you want to call it - the policies of the Country Liberals.
Nothing could be further from the truth. It is quite shameful this government is prepared to go down that path of misrepresenting, twisting and misconstruing their political opponent’s agenda to somehow suggest we want to bar alcoholics and alcohol. What a ridiculous assertion.
The fact is, as that comment pointed out to me and all Territorians, this is a real issue - this issue of public drunkenness. It does not matter where you go, whether you are in the war zone in Karama - as the member for Karama once described her own electorate - or Barkly, or Alice Springs, or Katherine, or Ludmilla, or the city, the length and breadth of the Northern Territory, public drunkenness is rife everywhere. What this government is actually doing about it, apart from bagging the Country Liberals, is nothing.
Three years ago, they promised to do something about the licences of corner stores. What have they done? Nothing - absolutely nothing. It is worthwhile taking a step down memory lane in relation to these liquor licences that corner stores have. I would like to see a bit more debate in this particular area. When those stores first got those licences, they were deemed to be convenience stores - a store where you would go in the afternoon to get your milk and bread, and maybe a bottle of wine if you were having dinner, or a half a dozen beers, or whatever, as a matter of convenience. They were never meant to be bottle shops or takeaways as such.
A debate about what would be a reasonable amount of alcohol sales as a percentage of turnover these shops are allowed to operate under would be a far better debate. For instance, if we said as a convenience store, you can sell up to 20% of your turnover as alcohol, then if you go over that, you lose your right to be a convenience store; you then become a bottle shop. You do not have a licence to be a bottle shop, therefore, you forfeit your licence as a convenience store to sell alcohol. They were never meant to be bottle shops or takeaways.
The fact is, with some of these convenience stores, that is predominantly their line of sales. In some cases, it is the only line of sales they have. They are not bottle shops. They are not takeaways. They are convenience stores and they should be regulated and policed as such. Many people - in some cases the elderly or the disabled - find difficulty getting around town and it would be a terrible thing and an impost on them if these corner stores could not sell alcohol. On the other hand, I do not think those corner stores should be a purveyor of alcohol only products.
The way this government deals with public drunks is absolutely appalling. We see organisations funded by this government handing out swags, tents, and food to people who have done nothing more than spend their total pay packet - in most cases welfare cheques - on alcohol. Because of poor budgeting they have left themselves nowhere to sleep, no food to eat, and no shelter. What is this government doing? Rather than address the problem of alcoholism, they support them by giving them swags, tents, and food. Goodness me, look at these things that they call spin dryers out there – their sobering-up shelters. They collect a drunk off the street, a person obviously intoxicated, take them in, strip them down, give them a feed and a bath, put them to bed, make sure they get a good sleep and, in the morning when the person wakes up their clothes are washed, laundered and ironed in many cases. They are given breakfast, a few bucks are stuck in their back pocket, and they are sent back out on the street.
It is hardly a way to deal with people who have a serious illness; that illness being alcoholism. It is wrong to suggest this is a race-based argument. This does not apply to any particular race at all; this is about drunks and dealing with drunks. It should not matter whether the person is black, white, blue, brindle, any colour, any race, any religion, any creed - if you are a drunk, you need to be treated properly, and treated as a drunk. The best way to treat a drunk is to grab them and put them in rehabilitation.
I have to say, as part of the group which was involved in the federal government in the lead-up to the Northern Territory intervention, I was a little concerned about some of the alcohol restrictions the federal government had cooked up as part of the intervention. I thought it had to be very difficult to see them work the ID system and the $100 limit and all of that stuff. I made my thoughts clear to Mal Brough and the Prime Minister at the time. However, they saw that alcohol was such a big issue something had to be done; they had to be seen to be acting on alcohol.
I do not think anyone realised the level of alcoholism in the Northern Territory, particularly on those remote communities, most of which have been dry for a number of years in any case. Since the intervention, we have seen a whole range of people flocking to the urban centres in Katherine, Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, and Darwin to buy alcohol. I have talked to my federal Coalition colleagues about the need to recognise this and to look at funding major rehabilitation centres as part of the intervention. I can see this is an area which was a shortfall in the emergency intervention legislation, bearing in mind, I suppose, we forgive ourselves because it was seen as a national emergency and we had to act quickly, with certainty, and with force. That is exactly what happened.
Unfortunately, it caused, as we now know, the intervention being wound back and it has almost become a joke. You wonder what has changed in these communities following the election of Labor and the way they have managed to roll back key measures of the intervention. However, I digress.
Alcoholism is a real problem in our community and it must be addressed. We need to tackle this issue as legislators as a matter of urgency, because Territorians have had a gutful. They have had enough of not being able to use their parks, not being able to take the kids to use the swings in the afternoon after school, not being able to walk down the street without being hassled, not being able to walk up and down the beaches in the northern suburbs, and of being scared to go to the shops at night.
Every single person in this room would know of people in those situations; people who will not go to the shop once it gets dark, people who are afraid to walk on the streets at night. The situation is getting that way now people are afraid to walk on the streets during the day, let alone at night. We hear about people being bashed and robbed. It is not just the member for Karama’s electorate that is a war zone. There are many places in the Territory that are war zones, and it is not just Mitchell Street.
The issue we talked about, Mitchell Street: ‘Oh these drunks are terrible’, and all of that. The fact is the people who are being spewed out of nightclubs on Mitchell Street on a Thursday, Friday, and Saturday night, generally have jobs, homes to go to, and are contributing to society in some way. That is not to forgive their behaviour in any particular way, but these people are not the ones who are constantly being locked up. They are not part of those 30 000 drunks who are arrested each year that the member for Port Darwin spoke about. Maybe there is a handful of those amongst them, but the 30 000 people the police are arresting are the people who are living in the long grass, and let us not make any bones about it, that is the reality.
It does not matter where you go around Darwin, there would not be a capital city in Australia that would tolerate the level of homelessness, alcoholism, and antisocial behaviour we have in Darwin. Not a capital city in Australia, let alone government, council and people in authority, would collect a whole bunch of drunks, give them free hair cuts, foot massages, put on entertainment, feed them full of food, and celebrate them as some wonderful contributor to the community. How absolutely ridiculous!
I went to the event in the Water Gardens and I was absolutely horrified. I could not believe that the Darwin City Council would be spending ratepayers’ money on something like this. How many of those people have paid rates? How many of those people look after our community? How many of those people clean up their mess, rubbish and junk? Very few. Obviously, there is a percentage of people who are homeless, not through alcoholism or the like, but because life has dealt them a poor hand. Obviously, we should feel sorry and compassionate for those people.
But those other ones who spend their whole dole cheque on alcohol, who - I do not even have to go into it here, I am sure you would pull me up for using unparliamentary language. We all know the behaviour some of these people get up to - and it is only a few. But, what do we do with them? We take them to the spin dryer, we wash their clothes, we give them a feed, we put money in their pockets, we give them swags or tents, or we put on some show at the Water Gardens with entertainment for them, give them free hair cuts, and massages. This is just getting out of hand - absolutely out of hand. Here we have a government which has the audacity to stand up and say they are tough on drunks. What an absolute joke!
And they are going to get rid of licences from takeaways. What a joke! How many have they got rid of? None, zero. Every time they stand up they tell mistruths about the Country Liberals policy. Goodness me, get a grip of yourselves, you guys. Sort yourselves out, get tough on drugs, actually act and do something.
If you want to be compassionate to the homeless and the alcoholics, get in proper rehabilitation services. That is the compassionate thing to do. That is what you do with someone who has an illness, a sickness. For a person who cannot make proper decisions for themselves, sometimes you have to make those decisions for them - and they are tough. You have to say: ‘Come on, son, you have had a few too many tonight, you had a few too many last night. In fact, the last few years you have had a few too many, and it is time we sorted you out. You are going into mandatory rehab and we are going to get you off the grog. Whilst you are in there, we might even try to give you a bit of an education, make you work ready, and get you to become a contributing member of society’. That is the compassionate, fair thing to do.
It is not compassionate to say in this House the Country Liberals want to pour grog on the problem. That is lies and mistruth! It is just wrong. It is running and ducking for cover! It is like the health matter where you threw up your hands and said: ‘It is all too hard for us. Let us give it to Kevin’ - duck and hide; find someone else to blame. 30 000 drunks in a year!
If I had time I would read through some of the comments I have received on my Facebook page. I can tell you people have had an absolute gutful of this problem. They are sick of politicians burying their heads in the sand and ignoring it, and being politically correct and saying what they think the newspaper will put out as a nice story. They refuse to take the hard decisions and do what is right and what is compassionate; that is, to get these people, sort them out, put them into mandatory rehabilitation, and fix up some of these licensing problems we have in corner stores. Obviously, if you have a buy-back of licences, you are going to have a real hard time negotiating some of those buy-backs. You are probably even facing some court action with disputes. If you want to turn your attention to, somehow, readjusting those licences, and acknowledging these stores are convenience stores, not takeaways, not bottle shops, you might be able to address the problem of the level of alcohol being sold out of some of these places.
I have looked at the pubs around Darwin. I know it is fashionable to belt publicans. I note every time poor old Mick Burns appears in the media he is defending publicans from ‘it is the publican’s fault people are getting drunk’. There is very little effort being put into assisting those people. I have to say, when it comes to publicans - and I have spoken to quite a few of them around the Territory - most of them are responsible sellers of alcohol. The way the licensing regime works in the Northern Territory, and the way the liquor Licensing Commission works, is they are very tough on publicans. The same does not seem to apply to those corner stores.
There is a local bottle shop in Parap and I often go in on a Friday afternoon to grab a carton of beer. I have seen the people working at the Parap bottle-o, and there are intoxicated people they refuse to serve. I have seen those people turned away on numerous occasions. When they are turned away, where do you think they go? They toddle straight across the road to the little corner store and buy up everything there. In most cases, those people who are obviously intoxicated do not even bother going to the bottle shop because they know they are not going to be served. They walk straight into that corner store. The member for Fannie Bay will be sitting there silently nodding at some of these comments I am making, because he quietly knows that I am correct ...
Dr Burns: I hope you have reported to the Licensing Commission what you have witnessed. I hope you have done that.
Mr TOLLNER: Here we go. We have the minister chiming in saying I have not reported this to the liquor commission. It is my fault! Here we go, here we go ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Speaker, I will conclude my comments here. Needless to say, I support the position of this side of the House, although I am reluctant to say the government will get on and do the job. They have proven time and time again they are all talk and no action.
Debate suspended.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Essington School Year 10, Stage 1 Legal Studies students accompanied by Ms Lyn Hollow and Miss Mali Grossman. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
TABLED PAPER
Pairing Arrangement –
Members for Daly and Araluen
Pairing Arrangement –
Members for Daly and Araluen
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I received a document relating to pairs for today from 5.30 pm to 7.30 pm for the members for Daly and Araluen. It is signed by the government and the opposition Whips.
LIQUOR LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 94)
(Serial 94)
Continued from earlier this day.
Ms LAWRIE (Racing, Gaming and Licensing): Madam Speaker, I thank all speakers in the debate. I thank the members opposite, the Independent member for Nelson, and the members of the CLP for their support of this important legislation before the House. I listened intently to the debate, and there is more in this debate that unites than divides us. We made absolutely no pretence this particular raft of amendments was directly focused at the specific problem of alcohol abuse in our communities, whether it is in Mitchell Street, Alice Springs, Palmerston, Tennant Creek, or Katherine, where you have pubs and clubs precincts. This was not just a Mitchell Street response as has been alleged during debate.
I had every intention, as the minister, of bringing these amendments forward. In all the discussions I held with the police and the Australian Hotels Association - people on the front line - and with my Racing, Gaming and Licensing officers who had been discussing practical measures to crack down on violence in and around pub and club precincts across the Territory, this raft of measures seemed to be the most practical approach to take. I make no pretence these measures go to the broader issue of the scourge of alcohol misuse across our communities, whether that is in regional towns or our large urban centres. Clearly, our government has a track record of pursuing local alcohol management plans with a more holistic approach to the broader issue of off-licence behaviour. This was a response to on-licence behaviour, and behaviour that spilled out of the licensed premise on to the street.
I was very clear in every step I took in coming to these amendments, in talking to key stakeholders, and in announcing these measures, that this was a targeted and specific approach to a specific issue. It was a not a broader reform of the Liquor Act nor was it an alcohol management plan for Darwin and Palmerston, a large area where we have yet to put a plan in place. We stand on our record. We have significant alcohol management plans in place across our large regional centres. They have been the subject of much lengthy debate in those centres. Critical reforms have come through those alcohol management plans. I recognise the hard work done by Racing, Gaming and Licensing, by the Licensing Commission, and also by officers of the Department of Justice in the Alcohol Policy area.
Is there more to be done? Yes, there is. We have an unacceptable level of drinking in our community. Even if you look at the non-Indigenous and Indigenous fit, it is unacceptable. It is far too high, and we are wearing the social and health consequences of the level of alcohol consumption in our community. I am not going to stand here as Minister for Alcohol Policy and say I believe in prohibition. I do not. Prohibition does not work. Our government’s raft of responses will not just be around supply issues; they will also be around the issues of demand members opposite so often talk about.
If you look at the action I have taken since picking up the Alcohol Policy portfolio and the Racing, Gaming and Licensing portfolio in the reshuffle late last year, it has been simply to go straight to hot-ticket-item issues in the area which need to be addressed, and addressed quickly, which is why we have these amendments before us today for debate.
Also, I have clearly said, whilst government can put in place the tools, whilst the police can enforce the law, whilst the hoteliers and licensees can do their bit, at the end of the day, it is the individual’s responsibility to change their behaviour and to be responsible for their behaviour. I believe the unity to address the demand and the behaviour of individuals is there. People will want to play politics with this issue. While there is much more work on my agenda as Alcohol Policy Minister, I am very interested, as the policy initiatives play out, in the response from the opposition, if they are fair dinkum in this, in tackling the scourge of alcohol across the Territory in the misuse of alcohol. Yes, there are many people who are doing the right thing, who are reasonably consuming alcohol, who are not affecting other people’s lives through their consumption, but we know there are alcoholics, recidivist behaviours which are unacceptable, the antisocial behaviour consequences which are absolutely unacceptable, and the intolerable assaults occurring in our community, both domestic violence and other assaults against the person.
I am fair dinkum as a minister. What I have done - and I have not hidden this – is, first and foremost, went to a particular issue which was the issue of violence in our licensed premises and the precincts around our licensed premises. I picked up on the very good work that had been done by police officers working with hoteliers, clubs, and with Racing, Gaming and Licensing, which is why I have brought together this raft of measures.
This is not a panacea to the broader issue in the debate we heard raging in the Chamber this morning about the broader alcohol scourge across our communities, and the misuse of that alcohol. This is not to tackle rehabilitation and issues of rehabilitation. I am not in here pretending that is what this is about. This is to tool up our inspectors and our police to deal with the few troublemakers who are out there ruining it for everyone else in the licensed premises, and spilling that behaviour out into the precincts.
Why we are taking on these measures is because these measures have been picked up and used elsewhere in Australia, and have proven to be effective tools for the police and for our inspectors who are coming in and out of the licensed premises. So, yes, proven response, tough measures, indeed. I make no apology for the use of ‘tough’, because it is tough. These are going to the heart of a person’s right to go in and out of these precincts.
A 48-hour ban is no small measure; a $130 on-the-spot fine is no small measure. I expect a fair amount of kickback from people when this comes into place, because it is not going to be a whole lot of joy for the punter who is going into a licensed premise, misbehaving, not listening to the security staff in the place in getting them out, and they face the on-the-spot fine and the bans. If they take that behaviour into the streets as well, they can be banned from the precinct. The 48-hours is a pretty tough ban by anyone’s measure; you are wiped out for the weekend.
Will this be effective? We have put in place measures to say if you keep on repeating this behaviour, if you continue to get these bans from the police, then you can be hauled before the courts, and you can certainly be given a much longer time banned from the precinct.
We have carefully considered all of the actions in and around this. This is not the only thing we are doing in this space. We have put in place a significant public awareness campaign targeting the young cohort who tends to be the troublemakers in these licensed precincts. We kicked off the Moves campaign in February this year, and we are putting significant resources into that campaign. We picked up on a similar campaign in Victoria. We have made no bones that we have picked up on the Victorian campaign with their permission. We are investing around $500 000 in that advertising campaign across television, radio, newspaper, and Internet ads, so people might know you have the moves, you have the muzzle move, and you have the lasso move. It is a campaign that, whilst it might not necessarily tickle my funny bone because I am a middle-aged mother of three living in the burbs, I have had some positive feedback from the young audience at which it is targeted. It is well recognised and talked about. That is what you want in a public awareness campaigns. You want people to recognise and talk about them and maybe think about the messages they are delivering.
The legislation before us is not the only thing this government is doing. We have a proud track record of continuing to move where no other jurisdiction has gone in our nation in tackling alcohol. We are putting in alcohol management plans across our regions; we have brought in very strict measures through many of those alcohol management plans that do not exist elsewhere in Australia. We are the ones at the forefront, ensuring we are taking on the hard measures to tackle the scourge of alcohol in our community.
This bill is addressing alcohol-fuelled violent behaviour in and around licensed premises. It gives police and licensees the means to combat that behaviour. This bill is not the broader liquor reforms the government is in the midst of undertaking. When I say in the midst of undertaking, you heard members opposite talk about their policy, that maybe it is a policy but you do not know these days because, sometimes, they say: ‘Oh, it is not the full policy’. You heard them talking about cracking down on recidivous drunks, people going into protective custody. The reality is the government, despite the naysayers opposite, became fairly innovative in actions in our nation by introducing an Alcohol Court. We are not today pretending the Alcohol Court has been a great panacea, but it has made inroads - prohibition notices are issued, bans are in place on people who come before the Alcohol Court who have been the offenders in our community, who are alcoholics who have a problem, and people have been referred to rehab treatment through the Alcohol Court. What do we want to do? We want to strengthen those measures.
This Labor government which put in place the Alcohol Court in the first place against the naysayers of the opposition has now stepped out with a discussion paper I launched late last year in Alice Springs and said: ‘Here are some issues around the operation of the Alcohol Court, where we would want our community to consider how we can toughen it up.’ I refer to the discussion paper regarding the Alcohol Court and infringement notices where it goes to that deterrent issue for habitual drunks who do not appear through offences, but rather, were repeatedly engaged in antisocial behaviour and committing minor offences related to alcohol consumption. It goes to the issue of the three strikes rule being considered as addressing that antisocial behaviour. It talks about various options of how you would deal with the three strikes: you enter protective custody three times, you have not learned your lessons, you are picked up, you are put before the Alcohol Courts and you are dealt with in mandated rehabilitation and treatment programs.
The theatre I saw opposite is actually in real detail, really on the table before our community through the discussion paper this government issued around its own Alcohol Courts we had the initiative to implement. We are getting on and doing the work while they just simply grandstand.
That is a broader issue, but it is an issue the member for Nelson raised in the context of the rehabilitation committee stage amendment proposed by the member for Greatorex. We will not be agreeing to the member for Greatorex’s committee stage amendment. We have already on the table in the public domain mandated treatment proposals for the Alcohol Courts. That is where we see it appropriately fitting, not through some narrow measure within the Liquor Amendment Bill we have before us today, which is to address a quite specific issue.
We are not pretending the amendments we have before us address all of the range of bigger issues in our community. We have been very clear about this; this is targeting alcohol-fuelled violence in and around licensed premises and precincts. Yes, we will be creating designated areas in the vicinity of the licensed precincts and, again, we will not be picking up suggestions by the member for Greatorex it is going far broader than our targeted response and will enter into all sorts of confusion and problems out there. However, we have been very targeted. A designated area will be declared. The police will then have the power to ban individuals from that area for 48 hours if that individual engages in drunken, unruly behaviour.
Let us be clear about this. If someone is committing an assault, then they will be charged with assault and they will be pursued accordingly. We are talking about drunken, unruly behaviour. This is the sort of behaviour we are targeting and, yes, we do have a very significant list of offences we have attached in here. We have been very thorough in looking at what offences trigger actions within these amendments. We have looked at how this operates in Victoria, and the types of offences they have in place in Victoria. I will go through that in more detail in committee stage debate, which I am sure we will move to soon.
The type of offences we picked up in our specified offences go to failing to leave premises when asked to do so by police or an inspector, and returning to premises after being asked to leave. We have strong support from the Australian Hotels Association and the clubs in these measures. We have also picked up those other Criminal Code offences regarding riots; gross indecency in public; threat to kill; recklessly endangering life; recklessly endangering life causing serious harm; negligently causing serious harm; drink or food spiking; acts causing serious harm or preventing apprehension; serious harm; harm; common assault; assaults on police; sexual intercourse and gross indecency without consent; threats; assault with intent to steal; unlawful entry to building; persons armed with intent to unlawfully enter building; arson; attempt to commit arson; and criminal damage.
Then, there are the summary offences we have picked up: drinking in a public place; drinking by minors in a public place; offensive conduct; disorderly behaviour; violent disorder; indecent exposure, and obscenity. We have, under the Weapons Control Act: illegal possession of controlled weapons; illegal possession of weapons by persons aged under 18; and illegal possession of offensive weapons.
We have put the courts in the picture in extending the bans beyond 48 hours. If you are a repeat offender, you can be called before the courts, and you can face bans for up to 12 months. We are ensuring we have picked up on a suggestion by licensees to make it clear club management can remove their own members, regardless of what rights those members may have as members of the association. That was a particular concern of the clubs.
Section 121 is amended to give police the power to act, without the invitation of a licensee, in order to remove troublemakers from licensed premises. Again, that was picked up as a suggestion from the Australian Hotels Association after they had discussions with the police; both are keen to see that come in.
The bill creates a new offence of re-entering, or attempting to re-enter, a licensed premises if a person has been asked to leave the premises. Again, we picked up on that suggestion by the Australian Hotels Association. It has been an issue they have had to face.
In short, unruly, drunken, violent behaviour will no longer be tolerated, and the police and the courts will now have extra powers and extra tools to deal with such behaviour. The bill also enables the establishment of the liquor accords, and provides that liquor accords may be entered into without breaching the anti-competitive behaviour provisions of the Trade Practices Act 1974; that being the Commonwealth.
The liquor accord has been a great tool and initiative in Alice Springs, brought about by the licensees working with officers from Racing, Gaming and Licensing. I have paid due recognition to the good work done in Alice Springs by the licensees, with the support and facilitation of officers of Racing, Gaming and Licensing. We knew there was concern from the industry around taking accords and putting them in place in other parts of the Territory because of the Trade Practices Act 1974. This bill specifically ensures that barrier no longer exists, and accords can be rolled out, if licensees want those accords facilitated, by Racing, Gaming and Licensing officers.
Such accords would need the approval of the Director of Licensing, and I would certainly be interested in any further discussions between licensees, our Director of Licensing, the Commissioner of Police, local councils, and community and business groups, to get behind such accords. I welcome them; that is why we have put accords into the raft of amendments.
The bill also addresses the use of false IDs by underage people in licensed premises. We have picked up on this issue as a result of approaches by the licensees. The bill provides for penalties for the use and manufacture of false IDs, and for the confiscation of false IDs. It addresses problems we have seen in restricted areas. Instead of having to excise liquor licensed areas from both the Territory and Commonwealth restricted areas, a defence has been created for operating in accordance with the licences. It is simplification of an issue which has existed out bush.
The bill also changes the infringement penalty in the liquor regulations from $100 to one penalty unit; which is currently $130 until 1 July this year. CPI thereafter will take it to $133 from 1 July. The Department of Justice will work with key stakeholders to develop education newsletters, education information packages for industry, and we will put information on the Department of Justice website.
As I mentioned, this legislation has the full support of the police and the Australian Hotels Association. I want to refer to some correspondence I received from the Australian Hotels Association, and I table the letter. It is correspondence received from the AHA, the peak industry body for the hospitality industry, including hotels and community clubs across the Territory. They confirm their support for the amendments, which they say are:
- … certainly, a positive step forward in tackling areas of concern for industry, including antisocial behaviour in and around licensed venues.
They say there are specific things in here they think will be very good, and they are certainly pleased to see a raft of measures coming through. The letter ends:
- … I extend our full support to the proposed amendments to the Liquor Act under the Liquor Legislation Amendment Bill currently before parliament.
That was from the CEO of the AHA, Amy Williamson. I thank them for their support for this. I have enjoyed working closely with the AHA to bring these measures before the House.
Regarding the police, ultimately, this will work because of the good officers we have in our force. I made sure, at every stage, officers of Racing, Gaming and Licensing and the Department of Justice worked closely with the police to ensure they were satisfied with the measures in the bill. Discussions with the Police Association led me to come before the House with committee stage amendments with further discussions at police officer level. We have put in some provisions to provide legal protection for police officers in plain clothes. The Police Association had a view of how that could be better worded. We picked up their suggestions and the committee stage amendment is based on a suggestion by the Police Association and the police officers. It is a practical suggestion and I was happy to pick it up. We will deal with it in committee stage.
I would like to deal with quite a few matters raised during the debate. There was a prevailing view from the opposition that you can put these measures in place but, then, as a government, we are just going to walk away from them. Nothing could be further from the truth. These are tough measures and we expect these tough measures to be enforced by the police. We have been putting extra resources into the police. Our police numbers are up by 399 or 43% since 2001. We now have the highest proportion of police per capita in the nation. We have a targeted Safe Streets strategy, $9.3m worth, which provides an extra 25 police dedicated to street patrols, and an extra 10 officers to support frontline police in the Communication Centre. In Darwin and Alice Springs, we are rolling out those Police Beats. The Chief Minister talked about the importance of the CCTV monitoring that we have put in place, and we have a raft of other measures I referred to, including the Alcohol Court.
There is a view we are not backing this up with licensing inspectors. Nothing could be further from the truth. An additional 12 licensing inspectors were recruited in 2008. Currently, we have 31 licensing inspectors in the Territory; of those, 28 are Northern Territory government funded, and eight are Commonwealth funded. We have 11 based in Darwin, eight based in Alice Springs, four across the Territory, and eight Commonwealth officers across the Territory. In addition, there are also licensing officers who support those inspectors. The reality is we are fair dinkum about putting the resources in place so we have the teams of inspectors and police in and around these licensed venues and on the streets to tackle any unruly drunken behaviour. This legislation is about giving them the extra tools to bring those people to account for their individual behaviour.
In debate there were issues regarding alcohol management in Alice Springs. Clearly, there is a divide on this matter in the government’s approach versus the opposition’s approach. Since the introduction of the Alice Springs alcohol management plan in 2008, serious assaults in Alice Springs have dropped by 21%, and the Menzies report shows there has been an 18% drop in pure alcohol sales. What is that equivalent to? Fifty thousand fewer cans of full strength beer being drunk a week. An 18% drop in pure alcohol sales is the equivalent of 50 000 fewer cans of full strength being drunk a week. If you want to look at it since 2006, there has been an 85% drop in the sale of cask wine in Alice Springs. That is the equivalent of 330 four-litre wine casks being drunk a day. By any stretch, that is a significant tackling of the consumption of alcohol through an alcohol management plan in Alice Springs.
In addressing alcohol abuse - and there was much discussion about treatment and rehabilitation, and members opposite would have you think this government has been vacating this space. Quite the opposite: $2.5m has gone into sobering-up shelters in all five regional centres. There are 217 rehabilitation beds across the Territory, and we put $15m in this year’s budget to help combat domestic violence. I know domestic violence was raised. We have put stringent measures in place: mandatory reporting; additional crisis accommodation; increased domestic violence counselling services; and continuing public education campaigns across a whole raft of measures. We are serious about this.
The increase in rehab beds and increasing sobering-up shelter beds is work we have been doing in collaboration with the Commonwealth government, which is the significant funder in this area. I have met with minister Macklin on a number of occasions, and put to her a raft of suggestions to continue the good work which has already been undertaken by the federal Labor government working collaboratively with the Territory Labor government in the area of sobering-up shelters and rehabilitation. Whilst a much work has been done in this area, we are up for doing more work in the area of rehabilitation, both inside and outside our Correctional system.
The member for Nelson made the point of the importance of sending a strong message to young drinkers about the dangers of binge drinking and the like. I was pleased to hear his comments in that regard because it took a federal Labor government to have the political will to take this on in a very big way. Under the Howard regime, they had ducked and weaved and not bothered to tackle this significant issue at all. However, thanks to the federal Labor government, there is a national binge drinking strategy which is a community-level initiative. It provides $53.5m to address binge drinking among young people.
A number of us recognise those confronting advertisements you see in magazines, in newspapers, of those young women smashing through glass and the like, and being exposed to questionable sexual behaviour. That is all a result of a $20m spend on advertising, courtesy of the Labor federal government, that confronts young people with the costs and consequences of binge drinking.
Is there a political will by Labor governments? Yes, there is. We are working very collaboratively with the Commonwealth government. Our spend is targeted around young people, licensed premises and the Moves campaign. The Rudd spin is targeted around those broader consequences of the cost of binge drinking, which are complementary, very public awareness campaigns targeting our young drinkers.
We have a comprehensive communication strategy rolling out in and around the liquor amendment measures we have before the Chamber today. We will be working very closely with the police and licensees to ensure the message well and truly gets out that there are going to be significant consequences for any drunken and unruly behaviour in and around licensed premises, and the precincts around licensed premises. To think this will only happen in Mitchell Street would be wrong.
I have already spoken to the Lord Mayor of Darwin, the Lord Mayor of Palmerston, and the Mayor of Alice Springs, prior to making a public announcement around these measures, about my intention to ensure we, as a government, work closely with them to identify the designated areas within those municipalities. They are the first three cabs off the rank at Darwin, Palmerston and Alice Springs because they have the larger populations and, therefore, the larger number of licensed premises and the larger issue.
I am not leaving out of that picture Katherine or Tennant Creek but, clearly, you have to start. So, you set your priorities and cut through that list. My agency and the mayors of those three jurisdictions are on notice that when this passes, we will get cracking on working together with key stakeholders in identifying the designated areas to which these precincts will apply.
People will have their views, and I am going to ensure, as minister, those views are listened to. The member for Nelson raised this issue regarding consultation of the designated areas. Clearly, the councils need to be involved in these discussions. Also, the Australian Hotels Association would need to be involved in the discussions as they are the licensees affected by the designated areas. What I have also said is, for example, if there is a range of restaurants in the precincts …
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Speaker, I move an extension of 10 minutes for my colleague to continue, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Ms LAWRIE: I thank the Minister for Health for the additional time to complete my remarks.
For example, in the consultation, if the designated area scopes in many of restaurants, you want someone representative of the restaurants at the table talking about it; so horses for courses. Retail trades will be within those precincts as well and if they are open at night they may well be affected.
There are checks and balances right through this legislation to ensure, as much as possible, it is applied in a fair and reasonable way. I will give an example. We are the only place in Australia where the false IDs will be removed; that will actually give people a card to give them advice of where they can retrieve an ID from. That does not happen elsewhere; the ID is gone. By the way, you will not be getting a false one back but, if you have a genuine one, there is a process to get that back if it is not being used for evidence.
That is the point of divergence with the committee stage amendment from the member for Greatorex. We will not be ceding to that particular one because there will be occasions where you need to keep the genuine ID for evidence. That is advice provided to me by the Department of Justice in consultation with police. So, we get your drift there, and we absolutely do want a provision to ensure the ID goes back. That is why we have the card system we will put in place to ensure people can retrieve genuine IDs if they are not being used for evidence.
I get the thrust of the amendments by the member for Greatorex, and we will be going through those in detail. However, we are not saying no for the sake of saying no. I am actually genuine about going through this in as united a way as possible, because I recognise the support members opposite are giving to this critical legislation. All the new powers and tools are quite onerous, and I truly appreciate the fact we are getting stuck into this particular problem in our community together, leaving aside the areas of political difference we will, ultimately, have as major political parties in the Territory.
In short, the member for Greatorex dealt with the whole issue of resources. I have tackled the issue of resources in both police and licensing inspectors. The Leader of the Opposition dealt with the issue of the consequences to the individual. This is legislation targeting the behaviour of an individual; it is not the supply side legislation. It is legislation around the behaviour of an individual.
The member for Araluen dealt with domestic violence; I have touched on that in our commitment regarding domestic violence. I also dealt with rehabilitation beds, and I have also dealt with the fact this is Territory-wide legislation. I have already spoken to the Mayor of Alice Springs prior to going public with it, in how it could be applied in Alice Springs. I have to say that was a very positive conversation we had.
Regarding the issued raised by the member for Nelson, I have also dealt with the issues which were similar to ours: the broader issues of alcohol and the scourge of alcohol in our community, particularly that issue of consultation around the designated areas.
I have dealt with the issue of the mandated rehabilitation through the Alcohol Court discussion paper. Our government’s view is that we would deal with mandated rehabilitation rather than a specific amendment within the Liquor Act.
The member for Port Darwin dealt with the three strikes and you are out. Again, I have referred to the provision within our discussion paper of the Alcohol Court that deals with that.
I guess one way to describe the member for Fong Lim’s contribution would be that of fear and loathing; he likes to whip it up when he can. We heard his appalling remarks on his Facebook site of ‘parasites’ repeated in the Chamber today.
I had hoped we would achieve a level of maturity in debate around alcohol, and the harm of alcohol in our community, where we could enter into reforms of alcohol without fear and loathing and the politics of division of the past. It seems there is a rump within the CLP that exists, despite the efforts of the Leader of the Opposition to pull the rogue member for Fong Lim into line in this regard. It is disappointing. Regardless of the fear and loathing politics he will want to peddle, we are singularly determined to proceed with alcohol reforms. We do not want to continue to see the harm people are perpetrating on themselves, on their families, and indeed, our broader community through antisocial behaviour.
I made no pretence when I came forward with these amendments to the Liquor Act that this was a specific and targeted raft of tools to tackle antisocial and drunken unruly behaviour in and around licensed premises and their precincts. It is not the broader reforms I have under way with Alcohol Courts and, indeed, the broader alcohol management plan reforms I have under way with the mayors of Darwin and Palmerston. We are getting close to, hopefully, going public on a raft of suggestions for public consultation on the alcohol management plan for Darwin and Palmerston.
I pick up on the valid point made by members opposite, that there are measures in place elsewhere in the Territory which are not in place in the Top End. I am keen to see a mature debate around what measures should be in place in the Territory, what consistency should exist across alcohol management plans. It will be interesting to see how mature that debate, at the political level at least, can be, bearing in mind - I hope - we are all on the same page in what unites us. We want to see dramatic change in the Territory in the effects of alcohol on our lives, on individual lives, on their family life, and on our communities.
Madam Speaker, we will need to go into committee. I have some minor committee stage amendments, and we will be dealing with the member for Greatorex’s committee stage amendments.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Mr CONLAN: Madam Chair, I seek leave to speak from this chair?
Madam CHAIR: Leave is granted.
Honourable members, the committee has before it the Liquor Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 (Serial 94), together with Schedule of Amendments No 34 circulated by the Minister for Racing, Gaming and Licensing, Ms Lawrie; and a Schedule of Amendments No 35 circulated by the member for Greatorex, Mr Conlan.
Clauses 1 to 4, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 5:
Mr CONLAN: There are some questions regarding the identification in clause 5. Can you specify if it is just pubs and clubs, or can ID be seized if it is presented at a takeaway outlet, or at Woolies, or what have you? Is it takeaways, or just pubs and clubs?
Ms LAWRIE: The provision applies to all licensed outlets, so takeaways as well.
Mr CONLAN: Can ID seized be presented in a gaming area, or just in relation to other areas where alcohol is consumed?
Ms LAWRIE: Yes, it affects the liquor licence areas. The gaming areas would be dealt with differently.
Mr CONLAN: How will the gaming areas be dealt with?
Ms LAWRIE: There is no proposed change in relation to gaming areas; it is simply illegal for a minor to be in there.
Mr CONLAN: What additional resources are going to be provided to assist licence holders in identifying false identification? Is it going to be left to the discretion of the bouncer, or the person on the door, or whoever?
Ms LAWRIE: There are a couple of levels of support. Racing, Gaming and Licensing has already provided licensees with a special light that highlights alterations to IDs, and training information on the falsification of IDs. They will continue to provide that training support. With the passage of this legislation, a card will be created to provide to licensees so, if a false ID is seized, or an ID is seized, the person that ID is seized from is given the card which indicates to them the timing of the seizure and who they should contact to attempt to retrieve the ID.
Mr CONLAN: Okay. So that is to be given immediately by the person who seizes the ID? It is a receipt of sorts?
Ms LAWRIE: Exactly.
Mr CONLAN: Yes. You said the light – will licensees have to pay for that themselves?
Ms LAWRIE: No.
Mr CONLAN: No. To be provided by the …
Ms LAWRIE: Yes, it already has been.
Mr CONLAN: Yes, okay.
Minister, in the situation of a person visiting temporarily, or living at one address but their ID is still registered to their permanent address in another jurisdiction, are there any measures in place to ensure that ID is returned to that address? Is it up to that person to tell the bouncer that it has to go on the receipt? What safeguards are in place there?
Ms LAWRIE: Yes, the legislation has a provision that the director is required to make reasonable efforts to return the ID so, of course, that is the case. As I said in my summing up, all the other jurisdictions have this seizure of ID in place. We are the only one which is going one step further in the card receipt method designed to assist the person whose ID is seized to be able to retrieve it. In the example you gave then, not only is the director required to go to all reasonable efforts but the person who has had the ID taken from them knows exactly who they can go to, to get that ID back.
Mr CONLAN: Okay. In, I guess, a hypothetical - and I am sure it happens - if an older sibling has found out a younger sibling has stolen their ID to use at the pub and that has been confiscated, what methods are in place to ensure that ID is properly returned to the older sibling, considering the person has used a false ID which is actually a genuine ID of someone else?
Ms LAWRIE: The same measures would be in place. The director is required to make all reasonable effort to return the ID.
Mr CONLAN: Okay. Can you expand on what is a reasonable effort?
Ms LAWRIE: Contacting them.
Mr CONLAN: I am only asking because this is still a genuine ID. It is not actually a false ID, even though it is being used by someone falsely.
Ms LAWRIE: Sure, contacting them is a reasonable effort.
Mr CONLAN: Contacting the person on the card?
Ms LAWRIE: On the ID.
Mr CONLAN: Right.
Ms LAWRIE: By the nature of the ID they have an identifiable contact address, etcetera, so all reasonable effort is made to contact them. This is a system which has been working elsewhere in Australia for quite a while.
Mr CONLAN: You are saying that what is happening now is, if an ID is taken from someone who has pinched it from their older sibling, etcetera, it is still a genuine ID, then that bouncer or whoever has taken it will - what?
Ms LAWRIE: Under the provisions, what it shows you is, within 72 hours that has to go to the director. The director then has to take reasonable measures to return the ID. So, it has to go from point of seizure, which is the bouncer or the takeaway licensee and, within 72 hours, they have to get that to the Director of Licensing, who then has to take reasonable measures to return the ID.
Mr CONLAN: Madam Chair, I move amendment 35.1.
In reading the bill, we were concerned about the inevitable situation where a person’s genuine ID would be mistakenly taken from them, assumed to be a fake, or used by someone other than its genuine owner. The department mentioned they are looking at a type of receipt for seized documents, one in exchange from the person seizing the document. That was a good amendment which was mentioned in the briefing we had. That was picked up.
Amendment negatived.
Mr CONLAN: Madam Chair, I move amendment 35.2. This amendment relates to my previous amendment, and ensures, once a genuine ID is seized, appropriate steps are taken to have it returned to its rightful owner. Even if the rightful owner of the document knowingly provided it to another person to contravene the act, it is still their document and should be returned. There are penalties to be applied to a person who illegally provides their ID to another, but those penalties should not include withholding indefinitely what could be their only form of identification.
They were our concerns and, hence, our amendments. I understand the minister is not going to accept those amendments, which is a shame. We think it strengthens this act to a large degree. Nonetheless, Madam Chair, we move that amendment.
Ms LAWRIE: I would not mind responding to that because there was a misrepresentation of our position on that. I made it very clear, in the summing up, the reason why we would not be agreeing. It is a very valid reason, which is why I repeat it at this point.
A genuine ID seized may need to be used in evidence in the prosecution of a brief. That would be the responsibility of the police or the prosecuting authority to decide what should happen to it. The Victorian legislation has a similar requirement to the Territory to return non-contentious ID. However, it also allows the ID’s retention by the director where: the person who produced the ID is not the person to whom it was issued; the ID contains false and misleading information; the ID is fraudulently altered; or the ID has been used in contravention of the act. That is the reason why a decision is to be made of whether or not it would be evidence and required for evidence. That is where we differ on this point.
Mr CONLAN: Madam Chair, that is fair enough, and is a very valid point. Of course, it makes sense. However, if that is the concern, minister, why do you not put that into legislation? Why do you not put a clause in? You could leave our clause in here, and then put an additional clause saying exactly that; if it is required for evidence, etcetera. What is wrong with that?
Ms LAWRIE: Because the advice I received is, by putting this clause in, it could actually make a penalty for the director. The director could be in breach of the act if the genuine ID is not returned but, in fact, the genuine ID is being held for evidence. That is why.
Mr CONLAN: Where is the certainty of return then, minister? That is the point. There is no certainty of return in this.
Ms LAWRIE: The clear intent is that, if a genuine ID does not need to be held for evidence purposes, all reasonable steps are taken to return it. If, indeed, it is held for evidence, it is often returned as part of other legislative provisions in what occurs to items that are held as evidence.
Mr CONLAN: I guess we are just going to take your word for it because it is actually not in the bill that there is any real certainty of return. I cannot see why we cannot leave the opposition’s amendments in there, which are quite reasonable and then put your concerns in there regarding if that ID has to be retained for evidence.
Nevertheless, I know you are not going to budge on that. Those people who have their ID taken from them and need it, will just have to take the minister’s word that it will be returned.
Amendment negatived.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6:
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I move amendment 34.1.
There is a typographical error in proposed section 120D(6), the word ‘the’ is removed and is replaced with ‘a’. We thank the staff member from Gerry Wood’s office for pointing this out.
Amendment agreed to.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, further, I move amendment 34.2.
This amendment inserts proposed section 120J(5) and (9), and omits, in clause 6, the proposed sections 120J(5) and (9), which provide respectively, (1) a police officer who is not in uniform must, when proposing to give a banning notice, produce proof of his identity and official status; and (2) failure to provide such proof is not in breach of the act, but is a breach of discipline that may be dealt with under the Police Administration Act.
The NT Police and the NT Police Association questioned these amendments, first on the basis it may not be clear what needs to be done to approve official status. The government agrees the proposed policy of a provision will be plainer if the words about proof are removed and replaced by the simple requirement that police produce their police identification. In practice, this means they will produce their police badge. Accordingly, proposed section 120J(5) is to be removed from the bill. It will be replaced by new section 120L(1). Section 124 of the Liquor Act provides the failure to comply with the act is a breach of the Liquor Act with a maximum penalty being up to 12 months imprisonment or a $2000 fine.
The intention behind proposed section 120J(9) and a number of other similar provisions in the bill was to make it clear the breach was not a crime, but a matter for discipline.
The intended operation of the provision was the Commissioner of Police would have, as per any other alleged disciplinary matter, discretion under section 76 of the Police Administration Act. However, the provisions, as drafted, do not make this obvious. Accordingly, it is proposed this provision and others like it be removed and replaced by provisions that simply state a breach of the procedural provisions is not an offence; it is something that can be dealt with under the Police Administration Act. In the case of section 120J(9), it is to be removed and replaced by new section 120L(8).
Madam Chair, I will go on, because these are consequential, and move amendment 34.3.
Proposed new section 120L(1) provides for much the same outcome as described for proposed section 120J(5). It is to be removed and replaced with the reasons given for section 120J(5).
Madam Chair, I also move amendment 34.4.
Proposed new section 120L(3) suggests a person seeking evidence of a police officer’s status can demand it be provided in writing. It may not always be practical for officers to provide the evidence in writing. Accordingly, it is proposed that the police officers only have to state the required information.
Madam Chair, I move amendment 34.5.
Proposed new section 120L(4)(d) states that an officer must not fail to comply with any request regarding status to be made in writing. Given the amendment described earlier for section 120L(3), this provision is unnecessary. Accordingly, it is to be removed from the bill.
Madam Chair, I also move amendment 34.6.
Proposed section 120L(8) provides, similarly to proposed section 120J(9), that a failure to provide proof of identity is not a breach of the act but is a breach of discipline which may be dealt with under the Police Administration Act. Section 120L(8) is to be amended so this provision is removed and replaced by a provision that simply states that, a breach of procedural provision is not an offence but is something that can be dealt with under the Police Administration Act.
Madam Chair, I move amendment 34.7.
Proposed section 120P(4)(a) relates to police officers giving directions to banned persons to leave a designated area or licensed premises. It provides, similar to proposed section 120J(5), a police officer must produce proof of his or her official status. Section 120P(4)(a) is to be removed and replaced by a provision which states the officer must produce his or her police identification unless the officer is in uniform.
Madam Chair, I move amendment 34.8.
Proposed section 120P(7) relates to police officers giving directions to banned persons to leave a designated area or a licensed premises. It provides, similar to proposed section 120J(9) and section 120L(8); that a failure to provide proof of identity is not a breach of the act, but is a breach of discipline which may be dealt with under the Police Administration Act. Section 120P(7) is to be amended so this provision is removed and replaced by a provision which simply states a breach of the procedural provision is not an offence, but is something which can be dealt with under the Police Administration Act.
Madam Chair, I move amendment 34.9.
Proposed section 120U(4)(a) relates to police officers giving directions to excluded persons to leave designated areas or licensed premises. It provides, similar to proposed section 120J(5), that a police officer must produce proof of his or her official status. Section 120U(4)(a) is to be removed and replaced by a provision that states the officer must produce his or her proof of identification unless the officer is in uniform.
Proposed section 120U(6) provides that a failure to provide proof of identity when seeking to remove an excluded person is not a breach of the act, but is a breach of discipline which may be dealt with under the Police Administration Act. Section 120U(6) is to be amended so this provision is removed and replaced by a provision which simply states a breach of the procedural provision is not an offence, but is something which can be dealt with under the Police Administration Act.
Mr CONLAN: Happy with the amendments, Madam Chair.
Amendments agreed to.
Mr CONLAN: Madam Chair, I move amendment 35.3. It was felt by the opposition there was a startling omission in the minister’s bill. While the director is required to notify the coordinator of an accord to any changes of the accord’s termination, there was no requirement for the coordinator to communicate those changes to other parties in the accord.
While it would be assumed communication of changes or termination would be an obvious action for the coordinator, I am concerned about the resultant confusion if all changes or termination are not clearly stated to all parties. It would defeat the purpose of the whole accord if they were not in unison.
To avoid a situation similar to Chinese whispers, as things happen around our pubs and clubs where confusion can easily arise, and the story and the situation changes from one place to another, I feel these amendments should be supported so all parties of the accord are aware when changes are made, or if the accord has been terminated by the director.
Ms LAWRIE: Similar intent, different approach, is the best way to describe our difference on this one. Of course, all parties to the accord should be notified of any variation or termination. That aspect of intent is agreed; however, the provision in the amendment to the act is not agreed. I will state the purpose for that.
The purpose of the proposed amendment is to require the coordinator of a local liquor accord to notify each party to the accord if the director terminates or varies the accord. This is where we have an issue. To legislate this requirement makes a breach an offence carrying a penalty of $1000, or six months imprisonment for a first offence. It is expected, as a matter of common sense, the coordinator would notify the other members of the accord; however, to penalise in such manner a failure to do so is needlessly criminalising what should not be a criminal offence.
Administrative processes will be put in place so that, if the director varies or terminates an accord, then the director will notify each of the parties to the accord of this, in writing.
Mr CONLAN: Madam Chair, I move amendment 35.4. I mentioned in my earlier speech today …
Ms LAWRIE: Are we going to deal with it separately?
Mr CONLAN: I was following your lead.
Ms LAWRIE: Okay, I was just asking the question. If you want to move them in bulk, that is fine.
Mr CONLAN: I want to go 35.4; I was just moving to it.
Madam CHAIR: Do you want to go through the process to put the question that the words proposed?
Mr CONLAN: Yes. Sorry. Yes.
Amendment negatived.
Mr CONLAN: Madam Chair, I move amendment 35.4.
As I said in my second reading speech, our view of the government’s ad hoc approach to alcohol management policy and their inability to coordinate existing alcohol management strategies with new and emerging strategies is a scatter-gun approach to alcohol management.
The amendment proposes to allow the minister to make an existing dry area, such as The Esplanade, a designated area for the purpose of banning and exclusion notices. The intent of the legislation introduced in 2006 to create public dry areas was to curb antisocial alcohol-related behaviour. Violence due to alcohol is no less a problem when it occurs in a park on a Friday afternoon than when it occurs on Mitchell Street at 2 am on Saturday. I do not see a big difference with what is happening in Mitchell Street as opposed to what is happening on The Esplanade at any particular time of the day. Why can The Esplanade not be considered a designated area as other parts of the Northern Territory, particularly those which have been declared dry areas?
What we have now is a situation where we have a dry area in Alice Springs and, on top of that, we are now having a designated area - so, a designated area on top of a dry area which was already on top of the 2 km law. It may not affect the same volume of people, but it inhibits members of the community from feeling safe to utilise a public space. It is the belief of the opposition that new alcohol policy cannot be introduced in isolation from existing policy.
The reams of legislation to moderate destructive alcohol-related behaviour must present a unified approach to what is becoming an ever-increasing problem with our community. We do feel it is quite scatter-gun; nevertheless, we move amendment 35.4.
Ms LAWRIE: The government cannot agree to this proposed amendment. It is far broader than the intent of this legislation. This is designed specifically in terms of licensed premises and the precincts adjacent to licensed premises. To seek to add a public place that is a public restricted area to the list of areas which can be declared designated areas if alcohol-related violence occurs in them would tend to make those designated areas too large. They do not need to be near licensed premises. We believe that would dilute the focus of this act in these amendments and these tools.
Another unintended consequence could be it would ban people unnecessarily, we believe, from access to essential services like health. So, we were very focused and targeted in the consequences of the banning notices, 48-hour ban, ensuring they targeted designated areas in which they applied.
I understand the broad intent of where the opposition is coming from with this one, but the consequences are far broader than we would want to take up in regard to the specific tools and measures we have before us in this particular amendment and this act.
The broader debate around those public dry areas will be dealt with in the alcohol management plan.
Amendment negatived.
Mr CONLAN: Madam Chair, I move amendment 35.5. Again, the government is introducing penalties and restrictions without properly addressing the underlying cause. As in many of their other policy initiatives, they are treating the symptoms and allowing the causes to run unchecked. That is the opinion of the opposition. Allowing the root cause of alcohol-related violence to go unchecked will result in yet another churn cycle through the justice system.
We heard today about 350 people arrested 30 000 times a year. If a specified offence which has given rise to an exclusion order can be attributed to the intoxication of an offender, then it is a signal the person is incapable of controlling their alcohol intake and managing their behaviour while under the influence of excessive alcohol.
Just imposing restrictions on the person will not address their alcohol consumption. We have seen that; the evidence is very clear. The opposition amendments will address this in two ways. First of all, if a court makes an exclusion order in sentencing an offender in relation to a specified offence, and intoxication was a factor in that offence, then that exclusion order must include the offender undergoing an alcohol rehabilitation program.
Second, if an exclusion order is made on the request of the Commissioner of Police for a person who has a history of banning notices or infringement notices, and intoxication was a factor in any of those offences, then the court may include a rehabilitation program as part of that exclusion order.
The opposition believes a holistic approach is needed to address alcohol-related violence in the Territory. The cause must be treated, as well as punishing the effect. We believe things do not go far enough; it should be a whole approach. I do not see why this particular legislation cannot trigger rehabilitation for some of the most vulnerable of Territorians.
Ms LAWRIE: In process, Madam Chair, what I suggest - and it is obviously up to the member for Greatorex – is we deal with amendments 35.5, 35.6, and 35.7 together, because they all go to rehabilitation in process. Are you okay with that?
Mr CONLAN: Yes, I guess the ...
Ms LAWRIE: They are all interrelated. If you defeat one, you defeat the lot.
Mr CONLAN: Yes, okay. All right.
Ms LAWRIE: Yes?
Mr CONLAN: Yes.
Ms LAWRIE: Okay. I will speak to the proposed amendments 35.5, 35.6, and 35.7.
I get the intent. We vary in the approach to be taken on this one. The government sees this issue as a need for rehabilitation for people who are, basically, alcoholics, and have issue with the way they fail to manage alcohol consumption. We believe the Alcohol Courts and the associated legislation with that, is the government’s approach to address it. Clearly, what we are saying is, whilst we understand the intent and the desire to get people into rehabilitation - and we do not actually have a fundamental argument in and around the importance of rehabilitation - what we would not be seeking to do is use this Liquor Act for a narrow, one class of person to be picked up within the act.
We have a very clear stated policy intent of using the Alcohol Court and the legislation supporting it, to pick up the issue of recidivist offenders, alcoholism, treatment orders, prohibition orders, and rehabilitation through the Alcohol Courts.
I referred, during my wrapping up, to the Alcohol Court reforms; the discussion paper I released in October 2009. I did not release that lightly, and I quite specifically released it in Alice Springs where we have significant issues. I am not saying those issues do not exist in Tennant Creek, Katherine, Darwin, or Palmerston. They do. Indeed, we recognise through the release of quarterly crime statistics, the additional police stations in the bush and the alcohol restrictions in the bush have brought those alcohol issues more and more to the fore in our regional and main urban centres.
That is why we are fair dinkum about the reforms we put on the table regarding the Alcohol Courts. We are choosing that path in rehabilitation, and triggers to rehabilitation, rather than this narrower pick-up you have here before us in these proposed amendments 35.5, 35.6, and 35.7.
Government will not be agreeing to this although we get the intent. We are not opposed to rehabilitation. You might want to deal with that however you want to externally. We are not opposed to rehabilitation; we will be consistently saying that, but are doing it through the Alcohol Court reform process, rather than through this amendment.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Chair, I cannot allow the comments that have just been made by the minister to pass without response. The claim that the Alcohol Court reform process is, in some way, going to fix the requirements for rehabilitation is nothing shy of arrant nonsense. For one thing, the Alcohol Court reform process is not a process at all. It is a structure which has been introduced as a legislative instrument to be tough on alcoholism in our community. In fact, it is a vehicle by which people - who would, under normal circumstance go to gaol - avoid a custodial sentence so they might be redirected by the court because of their alcoholic predisposition. To label it and to claim it is anything other than that is to misrepresent it - but, of course, the Alcohol Courts have been misrepresented to the public since day one by this government. They have been misrepresented as a tough option. No, they are not. They actually soften the option - they prevent custody from occurring where it would otherwise occur.
I note the Attorney-General spoke highly and in a praiseworthy fashion of the new Supreme Court Justice, Justice Blokland. During Justice Blokland’s investiture the Attorney-General praised her for her efforts in relation to restorative justice. Justice Blokland, single-handedly I argue, was responsible for the introduction of the credit court system in the Northern Territory. Whilst I confess to harbouring some reservations about the credit court system, it is probably more in line with what you claim Alcohol Courts would do. I suggest to the Attorney-General, if you want the Alcohol Courts to do what you claim they are going to do, you turn to the credit court system which, by the way, exists and operates independent of any legislative structure you have created.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, the member for Port Darwin is picking up on the Alcohol Court as we had it. My comments were in relation to the Alcohol Court reforms proposed and contained within the government’s discussion paper released in October 2009. In that, certainly the Alcohol Court as we have it would not be dealing with the rehabilitation provisions as proposed here by the member for Greatorex. But, if you go to the discussion paper released in October 2009, the Alcohol Court reforms proposed, on the table, out there for public debate and consultation, are active within government. I pick up on the rehabilitation program triggers in recidivists who are not necessarily committing offences but are dealing with, for example, protective custody.
I pick up and take on your issue of the credit court. Actually, what has been very useful in the debate around the proposed Alcohol Court reform processes is how, in fact, the court is working and how we could have an improved process with picking up the strengths of the credit court. So, I do not think your views on that diverge widely from the reform process the government has already embarked upon which I put into the public domain in October 2009
As I have said before in my summing up, what we have before us here in this raft of amendments is not that broader issue. We never intended it to be; we never intended it would be. These are specific targeted measures at drunk and unruly behaviour in and around licensed premises and precincts. The important issue of rehabilitation we are proposing to deal with through the closed Alcohol Court reforms. We have gone some way in the existing court, but the government has recognised further reforms are required. That is why we went to the extent of the discussion paper, and it went out into the public domain. That is the work I have before me, as Minister for Alcohol Policy and Minister for Justice and Attorney-General, separate to these amendments before the House.
I would be happy to offer any members opposite a briefing on the process the government is following regarding the Alcohol Court reforms if, indeed, you wish to take it up.
Madam CHAIR: Member for Port Darwin, if I could just note for the benefit of Hansard that you are actually at the desk of the Leader of the Opposition.
Mr ELFERINK: Sorry, that is the normal thing we organise.
I cannot forbear, then, to make one observation. You are reforming the Alcohol Court system, which was going to be the great vehicle to change so many things in relation to the systems of sentencing we have in place, only to now admit, within a couple of years of introducing that particular policy, it not only needs to be reformed, but comprehensively reformed.
I recall the media releases of the time claiming that the Alcohol Courts were going to be, if you like, the panacea for all things villainous and evil when it came to matters of alcohol before the courts. Now, we discover the government has, essentially, admitted their own Alcohol Courts package has not come close to achieving any of the goals ascribed to it when the thing was being packaged, dressed up, and spun out to the people of the Northern Territory.
I hope they would take a more serious approach in relation to the amendments they bring before the House today because, if this is just another case of, ‘See! We are doing something to protect the people of the Northern Territory’, and you throw no real intellectual weight or rigour behind it, then you will find yourself having a Liquor Legislation Amendment Act reform package in a discussion paper out for people to consider at some point in the future.
Ms LAWRIE: Obviously, I disagree with the member for Port Darwin. He comes in here and he beats his chest and talks utter nonsense. The government is justifiably proud of the Alcohol Court we put in place. It was our initiative and it is good. Prohibition orders have occurred through the Alcohol Court; rehab and treatment has occurred through the Alcohol Court. Good reform, good court, good process.
What we are doing, and what we have in the discussion paper on the reforms out there, is going to make it even better. That is part of what you do in government; you do something good and, then, you get the opportunity and you make it even better. Simple as that.
What the member for Port Darwin said is nonsense. Actually, I will put it on notice - yes, I will be back at some stage before the parliament with reforms of the Liquor Act because this is not the broader reform of the Liquor Act; this is clearly targeted to specific measures to tackle issues in and around licensed premises. There will be Liquor Act reforms coming. This is not the broader reforms of the Liquor Act.
Ms CARNEY: Madam Chair, just two quick questions. One is, since the issue of the Alcohol Courts has come up, minister, are you able to advise, noting that the discussion paper was released in October 2009, when you are likely to announce a reform package? Subject to that, I will ask my second question.
Ms LAWRIE: I currently have a Cabinet submission in active process that came out as a result of the options in the discussion paper and the responses to that. I am anticipating having that before Cabinet by the middle of this year. I will then be in a position to put it out into the public domain. The only thing it is contingent on is the work I have going on with the alcohol management plan in Darwin and Palmerston.
I also have a mid-year time line for these two significant bodies of work. I am pretty keen on both of them ASAP. I am making my Department of Justice and Racing, Gaming and Licensing officers work very hard at the moment. I am aiming for mid-year, and the only thing that is going to get in the way of that would be internal workloads, but I am pretty hopeful of mid-year.
I ask that you clarify what you said in relation to rehabilitation. As I understood it - and if I have it wrong, please tell me - some of your answers indicate your future reforms may include what is commonly called mandated alcohol rehabilitation programs for people who find themselves before the courts. I see you nodding, so that is a yes?
I am happy to talk to it. Within the discussion paper on the Alcohol Court reforms, if you go to about the last page, Item 10, Alcohol Court and Non-Offenders, it goes to options for resolution and talks about a tribunal process which would hear applications for prohibition and treatment orders for individuals who have not committed an offence but are a danger to themselves or the community as a result of alcohol dependency. Orders made by this type of tribunal could include Centrelink and other financial payment restrictions.
Item (b) goes to new provisions which could be drafted for insertion into the act or another statute that would allow applications to be made directly to the Alcohol Court for orders where individuals have not committed an offence but are a danger to themselves or a community as a result of alcohol - similar to the Volatile Substance Abuse Act process that applies to the court for treatment orders. This would involve warrants being issued for persons absconding from treatment. Once in the Alcohol Court system, such persons would be treated the same as offenders within the system.
That is clearly an issue the government has put on the table in Alcohol Court reform. I am not going to say where the government has landed on this. What I have clearly said is reforms for non-offenders are front and centre of the Alcohol Court reforms; requiring treatment as a result of orders is within the body of the reforms which are in the public domain.
Ms CARNEY: Thanks. The document you are quoting from, that is the alcohol discussion paper? Yes. I have it, I have read it, but I have not looked at it for some time. The reforms only extend to non-offenders? In the context of this debate - I think you will answer it - have you given any consideration to mandating alcohol treatment programs for those people incarcerated; that is, the offenders as opposed to the non-offenders?
Ms LAWRIE: I am not going to cut across the Minister for Correctional Services here but, clearly, the government is putting significant resources into the – dare I say it? – new era in Corrections. The emphasis there is around treatment programs. I will leave that matter for the Minister for Correctional Services, but the government’s focus is on providing the resources for treatment programs within the Corrections system.
Ms CARNEY: So, providing the resources, but not giving any consideration whatsoever to mandating? Correct?
Ms LAWRIE: I made it pretty clear: I am not going to speak on behalf of another minister. The Minister for Correctional Services has …
Ms CARNEY: I look forward to him answering that question - not that he is terribly good at answering questions, but I will give it a go at estimates and see how I get on.
Ms LAWRIE: He is good at answering questions.
Ms CARNEY: Not answering the questions that have been asked. But, anyway …
Ms LAWRIE: He is up-front.
Ms CARNEY: Right. Interesting.
Mr CONLAN: I thank my colleagues for their contribution. We have covered a bit of ground there.
Madam Chair, I move amendments 35.5, 35.6, 35.7 and 35.8. Would that be appropriate?
Madam CHAIR: Yes, it is.
Amendments negatived.
Mr CONLAN: Madam Chair, I move amendment 35.9.
In the interests of openness and transparency, we applaud the government’s attempt to publish the statistical information; that is a great step relating to banning notices and exclusion orders. For the government – a can-do government that says they are open and like to be transparent in the interests of Territorians and, indeed, this parliament, they have pushed the tabling times past the point of being, we believe, reasonable. Requiring a report to be tabled within seven sitting days of the minister receiving it will cause months of delays in releasing the statistical data to the public. Seven days will allow at least two sitting days to elapse before the information is tabled. Information must be released when it is still current and valid, not a couple of months later.
At least if it was the six days as requested, it means if it was tabled, then we could see that information at the next sittings, not the sittings after or, possibly, the sittings after that. We would like to see the government stop delaying the release of this information to the public, or at least stop the delay, whether it is intentional or not. If it is not intentional and the government is genuine and fair dinkum about being open and transparent and providing this information while it is relevant, the government, hopefully, will agree to six days.
I understand you flagged in your speech that you will not support it. I would like to hear your reasons why we cannot have it six days instead of seven days.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, the government is following normal process here. We have no problems with accountability. We will be tabling the number of banning notices and exclusion orders within the normal period of seven sitting days. That is the normal process we follow; we are not going to change the process here.
Mr CONLAN: Minister, are you satisfied an offence could take place on 7 May, yet not be reported until the middle of August? Do you find that satisfactory?
Ms LAWRIE: I have given my answer.
Mr CONLAN: Sorry?
Madam CHAIR: The minister has just answered the question.
Mr CONLAN: I did not hear the answer, sorry.
Ms LAWRIE: I have provided you with the government’s position on this - pretty clear, unambiguous.
Mr CONLAN: So, that is a yes. We can take that as a yes?
Ms LAWRIE: Take it any way you want.
Mr CONLAN: Well, clearly, that is a yes.
Ms LAWRIE: Any way you want.
Mr CONLAN: Okay. Madam Chair, I move amendment 35.9, a very appropriate, practical and sensible amendment.
Amendment negatived.
Ms LAWRIE: Just a point of clarification, Madam Chair. When you said the question is now that the clause stand as printed, I am assuming you meant the clause stand as amended, as per amendments 34.1, 32.2, 33.3, 34.4 etcetera, because I did move a range of amendments to clause 6. It is as per amended to schedule No 34.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 7 to 10, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 11:
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I move amendment 34.11. Clause 11 amends Regulation 3 of the Liquor Regulations. Regulation 3 prescribes the offences under the Liquor Act which may be dealt with by way of an infringement notice. This clause prescribes section 102N and 102T as such offences - there are no such sections. The intention was to prescribe section 120N and 120T. Clearly, that was a typographical error.
The references to the proposed infringement notices in sections 120P and 120U also have been more specific by identifying them as, respectively, sections 120P(3) and 120U(3).
Amendment agreed to.
Clause11, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.
Ms LAWRIE (Racing, Gaming and Licensing): Madam Speaker, I move the bill be now read a third time.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, it is disappointing those very practical and sensible measures the opposition put forward to strengthen this bill - which we say is pretty good - were not included. We agree with most of it; we would just like to take it further. Those measures we introduced in the committee stage in the amendments tabled are not a bridge too far. They are very sensible, particularly relating to alcohol rehabilitation.
It is unfortunate the government will not commit to alcohol rehabilitation, or tie alcohol rehabilitation to a bill such as this. It would be a very simple measure, we believe, to identify those people we need to identify on our streets, in our parks - all around the Territory, in fact - and move those people into rehabilitation and provide them with a meaningful life once they are in rehabilitation. Obviously these are repeat offenders. If you are just drunk and causing a problem in a bar, and you have been banned by the police for 48 hours, well, so be it. You might be a threat not only to society, but also a threat to your own health and wellbeing.
But, if you are picked up continuously - and I know there is a measure there, if you are picked up in a 24-month period a couple of times and identified as being intoxicated, etcetera, all this legislation will do is stop you from entering that licensed premises for 12 months through an exclusion order.
We think it should go further to provide that person who is, obviously, a repeat offender, with the pathway to a better life through rehabilitation - not only drying out from the drink, but also equipping that person with some life skills, some education, some basic literacy and numeracy skills, and some job skills so they can contribute meaningfully to society.
We believe this bill is very good. As it stands, it is a step in the right direction. I believe it does not go far enough to address some of those most vulnerable Territorians, and that is a real shame.
We see legislation, layer upon layer. As I said, we have seen the 2 km law; we have seen the dry town legislation, and now we see this designated area legislation. It is a little too scattergun for the opposition. Nevertheless, the government feels this is good enough and it is going to address that problem. We do not have as much confidence in this legislation to deal with the serious issues we are seeing not just in Mitchell Street, but also other parts of the Northern Territory, and also the serious antisocial alcohol-fuelled violence problems which are very much part of our Territory life.
Madam Speaker, it is a shame the government has not accepted all those amendments. I do not really understand why. It was predictable the government would not accept these amendments, I guess I could see it coming in discussion with the department at the briefing I had on a commonsense approach to the tabling of the offences and those reports. To allow that to blow out to what could be a two- or three-month period, I believe is unreasonable and unacceptable. Look at the practical implications of that: an offence committed in May, and the parliament does not hear about it until what could be mid-August. I do not think the minister provided a satisfactory explanation for that. I know she is shaking her head, but all you have to do is do the maths; seven days is not one sitting period. I do not believe she provided a satisfactory explanation for that, and it is something the government should consider. I would like to see the practical implications of that as this rolls out.
Nevertheless, it has been a pretty good debate today. The government threw up its usual line about the CLP, and the rivers of grog, and the minister again talked about statistics and the amount of alcohol which is being consumed and not being consumed. The minister fails to recognise, while there may be a decrease in takeaway sales, all that is happening is those takeaway sales are being substituted for bar sales. The amount of grog consumed between those restricted hours of takeaway trading - 11.30 am to 2 pm - is nothing short of staggering.
The enormous and quite easily counteracting figure you brought forward today is the pure alcohol sales which, in Alice Springs alone, equate to something like 10 000 L of pure alcohol per year that are not accounted for in your data. That is very easy information to access. You simply have to find out how many people are ordering wine, through wine clubs, how much of this stuff is coming through independent freight operators and, then, just do the maths again. That is not being accounted for in the data sprouted by the government.
We do not believe the alcohol restrictions are working. I know the government is convinced supply is the answer; if we can cut off and deal with the supply of alcohol, then we are going to see a real change. It is, clearly, not the case. History has proven it. We talked about prohibition today and a range of measures where supply has been restricted, and it does not provide any real long-term solutions.
The alcohol restrictions in Alice Springs seem to be forever and a day. They are here to stay, by the looks of it. We are not making any serious inroads to a point where we are actually getting this under control, where this is being stamped out. The way to address this is to reduce the demand people have for alcohol. The way you do that is through rehabilitation. The way you do that is use any legislation that is practically possible and tie rehabilitation into that.
The government is not doing that. They will not see or accept that. I do not know if it is just pig-headedness by the government, arrogance, or they are just nave. I do not understand why they will not accept that demand is the issue, not supply. As I said, the way you reduce demand is to reduce a person’s addiction to that particular product. The way you do that is rehabilitate that person and give them a meaningful life through rehabilitation - not only drying them out, but giving them a basic education and some basic job skills so, like us, they can get out there in the community and have a good life.
Unfortunately, the government missed an opportunity here. I hope, as time goes on, we can see the practical implications of this and come back here to amend and strengthen some of this legislation. I know a discussion paper was released by the minister last year and, here we are a few months later, making amendments. Well, maybe we can do that again down the track.
I thank everyone on this side for their contribution and thank you, Madam Speaker.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
JUSTICE LEGISLATION AMENDMENT (PENALTIES) BILL
(Serial 95)
(Serial 95)
Continued from 25 February 2010.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I always find it difficult, with respect, Mr Clerk, to hear you. This is the Justice Legislation Amendment (Penalties) Bill? Correct?
Madam SPEAKER: Indeed.
Ms CARNEY: Just making sure. I did not want to make the same mistake the member for Daly made yesterday ...
Dr Burns: You have made that mistake yourself as well!
Ms CARNEY: I guess it has happened to all of us. The member for Johnston is perfect in every way, but it has happened to all of us. I did not want to make the same mistake.
In any event, here we are, Madam Speaker, with the Justice Legislation Amendment (Penalties) Bill. I will make a number of points in relation to this bill.
Under a bill of the same name introduced in the September 2009 sittings, 62 acts and seven regulations were amended as a result of government policy to go through much legislation to change from dollar amounts to penalty units. As members will recall it caused, in many instances, dramatic increases in the maximum penalty and periods of imprisonment, particularly in the Summary Offences Act, the Trespass Act and the Small Claims Act.
The excessive nature of some penalty increases led to questioning whether the government was trying to achieve a revenue-raising strategy. I believe that went unanswered by government. I guess it is for our fellow Territorians to work out. In addition to sound drafting, which is always important, I believe the view may still be held by some this could be an attempt by government to continue to raise revenue on the side.
This bill repeals the Justice Legislation Penalties Act 2009 and, as stated by the Attorney-General, amends the penalty provisions of about, I believe she said, 69 Department of Justice acts and regulations.
As with the 2009 act, many of the changes are restricted to exchanging the phrase ‘penalty’ for ‘maximum penalty’ and changing ‘dollar value penalties’ to ‘penalty units’ using a different formula. The new formula was described by the Attorney-General in her second reading speech, and has restricted total increases to 15% of the current monetary value. The increased dollar amount is then converted to the closest whole penalty unit, and then rounded down to the closest five penalty units. The smaller fines, in the event of rounding down to the closest five penalty units, would result in a decrease in the actual monetary value of the fine. The penalty is rounded to the closest 0.5 of a penalty. If this still results in a value below the current fine amount, the fine will be rounded to the nearest 0.1 penalty unit above 0.5. In the event that conversion to a penalty unit results in a penalty unit less than 0.5, the dollar value will remain in the legislation.
There were some other changes referred to by the Attorney-General in her second reading speech. The opposition supports this bill. The formula applied is a more conservative, but consistent, change across the identified legislation, and the proposed increase of 15% is better than the many increases proposed under the 2009 bill. The anomalies of some amended penalties being less than their original worth have been corrected, and all imprisonment increases have been removed with the exception of those in the Criminal Code, to which the Attorney-General referred in her second reading speech.
The 2009 bill amended - when we counted them - 62 acts and seven regulations. I said before the Attorney-General referred in her second reading speech to the present bill amending 69 acts and regulations; we believe that figure is probably wrong because there is one piece of legislation missing; that is, our good friend the Summary Offences Act. It, not unlike the member for Stuart, the minister for the Environment, is missing in action.
The Attorney-General made the point in her second reading speech, when she said this:
- The balance of the legislation of the Northern Territory across all government agencies is expected to be reviewed by 2013. The offences in the Summary Offences Act will be dealt with as part of a review of all provisions of that act.
The Attorney-General may well be saying - if I understand that sentence – that those matters which were amended in the Summary Offences Act under this bill in October of last year will not be further reviewed until 2013. She did, however, make the point:
- The balance of the department’s legislation is expected to be reviewed by the end of 2010.
Therefore, I am at a loss as to when exactly those matters contained in the Summary Offences Act will, in fact, be reviewed. It could be by the end of 2010; equally, it could be sometime in 2013.
The matters dealt with in the Summary Offences Act when we were last debating this in October, curiously, are not included in this bill. Members will recall the Attorney-General stood by some quite outrageous increases in penalties under the legislation that is today being repealed. In other words, in October last year, the Attorney-General said: ‘No, we have this legislation right’. A few months later, she is here again saying: ‘We are repealing the whole act that we debated in October. This time we have it right’.
Members will recall, in particular, the increase of 1200% for a fine for the offence of begging. The Attorney-General received some reasonably scathing and unflattering publicity as a result of media coverage following her prosecuting the government’s case it was reasonable for beggars to face a fine of $6500 – I will say that again, $6500 – or six months imprisonment. Of course, part of the reason it was so interesting at the time was the Chief Minister said some months prior, in relation to the proposal from the Alice Springs Town Council to impose or increase fines on those people begging, that it was – well, in fact, let me quote exactly what the Chief Minister said:
… it beggars …
Rather an unfortunate use of word:
- … it beggars belief to think that somebody that’s out there so impoverished and destitute that they’re begging for money can afford to pay the fine.
That was a very small fine; it was $130 proposed by the Alice Springs Town Council at the time. The Chief Ministerial aspirant came into the Chamber in October last year and said: ‘No, we think $6500 for beggars is just fine’ - good member - I believe of the left - of the Labor Party, so we were genuinely surprised. I know many other people were. As I am sure members will recall, we went into the committee stage and I did try to suggest to the Attorney-General that $6500 was a great deal, but she really would not have a bar of it.
I also suggested – and I think drew her attention to the fact - there was some other curious increases. The fine for the dumping of eskies went from $200 to $13 000 - that is a maximum increase of $6400. The list goes on. Anyway, some really incredible increases.
Such is the Attorney-General’s arrogance and her commitment to herself that everything she does is right, she said a number of things in the parliament that would be noteworthy and important for me to read again on the Parliamentary Record because, of course, we do not know when we might be here next repealing this bill and starting all over again. Therefore, it is important these matters be put, once again, on the Parliamentary Record. The Attorney-General said on 13 October 2009:
- How we addressed the approach to this legislation was not sloppy; quite the contrary.
I thought that was terribly interesting. She went on to say various changes in the 2009 bill reflected the current policy applied by the Department of Justice to penalties to be imposed in the legislation - so, current policies. Yet, here we are repealing that act, and those matters contained under the Summary Offences Act are missing in action from the bill today. The Attorney-General then said they went through this in a methodical, clear and precise fashion, not sloppy, not cavalier; quite the opposite. Justice officers went through this in a clear and precise fashion with the instructions she set as Attorney-General, with the parameters to not just look at the penalty units applying to go forward, but back cast to see which ones were out of kilter because they had not been adjusted for a number of years.
She kept going. She was absolutely adamant what she, as Attorney-General, introduced a couple of months prior to October last year was rock solid and was the right thing to do. She said elsewhere in the same debate that there was a very thorough process. She went on to say:
- We make no apology for the penalties in our legislation being contemporary and current by applying our existing policy to them.
Presumably, that is the existing policy inter alia of increasing by 6400% penalties for people who dump eskies, and 1200% for beggars. Anyway, that was the policy because she, the Attorney-General, said it was so. She went on again:
- There were thorough reasons behind all the changes. It was not a cavalier approach, it was not a sloppy approach; it was a very thorough approach taken by the Department of Justice on my instructions. I ensured I was made aware of any significant changes coming through from those processes …
- … and I was in a position to table them in this parliament so they are public
And she was very happy to table the list of penalties.
Well, bully for her. It does illustrate - does it not? - how rusted on the Chief Ministerial aspirant and current Attorney-General was in relation to the legislation she brought into the Chamber. We had an experience late last year of a health matter - and it was incredibly obvious the Minister for Health just had not read or got himself across the issue.
What we have heard is ministers saying: ‘I do this, I do that’ but, in fact, either not giving the right instructions - they are paid to do it - or just not reading and understanding, or even bothering to ask their staff to give them reasonable advice in relation to matters coming through from the department. So, we had an embarrassing situation - and it was embarrassing for the Territory, as it has been, generally, over the last eight years, because that story went national. The story about thousands of dollars for a beggar, perhaps not surprisingly, went all around the country. We were embarrassed and the Attorney-General should have been.
The Attorney-General will remember we raised these issues in committee. Why did we not support this bill then amending 69 acts? Because we are into sound drafting; we think it should be reasonable. When the Attorney-General says: ‘No, this is our policy’, well, that is the government’s policy, that is their problem.
What is interesting was when the Attorney-General said:
- The Labor Party stands on its record of going hard to address antisocial behaviour in our community.
You have one member of government thinking slugging beggars thousands of dollars is just going hard and, yet, the current Chief Minister indicated in previous comments in relation to the proposed penalties the Alice Springs Town Council wanted to implement, he was not in favour of it. I guess that is for the back room of the Australian Labor Party and for this government. You never know, we might see more people leaving the government this year, as we did last year. However, it does demonstrate the Attorney-General is not across her portfolio.
When the Chief Minister was advised of this debate - or he may have been in the room at the time, I cannot remember - he was then asked by media; from the ABC website on 19 October 2009 the story starts as follows:
- Northern Territory Chief Minister Paul Henderson has conceded his government might have got it wrong when it passed a bill threatening beggars with an maximum $6500 fine.
‘We don’t get everything right all of the time,’ he said.
- But in an embarrassing backflip less than 24 hours later, NT Attorney-General Delia Lawrie announced the government would rethink the measure.
Then she said:
- Happy to do that. It is the right thing to do ...
Where do these people get off? How can you even pretend to stand in parliament one day and say: ‘No, no, you are wrong. We have it all right. We are perfect. I have done this; I have done that’ and, then, 24 hours later say: ‘Oh, we are happy to amend it’. That is the shallow, shabby approach of members opposite and, in particular, this Attorney-General. Territorians have every right to expect so much more from the Territory’s first law officer.
It became worse. I have a couple of friends in the Department of Justice, in particular, who raised this with me. I saw the interview and nearly fell off my chair. There was a Stateline interview, I think at the end of that week, and it was a shocker. The Attorney-General was asked about this and the interviewer was trying to suggest the minister do something really courageous such as take responsibility and acknowledge the stuff-up. What the Attorney-General did was - and I do not have the transcript with me but it was very clear - just pushed it on to the department. Pushed it on to them; how she had spoken to the staff - or whatever the comment was, it was pretty close to that. So, it was pretty shabby that the Attorney-General – or, indeed, any government minister - came in here said: ‘Me, me, me,’ with respect to legislation, does not listen to other arguments about how something might be a bit bizarre and stupid and, 24 hours later, gets done over by her boss: ‘Gee, you had better fix this’, and then goes on television and says it is the staff. What a sad and sorry chapter!
We have had a very interesting few years with this government and its legislation. It is hard to take too much of what they do seriously because, over the years, we have seen - and I have advised the parliament before - what we call oops bills, where the government comes in, says something is all kosher and ready to go and, within a few months or 12 months later, we come back and have to fix it. I hope this is not like that.
I look forward to the revised penalties in the Summary Offences Act one day - maybe later this year, maybe 2013, maybe never. I do not know. Maybe it has been such a shame job for the Attorney-General that she is not allowed to touch it. Maybe she has been told to just leave everything the way it is. I do not know and, I guess, it is none of my business. This has been the worst chapter of government bringing bills into the parliament. For our part, we just wish they get them right. Whilst the Chief Minister, to his credit, said: ‘We do not get it right all of the time’, Territorians expect much more from the government than they have been provided with. All of the resources that have been involved in doing the first bill and, then, organising its repeal - and here we are again talking about it. I am very interested to know how many other parliaments went through this type of business for a bill like this.
There are my comments. I am not sure whether any of my colleagues would like to contribute. I feel certain the Attorney-General will contribute. She will make a contribution and be very firm in her resolve that everything she did was right. I look forward to it, Madam Speaker.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, what a delightful contribution from the member for Araluen. She just cannot help herself. But you get that when, I guess, most of your life is spent in extreme frustration on the opposition benches.
This bill repeals the Justice Legislation Penalties Amendment Act 2009 that was amending the penalty provisions in most of the acts administered by the Department of Justice. It was meant to be a simple process of converting existing penalties in the offence provisions into penalty units. The application of the policy processes, particularly as they apply to the Summary Offences Act, did certainly skew somewhat the penalties occurring in that Summary Offences Act.
The Chief Minister was quite right in the statements he made; that is why I am back in here repealing that 2009 act and undertaking a simple conversion in Justice legislation penalties by ensuring the penalties are converted to penalty units, and that none go higher than the 15% increase to capture CPI since they were last converted.
This is quite a straightforward process we are following here today, stripping out the summary offences. For clarification’s sake, for the member for Araluen, the Summary Offences Act, as I have stated publicly and will state again in the Chamber today, is currently being reviewed. I made the decision to proceed with this conversion to penalty units ahead of that review. The Summary Offences Act, by its nature, will be complex review work undertaken by the Department of Justice. As Attorney-General, I expect it to go out into the public domain for consultation. That will be a longer body of work than a simple process of converting to penalty units here.
That being said, I am hopeful the summary offences review will be out into the public domain in the second half of this year, with the view to legislative reform, if required, around late 2010 or early 2011, depending on the consultation process in the second half of this year and the results of that. It is good. I made a mistake in accepting a body of work I should not have accepted in its entirety - and I have said on the public record it is my mistake. I know the member for Araluen would like to have it thought otherwise; that I have been pushing the blame elsewhere. I have not; I have taken it on board myself. I am not beyond admitting to mistakes. It was a mistake to do it in its entirety the way I did the last time round. In that respect, it was a useful process for government to undertake, whereby you put in place additional processes to double check and triple check what you are doing with legislation.
I have certainly ensured that has occurred, not just in my own actions, but my staff’s actions and, indeed, the department’s actions. All of us can get into a comfort zone, and we are well and truly shaken out of that comfort zone as a result of the work that occurred in the penalties in 2009. In a perfect world I probably would not have wanted to go through that. As Attorney-General, I have to stand today and say I am glad I did, as strange as that sounds. It has been a good, important lesson for me to learn from that mistake.
I have often said, in all the workplaces I have worked as a boss over the years, to all of my staff, if you make a mistake it is not the end of the world. The end of the world is not admitting to the mistake because it just compounds it. So, in this sense, I am living by what I have always said. I made a mistake in proceeding as I did with that 2009 penalties bill. I have learned dearly from that and, yes, I was pretty horrified where it ran to. I have pulled it back. I have stripped the summary offences aspect out.
It is timely and good to review summary offences. There are many offences in there I would have thought, in contemporary practice, may not stand the test of time such as singing on the street corner. If the council wants to do a by-law for that, maybe they could, but it does not necessarily fit within summary offences. You have a question about letting the goats out. I think of Kezia and her family. What is wrong if the goats are doing a bit of a run? But someone could come forward with some strong arguments during the public consultation process about why you would have an offence of letting the goats out. That is a particular favourite of mine.
It was, and is, very much the catch-all body of legislation and summary offences. It is certainly timely to do the review. The Department of Justice officer who has been tasked broadly with that review has done the review work internally very diligently. I have to admit, I know he has had a bit of fun doing it. I understand I am about to receive his initial body of work to go through, and it is highly entertaining reading because of the nature and the age of the many offences which were there. I am learning much about the law through that review work. I am learning that lawmakers in the past named particular provisions after themselves. There will not be a Lawrie aspect to any of the summary offences work, other than recognising the penalties in 2009 were a mistake.
That is why I have this before us here today; to simply do the penalty conversion as I had intended, strip out summary offences to do that broader comprehensive review, and look at where the summary offences should be, and what type of offences should be in it and, if you have offences within it, what are the relative rankings in the severity of those offences; and do that policy work thoroughly.
That is currently being undertaken by the department officers, and they are in close communication with my office. I have been enjoying the learning experience in regard to summary offences that I have undertaken as the Attorney-General.
The intention is - with all the other Department of Justice legislation to be converted into penalties - that they would progressively do that through 2010 and try to have that worked on by 2011. I am indicating the legislation across government converting to penalties, hopefully, will all be done and dusted by 2013. That is a great deal of legislation and work. I am setting in place processes and systems to get that work done in a consistent manner. Obviously, the Department of Justice and Treasury are two key agencies capable of providing assistance to all government agencies in that body of work.
Why is it good to do? It is good to do going forward because it will keep penalties contemporary. The bill I passed as Treasurer last year regarding the budget made sure that CPI kicks in, in penalty units, every year. This is not just work we are doing short term. It is work that, long term, will yield real benefits for any government in keeping penalties up-to-date with what and how they should be. That, of course, does not prevent broader policy work being undertaken in any legislation; whether it is traffic offences or summary offences. That work, by its nature, should occur from time to time.
I am eating humble pie today. I am doing so without reservation, though. As I said, I am strangely pleased I made a mistake fairly early in the piece as Attorney-General because I have certainly learned from that mistake, and put processes in place to ensure I do not make that mistake again nor, systemically, will we have the issues we had previously.
I thank the member for Araluen for drawing it to our attention. I find it curious they were able to support it in the first place, but I understand they picked through it in detail during committee stage amendments. It was one of the more edifying experiences of my life. We move forward, and we are getting it right today. We are pleased to be here today to sort this one out in an appropriate way.
Madam Speaker, I commend the legislation to the House.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General) (by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
MOTION
Note Paper – Auditor-General’s February 2010 Report to the Legislative Assembly
Note Paper – Auditor-General’s February 2010 Report to the Legislative Assembly
Continued from 23 February 2010.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I thank the Auditor-General for his report to the Assembly on matters arising from audits conducted in the period 1 July 2009 to 31 December 2009.
My ministerial colleagues and I value the work of the Auditor-General in assisting the process of transparency and accountability through independent analysis and drawing our attention to matters of interest.
In respect of the audits of financial statements, which are conducted to provide a level of assurance those statements are presented fairly, all audits resulted in unqualified audit opinions, compliance with relevant accounting standards, and no matters of significance or material weakness, with one exception, NT Build.
The Auditor-General was unsatisfied all revenues due had been recognised in NT Build’s financial statements. This was largely due to the nature of building approval processes and some doubts as to whether NT Build has been advised of all construction work that might fall within the scope of the Construction Industry Long Service Leave and Benefits Act. The board of NT Build was well aware of the problem and, whilst confident there is a high level of compliance, continues to pursue solutions to the problem.
The four information technology audits and controls and compliance audits conducted during the reporting period all resulted in positive and unqualified audit opinions, notwithstanding issues identified for further improvement. For records management in the Department of Business and Employment, whilst the system controls were satisfactory, there was a need to standardise policies and procedures to distribute information to system users, and to develop disaster recovery procedures.
For the human resource management application, MyHR, whilst the system controls could be relied upon, a number of opportunities were identified for DBE to improve application security controls.
For the management of the Alice Springs Masters Games and the Arafura Games, there were no significant issues with the Northern Territory Major Events Company’s financial management. Some issues were identified in the transfer process from the Department of Local Government, Housing and Sport, and a lack of assistance to identify, assess and report on the achievement of performance goals.
In consultation with the Northern Territory Major Events Company, the Department of the Chief Minister undertook a comprehensive review of the Arafura Games, which will result in clear performance goals.
It is pleasing to note that, for the whole-of-government information technology outsourcing initiative, DBE’s approach to restructuring and re-tendering of contracts for the provision of IT services, was both formally defined and consultative. This was further supported by a defined governance structure and formal approach to project management.
The Auditor-General’s February 2010 Report provides over 100 pages of information and analyses on audit activity conducted over the reporting period, which provides an assurance to parliament and all Territorians that government agencies are transparent and accountable for managing the resources under their control, and have been subject to the highest levels of scrutiny.
On behalf of my colleagues, I thank the Auditor-General for his latest report, and take this opportunity to express my full support for the Auditor-General for his continued independent analysis of governance and accountability on behalf of the Assembly, the government and the Territory community, and in continuing to draw our attention to matters of importance. The role of the Auditor-General and the ongoing program of audits of financial statements, controls, and compliance across agencies and entities is one of our most vital components in maintaining an open government policy.
Madam Speaker, I commend the Auditor-General for his report.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I respond to the minister’s statement. I find it curious that the minister said there are no adverse findings in the report and, then, promptly went on to explain all the areas of interest that had to be addressed as a result of the Auditor-General’s report. And there are areas of interest and concern in this report.
There were adverse findings which caused the departments to respond to some of the findings by the Auditor-General. Once again, we are getting used to the language of the Chief Minister. He is quite happy to say there are no adverse findings except this, this, this and this. By the time it finds its way into the public domain, all he will end up saying is there were no adverse findings.
There were no major issues that arose out of this report, but there were compliance issues. I note the Chief Minister started with NT Build. That will never get an unqualified audit opinion. Whilst it is near the back of the report and I will have to find it if I am going to refer to it, I notice NT Build has been forced, by virtue of the comments of the Auditor-General, to put in one of the longest responses to the Auditor-General’s findings.
The amounts of money involved in NT Build are not insubstantial. At the time of the audit, some $11 848 410 was the amount of contributions made into the portable long service scheme. I also point out comments from the Auditor-General in relation to the NT Build scheme - and I quote from page 86 of the report:
- As such, I am unable to satisfy myself as to the completeness of the $11 848 410 recognised as ‘contributions from levy payers’ in the income statement.
The reason for this is quite straightforward. It is because this scheme, which was introduced to create a system of portable long service leave arrangements inside the building industry, for some strange reason - and I digress for a second. The building industry is the only industry which the government seemed to be paying any attention to, yet there is any number of industries where there is a portability of staff that far exceeds the normal stay of employees, tourism not being the least of these type of cases. The problem is, whilst NT Build has promised to ‘strengthen the NT Build’s ability to maximise compliance’ the fact is there will always be ‘a level of uncertainty that may always exist’. That is because you cannot be certain as to whether the people out there in the construction industry are fulfilling the requirements of the legislation.
Whilst NT Build may go out and audit, from time to time, various construction agencies and industries as to how they are proceeding, we will never truly know the drawdown on the budget into the future of people who will come back to the Northern Territory and claim to be owed long service as a result of this portability scheme. It is just not a clearly definable proposition. Consequently, there will always be this question mark as to how heavy the drawdown is going to be in the future on a portable long service scheme. That is why NT Build will never get an unqualified report from the Auditor-General, which is acknowledged both by the Auditor-General and NT Build.
It is an area which deserves examination. You have to remember, of course, this system was introduced because the new Labor government at the time, under the tutelage of the Treasurer, Syd Stirling, who was very keen to satisfy the demands of his union mates, introduced this particular scheme in the building industry.
I also note the Department of the Chief Minister received some comment in relation to the amalgamation of the part of Sports and Recreation and the Major Events Company, particularly pertaining to the management of some of the more known events which occur in the Northern Territory such as the Honda Masters Games and the Arafura Games, and the like. A certain element of risk was identified when this amalgamation occurred and these risks were considered. Of the 22 identified risks, 13 of the risks were considered to have a high probability of occurring. Of the 13 risks considered as highly likely to occur and have major consequences, 10 actually manifested themselves.
Of the 18 staff transferred under this particular arrangement, after a 12-month period, there was only one left. One can only imagine how unhappy or how difficult an environment this particular amalgamation created within the Major Events Company, as well as in relation to the Department of the Chief Minister. I note the Department of the Chief Minister responded to this by saying:
- On the second key finding, the Department of the Chief Minister, in consultation with the Northern Territory Major Events Company, engaged consultants to undertake a comprehensive review of the Arafura Games in late 2009, in particular its future directions and goals. Implementing the recommendations from this review will address the adverse finding of the lack of a performance management system to identify, assess and report on the achievement of performance goals. A copy of the report from the review and the proposed responses will be forwarded to the Northern Territory Auditor-General’s Office.
Hang on! Did I not just hear the Chief Minister say there were no adverse findings? Yet, here I find the words ‘adverse findings’ in the report the Chief Minister says has no adverse findings in it. Clearly, once again we have the Chief Minister being less than fulsome with this House and Territorians when he is making utterances in this place, and I suspect outside of this place. In fact, I know outside of this place. The department acknowledges the amalgamation did not run smoothly. I suspect that is part of the reason you saw such a large shift of staff move to other agencies as a result of this amalgamation. Things, clearly, were not managed particularly well during that time.
I also wish to make some observation - and I am mindful of the time - in relation to the Darwin Port Corporation which has been very much in people’s minds in the last couple of days. Before I start talking about the Darwin Port Corporation, regarding what the Auditor-General had to say; in an attempt at distancing themselves from the Darwin Port Corporation, this government has exercised an almost absurd level of trickery when it comes to this particular organisation. One would be convinced, from the comments by the minister for the Environment, the Darwin Port Corporation had absolutely nothing to do with government at all. However, it does not take you long to look into the budget papers and discover the Darwin Port Corporation is actually the property of the Northern Territory government. They own it. As the owners of an organisation, surely, you would think they would carry some responsibility for the conduct of the management. Whilst I appreciate there is a board of the Darwin Port Corporation, the ultimate owner is the Northern Territory government. For them to try to say: ‘It is nothing to do with us’, is nothing shy of patently absurd and is, essentially, quite dishonest.
In any instance, the Darwin Port Corporation, as far as the Auditor-General is concerned, has not provided any major areas of concerns in its financial records. I question how deeply the Auditor-General had a look at these particular accounts. I am intrigued to know whether the Auditor-General had dug any more deeply than simply doing a form of desk audit, because I have some concerns about stories which have come to my attention in relation to expenditure by the Darwin Port Corporation, particularly in its executive area, for meals and travel, whether that particular expenditure is properly justified.
I certainly hope the Auditor-General is listening to this, and he may consider revisiting the audit of the Darwin Port Corporation and satisfying himself the expenditure in some of these areas reflected requirements for the proper operation of the Port Corporation, or whether he wanted to pass some other judgment on any aspect of the expenditure of such monies.
Madam Speaker, I note there is two minutes to go. I have much more to talk about, particularly in relation to the Power and Water Corporation. Considering the time and continuity of comment, I ask that I may be permitted to continue my comments at a later date.
Madam SPEAKER: We can continue to 5.30 pm, which is when General Business comes on, member for Port Darwin.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I will be halfway through a technical argument, and it would not produce a particularly good result from that point of view.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
TRAFFIC AMENDMENT (FORFEITURE AND IMPOUNDING ORDERS) BILL
(Serial 97)
(Serial 97)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I move the bill be now read a second time. In doing so, I advise this bill, for all good intents and purposes, replaces the Traffic Amendment Bill (Serial 38).
The reason for doing that is, through negotiations with both the Minister for Transport and the member for Nelson during the Alice Springs sittings, we reached a point where recommendations were made by both the member for Nelson and the Minister for Transport. We thought we had reached some approach where I could take away and redesign the bill, or come up with amendments. However, I decided to completely redesign the bill and come forward with the new bill, because the amendments and the decisions we had negotiated were of such difference to the Serial 38 bill I did not believe it was good practice to go forward with that bill.
That is why we have this serial 97 bill on the table today in this Chamber. I trust the new measures within this bill reflect the conversations and ideas put forward by the member for Nelson. We very intently followed his advice and concerns, and have sought to reflect that. We have also sought to reflect concerns raised by the advisors and the Minister for Transport in that regard.
Our previous bill said we had what you might call a three strikes policy where, if you had three drink-driving offences in five years, you would lose your vehicle, if one of those offences was a high-range offence. This bill attaches a penalty point system to drink-driving offences, and the accumulation of points will determine different penalties in that process. For example, a low-range offence will attract one penalty point, a mid-range offence will attract two penalty points, and a high-range offence will attract three penalty points. These points will be placed on a central register and remain active for five years from the time the offender has been found guilty of that offence.
When a person commits drink-driving offences where their total points at the finding of guilt for each offence equals three, four, or five points, an application will be made to the court to have their vehicle impounded for 48 hours. When a person accrues six or more points, an application will be made in the court to have their vehicle forfeited.
A stepped approach was a result of our discussion with the member for Nelson, who raised concerns about going straight to forfeiture without warning of having the vehicle impounded. In the interest of that bipartisan approach, we accepted his comments and redrafted our bill to allow for the period of impounding, to allow an offender to face the reality of their actions, learn from their mistakes, and not re-offend; the idea being if you have your vehicle impounded, you should not re-offend and have it taken.
Many of the administrative provisions are taken directly from the government’s hooning provisions; we have sought to marry up in that case. Hardship provisions are one such example in relation to the forfeiture orders. Where a court believes a forfeiture order will cause severe financial or physical hardship on a person, the court has the discretion to impose an impounding order of between 14 days and six months. The court also has the discretion to delay the commencement of an order until after a period of imprisonment, licence suspension or disqualification, or until after an alcohol ignition lock period.
It is also a requirement for the statistical data relating to penalty points to be incorporated into an annual report. It is not the intention to publish data which would identify repeat drink-drivers, but so policy and awareness campaigns can be more effectively developed and delivered to target audiences. In one of my earliest briefings on drink-driving offenders, I asked the question: who are the people who continually repeat drink-drive, particularly high-range offenders? The department answered: ‘People with an alcohol problem’. That much is obvious, of course, but to better target awareness campaigns and develop policy, a clear picture is needed of the demographic we are appealing to. That is why we have sought to publish that data; so we can have an understanding of how we target our awareness campaigns.
The government raised concerns their alcohol ignition lock policy should be allowed to run its course. One of the key omissions in their AIL legislation is the inability of a low-level offence to be considered as a previous offence to subsequent mid- and high-range offences. I have included a minor amendment to sections 21 and 22 so all previous offences are considered relevant and an AIL device can be used sooner rather than later.
Key sections in this bill relating to impounding and forfeiture orders include:
section 29AAYG provides for points to be attributed to an offence under this part for the purpose of impounding and forfeiture;
section 29AAYM allows for the forfeiture order to be applied to a person who has accrued six or more active penalty points;
The remaining sections incorporate the administrative provisions introduced by the minister under his hooning legislation, and they include: clarifying that the rights of a credit provider will not be affected by an order; allow persons with an interest in the vehicle to stake their claim if the vehicle is forfeited and they were not notified of the proposed forfeiture; sets out how a person can reclaim their vehicle at the end of an impounding period; what will happen to a vehicle if it is not claimed at the end of an impounding period; and the method for disposing of a forfeited vehicle.
I believe these amendments provide a sound balance of negotiations and good intention between me, the Minister for Transport, and the member for Nelson. Members in this Chamber would be very well aware I have been very active on road safety reform since being elected to parliament in 2008. Members of the public would be aware of my stance on drink-driving. I know low-range drink-driving is an issue, and some people can accidentally go over 0.051% or go to 0.051%, and we have a bit of leeway in the system. They get the message: you get caught once, you do not do it again. Then, if you do it again, you simply have not learned. If you continue to disregard drink-driving laws, particularly repeatedly high range, you are just a bloody idiot.
Speaking of idiots and of road safety, it is quite timely to reflect on other road safety measures. I have said people can be given the benefit of the doubt for making a first small mistake if it was not undertaken purposely. The attempts to do 60 km/h can sometimes be difficult and I often find myself doing 55 km/h to 58 km/h and, sometimes, might creep over 62 km/h or 63 km/h. That is what we try to do; moderate speed at the right level.
I have often thought about what the benefits might be if you change the way speeds are limited to 60 km/h: should you have a band and how might that work better? It is very difficult to come up with and also to do exactly the right speed limit. People in this Chamber may wonder why I am talking about other road safety measures. The reason I am talking about other road safety measures is because I am not sure the community has confidence in the Transport minister to fully undertake his responsibilities. Some may ask why? There are some serious questions around his ability to do his job and, after today’s Question Time, it is no wonder.
This is the minister of an alleged new era; the minister with alleged gusto; the minister with an alleged firm commitment to road safety. That seems to have gone out the window. He has lost confidence in the community by his failure to lead by example. He used to be a teacher. What would he say to his class? ‘Do as I do, not as I say’, or would it be ‘Do as I say, not as I do’? When the minister was charged with speeding - not just a little mind you, he was completely wringing the neck of the car - he was a long way over.
On ABC radio he said he had taken his eye of the speedo and was listening to the Hoodoo Gurus - like, wow, wipe out! He said he had taken his eyes off the speedo. Does that mean he was driving negligently? Should that be another fine for not watching his speed? He was caught driving at 149 km/h - or should I say he was ticketed at 149 km/h. I must say that that is pretty quick, especially for a troopie. He was not driving a Porsche; he isn’t Michael Schumacher driving a Ferrari, and he was not in the Cannonball Run revving a Lamborghini. He was wringing the neck of a troopie.
A question must be asked: how hard is it to get the troopie up to 150 km/h? It is not easy. You do not take your eye off the ball. You have to get it there. The question must be asked: how fast was he really going when pulled over before discretionary powers cut back in? Let us see if the minister ‘fesses up to whether he was doing 149 km/h or going faster than 149 km/h. I know what the ticket must say, 149 km/h. I do not want to speak against police discretionary powers because the warning system is a really good system.
I believe when we a see an officer the sweats get up, the heart is in the mouth, you take a deep breath, and learn from the mistake whether you are doing the wrong thing or the right thing. That is what happens when you see an officer doing a speed check. We all learn from that. However, the minister was going 149 km/h. Sorry, he was charged at 149 km/h - mind you, in the Wet, with flood warnings for all Central Australia. In the old system of open roads, people would make a conscious decision to drive to the conditions of the road. People would not be doing 150 km/h coming into a flood warning. This minister did not do that, let alone drive to the speed limit or - should I say, drive to his speed limit as the Transport minister.
How can the minister now be in charge of speeding, drink-driving and road safety? It poses some serious questions as to his suitability to fulfil his duties. How can we not ask other pertinent questions such as, has the minister ever drunk and driven? Has he ever been caught drink-driving? Has he run a red light camera? Has he not gone over a speed limit? I could go on, but it is the role of the minister to ‘fess up on these issues. However, I digress. It is an important digression but I do digress.
It is interesting, when you go through and look at some of the debates in this Chamber since I have been in here, and read the debates from others and of the Minister for Transport. I reflect on 18 August 2009 in a debate about the reinstatement of open speed limits put forward by me. I look straight to the Transport minister’s comments where he said:
- … road safety is everybody’s business. This government makes no apologies ...
Well, I am sure he said sorry for speeding:
- Excessive speed is reckless, stupid and dangerous behaviour.
In other words, by excessive speeding - which I would say 149 km/h is, going by his speed limits - he behaved recklessly, stupidly and dangerously. But, we are still going to keep him as a Transport minister. He said:
- We have adopted a speed limit on our main highways that is responsible and workable ...
Well, the speed limit might be responsible, but the minister certainly was not. He went on further:
- … if the Leader of the Opposition goes out and says we would not have speed limits, the message young people receive is that it is okay to speed.
He is blaming the Leader of the Opposition there, Madam Speaker. Quite clearly, the shoe is on the other foot. He said:
- We will not achieve the culture change required to improve our road toll while young people are getting this message from one side of politics.
Well, let me tell you, he is not getting from this side. It is coming clearly from the other side, leading by example. The Chief Minister’s reluctance to do anything about this shows it is the Chief Minister who is indecisive on this matter and he is leading by example.
Then he said in the same debate, and this is where the minister spoke personally, which I appreciate. He said:
- My 19-year-old son is planning a road trip home at the end of his university semester, and he wants to bring his mates. I implore the Leader of the Opposition, and I implore the shadow minister for Transport, not to go through with this motion as do not want them arriving on the border of the Northern Territory with the attitude of: ‘Hurtle in, boys, everything is open.
I am pretty sure the young man will follow the example of his father.
It just keeps going and I have a few more examples here, I will just rattle on. This one here is a story by Tara Ravens on 18 August 2009 responding to comments, as quoted in the article:
- NT Chief Minister Paul Henderson said the opposition was looking for cheap political points - and being reckless in the process.
‘We’ve made tough decisions and, touch wood, the road toll is down’, he said.
Well, he was not prepared to make the toughest one. Then, on 3 September 2009, there was a media release by the Minister for Transport titled ‘Red Light Speed Camera Switched On for Trial’. I will just quote a couple of lines out of there. When Mr McCarthy was talking about what he hoped his speed cameras would achieve, he said:
- … change driver behaviour, save lives and make roads safer for Territory families.
Well, that must be a 149 km/h ticket. Then he said:
- We would be thrilled if we didn’t catch anybody speeding or ignoring red light signals with these cameras.
This is the one I like, in particular:
- The ideal outcome would be for motorists to take heed of the safety message and to safeguard themselves and others … driving within the speed limit.
Driving within the speed limit, Madam Speaker:
- Anyone who shows disregard for their own life and the lives of their fellow road users will be slapped with a fine and demerit points and they have no one to blame but themselves.
Madam Speaker, if the minister went over a little, I would not be talking about it. If the minister was not the Transport minister, it would not be of such concern to me; he would have made the wrong decision. But, this is the Transport minister who fought so hard for us not to have an open speed limit - fought long and hard - and he has clearly broken his own rules. If he stood by his convictions and his principles, he would stand aside; we would not be asking the Chief Minister to stand him aside from his Transport portfolio.
This is just crazy and it goes further. In the Tennant & District Times on 18 September 2009 he made reference to the George Institute and talked about the real challenges in changing drivers’ behaviours. Clearly, he cannot change his own unless he has come down from 200 km/h. Then he said - and this is where my heart nearly fell out:
- And in the space of this enormous challenge the Country Liberal opposition want to open speed limits on selected sections of Territory highways in the Wet and Dry, day and night, for young and old for the sake of a perceived Territory lifestyle!
- … I demand we ‘draw a line in the sand’ on speed limits in the interests of saving lives …
His position is untenable. Mark my words! How can he say these things and completely go over the top against his own rules? How can he do that? He also said:
- The Henderson government if focused on road safety for all Territorians and that means enjoying our great Territory lifestyle yet surviving the drive and returning home safely to both family and friends.
It is quite ironic, Madam Speaker. In a ministerial statement by the Transport minister on 22 October 2009 he said:
- A reduction in our road toll will require change in our driving culture …
Well, that has not happened:
- As a former teacher, I will start with education and awareness ...
Here we go. ‘I will educate you on speeding at 149 km/h’ - the ticketed value actually, not the real speed. Start with education and awareness; he let everyone know he was speeding. With all good grace, he did apologise for it and I respect that. But, minister, how can you stand here today as the Minister for Transport, when you try to promote road safety messages, condoning anyone who speeds, calling them idiots, and you sit there with your glum look on your face, not moving, clearly unable to sell the road safety message any more. Any person in this Chamber must stand by their own convictions, minister.
It said in the same statement:
- The Henderson government knows reckless and dangerous driving behaviour on our roads is unacceptable. Drivers who … speed …
I am selectively quoting this paragraph:
- Drivers who … speed … which puts their lives and the lives of other Territorians at risk, are idiots.
‘Idiots’, Madam Speaker. Well, we know who the idiot is.
- … saving Territorians lives our road is beyond politics.
…
- Country Liberals continue to oppose speed limits on our roads ...
Oh, the dangerous Country Liberals. Clearly, you like our policy.
- I assure you there is nationwide and worldwide evidence which shows that reducing speed reduces the impact of a crash and reduces the resulting carnage.
Maybe you have not read that evidence:
- It is not rocket science …
He went on further to say:
- … speed kills …
He put it in concrete, ‘speed kills’, but I will do it anyway. He went on further to say:
- … unlike the Country Liberals opposite, whose actions amount to neglect, this government is serious about reducing acts of stupidity on our roads, not encouraging them.
These are the minister’s words; I am not a plagiarist. These are his words; he must stand by his convictions. He said:
- I would rather see no fines paid. I would like to set an aspirational target of total fines paid to zero – nothing ...
Well, you cannot really if you do it yourself. You are No 1; how can you set it zero if you are the one speeding, minister?
- It is a shame we cannot have a bipartisan approach to road safety ...
Well, clearly we have. We support open speed limits and so do you. Well done, come on over! You were talking here about recommendations in the report:
- The recommendation was that the Northern Territory should go to a speed limit of 110 km/h. All of the recommendations were debated …
This is about the speed limit debate:
- … very passionately within the Caucus and the Cabinet. The government decided to implement a 130 km/h …
You are telling me the evidence said 110 km/h, but you still did 149 km/h – ticketed:
- It grieves me the opposition is arguing about the 130 km/h speed limit.
Well, it might be grieving you now. I look at comments made by a former Transport minister - I will just make sure I have the date right here so I can quote; I would not want to get done for plagiarism or incorrectly quoting, or anything like that. I am pretty sure it must still be in the same debate from 2009. I am positive it is. If it is not from that debate, I am quoting the right person but it may be the wrong debate. I think it is the right debate. The previous Transport minister, the member for Johnston, quoted Churchill. He said:
- I believe in an evidence based approach. I believe we have to look at the evidence and we have to adjust our policies accordingly. I have every confidence that this comprehensive - I have the quote from Churchill:
- However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results.
- How beautiful the strategy …
I am assuming he is talking about 130 km/h:
- … you should occasionally look at the results.
We have seen the results, Madam Speaker! The member for Nhulunbuy said:
- … I support the statement delivered by the Minister for Transport …
… who is well qualified to talk about our roads, and safety when travelling on them, given the thousands of kilometres he has clocked up driving between Tennant Creek and Darwin.
Oh, that one makes me laugh. The member for Nhulunbuy also said:
- On the subject of speed - a very vexatious subject - I welcomed, as did many people, the end of open speed limits on the Stuart Highway ... I thought open speed limits were great. How young and foolish I was.
You welcomed the end of open speed limits, just not your colleagues adhering to them:
I concur with my colleague, the member for Johnston, that 130 km/h is more than adequate.
Well, I have an argument that sometimes it is and sometimes it is not. There are plenty of times on the Stuart Highway where 130 km/h is too fast, but there are other times when it is not. The member for Nhulunbuy went on further to say:
- I sometimes wonder if the members of the opposition are fully subscribed members to the Flat Earth Society ...
We have a philosopher. I will not go on to talk about Hector the Road Safety Cat; he had a good run last time.
The minister went on to say at the end:
- … this is my first statement to the House, and I am very proud it is about road safety and saving Territorians’ lives. I am very proud of what it achieved; it united brothers and sisters, it united mothers and fathers, it united sons and daughters, and it united Territorians.
Madam Speaker, I will tell you what else it united - a troopie and the Minister for Transport at 149km/h …
Mr Mills: Ticketed!
Mr GILES: Ticketed.
The Minister for Transport went further on Friday, 16 April 2010 in the Tennant & District Times after the incident where he was caught - sorry, ticketed - at 149 km/h. I quote from the article in the paper:
- The police officer who served the notice asked, ‘Is there any excuse for exceeding the speed limit?’ … no …
Pretty honest. Then, he goes on further to refer about how his speeding ticket has ‘become a topic clouded by journalistic licence’. Well, you know, it deserved to be, to be quite honest. He went on further to say:
- … I ‘took my eye off the ball’ and consequently failed in my responsibility!
He has failed in his responsibility as Transport minister, and the Chief Minister decided to keep him on. How can any minister admit he failed his responsibility and keep his responsibilities? He kept his responsibilities. Let me tell you what the worse case of double standards is: not the hypocrisy of the Transport minister arguing for 130 km/h speed limits; calling the opposition reckless and careless; calling speeding people idiots and then he does it, the fact he says it was irresponsible in this process; or that the Chief Minister is indecisive and will not act; the thing that really aggrieves me is the double standards in Tennant Creek, the drink-driving policeman - no one should drink and drive - who gets done at 0.052% and gets sacked from the service.
Here is a bloke doing 150 km/h, as the Transport minister, and keeps his job. The worst he got was a kick up the butt, or something like that, I believe were the words. That is all he got from the Chief Minister. These two are both in Tennant Creek. The police officer, who works hard for Tennant Creek made a mistake - and I do not condone what he did – at 0.052% was sacked from the force, and the Transport minister kept on - given a bit of a rub and tickle by the Chief Minister. I cannot understand the hypocrisy and the double standards of this. Here we have a man who makes the law, who does not get sacked for breaking it, but one man who tries to uphold the law gets sacked for slightly breaking it, for just going over the speed limit. I am sure a police officer has not been standing up in this Chamber saying: ‘Anyone who drink-drives is reckless, dangerous, and a bloody idiot.’
How can you have that? How hard is it to get police officers in Tennant Creek? Sure, he should have been disciplined and sanctioned and all those other things the Police Commissioner has the ability to do. I am not condoning what the Police Commissioner did …
Dr Burns: Say that again!
Mr GILES: I am not complaining about what the Police Commissioner did …
Dr Burns: You seemed to be.
Mr GILES: No, no, I am talking about the hypocrisy.
The officer gets sacked for trying to uphold the law. He has done the wrong thing and the decision was made. The Transport minister, who is in charge of that law, does not get sacked ...
Dr Burns: Just think about what you just said.
Mr GILES: I will check my words in here to see if I have not repeated them correctly. I will say it again.
The police officer trying to uphold a law gets sacked for doing the wrong thing by a little, while the Transport minister, who breaks his own law, gets no punishment. I do not understand how that works.
But let us go on to one more - and this is my favourite one, I saved it to the end. This is what we call a dorothy dixer, put forward on 15 October 2009. I am sure members on this side of the Chamber will like this. This was a question from the member for Fannie Bay. It was a very detailed question and it might take me a while to read it. It says:
- Can you please update the House on this year’s road toll statistics?
That is it. The Minister for Transport answered that he made mention of it being a driving policy which has to be changed, making reference to some of the concerns on our roads. He said that part of the world’s best practice approach is the need for this to be a bipartisanship effort. We have spoken about that. We support speed limits, open speed limits and the minister does not, but he just drives like he does:
- I say to everyone in this House, and to everyone using our roads: we all have to do more - slow down …
- I say to everyone in this House, and to everyone using our roads: we all have to do more - slow down …
It is not the point if the member for Fong Lim was going 2 km/h over the limit or someone over here was going a couple of kilometres over the limit. That is not what it is about. He made the law! He fought for the law! 149 km/h, Madam Deputy Speaker! You have to stand by your principles. If you draw the line in the sand, you stick by the line in the sand.
The Transport Minister went on further to say, and I think the members on this side will remember this day:
- I call on the Leader of the Opposition to show leadership here.
Well, if anyone is to show leadership it is the Chief Minister:
- I am standing here every day looking at these stickers on these laptops.
These are open speed limit stickers we have on our laptops, for the listeners out there:
- There are 11 opposition members, there are three laptops, and these stickers are portraying reckless and dangerous behaviour.
How jealous you must be, Minister for Transport!
Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to table the sticker for the Minister for Transport.
Leave granted.
Mr GILES: Madam Deputy Speaker, I go further. I have one here for the Chief Minister too. I seek leave to table a sticker for the Chief Minister.
Leave granted.
Mr GILES: Madam Deputy Speaker, I have another one. This one I give to the member for Johnston, the previous Transport Minister. I seek leave to table a sticker for the member for Johnston …
Dr Burns: I do not want it. You know where you can put that, mate. This is all about saving people’s lives. And you need to get that through your head!
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Mr GILES: Oh, come on! I pick up the interjection. I believe he is referring to putting it on the back of the Transport Minister’s car. I think this is what he is referring to. There are stickers on these laptops.
‘Show some leadership, Leader of the Opposition’, the Transport Minister talked about. Well, he can show leadership and reflect on practicing what he preaches.
Madam Deputy Speaker, this is a good bill that has been developed through negotiations with both the Transport Minister and member for Nelson. That is the way it has been done. The penalty and point system is a good model; it reflects the real drive by the member for Nelson. It may seem complex. I have a spreadsheet that describes how one penalty for ‘low’ and second for ‘medium’, and how they all add together, and what the penalty can be, including 48 hours, AIL, and forfeiture on AIL, and how that works together.
It is a complicated system, but not without merit. The only person who needs to understand how the system works is a legislator and a drink-driver. If you are not a drink-driver and you are not in parliament, just know there is trouble ahead if you do the wrong thing. I seek leave to table it so everyone can have look at it, especially the Transport Minister so he can see what it actually looks like; what it is about.
Leave granted.
Mr GILES: Madam Deputy Speaker, this bill will go a long way to encouraging people to slow down on our roads, which is the ultimate aim but, more importantly, not drink and drive. If the government supports this Serial 97 bill it will send a clear message to those who may choose to drink-drive on our roads that, if this goes through, there will be forfeiture of vehicles ahead if you have done the wrong thing. If you just have a second go at it or are medium range, you have 48 hours, or the legislation the minister put through last year with AIL. There will be some serious measures here that people will have to be compliant with. I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
MOTION
Builders Registration – Carey Builders
Builders Registration – Carey Builders
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Deputy Speaker, today I put forward something I believe to be a very important motion. It is a motion that stands up for the little people in the Northern Territory. I move – That:
Due to the failure to ensure due diligence was undertaken in the registration, deregistration, and management of the registration of Randal Carey, the Northern Territory government is called upon to immediately:
3. establish a fund to cover the costs of works for those people whose homes are not completed due to the de-licensing of Mr Carey and the entry into liquidation proceedings of Carey Builders; and
As I said, this is a very important matter. Some people may be aware - I know the minister is and there are other people aware in this Chamber - of what that situation is. It is my job, as an elected official, to stand up for people who are constituents in the electorate of Braitling. This is the reason I bring this to the table today. It was not a direct action I decided to bring it to parliament, but I thought it was important enough to talk about it today.
People often criticise governments and politicians about their role and what they actually do. People often get left behind by the system. The system which is in place is designed to protect the people of the Northern Territory, or whatever other jurisdiction people may be in. It is important for those local people to be able to go to their local member - and I am not praising myself, I am talking about anyone - and fight for those issues. I know the member for Nelson fights for certain constituent matters - some I agree with and some I do not agree with. These are important issues.
When I asked myself the question: ‘Should I be taking this motion forward?’ I thought: is this the sort of thing I would do if I was in government? Would I want to take it, would I want to move this motion, and would I take it to my Cabinet team and say: ‘This is what I think we should be doing?’ I found myself saying: ‘Yes, this is the right thing to do; this is what I would do if I was in government. This is how I would do it.’ So, I took it to the party room and explained the situation to the party room in relation to Randal Carey and Carey Builders, and received a resounding yes from the party room. I know I have the full support of the Country Liberals in bringing this matter forward.
The resounding feeling of the shadow Cabinet was there was heartfelt compassion for the victims of the Northern Territory government, Randal Carey and Carey Builders. These victims are not just financially distressed, but they are emotionally distressed. I will give a brief overview about what has happened in the situation to these people who are victims in Alice Springs - about a dozen people.
I am not going to reflect on home warranty insurance because that is an important matter for government to work through. I am happy to work through it, but at a later date. Having said that, I feel if there was a suitable home warranty insurance scheme in place in the Northern Territory, these victims would have been covered by such a scheme. I know there are some failed schemes interstate, and there are some successes in Queensland. While not everything is right with that scheme, if there was a suitable scheme in place I believe these people would have been covered. As we do not have a scheme in place, I am led to believe the government has a responsibility. I know they are pursuing this man, but I believe the government has a responsibility.
In essence, what happened in this issue is Randal Carey was an undischarged bankrupt from interstate who had previously worked in the building industry. He applied for a builder’s licence in the Northern Territory; he was given a licence. I will go through this step by step in a minute. He was given a licence, undertook building works, someone made a complaint about him, his licence was cancelled, government never told anyone, and people kept paying him money. While those people paid him money, his bills were not being paid - such as glaziers, tilers, cabinet makers and so forth - and people took him to court. Government knew people were taking him to court, but the people who were taking him to court were suppliers, not the people who were paying him to build their homes. The people paying him to build their homes did not know this man was in the situation he was in. Government knew, but they did not tell these people.
His wife was, supposedly, in charge of the company he was working for, which was Carey Builders Pty Ltd. That company went broke, or went into liquidation in March this year, and those people have paid up to 95% for their homes to be completed. I am told some of those houses are only 20% or 30% built, in dollar value, and the majority of these people cannot get more finance to finish their homes. They have no more equity in their land or in their house at the moment to borrow money, plus they do not have the financial capacity to pay that money back.
That is why I thought it was important to bring this here, because I believe it is the system that let these people down, and the system really needs to come forward and recognise that problem and do something about it. I got involved in this, this year. I was not involved in it before. I was not really aware of the situation. I was not made aware of what was going on to these people who were trying to build houses, but I have been made aware and have participated in talking to these people on many occasions, at meetings. The minister was at one of those meetings, and I thank him for coming to that meeting. In correspondence with the minister, I have asked for his assistance in a number of areas. That assistance has not been forthcoming, unfortunately, but I still hold out the hope the passage of this motion today could, possibly, see us in a position where that assistance may occur.
I will just go through some important steps. This is not about antagonism toward government or politics; this is about trying to help these people. The correspondence I sent to the minister on 25 March 2010, asked for a number of things. In particular, I asked for - I will just read it:
- I write in regard to the issue of the collapse of Carey Builders Pty Ltd, a building company in Alice Springs. A great number of the homes that are affected are within the electorate of Braitling. I am deeply concerned about this situation and have a number of questions that remain unanswered at this point, one of which is, when did the appropriate authorities become aware of the fact that this builder was insolvent? Further, what are the circumstances in relation to any licensing agreements with this builder? How was the licence originally granted? What background checks were conducted? What were the review arrangements? How did it come about that the licence was cancelled? Was the builder bankrupt when provided with a licence?
That is an important point that I will come back to.
- I am also interested in why it has taken so long for the Territory Labor government to come good on its promise of home building warranty insurance …
- At hand at the moment though, there are some 12 homes that are at varying degrees of completion in Alice Springs. Each of the home builders, in some degree, are financially or emotionally distressed.
- There are, of course, legal processes to be included and other matters. One of the things that the unfinished homes require is a qualified person to undertake a survey on these to ascertain the status and to identify what works are required to have them completed. The issue of undertaking the surveys is a costly exercise and one that I believe the Territory government, in the absence of home building warranty insurance, could assist with.
- Therefore, I ask the Northern Territory government immediately makes available, at no cost, a quality surveyor for those people whose homes are affected if they choose to make use of this. This could save these people angst and frustration associated with the failure of the builder, and enable them to engage with a replacement builder, potentially preventing thousands of dollars of unnecessary expenditure.
Just as a side issue, I understand that will cost about $3000 each or $36 000 for these 12 homes:
- I request, in addition, that the Northern Territory government, through its wholly-owned TIO, provide interest-free bridging loans for those residents to be able to get their homes completed while your government determines a more permanent solution and all the outstanding legal matters are resolved.
- It is worth noting that in 2004, the Territory Labor government introduced a Building Amendment Bill and now it is framework for a compulsory home building warranty insurance scheme. Further, your government has made numerous commitments since then in 2007 and 2008 that it would be implemented, yet nothing has been done. One must ask, as a result of the announcements, whether there has been implied expectation by those looking to build a home that, since such a long time had passed, the policy was now in place. In any case, there are 12 families who are in a world of pain through no real fault of their own, and I believe, through the above measures, your government could make a significant difference in their ability to complete their homes.
I have not had a response to that letter as yet, but I look forward to that actually coming forward.
I will quickly show some houses here for people in the parliament and anyone watching on the webcam. There are houses here partially completed at Jennerae Drive, Zeil Street, Wedelia Place, and on Albrecht Drive subdivision. I seek leave to table those just so people can have a look at them.
Leave granted.
Mr GILES: Madam Deputy Speaker, that is the correspondence I have sent.
I am reading from the Territory website:
- New legislation came into effect on 3 July 2006 in the Northern Territory which now requires principal building contractors to undertake prescribed residential building works to be registered with the NT Practitioners Board
…
Class 1a(i) houses;
Class 1a(ii) townhouses;
Class 10 structures;
Class 2 flats and units,
valued at over$12 000.
When the government introduced the legislation in 2006, which was a good idea - and I have this information from a briefing I had with the department - the only criteria to get a licence was you had to have built three homes before, and you had to have the ability to get $50 000 if needed in a situation. Now, that was it, there were no further searches, nothing else ever done.
A simple search on the Builders Licensing website will show - it says here, and in flashing lights:
- Do not contract with this individual, all classes are cancelled.
If you go through to check why his registration was actually cancelled in Queensland, it says on the back page, the reason was section 48(i). So, you have a look at what section 48(i) says:
- the licensee owes an amount to the authority and fails to comply with a demand by the authority to discharge the debt …
I do not have all the communications to table today; I will just go through some of it. There was a six-month grace period for people to apply for licences in 2006 because there was a high demand. Between 700 and 800 people applied for licences – people and companies - so they extended the grace period for people applying for licences, and the licence was issued in January 2007.
In January 2009, Randal Carey applied to renew his licence but, prior to that, there had been numerous complaints from companies which had been trying to get money out of Randal Carey saying: ‘Is this bloke a bankrupt or what is happening? He is licensed with the Northern Territory government. What is happening with this bloke?’ So much so, they took it to the CEO of CAL, Mr Stephen Ward, who wrote a letter to the Northern Territory government on 19 November 2008. I will read this letter out. It says:
- Dear Barry
[Barry Chambers, the Chairman of the Building Practioners Board]:
CAL has recently received an allegation that a bankrupt is operating as a builder in the Northern Territory. As the builder concerned is not accredited by CAL this is not directly a matter for us, however, my board has asked that I bring the matter to the Building Practioners Board’s attention as he is registered as a restricted residential builder.
The contractor concerned is Randal Carey and his registration number … and he appears to be currently operating out of Alice Springs as Carey Construction or Carey Builders although his address is given as Humpty Doo. He is understood to have been licensed in Queensland from 1984 till his gold card was cancelled in 1997. The trustee in bankruptcy was appointed 10 December …
This concerns me. All the people who wanted to use Randal Carey through Carey Builders had to go through the Northern Territory government to advise the government they were using Randal Carey. They have been doing that right up until the time he lost his licence, and even after that. This process of advising the Northern Territory government is part of the way building works are undertaken in the Northern Territory. The government, the registration board, had a database of every person who had contracted to use Randal Carey in the Northern Territory. They knew exactly who the person was. In November 2008, they received a letter saying: ‘This bloke is a bankrupt. What are you doing?’ I know in January 2009 they did not renew his licence, although he did reapply up until August 2009, when they finally said: ‘No, you do not have a licence’. However, they knew this bloke was a bankrupt – they knew.
This is why I brought this forward because the little people on the ground who have saved up all their hard-earned money, especially - I will not mention names - the older couple who have never built a home in their life, and now they are in limbo with the home they are building. Yet, in 2008, the government could have said: ‘Do not let this bloke build a home’. They could have sent a letter to everyone who was using him saying: ‘This is a troublesome position; do not use this bloke because he is a disclosed bankrupt. These are some of the issues we have had a look at’. However, they did not, and that is my argument. That is why I am asking the government for assistance.
I have information here from Flavell Plumbing, a company based in Alice Springs, which was doing work with Randal Carey and was in conversation with the Northern Territory government many times. Even after contacting the Building Licensing Board to advise them of the situation of Carey Builders, they still continued to allow Carey Builders to operate even though he was not registered or authorised. These things go on. This bloke says it has been reported to ASIC, the Builders Licensing Board, DIPE, CAL and other authorities and registrations - back to February 2009. This is a bloke who has taken Randal Carey to court trying to get money.
The government knew about it and did not do anything to tell the people who were planning to build a house. He has taken money from people to build their house and is not even paying the suppliers of all the materials. The government knew this and did not tell anyone. I understand privacy laws, but it is not good enough. It is not as if the government can say they did not know anything. It is not as though the advisors who go through the papers can say they do not know anything.
On 17 March 2009, there was a story in The Centralian Advocate saying Randal Carey puts to bed the rumours he is not doing his job properly, when he did not even have a licence, and he comes out saying everything is all fine and dandy. The Northern Territory government should have seen that and said: ‘Hang on a second, something is not right here’. They see these things.
There is a story here from 14 May 2009 in the Alice Springs News reporting allegations and outstanding debts, but people were too scared to put their names to it because they thought there might be repercussions later. In May 2009 they were talking about Randal Carey. On 27 May 2009, one of the people who was paying Randal Carey to build a house, which is nowhere near 50% finished, said:
- I contacted the Building Practitioners Board and spoke to Paul Mossman and then was put on to Carol Popple. I was informed that action was being taken but that they could not tell me what.
He raised concerns he was having with the builder, and they could not even tell him the builder was not even licensed. They could not even say: ‘Mate, you should not be putting your money into this’. That was a direct contact.
On 4 June 2009, Alice Springs News reported again. They did quite a good job. They got comment from Graeme Kemp from the TCA. He is quoted as saying:
- ‘Builders’ registrations were introduced three years ago “to safeguard consumers” with the “continuing support of the TCA”’.
- ‘Although licensing cannot guarantee a perfectly constructed dwelling …
- … or that the builder will not go broke, it should provide an accountability which did not exist in the past’.
The story names one of the government officials here. I will not name him, but I will just go to that part of the story. It says:
- … of the Department of Planning and Infrastructure says: ‘When DPI receives complaints regarding operators that contravene the Building Act, they are thoroughly investigated and due processes followed’.
I do not believe either due process was followed or that there was an appropriate due process in this matter.
I will not go through all of the information here, but there is information from an accountant to ASIC which found its way to the Northern Territory government. He said:
- His wife was acting as a director of a recently incorporated company. Once again, a failure to meet debts as and when they fall due have drawn attention to the Carey company and its director, and more particular, the man who appeared to have control of the company. I am strongly of the belief that Mrs Carey is fronting on behalf of her husband because she was the director of the company, even though he was signing off the cheques.
I have more information here from ASIC which has found its way to the Northern Territory government - back to David Pemberton. I have some information here from 8 July 2009 from one of the people who had been affected by Carey Builders complaining about the processes and the actions which had been undertaken by Randal Carey; they were talking about information on the company name of Carey Builders and they have been in contact with the Northern Territory government on that. There is information here on conveyancing. There is a legal notice in South Australian papers for Carey Builders to be wound up in South Australia from 4 August 2009. There is information here from another one of the people affected from 11 November 2009. The Northern Territory government had started liaising with people about legal action against this bloke, but they had not told people not to use him.
This is from an NT government staff member; I will not name her. It says:
- Thank you for your time last week and apologies for taking so many days to get back to you with this first draft of your statement. Could you please check and advise amendments where necessary. I also need a copy of their contract, cheque, and deposit paid.
Attached to the back of this is a statement talking about what happened and how the process went with Randal Carey and Carey Builders. The government knew then and did not advise people how much trouble they were in, so people did not understand.
I have information here from Alice Kitchen Cabinets where the same lady from the Northern Territory government was coaching people on how to compile a statement for the purposes of court action. It says:
- Hi, I have amended your statement to reflect the changes you made. Can you please check it again and ensure that it is correct. I also need two copies of cheques referred to.
Dodgy cheques.
There is a story from Nigel Adlam in the Northern Territory News about the Red Centre builder going belly up. There are stories that continue and continue. They are just endless, but no one picked it up.
This motion has four parts. I have quite clearly explained there has been a problem with the process. I am not blaming anyone in particular; I believe the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. I displayed before a picture of an Albrecht Drive house. The builder lost his licence in January 2009 but, in September 2009, the Planning department was giving out titles for land in Albrecht Drive, for which a family was using a builder who did not have a licence to build a house in the same street. Surely, people are not talking to each other. I am not laying blame here, but this is a real issue.
That is why I have included recommendation No 4; not to try to get anyone, but trying to identify what the problem is. Whether the Ombudsman is the right person or not, I am sure the member for Nelson will have something to say on that. There is a problem with the system, and the little people have been hurt.
I am asking for an engagement of the quantity surveyor. The reason I have asked that is these people need to know how much money is outstanding to complete their works. Some people believed they have $100000 left to do, and are now being told $280 000 to finish the works. It is almost like a SIHIP house. They do not know. If they want to pursue legal matters, or if they were able to get new finance, they need to know how much money they actually need for legal reasons. That is why I wrote that letter to the minister asking if government could provide a quantity surveyor because we do not have one in Alice Springs. Government has one; can they not send him down to just give assistance? However, we could not get that.
The second one is the need for the necessary provision to ensure certification capacity. I am running out of time, and I do not think I can get an extension in this. The reason I have asked for that provision is, when the minister came down with a couple of DPI staff, people spoke about concerns with certification. As I understand it, one of the issues - and I will confess, I am finding my way through this process – is, for houses that are not complete, no builder will sign up to take on the responsibility of the partially completed works - no builder will sign on. We have asked government if it will take on the responsibility of that, and I believe that is still up in the air at the moment; I am not quite sure.
The final component, because there is no builder and if people finish it themselves, they cannot get a builder to take the responsibility to sign-off on the property. That means they will be living in a house without a Certificate of Occupancy. Government said, at that meeting, they will look to try to make changes. What they have done is put a builder’s note out to say they will do that. In the building note, it says - and I will just quickly quote one part:
- Written advice from the building certifier must be obtained that an occupancy permit will be issued when the impasse relating to the lack of builder’s declaration from the builder has been resolved by an amendment to the Building Act.
The people have since met with one person from the department and say this change to the legislation will take up to, or at least, one year before they can actually get a Certificate of Occupancy. People may ask: ‘Why is that important?’ These people cannot actually sell their house; it is pretty hard to sell a house without a Certificate of Occupancy. That is why I have put No 2 in there. If these are the right changes that need to happen, I want the government to commit to doing this straightaway, because these people are in a tough position. I have received legal advice, and this is what the legal advice says about this building note:
- While it is yet to be seen how this new process will operate in practice, there seems to be at least one glaring defect which is not cured by the new proposal; namely, that it only goes so far as to obtain written advice from the building certifier that an occupancy permit will be issued when the impasse relating to the lack of builder’s declaration from the original builder has been resolved by amendments to the Building Act.
It points to the same amendment again. It will take more than a year. I have provided the case that says there is a problem with this process; that we need to have support. The problem with the process needs to be looked at. There is a problem with support to get people quantity surveyors so they know how much work is outstanding. There is definitely a need to end the concerns involving the certification of these houses that are partially completed, when they are completed.
The big issue is: how are these people going to pay for their houses to be completed? Some people are mortgaged up to the hilt. One family now has less than $3000, and they have still have 40% of their home to be completed. I know it is not normally government’s role to say: ‘We will finish those houses for you’ - I know that. However, government should admit some responsibility, because this builder should never have been licensed in the first place. A civil check of the Queensland website would have shown this bloke was an undischarged bankrupt from interstate. That is all that had to be done, and he would not have obtained a licence. I know other builders who have gone through this process, and they have had to go to hell and back trying to get some answers. But this bloke was licensed, and he should have never been licensed. People will say: ‘Oh, it is the real estate, or it is this, or it is that’. It is not that; he should never have been licensed.
I note the Chief Minister was on the radio on 8HA in Alice Springs. He was asked this by the DJ Adrian Renzi, and the Chief Minister said - and I am not quoting him - it was the fault of the real estate. People should get the professional indemnity off the real estate. There is only one way to do that: you have to take extensive and expensive legal action against the real estate. I can tell you, the real estate also employed this person, because they sold the house and land package. They checked the licence. They checked the licence and this bloke was licensed, and he was registered with HIA. The HIA relied on the licence check. This is where the system goes wrong.
For the Chief Minister to say: ‘Get the indemnity insurance off the public indemnity liability insurance of the real estate’, is not good enough. Imagine the lengthy court case it would have to take. These people do not even have $3000 and they have 40% of their house to finish. These people are in dire straits. The banks will end up foreclosing on these people unless we can come in and help. That is what I would like to see.
I know the government is working on the home builder insurance scheme. I believe if the right scheme is in place these people would be covered now. I am begging government to assist me to establish a fund to help cover the cost of work for these people. Project manage it if you have to, whatever, but just help some of these people. These people will lose their homes. They have saved all their lives, and if this bloke was never licensed in the first place, this would never have happened.
Madam Speaker, I will leave it there. I commend the motion. I know I have the support of 11 members in this Chamber, and I hope I get support of the other 14 members.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I support my colleague, the member for Braitling, in regard to this motion, in particular part 1, engaging a quantity surveyor, and also to establish a fund to cover the cost of works for those people whose homes are not completed due to the licensing of this particular builder.
Whilst I will not go into detail in regard to the situation and the issues of Carey Builders’ debacle in Central Australia, I wish to comment on a similar situation which occurred in the Top End, in the Darwin region in particular, which goes to the core of some of the problems we currently have with builders registration, parts of the Building Act, the lack of home warranty insurance, and the lack of this government’s attention to the construction industry and its regulation as a whole.
Recent building industry failures in the Territory highlight, yet again, this government’s failure to manage its own departments, failure of its own system of registration, failure to implement its own legislation properly, and failure to provide proper consumer protection. Wherever we look in the Territory, we see failures by this government in the building industry. They have failed in the area of builders’ registration, despite high hopes in 2006 that registration would work and would protect consumers. They have failed in certification, and we only have to mention the words ‘Red Rooster’ from Tennant Creek and the fact that most of the buildings in the town, including government buildings, were not compliant.
Then, as that matter progressed, we found that many buildings in the Territory were not compliant, and the government knew about this and, yet, did nothing. At the same time, the government allowed their departmental officers to go around the rural area terrorising families for living in sheds, even though they were built to code and structurally sound.
In response to this debacle about compliance, the government put in place a moratorium so that dwellings could become authorised and/or compliant for occupancy by June 2011. However, the government has not given details about what it is going to do at the end of June 2011 with the dwellings that cannot, or do not, meet compliance. I am sure many dwellings will not be compliant due to many factors out of the control of families, including dodgy builders going bust, such as Carey Builders in Alice Springs, and the Poretti Property Group in Darwin.
The government also set up a task force to find out how many government buildings were not compliant, and this report showed, from memory, most schools in the Territory were not compliant, including Darwin schools, along with many police stations. About 30% of government-owned and occupied buildings were not compliant. I know most of these building are, and were, generally, safe to occupy. However, that is not the point here. The point is this government is sloppy in its work and in implementing its own legislation on itself and its own properties.
Then, the government released a discussion paper on building regulations in the Territory and set up a reference group to oversee this review. I have no issue with that; it was a welcomed move. The reference group comprised industry people, which is only right and proper. It sounded pretty good; however, now the report is with the minister - and I know the report is with the minister - I ask the report and its recommendations now be made public as soon as possible.
Key areas the review was to cover can broadly fall into three categories: registration, certification and consumer protection. This latter item is interesting, as this Labor government promised to set up home warranty insurance. I quote from the media release of the minister at the time:
- Home warranty insurance (covering non-completion for single dwellings and non-compliance for all residential development up to and including three storeys) is to commence in January 2007 ...
January 2007 - and what are we now? 2010 and still no scheme.
The government will argue it is complex and complicated and, yes, it is complex and complicated to set up a warranty insurance scheme. However, all other jurisdictions, or the majority of them, have been able to set up schemes and they have done it well. In most states, the consumer of domestic building work is protected against their builder’s faulty workmanship or the inability to complete a job. While each legislation is different, the fundamentals of protection are the same and they are: the protection of failure to rectify defective workmanship and/or failure to complete building work. Why has it been four years since the minister’s promise to set up a home warranty scheme in the Territory and nothing has happened? Why has this Labor government failed Territory families by not providing protection from dodgy builders?
They have been lobbied by industry, families and other stakeholders who have suffered as a result of rogue builders. Why have they not reviewed and tightened the builders’ registration scheme and checked whether a builder has been declared bankrupt interstate and recommended not to be reregistered elsewhere? Many questions; however, no answers. This government has stood aside and let rogue builders ruin families’ lives, and they should be ashamed of themselves.
Previously, I have spoken on the Poretti Property Group in Darwin. I can advise the company has finally been caught by ASIC and put into liquidation, but not without severe financial and emotional loss to at least five families in the Darwin region I know about and have tried to assist. Time and time again, I have spoken on this matter and this particular builder. I wrote letters; families wrote letters. Subcontractors tried to get their payments. Numerous small claims were put into the court system. Numerous complaints were made to the department and the minister’s office. Even the Chief Minister’s Chief of Staff got involved. All to no avail, as this government did nothing when everyone in town and in the industry knew this fellow was dodgy.
What does it take to get any action under the legislation and regulation? Now we have half-completed houses, non-compliant, and the government says it will take upwards of 12 months to get amendments through to sort that problem out. Why was there not a full investigation and audit of this company when it was obvious something was wrong? All I can think is the department is grossly under-resourced to undertake their duties perhaps or, more importantly, the minister was not on top of the portfolio and not really concerned or interested in what was happening to Territory families.
Let me give some details of the businesses - and this is not an extensive or exclusive list – which had to report and spend money taking the Poretti Property Group to the Small Claims Court for tens of thousands of dollars: Ozblock, a lighting shop, Kitchen Concepts, plumbing, Darwin Plumbing Supplies, aluminium places, pest control places, window people, tiling people, steel line people, metal industries, welding, grind techs, concreting, plastering, reinforcement rods, more plastering, screen builders, pool people - and the list goes on. This information is on the public record. That should have sent signals to government. This fellow was in and out of the Small Claims Court every second week as we were tracking it; hence, the names of these companies.
Madam Speaker, I support this motion in total. I urge the government and the minister to get on top of this whole issue of builders’ registration and home warranty insurance and compliance as quickly as possible because we need to do it better. We need to make the system better so people can have comfort when they make the biggest financial decision of their lives; that they will end up with a house, and a house that is sound and compliant.
Mr McCARTHY (Construction): Madam Speaker, the government will not be supporting this motion in its entirety. We will be seeking to amend the motion and will be supporting part 2. This is the best means to help affected families get their homes back on track and completed. Part 2 is already under way, and my department will be speaking directly to the home builders about providing assistance for certification. I have met with the residents group, and what I am focused on is helping these people through their ordeal.
The Department of Lands and Planning has set up a hotline and affected owners have been able to call and receive assistance in the form of general advice about moving forward with a view to completing their homes. To date, 10 of the 13 families affected have taken advantage of the hotline.
I have been to Alice twice to hear the concerns of the affected parties. On the first trip, I agreed the first course of action was to arrange for a senior representative from the Department of Lands and Planning to visit Alice Springs to meet personally and individually with those affected. This happened last week, with the meetings focused on discussing options to get the incomplete homes fixed. Seven families took advantage of the visit and met to discuss their personal circumstances and their options for moving forward. The circumstances between families vary and included: one whose home is completed and certified; two families whose homes are nearly completed - plumbing, electrical and cabinet works outstanding - and the indications are these can be completed without the aid of another builder; and four families whose houses are at lock-up but require considerable internal and fit-out works. The department will continue to be available to provide advice, and will contact families to check on their progress.
From a building certification perspective, there is no purpose in engaging a quantity surveyor. It is the cost of the remaining works that is important to finishing the project, and this can be established through quotes from builders willing to undertake the work.
The Department of Lands and Planning can assist people through the building certification process to assess the building works undertaken by Carey Builders. Through providing assistance with certification the owners of unfinished homes will be able to take the appropriate documentation to a new builder and get the work completed. In the past, it has proven very difficult to attract other builders to complete partially built homes as the new builder is unsure about the building works to date and their compliance with the Building Code.
Government is committed to the impasse relating to the requirements for a builders’ declaration by amending the Building Act. Urgent consideration is being given to the drafting of amendments to the Building Act which I will be introducing into the House for consideration in the near future. As the process of amending legislation may take some time, government, nevertheless, wants to assist owners through this difficult period and has provided direction and assurance to affected parties. The Director of Building Control has issued a building note to the building certification industry and has written to affected homeowners who have reached an impasse on current building projects advising the government will address the deficiencies in the act, and specifying the circumstances under which building works can proceed in the meantime.
There have been calls for the government to provide financial assistance to affected owners. Government will not be providing financial assistance. This is consistent with the response of government in previous cases where a building firm has ceased operations and property owners were similarly affected. It is inappropriate for government to use taxpayers’ money to prop up failed contractual obligations. While government will not be providing financial assistance, there are ways to help those affected. As I have already mentioned, providing timely and accurate professional advice is the best means to help the affected owners through this time.
Many owners have already contacted the department through the hotline and received general advice about moving forward with a view to completing their homes. Second, we are helping people through the building certification process by helping with the cost of engaging independent certifiers to assess the works performed by Carey Builders.
As mentioned previously, we will move to improve the Building Act to remove the impasse that has occurred where a builder is no longer able to sign the final declaration required for the issuing of an occupancy permit. I hope to receive the support of the opposition when I introduce these amendments.
On the final matter of the referral to the Ombudsman, I will not be referring the matter of registration of Mr Randal Carey to the Ombudsman or the Auditor-General for further investigation. I advise the member for Braitling the referral of an issue to the Ombudsman does not take a motion in parliament. Any person aggrieved by the actions of a department can refer the matter to the Ombudsman for investigation. This is appropriate and exactly why we have an Ombudsman.
The builder has gone into liquidation and, as such, it is not an issue of the failure of registration, nor the conduct of the department. Mr Carey is being prosecuted by the Director of Building Control for working as a building practitioner while not being registered. Given that court action is under way, it is not appropriate to comment further on this matter. What I can say is the court proceedings are continuing and Carey Builders will again be in court this week. Government’s role is to hold this builder accountable for unlawfully building and, in our view, unlawfully entering into contracts with individuals.
We will continue to provide advice and assistance to affected families to enable them to complete their homes. The department will also increase communication to the public to ensure people do their research and carry out checks before engaging a builder, including getting legal advice on a building contract.
Madam Speaker, I move the following amendment to the motion:
- Omit all words after ‘that’ and insert in their stead:
The Northern Territory government provide the necessary provisions to ensure certification capacity for those builders completing the outstanding works on the Carey Builders’ houses, so as to enable full building certification of these homes.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, before you sit down, do you have the amendment there, and signed it? Thank you. If you can get that circulated very quickly, thank you.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I seek leave to move an amendment first, and have it dealt with first, before we debate the government’s amendment.
Madam SPEAKER: I do not think you can do that. I will just get some advice on that.
Of course, if you are seeking leave, if there is one voice that is dissenting, you cannot do that. Member for Nelson, sorry, I just ask what it is you want to do first.
Mr WOOD: I have an amendment I am going to put to the House, which contains the amendment the minister is putting forward in his amendment, added to which I have two more sections. It would make sense my amendment was dealt with first, and the government can consider whether it will support my amendment, which includes the government’s amendment. If it is defeated, you can still come back and vote on the government’s amendment.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, would you mind just resuming your seat? I am just going to seek advice. No one has ever asked to do this before.
Dr BURNS: It is hard to know whether I am speaking to the amendment.
Madam SPEAKER: You are like me; you do not know what the amendment is.
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! It seems to me the minister has laid his amendment on the table. The member for Nelson has said that, substantially, his amendment mirrors that but it has two extra parts to it, as I understand. It is a bit hard to judge when you are on your feet. My suggestion would be we deal with the minister’s amendment first and, then, we can deal with the other two issues put forward by the member for Nelson after that.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, it is possible for you to move an amendment to the amendment.
Mr WOOD: I can move the amendment to the amendment. I suppose when you see the amendment, I do not know whether …
Madam SPEAKER: You need to stand, member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD: Sorry, Madam Speaker. I am happy to do that. I will let others work out whether that makes it more complicated to debate, but I am happy to move an amendment to the amendment.
Madam SPEAKER: That is the normal process. If you want to move an amendment to the amendment, then we listen to your speech, then we put the amendment to the amendment, and then the amendment. Member for Nelson, if you would like to so move.
Mr WOOD: I now have to try to work out how to make this clear, Madam Speaker, so one …
Madam SPEAKER: Is there anyone else who wishes to speak in the debate, if that is easier? No, they do not. Okay, member for Nelson.
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I am just trying to clarify; not trying to obstruct the member for Nelson here. The member for Nelson will be speaking to the minister’s amendment and his own amendment to the amendment?
Madam SPEAKER: And the original motion. Anyone who speaks from now on is speaking on those. Once the member for Nelson has given his speech, moves the amendment to the amendment, then we will move the motion. I will put the motion of the minister’s, then I will move the motion of the minister’s with the amendment, and then after that, we are all debating whatever happens.
Dr BURNS: Yes, the former member for Greatorex called it a telescopic situation, but he is right. I am just trying to also clarify whether the member for Braitling has speaking rights to the amendment to the amendment.
Madam SPEAKER: He does. He has speaking rights from now on, because he has not spoken to either the amendment, or the amendment to the amendment. As a person who has spoken in the debate, he is allowed to speak on the amendments, as is the member for Goyder, but other members who speak after this point can only speak once in a debate. I think we are there.
Dr Burns: I believe we are all clear on that, Madam Speaker.
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, I just need a point of clarification. My amendment originally was to amend the member for Braitling’s motion. If you are saying I am amending the minister’s amendment, then perhaps I have to word this differently. That is the only thing …
Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry, member for Nelson. I thought you said you wanted to amend the minister’s motion that included the minister’s motion. That is why we thought it was an amendment to an amendment.
Mr WOOD: I can put forward what I have here, and I will take advice from you or the Clerk as to whether this is a suitable amendment.
Madam SPEAKER: That might be the easiest if it is an amendment to an amendment.
Mr WOOD: Madam Speaker, I move the motion be amended as follows: omit all words after ‘immediately’ and in their place insert:
1. engage a suitably qualified person to report within 14 days on the amount that is required to meet the outstanding cost to complete each of the unfinished homes affected by the collapse of Carey Builders;
2. provide the necessary provisions to ensure certification capacity for those builders completing the outstanding works on those houses identified above so as to complete full building certification on these homes; and
3. the government provide the necessary funds calculated by the relevant qualified person to complete those unfinished homes, and that amount be held as a covenant on the title of the land to be recovered on the sale of the property.
Madam SPEAKER: And you so move. Sign that, member for Nelson, and we will get a copy circulated.
Mr WOOD: Certainly. Do I now speak to that?
Madam SPEAKER: You speak to that, member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD: I have listened to the member for Braitling discussing a really important issue. The member for Braitling is doing what we all do as local members regardless of our politics; that is, we try to influence and help those people in our electorates who are in need. Of course, sometimes people get themselves into problems by lack of judgment and find themselves in difficulties they wish they had not got into. In this particular case, some of the people who have lost out because of the deregistration of this company, may fall into that category. Others may have been doing the right thing and still found themselves in difficulty because they have paid their money up to a certain point and the house still has not been completed.
The government is not necessarily a charitable organisation or the same as a bank, but there are times when the government has to look at the situation based on merit, and this is one of the particular cases where it should.
The member for Braitling has quite clearly outlined there has been a number of issues in relation to how this company came to operate in the Northern Territory. I certainly think the government has to answer some of those questions as to why this company slipped through the net and how it was allowed to operate in the Northern Territory.
The facts are we can argue the toss about who is to blame for this and who is to blame for that, but the reality, as the member for Braitling said, is we have some Territorians who have invested money into getting a house built in Alice Springs; a company has gone broke; these people have lost their money and they have houses they cannot live in because they cannot bring those houses up the standard to obtain a Certificate of Occupancy.
What is the answer? They cannot get a certificate for the house at the present time; the house is not completed. There are some complications about whether another builder can take over in relation to registration. There are basic difficulties. If a person walks away from this house, what happens to it? They lose all their money and have a half-completed house or a two-thirds completed house. What is the benefit to the community in just wiping our hands and saying too bad? I do not think there is any benefit.
Governments need to have some compassion. They do not need to look at everything from a purely legalistic point of view. On the other hand, I realise it is not their job just to hand out money to anyone who has got into strife because, if that happened - and we have had a number of housing companies go bust - there may be other reasons people get into financial difficulties, outside of building. The government is not set up to be some charitable organisation which just gives people money willy-nilly. However, in this case, the government can help, not by giving people a free handout, but by giving people an adequate amount of money to complete their houses.
I do not believe it would be too much to ask the government to engage a suitably qualified person - whether that is a building surveyor, a quantity surveyor, an engineer, or a licensed builder - to go to each one of these houses and give an estimate of how much it will cost to bring these houses up to a standard where they could be given a Certificate of Occupancy. My understanding, in the scheme of things, is it would not be a huge amount of money. It would be a reasonable amount of money, but it is not the sort of money that is going to break the government. The first thing we need to agree on is the government would put in someone to find out how much to get these houses up to a standard where a Certificate of Occupancy could be signed off on.
There are issues in relation to the second item, which is to:
- provide the necessary provisions to ensure certification capacity for those builders completing the outstanding works on those houses identified above so as to complete full building certification on these homes;
My understanding, from some discussions I have had, is the government can change that and make it a much quicker process. The word that the member for Braitling has been given is this could take anywhere between 12 and 18 months. That is not good enough. You are leaving houses out in the weather that have not been completely sealed, which means the houses would deteriorate and the value of those houses would diminish. Obviously, the minister who has put forward a motion supporting that particular section of the original motion will be able to explain whether this period can be shortened. That is the very reason it is in the motion, and it is in my motion. We are trying to make this system work quicker so people are not further disadvantaged by waiting for particular legislation to come into place, which might be 12 to 18 months. It is good the government is actually supporting that second provision.
The third provision is that the government provide the necessary funds calculated by the relevant qualified person, as in part 1, to complete these unfinished houses, and that amount be held as a covenant on the title of the land to be recovered on the sale of the property. That concept is something I was used to seeing when I was the President of the Litchfield Shire Council. We would get people, especially pensioners or older people, who may not have had the ability to pay the rates, for instance. We might have had some people also who did not realise they should have been paying rates and they built up quite a debt. What the council did then was say they did not want to put people into too much financial stress; if they did not have the ability to pay. We would put that amount on to the title as a covenant so, when either the person passed away and the property was sold, or the person decided to move on, that payment was immediately made to the council.
What I am saying is here is a way of the government helping people, showing their compassion, but not, at the same time saying, ‘Here is a freebie’. Obviously, it will help these people in the short term because they will be able to complete their house.
They will have lost money in the sense they will be paying off money from the bank for a house that originally was never completed. The government has stepped in and said: ‘We will give you enough money to complete the house, but what we will do is put that money on the title of your block as a covenant’. When the block is sold they will have to pay that amount of money back. That will be a decision for the people who live in that house, but it gives them a chance to finish their house, to put a roof over their heads, and to think about where they want to go - if they want to stay or if they want to sell their house. However, at least it has taken the stress off the people because, to complete the houses now is probably impossible, unless they can get some extra money from somewhere. I imagine most people are stretched to the hilt just to build the house. If they have to get another $50 000 or $60 000 or $70 000, or whatever it is to complete the house, that may be just totally impossible. Their financial situation may not allow that to happen.
This motion says the government understands people are in dire straits. They are not saying: ‘We are just giving you a freebie’. That would be a dangerous precedent. It is saying: ‘We will allow you to build your house, complete your house, continue your life without the stress that is caused by a company over which there is some concern, as it has slipped through the systems and been allowed to operate in Alice Springs without people fully understanding this company has gone bankrupt in Queensland’.
The government should really support this motion. The member for Braitling has done what any other member in this House would do when they find there are people in their community who are having tough times. It is not saying to those people: ‘We are covering up your mistakes’. If people have made a mistake that is something they are going to have a look at the next time they get a loan. I suppose once bitten twice shy, but the point is they are not getting the funds free in the sense that, at some stage in the future, the money will be given back to the government when the land is sold. We know land and property is continually going up, so there is a fair chance that amount of money will be able to be paid back without people having serious loss in earnings when they sell their property.
The other side of this debate is, I was one who thought the compulsory home building insurance scheme was in operation. We debated this in parliament some time ago. It came as a surprise to me to realise it basically had been shelved. My understanding is it had been shelved because there had been a Senate report which said these schemes are not very good; they are not that successful. That may be the case, but there could have been a little more publicity from the government in relation to that, to tell people the reasons why the particular insurance program which was going to be put in place through this legislation was not going to be enacted.
If we do not have that particular type of insurance, what are we going to have? We do not want the same thing that has happened in Alice Springs to occur again. I do not want the government having to fork out money for people getting into difficulty all the time; that would be a ridiculous situation. We need to look at the situation when it comes to compulsory home building insurance. I certainly am interested, in this debate, if the minister could update us with where we are in relation to that type of insurance and if there is anything that will make the government move quicker on finding a solution to the compulsory home building insurance issue. You would not want them to be handing out money all the time to fix up the collapse of various housing companies in the Territory; you would want to ensure onus of responsibility was not yours, but was part of an insurance strategy which was set in place.
There are two sides to this motion. One is the government could help those people. I do not believe it would put the government under any great financial strain, knowing they will get that money back anyway. The other part of this debate is what we are going to do about housing companies that collapse. What is the solution? Does the government have a solution? Are they working through a new process? We need to hear what the government is doing. We have had companies in town, in Darwin, collapse recently; and this company has collapsed. We do not want this to recur.
We have discussed this issue in parliament before, and something needs to happen because there is a record of housing companies collapsing in the Northern Territory - going right back 10 years ago a company collapsed and caused heaps of problems for the people who bought houses through that company.
Madam Speaker, I hope the government will support this motion; it is a way around the government giving a handout and the government is saying it understands the difficulties these people have. I do not really see any other solution to fixing this problem. The government would show the community great compassion. I do not think it sets a precedent; you have to look at the situation on its merit. If the government is concerned about a precedent, then let us get the compulsory home building Insurance system up and running so we do not have to go through this whole sad affair again.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, could I just get a clarification on what we are talking about?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, I will call you for both your final comments and also your comments on the amendment, and the amendment to the amendment.
Mr GILES: Now I am confused. So I am talking to all three things?
Madam SPEAKER: You are speaking to your final comments, including the two amendments.
Mr GILES: I thank the member for Goyder for her comments. I thank the minister for his comments, and the member for Nelson for his comments. We have some argy-bargy politically here, and none of it is personal inside the Chamber. But this is an issue where the person wears the issues on their sleeve. This is an important issue. All three speakers have taken it in that way, although the member for Goyder spoke more in regard to the home warranty insurance matter.
In relation to the amendment put by the minister, he spoke in regard to urgency around certification, which I understand is the process that has been put to try to fix that certification issue. However, that is not a speedy process. I take the advice the member for Nelson has provided in regard to that motion put by government; that this can be done in a more timely fashion, rather than 12 to 18 months for the passing of that legislation. So, as it reads - if the necessary provisions to ensure certification capacity for those builders completing the outstanding works on those houses identified so as to complete full building certification of these homes - if that can be done in a timely manner, that is thoroughly acceptable.
That was the issue the owners of the buildings had, and what the legal advice was: (1) we were not sure whether the building notes said were quite right, and (2) in particular, the timeliness of it. I am happy to take the minister on his word it will be done with urgency. He did say he hopes he gets our support, and he will get our support in that matter. Of course, we will have to look at it first to ensure there are no other red herrings in there. You will get support on that matter, I can say in good faith, minister.
I also note the minister spoke about an improved communication process to the public. I believe that is a very important issue; that was something which was lacking in this. I will jump between what the minister said and what the member for Nelson said. This is an isolated case, and we do not want to set a precedent of helping people who have fallen victims under a ‘buyer beware’ situation, or people who could have been covered under the home warranty insurance scheme if it was up and running. This is a separate issue where there were some problems inherently wrong in the process. Whether it was the process itself, or whether the process was not properly designed, or whether it was not followed, are different areas to consider.
However, this is a different case. This is different to Augusto, and it is different to what the member for Goyder spoke about. This is a situation where we should not let the little people down. The minister has said he will work on a model to improve communication to the public, and I assume that means both by the department and the Builders Registration Board. I will take him on his word that he will seek to improve those situations. I am happy to sit down with the minister at any time and talk about some of the intricacies I have found to be a concern, and try to work together to make these things happen.
In relation to the comments made by the member for Nelson about the home warranty insurance scheme, that has been quite an interesting web. I have spent a great deal of time going through all that information, through all different jurisdictions’ models, through the changes in models in Tasmania, New South Wales and Victoria, and potential changes in Western Australia. I also had a good look at Queensland.
I have been on the record before saying this Chamber could do with an investigative committee structure to work on things outside the Chamber in a more collegial fashion to try to overcome some of the issues we have ...
Mr Wood: The CTC.
Mr GILES: Well, I did; I proposed the CTC. You were not interested in that.
I believe a home warranty insurance scheme is an issue both sides of parliament want to work on. If I had found a mechanism to recommend the home warranty insurance scheme go to a committee so members of this Chamber could work together to find a solution, I would have done that.
That option is not there now, but I encourage the minister to have his department investigate that - I would not say ‘emergency’ - in terms of urgency. I do not mean tomorrow, but get it under way pretty quickly because there are other people who are still building their houses. If land is released and more people build their houses, this is going to be an issue for many more people. People would like to think they have the appropriate cover. I encourage the minister to have a good look at Queensland. That is a good starting point we can go from in relation to the home warranty insurance scheme. I am more than happy to work with him on a bipartisan basis, no guns, to work out a solution to solve some of that issue; if you would like that, minister.
In relation to item No 1 in the amended amendment:
- engage a suitably qualified person to report within 14 days of the amount that is required to meet the outstanding costs to complete each of the unfinished homes affected by the collapse of Carey Builders;
I support that amendment. With regard to a suitably qualified person, I am happy to take advice from the minister or his department. I understand - and I had a quick chat to the member for Nelson - it needs to be a quantity surveyor. I could be wrong, but I understand that is the requirement. If that is not the requirement, and a qualified, appropriately licensed builder or a structural engineer - whoever it needs to be; I would take advice - 14 days is fantastic. That person can get down there urgently and identify exactly how much is required to complete the unfinished works.
I am a little reluctant to support a licensed builder for several reasons; mainly, they see this as an open cheque book and they can write whatever amounts they want. I have concerns with that. I also recognise some of the other things.
In relation to No 3:
- the government provide the necessary funds calculated by the relevant qualified person to complete those unfinished homes and that amount be held as covenant on the title of the land to be recovered on the sale of the property.
It is a really good medium between where I started from and what the government’s position was. This is a way we can send the signal we are not giving out free money. I have not been a supporter of free money, but what I have been trying to do is identify a solution that could help these people get their homes built.
The reasons an interest-free loan, or loan of any kind, was not suitable was (1) many people did not have the capacity to borrow against some sort of equity - their equity was already tied up, or (2) they simply could not afford the repayments. People have offered to give money. There has been an offer out there before: ‘We will loan you $100 000 but you have to pay it all back’. People cannot pay that back within one or two years, or they cannot afford the repayments, or all those things. This solves some of those concerns, and people will have to pay it back on the sale of the property - which is a fantastic idea and one which I had not thought of at the start; so, well done. Putting that money in interest free, and government knowing it will get it back at a later time is a sound idea, and I commend the member for Nelson for suggesting it.
Finally, I say ‘sordid’ is a word which has many negative connotations that promote disrespect. I do not mean that, but it has been a sordid affair for these people from an emotional perspective. Some people are strong; some people are not so strong with that emotional component. I have actually witnessed, over the last six weeks, people going from: ‘She’ll be right,’ to being just devastated. We know what happens to some people in that devastation phase.
I thank the Chamber for giving me a sounding board, and the compassion to air my grievances in this manner. I thank the member for Goyder and particularly the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Blain, for allowing me to bring this to the opposition table. It is not something which normally gets pushed forward, and I have had full support from my team. I have had conversations with the member for Macdonnell - thank you for your support. Member for Nelson, thank you for your amendment.
I am not sure how to say what I support because I support what the member for Barkly, the minister, has put forward, and I support what the member for Nelson has put forward, which includes what the member for Barkly put forward. So, while I do not have to vote at this point of time, I thank the minister for putting his amendment forward with that one component, and I thank the member for Nelson for his other two.
Before I wind up, regarding the fourth part of the motion for the referral – to put it in a nutshell - to the Ombudsman. I did not really want this to go to the Ombudsman; what I wanted was someone to have a good look at the system and the process. I wanted someone to have a look at how Randal Carey was licensed and how we can improve that system; what sort of conciliation body there is for when people have concerns with their builders and how that may be better arbitrated in the future. That is a good point to come out of this whole system. It would be good to have a look at the processes of bank payments, certifiers, and real estate people, and ensure if there are any issues, we can tidy it up so it does not happen again. Our role is to try to protect people in a regulatory sense with some type of external review; whatever body that may be, would be good for this.
The government is involved in legal action on one, or possibly more, fronts about this. I will not go into those details. However, unfortunately for government, it will spend a lot of money on that legal process. It would have been better if this whole situation had not started in the first place. I encourage them, while I let No 4 go, to get some advice about how they can improve this for the future.
Madam Speaker, once again, I thank our members for their support and for their encouragement and for listening to this matter.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, we have a more complex situation than normal here. We have an amendment to an amendment but, in reality, it is an amendment to the original motion. Then we have an amendment moved by the minister.
Just so you know what is going on here, if the first amendment is passed and the second one is passed, that becomes part of the whole amendment. Then, we put the question of the amended motion.
I am quite happy to take questions.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes. Could you run through that one more time for me, please – without trying to be funny about it?
Madam SPEAKER: Yes. In fact, what we have before us is the member for Nelson moved an amendment to an amendment. However, when you look at the words, it is actually an amendment to the original motion.
Mr Elferink: That is correct.
Madam SPEAKER: The Minister for Construction moved an amendment to the original motion as well. I do not know how this is going to play out but, say, for example, the member for Nelson’s motion passes, then that is immediately an amendment to the original motion. Then I still have to put the motion relating to the Minister for Construction. If that is passed, then that is added to the amendment as already passed by the Assembly.
Mr Elferink: It is added to?
Madam SPEAKER: It gets added to because of the wording, because it is a part of the motion. Then, we put the motion of the amended motion. So, I am hoping for the best here.
Mr Giles: May I ask a question?
Madam SPEAKER: Yes. This is not the normal way we do things.
Mr GILES: No, no. But if I supported the member for Nelson’s motion, and then the minister’s motion comes up, and if we support that, does that mean we override the original support for the member for Nelson?
Madam SPEAKER: No, the advice I have received is the wording for that one would then go on to the amended motion, and then we put the motion again.
Mr Elferink: As a whole?
Madam SPEAKER: As a whole, so it would be 1, 2, 3, 4 instead of 1, 2, 3. That is what I understand.
Mr ELFERINK: Just by way of clarification, should both amendments be successful then the motion will read as incorporating the amendments of the member for Nelson as well as the minister, and then the whole thing is put to the House? Is that correct, Madam Speaker?
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! We will be able to help clarify the situation for members of the House. Scenario A: we deal with the amendment put by the member for Nelson first. In that scenario, if it is passed, then this becomes the new motion on the table. The member for Nelson’s words replaces the member for Braitling’s words, and it is on the table.
Then, we deal with the amendment put by the minister for Infrastructure. If, under this scenario, it was accepted, it would replace all of these words, and only this would lie on the table …
Mr Mills: Yes, it replaces it.
Ms LAWRIE: Okay? Because it is omitting the words following ‘that’. So, if you do not want what the Infrastructure minister has put on the table, then you defeat this one.
Mr Mills: Yes, that is right.
Ms LAWRIE: Yes?
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, we understand that, so I ...
Madam SPEAKER: I am glad somebody understands.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, the first question, in that case, will be whether the member for Nelson’s amendment be agreed to, I suspect.
Madam SPEAKER: That is right. So, the question is that the amendment, as moved by the member for Nelson, be agreed to.
Amendment agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: The question now is that the minister’s motion be agreed to.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 12 Noes 13
Mrs Aagaard Ms Anderson
Dr Burns Mr Bohlin
Mr Gunner Ms Carney
Mr Hampton Mr Chandler
Mr Henderson Mr Conlan
Mr Knight Mr Elferink
Ms Lawrie Mr Giles
Mr McCarthy Mr Mills
Ms McCarthy Ms Purick
Ms Scrymgour Mr Styles
Mr Vatskalis Mr Tollner
Ms Walker Mr Westra Van Holthe
Mr Wood
Amendment negatived.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, we have a third motion to pass now. The question now is that the motion be amended.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! So the question, I thought the …
Madam SPEAKER: I think you still have to have a third motion, do you not?
Mr ELFERINK: No, no. It is my understanding that there is no other question before the Chair at the moment.
Mr Wood: Yes, there is.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! You are voting on the amended motion now, because you have accepted an amendment. You have defeated an amendment, and now you vote on the amended motion.
Mr Elferink: Oh, so, the motion, as amended, be agreed to?
Ms LAWRIE: Yes.
Madam SPEAKER: Indeed, it was what I was saying. The question is that the motion, as amended, be agreed to.
Motion, as amended, agreed to.
ABORIGINAL LAND AMENDMENT (INTERTIDAL WATERS) BILL
(Serial 96)
(Serial 96)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
There are a couple of minor changes to this bill which were introduced when the bill was introduced last year to expand the definition of ‘appropriate authority’ to make it consistent for use throughout the bill, and to change the penalty regime so the penalty regime reflects units rather than a dollar amount. It is introduced with those amendments, from when it was before this House previously.
Members will recall the bill was before the House recently. I noticed the member for Karama raised her eyebrows when I gave notice of it yesterday. I noticed another remark from the member for Karama who seemed to believe it has been brought before this House for the third or fourth time now. Of course, there are reasons for doing that.
First, it is an amended version of what was brought before the House previously. Also, the Country Liberals have a commitment to provide Aboriginal people with a mechanism and a regime that allows them to be far more empowered than they are presently under the Aboriginal Land Act, and to give them some further choices in how they deal with permits. That is quite contrary to what we are seeing from Labor governments, both federally and in the Northern Territory. I shall go on shortly to explain more about that.
Since the time this bill was introduced last, around 12 months ago, circumstances have changed and more information has come to light which makes this bill even more relevant than it was last time it was before the House. It is appropriate to revisit this legislation.
I am not going to make this debate terribly lengthy and, rather than regurgitate what I said in my second reading speech on 29 April 2009, all of which still applies, and what I said in my closing debate on 24 February 2010, which also still applies, I simply add the information that has come to my ears, and also to the ears of other members of the Council of Territory Cooperation chaired by the member for Nelson.
We all know, and it is widely accepted - I do not know too many people who would disagree with this - one of the major impediments to economic development in Indigenous communities is the permit system on Aboriginal land. The raising of permits can, and certainly does, stymie development of Indigenous communities, Indigenous lands, and the economic opportunity contained therein.
There was an attempt by the Howard federal government to address this issue under the Northern Territory Emergency Response where five-year leases were taken out over those communities and areas within the NT which were affected by the intervention. The requirement for Aboriginal land permits was, in fact, lifted. This applies to common areas of those areas under the leases, and also access ways to those leases as well. No sooner did the Rudd government come to power than the minister responsible - that is minister Macklin - removed the lifting of the requirement for permits to access points, along access routes to those areas affected by the five-year leases. We had a situation where there was no permit required to enter a lease, but you could not get to a lease if you were travelling on a public road on Aboriginal land to get there.
The classic example of that is, I believe, Peppimenarti. There are two leases at Peppimenarti - one over the community and one over the airstrip. As it happens, the airstrip is about 1 km or so from the community. If you land at the airstrip you do not need a permit, currently. If you can magically teleport into the community itself you do not need a permit for that either. The fact is you cannot actually drive from the airstrip to the community without a permit even though it is only about 1 km away. That is absolutely ridiculous. I do not know whether that particular case is common knowledge. I suspect it is not, but it ought to be.
But it gets better. There are now, over some communities, 40-year and 99-year leases; that is, some of those communities that were subject to the intervention five-year leases. Those new leases – 40-year and 99-year leases - are being negotiated by the Office of Township Leasing, the federal authority set up to manage this task specifically. What we find being negotiated back into those leases is the requirement for permits to enter those communities. What has actually happened is John Howard opened those communities up; Macklin closed them down one step and stopped people getting to the communities; and the Office of Township Leasing is taking the final step, now stopping anyone from going to those communities without a permit. What we have done is a complete 360 on this, burying those communities under the weight of the permit system once again.
This information came to my ears and to the other members of the Council of Territory Cooperation through Mr Pat Watson who gave evidence before the committee on 14 April 2010 where he said - and I quote from the transcript. I do know whether this is a corrected transcript but I quote from the information I have. He refers to leases negotiated under the Office of Township Leasing. The Chairman said:
- Just not quite on the same note, but if this town is now going to be a normal town - and I have my doubts that it is because there seems to be still some restrictions that you would not get in a normal town - but do you still require a permit to go to Nguiu …
Which is what was being referred to at the time:
- … if the airstrip is included in your lease?
Mr Watson replied:
- The way the head lease is constructed is that whatever the permit requirements are more broadly for Indigenous communities under the act is what applies.
The Chairman said:
So that town is not an open town?
Mr Watson said:
- Whatever the permit restrictions are, as they apply to Indigenous communities in the Northern Territory.
Then later in the evidence that was given, Mr Chairman said:
- I think the answer is there. Basically, he is saying that the permit still applies for Nguiu. He is saying that the same rules …
I said: ‘Not so much as a permit but as a condition of the lease’, thinking that that is how the permit system is being brought back into it through that lease system. The Chairman continued:
- Is it a condition of the lease that the same conditions as apply to an Aboriginal community apply to Nguiu? That is probably the answer.
Mr Watson said:
- Can I put it this way: it is not an issue that has arisen. My view is that whatever were the arrangements in place previously and whatever is consistent with the act now, is what applies, and there does not seem to be any problem. Now, whether people are getting permits from the land council or not is not something I am aware of.
Technically, you need a permit which you would not need in a normal town?
- If the act says that you need a permit, then you technically need a permit. Now, how strictly that has been enforced, I do not know.
It is abundantly plain and obvious that permits to these communities which are now being struck under 40-year and 99-year leases will have the full weight of the Aboriginal permits legislation upon them. It really defeats the entire purpose of the original intent of the intervention in respect to opening up Aboriginal communities and lands to normalise them. That is a term I am sure I have heard the other side of the House use as well. They were looking, through their Growth Towns Strategy, to normalise Aboriginal communities. You cannot normalise any place if you make it different from what is considered to be the norm, or the mainstream, in the Northern Territory. The permits system caused those communities to fall into that trap.
Once again, these communities become a closed shop. So much for the openness and accountability that is supposed, allegedly, to be the hallmark of this government. No longer will media crews - and I believe there was a Channel 7 media crew sent out to report on the progress on SIHIP - have access to those communities where the Office of Town Leasing leases have had the requirement for permits reinstated. No longer will they be able to report on the appalling state of the failed Rudd and Henderson SIHIP project.
Originally, this amendment was put together for the purpose of facilitating access to a class of person - namely fishermen, as an example - to Aboriginal intertidal waters. In its current state, that remains quite true. The situation regarding the reinstating of permits under the Office of Township Leasing leases changes those circumstances considerably. I can flag that, perhaps, there may even be some amendments to this bill later to better deal with the changes of a permit situation under the aforementioned leases.
You can plainly see the current regime of Labor governments, both federally and in the Northern Territory, support the introduction, or the reintroduction, of permits in all Aboriginal communities. There has certainly been no evidence given to me to make me believe otherwise. It goes to the rhetoric and spin we hear from the other side of the House. They say they are interested in economic development within Aboriginal communities. They have a whole policy around growth towns, but I fail to see - and I suspect Territorians and Aboriginal people themselves will fail to see - just how economic development can take place in these communities under the current regime of Aboriginal permits.
The amendment I have brought to the House today reflects only in relation to the intertidal waters. However, it is the beginning of a continuing commitment from the Country Liberals to try to open up the Northern Territory to economic development by not necessarily lifting the permit system, but certainly making it easier for Aboriginal people to determine who may come on to their land, into their communities, and the ease by which they can achieve that.
I wonder whether Indigenous residents in some communities, and some land councils, might like to be able to issue a blanket permit for - wait for it - these type of people, these classes of people. Would it not be great if they could issue a blanket permit to builders and tradesmen? Leave the fisherman aside. Yes, they can have, if this were to be passed, access to the intertidal waters. However, would it not be nice if we could get to a situation where a land council could say: ‘Yes, we can issue one permit to all the employees of a specific company working at Wadeye’, for example, or ‘We could issue one blanket permit to a group of contractors who are engaged with a specific alliance’, rather than having to issue permit after permit after permit because the Aboriginal Land Act says at the moment you can only issue a permit to an individual. There is no provision within that act to do anything other than issue a permit to an individual. You cannot issue a permit to a group or a class of people. With this amendment to the Aboriginal Lands Act, that is just what we are trying to achieve.
Once again, please let me reassure all members of this House this amendment is not designed to facilitate a carte blanche circumnavigation of the permit system. Quite the contrary. It is designed in an attempt to provide a vehicle by which traditional owners or relevant land councils can open up, by way of a general exemption, Aboriginal land - specifically in this case intertidal zones - to the general public or a particular class of the public. Again, the proposed amendment does not in any way derogate from current provisions of the act, but provides a new section that complements the existing provisions.
I maintain this proposed amendment should not be considered controversial, yet, I suspect it will not attract the support of the government; the current permit system will remain just as it is. If this amendment to the Aboriginal Lands Act is passed, it just gives Aboriginal people more power to determine more easily who can come on to their land.
Madam Speaker, I commend the Aboriginal Land Amendment (Intertidal Waters) Bill to honourable members. I table a copy of the bill and accompanying explanatory memorandum.
Madam SPEAKER: You need to seek leave to table that, Member for Katherine.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I seek leave to table a copy of the bill and a copy of the explanatory memorandum.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
MOTION
Establishment of Standing Committee
Territory Indigenous Expenditure Review Committee
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I move - That –
1. The Assembly establish a Standing Committee to be known as the Territory Indigenous Expenditure Review Committee.
3. The committee is to report on a regular basis, but at least quarterly, and must at the very least in each report –
- (a) match said related expenditure allocations with actual expenditure; and
(b) evaluate the outcomes achieved from the expenditure.
4. The committee is to be made up of those members of the Legislative Assembly from the non-urban seats of Daly, Arnhem, Arafura, Barkly, Macdonnell, Stuart and those otherwise agreed to by the Assembly so as to make up a committee of no less than seven members.
5. The committee can initiate inquiries into any matter relating to Indigenous expenditure.
6. The Speaker shall provide all funding and human resources necessary for the committee to actively do the tasks set by the Assembly.
Madam Speaker, you will recall, in the last sittings of this parliament, I brought this motion to the House for consideration only for it to be rejected by the members of the Labor government and the Independent member for Nelson. At the time, I was saddened at the decision to reject this worthwhile and necessary motion because I believed it was a significant opportunity missed by this parliament to introduce a higher level of scrutiny of where money allocated to Indigenous Territorians is expended.
This watchdog role would have worked on two levels. First, it would have ended the blame game when it came to attacks on government of all persuasions in relation to where Indigenous money is spent. It is no secret this Labor government has received a large measure of scrutiny from inside and outside this parliament about the spending of federal and Territory monies over a number of years. Academia, the Northern Territory Council of Social Services, the Commonwealth Grants Commission, even the federal government have all, at different times, asked the very basic question: where is the money going? They do this because they see bucket loads of money being allocated for Indigenous programs - including housing, education, health, law and order - that appear never to reach their intended target.
On the eve of another budget, it is worth revisiting some of the figures that came out of the Treasurer’s 2009-10 statement. It will involve the expenditure of $4bn, including more than $1bn on Health; $808m for Education; $447m on Local Government and Housing; and $279m in Planning and Infrastructure portfolios. It goes without saying this is a very large budget - an enormous budget - for a jurisdiction of just 220 000 people.
Then, there is Commonwealth money allocated to Aboriginal Territorians outside of our own budget. The figure is vague, but it too is in the order of billions of dollars spent independent of the Territory government and targeting specific Aboriginal needs. The reason our per-capita budget is so large is to address disadvantage amongst the poorest Territorians, many of whom, of course, are Aboriginal people.
I was in the mall in Darwin on Saturday with the former member for Port Darwin, Kerry Sacilotto, and two Aboriginal people come up to me to report they had just been flogged for their basic cards here in the city of Darwin.
As I said in this parliament in February, the Territory government receives about $300 000 more per person than New South Wales from the federal government. The reasons for these high levels of disadvantage I mentioned earlier are too many to mention. Rather than trawl back through the history to find those answers, let us look at the present and what that disadvantage means at a human level.
Conditions on many Aboriginal communities across the Northern Territory are the poorest in the country. The leader of the federal opposition, Tony Abbott, discovered this firsthand when he visited a town camp in Alice Springs during the storm earlier this year, and despaired at Indigenous people living under tarpaulins just a few minutes drive from a town with a population of around 25 000 people. How could Tony Abbott and the members of his party, who had travelled to the Territory from Canberra, not have been bewildered by that phenomenon? There at Hoppy’s Camp was a microcosm of many issues that affect Aboriginal people today, and have done so for the best part of the generation: chronic alcoholism, unemployment, disability, poor health, poor education, and a level of under-achievement which would surprise many in white middle-class communities. Despite the considerable sums of money allocated at both Territory and Commonwealth levels, there has been no significant improvement in conditions over a long period.
Over the three-and-a-half weeks I have visited Alparra, Ampilatwatja, Alcoota, Harts Range, Mutitjulu and Docker River, and those people are living in the poorest of conditions: no air-conditioners, as you would have read in the Northern Territory News from Alcoota; sewage being dumped at Ampilatwatja - only a couple of days before the minister himself visited that community, and no media done by the minister outlining the situation; sewage being dumped again at Harts Range just a couple of days apart; and at Docker River, people live in absolute squalor. There is a house just in front of the Docker River office belonging to a lady called Arfa, who has a child with a disability, where water has been leaking for the last few months. Hundreds of rubbish bins bought by the MacDonnell Shire are all locked up inside the compound of MacDonnell Shire at Docker River.
As their local member, who has been their local member for six years, I have never ever seen Docker River in such a disgraceful situation’ where there is no power in half of the houses, no windows in the houses, and rubbish everywhere. I have gone to the CEO of the MacDonnell Shire, Graham Taylor, and said that it is just not necessary and they should start doing things a little more for the people. In this very House, I supported the shire model, but the shire is too top heavy. It is not working and we are getting calls from places such as Barunga, Maningrida, Tiwi Islands, Ali Curung - so it is not just in the MacDonnell Shire, it is in the Central Desert Shire and in the Barkly Shire.
There has to be an opportunity or a scope for us, as politicians in this House, to have a look at changing the way the shires are working, or scrutinising the way services are being delivered to remote Aboriginal communities.
If you have a look at Docker River, it is just so way out of reach for anyone. It is only 8 km this side of the WA border. They get people who fly in on the charters for the day, and fly out - like the minister did at Ampilatwatja. She would not know what the road is like between Alparra and Ampilatwatja because she flew from Alparra to Ampilatwatja. The roads are absolutely disgraceful, and these people are expected to travel down those roads every day. Yesterday, we spent hours and hours talking about the health and closing the gap. You are not going to close the gap because you are not delivering the service.
I said in parliament in February there is very little evidence of progress on the ground, and that the streams of federal money dry up before they reach the communities. The bush misses out. This is not the case in Darwin and Alice Springs. Therefore, the formation of a Territory Indigenous expenditure review committee would allow for increased scrutiny of where the money has gone and - to bastardise a phrase made popular recently by the Prime Minister - it would help end the blame game.
The second level on which the committee would work would actually benefit those Indigenous people whose everyday life is a struggle - people like David Wintjanana and Michael Gorey, the two men whom Tony Abbott spoke with under their tarpaulin in the rain. It was shown on television around the country as examples of the disadvantage experienced by Aboriginal Territorians. During that visit, Tony Abbott did what only a handful of federal politicians have done in the past: he mixed with one of the poorest sections of the Australian community with a view to raising the profile of displaced and desperate Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory.
We have not seen the minister go to Hoppy’s Camp and see David Wintjanana and Michael Gorey living underneath the tarpaulin. We did not see the former minister for Housing go to see them either. And guess what? We have not seen the member for Lingiari ever go there. We only see him every four years when he is due to go for election. Well, he has a big surprise coming this election.
But it is not just men like David Wintjanana and Michael Gorey who would benefit from the establishment of the Territory Indigenous expenditure revenue committee. The major beneficiaries would be the littlies - the little, tiny kids currently living on Indigenous communities in squalid conditions that the Commonwealth and the Territory governments are charged with improving. Children who, unless the money reaches the communities and is wisely spent, will live in similar squalor to David and Michael.
When this issue was debated in a similar form in this parliament last time, the committee was to be made up of Indigenous members and the current members of the Legislative Assembly. This provision was, in part, to ensure that people who had to witness every single day the squalor of Aboriginal poverty would be able to have a direct say in how Aboriginal money was spent. Unfortunately, this initiative did not wash with Indigenous Development minister, for reasons that smacked not of idealism and equality, but of politicisation and naivety. To illustrate that point, I will quote directly from the Parliamentary Record of that day:
- … our government is a government for all people, black and white, young and old. Our government, my colleagues, are here to represent each and every Territorian. We recognise, very much so, the disadvantage that faces Indigenous people right across the Northern Territory. We recognise the high incarceration rate of Indigenous people in our gaols. We recognise the need to ensure our children are going to school. We recognise the need for more housing in the bush. We recognise the need for better infrastructure in roads and bridges. We know this, and each and every member in the Henderson Labor government works very hard to bring these issues to the forefront.
The minister then continued in a somewhat patronising manner:
- What is important about this motion is we needed to find a way forward. It was important the member for Macdonnell brought this up. In my discussions with the member for Macdonnell, it was based on how we progress this. I will tell you now, members for Macdonnell, Braitling, and Port Darwin, this side will not be divided on our race. We want to overcome these disadvantages, but want to do it together.
You have already put race first. When your Chief Minister went to COAG, he took money based on race, based on black people - on your people, your so-called ‘people’, that you said quite honestly were your people; that you knew their disadvantage. I am afraid I have to tell you, you do not know their disadvantage. It is here, minister, that you have totally misread the intention of my motion. It is not about race; it is about change. It is about doing things differently and not mirroring ourselves in the mediocrity of the past.
The minister appears to have no insight to bring about this fundamental change, so I have gone some way to helping bring her around to this new way of thinking. While rejecting outright her promise that, somehow, that motion was based on race, I have created a new motion so the wording is clear and the intent is enhanced.
The committee is to be made up of those members of the Legislative Assembly from the non-urban seats of Daly, Arnhem, Arafura, Barkly, Macdonnell, and Stuart, and those otherwise agreed to by the Assembly so as to make up a committee of no less than seven members. What that means is it will be made up of members from the largest electorates of the Northern Territory, those which have the most disadvantage and cover the huge expanse of remote and rural communities, and any other member who wants to provide the appropriate scrutiny for Indigenous expenditure.
I will say again, I was extremely disappointed the minister took such a negative approach to the first version of this motion when it was debated in the Assembly in February. I will just go back to spending time with Rosie Kunoth-Monks at Alparra, and the letter she got last week from the minister. When Rosie Kunoth-Monks met with the Chief Minister, the member for Arnhem, and the member for Arafura in the November sittings in Alice Springs, she asked the Chief Minister to either have NORFORCE or prisoners go out to clean Alparra. She was not talking about garbage, minister. She was not talking about the papers and the cool drink cans at Alparra. How dare you patronise that community? To say that you will go out there and pick up the rubbish, and have even invited me to go and help you pick up the rubbish is putting your own people down. What Rosie Kunoth-Monks meant was she wanted someone to go and clean up the bigger rubbish - the rubbish of all the sheets of iron that are graded into the side of the roads and in the community. Are you going to pick that up and put it on your back and carry it all back to Darwin?
I say again, I was extremely disappointed the minister took such a negative approach to the first version of this motion, when it was debated in the Assembly in February. In her heart, I suspect the minister actually supports this position, but is toeing the line laid down by political masters. In a former career, the minister was a newsreader who read from an autocue, basically mouthing the words without feeling. It is a shame she continues to read from an autocue which has been programmed by the Chief Minister and the Labor Party hierarchy.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am determined, though, to get this committee operating for the benefit of Aboriginal people across the Northern Territory. It is for that reason I have made this significant change to this motion.
Ms McCARTHY (Indigenous Development): Madam Deputy Speaker, I speak against this motion brought on by the member for Macdonnell. When we stood here on 25 February, there was a general feeling of, as the member for Macdonnell quoted from my speech: ‘What is important about this motion is that we needed to find a way forward’. It is important to look at how we try to progress and move the intent of the member for Macdonnell’s motion for the Indigenous expenditure review, and in the way money is spent by both the Northern Territory government and the federal government. I will focus on that part first, and try to bring some facts to the member for Macdonnell with some of the personal issues she wanted to touch on regarding the Barkly area.
In my response in February, I made it very clear that we, as a government, are working for all people of the Northern Territory; and are very aware in our spending - be it on Indigenous people or otherwise – that we are accountable to the people of the Northern Territory, to the taxpayers across Australia. In that accountability, we have to be accountable to the parliament, in the very processes of the Westminster system we are governed by. Those processes are about the committees of the parliament, the parliament itself, and the estimates process, where each and every minister on this side of the House in government has an opportunity to be scrutinised, to express in detail the way money is spent, the way money is not spent, and the very activities of each agency. These are the fundamental tools of our democracy - important instruments which allow Australians in this country to believe in a particular process.
At no stage did I ever say to the member for Macdonnell this was not important; that the motion and her intent behind it was not important - at no stage. It is very important. It is absolutely crucial this parliament always considers the way it spends any money for any person, any group, or any organisation.
In my previous responses to this motion, I urged the member for Macdonnell to take it to the appropriate committee, the Council for Territory Cooperation - take it to the very committee of which she is a member. She can self-refer; it is not difficult. We do not need to have more committees; we need action, and that is exactly what I am doing with A Working Future across the Northern Territory. That is exactly what I am doing, in not only the 20 growth towns across the Northern Territory, but the 73 communities, including the 400 to 500 outstations. That is the action our government is putting in. That is the effort I am working on.
I do not say any member of this parliament should not be bringing forward a motion of importance, but let us be sensible about what we are trying to do here. Let us be sensible and use the very instruments which are set up already, which exist already. This is nothing short of just putting on a display, when we know there are mechanisms in place where this can be taken.
Our government is a government of action. We recognise we must always scrutinise and be scrutinised, and we do not shy away from that. I will continue to travel, and I will continue to get to any place across the Northern Territory - be it by car, plane, or train, I will get there and I will do the best I can as the minister in this portfolio, carrying the largest reform the Northern Territory has ever seen for the regions. I will not run away from it; I will not let the Indigenous people down. I will stand and fight to the best of my ability on their behalf. I will not run away from them, no matter how hard it gets, no matter how tough it gets, and no matter what people say. I am not afraid to stand and fight for them in this Cabinet, in this government.
Madam Deputy Speaker, let me tell you about my trips across the Centre. It was wonderful to get to Utopia; it was beautiful to spend the time with people at Alparra. I was able to see the river, and how green the place looked after such magnificent rain. But, it was a sad time, because they did lose people in the floods in the region, and I was mindful of that. I was also informed by the people of Utopia: ‘Do not drive, minister, the roads, you cannot get in. Do not drive’. So, on their advice, I did fly in, and I spent a fantastic day with them.
I understand what Rosie Kunoth-Monks meant when she said: ‘We want to tidy up our community’. I know she means getting the big old cars which have been left by the side of the road and in the bushes, and the tin that is lying around. I know she means that, but one of the things they said to me was: ‘We need to also pick up the small stuff’. I said: ‘Hey, this is not about people coming in and working and doing it for you, let us do this together’. It was in that spirit of cooperation and initiation, of getting up and saying: ‘Hey, let us all get in to this together’, that I said I was more than happy to go back and work with them on it.
It is not patronising; it is an energy and enthusiasm I have, and I make no apology for that. I am not ashamed or afraid of that. If that kind of enthusiasm and energy is infectious for others to want to do something, then that has to be a good thing, surely? That has to be a good thing for the future of the Northern Territory. That has to be a good thing to, hopefully, inspire other people to get up and do it themselves and have a go - to get the young people up, get the kids up. ‘Hey, let us play a game of football’. ‘Hey, let us have a barbecue after the game of football’. ‘Let us get NORFORCE in, let us get all of this other mob in. Why don’t we all jump in? Let us pitch in, let us do it together’. What is wrong with that attitude, Madam Deputy Speaker?
Please do not tell me that that is a bad attitude to have. Please do not tell me that. I will continue to go across the Northern Territory with exactly that kind of attitude, with the energy and enthusiasm to try to encourage and give hope where I can without demoralising and rejecting people along the way. I am not perfect, our government is not perfect but, hey, we are out there and we are giving it the best we can.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Deputy Speaker, I congratulate the member for Macdonnell in her attempt to bring this matter back before the House …
Mr Westra van Holthe: And her courage.
Mr GILES: And her courage. Her passion is encapsulated in her comment in our previous debate where she said:
- As the former Minister for Indigenous Policy, I can testify to how little is known about where the money is actually being spent, and how effectively it is being spent.
That comment resonated around the community. Here was a former minister for Indigenous Policy categorically stating:
- … I can testify to how little is known about where the money is actually being spent, and how effectively it is being spent.
She went on to say:
- The stream of federal money dries up before it reaches the communities for whom it is provided,
This was said by someone who worked on the inside of this Territory government as a minister. Labor talks constantly about Aboriginal people but what it is really good at is spending Aboriginal money.
This is a gargantuan request, as you can clearly see by the definition of the proposed standing committee’s task; that is:
- … to inquire into all areas of Indigenous expenditure including allocations made by the Territory government and made by the federal government which are both administered by the Territory government and the federal government.
As I have noted before, we remain in a predicament where all Territorians, Indigenous and non-Indigenous, are looking for leadership and for actions equalling resolution. There must be a template, a guide to a form of the work to be executed in order to provide an understanding of the route to be taken.
The member for Macdonnell wants the committee to report at least quarterly, and here is a template for a much-needed permanent watchdog to guard Indigenous expenditure, its role being to match related expenditure allocation with actual expenditure and to evaluate the outcomes achieved. Just think for a minute of the scale of this task and its ramifications. I will take the ramifications first. Here I am reminded of Professor Mick Dodson’s comment where he said:
- Overcoming Indigenous disadvantage comes at a price but let’s not stop pretending that there’s ever been an investment in Indigenous Australia based on need, let alone a vision of success.
That is hard hitting but it is how the last year’s Australian of the Year sees it. This is where the community at large has immense concerns. They perceive a situation of funds constantly being thrown towards Indigenous issues. Look at some of these numbers. The reality is Indigenous-specific funding represented less than 2% of total Australian government spending in 2006-07. The man and the woman on the street emphatically disbelieve less than 2% is being spent. I can understand that and I know it. Mal Brough, in his media release in May 2007 stated that:
- The 2007-08 Indigenous Affairs budget contains 26 initiatives involving $815.7m in new and extended funding over five years focused on remote housing, early childhood, new education opportunities, health and economic independence. These measures have a nett fiscal balance impact of $748.3m.
Based on the ABS Census figures for 2006, the Indigenous population totalled 517 200, so this averages roughly $1446 per person. In other words, the total Australian government spending on Indigenous-specific funding was well under 2% - impossible, any man or woman on the street would emphatically disclaim.
This is our problem; this is the size of the task. A very big chunk of the Australian government spending is on that colossal stuff-up, SIHIP. Let me pause for a minute and talk about the extent of this inquiry that is required to be undertaken. SIHIP is a good example of how you can look at that. I will not go SIHIP-bashing or anything like that.
If you take into account the bureaucrats in Canberra who would have been working for Mal Brough at the time where he originally announced $850m would go into housing as part of the intervention in the Northern Territory, before it was downgraded to $572m by federal Labor, what would have happened then is the majority of bureaucrats who were working for Mal Brough - although 100% of their time was not working on this announcement or getting this money - would have been non-Indigenous. This is not a black or white argument about bureaucrats - that is not what it is. But a portion of their salaries would have paid for the time they worked on that announcement - even just writing that media release would have been attributed to Indigenous expenditure.
They would have rung up the Chief Minister at the time, Clare Martin, who would have put her bureaucrats from the Chief Minister’s Indigenous Policy Unit on board. They would have started crafting a media release, and started looking at what this would mean. Their work is 100% involved in Indigenous policy even though the majority of them are not Indigenous. Those people’s salaries would go to the Indigenous Affairs budget.
They would have rung up the Department of Housing, Territory Housing, DPI or whoever the first point of call was and said: ‘We have a pot of money here from Indigenous Housing. Can you work something out, come up with a model of how to put money out?’ Unfortunately, they put the alliance model up. So, all of the staff who worked on that, who were non-Indigenous, would have had their wages or portions of it attributed to Indigenous Affairs expenditure.
They handed out to Parsons Brinckerhoff, which is the management company which project managed the start of the alliance program, and is still doing it. All their consultancy fees, wages, salaries, and everything is apportioned to Indigenous Affairs. They are non-Indigenous; they are from America. Those people are going to contract the alliance companies. The three alliances, Earth Alliance - which is now gone, and the other partners of alliances, including people like Force 10, Sitzlers, McMahon, or whoever - the people who head up those companies are not Indigenous but all their money is classified as Indigenous money. Then, there is the next layer down.
So, it gets down to the bottom level and you get to a house in Ali Curung and you have trainees coming in from Tennant Creek. You are also flying in squillion-dollar experts from Queensland to fix these places - nothing against them personally – who are non-Indigenous. You might find a couple of CDEP people or a couple of people on labour hire but, all of a sudden, we have a $672m program for a house that does not have a lid on the septic tank and stainless steel bench, and you have a bit of paint there that could have been done by the local CDEP people.
This is what we are talking about, and this is why this is important. We spent all these squillions of dollars for not much at all. That is why this is important. If we are going to change this whole process, if we are going to have real change on the ground, this whole system needs to change. That is not to condone, belittle, or poorly cast upon those bureaucrats who may be in that role. Yes, there does need to be more Indigenous employment within the public sector. Yes, these things do need to happen. However, it seems to me we have the model upside down.
It is interesting when we look at this committee, and what it is actually trying to do. What this committee is trying to do is provide transparency for improvement. That is what democracy is about. That is why we have discussions about estimates; that is about providing transparency. That is why we talk to the media. We debate it publicly, privately, and we have transparency in the whole area.
I identify SIHIP as an example to see how all this money trickles down this train to the end point where the kids are still falling in a septic tank with no lid on it. Then we have to go to COAG and try to get $20m for 14 beds. It is all linked. This is a very important component.
Let us just rewind for a minute. If the Australian government cannot manage their tiny percentage of spending on Aboriginal affairs, then how can we possibly say to our Territory government: ‘Okay, we trust you as 40% to 50% of our budget … - allegedly – ‘… being spent on Indigenous affairs’? The Indigenous Expenditure Review of September 2006 – now, surely, is going to be updated - noted in the executive summary that:
- In 2004-05, an estimated 49.7% of the Northern Territory government’s expenditure was related to Indigenous population.
…
Despite the high level of expenditure, outcomes for Indigenous Territorians against a wide range of indicators remain poor relative to those of non-Indigenous Territorians.
The perception is of vast quantities of monies being thrown around. The reality is the lack of transparency, as I just said, and the lack in the Northern Territory of a required paper trail. People would know, as I am sure the member for Johnston knows - the minister for Housing across the Chamber - I took Channel 7 recently to Willowra, Six Mile, and Ali Curung. Whether those people were allowed to go or not, I am not sure; I heard the member for Katherine talking in relation to the permit system. The clear purpose of this committee we are talking about now is to provide greater transparency to see where the money goes.
By Channel 7 being allowed to go out there, or not allowed - I am not sure of the rules of the permit system these days in particular – those people exposed an issue. Whether the minister for Housing and I agree or disagree - and I believe we both know where we stand on this - they actually provided a level of transparency. Those two Channel 7 articles went right around Australia. The leaked e-mail from the government business manager from Willowra was in The Australian – I am not sure what page it was on – on a couple of days. That went around Australia. It gets people talking about it.
If I was on the government side, I would be upset because it is putting criticism on government. However, what it actually does is provide a level of argument between us so we can improve the program in the future. That is why it is important for transparency.
That is why this review committee is important, because we can have a good look at it. Sure, there will be political point scoring and a settling-in period, but it will see us get better outcomes on the ground. All we ever see is more and more announcements of funding into Indigenous affairs. but all we ever get is more people to come and manage those programs, while poor Johnny, Mary, or whoever it is on the ground, get nothing - like Jimmy Friday and Nancy Martin at the back of house No 206 in Ali Curung: ‘Government said they have no money for tin sheds, so we are just going to live in this squalor’. That is what is not working.
As an aside, let me read you this extract from the website established by Reconciliation Australia:
Professional organisations including the Australian Medical Association, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and Indigenous organisations point out that if Australia is serious about closing the gap in life expectancy between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians a lot more money is needed. But even more important than that, the money needs to be spent properly with less of it channelled into expensive, inefficient bureaucracy.
It is true that you can’t solve problems simply by throwing money at them because you also need sound policy and effective administration to utilise funding effectively.
It went further:
For example, the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) recently established a trial site in Kimberley to try and cut bureaucracy and red tape.
I know how this works, and I am sure the minister for Housing does:
- … to try and cut bureaucracy and red tape. Media reports identified a government allocation of $1.3m to run the trial, of which nearly $1m was being reported as spent on salaries, travel and administration by the federal government bureaucrats.
Many Indigenous groups and individuals have called for an auditing office or some other independent body to track exactly where and how much money is being spent in Indigenous affairs, to monitor expenditure transparency, program success, increase accountability to the Indigenous community and to reduce the financial confusion and blaming that occurred between the state and federal governments.
That example in the Kimberleys is exactly what happens.
A tender was recently released for supervision of roadworks in, I believe, the eastern region in the southern part – the Harts Range area; somewhere around there. I do not have the tender in front of me right now, member for Karama. The value was approximately $725 000. It was supervised roadworks continuing throughout the rest of the year. It was a point I was going to bring up in the previous debate. For $725 000, you employ one manager and four staff, you give them five cars - one car each - and they drive around and inspect the roadworks that have been done. We have project managers with the department who oversee that work. We have certifiers who have to come and check. You have the contractors who have to come and do the work and ensure the work is done properly. Here, we have just spent $725 000 which, while I am not condemning the project or the tender; I fail to see how we are achieving value for money out of that. This is all in the area where there are Indigenous communities.
That road that goes from Stuart Highway to Harts Range will be classified as Indigenous expenditure. That is what is not working. I understand the argument about roads and Indigenous and non-Indigenous - I understand that. However, this is a tender that has gone out to supervise roads. I do not see how that particular tender I have just mentioned is actually improving the lives of anyone. It is quite clear the community sees transparency but, as for this government, it seems not.
At this point, let me diffuse any misconceptions. This is not pointing the finger at any particular sector of our society; it is not a case of casting aspersions at any particular department or agency. Let me remind you of the member for Macdonnell’s motion:
- The Committee is to report on a regular basis, but at least quarterly, and must, at the very least in each report –
Part (a) is quite important, but (b) is the really important item. They will actually track the money that goes in. Is it hitting the ground? Not hitting the ground as a house, but is it hitting the ground the way it is meant to hit the ground in the first place? Let me give you a simple example. You have a mixed-use building which has an overall body corporate charged with managing the entire building. Then, it has a body corporate for the shops within the building, another one for the offices, another for the residential component, and another body corporate for the serviced apartments. The smaller entities expect a detailed budget from the overarching management group. The main body corporate expects an exact detailed accounting of the body corporate income right down to how regularly light bulbs have had to be replaced in the common areas.
This is what needs to be achieved in the Northern Territory with every single line item within the Territory government’s budget. What we do not have is reporting relating to Indigenous expenditure. How amazing when one thinks of how Indigenous experience is right at the forefront of the thoughts of all members within this House - and referred to quite frequently in the health statement yesterday.
I support the member for Macdonnell’s motion to establish a standing committee to be known as the Territory Indigenous expenditure review committee, but I suggest some additional grounds to the committee. I am hoping this committee is a bipartisan committee and takes all the argy-bargy out of it. This approach has to be retrospective as well. Without any form of historical value, there can be no indications of trend. Retrospective as far back as actual financials for 2007-08 would be fine. That could be the starting point for comparisons, I believe. Have the departments come clean on this historical expenditure? If they have not, I believe they should.
The government spoke against the committee make up, as suggested by the member when she spoke of those people who recognise themselves as Indigenous people and are current members of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly. Can the government, as suggested in the motion today, support a committee made up of members of the Legislative Assembly from the non-urban Labor seats of Daly, Arnhem, Arafura, Barkly, Stuart and the member for Macdonnell, with just one other? I believe members in this Chamber will recognise that those seats, apart from the Independent member for Macdonnell’s, are all Labor seats. So, this is not a party thing, it is just trying to get to the bottom of it.
Members on this side of the Chamber can see that is a good idea. This is far too important a subject for the Northern Territory to be anything else but a non-partisan committee. We all have an interest in the complete transparency across all the departments, agencies and outcome groups. I just add that bureaucrats who are involved in this process have a vast interest and a calling for this. They will not call it for the proper thing, but that is what they call for when they talk to you; they want better.
I remind the member for Macdonnell of her words earlier this year when discussing the budget papers for Indigenous affairs:
- I go back to the time when we were all in government - the Minister for Central Australia and the Minister for Indigenous Development and I - and how this was a real concern for the three of us that the government was not spending money in the right areas ... You might be putting the money in the Top End, but it is not coming to the bottom end.
What must transpire as a result of the standing committee is an income and expenditure document for every single department, agency, and output group, but much more comprehensive than that provided by the Australian government’s tables. Each department, agency and outcome group must come to the table with every single detail - yes, with every single detail right down to where the Toyota Land Cruisers went, where the trips were paid for and why, and what infrastructure was completed. Then, the next step is the Indigenous expenditure budget paper, because at last we will know the exact distribution and use of government resources.
We will, at last, have a measure. We will, at last, have proof of that appropriation, money set aside by formal action for specific use. This is what anyone in business would expect to see, line by line, on their financial accounts. It is a form of protection beyond any other because we can, at last, lift the curtains of secrecy, misinformation, mischief and doubt - not least a big concern in the communities where nothing is being seen despite the rhetoric and claims to the contrary. No wonder they are losing the hearts and minds of Aboriginal Territorians.
Madam Speaker, this motion is timely. Let me quote you from the Australian Productivity Commission website:
- Despite the commitment of significant government expenditure over many years, disparities between outcomes for Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians persists (particularly in the areas of life expectancy, child mortality, educational attainment and economic participation).
The Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage report examines outcomes for Indigenous people across a range of strategic areas.
The reasons for these persistent gaps are complex, arising from a mix of historical, social and economic causes. Yet there has been limited information with which to assess the adequacy, effectiveness and efficiency …
Mr CHANDLER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move the member be given additional time, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr GILES: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I did not believe I could get 10 minutes extra.
In December 2007, Council of Australian Governments (COAG) committed to reporting transparently on expenditure on services to Indigenous Australians.
The Indigenous Expenditure Report Steering Committee - under the auspices of the Heads of Treasuries - is developing a National Framework for collecting and reporting information on government expenditure on services to Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians.
A high-level overview of the reporting approach was endorsed by COAG at its 2 July 2009 meeting in Darwin. The Steering Committee is currently developing the detailed methodology that will underpin reporting.
The Steering Committee is conscious of the knowledge and experience held by a wide range of stakeholders and practitioners, and will consult widely with Indigenous organisations, governments and researchers in developing the report framework and methodology.
- The first data report is expected to be delivered to the Heads of Treasuries by mid-2010. However, identifying the share of government expenditure that relates to Indigenous people is a complex exercise, and the quality of reporting is likely to improve across subsequent reports.
I understand it is the same process in the alliance model where they have an open, transparent book process - although that information will not come out from the government. If we had an opportunity to see that we would know where the performance is and we could debate on how to improve it. Yes, there would be some argy-bargy, but we could go forward stronger together and look for the next area of improvement and, then, the next area of improvement. Then we would have change.
I go back to that point about the change of permit system allowing the media in. The media provide a level of transparency. Sure, there will always be some dodgy media people who exploit Indigenous people, and we must try to stamp that out; and we will always be tough on that measure. However, where that transparency is provided, we have improvement.
While we have not had a SIHIP debate in this Chamber for a couple of parliamentary days, no doubt it will come up again and, out of that, we will again see more improvements. If that first debate on SIHIP - where they spent $50m with no houses being built - had not come up we would not have seen improvements through a review process. If we had not had another argument come up, we would not have the CTC. All these other improvements are in place because we have become more transparent. That is how we improve our policy and our performance.
Madam Speaker, I commend the motion by the member for Macdonnell. She is being very brave by talking about this. She has been very open and transparent by detailing the works she has done in the past as a previous Labor government minister. I support the motion. I hope my colleagues on this side of the Chamber support the motion, and I hope my colleagues on the other side of the Chamber support the motion. I commend the motion to the House.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, this motion has been discussed previously, but I would like to raise a number of issues that I believe are important in this debate.
There is much being said in this parliament about where the government spends its money, especially in Indigenous areas. I remember hearing calls from members of the opposition, member for Macdonnell, who has put this motion forward before, the CLC, NTCOSS, and Lex Hall, the relatively new writer for The Australian. In November last year, he wrote an article regarding the spending which was headed, ‘How the NT has ignored federal recommendation on the spending of GST funds’. He used graphs that came from the Commonwealth Grants Commission. I have heard people say: ‘Here is the proof government has not spent money in Indigenous areas’. If I were a lay person looking at that I would probably say yes, that appears to be the case.
What started me thinking this particular table is not what it really appears to be on the surface is there is no section on education. One of the key factors in Indigenous spending, surely, is education? There is no section here on law and order and that is another key factor in Indigenous matters. Why is that not in there? If you are talking about Commonwealth Grants Commission why are some of those major items not there? I was always somewhat suspicious of this particular graph which has been used. I have heard it debated in this House, and publicly, that there is the proof government is not spending its money.
Then, I came across this document which I have spoken on before - the 2006-07 Indigenous Expenditure Review. I am not an expert to look at that and to work it out. It is a fairly complicated graph actually, once you find out what it is all about. I looked around to find out what the answers are, and you could not get better than our own Auditor-General. He has done two reports and I would like to read sections of his report because, as I said, I am not an expert. Here is a person who has written two reports, and I will quote sections from this report. Some of those quotes will explain what that graph is all about. On page (i) he said:
- In my opinion, the Indigenous Expenditure Review for the financial year 2006-07 presents fairly, in all material respects, the financial and statistical information that is attributable to the Indigenous residents of the Territory.
He said the information in this document shows how much money has been spent on Indigenous people in the Northern Territory. I will just read sections of the executive summary. He said:
- Two years ago, the Northern Territory Treasury undertook a review of the Northern Territory government’s Indigenous-related expenditure and revenue for the 2004-05 financial year. The Indigenous Expenditure Review (IER) was the first review of its type by any Australian government and was undertaken at a time when there was considerable scrutiny in relation to the Territory’s spending priorities, including suggestions that money designated for Indigenous purposes was being redirected to other areas, including for non-Indigenous services in Darwin. The main purpose of the 2004-05 IER was to inform the debate by providing a robust, transparent measure of Indigenous-related expenditure and revenue. The Northern Territory has committed to regular reviews of its Indigenous-related spending. The 2006-07 IER has been audited by the Northern Territory Auditor-General.
The 2004-05 IER found that around half of the Territory budget was spent on Indigenous-related services and this exceeded a level of Indigenous-related revenue. Notwithstanding this, the 2004-05 IER highlighted the considerable level of disadvantage faced by Indigenous Territorians in a range of areas, including income level, health status, educational attainment, and arrest and imprisonment rates.
Further down it said:
This second IER …
which is the one I am reading from:
- … covers the 2006-07 financial year and predates the effect on Northern Territory finances of these initiatives …
He is referring there, I believe, to the Northern Territory emergency response:
… but provides a baseline against which these initiatives can be compared, both in terms of investment and outcomes.
He then said:
- The 2006-07 IER builds on the 2004-05 report and, as a result of improved data sources, has undertaken a more rigorous examination of expenditure, in some cases down to individual unit records (e.g. separations, police incidents) and sub-program level data. This review makes a number of methodological changes to provide a more contemporaneous assessment of goods and services tax (GST) revenue and own-source revenue, and incorporates results from the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ (ABS) 2006 Census of Population and Housing. Indigenous persons comprise 30.4% of the Territory’s population. The 2004-05 results have also been reviewed to allow like-for-like comparisons with the 2006-07 IER.
From that, he produced these two tables which show the key findings of the 2006-07 IER, and they can be summarised as: 52.4% of the Territory expenditure in 2006-07 was Indigenous related; 44.4% of the Territory’s revenue in 2006-07 was Indigenous related; Indigenous related expenditure exceeds that of revenue by 8% or around $248m; and on a per-capita basis, spending on Indigenous Territorians is 2.5 times that of non-Indigenous Territorians.
- The 2006-07 IER examined spending by service delivery agencies that primarily provide service to individuals. Table 1 shows 63% of Northern Territory government expenditure is by service delivery agencies that provide human services. Indigenous-related spending is 56.4% of expenditure in these agencies and represents three times per capita spending compared to non-Indigenous persons.
It goes on and explains more about those particular matters. However, I also, in the time I have, need to explain what methodology the Auditor-General used. He has – as he does in many reports - sections and shaded areas where he puts in an explanation. This section is called Measuring Indigenous Related Expenditure:
- There is no accepted method for accounting for expenditure that is Indigenous-related. Accounting of this nature is complex and requires the exercise of judgment. Classification of Indigenous-specific programs and services where direct use by Indigenous persons can be measured is relatively uncontroversial. While cost differentials between population groups are difficult to estimate and are likely to vary significantly by location and between functional areas, these are generally acknowledged and are a key component of the assessment of state revenue share relativities by the Commonwealth Grants Commission.
However there are state expenditures that do not directly provide a service to the public, for example central agencies or support agencies, or are of administrative or corporate nature, essential to the delivery of direct services. There are also expenditures that do not have a readily identifiable service population or where there may be little or no direct interaction with individuals but where benefits accrue to the whole population. The Indigenous-related proportion of these expenses is more problematic to identify.
The underlying methodology of the IER requires the allocation of every dollar of expenditure to either a non-Indigenous person or an Indigenous person. This requires specific allocation of expenditure over and above that related to Indigenous-specific programs or direct use of services, to be made.
- Where population groups are significant, such as the Indigenous proportion of the Territory’s population, a ‘purpose of program’ methodology is likely to be more robust than if applied to population minorities; for example, Indigenous persons in New South Wales. Examples of such programs include road safety, certain health prevention measures, invasive pest control, and tourism.
I leave other people to look at that as well.
I know I am reading a fair bit from the document but it is written by a person who has much more knowledge than I have. It has a section here called ‘Commonwealth Grants Commission Assessed and Actual Expenditure’. This relates to the graph I started off this debate with. It said:
- There are a number of common misconceptions about data published by the Commonwealth Grants Commission and how this relates to individual jurisdictions’ spending on functional areas or spending that is related to Indigenous people.
The purpose of the commission’s assessment is to recommend to the Commonwealth Treasurer distribution of GST revenue between states such that each can provide an ‘average’ level of service to its citizens after assessment of states’ relative fiscal capacities.
GST revenue is provided to states as untied revenue. This means that each state is able to determine how this revenue is expended. The commission’s assessment is not intended to compare state policies and expenditure or to evaluate the efficacy of state policies.
The commission publishes information on assessed and actual expenditure by functional area and this is often misinterpreted as an expenditure benchmark.
That is what people were taking from this particular graph:
- The ‘Actual’ expenditure reported by the commission is an estimate of the amount that each state spends on particular functions. The commission’s assessments are based on ABS Government Finance Statistics (GFS) data over the preceding five years; (i.e the commission’s 2006 Update uses data from 2000-01 to 2004-05. Thus the data does not necessarily represent current government expenditure patterns.
There are significant difficulties obtaining GFS data at the detailed level required by the commission, particularly where programs have significant overlap with other functions. For example, police expenditure on child protection in the Territory is captured in the police category rather than the family and children’s services category. Expenses related to depreciation, debt and superannuation are allocated to general public services and not to the functional area to which the expenses apply. Costs for a health clinic in a remote community would be captured in a health assessment rather than categorised in services to Indigenous communities.
Due to the difficulties in categorising expenditure, GFS data is divergent between states as states do not classify expenditure in the same way. This means that similar expenditure may be reported in different categories between states. Analysis of individual categories is therefore misleading. All governments and the commission have recognised that using data at this level of disaggregation and in this way is not as robust as required and hence the commission’s next Review of Relativities in 2010 …
- … will rely on far less disaggregated data and will be based on greater simplicity and transparency.
Importantly the commission does not estimate or report on Indigenous expenditure by states.
‘Assessed’ expenditure is the commission’s estimate of what states would need to spend on each function in order to provide an ‘average’ level of service based on the ‘average’ policies of all states, after taking into account the particular characteristics of each state including its demography, geography and needs such as health and education. ‘Average’ policies or costs are unlikely to apply to any particular state and this is especially so for the Territory, which has circumstances markedly different to other states. To use the commission’s assessed expenditures as benchmarks will imply that all state policies and priorities are the same.
The detailed calculations used by the commission are specific to the equalisation model to which they contribute and it is inappropriate to use the commission’s ‘actual’ or ‘assessed’ expenditure as benchmarks.
Madam Speaker, as I said, I am not an expert. I understand where the member for Macdonnell has come from, and that she has concerns. It is a complex issue, but we do have an Auditor-General who has written two of these reports. I do not have an axe to grind politically about this. We all want to ensure money is spent in the right place for the right purpose. I hope there is another one of these coming out soon because, in the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs hearing on 15 September 2008, it referred to this Indigenous Expenditure Review, and said it would be biennial. I hope to see one, or something similar, come out in 2009-10, although I imagine the wisest thing would be to wait for the Grants Commission to bring out its 2010 report so the IER would be able to use the figures the Grants Commission puts out for the 2010 year.
The member for Braitling was talking about issues regarding spending money at Willowra in relation to upgrading of houses. They are specific issues that certainly need looking at. It is an issue that the CTC, I believe, will need to assess. However, the thrust of this particular motion before us today is about - and No 2 summarises that:
- the committee is to inquire into all areas of Indigenous expenditure including allocations by the Territory government and made by the federal government which are both administered by the Territory government and the federal government.
Those are important issues - whether money is being spent reasonably, and could work be done cheaper. I call those more specific issues that could be looked at by either the CTC or by departments, to find out if some of their refurbishment programs are being ripped off, if you want to put it that way. I do not know, for instance, what standard the Willowra refurbishments mentioned by the member for Macdonnell are; I have not seen them. I would prefer a builder to be asked to compare the standard of refurbishments there with the standard of refurbishments over here. They could be of a less quality; they still could look good. They might be using better materials over here; I do not know. It is important to find out those things. This person might have fewer overheads than the other person, because they may be local, and these people may be coming from another place where they have to travel. It is not always easy just to say: ‘This mob here is able to do it cheaper than this mob’. I do not know what all the details are. Certainly investigate it because you do not want money wasted, you want the best value.
As this statement has said, if we are looking at what the Indigenous expenditure in the Northern Territory is, why set up another committee? If you read just what I read today, you will understand it is pretty complex; it is not a simple issue. The member for Braitling commented on the road out to Haasts Bluff. Start dividing up roads into how many Indigenous people use that road against how many non-Indigenous people use that road because, if you are talking about Indigenous expenditure, that is exactly what you have to do.
I actually do not like this idea, to be honest with you. I do not even like the idea of having something that says we need to review this expenditure. I would prefer it on a needs basis; there are poor people who need some help - whether they are white or black, that is how we should spend our money. Unfortunately, this is the way society goes; we have to show this money is used for these particular purposes. There are wealthy Indigenous people as well as poor Indigenous people. There are wealthy non-Indigenous people and there are very poor non-Indigenous people. The way we allocate our funds should be based more on need rather than race.
However, that is not the issue before us today. The issue is how we assess whether money allocated from the Commonwealth is being used in the areas the Commonwealth expects us to use it. You have all those issues of tied grants and untied grants, and that complicates matters as well. You have small issues such as those I raised before. People are saying all the money is spent in the northern suburbs of Darwin and that does not help the people of Central Australia. Sure enough. But, how many Aboriginal people use the Leanyer lakes? I go past there and there are many young Aboriginal kids who love the Leanyer recreational pool. How do I actually work out what the Indigenous expenditure’s proportion of building that recreation lake is? I do not know and, to be honest, I really do not care as long as it is a place where young people can enjoy themselves, where families can go - whether they are black, white, Chinese, or you-know-what. I do not care.
As I said before, this is the issue before us. I believe the Auditor-General is the non-political, independent person who can do the job. He has issued two of these reports; they are detailed reports, and that is the way this particular matter should go. I encourage the government to ensure we continue to have biennial reports on Indigenous expenditure because that way it is bipartisan and free of political influence. For me, it is much better than taking a graph out of a newspaper and trying to interpret it without any knowledge of what that graph actually means. Many people have used that particular graph and interpreted it wrongly. That is exactly what the Auditor-General is saying. Unfortunately, that is where the politics comes into it.
We should stick with the Auditor-General as the independent assessor. He will say where the money is going. If people have concerns and they know the Auditor-General is doing this IER, then they should write to the Auditor-General and say: ‘We have concerns that, in these certain areas, money is not being spent as it is being allocated’. At least you know you are going to get a fair hearing from an independent person – our own Auditor-General.
Debate adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, it being 9 pm, under Standing Order 41A the House does now adjourn and the matter that is before us goes onto the next General Business Day.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Speaker, tonight I cover a couple of things. The first is a couple of thank yous, and the second is on the federal government’s decision to delay the Emissions Trading Scheme.
The Minister for Transport, Mr McCarthy, has had a rough day; he has had a few things thrown his way. I first thank him because, recently, I wrote to the minister and asked him to look into a situation in my electorate which involved floodwaters and damage to property. After finding out who owned the property, where it was, and talking to the council, the bottom line was this water had damaged fencing and was undermining other properties. To his credit, after I sent photos, he arranged to have the area fixed and replaced. I thank you for that.
I also sent another letter in regard to a roundabout in Palmerston on the corner of University and Elrundie Avenues, and suggested that until it is fixed properly a couple of warning signs are put prior to the …
Mr Bohlin: We have warning signs now.
Mr CHANDLER: The warning signs are now up. Again, I thank the minister for doing that. So, it is not all criticism from this side of the House when things are done correctly. Thank you very much for doing it.
In regard to the federal government’s decision to delay an Emissions Trading Scheme by a full three years raises the question of the credibility of the Territory government. The Territory government had decided to await the Emissions Trading Scheme, thus creating a chicken-and-egg scenario. We know that. The Territory government is not ready to move forward, has done nothing, and has put it in the too-hard basket and buried its head in the sand. The Territory government will no doubt now have even less drive to accomplish anything at all. What is the Territory government doing to plan towards an increased greenhouse gas reduction target of 25% by 2020?
Within the Country Liberals renewable energy policy, we committed to develop 100 MW of renewable capacity across the Territory by 2025 with an annual $10m contribution. As I noted a year ago, it beggars belief that nine years after the Commonwealth and state and territory governments had agreed to renewable energy targets, Labor has done virtually nothing to keep its side of the bargain. They have sat on their hands for the past nine years and done nothing to fulfil our renewable energy commitments. They should have paved the way for alternative energies. Where are the plans for new solar power stations? Conspicuous by their absence. Instead, we have the commitment of the Northern Territory government to pay $120m for two new 45 MW turbines. Where is the announcement of a fund to support the research and technological development required to cut greenhouse gas emissions from our energy sector?
Unbelievably, on 30 April 2009, in answers to questions on the COAG energy target scheme, the Deputy Chief Minister stated:
- … it is exciting that this government is signalling a strong lead in protecting our environment and working against climate change.
Leading by what example, I ask. On 26 November 2009, minister Gerry McCarthy said:
- … learn from history, do not be a goose and, even more importantly, do not be a fossil! You guys have to get on with the program and drag yourselves out of the dinosaur age. Territorians expect action on climate change. They expect a plan which will help protect future generations. They want action, not denial. They want action, not scepticism.
Well, minister, where is the action? Even your own boss, Big Kev, the Prime Minister of our country, has decided the greatest moral obligation of our times: ‘We will put it back a few years’. That is how serious they are.
On 7 December 2009, Karl Hampton, the Minister for Climate Change, insisted the Country Liberals must say whether they support a National Emissions Trading Scheme. The question probably today is: what National Emissions Trading Scheme? What are we talking about? The Territory government has been hamstrung. They have been followers of carbon climate change instead of leaders - carbon climate change cowards. When the Country Liberals launched the policy titled Growth, Sustainability and the Climate Change Challenge, the Chief Minister, Paul Henderson, was quoted on ABC on 9 December as saying a climate change policy without an emissions trading scheme is doomed to failure. He also stated that, without an ETS you cannot enforce any reduction thresholds and you cannot establish a carbon market where carbon is priced and penalties are paid if industry does not meet the emissions target. Again, the question is: where is the ETS?
The Country Liberals have already demonstrated you can, as recently as the policy announcement last week, introduce sustainable solar power capacity into Parliament House. Is the Territory government going to announce their support for this policy? If not, why not? It is because they are, indeed, carbon climate change cowards. The Country Liberals will continue to develop meaningful climate change policy. It is very hard to take any Labor government in this country seriously when they talk about climate change today - this government, in particular, which has done nothing, sat on its hands, done nothing, sat on its hands. Now, we have the Prime Minister come out and, basically, say: ‘We will put it back a few years’.
The Territory government Climate Change Policy simply says:
- The Territory government supports the establishment of the nation’s emission reduction targets. We believe that an emissions trading scheme is the way to achieve those goals. Without a price on carbon, goals will not be achieved.
Well, our policy proves you can have goals and you can achieve them without the ETS. You mob do not want an ETS. Your Prime Minister does not want an ETS; that is obvious. So, any time you talk now - much like your Transport minister when he talks about speeding and taking responsibility - you have an Environment minister who does the same. How can we take you seriously? How can we take our Prime Minister seriously when he said this was the greatest moral dilemma of our time - but we will just put it back a few years; it is a little tough for now. We cannot take this government or the federal government seriously when they talk about their credibility when it comes to climate change.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, like other members who spoke in the Chamber last night about Anzac Day, I too wish to speak on this subject. As services around the Territory were well attended and numbers on the increase, so too was the case in Nhulunbuy.
The Dawn Service of the 95th anniversary to commemorate the Gallipoli landings held at Gove Yacht Club drew a huge crowd, which assembled on the lawns of the yacht club looking out over the waters of Melville Bay, as still as a mill pond and breathtakingly beautiful in the dawn sunrise. It was a contrast to the previous year when it bucketed down with rain.
An even bigger crowd gathered at the Cenotaph ready for the 11 am service, and it was moving to see past and present servicemen and women from Army, Navy and Air Force march with St John personnel and children from Cubs and Scouts. It was a very hot morning, so thank goodness our St John volunteers where on hand because they did have to deal with a few casualties overcome by the heat.
Special thanks must go to the following people:
Ivor Alexander and Mo McKay who, for more years than I can remember, have coordinated the services with, I might add, military precision right down to coordinating the purchase and transport of wreaths of fresh flowers from Darwin. In addition, they also look after the Kapyong Memorial Service which is held each year on 24 April;
It is a truly significant day in our local calendar in Nhulunbuy, on the Territory, the national, and even the international calendar. Like the member for Katherine, I too watched the ABC program Q&A on Monday evening and was dismayed by some of the commentary that was delivered. I thought it a shame the former head of the ADF, Mr Peter Cosgrove, and the female Brigadier responsible for ADF public relations, Alison Creagh, had to defend the position and recognition that goes with the ANZAC tradition, when so many of us do not question it. I also call into question the comments made by Germaine Greer. I dare say she has had some flack about the comments she made regarding the fact that our Corrections facilities and mental health institutions were full of ex-service people.
Continuing in that proud tradition of service, the Nhulunbuy St John Ambulance annual inspection was held on Monday, 19 April and, fittingly, opened with a minute’s silence for the late Bern Kilgariff, AM JP KStJ, who was a board member of St John from 1987. The inspection was conducted by Commissioner Steve Peers who travelled from Darwin with St John Ambulance CEO, Ross Coburn, and the evening’s MC was our local officer-in-charge, Mark Ferguson.
As local member, I was pleased to attend and present perpetual trophies to Cadet Member of the Year, Kasey Baker, and Adult Member of the Year, Kylie Newport. I place on the record the names of the current members who put in so much work to support our community through their volunteer service. The current adult members are: Kathryn Auger, Sheridan Bell, Michael Davy, Rebecca Dexter, Brad Dillon, Mark Ferguson, Teresa Holdsworth, Shawn Jurd, Jamie Kokles-Ridgway, Ann-Marie Murphy, Kylie Newport, Julie Nicklin, Libby Rayner, Ray Roles, Phil Sampson, Ena Tyson and Robert Webster.
Incredibly, the adult division in 2009 put in 5015 hours of volunteer service. Of these hours, Kylie Newport put in amazing 1283 hours. She is a single mother of two boys and, for most of the year of 2009, worked as coordinator for Nhulunbuy Community Neighbourhood Centre and, somehow, found the extra time to boost her training and volunteer commitment to St John. Well done, Kylie.
Within the ranks of the current cadet members coordinated by Cadet Superintendent Mandy Paradise - who, I should add, is responsible for restarting the cadets program a couple of years ago and does an amazing job - within those ranks we have Ky Baker, Kasey Baker, Ashleigh Baker, Emily McIntyre, Ashleigh Matthews, Caitlin Lobenwein, Clifford Timms, Gabbi McGrath, Hannah Reardon, Joshua Dawidowicz, Lucy Hauff, Makaela Hockings, Sharna Alley and Meagan Morris - Meagan being recognised as the Most Improved Cadet.
I also acknowledge the efforts of Mandy Paradise, with Mark Ferguson, in starting up a Cadet Members Division at Yirrkala, which includes Dhimurru Mununggurr, Salome Marika, Nelita Foster, Rokuwuy Garrawurra, Denise Foster, Djayila Marika, Butjarri Bururrwanga and Guyurrminy Maymuru.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I continue on the theme of community service and place on the public record the achievements of Ms Bernie Whelan, who has lived in Gove for more years than she cares to remember, and has recently been made a life member of Surf Life Saving Northern Territory. I will read the following extract from the online newsletter, Northern Territory Surf Line from 18 March 2010. It reads:
- Outstanding Surf Lifesaver and volunteer educator, Bernie Whelan, of the Gove Peninsula SLSC, was awarded Life Membership of SLSNT at the AGM on Saturday 6 March. Bernie joined Gove Peninsula SLSC in 1996, beginning an amazing career as she and her family became some of the club’s most valuable members.
Bernie’s record of service is amazing - covering lifesaving, education, sport, club management and social organisation. She has served the club in the positions of First Aid Officer, Chief Instructor and Vice President, and provided leadership for numerous initiatives including NT Championships, Constitution Review, and the ultimate celebratory event - the ‘Barefoot Ball’ at Little Bondi Beach on the East Arnhem coast in 2007, ‘the Year of the Surf Lifesaver’. At club and Territory level she has been recognised with Lifesaver of the Year and Volunteer of the Year Awards. Not to mention endless Junior Development Camps, Club Friday BBQs, and helping behind the Club Bar.
On the Territory scene Bernie has served Surf Life Saving as First Aid and Stinger Officer, Club Delegate, various NT Selection Panels. She has represented SLSNT at High Performance Leadership Conferences, Trainers and Assessors Network, and in Coaches and Officials development programs. Recently, Bernie contributed valuable advice to the National Training Manual Review.
As a lifesaver, she is amazing. Not only highly qualified in first aid and emergency care, she is also an IRB Driver and RWC Operator and a member of the SLSNT Search and Rescue Team. In every forum, Bernie has always supported and pushed for SLSNT and her club to be able to achieve results using whatever resources were available but whilst also upholding the highest ideals of SLSA as an organisation.
We salute and celebrate Bernie Whelan as our newest Life Member.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, this is certainly fantastic and well-deserved recognition for Bernie, who has worked so hard for Surf Life Saving for so many years. I also add that, like so many volunteers, she does this outside of her full-time work as a registered nurse. Bernie Whelan, congratulations to you and we look forward to more years of service.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I talk on a serious matter which I believe warrants some very close attention and some action on behalf of the Minister for Sport and Recreation. It is in regard to the Wongabilla Equestrian Centre, which is a community-based, not-for-profit organisation and a branch of the Police and Citizens Youth Club.
It has had a long history; it was started in the 1960s. What concerns me and, more importantly, the committee of Wongabilla and the hundreds of families and children who use Wongabilla, is the Commissioner of Police has decided to take the police out of Police and Citizens Youth Club, and he wants to take the police presence and involvement out of the Wongabilla Equestrian Centre, which is currently involved with the Police and Citizens Youth Club. The centre, if this is to occur, will lose both the Senior Constable and an established manager, and also Nicole Muttimer, a very accomplished horsewoman and the main trainer of the young people. A manager from - I suppose you could say - the broader community will take over - if one can be found for the money that would be applied - and to pay for vehicles, maintenance, the horses, instructors and staff, fees will need to rise sharply.
Wongabilla has about 100 juniors or young teenagers going to the centre to learn not only horse skills and to understand about riding, but it also provides an opportunity for many young people to learn about possible careers involving horses which include the racing industry, the pastoral industry, and the cattle industry, to name a few. Any manager who is appointed to this centre will not be under the supervision of a senior police officer and it is unlikely the centre will continue to run in its present form. Most likely, it will close.
The last time Wongabilla was managed by a civilian committee in the mid-1990s, it nearly closed because of each committee member having their own agenda, which did not include introducing other young children to animal care and riding. It is important for the minister for youth to know this is the only establishment which consistently trains the youth of the Top End in horsemanship, providing training for the cattle industry, racing, the show circuit and many other sports.
More importantly, the centre is registered for youth diversion and handles alternate education, disengaged children, family services, and basic training for several schools. There are around 10 to 12 young people each year allocated to the Wongabilla centre, mostly from FACS’ youth diversion centres. It is the presence of the police and the constabulary that helps them get back on to the straight and narrow path.
I would be exceptionally disappointed if this new Police Commissioner has come to town with some fancy ideas from Western Australia of how things could be run better, or how they could be run similarly to how they are run in WA. We are not like Western Australia, and this centre has had a long and successful history.
In fact, perhaps if he went back into the history he would know that Wongabilla has had a close working relationship in the past years with Kormilda College, in particular, the Indigenous students who went through that college. 1984 and 1985 saw the first graduates from Wongabilla’s stock handlers’ course, so they have actually achieved some very good things. I just find it amazing that this person has come into town for only a short period of time and has decided to take the police out of the Police and Citizens Youth Club.
To believe that saving a few dollars by removing constables and leaving this service in the hands of untrained and underpaid civilians is just sheer folly. In Western Australia, the home of this Police Commissioner, they recently published figures that juvenile detention costs are nearly $500 per day per person. Therefore, every youth who successfully completes diversion at Wongabilla establishment greatly assist in making up any difference in the salaries required to run this centre. I personally do not have experience, but I know from talking with people regarding Wongabilla centre that many disturbed juveniles actually need the authority figure that comes with police constables, or sergeants for that matter, and they figure prominently, presented by the people running this facility.
I also looked at some of the annual reports of the Northern Territory Police. I saw in their latest and previous glossy reports that the horsemanship and the mounted police features strongly, not only in their photographs but also in reporting of their activities. If we are going to encourage people into the police force from any background throughout the Northern Territory and we want them to be involved in the mounted police then, surely, somewhere like Wongabilla is the place where these young people can start.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, if the minister’s office is listening to this, I know he has received representations from the committee of Wongabilla. I urge him to meet with the committee and, more importantly, to talk to the Commissioner of Police to get this decision rescinded if, in fact, it is a final decision to take the police out of Police and Citizens Youth Club. I believe it is a nave decision and I am extremely disappointed the Commissioner of Police made this decision after being in the Territory for only five minutes.
Mr KNIGHT (Daly): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, the member for Sanderson, shadow minister for Senior Territorians, was interviewed by Annie Gastin on ABC radio this afternoon. The member for Sanderson told Annie there was a petition circulating on the NT Pensioner and Carer Concession Scheme. From what the member for Sanderson said, it appears this petition is being circulated in opposition members’ electorate offices. I have not seen the wording of the petition but the member for Sanderson said the petition refers to the travel concession component of the scheme.
Members of the NT Pensioner and Carer Concession Scheme are eligible for interstate and overseas travel subsidies. The subsidy is a 50% concession on a standard economy airfare every two years. I absolutely endorse petitions. They are a legitimate form of public expression.
However, any petition, particularly one endorsed by a politician, needs to be based on an accurate premise. The member for Sanderson does not appear to have managed on this occasion. The member for Sanderson told Annie Gastin today: ‘We are calling on the government to reverse a recent decision to exclude intrastate travel; that is, travel that occurs within the Northern Territory’. When Annie asked him when the decision was made he fumbled about a bit and came up with this response: ‘Um ah, the decision was made - ah, I am trying to find the actual date here, uh - it was the 1 July 2009’. Well, member for Sanderson, there was no decision taken on this matter recently or otherwise. Intrastate travel has never, ever been part of the Northern Territory Pensioner and Carer Concession Scheme. So, member for Sanderson, you have it wrong.
By your own admission, you have attracted hundreds of signatures on this petition. That means you have unnecessarily alarmed many senior Territorians. If you are going to endorse a petition, it is absolutely incumbent upon you, as a member of this House, to get your facts right. It is very embarrassing with your carriage of this shadow portfolio.
By the way, you also seemed to imply today - actually, you said it - there was no overseas travel allowed under this scheme. That is totally wrong also! As I have already mentioned, overseas travel is available under this scheme.
Member for Sanderson, the government is actually considering the introduction of intrastate travel as part of the scheme, not from lobbying from you, but from consultations we had with the sector - COTA, National Seniors and the Senior Territorians Advisory Council - which I meet on a regular basis. If you have done a little research - even talked to those people - you might have found out what is covered in this scheme. You could have saved yourself a lot of effort and a lot of embarrassment.
I move to Anzac Day. Anzac Day is a time to recommit our gratitude and acknowledgement of the sacrifice of our armed forces and other Defence Force personnel in our past and current conflicts. I was very proud, as local member, to attend the Dawn Service held at Adelaide River War Cemetery with over 2000 other people. It is pleasing to see so many of our younger generation taking on the task of keeping the ANZAC spirit alive, of being a part of the service held around the country.
Scouts NT escorted many through the dark towards the War Cemetery in Adelaide River. I was very pleased to assist them with selling poppies and candles at the entrance. Taminmin College choir, led by Tanya Ham, sang the hymn and then concluded at the end of the proceedings with And the Band played Waltzing Matilda, a very moving song for everyone who attended. The very talented Lana Kains, who is only 12-years old, played The Last Post - she started playing last year at the age of 11. Young Jack Thorne read The Ode, and our National Anthem was sung by 16-year old Coreena Reeves from Taminmin. This shows what a great participation we have from the rural youth.
I was very pleased to see Dick Perry from Daly River at the Dawn Service. Dick had brought the group of cadets from the Daly River Remote Army Cadet Unit 75. The day started at 3 am for the young Corporal Tim North, Cadet David Liddy, Cadet James Tomelty and Andrew Tomelty. Corporal North and Cadet Tomelty laid the wreath and, at the conclusion of the formalities, cadets joined the hundreds of others at the Adelaide River Show Society free breakfast. It was a great effort for them to come all the way from Daly River. I know they had a little trouble along the way, with one of the young fellows getting sick, but they made it there in time.
At the Adelaide River Show Society there was the breakfast, as I said. Patsy Fawcett, the great matriarch of the community there, cooked up her famous savoury mince. She had about 40 kg to 50 kg, and it all went. As I usually do, I helped serve up the delicious breakfast, along with many other volunteers including Linda McIntosh, Patty who is Patsy’s daughter, and while we fed the masses, Katarina, Jodie and Mark were kept very busy at the bar.
A huge thank you goes to the fantastic efforts of the Adelaide River Show Society committee, particularly Sandy Maclean – it is the first time in over a decade she has missed the breakfast; Vice President, Jackie Rixon; Treasurer, Sue O’Hagan; and Secretary, Annette Rixon; and all the other members including Katarina Jaques, Russell Muirhead, Ian Rixon, Mark O’Hagan and Mgahl Eather. Congratulations to all those great volunteers.
There were some new faces on the council. Congratulations to the new CEO, John Hughes, for coming, Tamra Caruana, who is the events coordinator who took over this year, and all the staff from Coomalie. I saw Whiskers down there, and Kevvie. They come in nice and early to set up, and they ran a great event for the Dawn Service.
I also acknowledge some other people who helped with the service. We had RAAF 44 Wing Detachment Group Captain Forster Breckendridge, RAAF 44 Wing Darwin; NORFORCE Darwin; and Squadron Leader Jim Larkham, a Chaplain who attended. The war graves were beautifully kept and it is a great facility for all Australians to see. For some 450 soldiers, it has become their last resting place.
Thanks to Jack Thorne and everyone from Adelaide River and Batchelor FERG Unit for volunteering their time. Also to Bruce Jones who came with his lovely wife and read a poem at the service, and Lucinda Hooper and Karina Brink who had brought their horses, and were part of the whole event. Congratulations to them.
I will move quickly on to the monthly awards. I present monthly awards and book vouchers to the Taminmin Middle School. I am very pleased to be able to include the seniors from Taminmin. I have presented, for the first time during March, a monthly award to Taminmin senior students, Zachary Rubock, Craig Pettifor and Patrick McCrory.
During April, my monthly student award went to Blake Willis, Denis Staunton, Florence Chambers, and Rhiannon Cantle from Berry Springs Primary School; and to Taminmin seniors, Patrick Dunstan, Matt Trnka and Samantha Hinnen. Congratulations to all these students.
I am looking forward to the next Taminmin Middle School assembly, when I can present awards to another three students from Years 7, 8 and 9.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Deputy Speaker, I wanted to raise tonight a decision of the Supreme Court made by Her Honour Justice Kelly, delivered on 18 March 2010. I will deliberately use the initials of the applicant RB because I understand a suppression order is being sought. It may have already been ordered, but I am erring on the side of caution. Citation is 2010 NTSC08.
This is a case where the applicant, RB, appealed, pursuant to section 48(1)(b) of the Victims of Crimes Assistance Act. She appealed against the assessor’s determination and a number of questions of law were reserved for determination by the Supreme Court.
The applicant sustained a number of serious injuries over a period of months, including sexual intercourse without consent. Her Honour Justice Kelly went to considerable detail to outline the sections and regulations of the act that guide an applicant. Her Honour’s judgment is a detailed and comprehensive judgment and a 10-minute adjournment speech certainly will not do it any justice.
However, Her Honour traversed a number of issues, and those considered were complex and varied, but they included consideration of the legislative intent with respect to whether an award of financial assistance should be assessed as though it were compensation or common law damages. Her Honour also considered ‘the choices a victim has with respect to applying for compensation for the mere commission of a compensable violent act without the necessity of proving any particular injury’, or whether ‘he or she may elect to apply for an award for one or more compensable injuries suffered as a direct result of the offence’.
Her Honour further considered the meaning and effect of ‘a compensable violent act’, and ‘compensable injuries’, insofar as seeking compensation for sexual offences, and having regard to the regulations and various sections of the act. Her Honour also considered the effect of ‘limitations with respect to a compensable violent act, or one or more compensable injuries suffered as a direct result of a violent act’, and what is meant by ‘a series of related criminal acts’.
To a large extent, it can be said Her Honour’s judgment considered a number of matters, some of which I have included, and her 40-or-so-page judgment is somewhat complex. However, in my view, it is an exceptionally good judgment. Her Honour observed, importantly, an approved form - that is, a form required by the act an applicant must complete in order to make an application for assistance - was, as she said, ‘intrinsically misleading’. It was intrinsically misleading for certain applicants; namely, those who wish to claim for a compensable violent act. Her Honour referred to the scheme, ‘as the scheme of assistance to victims of crime provided under the act is complicated’.
While a number of legal issues have been resolved, it is clear the act needs to be changed. This was the act that Peter Toyne introduced in 2006. The opposition was opposed to it for a raft of reasons. However, as Her Honour correctly observed, the act is due for review in May - and May is only a couple of days away. It is clear, from my reading of the judgment, Her Honour encourages the government to attend to that review as soon as it practically can. It is clear from her comments with respect to the forms that applicants have to fill out in certain instances, and her comments that it is intrinsically misleading, should be a concern to government. I urge government, as well, to get on with the review of this act.
This act was meant to be straightforward. In the first paragraph of Peter Toyne’s second reading speech on 29 March 2006, he said: ‘These reforms provide a fresh focus and approach to the needs of and support for victims of crime’. Well, it might have been a fresh focus back then, notwithstanding our opposition to it, but the reality is this scheme is very complicated and, while it assists some victims of crime, it is not assisting all victims of crime, and we should all be very concerned about it.
I note, in the most recent Department of Justice Annual Report, at page 74, refers to 580 applications received under the Victims of Crimes Assistance Act in 2008-09, and that the estimate for 2009-10 is 650. That is a lot of applications in a year, and many victims of crime. It is beholden, I believe, on government to really fast-track the review of the act. Interestingly, there is a footnote on page 75 of the annual report referring to the increase in the applications anticipated for 2009-10, and it says: ‘Increase is reflective of the simpler scheme in place which has increased access’. Well, for those minded to read a somewhat mind-bending but, nevertheless, very good judgment by Her Honour Justice Kelly, would come to the conclusion the scheme is anything but.
While I am on the subject of violence against women, I was appalled today when the member for Johnston, the Leader of Government Business, desperate for one of his colleagues not to answer a question, said to one of my colleagues: ‘Did you beat your wife?’ It reeked of desperation and was intended as a political jibe. It was, however, offensive and outrageous.
It says something about some men’s attitude to women that they would belittle the issue of domestic violence. It says a great deal about the attitudes of some male members of this Labor government. The minister, when he was Attorney-General, introduced, amongst much other legislation, the Domestic and Family Violence Amendment Bill on 26 November 2008. He said that legislation was
- … the next step in moving towards a genuine change in the community attitude and behaviour towards domestic and family violence.
The Leader of Government Business should change his own attitude, and he should do so immediately.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Deputy Speaker, I have a short adjournment. I will address the issue raised by the member for Araluen at the end of my adjournment.
As mentioned in my last adjournment, the weekend before last I had the pleasure of joining the Australian-Burma Friendship Association of the Northern Territory at the Thingyan Water Festival in the Jingili Water Gardens. I will also talk about this festival and its delightful history.
In Burma, each month of the year has a special significance and it is commemorated with a special event. The first month of the Burmese calendar is Tagu and it falls in April. The Thingyan Festival celebrates, for three to four days in the middle of April, to welcome the New Year by throwing water on each other. Water is the symbol of coolness and cleanliness, and the act of throwing water is to clean all misdeeds or evils of the old year and to welcome the New Year with good resolutions and begin life afresh. There is a belief that Thingyan water brings long life, beauty, prosperity, and authority.
‘Thingyan’ means change; the change from the old year to the new. It is not a religious festival and the word comes from the Sankrist Sakranta, which means a changing over. The tradition comes from Hindi and has been observed in Burma since the Tagaung period, 1588 to 850 BC, and became prominent in the Bagan period, 1044 to 1287 AD. There is a popular belief in Burma that at the time of Thingyan, the king of celestial beings, Thagyamin, comes down to earth to see if people are doing good deeds. He records the names of those who have done good deeds in the gold parchment and the names of the evil doers in the dog skin parchment. The time of day Thagyamin descends to earth is the beginning of the change, and the time of day he returns is the end of Thingyan. The next day is the New Year day.
During the festival time, decorated floats can be seen everywhere in big cities, people singing and dancing on them. There are many centres called Mandat, and they have their own singing and dancing groups, and some participate in water throwing only. One distinct feature is the sound of Thingyan music. It is unique in itself with the beat of the Burmese drum. Thingyan is not only for fun but for merriment as well. Buddhists go to the monasteries, observe precepts or engage in meritorious deeds in accordance with the teachings of Buddha. The water festival is also celebrated in Cambodia, Laos and Thailand.
According to the 2006 Census, there were 12 380 Burma or Myanmar people in Australia, with 70 of them residing in the Northern Territory. Many of them have arrived as humanitarian entrants. There are about 135 ethnic groups in Burma each possessing its own dialect, and distinctive customs and traditions. The Burmese community members in the Northern Territory are from the Karen, Karenni and Burman ethnic groups, and Burmese is the predominant language used in the community in Darwin.
I congratulate Dr Paul Webb, the President of the association, on this special event and give particular mention to Mr George Tint, Treasurer, and Mrs Gwen Daye, Secretary, for all their hard work in putting this festival together and securing funding from the Office of Multicultural Affairs under a Quick Response grant.
Altogether, over 150 friends attended the Burmese New Year Water Festival celebration. Together with Dr Webb and George, I had great pleasure in meeting up with George’s wife, Betty Tint, Dr Ohn Kyaw, Dr June and Nelson Minn, Jey Lamech, Buddhist monk Ven Pannyawarra, Secretary of Buddhist Society, Dr Jeannie Devitt, Society ex-president Ms Audrey Ko, members of the Burmese ethnic communities of Karen, Karenni, Shan, Rakhine, and also members from the Australian, Chinese, Indian, and Vietnamese communities in Australia.
This is what Darwin is all about it. Its multiculturalism is alive and well, and the coming together of so many different cultures to celebrate together is fantastic. It was fantastic there. It was a great group. There were probably over 100 people, with many children really enjoying themselves. The food served was absolutely fantastic, prepared by different families of all the people who attended. I certainly secured a number of recipes on that day to cook some of those delightful dishes myself.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I turn to the issue raised by the member for Araluen. I believe the remarks I made have been taken completely out of context. The statement I made was a purely rhetorical statement not demanding any sort of reply from anyone. That particular question is a well-known artifice amongst legal circles, and is well-known as being a loaded question. It referred to the line of questioning which was being engaged in by the member about the construction and infrastructure around the port. If anyone has taken offence to that, I regret that, but the remark was not directed to any particular person. It was rhetorical question and most people in this place know what a rhetorical question is ...
Ms Carney: The member for Brennan was asking the question and you directed it to him.
Dr BURNS: Do not interrupt; you had your chance. It is a classic loaded question to illustrate the line of questioning.
I believe there is a bit of spin being engaged here, pious wrist wringing and outrage. People should sit down, take a deep breath and just recognise colloquialisms, rhetorical questions, and the use of the English language in a non-offensive way.
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Madam Deputy Speaker, this evening I commemorate the life of a young man from Central Australia, Kwementyaye Ryder, and acknowledge the devastating loss of this son and enormous ongoing grief of his mother, Mrs Therese Ryder.
We have heard a lot about the death of Mr Ryder since the tragic morning of 25 July 2009, but we have not heard much about his life. In Mrs Ryder’s own words to the media outside the court last Friday, and I take this quote from the Alice Springs News:
- There was no story read out about my son. He was a local himself, he was born here in Alice Springs, went to school here, made friends with a lot of white kids. There’s still a lot of friends out there that miss my son as a good mate. And he was also a hard-working man. He was a good young bloke, he never got in trouble with the police in his life before. That’s why I miss him so much, he was the happiest in the family, he brightened up everything for the family.
Now is the time to hear more of the story of Kwementyaye Ryder’s life.
Mr Ryder was born at Alice Springs Hospital on 25 September 1975. He had three brothers and five sisters, and he was Therese Ryder’s second eldest son. Mr Ryder grew up in Alice Springs and attended OLSH Primary School and the Catholic high school. Two of the teachers who knew him well were Nicole Traves and Michael Bowden. Mr Ryder was also a close mate of Michael’s son, Sean Bowden, who referred to him always as a brother. He was a clever student and picked up new ideas quickly. When a conversation stopped he would quickly fill in the gap. In fact, Mr Ryder spoke at least four languages; he was very well spoken in English and Arrernte and could also speak a bit of Anmatjere and Adnyamathanha, the language near Port Augusta. He once surprised family members from South Australia who were visiting Alice Springs by sneaking up behind them and starting to speak in their language. They were amazed to hear it in Alice Springs, until they saw he was the speaker.
Mr Ryder had a keen interest in stock work which he learned on Murray Downs Station with his younger brother. Later, he worked on Idracowra Station and at Amata in South Australia with his brother, Henry Bloomfield. He also worked on a fencing contract near Ti Tree, and the supervising contractor later told the family that Mr Ryder was one of the best workers.
Mr Ryder’s traditional lands included Corroboree Rock, N’Dhala Gorge, Trephina Gorge, and Ross River area. This country, with its great tourist spots, inspired Mr Ryder to train to be a park ranger. He developed good relationships with many Parks and Wildlife rangers, including Graeme Horne, Hugh Woodbury, and Garth Forrester, as he worked and trained in Alice Springs and at Trephina Gorge.
Mr Ryder, with his three brothers, was a long-time Federals Football Club player and supporter. He loved spending time with his family; he could not walk past a family member’s house without stopping and talking for a while. Mr Ryder was devoted to his nieces and nephews and liked to entertain all of the kids. His favourite music was modern country, and he would sing along to Mark Chestnutt, Clint Black and Alan Jackson, to name but a few. He would pick up the words to new songs straightaway, and all of the family would sit and listen to him sing.
Kwementyaye Ryder loved to dress up when he went out on the town. He would dress to the nines in his Western wear, complete with Akubra hat and boots. This is how his fiance, Jade, first met him at Bojangles in Alice Springs. This is how he was pictured in all the newspapers after his death. That same photo shone with his personality; everyone commented that was how they remembered Kwementyaye Ryder - his positive attitude and cheeky sense of humour.
There are no winners in this story, but there is a hero - a forgotten hero. I thank Mrs Therese Ryder, with whom I spent much time over the past month. Therese is the person who has held Alice Springs together during this horrible period. She has been warm, calm, loving, and kind, even when her whole world has been falling apart. Therese has stayed so strong through such a painful time she is an inspiration to all of us.
The grief of a mother who loses a child never goes away. In fact, some days it must seem too much to bear. We, as a community, need to remember this and respect that Mr Ryder’s family and friends are mourning, and will be mourning for a long time.
A mother’s grief is best expressed in her own words. This is how Therese Ryder described it:
- Being a mother, losing a son and going through all this pain is the hardest thing I’ve ever had to go through. I looked into my kids’ future, never thinking that this would happen to one of them. The world just does not seem the same to me and my little family anymore. The boys cry, the girls cry, and the same with me. I just can’t believe that he is not here anymore. I’m still searching for him. I go to families’ houses and expect to find him there. And when he’s not, it is like bumping into a wall or going down a street where there’s no way out. So I sit up all night, crying and saying prayers. I know a couple of other mothers who have lost sons, and I never thought I’d be in the same position as them. I thought my son had a future ahead of him. There is a place in my heart that is no one is going to fill like he did.
Mr Ryder was important to many people: his partner, his family, his friends, his work mates and, of course, his mother. He influenced many people during his lifetime through his consistently positive personality and sense of humour.
Mr Ryder will be sorely missed and I cannot think of his death without a sense of great loss and regret for a life taken too soon.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Deputy Speaker, quite often, we have to stand in this House and raise issues in order to get the Northern Territory government members to get off their backsides to actually do something.
I would like to raise this issue and quote from a Letter to the Editor in last week’s Katherine Times, April 21, titled ‘Where is the report?’:
- I would like to ask the NT government where the reports are for the Katherine ‘Planning for the Future’ Forum held on 28 November 2008?
We were promised the draft report by March 2009 and a final report by July 2009.
Over 60 Katherine people, representing a wide range of industries and business sat in a room for a full day being bombarded by an array of public servants and consultants supposedly developing a document that would take us to 2020.
Issues covered infrastructure, environment, land use, transport, housing, public utilities, etcetera.
Here we are now, 18 months later, with not a piece of paper or report to be seen.
As usual, the NT government is all talk and no action when it comes to anything below the Berrimah Line.
For proof this was not all just a dream, have a look at
Toni Tapp Coutts
I am sure Ms Tapp Coutts will not mind me reading her Letter to the Editor into the Parliamentary Record of this parliament. I do not believe she has been contacted by anyone from the Northern Territory government to acknowledge her letter or her concerns about the fact that, once again, Katherine - and, in fact, for that matter, anywhere below Berrimah or Palmerston, or whatever seems to be the current demarcation line this government likes to work behind - is left languishing without not even a common shred of decency to provide us with simply a report.
At this point, I am not even asking for anything to be done - for goodness sake, not even a copy of a report or anything!
I have a few pages from the website printed today, dated 28 April 2010, the printing date, which talked about, on page 1, Katherine Planning for the Future Forum, issues impacting the future use and development of land in Katherine would be discussed at a forum to be held on 28 November 2008. Another page went on to talk about the program and what activities would be on. It talked about the timetable for the day, starting at 8.30 am going through to 4.30 pm. It has a few questions to start people who went along thinking - and that was 60-odd people from Katherine who came along.
Some of the questions were: ‘What do you consider are the issues for the future growth of Katherine? What are the requirements for future land use? What options do you consider are available? Do you have any suggestions for small changes that may make a big difference?’ Then it goes on another page telling us who was coming along to give presentations. There were guest speakers invited to the forum. They included the Mayor Anne Shepherd; the Director of Water Management, Ian Lancaster; Regional Director for Planning and Infrastructure, Mr Graham Newhouse - that is how long ago this was, Mr Newhouse has now left the Northern Territory government, retired; Project Manager Strategic Planning Department, Del Batten. It talked about another person who was invited along here – now, where is it? Oh, yes, morning tea. There is a page where it said the program after morning tea at 10.45 am was going to be a ministerial address.
I do not know if the ministerial address actually happened, but it would not surprise me that this bloke’s name is all over it, as we have seen many times in the past. If you can point at a Northern Territory government stuff-up, you will find minister Knight, or the member for Daly, Mr Rob Knight MLA listed as giving the ministerial address.
The final page I would like to bring to the attention of the House is called ‘Katherine Planning for the Future Forum Outcomes’. There it is. It says here, and I quote from the web page printed today - Lord knows how many months after this was supposed to be done: ‘The outcomes of the forum will be available on this page after the forum’. Well, I do not suppose this page is lying. ‘The outcomes of the forum will be available on this page after the forum’. No one fully expected the outcomes would be more than 12 months delayed in getting on to this web page.
I encourage the Northern Territory government, whoever has carriage of this matter now - I am assuming they are talking about planning matters, which would probably be the minister for Planning, Infrastructure or Construction, or whatever he is these days - to take a look at the website, take a look the work that has been put in during the course of the future forum, have a look at the submissions which were made by the 60 or so people from Katherine who attended, and have a look at the submissions and the speeches, the presentations that were made by various members of the Northern Territory departments who came along.
For goodness sake, can the government please pass on a report or some kind of document the people of Katherine can hang their hat on and say: ‘Isn’t it nice the Northern Territory government has actually done something for Katherine?’ We know it is a rare occurrence to see anything done - anything around Katherine or anywhere below the Berrimah Line. I wait with bated breath on that topic to see just what the budget might bring to Katherine. I have said to the newspaper in Katherine as recently as the other day I am hopeful Katherine and its region will get a good slice of the budget pie - but to quote what I said, I am not holding my breath.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016