2009-08-20
Madam Speaker Aagaard took the Chair at 10 am.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business)(by leave): Madam Speaker I move the member for Arnhem, Ms McCarthy, be discharged from the service of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, and the member for Arafura, Ms Scrymgour, be appointed instead.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD (Nelson)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I nominate myself as a member of the Standing Orders Committee. I move that I be the Independent member on the Standing Orders Committee.
Motion agreed to.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr McCARTHY (Correctional Services): Madam Speaker, I move the bill be now read a second time.
The bill amends the Prisoners (Interstate Transfer) Act by introducing nationally agreed changes to broaden the range of matters the minister may have regard to when considering a request from a prisoner to be transferred to or from another state or territory.
The bill also makes minor amendments to the principal act to remove all instances of gender specific language and to take account of amendments made to the Interpretation Act.
The Prisoners (Interstate Transfer) Act was introduced in 1983 as part of a national cooperative legislative scheme which permits prisoners to be transferred between participating jurisdictions. The act currently allows transfer for two purposes: to stand trial; or for welfare purposes.
The current terms of the Prisoners (Interstate Transfer) Act allows the minister to consider welfare transfers only in a relatively narrow and unqualified manner. The bill increases the scope of the minister’s discretion to consider broader policy objectives such as the general administration of justice, as well as other important matters such as the prisoner’s safety and the safety of the community in general. Since its introduction in 1983, the Prisoners (Interstate Transfer) Act has resulted in a number of prisoners being transferred from the Territory, and transferred to the Territory.
I take this opportunity to provide members of the House with an explanation of how the current legislation operates. In practice, once a prisoner makes a request, a report would be prepared by a Correctional Services welfare officer detailing the prisoner’s background and antecedents, as well as seeking confirmation of the prisoner’s welfare claims. A recommendation is made to the minister as to whether the request to the corresponding jurisdiction is appropriate. This recommendation can be accompanied by supporting evidence of the prisoner’s claim such as letters from family.
One of the most common reasons for requests for welfare transfer is to be closer to family, children, or aged parents who are unable to visit the prisoner in the Northern Territory. Since July 1995, the Northern Territory has consented to nine prisoner applications to transfer to the Territory, and 52 Northern Territory prisoners have been transferred to other jurisdictions under the welfare provisions of the act. An unforeseen result of the operations of the current Prisoners (Interstate Transfer) Act was prisoners sentenced in the Territory have been transferred to jurisdictions which operate under different guidelines when it comes to the application of parole provisions.
Australia’s juridical systems and legislative framework represent a patchwork quilt - no two are the same. It is because of this I take this opportunity to provide members with a brief picture of how the various jurisdictions operate their parole systems.
South Australia - the parole board consists of six members appointed by the Governor - Correctional Services Act 1982. These include a member of the judiciary; medical practitioners with extensive knowledge of psychiatry; qualified social worker; Indigenous person; a police officer, and one other member. In regard to lifers, the parole board needs to make a unanimous decision to recommend release, and the final decision is made by the Governor on advice from the Executive Council. There is no requirement for a member to be a representative for Victims of Crime, although written submissions from victims are accepted.
Victoria - the parole board consists of community representatives and judicial members. The act indicates a sitting must include a judicial member as the Chair and two community representatives. The board is governed by the Corrections Act 1986. Decisions are made by majority rule, and lifers are assessed as per any other prisoner: according to their needs to minimise the risk of reoffending. There is no requirement for a representative of Victims of Crime to be on the Parole Board; however, they will accept correspondence from victims.
New South Wales - the parole board consists of judicial, community, probation, parole, and police members. In regard to lifers, the decision must be unanimous. There is no requirement for a representative of Victims of Crime, although victims’ submissions are accepted in writing, or sworn in at a public meeting to make a verbal statement.
The Australian Capital Territory - the parole board consists of four members: a Chair who has a legal background, Vice-Chair who is a solicitor, community advocate, and police officer. The ACT will only accept a transfer of a lifer if the parole is already granted in the home state or territory. Decisions do not have to be unanimous as the Chair has the final say. There is no Victims of Crime representative as part of the board; however, submissions are made by the Victim Liaison Officer.
Queensland - the parole board consists of a retired judicial member and five other members which must include departmental, medical, female, and Indigenous representation. Matters are decided by majority vote rather than unanimous. There is no victim representation on the board; however, any information the Chief Executive considers relevant to a parole application, such as information from victims or their representation, and restrictions on offenders in relation to crimes of violence, can be submitted.
Western Australia - the parole board consists of a quorum of three: a judge, a community member, and a departmental representative; there may also be up to five other members. A re-socialisation program, which is approved by the Governor of the prison, is commenced two years prior to a lifer being considered for parole. Transfer will be considered if the home state or territory requests it; however, it is unlikely to be granted.
Tasmania - the parole board consists of three members being present in a sitting. The board is governed by the Correction Act 1997. The Chair must have a legal qualification of at least seven years. There is a requirement to have a representative from Victims of Crime. Victims can make submissions through the Secretary of the Parole Board and are sought in every case.
As you can see, when it comes to the operation of parole boards across Australia, no two operate the same. It is because of this divergence in how parole boards operate the Henderson government has introduced this legislation. The legislation before us today closes a loophole in the current legislation. It allows the minister to take into account other issues and matters when determining whether an application for an interstate transfer should be approved.
Part II of the act covers transfers for welfare purposes. A transfer for welfare purposes may be made at the request of the prisoner concerned, and depends on the minister forming the opinion it is in the interests of the prisoner’s welfare he or she be transferred. The bill amends Part II of the act so the minister’s discretion is not limited only to welfare of the prisoner when considering an application for interstate transfer.
Under the National Cooperative Legislative Scheme, welfare transfers involve a three step process. First, the prisoner makes a request to the minister in his or her home state or territory for a transfer. If the minister is of the opinion the prisoner should be transferred, the minister writes to the corresponding minister in the receiving jurisdiction requesting the minister accept the transfer. The only relevant consideration under the current act is the welfare of the prisoner.
Second, under the corresponding legislation, the receiving minister has the discretion to approve the transfer.
Third, if the minister in the receiving jurisdiction consents to the transfer, the minister making the original request may make an order for transfer. When the prisoner is a federal offender, or a joint state or territory and federal offender, the Commonwealth Attorney-General must also consent to the transfer.
I now turn to the detail of the bill. The heading of Part II is changed from ‘Transfer for prisoner’s welfare’ to ‘Transfer at request of prisoner’. This emphasises the fact the impetus for a transfer comes from the prisoners themselves, and better reflects the prisoner’s own path in the transfer procedures.
Proposed section 9A is inserted to provide a non-exhaustive list of factors which the minister may consider when a prisoner makes a request to be transferred to or from another state or territory.
The bill provides the minister may have regard to the following when considering such a request: the welfare of the prisoner; the administration of justice in the Northern Territory or any other state or territory; the security and good order of any prison in the Northern Territory or any other state or territory; the safe custody of a prisoner; the protection of the community in the Northern Territory or any other state or territory; and any other matter the minister considers relevant.
The bill also provides for an amendment to section 21 of the act, which is in Part IV. The amendment mirrors proposed section 9A. Part IV of the act contains a requirement a minister must, in respect of prisoners who have been transferred to the Northern Territory for trial purposes, transfer those prisoners back to their home jurisdiction if no sentence is imposed in the Northern Territory, or the Northern Territory’s sentence is shorter than the other jurisdiction’s sentence. One of the exceptions to this requirement, which is already contained in section 21, is where the minister receives a request from a prisoner for transfer for welfare purposes. It follows, in these situations, the minister should have regard to the same broader range of factors as will apply where there is a general request for transfer for welfare purposes under Part II.
The current terms of the act allow the minister to consider welfare transfers only in a relatively narrow and unclarified manner. The bill increases the scope of the minister’s discretion to consider broader policy objectives such as the general administration of justice, as well as other important matters such as the prisoner’s safety and the safety of the community in general.
For example, there has been recent media interest in the matter of Jonathan Bakewell. Bakewell was transferred to South Australia under the act; the only relevant consideration for the minister in approving his transfer being the welfare of Bakewell. The High Court has recently held the Northern Territory Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to increase Bakewell’s non-parole period because he is no longer a Northern Territory prisoner but a South Australian one. The proposed amendments mean, in the future, there could be a basis for refusing such an application.
I note all other participating jurisdictions have now amended their legislation in accordance with changes agreed by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, and the Corrective Services Ministers’ Conference. This bill ensures our minister will have the same discretion in considering prisoners’ applications for interstate transfer as corresponding ministers in all the other participating jurisdictions.
I commend the bill to honourable members, and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Year 9 students from Dripstone Middle School, accompanied by Miss Leah Bushell and Mrs Chrissie Battalis. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to establish a new Hospital Boards Act, replacing the now dated Hospital Management Boards Act 1980.
The original act has had minor amendments over the past 29 years. In contrast, approaches to hospital management over this period have seen significant changes nationally. Previous reviews of the act, around 2000, were in regard to national competition policy and in relation to other health legislation. However, a comprehensive review and updating of the purpose, operation, function, governance and powers of the board was warranted, and long overdue.
The Department of Health and Families commissioned the formal review of the Hospital Management Boards Act 1980 by an independent consultant, Health Consult, in 2007. Extensive consultation occurred across the Territory with existing board members, management of the five Northern Territory public hospitals, department of Health and Families management, and other key stakeholders. The review found Northern Territory hospital boards were operating effectively at the Royal Darwin and Alice Springs Hospitals, with strong representation from the local community. Boards in Nhulunbuy, Katherine and Tennant Creek were struggling to maintain adequate community representation, and with their sense of purpose and function. Even though the Royal Darwin and Alice Springs boards were highly functional, they operated with a different understanding of their role. Board members made representations to the minister and senior departmental officers for amendments to the legislation to clarify the role and function of the boards Territory-wide.
It is important to understand this point: legislation governing hospital boards has to be workable for all our hospitals, and relevant to the communities they serve. The review addressed this challenge by acknowledging our towns and communities may be small and widely dispersed but they all contain people who are passionate about the Territory and our lifestyle. These are the people we want to attract to the boards who will be committed to making our hospitals the best they can be for all Territorians, regardless of the location and size of the hospital.
The review considered the existing legislation, and how boards have been able to meet these requirements. Where it was apparent boards had difficulty in complying with the legislation, an analysis was undertaken to explore the reasons for that and options were developed to make the legislation more contemporary and workable.
Under the existing legislation, hospital management boards were required to meet at least monthly. They were responsible for providing the Minister for Health with regular communication about the hospital, and a formal annual report for tabling in this House.
Over the years, the ability of the boards to fulfil these two requirements has proven to be problematic. Boards have not recorded consistent data on hospitals and the operation of the board. The review reported boards required more clarity and guidance about what is expected from their reporting obligations. Since 1982, when annual reports had been provided by Northern Territory hospital boards collectively, the boards have only met the expectation to meet monthly 44% of the time. This issue has been most apparent in the smaller, regional hospitals.
Gove District Hospital has not had a functional board since 2000-01, despite repeated and expensive attempts to recruit community membership over this period, and support for the operation of the board through the hospital management.
Katherine Hospital Board has held a maximum of only seven meetings per year from 2001-02 to 2005-06, and no board has been in operation since then. A similar situation has evolved with the Tennant Creek Hospital Board. In light of these difficulties, significant reform was indicated for the act to provide conditions where the hospital boards can operate and provide an effective governance role to their local hospital.
During the consultation process for the 2007 review, it became apparent there were divergent views about the best way forward for hospital boards. When considering the trend around Australia, the consultants strongly recommended the need to maintain active community participation in the operation of public hospitals, and the need for government to retain control of the management and expenditure of public hospitals.
The chairs of the Alice Springs and Royal Darwin Hospital Boards provided significant input during the period of the review. I commend them for their patience and dedication to seeing the quality of boards across the Territory improve.
Chair of the Royal Darwin Hospital Board, Mr Colin McDonald QC, has made an enormous contribution to the development of this new legislation, bringing his legal expertise and extensive knowledge of the board’s role and function to the fore. He has provided sensible and informed advice about workable solutions for all Northern Territory hospital boards.
The new act provides for each public hospital in the Northern Territory to have a board with membership solely constituted from persons living within the community served by these hospitals. Local community representatives will be sought to provide clear input in the way their hospital delivers services and ensures it is meeting the needs of the community.
The previous act required the senior management group from the hospital to be members of the board. The new act now requires only people independent of the administration of the hospital are to be members. Senior management of the hospital, such as the General Manager, the Director of Medical Services, and the Director of Nursing Services will be required to attend board meetings and provide information. However, the new board will be completely independent of the hospital.
The number of persons required to constitute a hospital board has been reduced from the previously required eight to a more viable and more flexible range, consisting of three to six members. The difficulties experienced by boards over the years in attracting and retaining adequate membership, especially in some of the smaller Territory communities, will be reduced considerably by these changes.
The primary focus for boards in the new legislation has been re-directed away from management-related roles to concentrate on community liaison, consultation and the improvement of service quality. Realistically, this means we are not expecting community board members to have the skills of hospital managers with advanced expertise in clinical services or complex budget management. We are, however, expecting board members to know their community, know how to interact with the community, and provide advice about improving the quality of services patients receive. Hospitals are an integral part of the local community; through this new legislation we aim to strengthen their position by allowing the communities to have a real voice in their hospital.
As mentioned earlier, hospital management personnel are no longer prescribed as members of boards, although they still have responsibility to support and assist board members in carrying out the function of the board. Existing board members have commented adequate administrative support needs to be provided to assist with the operation of the board. By explicitly stating hospital management is responsible to support and assist the board, this administrative role is assured.
The management of public hospitals in the Northern Territory falls under the organisation of the Department of Health and Families, acting on behalf of the Northern Territory government. Staff who work in the hospitals operate under the relevant legislation such as the Public Sector Employment and Management Act, the Financial Management Act, and the Medical Services Act, to name a few. The new Hospital Boards Act makes it clear there must be consistency between the board’s direction and advice, and the current acts governing the public service.
Considering the function to be carried by hospital boards, an increased emphasis in the new act has been placed on board members’ understanding and monitoring the health care standards adopted by Territory hospitals. Board members will not, however, be expected to have technical or expert understanding of health care standards, nor will they be expected to engage professional health surveyors to assist with their monitoring function.
Constituted by members from the local community, boards will have capacity to assess the day-to-day experiences local people have with their hospital services. From their perspectives as ‘sophisticated consumers’, board members will be able to monitor the implementation of health care standards and inspect how these standards are met across the hospital. The new legislation explicitly states boards will have assistance and support to inspect the hospital. They will be able to compare experience and expectations with the accepted standards, and provide advice to hospital management and government about ways to improve the quality and appropriateness of hospital services.
Boards will also provide a mechanism for health professionals to consult with experts in the field of ethics about the increasingly contentious and, often litigious, range of ethical matters that come up in the day-to-day operation of hospitals. And, through their membership of a board subcommittee, these experts will be able to consult frankly and confidently with the understanding this legislation provides them protection from the threat of civil or criminal liability.
Another feature of this legislation is its reinforcement of the local community’s role in contributing to the direction and strategic planning of the hospitals which serve the community. The new act clearly provides for strategic planning as one of the functions prescribed for hospital boards. It also reinforces the capacity of boards to engage with government through their increased contact with the Health minister, and the provision of annual reports to the Legislative Assembly.
Further reinforcing the role of these community boards and their important contribution to the governance of our hospitals, the new act clearly identifies government’s interest in having the boards involved in the selection of key hospital personnel. This will be accomplished through the participation of the board members on the selection committee for members of the hospital’s management group, such as the General Manager of the hospital, the Director of Medical Services, and the Director of Nursing Services. These are all very important positions which have considerable profile within the community, and which should be filled with persons who are compatible with the community and its special needs and priorities. Similarly, these are positions which will also benefit from the support and assistance of the board in advancing the quality initiatives across the hospital and within the community.
Considering the almost 30 years hospital boards have been under the current act, and acknowledging the difficulties experienced by boards in trying to sustain adequate membership, a number of changes have been incorporated into the new act. In addition to the previously mentioned changes to the mandated number of members required to constitute a board, additional administrative flexibility has been provided in the new act to allow for membership to be temporarily suspended until sufficient members can be recruited from the local community. This enables the minister to undertake the board’s function and powers as considered necessary during the period of suspended membership.
It is important to understand the board continues to exist in this situation; only membership is suspended, and this is only until an adequate number – three - members have been obtained. Notices will be advertised in the local community, seeking expressions of interest to recruit new members for the board. Every effort will be made to maintain adequate membership of the boards, and every effort will be made to assist the boards in conducting their function.
Another provision in the new Hospital Boards Act, designed to enable communities to cope with fluctuations in their capacity to provide the membership for a hospital board, is the power to amalgamate the boards of two or more community hospitals into one board, should it be necessary. This should result in a greater critical mass of population and greater potential for the combined communities to sustain enough membership for a hospital board.
Since the commencement of the current act in 1980, the hospitals and the communities they serve have experienced extensive, wide-ranging change. These changes, and the knowledge and experience gained from hospital boards across the Territory, have contributed substantially to the development of this new act. In addition, recognising the contribution of experience and knowledge gained through the administration of the act, it is most important we acknowledge the hard work and overall contributions made by the many Territorians who volunteered to serve on the boards of their community hospitals. The hours of involvement in fundraising activities, long and arduous meetings, contentious agenda matters, and the advice provide to ministers over the years, has been most appreciated.
Government sees this type of involvement by local communities as essential to achieving the best outcomes for the health and wellbeing of Territorians. We acknowledge the time and effort of those volunteers is precious, and there is intense competition out there for the attention of individuals who are able and willing to make this type of contribution.
Let me say this again, and I am sure members will agree: the Territory owes a considerable debt of gratitude to those Territorians who have given their time and effort so selflessly to support their local hospitals.
This bill for a new Hospital Boards Act incorporates the contributions of those who volunteered their time and effort, over almost 30 years, to the hospital boards in operation under the previous act. It also incorporates the knowledge and experience gained by the department of Health and Families through its administration of the act.
Earlier this year, I released a number of major reviews into the operation of the Royal Darwin Hospital. The governance review, conducted by the Australian Council on Health Care Standards, made a number of recommendations on the function and role of the board. The review recommended the board’s role in the governance of the hospital be clarified and communicated widely. Introducing this new legislation is a major step in this process.
The implementation of recommendations from the governance review has commenced with the appointment of the new head of hospitals, Mr Alan Wilson. Mr Wilson is overseeing the expert task force guiding the improvements at Royal Darwin Hospital. Organisations such as the Australian Medical Association are represented on the task force. The task force, with the executive management and clinical team at Royal Darwin Hospital and the Royal Darwin Hospital Board, will steer the RDH in a strategic manner to position it well for the future.
Notwithstanding improvements can be made, Royal Darwin Hospital is a first rate hospital with a very experienced and dynamic team of staff who provide excellent care.
The new bill is important legislation for all our public hospitals across the Territory, encouraging and enabling local communities to become involved with their hospitals to support improvements in the quality and the appropriateness of the services they are providing.
I commend the bill to honourable members, and table the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 17 August 2009.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, it is very interesting that we have students from Dripstone Middle School with us today. I hope you can follow this debate because, in so many ways, it is about young people like you. I do not know your ages, I could hazard a guess, but you may be interested in this debate. This is what we do in this Chamber, in this parliament; we debate laws which we believe are the best laws for the people of the Northern Territory.
The government has introduced a bill which is not, by any measure, as good as it could be. I should say for people subsequently reading the Hansard, I refer to the comments I made when I introduced the opposition’s bill, the Care and Protection of Children Bill, on Tuesday. To some extent, I will be repeating those comments. I also indicate that, after this debate, I will be moving amendments to the government’s bill.
Madam Speaker, in this bill, the government seeks to change section 26(1) of the Care and Protection of Children Act to include that a person must report underage sexual activity on reasonable grounds the child has suffered, or is likely to suffer, harm; or, a child aged less than 14 years has been, or is likely to be, a victim of a sexual offence.
Our issue is: what about children over the age of 14 years but under 16 years? If a person has a belief that a child of 15 years is likely to be a victim of a sexual offence, they are not required to report it. That was not meant to be the case, both in the lead up to the replacement of the Community Welfare Act, and with the introduction of the Care and Protection of Children Act, which had in excess of 300 sections - it was significant legislation. The government now comes to parliament seeking to address what is an unintended consequence which has created confusion in the community about the circumstances in which people are required to report underage sexual activity.
The difficulty with the government’s bill is it prescribes two standards: one for health practitioners; and one for everyone else. In the government’s bill, the reporting obligations are clearly set out: a person is guilty of an offence if the person believes on reasonable grounds any of the following: a child has suffered, or is likely to suffer, harm or exploitation; and, second, if a child of less than 14 years has been, or is likely to be, a victim of a sexual offence. Further down in the government’s bill, it provides that a person is guilty of an offence if that person is a health practitioner, or performs work of a kind that is prescribed by regulation, and if that person believes that a child aged at least 14 years but less than 16 years, has been, or is likely to be, a victim of a sexual offence.
Before getting to the overwhelming inconsistency in the two parts I have just read, I should add elsewhere in the government’s bill there is a reference to section 128 of the Criminal Code that mandatory reporting is also required if a child has been the victim of an offence under section 128 of the Criminal Code. An offence under section 128 of the code is:
As I said on Tuesday, the government has got itself into a position where some people have particular reporting obligations, and others do not. A person who is not a health practitioner does not have to report a child who has been or is likely to be a victim of a sexual offence. That leaves open children between 14 and 16 years. Yet, a health practitioner must make the report. I find it unconscionable and disgraceful that the government would stand by its amendments. I can barely contain my rage.
I note the minister issued a media release on 17 August saying:
Well, you would not have thought it. What balderdash! You say members of the public do not have a reporting obligation for children over 14 and under 16 who are likely to be, or have been, a victim of a sexual offence. How do you people sleep at night? You should be ashamed. This is one of the most disgraceful things I have seen in this parliament.
Presumably, the lame and limp minister with the ability to make decisions – and, by God, she is not very good at making them judging from my dealings with her over the last few days - should have done significantly better with such an important piece of information that has led to much debate in the community, not just amongst health practitioners, but so many others.
The minister may say in her response: ‘No, children between 14 and 16 are protected because members of the public have an obligation to report harm or exploitation’. Harm is defined in section 15 of the Care and Protection of Children Act, and exploitation is defined under section 16. Presumably, the government will run that line and they will expect the media, and others, to believe it. Government will seek to weasel out of its complete abrogation of its responsibility by proceeding with this act, by relying on sections 15 and 16.
Yes, there is that obligation to report, but you have to look at section 15 and section 16 and actually read them. It requires a subjective judgment as to, in the case of section 15, the physical, psychological or emotional wellbeing of the child in terms of exploitation.
A sexual offence, it is clearly understood, will not lead to any confusion. Yet, this government says if a child in the Territory has been or is likely to be a victim of a sexual offence then members of the public should not report it. How utterly extraordinary! I am gobsmacked by the minister’s incompetence. I am gobsmacked that in, arguably, the most interesting two weeks of Northern Territory politics for years, the government might not want to work in a cooperative way.
It is important for me to outline my so-called negotiations with the minister. Earlier this week I said to her I would run dead publicly if she could find a way to encapsulate the bill I introduced on Tuesday into her bill. I would run dead publicly because this is not about politics. She wrung her hands, and kept going around in circles, and then later that day or the next day: ‘Jodeen, I would like a chat’. ‘Yes, okay, let us chat. Let us see what we can do’. So I met with the minister and round and round in circles she went, as usual, and she gave me a list of people and organisations with whom she had consulted in relation to fixing the unintended consequence of section 26 of the Care and Protection of Children Act. It is almost a page long!
The minister has consulted with all and sundry and yet she would propose to continue to consult in a review with this legislation in due course – or in due season, as Kevin Rudd would say. What I say to the minister is: ‘Make a decision and stand by it. Make a decision’. I say to her: ‘Make a decision that, even though we disagree with the wording of the Domestic Violence Act, we, as a parliament, send a strong message to the community that we do not tolerate domestic violence’.
I said to her: ‘This would be in a week where the government has very little in positive publicity; this would be a week where you could actually walk home with something’. When the word cooperation and the Council of Cooperation is being bandied around, would it not be good, in an area such as child protection if we, as a parliament, could say: ‘This is what we all reckon, and we think everyone in the community, not just health practitioners, should have the same reporting obligations. We also think children between 14 and 16 should not be chucked out the window by an incompetent minister in an incompetent government’. Would that not have been good?
But, no, the minister wants to continue to consult, continue to wring her hands, and continue to stand by this notion that a person in the community is guilty of an offence if they believe, on reasonable grounds, a child has suffered harm or is likely to suffer harm, or a child under the age of 14 has been, or is likely to be, a victim of a sexual offence. The minister and government just cannot bring themselves to change that particular section, as in the case of health practitioners in subsection (2) of the bill, from 14 to 16.
How can the government and the minister stand by what can only be described as poor public policy; to have different standards of reporting in relation to child protection? The minister sends out these puffy media releases saying: ‘We care’. Well, you would not have thought it.
I had, yet again, another good look at the Care and Protection of Children Act and after that, frankly, I do not believe the minister understands, unlike her predecessor, the member for Arafura, with whom I worked in a constructive manner. You win some, you lose some. We both did but we reached a reasonable solution and a reasonable outcome - eventually. Not this minister, who prides herself on crossing the floor for McArthur River, regards herself as a woman of principle and integrity. Well, you are not! Shame on you for coming up with this and standing by it. Shame on you!
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Araluen …
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of Government Business, you need to go to your own chair.
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, the member for Araluen well knows she is to direct her comments through the Chair.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Please pause. Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of Year 6 students from Alyangula Area School accompanied by Mrs Clarissa Johnson and Mrs Loraine McCarthy. On behalf of all honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms CARNEY: How nice it is to have young people in the gallery, Madam Speaker.
As I said earlier, in the parliament of the Northern Territory, most of us try our best to produce the very best laws we are able to come up with. The view on this side of the Chamber is people on that side of the Chamber have fallen short - have not gone that extra mile to make it as good as it can be, and as good as it should be, because it is all about the care and protection of children, which is terribly important - not that you would think so from the way the government has gone about this.
In the Care and Protection of Children Act, section 6 refers to a number of principles. Section 7 refers to the responsibility of the Territory government and it says:
The Northern Territory government has a responsibility for promoting and safeguarding the wellbeing of children. We say the government has utterly failed in discharging its own responsibility by pressing on with this bill which is not as good as it could, or should, be.
As I said on Tuesday, the minister received on 17 August - and I was provided with a copy - a letter from the Northern Territory Law Society, an august body. The Law Society said it had received a copy of my bills and said they think my bills are very good; they aim to reduce the unintended harm caused by mandatory reporting of all sexual activity in young people. It went on and described them as positive and appropriate reform.
Everyone knows the government’s bill falls short. What people know - as if they did not know it before - is this government is not only tired and lazy, but arrogant. It does not accept there are other views. This government is turning into everything they said they hated about the CLP in the 1980s and the 1990s; they said they were arrogant, obsessed with themselves, and would not listen to anyone. What have you become? In the face of a preferred view by the Law Society, support from AMSANT and others, the minister just will not bring herself to stretch and accept another point of view.
Last night, in yet another phone call with the wringing-hands minister, she said: ‘We have sent your bill to the Department of Justice. They have some drafting concerns’. She did not tell me what those concerns were. I could put money on the fifth floor saying: ‘Find something. Send it to DOJ. Find something in Carney’s bill - anything will do’. I did say to the minister what she could do, whatever those concerns were, is put Department of Justice people with Parliamentary Counsel this morning. I even offered her the opportunity to bring the bill on later today. It is really important we get it right; everyone can do their best and get the right result. No, not even that was good enough. I genuinely believe the minister is less than bright and incompetent, which is always a fairly dangerous combination in any job, but probably more particularly in politics.
Let us talk briefly about the intervention. As a result of the NT Emergency Response, in recent days we have been talking about housing, a very important issue. However, child abuse was the catalyst, and it underpinned the intervention. When Nanette Rogers was interviewed on Lateline, the whole world went ballistic, it would seem, and everyone was suddenly very interested in child abuse. A couple of years down the track, despite numerous media releases from this government saying, collectively, they care, we now have a bill which just falls short, which does not meet the government’s own responsibility as prescribed by the act by promoting and safeguarding the wellbeing of children, and comes up with two different reporting obligations and, in relation to children who are 14 and 16, who had been or are victims of sexual offences, there is no obligation to make a report. I said it was disgraceful, and I stand by that.
I spoke, of course, with the member for Nelson. Although I disagree, he has done his best. From our discussion this morning, I do not think it is good enough. We spoke in a very frank but polite way; and that is the way it is. I understand the member for Nelson is concerned parents will have to report underage sexual activity. I say to the member for Nelson, and others, the advantage with the bill we proposed, the bill I was happy to give to the minister - with an assurance I would play dead publicly, blah, blah, blah - is that, yes, there is an obligation to report underage sexual activity. However, I proposed that six criteria needed to be met, which would mean people did not need to report - clarity and certainty, given the last six months - which has been required by all and sundry.
As to the minister’s future review of the act, I encourage her to read through all the debates we have had, all the publications from the Department of Health; go back to the original section 26. It was never the intention to provide different reporting obligations in this legislation, and there are good reasons for that. There are good reasons why there should be the same reporting obligations for everyone in the community. Underpinning it is the seriousness with which we, as a parliament, should regard child sexual abuse. Why should we have different people using different standards of reporting? Why is it a medical practitioner will be found guilty if that practitioner does not report a child who he or she believes, on reasonable grounds, has been a victim of sexual offence, if that child is aged between 14 and 16? Yet, someone else in the community does not have that obligation. It is not only a conundrum, it beggars belief. Certainty and clarity are required.
Sadly, we know sexual abuse is, unfortunately, common. Some would say it is also rampant in some bush communities. We have health practitioners and others working in that area who work in the bush. Would you not have thought they would very much appreciate two things: a clear statement from this parliament about the seriousness of child abuse; and the need to protect all children, noting that children are 16 years and younger. Would you not also have thought they would want a very clear set of circumstances or exemptions they could read and understand and know they would not be found guilty if a number of criteria were met?
That is not the situation. I feel very sorry for people looking through the legislation the government has proposed because they will ask: why are there two different standards? Why does a doctor have to report 14 to 16-year-olds, but the chemist, the counsellor, or a mum and dad do not? If I know a child has been a victim of a sexual offence, I would plan on telling authorities. The message the minister wants to send is: you do not need to worry about that unless you are a health practitioner. What a lame message; what a stupid message. The intervention is all about looking after the children - you would not think so.
To her great credit, the member for Macdonnell came out very strongly after the intervention saying it was good for her people. I remember reading a newspaper article in the Alice Springs News to that effect. It was great to see. I have spoken with the member for Macdonnell because she is the second of two Independents. She understands the logic behind coming up with a solution which is going to be meaningful and clearly understood by everyone, and is not going to send a conflicting message to the community. I look forward to her support.
In relation to the member for Nelson, both sides of the political aisle agree there is to be reporting of underage sex, but a person should not be guilty of an offence if the criteria contained in the opposition’s bill, introduced on Tuesday, are met; so there is that flexibility.
I am really disgusted at the way the minister has conducted herself. No wonder your government is not getting anything done. No wonder you finished at 4.05 pm yesterday. No wonder the day before there were only six or seven items on the Notice Paper. You have run out of puff; you got up and went. This talk about ‘we could not do this, we have to do this’ – make a decision; that is what you are paid for. You are happy to take the money, but you are gutless, because the minister fails to make a decision. Four days of hand wringing; we could have this done and dusted. Half-and-hour or so ago she said: ‘No, we cannot do that’, despite being given numerous alternatives, numerous ways, and political advice from me saying this is how your government can look good and we can all work together on this.
The minister speaks with forked tongue - she says let us all work together and, then, no. I do not hold out any hope because this minister has form. She comes up, she touches me on the arm and says: ‘We would really like to work together with you on this’. I do not think we have actually worked together on anything. The minister is not a person who is inclusive; she is not a person who wants to work with anyone. She is, obviously, so incompetent other people make decisions for her. They must, because if the minister was half smart she would know what AMSANT was saying, she would understand what the Law Society was saying, she would give effect to the responsibility of the Northern Territory government as outlined in legislation. She would not sanction a situation where children between 14 and 16 years are left out in the cold in the general public, unlike those same children in respect to health practitioners. It is bad public policy and it does not make any sense.
You are on notice, minister: I am chasing you. I am going to chase you now. I always thought you were half decent …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member well knows she needs to address her remarks through the Chair.
Ms CARNEY: Through you, Madam Speaker, I have always given the minister the benefit of the doubt. I always had a hunch she was not quite up to it. The last few days have certainly confirmed with me that she just is not. How can you be the Minister for Child Protection and come up with a bill like this when faced with credible and sensible alternatives? I have worked very hard on trying my best to persuade her it is the right alternative, when she knows it is the right alternative.
You take your knocks, but this minister is now in my sights. I cannot fathom such incompetence, such a lack of care about doing her job well. She has failed already in relation to child protection. We saw her appalling contributions during estimates. This is clearly not a person who is across her portfolios.
At the end of this debate I will move amendments. I do not expect those amendments to succeed, but my conscience dictates I must move those amendments. I know the parliament well; I know what is going to happen but, unlike the minister, I really enjoy having a very good sleep, and I plan on having one tonight.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I have to say that was one of the more disgraceful things I have witnessed in the Chamber. The shadow spokesperson directed her entire speech to a personal attack on a minister. Where is the substance in that contribution? The allegations bandied across the Chamber, that this government does not care about protecting children and has left 14- to 16-year-olds out in the cold, are pure nonsense. They are ridiculous and absurd.
This government undertook the most comprehensive reform for the care and protection of children across the Territory; a reform that had been wanting for two decades. This government put the effort and the resources into the reform; importantly, the legislative reform, which is the Care and Protection of Children Act for which we have an amendment before us to debate, but also reform in terms of the resources on the ground to provide the practitioners to care and provide for the protection of children. You cannot do one without the other.
We have quadrupled the child protection budget. What does that mean in a practical sense? That means there are qualified child protection workers to make the critically important professional assessments about whether a child is at risk. We took that a step further in reforms; we put together the child protection workers, the highest technical workers, with police and created CAT Force. CAT Force exists in the Top End, and in Central Australia. They are the front line in terms of making professional risk assessments about whether a child is at risk.
To accuse this government of not caring about children beggars the reality. If you do the hard yards and reform the legislation, which this government has done, then equally you do the hard yards and put resources into the front line, which this government has done. What is important in this picture is we also support families on the ground; we support the families to provide for a nurturing environment for children. We are also doing that. We are extending those support services beyond the urban environment where they only existed in the past, into the regions and, importantly, into the remote communities where they are needed most. We have paid child protection support workers in remote regions. We started with a trial at Maningrida but, under this minister, we are rolling it out across the remote areas. To say this government does not care about children because we have a disagreement in the Chamber today on the proposed amendments is purely absurd.
A large part of the shadow minister’s argument was this Minister for Child Protection does not listen. I will show the amendments brought to the Chamber by this minister are a direct consequence of her listening to a broad spectrum of people - parents, medical practitioners and the legal profession.
That disgraceful display by the member for Araluen was about her not getting her way and therefore it is all off. Unbelievable! And the vitriol of: ‘I will chase after you, I will get you’. What a disgrace!
She accused our minister of not listening to views. In fact, the amendments before the Chamber today are all about the effort the Minister for Child Protection has made to listen to the views of a broad range of people from different perspectives, to bring forward this amendment. As a government we have always said our reforms in care and protection, particularly those legislative reforms, were so significant and so broad-ranging that we would listen to people about how those reforms were implemented.
I believe a bit of hysteria was whipped up, by the CLP, around the reporting of teenagers having consensual sex. Those of us who actually understand the system understand the frontline workers in the Child Abuse Task Force - a combination of professional child protection workers and police - would not pursue prosecutions for those between the ages of 14 and 16 having consensual sex. But, no, no. Hysteria had to be whipped up by the CLP, which is why we have this amendment in the Chamber today. We recognise …
Mr Conlan: You are a grub – an absolute grub!
Ms LAWRIE: … they ran a good campaign on hysteria. That is what they do – fear and loathing ...
Mr Conlan: Absolute grub. As if we would use that to whip up hysteria.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Greatorex!
Mr Conlan: It is disgusting, listening to her.
Ms LAWRIE: We listened and recognised there was community concern, and the minister engaged in a series of discussions, meetings, and considerations about how to strike the balance between protecting children who are actually being abused, and not hurting teenagers aged 14 to 16 who are engaged in consensual sexual activity. We do not want them to peel away from the medical fraternity, so they get the appropriate professional advice and support. We also do not want to put parents in the predicament of being in breach of a law if they are aware their teenager between 14 and 16 is engaged in consensual sexual activity with someone within two years of their age grouping.
We looked at this very carefully. I know because I am the Attorney-General and I made every resource available to the Minister for Child Protection in looking at the legalities and how we move on this. We looked at New South Wales, which dealt with the age bracket within two years. We tested the workability of that in New South Wales. The feedback was positive. This is very difficult - is it 18 months, is it two years? We had to find a way to describe the age relationship between those teenagers.
However, we are not saying this will cover every situation that may arise. The law, by its nature, is never able to do that perfectly. What we are saying is this is a fair and right balance between protecting teenagers from predators, which we are genuinely doing and still exists when this amendment goes through - but also understanding, whether we like it or not as parents, and I am a parent and I have a teenager - some teenagers engage in consensual sexual activity. We have drawn a line which is genuinely agreed in this Chamber - 14 years and above. In terms of FACS, we do not believe children under 14 have the maturity to make those decisions. However, we recognise, particularly in the Territory, we have children from a broad range of cultures and, in some cultures, they are deemed to be old enough to have what we would normally see as adult consensual relationships. We recognise there are cultural realities in the Territory to deal with those 14- to 16-year-olds who may, in their culture, be deemed old enough ...
Mr Conlan: That is just a load of rubbish. You are an absolute grub. That is disgraceful, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, I ask you to withdraw that comment, thank you.
Mr Conlan: I will withdraw it. I will withdraw myself; I cannot listen to this crap.
Ms LAWRIE: I have not referred to which culture, and isn’t it funny how they assume the culture I am referring to. I sit in a very diverse electorate in the seat of Karama. There is an assumption made on that side of the Chamber about which culture I am referring to. What a ridiculous way they behave.
We have had mandatory reporting of child abuse for some time in the Northern Territory and, hopefully, all of us would say rightly so. However, mandatory reporting does not just relate to sexual abuse, but to any abuse and any neglect. The main purpose of having mandatory reporting is to increase reporting, to raise awareness that child abuse must not be tolerated, not in any circumstances, and anyone who witnesses it should speak up.
We also have legislation, the Criminal Code, which makes it clear a child under the age of 16 is unable to consent to sexual activity. We are not proposing to change that. We are not proposing to change the age of consent. We know the Little Children are Sacred Report clearly outlines that underage sex involving children aged 13 to 16 was of great concern and needed to be addressed. The inquiry found that: ‘Unchecked sexualised youth are more vulnerable to becoming victims or offenders of sexual abuse’.
The government introduced the Care and Protection of Children Act to ensure reporting levels increase, and any potential cases of child sexual abuse are dealt with. We recognise this is difficult legislation. We need to get the balance right, ensuring children who engage in underage sex feel able to come forward to receive medical attention - that is why we are focused on medical practitioners - and we are able to assess whether that underage sex is abusive, or clearly having a detrimental effect on the child.
Often this latter aspect requires an intervention against the will of the child. It is important to explain the legalities of this situation and the relationship between the provisions in the Care and Protection of Children Act and the Criminal Code. Section 127 of the Criminal Code provides it is an offence to have sexual intercourse or commit any act of gross indecency upon a child who is under the age of 16 years. By making such acts an offence, this provision in the Criminal Code intends to protect children under 16 from harm and exploitation. Section 26 of the Care and Protection of Children Act supports this intention by establishing an obligation to report sexual offences in certain circumstances. It does not change the status of a child being a victim of a sexual offence but, rather, it encourages people to take note and to act where children are at risk of harm because they are the victim of a sexual offence. It is aimed at protecting children and preventing harm.
Under common law, there is no obligation to report offences. The only way a person can be obliged to report an offence is by mandating a requirement to report through legislation. The act we passed in 2007 maintained the universal mandatory reporting of suspected child abuse and neglect of both harm and exploitation. Such a responsibility to report encourages change in the community attitude to sexual offences and to take action. Similar to the obligation to reporting domestic violence, the obligation to report aims to give voice to the victims of abuse who are often disempowered by the actions of the abuser and are not in a position, or not able, to take action themselves.
In looking at the act as a whole, the statutory child protection activity within the act ensures a broader range of responses are allowed to report about a child believed to be suffering harm or in need of protection, or where there is a concern about a child’s wellbeing; make inquiries and conduct investigations; coordinate assistance and arrange a mediation conference; take a child into provisional protection or temporary custody; apply for an assessment and/or protection order of placed children; and monitor and review their care.
The bill proposes to amend the reporting obligation to clarify the circumstances where reporting is required. The amendment recognises the reality that a child aged 14 to 16 may be consensually sexually active with a child of a similar age, for example, a 15-year-old boy who engages in sexual conduct with his 14-year-old girlfriend. The current position in the NT is that, where a 15-year-old boy and his 14-year-old girlfriend engage in consensual sex, a prosecution of a 15-year-old boy would depend on prosecutorial discretion. There is often no public interest in the prosecution of a child, especially in a case like this where the 14-year-old girlfriend is probably also committing an offence.
In the act, sexual intercourse with a child under 16 years is an offence. Under the Criminal Code the amendment clarifies a health practitioner is only required to report in circumstances where it is believed there is harm, or where the age difference is greater than two years. If the child is at least 14 years of age, and the age difference is less than two years, and there is no belief that harm is occurring, then there is no requirement to report the offence.
I understand the intent of amendments proposed by the opposition. However, I believe the bill as it stands provides a clearer, more robust legislative framework in relation to the responsibilities of a parent of a child aged 14 or 15 years who suspects their child may be sexually active.
The Minister for Children and Families conducted extensive consultations with stakeholders on the government’s bill, listening and talking with key stakeholders to achieve what we believe is a working balance between the protection of children from harm and exploitation, and the reality that children under 16 years do engage is consensual sexual activity.
It is important to ensure young people feel confident they can seek out adequate medical, physiological, and other support services they require for their sexual health.
The stakeholders variously advise they believe the government’s bill would be effective, and strikes the balance.
A working group was formed which comprised representatives of the Northern Territory Police; the Department of Health and Families; representatives of a coalition of community groups called the Really Caring for Kids Coalition, which represents 17 organisations; the Aboriginal Medical Services Alliance of the Northern Territory, AMSANT; the Australian College of Rural and Remote Medicine; the Australian General Practice Network; the Australian Medical Association; the Australian Nursing Federation; the Council of Remote Area Nurses of Australia; Family Planning Welfare Association of the Northern Territory; General Practice Network Northern Territory; Law Society Northern Territory; National Centre for HIV Epidemiology in Clinic Research; NAAJA; Public Health Association of the Northern Territory; Royal Australian College of General Practitioners; Royal Australian College of Physicians; Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists; Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, Northern Territory Branch; and Services for Rural and Remote Allied Health. It is a very broad, very professional, representative coalition.
The working group was able to agree on an approach to amend the act which it considers would effectively address the community concerns whilst still retaining the object of the legislation - to protect children from harm and exploitation. The approach this government has taken was recommended by the working group, and it is reflected in the government’s bill.
Under the government’s bill, and the opposition’s proposed amendments, everyone is still required to report harm or exploitation of children of any age. The differences occur where there is a sexual offence which is not regarded as harmful or exploitative for the age group 14 to 16 years. The government bill before us today reduces reporting requirements by relieving persons of the obligation to report sexual offences in certain circumstances. It does not change the status of the child being a victim of a sexual offence per se. Parents, extended family, friends, and other members of the community are only required to report a reasonable belief that a sexual offence has occurred where the victim is under the age of 14 years, or where a relationship of special care exists between the young person and the adult committing the sexual offence. Health practitioners, and persons determined by regulation will need to make additional considerations, giving them that all-important higher test.
The opposition amendments bring in more onerous reporting obligations. For example, a parent whose 14-year-old daughter is having consensual sex with her 16-year-old boyfriend would have to report, under the opposition amendments, but not under the government’s proposed bill. That is, essentially, the difference between the two in this debate.
I have advice from the Department of Justice the opposition’s proposed amendments are basically less workable, are confusing and introduce new terminology which will likely result in further confusion in the obligation to report. The legal advice I have received on these opposition amendments is: it is misleading and confusing to describe the relevant child as being, quote: ‘not the victim of a sexual offence’.
The government bill, as it stands, relieves persons of the obligation to report sexual offences in certain circumstances. It has not changed the status of a child being a victim of a sexual offence per se, and the opposition’s amendments seek to change the status of the victim in this legislation, which may confuse the obligation to report the commission of a sexual offence.
I believe all of us find this debate incredibly vexing; all of us want to ensure the protection of our children. The actions of this government show we are fair dinkum about that. We have reformed, most comprehensively, the legislation for the care and protection of our children.
We quadrupled the budget which deals with the protection of our children. We have put together a workable, operational task force, the CAT Force, with child protection workers sitting alongside police. I have been out there and the information they share is critical for professional assessments of risk, harm, and exploitation. We are seeing people charged, brought before our courts and gaoled as a result of these resources going into this area. We are genuine about protecting our children from harm and exploitation.
At the same time, we recognise and listen to community concerns about the activity of teenagers in those crucial years 14 to 16. You heard the list of organisations the minister engaged with in consultation and discussions; significant professionals who all agreed on the approach the government has brought before the Chamber in the amendment to this bill today.
The shadow spokesperson claims the minister does not listen to views. Well, she is wrong; she is absolutely wrong. We are here today with this bill amending the Care and Protection of Children Act because the minister listens to views of the coalition, of the professionals, of the parents - and she has struck the right balance.
The amendments proposed by the shadow spokesperson are flawed. They raise real workability issues, they add to confusion. I have the legal advice and I will back the Legal Policy Section of the Department of Justice any day over the member for Araluen ...
Mr Elferink: What about the Law Society?
Ms LAWRIE: The Law Society also believes the bill before us today gets it right.
So, on every objective assessment, what we have before us today, in terms of the bill, has been tested, has been consulted, and strikes the right balance. We will continue as a government to do whatever it takes to protect the children of the Northern Territory.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to the House.
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I congratulate the minister for Families for bringing this bill forward. At the same time, I congratulate the shadow spokesperson whose passion for this area is known in the House.
This is not about whether the government’s bill is better than the bill the shadow spokesperson has brought forward to this House; at the end of the day this is about the protection of our children, the most vulnerable children in the Northern Territory, who are our future.
The Deputy Chief Minister said we should not bring politics into it, yet she is the first one to bring politics into it by saying that funding has quadrupled since the Labor government came in. It had to, because many thousands of children are being born in the Northern Territory. Of course, the money has to increase, Deputy Chief Minister.
In supporting this bill I have made it known to my former colleague, the Minister for Children and Families, that I would like some type of education strategy to be put in place, some media strategy, so people in the bush are educated and know what is going on and that these changes are happening. We always seem to be moving the goal posts, and people in the bush really do not know what is going on. We have had the intervention now for two years, and under the intervention it is mandatory to report any kind of child abuse and child sexual abuse. I am concerned people out there do not get the right information. I put that view to the Minister for Children and Families, and I am not at all doubtful the minister will take that into consideration. We know the hardship people have outside hub towns like Darwin, Tennant Creek, Alice Springs, and Katherine, getting information that is so vital in bringing communities together and allowing families to move forward their family and their children, knowing very well there are these laws in place.
The shadow spokesperson does not bring many things forward to this House. She is very passionate about this issue and we have seen it in this House. We have seen her perform publicly outside this House with compassion and passion for protecting children. That is what she loves doing - the protection of children.
Of course, we will have little political fights like that in this House. This House is known as the Chamber of Clowns now, and we are all referred to as the clowns of Territory politics. But we have to go further and beyond our politics in this. It is not whether your politics is better than the politics of this side of the House; we are dealing with the most vulnerable children. This is the future generation of our Territory, and it is about moving the Territory forward, to have the best children we can have – children who are educated and healthy, and who have not been abused. We know children who are being abused are not going to be educated properly and they are not going to be healthy, because they keep that stored at the back of their mind.
I congratulate the minister and take this opportunity to say it would be really good if we can get some media strategies together to ensure it gets on the ground to our people.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, what more important bill could you have than one relating to the care of young children? That is the issue we have before us today.
I should say at the outset I understand this bill had to be brought forward as a matter of urgency, and the first time I have seen either the proposed bill or the member for Araluen’s amendments was this week. I thank the member for Araluen for bringing this forward for debate today.
I have struggled with this because I am not a lawyer; I am a dad. This is a very serious issue I have spent hours and hours working on; last night I was still working on it and, in fact, this morning I was having another go at it. I have taken a whole series of matters into consideration.
There is the legal side of what we are doing, and also the parental side - how we would react as parents in circumstances we may not morally agree with but would have to make a decision on. Whether the changes being put forward are going to make the decision we would have to make as parents more difficult than it should be, or if it puts restrictions on us that are unnecessary. In other words, do we use common sense when it comes to these particular matters?
We also have to look at the reasons for the bill. The bill was brought forward to encourage young children in the age bracket, and that is what we are really talking about - it is a very small time frame of ages, 14 and 15 - who may be having sexual activity to go to their GP or health practitioner to get information regarding sexual education without fear of being reported. That is a very fine balance, as people would know, and what makes this legislation so difficult. I do not believe anyone here is encouraging people under the age of 16 to be having sex, but the facts are people do have sex, and we have to deal with the situation as it is, not as we might think it should be, and so we have come forward with these bills.
I have been trying to do what research I can, but there are two letters - and I know the member for Araluen calls it the ‘august’ Law Society - I suppose if you were a lawyer you would call it that, but there are two letters, both supporting the government’s amendments ...
Ms Carney: And one is later than the other.
Mr WOOD: That is right; one is later than the other. We have two letters from the Law Society both supporting what is being put forward. If you are trying to make my life hard, the stuff in there is starting to make it hard.
I have gone through this bill, piece by piece, word by word, and had a look at it as best I can. It seems to me the crunch comes in relation to a couple of issues. One is what the member for Araluen is concerned about, and it is a fair concern: there is no reporting required for someone who is a victim of sexual offence in the age bracket 14 to 15. This is where it gets a little difficult. On the one hand, the member for Araluen says if we stick within these guidelines, then it is not necessary. On the other hand, when you read the bill, there are requirements. You are not exempt from reporting an offence if there are other matters that have to be taken into consideration. And those matters, are in section 26(1)(a):
The way I see it, we are not supporting someone having sexual intercourse at this age. We are allowing parents to sort that out - and this is the area that concerns me - because there is a blanket requirement by the member for Araluen that all people report, and I understand that. But in this allowing of what I call a commonsense approach, it is not so much the act of sexual intercourse or sexual relationship, or even touching, that we are necessarily concerned about. As a dad, I would be concerned about it but, from the point of view of the law, what we worry about are the bits that could hang onto that, in the form of sexual abuse, exploitation of a child, any sort of physical violence if that was used in pornographic material, or prostitution was involved.
There are matters which are covered. This is the definition of sexual offence:
That is the offence. Bear in mind we are encouraging children in this particular age bracket to go to a health practitioner if they need to, the act does say you must report matters of harm or exploitation. So, I have taken the harm or exploitation sections of the definition of sexual offence and say: that is covered.
I will not get on to people who are employed, like teachers; what we are allowing is in relation to parents. I am trying to put myself in a position where if I knew my daughter or son was having sexual intercourse, or sexual penetration, or a sexual relationship, or even indecent touching - not assault - I would not want to be compelled to report that to an authority. As a parent I would sort that out myself. As much as I would not be pleased with it, I would try to deal with it as a loving parent, even though it might hurt. I would try to sort it out that way. That is why it is difficult; we have to find a legalistic approach to something that requires humanity and love you hope parents would give to their children. So, I prefer what the government is putting forward as it gives more flexibility to a parent making these judgments.
If my daughter was being bashed, came home with bruises; if I knew her photograph had been taken and put on the Internet; if she had psychological problems from what was happening, of course I would report that. The way I read this act - although it is not the clearest bit of legal jargon in the world - when you come to the review, I believe you need someone from the layman’s point of view to have a look at it and see if it is understood.
It has taken me a great effort to grasp the issues; you have so many definitions here. If you want some drafting - please put all the definitions in the one bill so I do not have to go to the Criminal Code, to the Care and Protection of Children Act which refers to the Sexual Offence Evidence and Procedure Act - that makes it pretty hard for someone. It is hard enough for me having to deal with this in parliament, but imagine if a parent just wanted to check the law; they would immediately understand why lawyers make so much money - they spend a lot of time trying to find out where they have put all these things.
I need to make this clear: I thank the member for Araluen very much for working through this. I know she has a different opinion to mine. She has given me a number of briefings, and I appreciate that very much. She will realise it is very hard for me to make a decision one way or the other, but I have taken a decision based on what I believe is a mixture of the legal, plus the human side. Putting those together, I believe the government’s amendments are the best ones. But I will also be keeping an eye on comments; I know the government is talking about putting certain employment classifications into the regulation and before that happens, teachers, and whoever else might be involved, need to have adequate time to discuss these proposals.
I am interested to see what comes out of the review. I hope the review comes back to parliament so we can all have a look at the comments. Some of the comments the member for Araluen made may be included in a new bill, if that is what comes out of the review.
I reiterate this is a very serious matter. I prefer it was not political at all. What I would like is not so much a conscience vote but, especially members of parliament who have children, to be able to get up here without the trappings of their parties, and just say, as parents, what you think about this bill. Do you think it gives fair protection, if these are your children we are talking about? I believe that would make for a far better debate; I do not want to hear yelling and arguing - it is too serious a matter for that.
Let us work towards what is better for the kids. We all have different opinions, but we will have time to review it in the future, so there is a chance for those opinions to be heard or brought back at a later date.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Speaker, as the minister has set out so eloquently we all want the best possible protection for our children, and this protection and care of our children should be above politics. It is our responsibility as parents. It comes first, before our responsibility as politicians.
We take the policy direction in this legislation very seriously, and this is why we have spent so much time getting it right. This bill amends the Care and Protection of Children Act; the amendments centre on section 26 which sets out the mandatory obligations which require all Territorians to report suspected or actual harm or exploitation of our children. We are all aware this section has attracted controversy since its commencement in December 2008, and we accept that. I have personally received hundreds of e-mails from people, I have met with people, I met with the AMA, and there was criticism about this particular act.
The current provision makes it an offence to fail to report the reasonable belief that a child has suffered, or is likely to suffer, harm or exploitation, or is a victim of a sexual offence. It is the primary function of section 26 of the act to ensure that any person who reasonably believes that a child has been harmed or exploited must report those concerns. I have to say, I do not need any legislation to report these kinds of activities. As a human being, if I become aware something like that is happening, my own humanity will come before any legislation, and I will definitely report it.
The form of harm that can occur includes physical violence, emotional abuse, neglect, maltreatment and sexual abuse. They are all reportable under section 26. It is a fact of our society that we protect those most exposed to potential harm. Sadly, as we see too often, children are very susceptible to exploitation; this is why we choose to act. We recognise it is a very complex area and we are dealing with complex issues facing families and children. We know it is difficult, but that does not mean we should not act.
Some members of the community have concerns about mandatory reporting requirements relating to children and sexual offences. As I said before, I have met with representative groups like the Australian Medical Association and AMSANT about their concerns. The government has great respect for their concerns and has tried to accommodate their views in these changes. A sexual offence may comprise a number of different crimes, many of which can be committed against both adults and children. It is also important to note some sexual offences specified are directed toward protecting children from sexual predators.
Most people in our community are aware it is unlawful to engage in sexual intercourse with a child under the age of 16. Our society believes children are not equipped, either physically or psychologically, to deal with the complex issues which can arise through a sexual relationship; but in parallel with that view, the government also recognises many adolescents under the age of 16 years, the legal age of consent, engage in sexual activity.
Only yesterday, I became aware more than 50% of children under 15 years in my country of birth have had a sexual experience - something that was unheard of when I was growing up in Greece. It was something that would not be tolerated by the families, and I am sure it is still not tolerated. The harsh reality is kids try to become adults before their time and, in many cases, they do it before they turn 15 or 16 years.
It is this knowledge that kids have sex under the age of 16 that has brought about government’s decision to review this section of the Care and Protection of Children Act. As I have stressed previously, and because of the complex nature of human relationships, these changes seek balance between the need to protect our children from all types of harm and exploitation with a need to ensure young people feel comfortable in seeking medical, psychological and other support services they require in relation to their sexual health.
In my own experience, with a wife who teaches in a high school in Darwin, in my contact with teachers and nurses, I have found, especially nurses expressing concern that children will not go to a nurse to seek information for sexually transmitted diseases or even contraception.
It is important to realise this bill does not remove mandatory reporting obligations on all people in the Northern Territory to report to the Department of Health and Families or police any reasonable belief that a child has suffered, or is likely to suffer, harm or exploitation. This obligation is mandatory and failure to report carries a significant fine.
Because of the significant legal issues that could surround this legislation, it is my intention to reiterate what the minister just said. She stated in her second reading speech:
Further the minister noted:
Madam Speaker, as a parent like you with a young child 15-years-old, I do not care what the legislation says. There is no way I would report my son if he is in a sexual relationship. I would guide him; I would provide correct information about welfare, health, and his emotional state. I would only take action if my son was sexually abused or if there was a significant difference in age between him and his partner. I do not care what the legislation says, and I do not believe any of you here would report your son or daughter if there was a love relation between them and another person of a similar age.
Parents, extended family, friends and other members of the community are still required to report a reasonable belief of sexual offences, including underage sex where the victim of sexual offence is under the age of 14 years, or where a relationship of special care exists between the young person and the adult committing the sexual offence.
We must continue to stress that, regardless of changes to this legislation, we are still required to report harm or exploitation of children of any age. The minister has outlined ways people can find out more about the reporting obligations, and how they can make a report to police or the Department of Health and Families. The Department of Health and Families has been working on a series of guidelines for health practitioners, people who work with children, or who work in or operate child-related services. This will be delivered across the Territory and will be supported by education and training programs. Information about the legislative changes will also be available to the public through the department’s website, community health centres, hospitals and other government offices.
Health practitioners will receive written advice explaining the changes to this very important law. Importantly, written advice will also be sent to schools, non-government organisations, private service providers and peak body organisations, in particular, youth-focused organisations.
The matters outlined in this bill are complex and making these changes to get the balance right has required a great deal of effort. I thank the minister for her advice, and the agency officials who deserve significant acknowledgment for their work and for their input into these changes.
Madam Speaker, as I said at the beginning, this is not about politics. This is about the safety of our children.
Debate suspended.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Years 7 to 11 Katherine High School, Stronger Smarter Sisters Program students, accompanied by Mr Stephen Margetts. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Continued from earlier this day.
Dr BURNS (Business): Madam Speaker, this bill is a very important and serious bill which deals with a very sensitive matter - the care and protection of children. For all of us who are parents, or in families with children, that is certainly our aim, and a very important aim in our society. The purpose of this bill is to amend section 26 of the Care and Protection of Children Act, which contains obligations for members of the community to report a reasonable belief that a child has or is likely to suffer harm or exploitation.
As we are aware, harm or exploitation can take many forms. It can be physical, emotional, and - as has been discussed here today - also include sexual harm and exploitation. It is important we bear this in mind when discussing these amendments. While they do focus largely on reporting obligations when a person forms a reasonable belief that a child has been or is likely to be the victim of a sexual offence, the amendments also clearly state that mandatory reporting obligations still exist when a person forms a reasonable belief that other types of harm or exploitation are occurring.
There has been some discussion from the member for Araluen that there should be an amendment to the Criminal Code. I believe it is important all members remain mindful of the fact this bill does not change, as it is being proposed by the member for Arnhem, any of the offences in the Criminal Code; and it remains unlawful to engage in sexual activity with a child under the age of 16 years. That is very important to remember.
There has been much talk about consultation. The member for Karama detailed the type of consultation which has been undertaken by the member for Arnhem on this particular matter. There has been extensive consultation with community members and professionals. Some of the organisations consulted in relation to these amendments include the Law Society, and I was interested to hear the member for Nelson talk about this. There are actually two letters before this House, both opinions by the Law Society in relation to the bills and both appearing to give a tick to both bills. I believe you could argue until the cows come home about which is the better bill, but the Law Society has written two separate letters on this issue.
Other organisations consulted are: the Youth Justice Advisory Council; the Youth Round Table; NT Families and Children Advisory Council; the Really Caring for Kids Coalition, a wide-ranging coalition made up of the Australian College of Rural and Remote Medicine; the Australian General Practice Network; the Australian Medical Association; the Australian Nursing Federation; Council of Remote Area Nurses of Australia; Family Planning Welfare Association of the Northern Territory; General Practice Network Northern Territory - I have already mentioned the Law Society as part of this - the National Centre of Ethics; HID Epidemiology and Clinical Research; North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency; Public Health Association of the Northern Territory; Royal Australian College of General Practitioners; Royal Australian College of Physicians; Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists; Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, Northern Territory Branch; Services for Rural and Remote Allied Health; and the Aboriginal Medical Services Alliance of the Northern Territory.
By any estimation this is a very extensive group; primarily people involved in the health sector. I know many of the people who represent these organisations and many of them have spent a long time in the Northern Territory, and all of them are absolutely committed to the welfare of all Territorians but, of course, children in particular. It is important they were consulted because, as the minister said in her second reading speech, and the member for Karama, it is these health staff who are actually the frontline staff who deal with many of these issues and come into contact with young people who have problems in these particular areas; and it is very important they be involved.
A comment was made regarding why health practitioners and those involved in these sectors have special reporting obligations over and above other people have in the Northern Territory. The minister has made it very plain that she intends to continue consultation with other groups which may be brought into this form of reporting, and she wants to do that properly. Here is a minister who is very systematic and very sincere in her approach and wants to do the right thing.
Taking a step at a time, I believe, is the right way to go and starting with health practitioners is certainly the right way to go. Health practitioners have special obligations in reporting a whole range of infectious diseases, and special obligations under the Mental Health Act. Our medical and other practitioners, and nurses, have very special obligations beyond other community members. It is quite appropriate to start with the health practitioners. Many young people who are experiencing difficulties will come into contact with one or more of these health practitioners. That is a very important element.
The other important element the minister has introduced in her amendments to the act is about the two-year age difference. I feel there is a quite strong consensus about that, and that is very important. I was also in agreement with what the members for Nelson and Casuarina said; there is another important group - family and parents.
The member for Nelson talked about his feelings and views, and he made very plain he has certain views on moral issues, particularly involving teenagers at that particular age; and, if his children were involved in this sort of activity he, as a parent, would like to try to work that out. If it was consensual sexual activity in that 14 to 16 years age group, he would like to try to work it out. Similarly, with the member for Casuarina. I can also talk as a parent. My children are not teenagers any more, but I well remember their teenager years and their friends. It is a very turbulent time for young people.
One only has to read Shakespeare; I know he is put into a certain category by certain people, but Romeo and Juliet really spells out the tumultuous feelings young people have, and the difficulties they have when they feel they are in love and the whole world is against them, and the relationships are very difficult. We see the tragedy which was played out by Romeo and Juliet; there was a certain mindset in their relationship and they could not make it public.
We know there are many problems amongst young people around relationships and it is important we do not put a barrier between young people and their parents. That is why there should be an exception here; we have to look at things not only in a legislative and policy sense, but also in a human and family sense. I am very glad the minister is doing this, and she has my support in relation to that aspect.
I believe, by identifying professionals are able to provide essential information while not making a notification of the two-year age difference, really achieves a balance between ensuring young people of that age are safe while minimising undue interference in families.
It is also important that regulations will be drafted after consultation to consider expanding the professional groups for mandatory reporting of the two-year age group, and that is what the minister has undertaken to do. The minister also said there will be debate about precisely which groups should be included, and I believe that is a debate, as a community, we need to have. We also need to ensure people are equipped with the right tools and have the very clear obligation to ensure children are protected. As section 27 of the act states, people who fulfil their mandatory reporting obligations are protected from any legal or professional ramifications if they report concerns about a child’s safety in good faith; and that is a very important element in this bill.
The primary concern raised by the community was universal mandatory notification in relation to underage sexual activity may impact on a young person’s willingness to seek medical assistance and advice. Concerns were also raised in relation to the impact on family relationships, where family members were put in a position of having to notify authorities in relation to the sort of consensual sexual activity which has been spoken about here.
In conclusion, I commend these amendments to the House. It is a difficult issue. It is very difficult to get the balance, but the minister has endeavoured to do this and I believe she has achieved it. She has consulted widely, she is very thorough in her approach, she is very sincere, and I hope the House supports these amendments.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to the House.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received a document relating to pairs. It is for the period 5.30 pm to 6.30 pm this evening for the members for Arafura and Goyder. It is signed by the government and the opposition Whips. I table that document.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I was not initially intending to be involved in this debate. As Opposition Leader, I felt our spokesperson was first class and well able to represent the best interests of Territorians, and bring to bear possible solutions to this problem which has emerged through the crafting of the initial legislation, which requires a fix.
I have every confidence in what the member for Araluen has worked on, brought together, analysed, assessed, lobbied and made every effort to find a solution for. The former speaker made reference to the member for Araluen and the minister being sincere and earnest and so on. That is fine; that is a judgment which is made. However, the practical outworking of this requires engagement at a different level beyond sincerity; it is the capacity to abandon things we have been promised would be abandoned, and enter a new era where we would actually work together, genuinely, to find a new place. I have been asked, as Opposition Leader, to lead my team into a new place around this notion of a Council of Cooperation.
I am watching very carefully, and I cannot resist the opportunity to stand and say: this is ringing alarm bells. I am not overstating this, but if we are going to see this whole new era emerge then there needs to be a greater level of genuine engagement on this. You can be sincere, but you can also be unwilling to yield your position because you want to hold your position, because it is your position and you believe your position is right, no matter how nicely we engage.
I do not believe the member for Araluen has been given a fair hearing here, and I do believe it has passed through a filter to just protect the interests of government. I do not believe it augers very well for the landscape we have been asked to occupy in terms of a Council of Cooperation.
I know the member for Araluen has made every endeavour to plod her way through this, has in fact led the debate and, most notably, has not engaged in an overt sense to embarrass the government.
Here is an opportunity, we have reached this juncture, and we have been asked to go down the road less travelled. We now have the government, with all the words that are being used, all the arguments and sentences that have been constructed around their position, being determined, nonetheless, to do their own thing. I believe that is very concerning in the context of what we have been asked to consider this very week; in light of the crisis of last week, the resolution that was presented on Friday, and we now move forward.
There has been a very professional approach taken. The quality of the consideration, the material which has been provided, and the manner in which it has been conducted by the member for Araluen causes me to increase my reservation about what lies ahead. I am aware, and the minister would be quite aware, the Law Society has been actively, thoughtfully, and professionally engaged to weigh and carefully consider, and have also passed their opinion on the member for Araluen’s contribution to brokering a solution to this difficult situation.
In my view, as a local member and Leader of the Opposition, this has evoked an extraordinary response from the community. I commend the way the member for Araluen has responded to this, has not played politics with this and has endeavoured to lead. Yet, at this juncture, I have cause to give voice to my reservations about the true underpinnings of the attitude of government when they can assert a new era. In spite of words on the surface we have, in fact, very little difference and very little change.
I am disappointed, and I ask government to reflect upon these words. If you are going to ask us to be involved in something which has been constructed between the Chief Minister and the member for Nelson, we are watching, very carefully, the way you conduct this debate.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, it does not get more serious than the care and protection of children. The original purpose of section 26 should not be lost in the debate. We supported the intention of the original bill to protect a child from harm, exploitation and sexual offences. The definition of harm is subjective and set reasonably high, and the terminology used in section 15 of the act defines harm as something that causes:
Without limiting this provision it points at sexual exploitation as being sexual abuse involving a child and involving the child in an act of sexual nature, prostitution or a pornographic performance.
A sexual offence is clearly defined through reference to the Sexual Offences Act. There are eight categories in this definition of sexual offence. They are very clear, with no ambiguity or confusing language:
The Country Liberals still support the purpose and the intent of the original provisions contained in section 26, that is, to protect a child from harm, exploitation and sexual offences through mandatory reporting. We still support that. The Country Liberals believe the intention of this section should retain the requirement for reporting, but also acknowledge the concerns raised throughout the community that there may be circumstances where this may not be in the child’s best interest.
Evidence from anecdotal and professional groups indicates there is an inclination for children below the age of consent to engage in consensual experimentation with their sexual identity. The point was raised this would mean those children under 16 would be committing a sexual offence no matter how consensual both parties were, or how harmless the adult perceived the sexual interaction. Medical professionals were particularly concerned they would be committing an offence if they failed to report a child coming to them for advice on contraception, treatment for an STI, or in the event a young girl fell pregnant.
The general view was some children would become sexually active early in their teens, regardless of the views of their parents, teacher, doctor, or society in general. If they do become active, they should not be discouraged from approaching someone they trust for advice on that sexual relationship; or medical treatment if necessary.
In the attempt to rectify this reporting anomaly, the government has somehow managed to obscure the original intent of ensuring people report sexual abuse of children ...
Ms Lawrie: Not true.
Mr CONLAN: True, particularly in light of the high profile debate that has surrounded the development of these amendments. To simply remove the term ‘sexual offence’ does not make it clear to parents, teachers or anyone else that an act contained in this list I just mentioned is now considered grounds for mandatory reporting for a child over 14 years of age under the government’s amendments.
The government’s bill removes the explicit requirement for sexual offences against a child to be reported to police or the Department of Health and Families. In the protection of children there can be no grey areas. Either you know you have to report a sexual offence, or there are very clear guidelines where the adult has the discretion to decide about what is the most appropriate option.
I would like to comment on the member for Karama’s comments today during the debate prior to the luncheon break. She said the government’s amendments would require a parent to report their 14-year-old daughter who was having consensual sex with her 16-year-old boyfriend. This is simply wrong, and demonstrates the minister’s lack of understanding of the provisions created by the member for Araluen. In the event the minister described, sex between the 14-year-old and her 16-year-old boyfriend, would not be considered a sexual offence by the opposition amendments, and therefore, not subject to mandatory reporting for the following reasons:
1. the daughter is over the age of 14 when the sex is occurring, section (1A)(a);
3. the participation of a sexual act is by mutual agreement entered into voluntarily without coercion, section (1A)(d); and
4. provision that the other criteria are met; for example, they are not siblings or half siblings and the sex does not, or is not likely to, cause harm to either of the children, then the parent is not obliged to report the act.
My argument is there are no parameters set by the government’s bill. The potential for people to turn a blind eye to sexual offences by deciding the child is not being caused harm or is not being exploited through participating in a sexual act is extremely concerning. Our amendments are very well thought out and have been endorsed by the Northern Territory Law Society, and they also strengthened the proposed amendments to the Criminal Code. In the example the member for Araluen gave, the 16-year-old would be liable for prosecution under section 127 of the Criminal Code, regardless of the consensual nature of the act. This would mean that he would be liable for a prison sentence of up to 16 years, and subject to child sex offender reporting obligations.
I cannot finalise this contribution without making reference to the issue of the contribution by the member for Nelson. In his contribution to this debate he spoke of wanting to see the removal of politics from the issue. Did the member for Nelson not listen to anything the member for Araluen had to say in her contribution to this debate? The member for Araluen set out very clearly and in very detailed length the attempt she went to, to get bipartisan support and solution to this issue. She set out how she agreed to run dead in the media on the issue. She set out how she would work with the government to find a solution to the problems with the government’s bill. She even said to the minister to take the member for Araluen’s amendments and bring them back in government form - you can have them.
The member for Araluen pulled away from attempting to move her bill through all stages on the General Business Day in good faith, so the government could work to make their bill a better bill - a bill that would not create multiple standards and deliver mixed messages to the community. The question has to be asked: what did the member for Araluen receive in return? Obstruction, delays, and nothing but complete arrogance from the Northern Territory government, which is the government’s way.
I ask the member for Nelson: what did the government advisors tell him? Did they say the provisions the member for Araluen had set out in her complementary bill to amend the Criminal Code were drafted around a model criminal code on the issue? Did they tell the member for Nelson the child protection amendments gave a consistency of message and were the preferred option by the Northern Territory Law Society and the Australian Medical Association of the Northern Territory? I suspect not. I also suspect this is an indictment on those to whom the member for Nelson has hitched himself in this new form of alliance.
I say to the member for Nelson: it is the government that has played politics on this issue; they have failed to listen and to negotiate in good faith on this. Our side, the Country Liberals, understand the material. We have worked hard - the member for Araluen has worked extremely hard. This is the right amendment on the table. We have gone through every loop and every nook and cranny to work to improve the government’s bill, and here it sits with gaping holes and a seriously dangerous mixed message. This is the point: it is sending a very dangerous, mixed message to the community of the Northern Territory.
Member for Nelson, I suggest you do not look at this side when it comes to playing politics, especially on this very serious issue, the care and protection of children. We, on this side of the Chamber, have absolutely bent over backwards, over and over again, to get the politics out of this issue and get a resolution that best takes this issue forward and gives certainty ahead of the review.
Member for Nelson, when you take a look at this bill and at our approach to this bill, you should take a long hard look at the way it has been handled and the work that has gone into getting the balance right. We have shown we will come to the table and make changes in good faith. We did on the independent EPA; my colleague, the member for Brennan, worked very hard to ensure that concerns were met. What did he get in return? Nothing but a slap in the face and being accused of playing politics.
The Leader of the Opposition worked to address concerns in respect to a long-standing bill on the Notice Paper and, once again, where did it end up? Delayed. Where did we end up with respect to the police numbers, or certainty in sentencing, or inquiring into the broken and sick Health department? Again, accused of playing politics.
We have not played politics on this issue; in fact, far from it. I say to the member for Nelson: it is not too late to change your position on this. It is not too late to recognise who has been playing politics; and it is not too late for you to see this is a bill which needs to be passed. It is one the member for Araluen has worked extremely hard on, and has put a lot of thought into it. She knows this is right, we know this is right, and these amendments are the right way forward.
The member for Nelson has taken much responsibility as, essentially, the second Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, and if he truly wants to see politics for the people, then I say to the member for Nelson, take a long hard look around this Chamber and see who is playing politics.
As for the minister, well, it is a cowardly act for the minister to bring the member for Araluen to the table, in good faith, and yet offering no goodwill at all from her end.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, this is a highly emotional topic, and I do not particularly want to have a large amount of buy into it. There is not much I can add to this debate, suffice to say one thing: I notice the Leader of Government Business in his reply tried to use the example of Romeo and Juliet, the star-crossed lovers, to describe the types of relationships that kids have these days. I point out to the Leader of Government Business that in the stage directions to the play Romeo and Juliet, Juliet is listed as ‘Juliet, daughter of Capulet, aged 13’. Under his example, any sexual conduct, which is suggested in several places in the play between her and Romeo, would have been reportable in any instance.
Ms McCARTHY (Children and Families): Madam Speaker, I thank everyone for their contribution. It is an important debate, and it is an issue that affects every family across the Northern Territory.
It is important, first of all, to get a few things on the record quite clear. I heard the words of the member for Greatorex and the Leader of the Opposition, and I believe the full story has not been given. I believe it is important that our government’s attempts to work on a particular amendment in this legislation, in a sense of cooperation with the opposition, are recognised.
The member for Araluen highlighted in her speech the other day how this law came into being, and the fact she worked in a spirit of cooperation with the previous minister, the member for Arafura, in the lead-up to the 2007 debate; and how this particular aspect of the legislation, section 26, went through without - paraphrasing the member for Araluen - people recognising the impact of this aspect of the legislation in terms of the mandatory reporting obligations.
As minister, it came to my attention earlier this year after the first sittings of parliament, this was an issue. I recall having a conversation with the member for Araluen, in Alice Springs, raising the fact there were these concerns and it was quite an unworkable law. I said to the member for Araluen then we should start looking at this. So, we began a process in about May or June, and the discussion took place in a very cooperative fashion.
Naturally, I had a good look at the specific concerns being raised by the health profession and in legal circles across the Territory, and by families in general. By pulling together, with the Chief Minister, a working party with the Really Caring for Kids Coalition and, especially, the Northern Territory Police who are critical in informing us of their views on this and what is occurring currently in the community, I issued a media release on 25 July to indicate my intention to introduce the government bill in the August sittings.
On 7 August, I, my office, and the department gave a briefing to the member for Araluen on this bill - the bill she has had in her possession right up to Monday of this week when I requested to bring it before the parliament. I then received an e-mail late Sunday night, first thing Monday morning, that the member for Araluen wished to bring a bill on urgently as well. I thought: ‘Hang on, I thought we were working together on this’. You are bringing something on out of the blue, and we have been working …
Ms Carney: Out of the blue, rubbish. What a lie.
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I ask that the member for Araluen withdraw that remark. She can only make those assertions by substantive motion.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, I ask you to withdraw that comment.
Ms Carney: I withdraw, Madam Speaker.
Ms McCARTHY: I rang the member for Araluen first thing Monday morning when I realised she intended to introduce a bill. I had a discussion on the phone with her wanting to work out where this was coming from. I had a sense we had been working with a sense of cooperation knowing this was not about either the member for Araluen or me as the member for Arnhem, or the minister, that it was about the children of the Northern Territory. That for once, on this particular topic, it was absolutely crucial we had a same, single voice, recognising and respecting that we may be coming at it from different viewpoints.
That is the history of wanting to come together on this. Naturally, the member had her views, and I carefully tried to consider her views in the little time I had - 24 to 48 hours - to understand the aspect of the bill she wanted to introduce, trying to take into consideration the issues she was raising but, at the same time, wanting to express this very detailed process that had been travelled, and of which the member was aware.
It would be unfortunate if members left this House today thinking in any way our government had not been inclusive; our government had not wanted to see this in a spirit of harmony and cooperation and trying to work together. Not always agreeing, agreeing to disagree, but giving each other a decent amount of time to explore and analyse our positions.
As I said, I gave my bill, through my office, to the member for Araluen on 7 August. She introduced hers on Monday this week - which has given me very little time – but I am very confident, having worked through some aspects of the member for Araluen’s bill, the process our government has taken is the most appropriate process in this situation.
The Care and Protection of Children Act 2007 was developed after extensive consultation to replace the Community Welfare Act 1984. There has been public concern raised over the past few months about the requirement to report sexual offences involving children, including underage sex. The primary concern was the reporting requirement relating to underage sex may deter young people from seeking appropriate medical services and advice. In my role as the minister for Youth, I made sure I was listening to the young people across the Northern Territory, and this was a fundamental concern being raised with me.
An additional concern was the requirement for parents to report underage sex might unnecessarily intrude on the parent/child relationship, and parents would be very uncomfortable with the prospect of having to report knowledge of their own children being involved in underage sex.
In response to these concerns the government convened a working group to consider the issues associated with mandatory reporting of underage sex. The working group comprised the Northern Territory Police, the department of Health and Families, and representatives of the Coalition of Community Groups called the Really Caring for Kids Coalition. The coalition represents 17 organisations from across the health and allied health fields, including nursing, general practitioners, Aboriginal health workers, as well as other specialist medical areas and justice groups. It is important members in this House recognise the amount of work that goes into coordinating so many organisations, trying to canvass their views on the way we need to move forward on this very important amendment.
The working group was able to agree on an approach to amend the Care and Protection of Children Act. I make no excuses for focusing specifically on this area, recognising it was the health professionals who were certainly the loudest. In the youth groups I spoke to, the families I met, it was the relationship between young people and their general practitioner or family planning I knew our government had to deal with as a priority. I recognised there is another large group of people who work with children in child-related organisations that I was yet to canvass, but this was the area of primary urgency in bringing in this amendment.
The amendment seeks to effectively address community concerns whilst still retaining the object of the legislation, which is to protect children from harm and exploitation. I would like to thank those involved in the working group for the hard work they have put in to work with me to address concerns raised by the community; and I will read through the list of people who have been involved with that working group. They will continue to work with me as we progress to the act being fully reviewed in April.
I turn now to the discussion we had today in this parliament. I would like to thank members for the consideration you have given to this very difficult issue. I certainly understand there are many passionate voices at play, but let us remember the facts which come before this House need to be correct ones; and that includes the process in which we have travelled to get where we are today.
I put on the record the members of that working group so members of parliament can see this is not something our government has just come up with overnight. We certainly did not decide on Monday that we wanted to do this, it has been a work in progress for the last three, four, five months, and we know we have come forward with an amendment that is supported right across these groups.
The Really Caring for Kids Coalition includes: the Aboriginal and Medical Services Alliance of the Northern Territory; the Australian College of Rural and Remote Medicine; the Australian General Practice Network; Australian Medical Association; the Australian Nursing Federation; the Council of Remote Area Nurses of Australia; the Family Planning Welfare Association of the Northern Territory; the General Practice Network Northern Territory; the Law Society Northern Territory; the National Centre for HIV Epidemiology and Clinical Research; the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency; Public Health Association of the Northern Territory; Royal Australian College of General Practitioners; the Royal Australian College of Physicians; the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists; the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, Northern Territory Branch; the Services for Australian Rural and Remote Allied Health; the Law Society Youth Justice Advisory Council; the Northern Territory Families and Children Advisory Council; Northern Territory Police and Department of Health and Families.
Let me make it very clear to this House, at no stage have I, as minister in this role, thought to move ahead in the belief this was about our government being right - it was never about that. That is why I had such a massive consultation program with the focus on the health practitioner’s area.
I would like members opposite to understand what I have been accused of in this House is absolutely incorrect, and please read the Hansard and have a good look at what the process has been with the member for Araluen.
The specific requirement for health practitioners to notify in relation to young people aged 14 to 15 who are sexually active where there is an age difference of greater than two years, certainly has raised passionate debate. The amendment recognises the health professionals are community members who hold a unique position in ensuring the safety and wellbeing of our young people. It also recognises the identification of harm and exploitation is a specialised area requiring assessment from professionals trained in this area. These two elements resulted in a determination that it is appropriate for the health practitioners’ role and responsibilities in the protection of our children be made clear.
The working group identified there are other categories of child-related employment to which it may be appropriate to impose the same reporting requirements as imposed on health practitioners. Some obvious examples include teachers and social workers. I am very aware there is another group of people who need to have an opportunity to express their views. However, this focus is on health practitioners, and our government stands by that; we have solid support to do that. We recognise that is the way to deal with this as a matter of urgency. We also take into account over the coming months we will include regulation as part of this bill, and that regulation will be a response to consultation with groups such as teachers, social workers, footy coaches, the people who work with youth in child-related areas which are not health-related, with the view to having a review.
The bill provides scope for additional categories of employment to be prescribed in regulations down the track, and it is envisaged consultation will occur over the coming months and regulations will be introduced. I have also made a commitment to undertake a review of the entire Care and Protection of Children Act, including the new section 26 of the act, from April 2010. This will allow an opportunity for issues with the implementation of the act, including the mandatory reporting requirements, to be considered and appropriately addressed.
The question has been asked on the floor of parliament today: why not make reporting of underage sex in 14- and 15-year-olds a universal requirement? It must be remembered it was this very point which raised strong concern in the community and it is these concerns the government has listened to and acted on. A fundamental right of families is for families to function within their individual values and beliefs with the minimum interference from government. We do not require in any other area - parents, aunts, uncles, friends or neighbours - to report criminal offences which may have been committed by young people. The Territory already has the most stringent reporting requirements in Australia by requiring all people to report harm and exploitation.
In response to the contributions made here today, I appreciate the comments from the members for Johnston, Karama, and Casuarina. I respond, in particular, to the member for Macdonnell who raised a very important point in suggesting we need to ensure we put in place an education and media strategy which will reach the people in the bush to advise them about the care and protection of children. I appreciate what the member for Macdonnell said.
There is no doubt this House is aware of the importance of the care and protection of children. We know from the steps of the federal intervention into the Northern Territory, through the Little Children Are Sacred report, it is absolutely fundamental any message which comes out of the parliament is one that says to every single person in the Northern Territory that we must look out for our children.
As the member for Macdonnell said, there is the potential for people to gain a sense the goal posts are being moved, and I am very clear that we have to ensure there are no misconceptions. I personally give an undertaking that we will put in place a properly planned communication strategy to ensure people in remote areas of the Territory, in particular, have a clear and coherent understanding of what these changes mean to them.
I thank the member for Nelson for the time he has committed to coming to grips with the bill. I appreciate the incredible workload now on the member for Nelson, given the events of the past 10 days, and I recognise it is not an easy concept to get your head around. However, I appreciate he has been able to see the steps here have been a very commonsense approach which any Territorian, any family, will be able to appreciate and recognise. He can also see, in the discussions with health practitioners, with the Really Caring for Kids Coalition, I have highlighted the fact that I have focused on this particular group, but there is a reason why I have done that. There is also a reason, as we progress further over the coming months in the lead-up to April, why I need to allow other groups a very real opportunity, and the same opportunity, to be able to raise their issues with me.
It is a complex matter, as I say and as the member for Nelson says, it is not easy. It has been a difficult issue to deal with because, as he quite correctly says, this issue has to be viewed not just from a legal perspective, but also from the perspective of a parent. That is why, as he has identified, this has been a balancing act. It is a challenge to get that balance right. It is a challenge for our parliament to recognise there is an important need to amend this particular aspect of the act; but in our amendment we must get that balance right.
As the member for Nelson said, we are not seeking to encourage sexual activity amongst young people; we acknowledge it does take place, and we are acknowledging, in a commonsense way, parents have a responsibility to deal with matters relating to their children if they become aware they are engaged in sexual activity with young people of a similar age. The member for Nelson points out that, as a parent, he would prefer to address the issue himself, rather than have to report the matter. As a parent, I certainly share that view.
These amendments are the culmination of intense consultation and the willingness of government to listen to the concerns of the community. I asked the members opposite to have a very good look, and very open ears, to what has really taken place in the lead-up to this bill coming into the parliament, and recognise I have included your party every step of the way. I hope you will now clearly see this has been the case, and we will work together to ensure the children of the Northern Territory will remain cared for and protected.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Madam CHAIR: Honourable members, the committee has before it the Care and Protection of Children Amendment Bill 2009 (Serial 49), together with Schedule of Amendments No 17, circulated by the member for Araluen, Ms Carney.
Clauses 1 and 2, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 3:
Ms CARNEY: Madam Chair, I move amendment 17.1 and invite defeat of clause 3. In discussing why I invite defeat of clause 3, I need to refer to why the clause should be defeated and, in so doing, I will be making reference to the proposed alternative clause 3 which has been circulated.
There has been much discussion on this bill today, which is great. In the last couple of years, people have become interested in the area of child protection and child sexual abuse, and that can only be a good thing. However, we should not pull up short when there is so much more work to do; and this is an opportunity missed by the government.
I will be asking the minister some questions. In prefacing my questions, I was stunned at the contribution of the Attorney-General as first law officer. I will put to you, minister, some of the matters your colleague, the Attorney-General, put in her contribution, and I will ask you whether you share some of the views she has expressed. Some of the matters the Attorney-General addressed in her contribution were wrong, misleading, and extraordinary. I will get to those matters before too long.
At the outset, minister, in clause 3 there is a reference to section 26(2)(a), which refers to:
Can you outline what the regulations are, and what other people fall within the regulation?
Ms McCARTHY: As I outlined in my response in the second reading speech to the debate, this focus has been with the health practitioners. Once we have the support of the House to get this through this afternoon, I would like to continue the discussions with the child-related area: groups like teachers, social workers, youth organisers and youth workers. In terms of the regulation, I want to have that discussion with them; the regulation will then be a process which goes through the Cabinet Executive Council.
Ms CARNEY: Is your answer that you do not know what type of sectors, or individuals, are represented in the regulations to which this subsection applies?
Ms McCARTHY: They will be clearly defined; the consultation process has to begin. As I have outlined, our government has taken a very strong position as to why we have followed this particular process.
Ms CARNEY: Your answer is at present, notwithstanding there is legislation which prescribes various regulations, a list of people included under the definition of ‘health practitioners’ is included in that act - from memory, it refers to physiotherapists, chiropractors and so on. Can I ask whether you would be looking to include those individuals, the professions listed in the Health Practitioners Act? Can we expect your regulations to, in some way, mirror the professions outlined in the Health Practitioners Act?
Ms McCARTHY: I will take some advice to complete that question. But, first, let us recognise in the definition of health practitioners, some of those you have mentioned are already included in that. You want to know who else will be included in the regulation? If some of those you have mentioned already come under the health practitioners definition, then you are asking a question which has already been defined in the Health Practitioners Act
Ms CARNEY: I am trying to get at who is going to be in the regulations that are referred to in the bill. I would assume there would be some overlap with the Health Practitioner’s Act. From memory, an extensive list was provided in that act, so I am wondering if we can get an indication from you of the other types of areas or sectors which might be prescribed by regulation, given that in section 26(2)(a) you refer to:
I am after some direction as to what you anticipate.
Ms McCARTHY: Absolutely. It is a good question.
In the health practitioners’ definition there is a range of employment areas: the Aboriginal health workers, dentists, chiropractors, chemists; that is already defined within the words ‘health practitioner’.
As I outlined in my speech, member for Araluen, in regulation we are looking at teachers, social workers, and we naturally need to look at those who work with young people in any child-related organisation. It is a very broad, large area, and I am conscious of that; hence, the need for discussion and further consultation in that area.
Ms CARNEY: Minister, do you appreciate the difficulty we and others have, to go on blind trust; that you are asking us to just trust you? You are not quite sure what is going to be in the regulations yet, but you will provide a listing in due course.
You have had months to fix this problem. You went to great lengths to explain the type of detailed, extensive consultation you undertook in preparation for today. Why have you not been able to articulate the types of employment areas to be detailed in regulation? And, do you concede that is a policy failure on your part?
Ms McCARTHY: Member for Araluen, I have answered that question and said what will be in the regulation - those discussions with teachers, social workers, and youth organisations is that area. I believe I have answered your question.
Ms CARNEY: What type of time frame do you have for finalising - or starting and then getting finished - the regulations?
Ms McCARTHY: I would like to begin that immediately, as soon as I have the support of this House to see this amendment through.
Ms CARNEY: When do you anticipate that process to be finished so you can get the regulations up and running?
Ms McCARTHY: Sorry, did you say when?
Ms CARNEY: When do you expect to finish it? You have told me when you are going to start it - when are you going to finish it?
Ms McCARTHY: As you can appreciate, this will be an ongoing issue. I want to do it immediately. What I would like to investigate, in discussions with the department, is the amount of work which will be involved. I certainly would like to see it by the end of the year.
Ms CARNEY: Minister, in the bill we introduced we actually had a solution which would save you exhaustive consultations; would save a casual observer thinking: ‘Oh God, I wonder what is going to be in the regulations to be completed at some unknown time’. We have a solution which would have included the same requirement for reporting for everyone in the Northern Territory. Do you understand the inconsistency, and how do you reconcile it, given your insistence that you press on with the bill today?
Ms McCARTHY: I believe that is exactly where we agreed to disagree. You have a particular process, which I still do not understand, other than just talking to the Law Society. The process we have followed has been a very comprehensive process, and a very inclusive process. I am certainly not a minister who is going to insist to everyone: this is what you should be doing, and I am not going to listen to you.
I have been listening and discussing this in detail with those people who are at the very forefront of dealing with this issue when it comes to the workability of the Care and Protection of Children Act. So I certainly do not agree with you in regard to that point.
Sorry, the second part of your question?
Ms CARNEY: How do you reconcile the inconsistency?
Ms McCARTHY: I have clearly put the government’s position of why we have come to this. I recognise the Care and Protection of Children Act is in its first year of implementation. In the lead-up to the review I am going to have in April, I recognise there are aspects of the act that will need to be questioned more than once but, on this particular one, I am very confident we have followed a procedure which has the support of people. At the end of the day, what I need to ensure is people will be able to work with the particular amendment we take through.
Ms CARNEY: In your answer, you said you had consulted with everyone ‘at the very forefront’ of this area. Yet, an answer or so ago, you disclosed you had not consulted with teachers and social workers. How on earth can you expect us to take you seriously when two important sectors - social workers, for goodness sake - what do you reckon they do? Social workers in the Northern Territory who work at FACS offices deal with child abuse and child protection. You come into this Chamber and say you have not consulted with the AASW? You have to be joking!
This illustrates, Madam Chair, why it is the minister is so incompetent; there are inconsistencies left, right and centre with the matters she puts. It beggars belief that you would come here introducing a bill to a problem that has been burning away in the community for nearly six months, and you have not consulted with teachers and social workers. Why have you not consulted with those very important organisations?
Ms McCARTHY: As I have already explained, this process, first, was about dealing with the very issue of young people needing to go to their GP and having the confidence to speak about an area which is really difficult for our young people. I have had many young people in the Youth Justice Advisory Committee, the Youth Round Table, the Darwin City Council Youth Group, and many young people across the community who have raised it. I have recognised, not only as minister, but our government has recognised clearly, the first area we have had to deal with is this concern of young people going to a GP, going to a family counsellor, going to ask about contraception. That has been the focus and the concern for our government.
To get to that, I have had to coordinate the number of health practitioners and organisations, along with the Northern Territory Police, to come and sit down together. I have gone through this with you, member for Araluen, and you know this - in detail. You know very well the work that has gone into this; and you know the focus of our government, which I had hoped you would support, was to deal with this issue of young people having confidence in talking about any sexual issues, about their need to have contraception if that is the way they would like to go, and their concern of talking to their parents about it. You know, as well as I do, that was the absolute priority in trying to deal with this.
Trying to collate and get together all these organisations is a hefty task, member for Araluen, and I do not mind adding it has been an enormous task. However, I am very grateful for the fact every single one of those organisations, along with the Northern Territory Police, the Department of Children and Families, and youth organisations, agree this is the most appropriate direction to go for this parliament.
Ms CARNEY: It begs the question: how on earth do you know if you have not bothered to consult the AASW? How can you stand there with confidence and say: ‘I know everyone is happy with this’, when you know social workers are, to use your own words, ‘at the very forefront’ of the issue of child abuse in the Northern Territory? What do you think they do in the offices for which you are the minister?
In your answer, you also referred to the fact that young people would seek advice, and you referred to family counsellors. What do you think social workers do? I am genuinely amazed you have not consulted social workers, yet you proudly provide …
Ms Lawrie: Is there a question?
Ms CARNEY: I would be careful if I were you, Attorney-General, because you have said some dreadful things and, by golly, over the years you have come up with some shockers, and I cannot wait to go through some of the things you have said - so I would be very careful. I know you are a bit frustrated, of course, because of the deal, and members of the Labor Party are sort of rejoicing, because at least they are not going to get you and that …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Chair! We are drifting off into irrelevance here; so let us keep to the script.
Ms Carney: That is very provocative, Madam Chair.
Madam CHAIR: Thank you, member for Johnston. I ask members to exercise consideration for people on the floor speaking, if you could minimise interruptions. Member for Araluen, you have the call.
Ms CARNEY: Minister, yesterday you proudly gave me the list of organisations with which you have consulted, and you have said today you are going to do more consultation because, clearly, there can never be enough, yet you have not consulted with social workers.
That is somewhat remarkable in the circumstances. I hope there are people in FACS offices listening to this broadcast of parliament, because I believe it will come as a shock to them that they, or their peak organisation, a very active organisation in the Northern Territory - I do not always agree with the AASW – and certainly very committed to children of the Territory and to tackling abuse, have not been consulted. I think they will be very, very surprised.
Minister, when do you anticipate consulting with the education union, or teachers, and social workers? What time frame are you looking at?
Ms McCARTHY: As soon as we get this through the House today. I want to start working with those groups immediately.
May I pick up on some comments you just made? Please keep in mind, member for Araluen, we do have a Northern Territory Department of Health and Families, which advises me and provides great advice in terms of the direction we should be going. As I said, in that working group we not only had the department, we also had discussions with the advisory groups. I am aware of the social workers; I believe you need to be very careful about accusing the process we have taken of not listening to others. We have pointed out this is the direct way to go - working with health practitioners.
Ms CARNEY: I am not quite sure how to respond to that; but I know your comments in relation to the department and people from whom you receive advice, and I feel certain there are social workers, both in and out of the department, who would be surprised. Some of them, no doubt, would be appalled. I would have thought the AASW would be surprised they have not heard from you in relation to this matter.
The reason I asked when do you expect to consult with teachers and social workers, was that you referred to the review in April. So, can you confirm you will be consulting with teachers and social workers before April; and would you undertake to give a report to the House, or to me, formally or informally, as to those discussions?
Ms McCARTHY: As soon as the House is able to support this amendment, I will begin those discussions immediately.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you. Going back to the regulations; clearly this matter has come to the parliament on urgency, and there are very good reasons for that. Given you do not know, or do not yet have the regulations, will this legislation be delayed as a result of not having the regulations in place, or even close?
Ms McCARTHY: No.
Ms CARNEY: Why not?
Ms McCARTHY: It will not be delayed because it commences on assent. The regulation is part of this amendment.
Ms CARNEY: You have this empty chunk, which is the regulation; so you want the legislation to go through. You have a section in the proposed legislation referring to a health practitioner or someone who performs work of a kind that is prescribed by regulation. Will it not be potentially unworkable because you have not completed those regulations?
Ms McCARTHY: No.
Ms CARNEY: Why not?
Ms McCARTHY: Because, as I have outlined, we will have a process which will lead to how we go with the regulation. It is on assent; there is no issue there.
Ms CARNEY: What is the definition of health practitioner?
Ms McCARTHY: Health practitioner is a very broad definition, and there are a number of definitions for it. There are Aboriginal health workers, physiotherapists, chemists and, naturally, general practitioners.
Ms CARNEY: The ones you mentioned, is that the entire list of the definitions of health practitioners in the Northern Territory?
Ms McCARTHY: I have a list here, member for Araluen, I have tried to put it to memory and I usually do quite a good job. There are dentists, dental hygienists, dental prosthetists, dental specialists, and dental therapists. In the category of healthcare practice of medicine: medical practitioners. In the category of healthcare practice in midwifery: midwives and registered nurses authorised to practice midwifery. In the category of healthcare practice of nursing: registered nurses. In the category of healthcare practice: occupational therapists. In the category of healthcare practice of optometry: optometrists. In the category of healthcare practice of osteopathy: osteopaths. In the category of healthcare practice of physiotherapy: physiotherapists; and psychologist, and in nursing, enrolled nurse is a category of enrolment.
Ms CARNEY: Minister, how do you propose the legislation will work now we know what the definition of health practitioner is, given you have referred to ‘someone who performs work of a kind that is prescribed by regulation’? How does anyone else know who else there is, and what sort of comfort can you give to these people in the meantime until their profession or job description is outlined in your regulations?
Ms McCARTHY: It is important the House remembers today the focus is on health practitioners, member for Araluen. That is the focus for today
As I have outlined, and will continue to outline, and you know this, the discussions with the child-related organisations will be ongoing. We have to have workable legislation which goes through today and takes into account a very considered, very effective process which has been entirely supported. It will be a process which I would like to mirror in my discussions with child-related organisations.
Ms CARNEY: In relation to social workers, do you acknowledge, as a result of this proposed legislation, you have created absolute confusion for them because they do not fall within the definition of a health practitioner and, under your bill, they are not required to report a child aged less than 14 years who has been or is likely to be a victim of a sexual offence?
Ms McCARTHY: Member for Araluen, any child up to the age of 14 years, everyone has to report.
Ms CARNEY: Do you acknowledge that you have made it incredibly difficult for social workers who, according to the language in the bill, might believe on reasonable grounds that a child over the age of 14 years, and under the age of 16 years, has been or is likely to be the victim of a sexual offence?
Ms McCARTHY: Sorry, member for Araluen, I missed the beginning of that question?
Ms CARNEY: I cannot remember exactly what I said – but, do you acknowledge you created an enormous difficulty for social workers who, under your bill, are not required to report if they believe, on reasonable grounds, that a child over 14 and under 16 has been or is likely to be a victim of a sexual offence?
Ms McCARTHY: Let us make it very clear; the Northern Territory leads in the laws we have about the care and protection of our children; about any abuse against our children. Let us make it really clear any person who is aware of a child being abused, a child is in danger, or a child being harmed or exploited must do what any other person in the Territory must do; that is, look out for the child and meet the reporting requirements where necessary.
What our government has recognised is we have to deal with this issue of young people being unable to have the confidence to talk about sex, STIs, and contraception. That is why, member for Araluen, as you well know, we have focused on this particular aspect of the legislation.
Ms CARNEY: It comes back to one of the central points. Why do you require a specific provision for health practitioners to report a child between the age of 14 and 16 who, that health practitioner believes on reasonable grounds, has been, or is likely to be, a victim of a sexual offence; yet you do not require the same of social workers?
Ms McCARTHY: For the very same reason I answered your questions: this is to keep going; we have the regulation. We are just going around in circles here, member for Araluen. You know what the intent of this particular amendment is. What we have also to recognise is any child who is in danger is everyone’s responsibility - we do not take away from that.
What I also recognised in calling together the working group is, if we go back to 2007 - and your passionate speeches to the parliament in the lead-up to the intervention, about Nanette Rogers and the Little Children are Sacred report – we recall the young girl at Mutitjulu where this all began. We know many of the questions were focused around the reporting by clinicians across the Northern Territory. One of the positions I want to ensure, if we were going to make any amendment to this act, is every health practitioner across the Northern Territory needs to recognise we could not go back to a time when people did not report when a child came before them with STIs or was pregnant.
In calling together this working group I had to say to all present they had to ensure, in any amendment, the onus was still there to recognise and protect these children. That is why we are here today, to see an amendment which focuses, specifically, first on health practitioners - knowing I am then going out to continue that discussion with the broader community.
Ms CARNEY: I note in your answer you referred to the Little Children are Sacred report and you said you want everyone to report child abuse. In yet another somewhat astonishing inconsistency, in your reply before we moved into committee stage, you cited with approval the comments made by the member for Nelson who said he would rather address the issue himself than report. Do you not see the inconsistency? Minister, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot say, as you do in the media releases: ‘We want everyone to report. We think child abuse is terrible’. Then, at the same time, cite with approval the comments of someone else who clearly said he would rather address the issue himself than report. How on earth do you reconcile that glaring inconsistency?
Ms McCARTHY: It shows, quite obviously, everyone has a particular position on this issue which affects all families. There is no inconsistency in the sense we progress down this path because we are conscious of the parents’ involvement; parents concerned about the need to inform on their child.
The member for Nelson is a parent, I am a parent, and I know many people here who are parents ask the same question. What I have also said in my response is I agree with the member for Nelson; it is an issue. I have a 16-year-old son. It is an issue we can each ask ourselves personally, as well as collectively, as legislators.
However, the balance has to be found, and it can only be found through an inclusive process. What makes me very strong and convinced is because our process has been exactly that - inclusive. It has brought a particular focus on the health professionals because of the concern of young people. We did not want to see, as has been said in the media, another group of victims who could not, or felt they would not, seek any medical help for fear of being reported.
It is a fine balance, and we can argue forever in this parliament about who is right and who is wrong, you believe this, or what about that. It is our social nature; we are all going to have particular positions. I do not back away from that support, nor do I back away from the fact that any child under any threat should feel they are being cared for or protected. It is everyone’s responsibility, across the Northern Territory to be looking out for our children.
Ms CARNEY: Were do I start? Again, the inconsistencies are becoming embarrassing. The minister said she wants everyone to report, yet cites with approval someone who would elect not to report. She says all children need to be looked after, yet in the very bill we are debating specifically picks up a category of children - and they are still children in the eyes of the law - 14 to 16. I know it is hard for FACs workers, it is a tricky group; we all know that. Yet, minister, while you say everyone should report, you specifically have a provision which does not make it a requirement for people to report children between 14 and 16 years who have been, or are likely to be, a victim of sexual offence. You cannot possibly have it both ways.
In the answer before this one, you referred to the case at Mutitjulu, which was the second Lateline interview in May or June 2007, maybe 2006. You used that as a springboard to say everyone should report, yet you are the sponsor of a bill which specifically precludes everyone except health practitioners to report a sexual offence on a young person between 14 and 16 years. It is bizarre in the extreme, and it is fundamentally bad public policy. That is why we see the government all over the shop; that is why they knocked off at 4.05 pm yesterday afternoon.
You have just run out of puff, you have not thought these things through, you are not thinking sensibly. Even your answers, and I will read the Hansard after this - it is going to be a very circuitous read - your arguments are, to the extent they are arguments, circuitous and lacking logic.
In relation to the sexual abuse inquiry report, are you aware the authors of that report spent some time discussing the culture that existed in many remote communities which supported the non-disclosure of sexual abuse? How do you reconcile that with your position today in respect to the bill?
Ms McCARTHY: Member for Araluen, you and I seem to be going around in circles, because I have expressed this …
Ms CARNEY: I want you to keep answering.
Ms McCARTHY: Any sexual abuse against a child must be reported – you know that. I believe this is where we are going around in circles here. You know why our government has come to this position with health practitioners.
Responding to your question in regard to the Little Children are Sacred report, of course, I am very aware of the issues in communities. I am very conscious of the fact continual education programs need to be there so any child in our regions is aware of all these matters and, as part of the many programs we have going on, that education programs will be ongoing.
Ms CARNEY: As a result of some material in the Little Children are Sacred report, do you concede, in light of the bill - and given section 7 of the Care and Protection of Children Act, by only applying the bill insofar as reporting children between the ages of 14 and 16 who are the victim of sexual offence - you have failed because you have not promoted or safeguarded the wellbeing of children? Particularly given the information - and you know I did not agree with all the conclusions; I should be very specific about that - with a vast number of the recommendations, some of the material the authors gathered in the course of their inquiry made it abundantly clear not only was there a culture of secrecy and people hiding behind a veil of silence, but there was a need for the NT government and its agencies to promote and safeguard the welfare of children. How do you reconcile that with the bill you have brought into parliament today?
Ms McCARTHY: No, I do not agree; I do not agree we have failed at all. What I do agree with is the fact we have recognised there is a concern with section 26 of the Care and Protection of Children Act, and our government has moved to do the best it can, through the consultation process and working with the very people we need to address first regarding young people’s trust in their medical practitioners.
Ms CARNEY: I am going to move now to some of the things the Attorney-General, the first law officer of the Northern Territory, said in her bizarre contribution today. When we talk of the Deputy Chief Minister, all sorts of words - some of them most unparliamentary - spring to mind. Some of her contributions over the years have been reasonable but, today was, as I said, downright misleading and wrong. I do not believe I used the word gobsmacked when I got to my feet initially, but the word gobsmacked is a good Australian word and probably applies to much she said.
I know she probably does not think very much about what she said, and this last couple of weeks has, obviously, been devastating for her. However, as I said before, the people of the Northern Territory and the members of the Labor Party have at least, whilst they have a government with one or two hands tied behind its back, been saved from the member for Karama being Chief Minister. It just goes to show one door closes, another door opens, and there is invariably an upside when things get tough.
Where do we start with the member for Karama? I might spend a bit of time on this because it is important it is on the Parliamentary Record. For people listening to this debate who may have missed what the member for Karama, the Territory’s first law officer, had to say, I would like to enlighten them. The Attorney-General said in relation to the publicity the unintended consequences of section 26 caused, and I quote: ‘A bit of hysteria was whipped up, I believe, by the CLP in and around the reporting of those teenagers who are having consensual sex’.
I do not know why on earth the member for Karama, the Attorney-General - if she was a lawyer she would be told very early on not to mislead - said: ‘A bit of hysteria was whipped up, I believe, by the CLP’. From any other member of parliament I ask, on behalf of my colleagues and myself, for an apology, but knowing the type of individual the member for Karama is, we will not get one.
When the member for Karama, the Attorney-General, says ‘a bit of hysteria was whipped up’, I believe she was referring to those organisations which wrote to members of parliament - I assume they wrote to everyone, they certainly wrote to me, and I know they wrote to the minister- were going around whipping up hysteria, according to the Attorney-General. The Aboriginal Medical Services Alliance of the Northern Territory - I will be sure to tell them that they whipped up hysteria with their concerns about the unintended consequence of section 26.
The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners - I got a letter from them; they would be very interested in the view expressed by the Northern Territory’s chief law officer that they were whipping up hysteria. The Royal Australian College of Physicians - I remember getting a letter from them too and thinking what a nice letterhead they had. I feel certain they do not regard their interest in this area as a bit of hysteria they are whipping up. There were some other bodies, and I do not have the correspondence with me, but from all around the country we were getting - and the minister knows it - correspondence and representations saying you have to fix section 26. The Law Society, of course, was one of them.
So, two things have to be put on the public record. When the Attorney-General said: ‘a bit of hysteria was being whipped up, I believe, by the CLP’ - wrong, and it should have been withdrawn. Second, the Attorney-General knows better than to refer to the very strongly held concerns of some of the organisations to which I have referred as ‘a bit of hysteria’.
No wonder she did not last in the portfolio of Child Protection for very long. That clearly was a very good thing, and I guess she is stuck in the role of Attorney-General now …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Chair! We have indulged the member for Araluen; she is, obviously, making political points here, and seems to have drifted directly from the purpose of these committee stage debates, which is to debate the specific amendments the member for Araluen has put forward. I seek your guidance and advice. If it was a question in Question Time under Standing Order 112, there is hypothetical matter, there is asking for expressions of opinion.
I am just not really sure where the member for Araluen is going with this particular line of argument. If it is just a line of argument, fair enough, but it has gone on long enough and I ask her to get to a question that is relevant to this legislation ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Chair! There is no point of order. She has 10 minutes to say as she pleases; this is a House of debate.
Madam CHAIR: I have conferred with the Clerk on this very lengthy preamble to a question. I ask the member for Araluen to focus her question to the minister, and that it is in relation to the bill before us at the moment.
Ms CARNEY: Minister, do you agree with the Attorney-General that a bit of hysteria was whipped up in relation to the unintended consequences of section 26 of the Care and Protection of Children Act?
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Chair! I seek your guidance. I hope the questions asked in these committee stages are under the standing orders of parliament, similar to the ones we ask in Question Time - Standing Order 112. Is she asking for an expression of opinion, hypothetical? I ask for a ruling on this particular matter ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Chair!
Madam CHAIR: Thank you, member for Johnston. Your point of order, member for Port Darwin, and then I will be seeking advice from the Clerk.
Mr ELFERINK: You directed the member for Araluen to come to the point; she has come to the point very succinctly and put a straightforward question. The first law officer of the Northern Territory made a comment which reflects directly on the bill before the House at the moment. It should be answered by the responsible minister who is currently under questioning. I cannot see what the problem is.
Madam CHAIR: Thank you, member for Port Darwin. As I said, I will be seeking advice from the Clerk on this matter.
As to the point of order, we will allow the question, but it needs to be made very plain the minister is not in a position to be answering questions, necessarily, on the opinions others have expressed. What the minister is in a position to do is answer questions directly in relation to the bill before us.
Ms McCARTHY: Member for Araluen, let me repeat the sentiments of the member for Macdonnell, this amendment is far too important for any kind of personal politics to be played in this House.
Let me remind you I have said in discussions with you - this is about the children of the Northern Territory. I ask you, member for Araluen, in your questions to me, please keep focused on this bill, and please keep focused on the children of the Northern Territory.
Ms CARNEY: Do not patronise me, minister. I am commenting on a speech you cited, with approval, when you rose to your feet before we got to the committee stage. You thanked the Attorney-General for her contribution. Part of her contribution - and there are others I will get to - was the groundless, baseless assertion that ‘a bit of hysteria was whipped by the CLP’. In addition to it being wrong - talk about a bit of politics being played - spare me. Why did you, minister, cite with approval and thank the Attorney-General for her contribution, part of which you knew was wrong?
Ms McCARTHY: Member for Araluen, I also thanked you and other members of this House for your contribution because I believe, as Minister for Children and Families, this House must rise above the personal, petty politics for the sake of the children of the Northern Territory.
Ms CARNEY: I do not recall that you did thank me, minister, but that is the type of stuff we seem to be getting from government these days; you all seem to be telling so many whoppers you cannot keep up where the truth is. But, I digress; I will come back to that.
The Attorney-General also made repeated references in her contribution - for which you thanked her - to consensual sex between children under the age of 16. The Northern Territory’s first law officer refers to consensual sex with children under the age of 16. We had ...
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Chair. I have not seen the Hansard version of that …
Ms Carney: You should.
Dr BURNS: … and I would be very surprised if that was the case ...
Members interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Chair. The Hansard rush has been obtained quite appropriately, and because the Leader of Government Business has chosen to keep himself ignorant is no reason the member for Araluen should not be allowed to ask questions.
Madam CHAIR: Please pause while I confer with the Clerk.
Dr BURNS: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Chair- and this is important for people listening - the rushes which come from Hansard are uncorrected rushes. From my eight years of experience here, the grammar, the punctuation, the way in which things can be misconstrued on Hansard rushes, can lead to problems.
There was an instance where I misheard the former member for Greatorex during, I believe, an estimates hearing. I became quite concerned about what I thought he had said but, at the end of the day, when he corrected the Hansard - and I believed his integrity in that regard - it was not at all what I had thought. We need to be very careful about uncorrected Hansard rushes being used as evidence in this Assembly ...
Members interjecting.
Madam CHAIR: Order! Thank you, member for Johnston. I would like to confer with the Clerk before I take any more points of order on this.
My advice is the minister is in a position to answer that question. Should it prove later to be in the corrected version of Hansard, then it will be corrected.
Mr Elferink: Wise counsel, Madam Chair. Thank you.
Ms CARNEY: The Territory’s first law officer made repeated - I counted at least seven - references to consensual sex between children under the age of 16. It is interesting the member for Johnston, in particular, would jump to his feet because he has been an Attorney-General and he knows the care and precision an Attorney-General needs to use when it comes to public utterances. We think, on this side of the Chamber, you were a pretty ordinary Health minister, and you were a much better Attorney-General. I certainly have no recollection of you as Attorney-General, member for Johnston, being so loose and so unwise with your comments.
The member for Karama did make repeated references to young people having consensual activity. The reason I raise it - and it does have particular application to our bill - is it is patently wrong. The law of the Northern Territory is children under the age of 16 cannot consent - and there are good reasons for that – and it is well understood in the Territory and elsewhere, although the age of consent is not necessarily uniform around the country.
I believe it was on 25 November 2003, we had the age of consent legislation and a debate that finished at about 2 am - a debate where, at some personal cost I might say, I voted with the government in support of that legislation because it was the right thing to do. The member for Karama was there and I do not remember her having anything to say; but I make no judgment about that. The member for Karama well understands the age of consent in the Northern Territory is 16.
Minister, do you understand the age of consent in the Northern Territory is 16?
Ms McCARTHY: Member for Araluen, the age of consent, as I understand it, is 16.
Ms CARNEY: Minister, in your bill, you leave open the possibility, if people believe their children under 16 but over 14 have been or are likely to be a victim of a sexual offence - why are you not requiring people to report that?
Ms McCARTHY: We have been through this and clearly we need to do it in the House. I certainly understand those matters, and I have taken those questions into consideration in putting this together. I am very aware the question of consent remains a criminal offence under the Criminal Code. There is no dispute with that.
Ms CARNEY: We will come back to that. So, you know, but the Attorney-General does not know - as evidenced by her continued references to consensual sexual activity. The reason we proposed the wording in our bill was, interestingly, because Parliamentary Counsel, in one version of our bill, actually used the word ‘consent’ in relation to children under the age of 16. I immediately, through the Leader of the Opposition’s Office, said: ‘No, you cannot possibly use that word, it is completely inconsistent because the law of the Northern Territory is, you cannot consent unless you are over 16 - wrong word completely to use in this context’.
We did some additional work and that is why, in our bill, we came up with the language of: ‘the other child did not coerce the relevant child’. Imminently sensible, of course, given children in the Northern Territory cannot consent to sexual intercourse and other sexual acts, because they are children, and that is why we have consent laws in the Northern Territory.
The criteria we outlined in our bill, contrary to what the Attorney-General said – and I will come back to that later – we used very specific language for a number of sound reasons. We wanted everyone in the Northern Territory to have the same obligation, and that is necessary in terms of clarity of message for the reasons I discussed earlier today. We provide six criteria by which someone does not have to report, so we preserve the law by preserving the consent laws. Equally, we provide some flexibility in terms of providing a series of exemptions or exclusions in relation to non-reporting.
That is why we went down the path we did and, naturally, I will be urging you to adopt our amendment. The Attorney-General, of course, does not accept the way our bill is presented; she does not accept there would be no requirement to report if our six criteria are met. Then she had the audacity to say what we came up with, she was advised - she did not table any advice and, if you would be good enough to table the advice you received from the Department of Justice, I would be grateful. I am still of the view you, or others, made it abundantly clear to those at DOJ to find something. And, of course, I gave you the opportunity last night, I said: ‘You could meet those concerns; you could come up with a hybrid and we could still rock and roll today’. But no, you did not want to go down that path. I stand by the wording of our bill and suggest to you it is much clearer and very sound.
I would like to get back to, as I am allowed to do, the comments made by the Attorney-General. After she says: ‘… in and around the reporting of those teenagers who are having consensual sex’, she then went on to say:
It is incredibly serious, minister. Not only has the Attorney-General not understood the consent laws of the Northern Territory, she given a ringing endorsement to not pursuing prosecutions for children between 14 and 16. Not only has she spoken on behalf of the Child Abuse Task Force which, I believe will be very insulted, and said what they do is this, that, and the other, she has also said the Child Abuse Task Force would not pursue prosecutions for those having consensual sex. That is extremely worrying, and I ask you to be similarly worried about this. I know you are having a smile, but we regard this very seriously, and we are not going to let this one go.
Attorney-General, it is not the Child Abuse Task Force, in any event, which determines whether a prosecution is brought - that is the DPP! Give her a lesson, Burnsie, in Law 101. Give her the old separation of powers argument. Tell her about the DPP …
Mr Elferink: She has a track record of interfering in matters before the courts.
Madam CHAIR: Member for Araluen, I am asking if this preamble is leading to a question for the minister.
Ms CARNEY: Yes, it is, and can I …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Chair! I may not have heard the member for Port Darwin fully, but I believe he was alluding to an alleged lack of propriety on the part of the member for Karama. If he did, I ask him to withdraw. He knows, if he is, it is only by substantive motion.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Chair, the Leader of Government Business is entirely correct. I was reflecting entirely on the propriety of a decision the Attorney-General made in relation to a matter before the court. And no, I will not withdraw it because there are no grounds for me to withdraw it. She has admitted it. She said it was a good thing.
Madam CHAIR: Thank you. Member for Araluen, we will continue with your question.
Ms CARNEY: Of course, there is 10 minutes for every question; I am allowed, as members would know, a preamble. I know those opposite would much rather knock off at 4.05 pm and I note we have gone beyond that, which must be extremely troubling for them. However, we on this side (a) like hard work, and (b) will not let some of these offensive remarks just go by-the-by.
When the Attorney-General said: ‘Those of us who actually understand the system understand the frontline workers in the Child Abuse Task Force would not pursue prosecutions for those having consensual sex between the ages of 14 and 16’, did you, minister, know that is what the Child Abuse Task Force does? Do you know that is the position? Is that an official position of the Child Abuse Task Force?
Ms McCARTHY: Clearly, this issue has been complex from the very beginning. I urge you, member for Araluen, to keep focused on what we are about today in this House in terms of children of the Northern Territory. I have explained on numerous occasions, both here on the floor this afternoon and also privately to you, our government has followed a particular process. I am well aware of the issues you have raised, but I firmly believe the process we have followed and continue to follow, as a government, in terms of section 26 of the Care and Protection of Children Act, is the process we now need to support.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, minister. I am not sure you answered the question. Perhaps if I can put it this way, because I feel certain you appreciate the seriousness of it in light of the Attorney-General’s comments. You are, of course, the Minister for Children and Families, and even though I have been critical of the lack of numbers in the Child Abuse Task Force, I always assumed you and I had a sound understanding of what it was the Child Abuse Task Force did and how they operated.
So, can I ask whether it has been your belief the Child Abuse Task Force is not interested, or does not wish others to pursue, prosecutions for those young people between 14 and 16 having, as the Attorney-General would say, consensual sex …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Chair! Once again, I call relevance. We are debating the amendments put forward by the member for Araluen and we seem to be getting diverted into this almost pharisaic debate ...
Ms Carney: Oh, fair go!
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: It is. All the way along the line it is designed to trip people up, to prove your case, to have little wins. We are here about something serious and, basically, it sounds to me all about an even-up between the member for Araluen and the member for Karama, and it is getting into the realm of personal quarrel.
So, I ask this debate gets back on track where it should be – and where it should be is about the care and protection of children as put forward by this amendment today - instead of running down holes and trying, in a pharisaical way, to find people have said the wrong word here or there, and putting a legal dimension to everything they say when we are using commonplace language …
Members interjecting.
Madam CHAIR: Order! Member for Port Darwin! Order!
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Chair! I am now forming the opinion the Leader for Government Business is simply running interference for the minister. I point out to you page 188 of House of Representatives Practice, and I quote:
I ask you to counsel the Leader of Government Business accordingly, and allow this debate to continue in the way it should continue.
The member for Araluen is referring to matters to which the Attorney-General herself has made comment, and interference is frivolous and spurious.
Madam CHAIR: There is no point of order, but I ask the member for Araluen to keep her line of questioning focused on the bill before us. There is, at committee stage, often a circuitous nature of question and answer, and the minister does not have to answer the questions. Member for Araluen, you have the call.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Chair, I would now like to ask a question.
Minister, I am starting to truly share the same fears the member for Araluen has been expressing, and those fears arise out of the observations made of language used by the Attorney-General which could only be described as devious in its intent, or reckless to an extreme. I find it astonishing the Attorney-General of the Northern Territory would refer to sexual congress of children between the age of 14 and the age of 16 as consensual.
Whilst I appreciate the minister may not have to, or feel obliged in any way to, answer these questions - how she conducts herself in this place is her issue - I find it highly surprising that she would restrain herself to supporting a minister who holds those world views.
So, minister, I put it to you: do you support the comments made by the Attorney-General in relation to consensual sex between the ages 14 and 16?
Ms McCARTHY: Member for Port Darwin, I am not sure if you have been listening to the debate this afternoon ...
Mr Elferink: I have been listening very carefully, and I have not heard your answer.
Ms McCARTHY: Let me share again for your purposes here this afternoon that, clearly, our government has been about a particular process we have followed with section 26 of the Care of Protection of Children Act. Regarding the questions by the member for Araluen concerning the Child Abuse Task Force, naturally, the focus of the task force is to respond to issues of children across the Northern Territory. In the case of any prosecution, naturally, that will be up to the Department of Public Prosecution.
Member for Port Darwin and members opposite, if I could bring you back to the importance of this debate - it is about care and protection of our children and the fact we have followed a particular process with the health professionals. I have said in this House already, and I will continue to say: our ongoing work with other sectors of the community will begin immediately, with the support of this House.
Mr ELFERINK: Long answer, no answer. The question I asked was: do you support the comments by the Attorney-General in relation to consensual sex between the age of 14 and 16? Is it government policy to consider sex between the ages of 14 and 16 consensual? It is a yes or no answer. I do not need to hear about section 26.
Ms McCARTHY: Member for Port Darwin, in my response to the second reading speech, I indicated my appreciation for the support given by members in their speeches in the debate, particularly from this side of the House.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Chair, I will finish with this observation. I do not really expect a reply from the minister, but small wonder the people of the Northern Territory look upon their politicians as people who make answers slipperier than eels in buckets of Vaseline. It is a straightforward yes or no answer, and I get led down this merry little path. The reason this occurs is because, if the answer is yes, then the minister agrees with the Attorney-General who made a statement which, basically, is unlawful. If the answer is no, then there is a difference between this minister and her Attorney-General. So, rather than answer at all, it just gets slipperier and slipperier. What a shame.
Ms CARNEY: Minister, I will take it from your answers, or lack of them, to the questions asked by my colleague, the member for Port Darwin, and those I asked in relation to the Child Abuse Task Force, you do not know whether it is their policy, your policy, or anyone else’s policy, whether they would pursue prosecutions or not want them pursued. I may at some point write to you - which is one of the options open to me – because, clearly, we would be wanting clarification.
I never give the member for Karama the benefit of the doubt, and I do not propose to start doing that now. I can only assume she genuinely believed that was the position of the Child Abuse Task Force. If that was a genuinely held view and, if that is your view, as minister, and the view of the government, then something needs to be done about it because it is just not on, and we both know it.
The Attorney-General, in her repeated references to 14- and 16-year-olds engaged in consensual sexual activity, continued to make herself look foolish, because she then contradicted herself and asserted what is actually correct, somewhere in her contribution, by stating the law of the Northern Territory is: ‘Sexual intercourse with a child under 16 years is an offence under the Criminal Code’. So she got there, then she jumped back into the consensual sex.
I am hopeful you will have a discussion with the Attorney-General - and I presume the member for Johnston will help - so we get the Attorney-General, who used to be the Minister for Children and Families, not running her own race but actually singing from the government’s song book; although she would still be so unhappy after the events of the last couple of weeks, I guess she is going off and doing her own thing. I digress.
The Attorney-General said she had advice from the Department of Justice the bill we introduced is: ‘less workable and confusing’. She said our amendments bring in more onerous reporting obligations and, in the course of making that point, she made yet another reference to consensual sex between children of 14 and 16.
Minister, do you have a copy of the legal advice obtained from the Department of Justice, or anyone else, and will you table it?
Ms McCARTHY: Sorry, member for Araluen. Did you ask me to table the letter? Is that what you asked?
Ms CARNEY: I asked you to table the legal advice, yes.
Ms McCARTHY: I will not be tabling anything.
Ms CARNEY: Right. So the Attorney-General, who has just been making it up as she goes along, says she has advice from the department. Well, we will never know whether she has that advice. I do not believe she did get advice or even if she did seek advice. I am not sure she was reading from that advice, or could possibly have been reading from that advice, because she said our amendments are less workable and confusing.
That is clearly not the case. In the opposition’s bill there are six criteria outlined which would give protection for, not only all children between 14 and 16, but that everyone would have to report unless the six criteria were met. It is important in the context of this debate, and noting we want our bill to succeed, I outline those six criteria, and then go back to what the Attorney-General had the audacity to say.
In new clause 3(1A) of our opposition bill to amend section 26 of the act, it says:
(i) by participating in the sexual act; or
(ii) as a consequence of participating in the sexual act.
That is our bill. For the Attorney-General to say it is confusing beggars belief. I know most members of this House, certainly members on this side, find it very difficult to believe anything the Attorney-General has to say - but this one is right up there! How on earth can she say such a clear set of criteria which provides exclusion from reporting is confusing? Particularly when the government’s own bill seeks to separate, in the clumsy way it does, health practitioners and everyone else, and then provides a different standard of reporting, or a different sliding scale, if you like.
So, minister, given you cited with approval the Attorney-General’s comments, and thanked her for her comments, why do you say our bill is confusing?
Ms McCARTHY: Member for Araluen, I have outlined from the outset the process we have followed. This is not an easy issue to deal with; we all have views on it.
I have read through section 3 of your proposed amendments, looking at: the sexual act occurred; the age difference between the relevant child and the other child; the other child is not a brother, half-brother, sister or half-sister of the relevant child. And we go on: what about the cousins, or the nieces, or the aunties? There is room in both bills, no doubt, for extra questions.
Let me reiterate, our government stands firm on the process we have followed with a very difficult issue. We stand firm on the process of discussing it with the health practitioners. We stand firm on the fact I will, with the support of this parliament, continue that process with other sectors of the community. We stand firm on our belief we have laws here in the Northern Territory which do protect our children. But we also recognise this is a difficult issue, and we recognise we have to find the balance.
Ms CARNEY: Thanks, minister. You did not answer the question. You referred to process; you referred to getting the balance right, etcetera. My question was: can you outline for the parliament why the Attorney-General and, presumably, you, regard the opposition’s bill as confusing?
Ms McCARTHY: Member for Araluen, the reason there are questions with your bill is you have wanted to encompass the whole community, where we have focused on the health practitioners. That is the difference between your bill and the bill we have before us. As I have said, and continue to say, we have focused on the health practitioners for a particular reason. Until we consult widely with the rest of those groups and child-related organisations, we cannot go in the direction you are asking us to go, because I am not convinced the process you have followed bears the depth of history and consultation I have taken.
Ms CARNEY: Gee whiz, it is hard going, minister. The best answer …
Dr Burns: It is.
Ms CARNEY: Well, it is your bill - you assert it is pretty good and ours is not up too much. We have every right in this House of debate, as you know, to get it on the Parliamentary Record why it is, in the absence of tabling legal advice …
Ms McCarthy: I never said that.
Ms CARNEY: Well, he did. You are saying: ‘We have advice that says your bill is confusing, misleading’, and a few of other words. I am asking, legitimately, why? I asked you to table that advice; you are not going to table that advice. The first time I asked you, you said it was process. The second time I asked you, the best I could get from your response was it is confusing because we seek to include the whole community.
Two questions arise from that, and I will ask them separately: is it not important, in something like this, to include the whole community?
Ms McCARTHY: I missed the last part of your question. If I go back a step, let me put on the Parliamentary Record I have not criticised your bill. Let me put on the Parliamentary Record I have wanted and thought I was working with you from the very beginning. Let me put on the Parliamentary Record I gave you a copy of this bill on 7 August 2009, and not once did you raise with me what your concerns were …
Ms CARNEY: No, you are wrong. I sent an e-mail to your office saying I had concerns and I was considering my position.
Madam CHAIR: Order!
Ms McCARTHY: It was not until Monday of this week you detailed what those concerns were. So, please member for Araluen …
Ms CARNEY: Is that your answer?
Ms McCARTHY: Let me put on the Parliamentary Record the reason we are in this position is because we believe in a particular process which we have followed, and wish to continue to follow.
Ms CARNEY: I appreciate when you stood up you did not hear the last part of my question. The question was: is it not important to include the rest of the community? I believe what you just said will be repeated if I ask you that question again. I said two questions arose from an answer before the one you have just given. That second question is: if our bill is confusing, how is yours less confusing?
Ms McCARTHY: Member for Araluen, thank you for the question.
Ms CARNEY: Cute one, isn’t it?
Ms McCARTHY: As I have said on numerous occasions, this is a complex issue, and I am not saying our bill stands way above; what I am defending here is …
Ms CARNEY: All right, I think I might have to …
Ms McCARTHY: … the process we have taken to get to this position. We are very confident, because of consultation with the Caring for Kids Coalition, with the youth groups, with the Family Advisory Group, in the process which has brought us to this position.
Ms CARNEY: Given you have not outlined why our bill is confusing, minister, I wonder whether you might, and I accept you are not going to table your legal advice, be good enough to read from it so we can be satisfied in our future endeavours in trying to come up with legislation, we will not make the same mistakes again? Would you be good enough to read from your legal advice where it says it is confusing and has the defects to which you vaguely referred in our telephone conversation last night?
Ms McCARTHY: Member for Araluen, I believe the member for Karama did that quite succinctly.
Ms CARNEY: What? We are gobsmacked! I used it before, I will use it again. Sorry, I am just trying to understand your answer.
Ms McCARTHY: My answer is I believe the member for Karama was referring to the letter she received from the Department of Justice.
Ms CARNEY: Well, you can never tell with the member for Karama; she really does have atrocious form in the parliament. I believe I will just have to leave this debate thinking the member for Karama believes there is something wrong with our bill. She probably has not read it, she certainly is all over the shop when it comes to understanding the law of the Northern Territory - which is regrettable given she is the Northern Territory’s first law officer.
She has had a couple of rough weeks, she cannot challenge the Chief Minister, so I suppose she is feeling pretty flat and not really able to come up with a good argument. She apparently could not persuade her colleagues they should vote for her in any leadership challenge. I would not have voted for her either, but there you go. That is the member for Karama …
Dr Burns: You have had a fair amount of experience in that.
Ms CARNEY: … she really should conduct herself in a much better way …
Dr BURNS: You, too!
Ms CARNEY: … just like you did, member for Johnston, when you were the Attorney-General.
We have dealt with a range of issues but I am still not satisfied by anything I have heard in - how long have we been here – just over an hour regarding the questions. I am not satisfied at all with any of the answers.
I remain concerned about the Attorney-General’s comments in relation to her understanding of the law, the Child Abuse Task Force etcetera. I am also concerned the minister was approving of the comments made by the member for Nelson - a remarkable position to adopt, given she is the Minister for Children and Families, and also the Minister for Child Protection.
I am still curious, and have not received anything in the way of a half-reasonable explanation, as to why our bill is confusing. All I have to go on is something said by the member for Karama whose relationship with the truth is, no doubt, a very difficult one.
I will finish at this juncture, and put you on notice, minister, I will be moving, at the end of this bill, a suspension of standing orders so the Criminal Code amendment can be dealt with. Putting aside the distance between us in relation to the Care and Protection of Children Act, there is still some merit in leaving the parliament tonight with the defence under the Criminal Code. I would like your support for, at least, having that debate about the Criminal Code.
Notwithstanding the distance between us, to leave the parliament after an issue like this, which has been brought on in urgency and leave the Criminal Code nowhere, would be most regrettable. When I seek that suspension of standing orders, I ask for you to accommodate my request. I have spoken to the member for Nelson as well. It will not be a long debate, but there are some very important matters I feel should be on the Parliamentary Record. I expect, at this stage, not to succeed in getting the Criminal Code amendment up but, with my powers of persuasion, it is worth a go. The member for Nelson may, indeed, be persuaded to come our way. I will put that on notice now, and I can almost hear the flurry of activity on the fifth floor and elsewhere in the building.
I will leave it at that, noting just your convenience, Madam Chair, I will not pursue the other matters in relation to the bill. I also note the defeat of clause 3 really does bring into question why on earth we would go to the other part. I am just trying to be as practical as possible.
Dr BURNS: To pick up on a few things said by the member for Araluen. I believe the minister has repeatedly made it very plain here today it has been the process of consultation that has really shaped the amendments she has put forward to the Care and Protection Children Act.
It has not been so much the legal process or which bill is so much better, she has responded to extensive consultation across a range of sectors, including young people, and that is why we are here today. She has also made it quite clear that has been framed and she will be carrying on further consultations, including other groups. This step-wise approach has been made very plain by the member for Arnhem. I know the member for Araluen has come back to the legal argument of exclusion and why ours is only focusing on the medical practitioners, while she wants to include everyone in hers. In my mind, the member for Arnhem has made it very clear why she has gone along that particular path.
There has been criticism of the member for Karama and also the member for Nelson; and far be it for me to defend either of them, they are quite capable of defending themselves. The member for Araluen has a number of avenues; she could have questioned people during Question Time today on those comments if she so desired. There are various avenues where she can ask people directly rather than asking another minister indirectly in the way that has been done.
Finally, Madam Chair, I would like to say, if the general public were to read the Hansard of all the offerings today in this debate, including the committee stage debate and the debate which preceded it, the member for Nelson’s comments and the reasons he gave for supporting the way in which the member for Arnhem has gone would be applauded. And he paid due respect to the efforts, passion and focus of the member for Araluen.
He talked, in many ways, as a father; the challenges of being a parent to people in that 14 to 16 age group, and the things families want to try to deal with within the family; things which arise in nearly every family.
I really empathise with what the member for Nelson said, and also the member for Casuarina. I do not think we should lose sight of the fact we are actually here to safeguard the rights of children, and we are certainly 100% in agreement about our commitment to protect children. However, we also have to keep in mind the basic context and building block of our society and our community - which is families.
When people come back to read this debate, they might see a lot of toing and froing, but I believe the sentiments put forward by the member for Nelson would really strike a chord in a lot of people in our community. That is another reason I am supporting the minister, and will not be supporting the amendments as put forward by the member for Araluen.
Madam CHAIR: Honourable members, the question is that Clause 3 stand as printed.
The committee divided:
Ayes 13 Noes 10
Mrs Aagaard Mr Bohlin
Ms Anderson Ms Carney
Dr Burns Mr Chandler
Mr Gunner Mr Conlan
Mr Hampton Mr Elferink
Mr Henderson Mr Giles
Mr Knight Mr Mills
Ms Lawrie Mr Styles
Mr McCarthy Mr Tollner
Ms McCarthy Mr Westra van Holthe
Mr Vatskalis
Ms Walker
Mr Wood
Motion agreed to.
Ms CARNEY: Madam Chair, I seek leave to withdraw the other clauses for which I invite defeat.
Leave granted.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Ms McCARTHY (Children and Families): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, it is not often in this House we get to a third reading debate. Given the importance of this debate, which has been going on for some hours now, it is important for us to reflect on where we have been today and where we can go tomorrow.
At the outset, I make it clear the opposition will not oppose this bill. I can say with certainty the minister would have expected me to have stated that position. We believe, using the Attorney-General’s words in relation to our bill, the government’s bill is less workable and confusing, but is not opposed because we all know we cannot leave tonight without the unintended consequences of section 26 being remedied. We stand by our views the way we would do it is better than the way suggested by government, but we roll on and it may be we come back another time to make further amendments - I would expect that to be the case.
I note the minister will be having a review from about April and probably, on a government timetable, it would be late next year that we would see some amendments.
We are committed absolutely on this side of the Chamber to making sure legislation which comes before us is well scrutinised and, where appropriate, we come up with our own legislation, as I alerted the minister some time ago.
It is regrettable it has taken this long, given the type of concerns raised many months ago by those in the medical profession, in particular, but let us not just confine it to that. The fact is there have been many concerns in the community, hence I come back to why on earth are you separating it. I do not agree, and I feel certain the minister does not agree, with every proposition put forward by the NT Mothers against Mandatory Reporting, but that is a group which has made representations to both government and opposition.
I have been receiving many phone calls from young people very keen to speak to me, and I sent them my bills and the Hansard from the other day; so to say it is really only the medical and allied health profession interested in this, just is not true. Even the minister in her response referred to the fact we really wanted everyone to report neighbours, friends and so on. So we still find it difficult to budge from why it is the government seeks to consolidate or confine its bill to the health profession or health practitioners in relation to children 14 and 16, but not for everyone else, for children 14 and 16.
I remain deeply concerned about the comments made by the Attorney-General which I have referred to in the committee stage, and hope someone can talk to her so some day she might have an idea of what she is talking about, but I live in hope. I thank my colleagues, in particular, who have been very supportive, not just today, but in the lead up to this. It is an issue I know they are very concerned about, as well; so I am very proud to stand with them.
I will leave it at that; but I do put the minister on notice that I will be moving a suspension of standing orders, and I undertake to her to be very short in that. It could just be that it may assist government in further working towards improving the situation for young people in the Northern Territory who are, sadly, abused and the people to whom they go and have contact with in allied health and other professions. I thank everyone for their participation.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from bringing on the Criminal Code Amendment (Child Sexual Offences) Bill 2009 (Serial 50), and for it to proceed through all stages.
Madam Speaker, I said I would be reasonably brief …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I seek a ruling; does the member need to seek leave to move a suspension of standing orders?
Madam SPEAKER: No, she can seek leave, but the member did not do that, she is seeking to suspend standing orders.
It is a debate only on the suspension of standing orders, member for Araluen.
Ms CARNEY: Sorry, only on the suspension of standing orders?
Madam SPEAKER: Only on the suspension of standing orders.
Ms CARNEY: Yes. We want the standing orders suspended so we can leave this building tonight with legislation passed, which can only be passed tonight, so there is a defence in the Criminal Code for those who have an obligation to report the sexual activity described by, or referred to, in the bill which we have just finished debating.
It is important we make some progress on this, and I ask the minister that the government has this debate. The suspension of standing orders will ensure one of two things: we have the debate about the need for a defence in the Criminal Code or, alternatively, we actually leave the building with a defence.
In the letter to which I referred today from the Law Society, dated 17 August 2009; the author of the letter, Barbara Bradshaw, in relation to the Criminal Code amendment which I introduced on Tuesday, wrote:
Not only were the changes to the Care and Protection of Children Act supported, but the Criminal Code amendment was supported. It is a very important amendment, not only for the reason outlined by the Law Society, and it does fit with the bill which has just been passed. The reason for a defence in the Criminal Code really becomes even more important given the government’s bill has just been passed. The advantage of changing the code is it provides a defence to any prosecution ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, it is only about the suspension of standing orders. It is not about the bill itself.
Ms CARNEY: I understand that, Madam Speaker. My point is the advantage is we can have a defence in place which will run parallel to the changes brought about in the Care and Protection of Children Act. If we leave the building tonight without the Criminal Code and without the suspension of standing orders which will make that happen, then we really are leaving a significant gap and an area of uncertainty where everyone would agree that certainty is the order for the day.
In relation to the suspension of standing orders which is required for us to get to this point, I will make some comments in relation to the model Criminal Code which, in 1999, suggested there be a similarity of age defence, and the appropriate age difference would be two years.
I would like us to move to that debate; it will not take long. It is appropriate in the circumstances, given those opposite have said how important child protection is to them and, in particular, the minister has referred to health practitioners. So we owe it to them to leave the building tonight with a defence in place in the Criminal Code.
I am not sure there is much more I can add, Madam Speaker. I urge members to support the motion.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, government will not be supporting the motion. We believe it should sit on the Notice Paper and be debated at the next General Business Day.
The member for Araluen has introduced a number of bills at very short notice. She is proffering legal advice which has not been tested by the Department of Justice, and it would be the wrong thing for this House to plunge headlong into this area. It opens up issues around the age of consent, I have been advised, and I believe that is the type of issue which needs to be debated by the community. Those of us who were here during similar debates in the, was it the Tenth Assembly?
Madam SPEAKER: Ninth.
Dr BURNS: The Ninth Assembly.
Ms Carney: We have had so many.
Dr BURNS: We have had so many, and we could have had more, but there you go.
With all respect to the member for Araluen, we will not be supporting this motion to suspend standing orders in order to debate this bill.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, by leaving it on the Notice Paper, the logic of the argument from the Leader of Government Business is we will get around to talking about this eventually. I am sure I heard the member for Araluen say: if you have to defeat this bill, then defeat the bill, but let us at least have the debate. That is why she is seeking a suspension of standing orders.
By leaving it on the Notice Paper the government is, essentially, offering an olive branch, saying this might get passed into law. If it does, it would hardly be an equitable situation that, in the time between now and the next General Business Day when this becomes a matter of debate, there might be medical practitioners who fall into the grey area now left behind as a result of the passage of the bill before.
Consequently, it is incumbent on us to settle this matter, sooner rather than later, in an effort to create a legal environment which will not create, potentially, two standards resulting from conduct by medical practitioners over the next three months. It strikes me as common sense to bring this debate on now.
Madam SPEAKER: The question is the motion as moved by the member for Araluen be agreed to.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 10 Noes 12
Mr Bohlin Mrs Aagaard
Ms Carney Dr Burns
Mr Chandler Mr Gunner
Mr Conlan Mr Hampton
Mr Elferink Mr Henderson
Mr Giles Mr Knight
Mr Mills Ms Lawrie
Mr Styles Mr McCarthy
Mr Tollner Ms McCarthy
Mr Westra Van Holthe Mr Vatskalis
Ms Walker
Mr Wood
Motion negatived.
Dr BURNS (Business): Madam Speaker, today I am pleased to inform the House on progress made in implementing the federal government’s stimulus package and I refer to the plans for the package.
As members would be aware, the federal government delivered a $42bn Nation Building and Jobs Plan in February this year. That stimulus package was designed to do a number of things, including: providing direct payments to stimulate expenditure, providing tax breaks to ensure ongoing business investment, and supporting employment through massive infrastructure investment especially in schools, Defence housing, and roof insulation. The Prime Minister announced this plan in February and all Chief Ministers, Premiers, and Treasurers were brought together to hear what he wanted done. It was clear implementing this plan with speed was the order of the day. I agreed wholeheartedly with this decision.
The Northern Territory government responded to the stimulus package by announcing our five-point plan for implementation. That plan includes: the Development Consent Authority to meet every fortnight instead of every month; a summit of construction industry leaders to be held to brief industry and get all ideas on the table; dedicated Stimulus Action Squads set up in government departments to get projects up and running as fast as possible; to make it even easier for local companies to win local projects, a short and sharp review of procurement to streamline development processes and cut red tape, including raising the threshold before going to tender, and getting contractors involved earlier in the process.
I am pleased to report to the House the plan has been implemented and projects are already being delivered on the ground. While the Northern Territory has withstood the effects of the global financial crisis and has remained strong, Operation Stimulus has further strengthened our economic position and will continue to do so.
I will first deal with the Development Consent Authority to meet every fortnight instead of every month. As of 1 July, the Darwin and Litchfield divisions of the Development Consent Authority are now meeting fortnightly. The Department of Planning and Infrastructure is also working with the Development Consent Authority to have formal notification to applicants occur more quickly after meetings - often the next business day. Other divisions of the Development Consent Authority may meet more frequently if there is a need for this to occur, and the Department of Planning and Infrastructure will coordinate this with the Development Consent Authority.
To meet demand, the Department of Planning and Infrastructure has employed five more planners. In addition to this, from 1 July 2009, the government has established a one-stop shop for developers. The Department of Planning and Infrastructure is managing the one-stop shop process and is coordinating the input of many other government agencies and councils. The services offered cover the pre-application period right through to the development and assessment process.
As part of the one-stop shop and, for the first time, developers can brief the Development Consent Authority about their intended development before they lodge an application. Also, for the first time, services offered through the one-stop shop can be booked online. More information can be found on the Department of Planning and Infrastructure website, www.dpi.nt.gov.au. Like any new initiative, there will be some fine tuning of the one-stop shop and feedback can be provided to Richard Hancock, the CEO of Department of Planning and Infrastructure.
The government, through the Chief Minister, then hosted summits in February and July with construction industry leaders. We appointed a coordinator-general and established Stimulus Action Squads.
The coordinator-general will match the federal government’s arrangements and cut through any problems which may arise in delivery. The key departments of Housing, Education and Planning have staff dedicated to the implementation of this stimulus package.
In addition, the government established an industry reference group to work with the public service and to provide advice on the implementation of the stimulus plan. I am grateful to those members for their time and expertise in making it easier for local companies to win local projects and hold a short, sharp review of procurement to streamline the development processes and cut red tape.
The government held a very quick review of the procurement process, resulting in significant changes. Our first action was to raise the thresholds for quotes; we did this to cut down on the paperwork involved in 40% of all contracts. We also did it because contracts let on quotes must use Territory companies, unless an exemption is given.
Combined with our 20% local preference requirement, these measures were designed to increase the chances of local companies. The new measures came into effect on March 30.
Tier 1 requires one quote for contracts up to $15 000, that used to be $5000. Tier 2, minimum three written quotes for contracts up to $50 000, it used to be $10 000. Tier 3, minimum three written quotes with minimum contractor accreditation, limited CAL accreditation for $50 000 up to $200 000. Tier 4, full public tender assessment criteria weightings made public, and that is $200 000 rather than $5m; previously it started at $50 000.
To make sure all Territory businesses get a fair go under these changes, we mandated the use of an agency procurement requisition online system for all procurements above $15 000; allowed everyone, in addition to those invited to quote, to put in an expression of interest for quotations over $50 000; reduced the threshold for public disclosure of assessment criteria weightings from $1m to $200 000; supported and retained CAL and the NTICN measures, and outposted senior procurement officers in government agencies to improve professionalism across government.
In effect, the five-point plan is being well implemented and executed, and I am grateful to the public service and to industry for their efforts. The benefits are being seen across the Territory, especially in three key areas: $300m for school infrastructure, $65m for public and community housing, and $17m for repairs to regional roads, black spot funding and railway crossing boom gates.
I am pleased to inform the House already more than 300 contracts have been let valued at over $221m across the Northern Territory so far. The roll-out of the contracts reflects the varying lead times required for the different types of projects. The Department of Education and Training has awarded 292 contracts, totalling over $204m. The Department of Local Government and Housing has awarded four contracts totalling more than $2.3m. And road/rail has awarded eight contracts totalling over $14m.
These contracts are not concentrated in one area, but are distributed throughout the Territory. A breakdown of those contracts shows in the Central Australian region, 82 contracts, totalling over $34.3m have been awarded; 80 in education; one in housing, and two in road/rail.
The Barkly region has 20 contracts totalling over $11.77m awarded in Education. The Katherine region has 55 contracts, totalling over $30.4m awarded, 54 in Education, and one in road/rail. The Palmerston/Litchfield region has had 30 contracts, totalling over $30.8m awarded, 28 in Education, and two in road/rail.
The Top End rural areas have had 25 contracts, totalling over $14m awarded, 24 in Education, and one in road/rail. The East Arnhem region has had 35 contracts totalling over $36m awarded in Education. There are also two Territory-wide contracts that have been awarded totalling over $13m, one in Housing and one in road/rail. In Darwin some 54 contracts have been awarded, totalling over $50m, 51 in Education, two in Housing, and one in road/rail.
Some of these contracts have already been completed and final payments have been made. Some of these contracts have had work commence, and some are yet to commence.
The positive effect of over $220m, so far, being injected into the Territory economy has begun. The positive effects and benefits of Operation Stimulus include: increased business activities for the building and construction industry and its suppliers; the maintenance and creation of jobs; increased business for professional and technical services sector; and increased economic growth, including the flow-on effects to other sectors of the economy. It will also provide longer-term benefits including: improving our skills base; strengthening our capacity levels in the economy, and improving productivity. Operation Stimulus is building a better short and long-term outlook for the Territory and will create and secure many jobs in the delivery of the contracts generated by it.
The future: it is imperative to note Operation Stimulus is not complete, and there are still more contracts to be awarded and further stimulus to be injected into our economy. The total package for the Northern Territory is more than $600m over four years to 2011-12, with the majority of the money to be allocated in the first two financial years, 2008-09 and 2009-10. As you can see, we are only about halfway through the process and already the Territory economy has benefited greatly. There is still much to do to fully deliver Operation Stimulus, and we are doing it.
In the area of Education, 14 Territory schools were successful in the Science and Language Centres for the 21st Century Secondary Schools. These projects are being funded under Building the Education Revolution. Of the 14, eight Territory government schools will each receive $1.97m. This will involve the construction of six new science centres and two language centres for the following schools: Katherine High, sports science centre; Tennant Creek High, sports science centre; Gunbalanya School, science centre; Milingimbi School, science centre; Gapuwiyak School, science centre; Shepherdson College, aquaculture science centre; Centralian Middle School, language centre; and Maningrida School, language centre.
The eight projects must be completed by 30 June 2010. The six non-government school projects include: Good Shepherd Lutheran College, language centre; Kormilda College, language centre; O’Loughlin Catholic College, science laboratory refurbishment; Our Lady of Sacred Heart, Thamarrurr Catholic School, science centre; Palmerston Christian School, language hub and NTCSA network; and St. John’s College, language centre.
It is also worth noting the Commonwealth government received 1365 applications in total across the nation, all bidding for science and language centres for the 21st Century Secondary Schools. The Northern Territory submitted 41 of these. The remaining 27 applications submitted under this competitive bid category were endorsed by the National Science and Language Centre’s panel, and are also being considered for funding. The outcome of this special round two funding will be announced later this month. With such interest shown in our projects to be resubmitted for the second round, I look forward to more Territory schools receiving funding.
Another focus within the area of Education is the National School Pride Project, with 81 schools commencing projects to a value of $6.4m. The last focus at this stage, under the area of Education, is the Primary School for the 21st Century Project. Under this project, work has already commenced on the Umbakumba School, and a further 13 school projects awarded, with construction due to commence in the near future. A further nine projects are going through the assessment and approval process, and 10 projects are currently out for tender.
Part of the agreement with the Commonwealth for the delivery of the education component of Operation Stimulus is the commitment by the Northern Territory government to ensure no more than 4% of funding is used for project management, and no more than 1.5% of the funding is used for administration purposes. These requirements are to ensure the maximum amount of each project is expended into the intended purpose, and the business community. These requirements are being met in the delivery of Operation Stimulus.
I mentioned earlier there are deadlines for completion of the Science and Language Centres projects. There are also deadlines for all other Operations Stimulus projects, and these are set in conjunction with the Commonwealth as part of the funding arrangements. The deadlines are there to ensure the projects are completed in an orderly and timely manner to maximise the benefits to the community from the investment in the project. Those deadlines are being met, and will continue to be met in our delivery of Operation Stimulus. In fact, all road/rail projects covered by Operation Stimulus are being delivered within the deadlines and will provide Territorians with ongoing benefits for many years.
With regard to regional roads, $12m in repairs have been completed on the National Highway network comprising the Stuart, Victoria and Barkly Highways. This included contracts for the Darwin, Katherine and Tennant Creek regions, and additional works were also carried out in Katherine, Tennant Creek, and Alice Springs.
The project for boom gates on the railway has reached the stage where design and documentation for all three boom gates is complete. Preliminary installation works have commenced on-site and workshop testing is under way. All installation works are expected to be complete by December 2009.
To address the issue of black spots in our roads system, of the six black spot projects approved, two projects are complete, and a contract has been awarded for a third project. Woolner Road roundabout in Stuart Park has an estimated completion date of October 2009.
The area of Housing is progressing well, with 12 separate social housing project bids awaiting approval from the Commonwealth, worth a total value of over $54m. There are four projects in the Alice Springs region, and eight in the Darwin area which will provide 212 dwellings. $2.4m has already been spent on repairs and maintenance projects, including the completion of $500 000 in contracts for repair and/or replacement of roofs and solar hot water systems. Work has started on the construction of a four-bedroom house in Malak, and $1.3m has been committed for the design and construction of residences in Alice Springs and Tennant Creek.
As part of the Nation Building Economic Stimulus Plan, a number of other initiatives designed to boost economic activity and support thousands of jobs for Territorians are under way. One of these initiatives is the Energy Efficient Homes initiative which has allocated $3.4bn to provide free ceiling insulation for about 2.2m uninsulated owner/occupied homes with up to $1600 per home. It is estimated that $34m will be invested in the Territory to deliver this Energy Efficient Homes project.
There is a requirement for licensed installers to complete the installation of the insulation. I can report that, prior to Operation Stimulus, there were only two registered licensed installers in the Territory; there are now 16 registered licensed installers. To access the Energy Efficient Homes package, homeowners will need to select an appropriately registered installer to obtain a quote. Once the work has been completed, the installer will be able to claim the rebate directly from the Commonwealth, thereby reducing the time and effort required by the homeowner.
Other benefits to the Northern Territory include: $76m for 185 new Defence homes to be built; $12m for community infrastructure projects delivered by local councils across the Territory; $95m for individual payments of up to $900 for eligible Territorians paid in 2008-09; tax breaks for small Territory businesses of $27m for additional tax deductions for eligible assets.
This stimulus plan has been very successful in underpinning Territory jobs. A very important focus has been on apprenticeships and traineeships. We are leading the country in having the most stable employment of apprentices and trainees. The Department of Education and Training, in conjunction with industry associations, are closely monitoring apprentice and trainee trends in the Northern Territory. What we are finding, which is supported by advice from key industry associations, is while employers are not taking on new apprentices and trainees at the rate they have in the past few years, they are keeping the ones they already have. The current rate of new apprentice and trainee commencements appears to be levelling off from the record intakes we had over the past two years; however, the Northern Territory is still in a far better situation than other jurisdictions. On that positive note, and as is often the case in difficult economic times such as this, apprentice and trainee retention rates are improving.
Through Operation Stimulus, we have seen increased activity in the building and construction sector that has provided a boost for business confidence. We have also seen increased economic growth and increased business from flow-on effects to other sectors of the Northern Territory economy. Operations Stimulus will lead to an improved skills base amongst Territory workers which, in turn, strengthens capacity levels and improves productivity. We will continue to grow the Territory economy and protect Territory jobs.
There is no question this stimulus package has been an incredible success. I am proud of the speed with which the Northern Territory has been able to implement the package - a speed which has been noted nationwide.
I welcome the comments from all members on this statement.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of this statement.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, there are some interesting comparisons to be made in relation to the comments we have just heard from the minister; and another federal funding program which seems to have been the subject of debate in this House in recent times. I shall return to that shortly.
It is interesting to look at the context in which this stimulus package was created. One could be forgiven for thinking the minister was under the impression the Northern Territory government lived in some sort of splendid isolation or, for that matter, the Australian economy lived in some splendid isolation from the rest of the world.
The stimulus packages introduced around the world, particularly in Europe and in the United States, were the impetus and drive behind the stimulus package which was introduced by the federal government. The global financial crisis, or GFC, as it is now commonly referred to, was the product of a chain of events which started with the result of poor banking practices out of the United States; particularly bad loans being repackaged and given AAA ratings, then flogged into Europe and other places – basically the domino effect - when they started falling, the dominos continued falling.
A couple of years ago, I remember hearing when the first of these institutions started to go under. It was on radio, and I remember thinking to myself at the time: goodness, I hope there are not too many of those. It was only a passing thought really, but it is interesting now, in hindsight, that passing thought, if I had followed it to its logical conclusion and done some homework, I may have seen my own superannuation was going to cop the hiding it did cop - like so many other people’s superannuation.
Be that as it may; we then have to talk about the preparedness of government to bring these packages about. These packages are not the product of some magical largesse - it is not like the government can fire up printing presses - mind you, for money supply reasons they did do that in Great Britain. These packages are the product of borrowings.
I then compare Australia, as a nation, and how it positioned itself during the late 1990s and early this decade, with how the Northern Territory has positioned itself. The Australian government in 1996, when it came to power, was confronted with a legacy of debt totalling some $90bn …
Mr Tollner: $96bn.
Mr ELFERINK: $96bn - I thank the member for Fong Lim for his direction. When the dreadful and awful Howard government came to power, they set about creating a system by which we could start to garner and generate wealth for the state; and it was a time, with the exception of the period around 2001, of reasonably strong growth.
As a consequence of re-jigging the tax system, which was opposed by members who now hold the government’s benches in this House, the federal government was able to start paying off that $96bn debt. In doing so, during the good times, they were careful to squirrel that money away, and that squirreling continued, although 2000-01 looked a bit difficult, and Australia’s economy had to adjust itself to a new taxation system. That bedded down fairly quickly and the federal government started doing quite well out of the new taxation system; and so did the state jurisdictions start doing extremely well.
The federal government was probably, as far as the vertical fiscal imbalance is concerned, still the winner between the states and the federal government but, in dollar-terms, the states were doing extremely well. You can track it through the budget papers. As you look at the budget and then the final outcome for each financial year, particularly since 2001 when the new taxation system became operational, you can see the yawning gap between the expected income and the actual income the government has enjoyed.
So, not only do they reap in their predicted increases in income, which have not been insubstantial during that period, but also the unpredicted increases in income. Some of that is because the federal government pumped some money into the Territory government’s coffers for SPPs and, some of it - large slices of it - was unexpected GST revenue; and that GST revenue could have been used to get rid of debt in the Northern Territory. Indeed, a small amount of it was.
With the billions upon billions of extra dollars the Northern Territory received during that period, about $300m was wiped off the net debt situation, probably a little less - an unremarkable achievement. Often we hear the Treasurer come into this place and herald the budget surpluses but, as we all know, getting those budget surpluses was really the equivalent of walking around in the shower and boasting about your capacity and managerial ability in getting wet; it was a natural consequence of the large amounts of money that flowed into the Territory. Some of it was spent on infrastructure, but much of it was spent in other areas which, ultimately, did not produce great results for the Northern Territory.
Whilst we hear, ad nauseum, from the members opposite about all these extra doctors and nurses and police officers, the results on the street and on the front lines are not as edifying as we would hope - numbers of assaults go up; we still have many more presentations at our hospitals than we used to have; our education results, the NAPLAN results, are not improving at all. So, we have this situation where the government has learned how to spend but, less so, have they learnt how to develop results.
What happened? Well, during that period the government was warned by the many commentators, not least members on this side of the House - four of them as they were for part of that period. They were told: ‘You have to start saving some more money, the rainy days are coming’. And did they save more money? No, they did not. What they did was continue to spend the money.
So we have a situation where, in this year’s budget, because of their incapacity to prepare they have to engage in large amounts of borrowing, and we see it now with the tabled papers; they have gone right to the 5% limit, again, on their transfer of assets allocation for the last financial year. In fact, they might have gone over 5% slightly and had to borrow to cover that off from employee entitlements, but I would have to get some advice on that ...
Ms Lawrie: Not true.
Mr ELFERINK: I would have to get some more advice on that, I only had a quick look at it. Well, let us have a look. But it is back to the 5%, going right to the limit; we are racking it up on the Bankcard, and guess what? You read the budget papers and there was a time when the debt-to-income ratio for the Northern Territory, around 2000-01, was described as being in a state of disaster and peril and it was all horrible, and the debt-to-income ratio of 131% was just awful beyond words - it was the end of civilisation as we know it. I wonder why a debt-to-income ratio of 130% is so much nobler.
It turns out one of the things you have to understand when you read the debt-to-income ratio, is you have to factor in the 10-year bond rates; none of that was explained back in 2001, by the way – but, by God, we are relying on it now.
The fact is, this government has chosen to not prepare for the rainy day and, as a consequence, they have to borrow. There is an inconsistency in this philosophy I still do not entirely understand. The inconsistency is this: at no point has the Treasurer, or Access Economics, as far as I am aware, said the Territory was going to slip into a recessive environment. Whilst the federal government was certainly concerned about it, no projections I have seen released by the Territory Treasury, or any other informed commentators, have predicted a recessive environment. Yet, the argument from the Treasurer is we had to borrow as though we were entering into a recessive environment. That has not yet been explained away.
Whilst we have the federal government’s stimulus package being spent here in the Northern Territory, the Northern Territory government decided to engage in a stimulus package of its own by borrowing $200m - in fact, more for this financial year - to prop up a growth economy. On top of that, you have a federal government stimulus package, so you have all of this extra money coming into the Northern Territory - the Territory government’s borrowings as well as the federal government’s borrowings, plus the ongoing investments in an area of a growth in the economy anyhow. What do you expect to see happening?
When you start pump-priming an economy which is still on the right side of zero or 1%, the effect is you start to create a little heat. And how does that heat express itself? I am glad I asked me that question. The heat starts to express itself in things like housing prices. Because there is more money sloshing about in the economy …
Ms Lawrie: Population growth!
Mr ELFERINK: Well, you should be ready for population growth. I pick up on that. Why would the population be coming here? Why would people be coming to the Northern Territory putting pressure on our rental prices and our house prices? Because this is a growth economy. This is where they are coming to seek employment because they are worried about what is happening in other areas.
Much of this happens in spite of government, by the way. They like to claim they are great economic managers but, if you look at their fiscal management, you very quickly realise there is actually a great deal of trouble even joining those simple dots. What do we see? We see pressure on house prices, particularly, and rents start to creep up. Even whilst the rest of the country goes through a bit of a hiatus in housing prices - I notice there is some recovery in the southern states at this point - you are, nevertheless, getting to see all of those impacts from an economy with some heat in it.
We heard today about increasing activity in the gas industry, and we have the prospect of INPEX - touch wood - still coming to the Northern Territory; Greater Sunrise might still be just over the horizon, and they may still go with their floating platform, or they may choose to have a pipeline to Darwin. All of those things bode well for the Territory. On top of all of this, the global financial crisis, or the GFC, may not be as dire as originally expected. That may well be because of international stimulus packages, and I suspect the huge amount of borrowings on the international scene, particularly by the United States and Europe, may have had an effect on, if nothing else, the psychology of the GFC.
However, in Australia and, particularly here in the Northern Territory, you still have the federal government continuing to roll-out the stimulus money and, now, there are some people starting to say: ‘Hang on, do we need to continue priming the economy?’
The Reserve Bank certainly did not use the full arsenal available to it in relation to interest rates. It did not drop them to the levels seen in United States and Europe. In fact, the interest rates went down to about 3.5%, from memory, which means there was still a way to go with monetarist policy. For some reason the federal government chose not to wait for the Reserve Bank to drop interest rates any further. The advice we are getting from the Reserve Bank at the moment is, if interest rates are going to shift, they are going north, not south, which is also indicative of the Reserve Bank’s concerns there is going to be increased activity in the Australian economy.
So the GFC might not be as bad as it was initially anticipated. The stimulus money is now being looked at by some economic players as being excessive and, in the Northern Territory, particularly, we had the operation of the stimulus package, we had the operation of the government’s borrowings, and we had the operation of the rest of the world’s reliance on the petroleum product of the future; namely, liquid natural gas.
All those things combined together are fine for people like me, who owns a nice 1400 m2 at Narrows Road in the Northern Territory, but not fine for the poor people and first homeowners who are trying to get into the marketplace. You exacerbate that bad management, or questionable management, with the real bad management in relation to land releases, and that drives house prices up even further. Fine, if you happen to own a home and did not borrow last year, but the rest of the world has to struggle.
They bang on about Bellamack being such a great success for the people of the Northern Territory; where else in the world do you have to line up to get in a ballot so you are, if you are really lucky, allowed to go into debt for a couple of hundred grand? If you are unlucky, you have to keep paying rent.
I do not know if the Treasurer has ever flown over the Northern Territory; I presume she has. You realise very quickly, from 10 000 feet looking down, there is no land shortage in the Northern Territory. It is an artifice of bad management and bad planning. It is not a reality in any sense of the word.
This brings me to my next issue in relation to the stimulus package, and I pick up particularly on the comments by the minister, where he said the Commonwealth would demand from the Northern Territory government that no more than 4% of the funding is used for project management, and no more than 1.5% of the funding is used for administration purposes. There is another large amount of Commonwealth money in the pipeline for the Northern Territory, and we hear from the minister he is proud of the speed with which the Northern Territory has been able to implement the package.
It is very interesting when you listen to those sorts of comments, because the Northern Territory government has streamlined the whole process of making this package work, and you can see it through all the things the minister has spoken about here today. He has spoken about changing the operation of the Development Consent Authority, and if I have time I will come back to that. He has spoken about the changes to the procurement processes and the thresholds that were used, and all those sorts of things. But, gee whiz, when it comes to SIHIP and you compare how SIHIP has been managed, and you compare it to how this money is being managed, why is it this money can see no more than 5.5% used for project management and administration purposes, when SIHIP has to soak up huge amounts of money for administration and management purposes?
Whilst I hear what the Chief Minister has to say about the cost of delivering materials to remote places, which is not part of the stimulus package, why is it administration alone can be reduced to 1.5% and, in some cases, where the schools apply directly - I understand they are doing it inside their own budget - 100% of the money available through some of these packages in the private schools, at least, is finding its way into bricks and mortar?
Why is it that can happen for the stimulus package, but cannot happen for SIHIP and remote Aboriginal housing? Where is the enthusiasm which has been demonstrated by the minister today in terms of all the streamlining work, in SIHIP? The comparison between the two could not be starker. It just goes to show, if the government has a mind to, it can drive this stuff along. If it does not have a mind to, and does not have the will to drive it from Cabinet, then it gets bogged down in the bureaucratic machine.
We know the government machine can become so bureaucratic because the improvements of this stimulus package forced on the Northern Territory government should have already been in place. What the minister has described is a whole raft of efficiencies which have gone through the delivery of this package to the Northern Territory Public Service, and those efficiencies have seen, according to the minister, dividends being paid, and paid handsomely, to the recipients of that system of administration. Why has that not been in place for the last eight years, or five years? Why was this not done in a more timely fashion?
The procurement process has been the subject of many debates in this House. It is not like the government was unaware there were problems with the procurement thresholds and the procurement system, but when it comes to processing this money, they suddenly discover a way to fix it. This stuff has to be driven from a ministerial and chief ministerial level. If it is not driven from that level, the public service just continues ticking along providing the same service and not much changes.
Is it not amazing what happens when a little passion, a little drive, is brought by government to a particular area? I know government is passionate about the stimulus package because they keep coming into this House telling us how good it is; they are obviously enthusiastic about it. I wish they were just as enthusiastic about SIHIP, because it is a stark comparison.
I return to the Development Consent Authority. The Development Consent Authority has been the recipient of some criticism over recent times, particularly in the Darwin CBD, particularly in relation to the use of merit. We have a situation at the moment where the government wants to bring amendments into the planning scheme, which have caused great concern and great fear in the community for many reasons.
The Planning minister has been what I could only describe as reckless in her approach to this particular issue. The UDAP Report, with which she justifies her proposed planning amendment, says many things which are only picked up in a couple of places by the actual proposed amendments to the planning scheme. The Development Consent Authority has been the source of some of the concerns driving this process, particularly in the area of merit.
I am not going to go on about merit again. Suffice to say there was a time when the Development Consent Authority would have given consideration to what, in the greater scheme of things, would be purely small projects. If you take it on an Australian level, Darwin only started building really tall buildings in more recent years.
I do not wish to cast any aspersions or disrespect on members of the Development Consent Authority. I suspect the time has come to turn our attention to the makeup of the Development Consent Authority and the people who sit on it in terms of expertise and their professional backgrounds. It is time to look at whether we, as a government, should start spending some real money, because they are no longer concentrating on small projects, projects of a few million dollars here or there; they are now being asked to consider projects which will be worth hundreds of millions of dollars. As our city grows there is now room, in my opinion, and as I said, I mean no disrespect to the members of the Authority, to professionalise the Development Consent Authority.
Let us get some professional town planners in there, let us get professional architects in there, people who have experience in this particular field around the world. For that, you have to pay. However, when you come to the Darwin CBD and vet the development of the Darwin CBD, you either create its own authority, which deals with the Darwin CBD exclusively - something I still have sympathy towards - and load it up with exactly the professionals I have just described, or you professionalise the Development Consent Authority to deal with the CBD as well as consideration of the granting of development consents throughout the Northern Territory.
The proposed amendments to the Darwin Planning Scheme are almost universally disliked. Yes, there are some people who would not mind seeing those changes go through, and I would not be at all surprised if the owners of blocks of land on the periphery of Darwin will be delighted to see those changes go through. When developers such as Doug Gamble, and the good citizens of this town, say to the Development Consent Authority with a universal voice, it is a mistake - with the exception of one at a particular meeting I attended - then it is clear the reservations I harboured from day one, for which I was pilloried by the minister when I suggested it would encourage a form Soviet-style architecture, it appears that in pillorying me, she is pillorying all those people, some 200 individuals, as well as professional organisations, who have challenged her proposals.
I demand of the minister, in the face of near universal objections, to give reassurance and comfort to the people of Port Darwin, my electorate, that she will withdraw or not proceed with the proposed amendments to the Planning Scheme. Those changes are too radical. They change the scheme so substantially that people’s livelihoods will be affected.
We heard evidence at that meeting to which I referred, from one particular family whose block value was fundamentally changed. That block represented a large slice of that family’s savings. There are people at the moment who may well have purchased units at the top of tall buildings for the purposes of superannuation or saving. Now, all of a sudden, those sightlines might disappear under the proposal from the minister, and if those sightlines disappear, not only may all those people have an asset that does not accrue, but they may well have an asset that cannot even meet the liabilities they carry for those assets. Such is the radical nature of what is proposed by the minister.
The minister seems to think she lives in some splendid vacuum, and when she makes these determinations or decisions, for some reason they will not affect people. Well, they do affect people and affect them very badly. I would urge the minister to go back to the 1999 plan. I am happy to have the debate about whether merit should be banned entirely or redefined substantially. That is the issue which should be debated, not changing the plan so radically and so completely that it affects so many people in such a negative way.
Madam Speaker, I am not going to ask for an extension of time, although I could continue.
I note the minister has brought the statement into the House, and the most apparent issue in it is the ability of the government to manage this money, in comparison to SIHIP, which it has managed so poorly. When you think about how SIHIP is managed or not managed, I am struck by an article I read in The Australian today. I cannot lay my hands on it, but I believe it was in Gunbalanya where 60 houses were promised under the 99-year lease scheme; they are going to get 17 houses under SIHIP. How that is a good result for the people in that community is an absolute mystery to me.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to support the statement by the Minister for Business. The stimulus package has been, in my view, an unqualified success. It is one of the greatest nation building exercises anyone in this House has seen, or is likely to see, for many years. The stimulus package has proved to be extremely well targeted; it is being delivered across the nation in a way that is the envy of the rest of the world. I am sure Barack Obama is looking on with envy at the speed of delivery, given the bureaucratic tangle many aspects of his own package has been mired in.
The stimulus package has many elements to it. There are the general payments which delivered at least $900 to around 80 000 to 90 000 Territorians; this has injected around $95m into the Territory economy. There have been mixed views about these payments but, obviously, I am a supporter. I believe the Australian consumer is one of the most important players in our economic recovery as a nation. If the Australian consumer spends, the Australian economy benefits, and it is good for our own GST revenue as well. Spending delivers jobs and jobs means security for people, giving them the confidence to invest and spend more. That is why the stimulus package payments were important.
Whilst the Territory consumer remained a strong spender - our level of growth is still around 12% - the confidence shown by Australian consumers overall was quite low. Payments gave people confidence to spend, and that confidence has been infectious. It has lifted confidence across the economy to the benefit of the economy as a whole.
If I had to nominate the part of the package I admire most, it would have to be the infrastructure expenditure on our schools. There are three elements to the package: Primary Schools for the 21st Century, a program aimed at providing each primary school with an infrastructure upgrade; National School Pride Program involving money for repairs and maintenance for schools up to $200 000; and Science and Language Centres in Schools.
To date, around $150m has been approved for expenditure on Territory primary schools - that is $150m to fix and improve our schools. It is nothing short of fantastic, and there will be more. In total, we expect around $254m will be spent on Territory government schools, and $47m on non-government schools from this stimulus package. When we compare that to the total failure of the previous Howard government to invest in infrastructure at all, particularly in schools, it is an extraordinary turnaround.
On top of this, the Territory government has committed $264m worth of expenditure over four years in our schools in the Territory. In total, we can expect more than $550m spent on our schools over the next few years - an astonishing and great figure. This money is being spent on classrooms, halls and facilities across the Territory, for example:
Sadadeen Primary School will get $2m with work now under way; Acacia Hills School will get $50 000 for fixing its outdoor learning area, and $800 000 for more classrooms; Gillen Primary School will get $125 000 for joinery and classrooms, and a further $2m for a multipurpose learning area; Tennant Creek Primary School, $150 000 will be spent on securing the perimeter of the school, and $2.5m for a multipurpose hall; Tennant Creek High School has received almost $2m for a science centre, $3m for a new multipurpose sports facility; and $1.3m will be spent on a Tennant Creek Training Centre. That is a massive boost for Tennant Creek in facilities for education.
In Palmerston: Bakewell Primary School will get $3m for hall extensions and a classroom, $200 000 for beautification works, $2.5m for a new library, and $150 000 for energy efficiency and Occupational Health and Safety; $2.5m for a classroom block and library extension at Durack Primary School; $2.5m at Moulden Park Primary School for a library extension and hall extension. It is absolutely fantastic, and there is more to come.
In our 20 growth towns, schools are, or will be, upgraded: at Papunya, $850 000 for a resource centre, and $75 000 for repairs; $2m for a classroom block at Ntaria School, along with a further $125 000 for an outdoor learning area; $850 000 for classroom refurbishments at Yuendumu, and $75 000 for school beautification projects; $1.7m for a school upgrade at Ramingining, along with $125 000 for cabling upgrades; Borroloola School has been rebuilt by the Territory government as part of our 2005 election commitments and will now get a further $2m for a multipurpose facility, and $125 000 for a perimeter fence; Maningrida School will get $3m for a resource centre, $1.9m for a language centre and $200 000 for beautification projects - an amazing $5.1m to be spent at Maningrida School; Millingimbi School will get $2.5m for classrooms, $1.9m for a science centre, and $150 000 for security.
I could go on for some time, but all our schools across the Territory are getting significant upgrades as a result of this stimulus package and Northern Territory government funding.
It is to the opposition’s eternal shame they opposed this package. All our schools across the Northern Territory are getting funding they otherwise would not have if the opposition were on the Treasury benches.
As I said, this is not limited to government schools; non-government schools will receive an expected total of approximately $47m. It is the most extensive makeup and upgrade of schools in Australia’s history, and when you combine that with my government’s commitments, you get a major upgrade of schools across the Territory. Not only does this mean better facilities for educating young Territorians, it also means jobs.
I recently had dinner with a number of contractors in the construction field who have been involved with various projects over many years. To a person, they are staggered with the work flowing through from these projects. They were at first considering reducing the scale of their workforce, and now they are looking for more workers. That is exactly what this package was designed to achieve - more jobs, more confidence, more work - and, cleverly, the Rudd government has combined that outcome with a major nation-building exercise around our schools.
The next key element of this package is associated with social housing. As all members know, the costs associated with housing across Australia are enormous. We are working with the Commonwealth to deliver 750 new homes under SIHIP. I will take a couple of minutes to talk about the member for Port Darwin trying to compare SIHIP with this program. They are totally different. SIHIP is an alliance partnering contract, totally different to the design and construct process that government uses. There is an enormous training component to SIHIP, as well as a requirement to negotiate 40-year leases. We have been up hill and down dale over the last few weeks in this House about this, and some people just do not listen to the difference between these two programs.
In addition, we have increased our own investment in providing social housing. Our budget this year for housing as a whole is in the order of $390m. In addition, the federal government’s stimulus package has provided $11.2m for both building and repairing existing public housing; and we are awaiting the results of round 2. This next round will be focused on providing much needed emergency and short-term housing. The Territory government has put forward a comprehensive plan to ensure that emergency and short-term housing is focused where it is needed
When we combine the efforts in all areas of housing with the stimulus package, it is obvious we are in for a period of extensively adding to our overall housing stock, and I welcome that. In addition to social housing, the federal government has committed more to Defence housing; to date, $76m has been approved for expenditure in the Territory.
The stimulus package also goes to boom gates and black spots funding. In addition, it is estimated the likely outcome for energy efficient homes will be $34m, and councils have benefited from $12m.
To date, $244m is being expended in the Territory as a result of this package; with the expectation the total final expenditure will possibly be as high as $628m - a great outcome for the Territory. In addition to that, the Territory government pledged immediate support for the package and geared up to deliver on it, and I am proud of the efforts we have made in that regard. As the Minister for Business said, we immediately acted to reduce red tape around procurement by lifting the quote level to $200 000.
We have held stimulus summits to inform business, recently hosted a call-back summit, and we also established industry reference groups to ensure the industry had input into the way the package was rolled out. We responded rapidly and well to the difficult deadline set by the federal government, and I am extremely proud of the work being done by all those people engaged at agency level in rolling out this program.
The stimulus package is a great nation building package. It will have the effect of delivering on jobs and stimulating confidence in the community. It will provide more impetus to the development of national infrastructure, such as schools and housing. I am a great supporter of this program and look forward to the ongoing roll-out of it.
I put on record my thanks to the very good public servant who has been coordinator-general of this package, Alastair Shields. Alastair has done an amazing job pulling this together. I also thank the coordinators-general in all affected government agencies, and the working groups. Our public service has really done us proud in pulling together and getting this work to the benefit of business, to the economy, and jobs in the Northern Territory. So, to all of those public servants, through Alastair Shields, who have worked so hard on getting this work out, my personal thanks as Chief Minister.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend the statement.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support the statement because the federal government’s stimulus package, the Nation Building and Jobs Plan, is supporting our national economy to ward off the effects of the global economic downturn.
The global economic crisis was the worst global decline since The Great Depression. Late last year, the International Monetary Fund slashed its projections for the 2009 global growth to between minus 0.5% to minus 1%, significantly lower than its estimate of 2.2% issued in November 2008. We are now seeing signs recovery from the deep global recession has started. The International Monetary Fund’s latest forecast projects global economic growth reaching 2.5% in 2010. This improvement has largely been due to government intervention.
The federal government’s $42bn response to the economic crisis, the Nation Building and Jobs Plan, was swift and decisive, targeted at protecting Australian jobs. This plans aims to stimulate the national economy and avoid recession by achieving economic growth of 0.5% in 2008-09, and between 0.75% and 1% in 2009-10. The package is to be spent over four years, and took a three-pronged approach with: direct cash payments to stimulate spending in the community; tax breaks to support business investment; and the largest ever federal investment in infrastructure in our nation for schools, public and defence housing and roads. At the time of announcing this package, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry said the package is good for business, stating the package will encourage business to go out and invest and employ.
Cash payments predominantly targeted at low-income households, provided an effective means to quickly and positively support consumer demand and, thereby, jobs, particularly in the retail sector. These payments were estimated to be worth $95m to Territory families. While the Territory enjoys the strongest retail growth, year-on-year in the nation, the timing of the cash payments was important to maintaining confidence in the economy. There has been much said about the cash payments, and we know the members opposite sold out the Territory by not supporting the $42bn stimulus plan. They did not want Territory families to benefit from the $900 cash payments, and they did not want that crucial support for jobs.
If we look at the data, recent retail sales figures show retail growth in Australia reached 5.2% from November 2008 to the end of June this year. This compares to 1.8% in retail growth sales in the proceeding seven months - what a turnaround. The stimulus plan also targeted business investment with significant tax breaks for purchases of new equipment.
There are 12 000 small businesses across the Territory. The federal tax breaks were estimated to provide up to a combined $27m in tax relief for these Territory businesses, subject, of course, to take-up. Businesses welcome tax breaks and I am sure many operators welcomed these tax breaks particularly targeted at investment which, in turn, would support their business growth. The tax cuts provided an additional 30% tax deduction for eligible assets costing $1000 or more purchased from 13 December 2008 to 30 June this year, and installed by 30 June 2010. Businesses purchasing eligible assets from 1 July 2009 to 30 December this year and having them installed by 30 December 2010, can claim an additional 10% tax deduction; if you like, a set-down effect.
The federal government advertised this package widely to inform business of the opportunities, including significant advertising in the Territory. I heard from many Territory businesses what a great incentive and opportunity these tax deductions were in terms of the purchase of assets. They particularly liked the recognition from the federal government, through the stimulus package, of purchase at one point, and installation at a later date.
The infrastructure investment component of the Nation Building and Jobs Plan is immense for the Territory. In dollar terms, the package is estimated to be worth about $600m to the Territory’s economy. Benefits to the Territory over four years include an estimated $300m for school infrastructure and maintenance; $76m for Defence housing, that is 185 new Defence homes; $65m for new public and community housing and repairs; $34m for energy efficient homes, including free ceiling insulation, and increased solar hot water rebate; $29m for black spot funding, rail crossing boom gates, regional road repairs and community infrastructure projects, funding to councils; $27m in tax breaks for Territory businesses, and $95m in individual payments to Territorians.
The Territory has done extremely well from this package, more than our fair share. The benefits are already being seen across the Territory with $300m for school infrastructure; $65m for public and community housing, and $17m for repairs to regional roads, black spot funding and rail safety improvements. When I say more than our fair share, we are already receiving more stimulus funding than we would in a per capita carve up. This investment will leave a legacy of improved schools, better roads and more housing. It is targeted in the right areas; the areas where we know we have the most need.
Already, three hundred contracts have been met across the Territory. This has seen more than $220m injected into the economy. Right now this package is supporting jobs across the construction sector and our wider economy. The total infrastructure component of the stimulus plan has been estimated to support between 1400 and 1600 jobs across the Territory. This is money for jobs for the Territory, and this is the stimulus package the CLP wanted to oppose.
The stimulus plan was targeted at protecting jobs immediately by getting the funding to what we call shovel-ready projects. The federal government set very tight time lines and the Territory government responded quickly to implement this major package. We recognised to get this package where it was needed we would need to streamline procurement processes and work closely with industry. This strategy formed part of our five-point plan to respond to the package. The five points also included: increasing the capacity of the Development Consent Authority to fortnightly, rather than monthly meetings; a summit of our construction industry leaders to brief industry and get ideas on the table; the dedicated Stimulus Action Squads set up in government departments to get the projects up and running as fast as possible, making it even easier for local companies to get local projects; the review of procurement, which the Minister for Business went through. This has been very well supported by the business community, and has addressed areas where they wanted to see change: increased thresholds for quotes significantly improved business processes, cutting the paperwork involved in 40% of all contracts.
The Henderson government has a strong record of supporting Territory business. In the procurement review we were also focused on ensuring work flowed through to Territory businesses. Under the changes, contracts let on quotes must use Territory companies, unless an exemption is given. Combined with our 20% local preference requirement, these measures were designed to increase the chances of local companies getting the jobs. The changes to procurement are significant, and were focused on streamlining administration. The changes have also ensured transparency and given everyone a fair go. The changes we have seen have already been a success, evidenced by more than 300 contracts already let under the plan, in addition to the contracts being rolled out under our own record infrastructure budget. As part of the five-point plan we have boosted the resources for the DCA with five more planners, and the Darwin and Litchfield divisions of the DCA now meet more than monthly.
DPI is also working with the DCA to have formal notification to applicants occur more quickly after meetings, if possible, the next business day. This initiative has been welcomed by developers in the construction industry, and we will monitor whether other divisions of the DCA need to meet fortnightly, or more frequently.
In addition, my agency has established the development a one-stop shop to provide streamlined …
Mr BOHLIN: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I would like to draw the House’s attention to the state of the House.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ring the bells.
A quorum is now present.
Ms LAWRIE: The development of a one-stop shop comprises pre-application meetings with the planner to assist with the preparation of applications, allocation of a planner to guide applicants through the assessment process, pre-application planning forums, and pre-application briefings on the Development Consent Authority. They sound simple words to read out, but that is a dramatic change to the way developers are facilitated through the planning processes.
These services are supported by a website through which applicants can book appointments online, and includes direct links to information and the websites of participating agencies. A pre-application planning forum is held each Friday to allow prospective applicants to meet with representatives from a range of agencies involved in the all-important development assessment process. Pre-application briefings with the DCA allow prospective applicants to book an appointment to brief the members of the DCA and receive their feedback and questions on any forthcoming proposal. Reception to this new initiative has been positive, with 100 applications or inquiries recorded since the service started.
The government is getting on with the job of delivering the record infrastructure investment under the stimulus plan. The Department of Education and Training has awarded 292 contracts totalling over $204m. The Department of Local Government and Housing has awarded four contracts totalling more than $2.3m. Eight contracts under the road/rail package have been awarded, totalling over $14m. The work has been distributed through the Territory, benefiting Territorians right across our regions. In the Central Australian region, 82 contracts totalling over $34.3m have been awarded. The Barkly region has had 20 contracts totalling over $11.77m awarded. The Katherine region has had 55 contracts totalling over $30.4m awarded. Palmerston and Litchfield regions had 30 contracts totalling over $30.8m awarded. Top End rural area has had 25 contracts totalling over $14m awarded.
The East Arnhem region has had 35 contracts totalling $36m awarded in Education. There are also two Territory-wide contracts which have been awarded totalling over $13m, one in Housing and one in road/rail. In Darwin, 54 contracts have been awarded totalling over $50m, 51 in Education, two in Housing, and one in road/rail. The whole $12m roads package for our highways is already complete. This is just a start, and it has already delivered a direct injection of $220m into our economy.
I talk regularly to business operators, and they welcome this important infrastructure spending. Apart from the direct benefits which flow with increased construction spending - whether in the supply industry, building industry, the engineering and technical services sector - they also see the benefits in the legacy of this infrastructure: better schools for our students, science and language laboratories, and new school assembly areas. They see the benefits in jobs and training opportunities, in the extra public and community housing for our growing population; and like our budget with the targeted record investment in infrastructure to support jobs, they see this federal stimulus as integral to keeping and building the skilled workforce we have across our construction sector.
In my own electorate, constituents have welcomed this investment. Karama Primary School will receive a $124 000 extension to the school canteen, and $2m for a multipurpose area. Malak Primary School is receiving $125 000 to upgrade the quadrangle area. Malak Primary School has been a big winner in this package with $1m for an enclosed assembly hall, which is NT government funding, and $2m for the administration building upgrade to provide a meeting place. Manunda Terrace Primary has $125 000 for minor works for the canteen, caretaker’s residence, and early years play area. O’Loughlin College has $404 000 for a science laboratory; and Manunda Terrace Primary $2m for a library. The Holy Family Primary School has $2m for a library and an outdoor learning centre. Marrara Christian School receives $2.79m for a library.
This program is delivering much needed, new state-of-the-art facilities, and also jobs to our local construction sector. This is truly a win/win for our community.
I know members opposite opposed the nation building plan and they oppose the stimulus package. I heard the nonsense from the shadow Treasurer in debate today that it was not really needed because we have growth economy here in the Territory. He needs to have a good conversation with the Chamber of Commerce and the Territory Construction Association. If you talk to industry groups they all say this came with perfect timing, because we all knew it would occur and it has occurred as a consequence of the global financial crisis. Credit, in the early stages of the financial crisis, simply was no longer available. Credit markets froze, and when credit started to free up, for private investment, the price was just too high.
What we knew would occur as a result of the global financial crisis and, to an extent, is still occurring, private sector investment contracted dramatically. So, we were already in a growth economy in the Territory, and we continue to be in a growth economy but, if government had not stepped up through the stimulus package of the federal government and through our own infrastructure spending of $1.3bn, we would be in real strife, because government needed to step into the space where private sector contraction was occurring. That is exactly what we did.
The federal government did it quickly, swiftly, and decisively. Equally, the Territory government did it quickly, swiftly, and decisively. We matched the speed of the federal government’s $900 stimulus package to individuals, which was there to boost the retail sector and consumption spending, with something unique to the Territory’s circumstances - Buildstart. It was our stimulus response - we implemented Buildstart. We are the only jurisdiction to do it, because we saw the opportunity, with falling interest rates, to bring the investors back into the housing market to create that important rental stop.
I find it bizarre for the shadow Treasurer to think because we are a growth economy there was no need for the federal stimulus spending to come into the Territory, and certainly no need for the Territory’s own $1.3bn investment in Budget 2009-10 in infrastructure spending. A strange line to run. No wonder the business sector thinks the shadow Treasurer is out of touch with their needs. They recognise that we responded in a considered and decisive fashion, from the Buildstart stimulus through to the construction of the 2009-10 Budget and the delivery of that budget.
They recognised we heard the concerns that were occurring, because we are accessible and we are available. I, as Treasurer, and the Chief Minister, continue to do this, to meet with the financial banking sector in the Territory. They know what is on their books and what is happening to their business customers and their home customers. We also meet frequently with the construction sector; we hear them, they let us know what is going on in the industry and where government needs to be directing its effort and attention.
The opposition would like to think a growth economy just happens by accident - that is not true - it takes strong financial management from the government of the day to recognise where the needs are, to read the trends, respond to issues appropriately, but also show restraint. I know, I have sat around Cabinet budget tables and seen restraint shown when it is required, as it was with this recent budget. We directed focused spending into the area of stimulus need with $1.3bn investment in infrastructure.
We continue growth spending in core areas of police, health, and education. We are focused in what we do and how we are doing it. We are committed to continuing to close the gap on Indigenous disadvantage, which is why we see growth funds continue and be isolated and protected in that area of the budget. We are not touching that area. We continue to provide the savings we will need to implement our step-out plan out of deficit and back into surplus. We have guaranteed we will quarantine the Closing the Gap funds in forward budget projections, because we know we have enormous needs across the regions of the Territory.
We are very confident about where this Territory is headed, and business shares that confidence. We are the latest emerging oil and gas hub in the world. We will, I am sure, be competitive against Perth in a marine supply base. We are perfectly positioned and engaged for that, and our port is working on it. The Chief Minister’s Department is also working on it, with Treasury and others. We are going to do that work.
It is interesting to listen to people who say they nearly, could have, maybe, might have, predicted the global crisis - they did not. What did occur is the federal government and the Territory government both responded quickly and decisively to ensure we protected jobs. We could have had disastrous unemployment, but we saw the figures coming and we warded it off. We are still in recovery mode in terms of the broader global economy, but the Territory economy is strong and it will continue to grow stronger.
Madam Speaker, I commend the statement to the House.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Speaker, I support the statement by the Minister for Business on progress made in implementing the federal government’s stimulus package and of the further plans for the package.
This is particularly important for the Northern Territory - and nationally - given the impact of the global financial crisis.
Many people say: ‘Financial crisis in the Territory?’ The reality is we are not immune to the effects of the global financial crisis. Yes, we fare better than other states; we have done well here in the Territory; there are still many jobs and people are asking for workers rather than closing down businesses - but we are not immune.
We have weathered the influx very well. The stimulus package has strengthened our economic position, and will continue to do so - there are challenging times ahead, but the economic outlook is improved.
Nationally, business confidence amongst small to medium enterprises has rebounded strongly during the past quarter, the strongest increase in a single quarter in the 16-year of survey. Small and medium enterprises remain strongly supportive of the economic stimulus measures, and Territory businesses were the least impacted by the economic conditions.
Nationally, businesses had sought to reduce costs and increase advertising response to the current economic conditions. The Sensis report shows clearly what business thinks about future potential, especially here in the Territory, and I read from the Sensis report:
Also, the support for the Territory government is the second highest in Australia, following Western Australia. The main reason SMEs gave support to the Northern Territory government include a belief we are trying to help small business; we talk with or consult with business, where possible, and provide good management training programs for small business.
In February this year, the Australian government delivered a $42bn Nation Building and Jobs Plan. This stimulus package provided direct payments to stimulate expenditure; delivered tax breaks to ensure ongoing business investment; and supported employment through massive infrastructure investment, especially when it came to our schools, Defence houses and roof insulation.
In seeking to ensure the urgent roll-out of the stimulus package, the Northern Territory responded with its own five-point plan.
So, what has this government done to assist? The answer is: we have achieved a great deal already. The Development Consent Authority is to meet every fortnight instead of every month. To meet demand, DPI has employed five more planners. A one-stop shop has been implemented by this government to assist developers. We have hosted summits of construction industry leaders. Two information summits have been held on these projects. We have put into place a Coordinator-General and established Stimulus Action Squads. A Coordinator-General has been appointed in association with the federal government’s arrangement to work through any challenges that arise. The departments of Housing, Education and Planning have staff dedicated to the implementation of the stimulus package. An industry reference group has been established to work with the public service and to provide advice on the implementation of the stimulus plan.
We are making it easy for local companies to win local projects. We are reviewing the guidelines to streamline development processes and cut red tape. The threshold for quotes has been reviewed to reduce the amount of paperwork involved. Contracts let on quotes must use Territory companies, unless there are no local suppliers. As the former Minister for Business and Employment, it is an area in which I have a particular interest.
The new thresholds are: Tier 1 requires one quote for contracts up to $15 000 where previously it was $5000; Tier 2 requires a minimum of three written quotes for contracts up to $50 000 where it used to be $10 000; Tier 3 is a minimum of three written quotes with minimum Contractor Accreditation Limited (CAL) accreditation for $50 000 up to $200 000; Tier 4 is full public tender with Assessment Criteria weightings made public - $200 000 to $5m, which used to start at $50 000; Tier 5 is the same as Tier 4 but also requires industry participation plan for over $5m.
To make sure Territory businesses get a fair go under these changes, we have:
Ensured the use of the Agency Procurement Requisition Online System for all procurements above $15 000. It allows everyone, in addition to those invited to quote, to put in an expression of interest for quotations over $50 000.
Public disclosure threshold for the assessment criteria weightings have been reduced from $1m to $200 000, and
Senior procurement officers have been outposted in government agencies to improve professionalism across government.
The stimulus package will be worth more than $600m over four years with the majority of the package to be delivered throughout 2008-09 and 2009-10. This will assist in boosting economic activity and in supporting jobs right here in the Territory.
The stimulus package is delivering: greater business activities for the building and construction industry and its suppliers; maintaining existing jobs and creating new positions; increased business for the professional and technical services sector; and increased economic growth including a flow-on affect to other sectors of the economy.
In monetary terms, it will provide around: $65m for public and community housing; $95m for individual payments to Territorians; $29m for repairs to regional roads, black spot funding and railway crossing boom gates and community infrastructure facilities; and $300m for school infrastructure.
When it comes to school infrastructure and maintenance, schools in my electorate have been beneficiaries. Alawa Primary School has received $125 000 for engaged play area. Nakara Primary School has received $150 000. Dripstone Middle School has received $200 000 for a shade project, and Casuarina Senior College has received …
Mr BOHLIN: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I call attention to the state of the House.
Madam SPEAKER: Ring the bells.
A quorum is present.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Speaker, let me repeat what I was saying before: Casuarina Senior College has received $200 000 for a designated covered drop-off area.
The stimulus package will also deliver when it comes to regional roads: $12m in repairs to be completed on the National Highway Network comprising the Stuart, Victoria and Barkly Highways; includes contracts for the Darwin, Katherine and Tennant regions; and additional works have also been carried out in Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs.
The Minister for Business has outlined the important and significant contribution the stimulus package has offered to the Territory, and I seek to outline a range of initiatives by this government which will continue to support and stimulate the exploration and mining sectors during a very challenging time, both globally, and here in the Territory.
The stimulus has put a lot of money into the Territory, but this government is not relying only upon the stimulus, this government is actively supporting industry, is actively promoting the Territory as a destination for mineral exploration and for mining and the resources sector. We have seen the economic crisis hit the mining sector particularly hard; it hit the exploration sector because credit was not available for minor explorers. We have supported the explorers because we can now provide $1-for-$1 up to $100 000 for explorers to undertake exploration in agreed areas to provide us with a geoscientific data, and also to complete their explorations.
In addition, we have actively promoted the Territory as a mining destination. We are the only jurisdiction in Australia that has an active China investment attraction strategy. Other states now are copying our initiative. Western Australia and Victoria tried to find out how we did it, and they are trying to put the same package together to promote their jurisdiction to China. Western Australia relied for too long upon their existence as the mineral supplier in Australia, and was particularly hard hit by the world economic decline. The Chinese steel mills stopped buying iron ore and a number of mines in Western Australia had to cut down employment and mothball facilities because they could not sell the iron ore.
Recently, we have seen the Premier of Western Australia urgently undertaking a trip to China trying to persuade the Chinese steel mills to recommence buying iron ore from Western Australia. We have been there a long time; we have been there for four years, and have developed relations. This afternoon, I had representatives from the Chinese company, MCC, who came to the Territory to meet with us and a PNG company to discuss joint ventures with regard to resources in the Northern Territory. We had East China Exploration and Development Bureau forming a joint venture with Arafura Resources; they have paid $25m to take over 25% of Arafura Resources. We have Hunan Resources completely overtaking the Batchelor polymetallic mine where they are developing, on their own, a new facility to extract cobalt and copper from that mine.
We have travelled widely. I have been to China and as late as May, targeting Shanghai, meeting with the Shanghai Jiangxi Chamber of Commerce and the Shanghai Wenzhou Chamber of Commerce. Everywhere we went we promoted the Territory and, with the presentations we made, we believe we have done a great deal of work for the Territory, for Territorians, for companies in the Territory and, as a result, thousands of new jobs will be created in the near future by the sheer volume of minerals China will need for its reconstruction.
We are recognised now as the leaders in China investment attraction strategy. However, we have not stopped there. We have travelled to Japan to promote the Territory, and we had a very good result with Itochu buying a large area for exploration in the Roper Valley looking for iron ore. Recently, I went to Perth to present a seminar on mineral potential in the Territory to a significant number of Japanese investors; also present were the Council General of Japan and a high-ranking official of the Japanese ministry which explores for mineral resources overseas. During a uranium conference in Fremantle, in Western Australia, a significant number of Japanese investors talked to the people in our booth about the potential of the Territory.
In addition, we are well known for our can-do attitude. We had an American investor in the booth in Fremantle extremely frustrated because he has a uranium ore body in Queensland which he cannot touch because Queensland has a no uranium mining policy. He asked us if he could export the ore from Queensland and process it in the Territory. I wished him very good luck with Anna Bligh. He is very keen because he heard from many people you can do business in the Territory and, instead of putting obstacles in the way of business, government departments actually facilitate your business to progress.
I am very pleased with the outcomes from the activities of the department, and I congratulate the people in my department for developing the China Investment Strategy; for travelling and promoting, in person, the interests of the Territory overseas; working with and helping companies, and facilitating meetings with companies which have interests in the Territory with Chinese companies.
We have seen the results from areas which have been affected by the economic downturn. GBS Gold closed its mines a few months ago in Katherine, but now we have a Canadian company, Crocodile Gold, which has purchased all the assets of GBS Gold in the Pine Creek area for $51m; a deal which will see gold mining recommence in the Pine Creek area this year.
The most recent ABS exploration expenditure figures suggest the Territory exploration industry performed stronger than other jurisdictions during the early stages of the financial crisis. The expenditure for the December 2008 quarter was a new quarterly record for the Territory of $45.5m. That was a 19% increase over the same quarter the previous year, the highest increase of any state or territory.
The ABS figures also show while the Territory continued to strongly increase its exploration expenditure in the second half of 2008, some competitive states such as South Australia had sharply declining expenditure levels.
The current very high levels of international investment in the Territory’s exploration and mining industry, particularly from China, Japan and Canada, are underpinning the sustained exploration of the Territory’s resources during the current resources downturn. Yesterday, I received a press release from Denver, Colorado, saying the Hartley petroleum company announced they have undertaken a study of the Beetaloo Basin, and they estimate an undiscovered 80 billion barrels of oil and 64 trillion cubic feet of gas in the Beetaloo Basin. Of course, this has to be proved by exploration.
However, Falcon Petroleum has purchased all the interests of Sweetpea Corporation, the company which previously explored Beetaloo, and have paid up to $1.5m of Sweetpea’s debts, which indicates these people are here seriously, they are not coming here just to have a look – no one who comes to have a look would pay debts of $1.5m. Obviously, these people know something we did not know, because there has not been much geological exploration done, to date, in that area. I have to say the Territory is virtually unexplored and now we are putting the effort in, we keep discovering more and more mineral resources.
In closing, the initiatives of the Henderson Labor government in directly assisting implementation of the stimulus package, and supporting our exploration and mining sectors through its dedicated investment attraction strategies, is making a difference for the Territory. While the Territory has weathered the impact of the global financial crisis well, its impacts are still with us. The economic outlook has improved in recent times, but our government is determined to work even harder to ensure the Territory is protected from any economic downturn.
Debate adjourned.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Much has been happening at Leanyer Primary School - the Territory government funded $2m upgrade is nearly finished, giving the school four new classrooms and a completely new safe drop-off zone. Leanyer Primary School also received $3.2m from the federal government’s Building the Education Revolution, which has allowed them to build an upgraded assembly hall, resurface a basketball court, and provide new shade around the school. Leanyer Primary recently held their middle and upper primary concert, dubbed ‘Let’s Party!’ - and a party it was. Even though I could not be there, I was told it was a fantastic event; apparently the audience got right into it, even, at one point, dancing in the aisles.
The principal, Henry Gray, would like me to thank all the wonderful students in Years 4, 5, and 6, who were impeccably behaved; and also the Years 4, 5, and 6 teachers and support staff: Ms Visentin, Mrs Bevin, Ms Bartholomew, Mrs Maddock, Mr Nieminski, Mrs O’Gallagher, Mrs Hyde, Mr Foulkes, Mr Charman, as well as Mrs Scally, Mrs Reissis, and Mrs Nayda.
Henry would also like to thank Mrs Albion, the Assistant Principal, and the NT Music School staff: Mrs Lewis, Mr Sutton and Mr Hall, as well as the many other people who helped on the night to organise it.
I would also like to give big congratulations to students. Madam Speaker, I seek to incorporate those names.
Leave granted.
Perfect Attenders for Term 2
Module 1:
Module 2:
Mr HENDERSON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. These students were perfect attendees in Term 2 at Leanyer Primary School. As we all know, attendance is very important for our children to learn, and Leanyer certainly do some amazing things to encourage all children to be at school every day, and on time. It is great to be at their assemblies to recognise the students who receive certificates for being perfect attendees.
Wanguri Primary School is also a construction site at the moment, having received $2m from the federal Building the Education Revolution program for a new multipurpose learning area, which they have planned and will start building in October. They also received $125 000 to go towards new carpets, painting, wall panels, and signage around the school.
The Wanguri-Canberra trip is fast becoming a tradition at the school. Every year a group of six children travel to our capital, Canberra, to learn all about politics and governments as part of their Civics and Citizenship studies. This year, there are 14 students, as well as Jenny Robertson, our Principal, and four other helpers.
I thank the member for Solomon for taking the time to give them a tour around Parliament House, and I hear they also got a wave from the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister.
I welcome Judith Armstrong, the Assistant Principal at Wanguri, who takes over from Leah Crockford. I thank Leah for the hard work and great contribution she made to Wanguri Primary. Judith comes from Jingili Primary, she is a wonderful AP, and I am sure she will fit right in at Wanguri.
I take this opportunity to welcome Mrs Caroline Edwards as the new Principal at Henbury School. Caroline has worked at Henbury for some time now, and I know she will look after the school fantastically.
Henbury is also one of the big winners from the federal stimulus package. They have received $850 000 to extend and refurbish the school, and $75 000 for work around the grounds. Henbury is a great school and it is wonderful to see so much happening there.
I thank Michael Jones, the Acting Principal at Sanderson Middle School, who had been the Principal at Henbury for some five or six years. Michael did a fantastic job at Henbury, and I wish him all the best in his new challenge at Sanderson Middle School.
Recently, I headed down to the community of Lyons in my electorate for a fabulous afternoon of activities. It is the second time Lyons has held a family fun day, and it is fast becoming an institution. This year the theme was ‘Our Own Australia Day’. All things Aussie were on the agenda including football, meat pies, snags on the barbie, Holden cars, and vegemite sandwiches. Rotary raised $1700 via a donation from Lyons, and cooked the sausages for everyone there. Wanguri Pre-School and St Andrew’s Lutheran School also had a chance to fund raise through the stalls they set up.
The day was a huge success with over 1000 people attending and over 200 people staying on for a special screening of the Baz Lurhmann epic movie Australia. It was great to see such a turnout at such a wonderful community event.
I pay particular thanks to Sharon Feist who is the Community Affairs Manager at Lyons. Sharon is doing a fantastic job working with Canberra Investments in the sale of properties, and also working really hard at the community centre and making Lyons such a wonderful new suburb of Darwin.
Mrs AAGAARD (Nightcliff): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank and congratulate the Department of the Legislative Assembly for the excellent Open Day held here in Parliament House on Saturday, 15 August. I congratulate all those people involved, and the staff in my department. A great deal of work goes into organising such an event and the lead-up and the amount of effort was considerable.
I thank, in particular, Caroline Cavenagh, the Director of the Public Relations and Education Unit, and her staff: Karen Parker and Phyllis Mitchell; the staff who assisted visitors at the Open Day; other staff, Maria Viegas, Alice Tsang, Brenda Reid, Robert Donovan, Jo Burgess, Karen Philp, Vishal Mohan-Ram, and Tony Hibberd; the Public Tour guides who conducted three tours and assisted visitors throughout the day, Pearl Ogden - who gave a talk on the heritage of State Square - and Jane Farr; the security staff who worked on the day - Sam Day-Johnston, Esther Pesti, Nick, Yanni and Loz; the Statehood Steering Committee staff, including our new Executive Officer Michael Tatham, and a number of committee members who also attended; as well as staff who assisted with setting up the displays - Tony Hibberd, Jo Burgess, and Steve Castillon. I also thank the Clerk and the Deputy Clerk for their involvement.
In particular, I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, as member for Nhulunbuy who, with me and the members for Port Darwin and Drysdale, spoke to the many visitors who were here.
I understand about 1000 people came into the parliament on that day. It was an excellent opportunity to have both Government House and the Supreme Court open at the same time. I thank His Honour, Mr Tom Pauling QC for agreeing to that, and also the Chief Justice of the Northern Territory, Mr Brian Martin.
I hope to do this again, and I hope more members will be involved the next time we do this.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I talk tonight about the achievements of some wonderful people at Anula Primary School: two of the teaching staff, Mrs Nadia Gooding and Mrs Kim Bond, who put tireless effort into organising the recent 2009 walkathon at the school which raised a whooping $5000. This is an incredible effort put in by these people, and none more important than the participants, the students, who got sponsorship for this walkathon and helped raise the $5000.
The young people who really need to be acknowledged in this are the people who won the prizes for the first, second and third highest amounts of money raised. The first prize went to a lovely young lady, Taylah McKinnon, who raised $421, which is a substantial fundraising effort given they did not have a lot of time to do this; she went out and worked, sought sponsorship and raised that fantastic amount of money.
Second prize winner for the second highest amount was Chloe Fernandez and she raised $244 - a magnificent effort.
Chloe was followed very closely in third place by Talia Corrie, with the amount $171.
Merit certificates were handed out for the efforts of a number of students who raised substantial amounts of money, and they went to: Phoenix Langtree, Darcy Sach, Liam McKinnon, Jonty Pollard, Kristine Haycock, Casey Langtree, Tamiyah Perkins, Mackenzie Sach, Olivia Sach, Sh’Keah Rickard, Thor Lomkhong, Nikki Driss, Jing Jing Yao and Mickayla Perkins.
They were individuals; as important were the Class Prizes for the combined effort. The first prize went to area 4 Bond, which is a Year 1/2 class - $818; second prize went to Area 7, where Pat Myers is the teacher of the Year 3/4 class - they raised $780. And, most money raised by the Intensive English Unit classes: Area 7 Lohmeyer - a fantastic job by these young people to raise money to help their fellow students by improving their school.
The sports day at Anula was a magnificent event. I spent some time there participating in the festivities and the competitive stuff going on - it was a really fun day. Sophie Kalidonas, who has been a faithful servant at Anula school for over 30 years, said she cannot remember the last time Batumba won the sports day, but this year they took it out in fine style. Those in that particular group were very pleased with their efforts - and so they should be.
I move to Wulagi Primary School. I get there as often as I can, especially for important events such as choosing the fortunate winners for the ‘Way to Go’ prize. A prize which goes to a person who, every time they do positive things, they get part of a raffle ticket; the other part of the ticket goes into a box, and we draw out those people who have demonstrated very positive playground behaviour over the previous fortnight. The last one I drew was for Talihana Hill, a Year 1 student.
Also, we give out prizes at Wulagi for ‘Caught Being Good’, and movie passes went to Kelly Crowston from Year T1C and Deegan York from T1B; again, for recognising fantastic behaviour.
Madam Speaker, unfortunately the clock is going to beat me again. We still only have five minutes to recognise the wonderful things the people in our electorates do. It would be really nice if the government could consider, on a night when there is some time left over, extending our adjournment debates to 15 minutes again.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Madam Deputy Speaker, yesterday the member for Greatorex raised the issue of a copier of CT scans and X-rays, and asked me if I was aware of the lack of a CT scan in Alice Springs; he requested I investigate and ensure a CT scan is operating again in Alice Springs.
I thank him for providing me with a letter forwarded to him by a legal firm in Alice Springs. I want to clarify what the member for Greatorex was referring to was not a CT scan; it was actually a copier of CT scan and X-rays taken some time ago when the machines were still analogue. The copier is not used as a diagnostic tool or for treatment of illness or injury; it is only used to make copies of old X-rays and CT scans - so the lives of residents are not being put in any danger. As a matter of fact, the machine is just like a photocopier, for copying records.
The CT scanner and X-ray at Alice Springs Hospital are fully operational and used to diagnose illness and disease for Centralian residents. All current scans and X-rays are now stored digitally and can be accessed or transmitted via e-mail very easily.
I understand the copier is the property of a private company, Dr Jones and Partners Medical Imagining, who are under contract at the Alice Springs Hospital. The outdated copier is infrequently used as part of the contract with Dr Jones and Partners Medical Imagining. Their request from their legal firm Povey Stirk relates to records from 2006, and has been addressed by Alice Springs Hospital. Apparently, the legal firm requested a copy of some medical records, but it could not be done because the old machine was not operational at the time. However, the records were couriered to Tennant Creek, copied there and brought back to Alice Springs.
I point out that letter has not been forwarded to the hospital or to me; for some unknown reason it was forwarded only to the member for Greatorex.
Once again, I say it was not the CT scan which was not operating; it was a machine that copies records and it has no diagnostic value; it is the same as a plain photocopying machine.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, as you know, it has been a very interesting week or weeks and I will never forget 14 August. I decided to write a poem about that event, not just to remember this particular time, but also because it happens to be Seniors Poetry Day on Saturday at Taminmin High School, and it is nice to have some current events put into poetry style.
I also dedicate these words to my wife, Imelda, who has had to go along with all the stress that happened over the last three weeks; to Kim, my electorate officer, who I have not seen for three weeks, but know she was working extremely hard while I was away convincing people that I do exist; and to Michelle, my research officer who, as I said before, is a tower of strength. I would have hated to be here on my own without her. She was someone I could lean on when I needed to, and she listened to what I had to say, and gave good advice when I needed it as well. I very much appreciate the help she has given me through this period.
These are the two little ditties. The first one is called ‘The Fourteenth Day of August’:
And the other one is ‘Don’t Worry, Be Happy’:
A member: Well done!
Mr KNIGHT (Daly): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will always remember 14 August also, as the member for Nelson does. I also thank Neil, who has been in the gallery for the last week or so. He has been praying for us, I know, for wisdom and guidance. I believe it all helped, Neil. Thank you very much.
I dropped into Coomalie, in the Batchelor area, last week - I did literally drop in - from 10 000 feet. I attended the REL week in Batchelor. About 150 skydivers from all over Australia took part in this biennial international event during the long weekend. There were approximately 3000 drops into the drop zone at Batchelor and, as local member for the Coomalie region, I was pleased to assist with a grant from the government to help Darwin Parachute Club’s 30th anniversary event.
I move on to the Lingalonga Festival which was held in Batchelor the same weekend, and is always a great success. Approximately 1300 locals and visitors enjoyed the music, culture, food, and entertainment. A number of volunteers work tirelessly prior to and on the day of the event, and if it were not for them and their families, an event such as this would not work as well as it did. Congratulations to Marilyn Reeves, Victoria Edmonds, Sue Donnelly, Hilary Brett, Julia Moriarty, and also the Lingalonga Festival Committee, and everybody involved.
On behalf of the committee, I would like to place on the record a thank you to the many businesses, government organisations and, of course, the many stallholders, both local and those who travelled out to Batchelor for the event. A special thanks to Corrugated Iron Youth Arts, who shared their love of the performing arts with the youth of Coomalie - I have been told the kids who attended the circus and the drum workshops had a great time. Thank you also to the musicians and singers, to Tanya Ham and the Taminmin High School Choir for providing some great entertainment throughout the day.
I also headed off to the Adelaide River Show and Rodeo, and was very proud of the great performances at this year’s talent quest. As Patron of the Adelaide River Show Society, I was honoured to give the welcome speech, and especially pleased to award the great achievements of Coreena and Meg Reeves, Jack Thorne, and sisters, Kelsey and Stevie Pocock, who entertained us at the talent quest.
I usually judge some of the local exhibits, but I am glad I was not a judge this year as there were so many great arts and crafts and local produce - it was very hard to pick the best.
Congratulations to all the organisers, Deb, Sandy and Annette, and the entire ARSS committee and their many volunteers.
I look forward to heading back to Adelaide River this weekend for the second race day meeting this year, the first time they have had a second race meeting, and it is a great facility there.
Other events happening on the same weekend in the Coomalie region included the opening of four quite different gardens at: The Batchelor Pad, Swordfish, The Wicked Gardener, and the Rum Jungle Bungalows for the 2009 Australia’s Open Garden Scheme.
The Friends of the North Australian Railway celebrated Picnic Day weekend with their traditional railway picnic. As members would know, it is hard to be everywhere at the same time, and the Dry Season events calendar just does not have enough days in it, there is so much happening in the same region of my electorate. I did manage to get to as many events as possible on our last long weekend of the year.
It was great to catch up with so many of my constituents from the Coomalie region and beyond. I am so glad to have such a vibrant electorate, with so much going on, so much community contribution to what are unique events and they certainly make up the fabric of the Territory lifestyle.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
MOTION
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee – Change of Membership
Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee – Change of Membership
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business)(by leave): Madam Speaker I move the member for Arnhem, Ms McCarthy, be discharged from the service of the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, and the member for Arafura, Ms Scrymgour, be appointed instead.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Standing Orders Committee –
Change of Membership
Standing Orders Committee –
Change of Membership
Mr WOOD (Nelson)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I nominate myself as a member of the Standing Orders Committee. I move that I be the Independent member on the Standing Orders Committee.
Motion agreed to.
PRISONERS (INTERSTATE TRANSFER) AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 56)
(Serial 56)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr McCARTHY (Correctional Services): Madam Speaker, I move the bill be now read a second time.
The bill amends the Prisoners (Interstate Transfer) Act by introducing nationally agreed changes to broaden the range of matters the minister may have regard to when considering a request from a prisoner to be transferred to or from another state or territory.
The bill also makes minor amendments to the principal act to remove all instances of gender specific language and to take account of amendments made to the Interpretation Act.
The Prisoners (Interstate Transfer) Act was introduced in 1983 as part of a national cooperative legislative scheme which permits prisoners to be transferred between participating jurisdictions. The act currently allows transfer for two purposes: to stand trial; or for welfare purposes.
The current terms of the Prisoners (Interstate Transfer) Act allows the minister to consider welfare transfers only in a relatively narrow and unqualified manner. The bill increases the scope of the minister’s discretion to consider broader policy objectives such as the general administration of justice, as well as other important matters such as the prisoner’s safety and the safety of the community in general. Since its introduction in 1983, the Prisoners (Interstate Transfer) Act has resulted in a number of prisoners being transferred from the Territory, and transferred to the Territory.
I take this opportunity to provide members of the House with an explanation of how the current legislation operates. In practice, once a prisoner makes a request, a report would be prepared by a Correctional Services welfare officer detailing the prisoner’s background and antecedents, as well as seeking confirmation of the prisoner’s welfare claims. A recommendation is made to the minister as to whether the request to the corresponding jurisdiction is appropriate. This recommendation can be accompanied by supporting evidence of the prisoner’s claim such as letters from family.
One of the most common reasons for requests for welfare transfer is to be closer to family, children, or aged parents who are unable to visit the prisoner in the Northern Territory. Since July 1995, the Northern Territory has consented to nine prisoner applications to transfer to the Territory, and 52 Northern Territory prisoners have been transferred to other jurisdictions under the welfare provisions of the act. An unforeseen result of the operations of the current Prisoners (Interstate Transfer) Act was prisoners sentenced in the Territory have been transferred to jurisdictions which operate under different guidelines when it comes to the application of parole provisions.
Australia’s juridical systems and legislative framework represent a patchwork quilt - no two are the same. It is because of this I take this opportunity to provide members with a brief picture of how the various jurisdictions operate their parole systems.
South Australia - the parole board consists of six members appointed by the Governor - Correctional Services Act 1982. These include a member of the judiciary; medical practitioners with extensive knowledge of psychiatry; qualified social worker; Indigenous person; a police officer, and one other member. In regard to lifers, the parole board needs to make a unanimous decision to recommend release, and the final decision is made by the Governor on advice from the Executive Council. There is no requirement for a member to be a representative for Victims of Crime, although written submissions from victims are accepted.
Victoria - the parole board consists of community representatives and judicial members. The act indicates a sitting must include a judicial member as the Chair and two community representatives. The board is governed by the Corrections Act 1986. Decisions are made by majority rule, and lifers are assessed as per any other prisoner: according to their needs to minimise the risk of reoffending. There is no requirement for a representative of Victims of Crime to be on the Parole Board; however, they will accept correspondence from victims.
New South Wales - the parole board consists of judicial, community, probation, parole, and police members. In regard to lifers, the decision must be unanimous. There is no requirement for a representative of Victims of Crime, although victims’ submissions are accepted in writing, or sworn in at a public meeting to make a verbal statement.
The Australian Capital Territory - the parole board consists of four members: a Chair who has a legal background, Vice-Chair who is a solicitor, community advocate, and police officer. The ACT will only accept a transfer of a lifer if the parole is already granted in the home state or territory. Decisions do not have to be unanimous as the Chair has the final say. There is no Victims of Crime representative as part of the board; however, submissions are made by the Victim Liaison Officer.
Queensland - the parole board consists of a retired judicial member and five other members which must include departmental, medical, female, and Indigenous representation. Matters are decided by majority vote rather than unanimous. There is no victim representation on the board; however, any information the Chief Executive considers relevant to a parole application, such as information from victims or their representation, and restrictions on offenders in relation to crimes of violence, can be submitted.
Western Australia - the parole board consists of a quorum of three: a judge, a community member, and a departmental representative; there may also be up to five other members. A re-socialisation program, which is approved by the Governor of the prison, is commenced two years prior to a lifer being considered for parole. Transfer will be considered if the home state or territory requests it; however, it is unlikely to be granted.
Tasmania - the parole board consists of three members being present in a sitting. The board is governed by the Correction Act 1997. The Chair must have a legal qualification of at least seven years. There is a requirement to have a representative from Victims of Crime. Victims can make submissions through the Secretary of the Parole Board and are sought in every case.
As you can see, when it comes to the operation of parole boards across Australia, no two operate the same. It is because of this divergence in how parole boards operate the Henderson government has introduced this legislation. The legislation before us today closes a loophole in the current legislation. It allows the minister to take into account other issues and matters when determining whether an application for an interstate transfer should be approved.
Part II of the act covers transfers for welfare purposes. A transfer for welfare purposes may be made at the request of the prisoner concerned, and depends on the minister forming the opinion it is in the interests of the prisoner’s welfare he or she be transferred. The bill amends Part II of the act so the minister’s discretion is not limited only to welfare of the prisoner when considering an application for interstate transfer.
Under the National Cooperative Legislative Scheme, welfare transfers involve a three step process. First, the prisoner makes a request to the minister in his or her home state or territory for a transfer. If the minister is of the opinion the prisoner should be transferred, the minister writes to the corresponding minister in the receiving jurisdiction requesting the minister accept the transfer. The only relevant consideration under the current act is the welfare of the prisoner.
Second, under the corresponding legislation, the receiving minister has the discretion to approve the transfer.
Third, if the minister in the receiving jurisdiction consents to the transfer, the minister making the original request may make an order for transfer. When the prisoner is a federal offender, or a joint state or territory and federal offender, the Commonwealth Attorney-General must also consent to the transfer.
I now turn to the detail of the bill. The heading of Part II is changed from ‘Transfer for prisoner’s welfare’ to ‘Transfer at request of prisoner’. This emphasises the fact the impetus for a transfer comes from the prisoners themselves, and better reflects the prisoner’s own path in the transfer procedures.
Proposed section 9A is inserted to provide a non-exhaustive list of factors which the minister may consider when a prisoner makes a request to be transferred to or from another state or territory.
The bill provides the minister may have regard to the following when considering such a request: the welfare of the prisoner; the administration of justice in the Northern Territory or any other state or territory; the security and good order of any prison in the Northern Territory or any other state or territory; the safe custody of a prisoner; the protection of the community in the Northern Territory or any other state or territory; and any other matter the minister considers relevant.
The bill also provides for an amendment to section 21 of the act, which is in Part IV. The amendment mirrors proposed section 9A. Part IV of the act contains a requirement a minister must, in respect of prisoners who have been transferred to the Northern Territory for trial purposes, transfer those prisoners back to their home jurisdiction if no sentence is imposed in the Northern Territory, or the Northern Territory’s sentence is shorter than the other jurisdiction’s sentence. One of the exceptions to this requirement, which is already contained in section 21, is where the minister receives a request from a prisoner for transfer for welfare purposes. It follows, in these situations, the minister should have regard to the same broader range of factors as will apply where there is a general request for transfer for welfare purposes under Part II.
The current terms of the act allow the minister to consider welfare transfers only in a relatively narrow and unclarified manner. The bill increases the scope of the minister’s discretion to consider broader policy objectives such as the general administration of justice, as well as other important matters such as the prisoner’s safety and the safety of the community in general.
For example, there has been recent media interest in the matter of Jonathan Bakewell. Bakewell was transferred to South Australia under the act; the only relevant consideration for the minister in approving his transfer being the welfare of Bakewell. The High Court has recently held the Northern Territory Supreme Court has no jurisdiction to increase Bakewell’s non-parole period because he is no longer a Northern Territory prisoner but a South Australian one. The proposed amendments mean, in the future, there could be a basis for refusing such an application.
I note all other participating jurisdictions have now amended their legislation in accordance with changes agreed by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, and the Corrective Services Ministers’ Conference. This bill ensures our minister will have the same discretion in considering prisoners’ applications for interstate transfer as corresponding ministers in all the other participating jurisdictions.
I commend the bill to honourable members, and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Year 9 students from Dripstone Middle School, accompanied by Miss Leah Bushell and Mrs Chrissie Battalis. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
HOSPITAL BOARDS BILL
(Serial 57)
(Serial 57)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to establish a new Hospital Boards Act, replacing the now dated Hospital Management Boards Act 1980.
The original act has had minor amendments over the past 29 years. In contrast, approaches to hospital management over this period have seen significant changes nationally. Previous reviews of the act, around 2000, were in regard to national competition policy and in relation to other health legislation. However, a comprehensive review and updating of the purpose, operation, function, governance and powers of the board was warranted, and long overdue.
The Department of Health and Families commissioned the formal review of the Hospital Management Boards Act 1980 by an independent consultant, Health Consult, in 2007. Extensive consultation occurred across the Territory with existing board members, management of the five Northern Territory public hospitals, department of Health and Families management, and other key stakeholders. The review found Northern Territory hospital boards were operating effectively at the Royal Darwin and Alice Springs Hospitals, with strong representation from the local community. Boards in Nhulunbuy, Katherine and Tennant Creek were struggling to maintain adequate community representation, and with their sense of purpose and function. Even though the Royal Darwin and Alice Springs boards were highly functional, they operated with a different understanding of their role. Board members made representations to the minister and senior departmental officers for amendments to the legislation to clarify the role and function of the boards Territory-wide.
It is important to understand this point: legislation governing hospital boards has to be workable for all our hospitals, and relevant to the communities they serve. The review addressed this challenge by acknowledging our towns and communities may be small and widely dispersed but they all contain people who are passionate about the Territory and our lifestyle. These are the people we want to attract to the boards who will be committed to making our hospitals the best they can be for all Territorians, regardless of the location and size of the hospital.
The review considered the existing legislation, and how boards have been able to meet these requirements. Where it was apparent boards had difficulty in complying with the legislation, an analysis was undertaken to explore the reasons for that and options were developed to make the legislation more contemporary and workable.
Under the existing legislation, hospital management boards were required to meet at least monthly. They were responsible for providing the Minister for Health with regular communication about the hospital, and a formal annual report for tabling in this House.
Over the years, the ability of the boards to fulfil these two requirements has proven to be problematic. Boards have not recorded consistent data on hospitals and the operation of the board. The review reported boards required more clarity and guidance about what is expected from their reporting obligations. Since 1982, when annual reports had been provided by Northern Territory hospital boards collectively, the boards have only met the expectation to meet monthly 44% of the time. This issue has been most apparent in the smaller, regional hospitals.
Gove District Hospital has not had a functional board since 2000-01, despite repeated and expensive attempts to recruit community membership over this period, and support for the operation of the board through the hospital management.
Katherine Hospital Board has held a maximum of only seven meetings per year from 2001-02 to 2005-06, and no board has been in operation since then. A similar situation has evolved with the Tennant Creek Hospital Board. In light of these difficulties, significant reform was indicated for the act to provide conditions where the hospital boards can operate and provide an effective governance role to their local hospital.
During the consultation process for the 2007 review, it became apparent there were divergent views about the best way forward for hospital boards. When considering the trend around Australia, the consultants strongly recommended the need to maintain active community participation in the operation of public hospitals, and the need for government to retain control of the management and expenditure of public hospitals.
The chairs of the Alice Springs and Royal Darwin Hospital Boards provided significant input during the period of the review. I commend them for their patience and dedication to seeing the quality of boards across the Territory improve.
Chair of the Royal Darwin Hospital Board, Mr Colin McDonald QC, has made an enormous contribution to the development of this new legislation, bringing his legal expertise and extensive knowledge of the board’s role and function to the fore. He has provided sensible and informed advice about workable solutions for all Northern Territory hospital boards.
The new act provides for each public hospital in the Northern Territory to have a board with membership solely constituted from persons living within the community served by these hospitals. Local community representatives will be sought to provide clear input in the way their hospital delivers services and ensures it is meeting the needs of the community.
The previous act required the senior management group from the hospital to be members of the board. The new act now requires only people independent of the administration of the hospital are to be members. Senior management of the hospital, such as the General Manager, the Director of Medical Services, and the Director of Nursing Services will be required to attend board meetings and provide information. However, the new board will be completely independent of the hospital.
The number of persons required to constitute a hospital board has been reduced from the previously required eight to a more viable and more flexible range, consisting of three to six members. The difficulties experienced by boards over the years in attracting and retaining adequate membership, especially in some of the smaller Territory communities, will be reduced considerably by these changes.
The primary focus for boards in the new legislation has been re-directed away from management-related roles to concentrate on community liaison, consultation and the improvement of service quality. Realistically, this means we are not expecting community board members to have the skills of hospital managers with advanced expertise in clinical services or complex budget management. We are, however, expecting board members to know their community, know how to interact with the community, and provide advice about improving the quality of services patients receive. Hospitals are an integral part of the local community; through this new legislation we aim to strengthen their position by allowing the communities to have a real voice in their hospital.
As mentioned earlier, hospital management personnel are no longer prescribed as members of boards, although they still have responsibility to support and assist board members in carrying out the function of the board. Existing board members have commented adequate administrative support needs to be provided to assist with the operation of the board. By explicitly stating hospital management is responsible to support and assist the board, this administrative role is assured.
The management of public hospitals in the Northern Territory falls under the organisation of the Department of Health and Families, acting on behalf of the Northern Territory government. Staff who work in the hospitals operate under the relevant legislation such as the Public Sector Employment and Management Act, the Financial Management Act, and the Medical Services Act, to name a few. The new Hospital Boards Act makes it clear there must be consistency between the board’s direction and advice, and the current acts governing the public service.
Considering the function to be carried by hospital boards, an increased emphasis in the new act has been placed on board members’ understanding and monitoring the health care standards adopted by Territory hospitals. Board members will not, however, be expected to have technical or expert understanding of health care standards, nor will they be expected to engage professional health surveyors to assist with their monitoring function.
Constituted by members from the local community, boards will have capacity to assess the day-to-day experiences local people have with their hospital services. From their perspectives as ‘sophisticated consumers’, board members will be able to monitor the implementation of health care standards and inspect how these standards are met across the hospital. The new legislation explicitly states boards will have assistance and support to inspect the hospital. They will be able to compare experience and expectations with the accepted standards, and provide advice to hospital management and government about ways to improve the quality and appropriateness of hospital services.
Boards will also provide a mechanism for health professionals to consult with experts in the field of ethics about the increasingly contentious and, often litigious, range of ethical matters that come up in the day-to-day operation of hospitals. And, through their membership of a board subcommittee, these experts will be able to consult frankly and confidently with the understanding this legislation provides them protection from the threat of civil or criminal liability.
Another feature of this legislation is its reinforcement of the local community’s role in contributing to the direction and strategic planning of the hospitals which serve the community. The new act clearly provides for strategic planning as one of the functions prescribed for hospital boards. It also reinforces the capacity of boards to engage with government through their increased contact with the Health minister, and the provision of annual reports to the Legislative Assembly.
Further reinforcing the role of these community boards and their important contribution to the governance of our hospitals, the new act clearly identifies government’s interest in having the boards involved in the selection of key hospital personnel. This will be accomplished through the participation of the board members on the selection committee for members of the hospital’s management group, such as the General Manager of the hospital, the Director of Medical Services, and the Director of Nursing Services. These are all very important positions which have considerable profile within the community, and which should be filled with persons who are compatible with the community and its special needs and priorities. Similarly, these are positions which will also benefit from the support and assistance of the board in advancing the quality initiatives across the hospital and within the community.
Considering the almost 30 years hospital boards have been under the current act, and acknowledging the difficulties experienced by boards in trying to sustain adequate membership, a number of changes have been incorporated into the new act. In addition to the previously mentioned changes to the mandated number of members required to constitute a board, additional administrative flexibility has been provided in the new act to allow for membership to be temporarily suspended until sufficient members can be recruited from the local community. This enables the minister to undertake the board’s function and powers as considered necessary during the period of suspended membership.
It is important to understand the board continues to exist in this situation; only membership is suspended, and this is only until an adequate number – three - members have been obtained. Notices will be advertised in the local community, seeking expressions of interest to recruit new members for the board. Every effort will be made to maintain adequate membership of the boards, and every effort will be made to assist the boards in conducting their function.
Another provision in the new Hospital Boards Act, designed to enable communities to cope with fluctuations in their capacity to provide the membership for a hospital board, is the power to amalgamate the boards of two or more community hospitals into one board, should it be necessary. This should result in a greater critical mass of population and greater potential for the combined communities to sustain enough membership for a hospital board.
Since the commencement of the current act in 1980, the hospitals and the communities they serve have experienced extensive, wide-ranging change. These changes, and the knowledge and experience gained from hospital boards across the Territory, have contributed substantially to the development of this new act. In addition, recognising the contribution of experience and knowledge gained through the administration of the act, it is most important we acknowledge the hard work and overall contributions made by the many Territorians who volunteered to serve on the boards of their community hospitals. The hours of involvement in fundraising activities, long and arduous meetings, contentious agenda matters, and the advice provide to ministers over the years, has been most appreciated.
Government sees this type of involvement by local communities as essential to achieving the best outcomes for the health and wellbeing of Territorians. We acknowledge the time and effort of those volunteers is precious, and there is intense competition out there for the attention of individuals who are able and willing to make this type of contribution.
Let me say this again, and I am sure members will agree: the Territory owes a considerable debt of gratitude to those Territorians who have given their time and effort so selflessly to support their local hospitals.
This bill for a new Hospital Boards Act incorporates the contributions of those who volunteered their time and effort, over almost 30 years, to the hospital boards in operation under the previous act. It also incorporates the knowledge and experience gained by the department of Health and Families through its administration of the act.
Earlier this year, I released a number of major reviews into the operation of the Royal Darwin Hospital. The governance review, conducted by the Australian Council on Health Care Standards, made a number of recommendations on the function and role of the board. The review recommended the board’s role in the governance of the hospital be clarified and communicated widely. Introducing this new legislation is a major step in this process.
The implementation of recommendations from the governance review has commenced with the appointment of the new head of hospitals, Mr Alan Wilson. Mr Wilson is overseeing the expert task force guiding the improvements at Royal Darwin Hospital. Organisations such as the Australian Medical Association are represented on the task force. The task force, with the executive management and clinical team at Royal Darwin Hospital and the Royal Darwin Hospital Board, will steer the RDH in a strategic manner to position it well for the future.
Notwithstanding improvements can be made, Royal Darwin Hospital is a first rate hospital with a very experienced and dynamic team of staff who provide excellent care.
The new bill is important legislation for all our public hospitals across the Territory, encouraging and enabling local communities to become involved with their hospitals to support improvements in the quality and the appropriateness of the services they are providing.
I commend the bill to honourable members, and table the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
CARE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 49)
(Serial 49)
Continued from 17 August 2009.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, it is very interesting that we have students from Dripstone Middle School with us today. I hope you can follow this debate because, in so many ways, it is about young people like you. I do not know your ages, I could hazard a guess, but you may be interested in this debate. This is what we do in this Chamber, in this parliament; we debate laws which we believe are the best laws for the people of the Northern Territory.
The government has introduced a bill which is not, by any measure, as good as it could be. I should say for people subsequently reading the Hansard, I refer to the comments I made when I introduced the opposition’s bill, the Care and Protection of Children Bill, on Tuesday. To some extent, I will be repeating those comments. I also indicate that, after this debate, I will be moving amendments to the government’s bill.
Madam Speaker, in this bill, the government seeks to change section 26(1) of the Care and Protection of Children Act to include that a person must report underage sexual activity on reasonable grounds the child has suffered, or is likely to suffer, harm; or, a child aged less than 14 years has been, or is likely to be, a victim of a sexual offence.
Our issue is: what about children over the age of 14 years but under 16 years? If a person has a belief that a child of 15 years is likely to be a victim of a sexual offence, they are not required to report it. That was not meant to be the case, both in the lead up to the replacement of the Community Welfare Act, and with the introduction of the Care and Protection of Children Act, which had in excess of 300 sections - it was significant legislation. The government now comes to parliament seeking to address what is an unintended consequence which has created confusion in the community about the circumstances in which people are required to report underage sexual activity.
The difficulty with the government’s bill is it prescribes two standards: one for health practitioners; and one for everyone else. In the government’s bill, the reporting obligations are clearly set out: a person is guilty of an offence if the person believes on reasonable grounds any of the following: a child has suffered, or is likely to suffer, harm or exploitation; and, second, if a child of less than 14 years has been, or is likely to be, a victim of a sexual offence. Further down in the government’s bill, it provides that a person is guilty of an offence if that person is a health practitioner, or performs work of a kind that is prescribed by regulation, and if that person believes that a child aged at least 14 years but less than 16 years, has been, or is likely to be, a victim of a sexual offence.
Before getting to the overwhelming inconsistency in the two parts I have just read, I should add elsewhere in the government’s bill there is a reference to section 128 of the Criminal Code that mandatory reporting is also required if a child has been the victim of an offence under section 128 of the Criminal Code. An offence under section 128 of the code is:
- (1) Any adult who:
- (a) has sexual intercourse with; or
(b) commits any act of gross indecency upon,
a child who is:
(c) of or over the age of 16 years; and
(d) under the person's special care,
As I said on Tuesday, the government has got itself into a position where some people have particular reporting obligations, and others do not. A person who is not a health practitioner does not have to report a child who has been or is likely to be a victim of a sexual offence. That leaves open children between 14 and 16 years. Yet, a health practitioner must make the report. I find it unconscionable and disgraceful that the government would stand by its amendments. I can barely contain my rage.
I note the minister issued a media release on 17 August saying:
- As a government we are committed to the protection of our children.
Well, you would not have thought it. What balderdash! You say members of the public do not have a reporting obligation for children over 14 and under 16 who are likely to be, or have been, a victim of a sexual offence. How do you people sleep at night? You should be ashamed. This is one of the most disgraceful things I have seen in this parliament.
Presumably, the lame and limp minister with the ability to make decisions – and, by God, she is not very good at making them judging from my dealings with her over the last few days - should have done significantly better with such an important piece of information that has led to much debate in the community, not just amongst health practitioners, but so many others.
The minister may say in her response: ‘No, children between 14 and 16 are protected because members of the public have an obligation to report harm or exploitation’. Harm is defined in section 15 of the Care and Protection of Children Act, and exploitation is defined under section 16. Presumably, the government will run that line and they will expect the media, and others, to believe it. Government will seek to weasel out of its complete abrogation of its responsibility by proceeding with this act, by relying on sections 15 and 16.
Yes, there is that obligation to report, but you have to look at section 15 and section 16 and actually read them. It requires a subjective judgment as to, in the case of section 15, the physical, psychological or emotional wellbeing of the child in terms of exploitation.
A sexual offence, it is clearly understood, will not lead to any confusion. Yet, this government says if a child in the Territory has been or is likely to be a victim of a sexual offence then members of the public should not report it. How utterly extraordinary! I am gobsmacked by the minister’s incompetence. I am gobsmacked that in, arguably, the most interesting two weeks of Northern Territory politics for years, the government might not want to work in a cooperative way.
It is important for me to outline my so-called negotiations with the minister. Earlier this week I said to her I would run dead publicly if she could find a way to encapsulate the bill I introduced on Tuesday into her bill. I would run dead publicly because this is not about politics. She wrung her hands, and kept going around in circles, and then later that day or the next day: ‘Jodeen, I would like a chat’. ‘Yes, okay, let us chat. Let us see what we can do’. So I met with the minister and round and round in circles she went, as usual, and she gave me a list of people and organisations with whom she had consulted in relation to fixing the unintended consequence of section 26 of the Care and Protection of Children Act. It is almost a page long!
The minister has consulted with all and sundry and yet she would propose to continue to consult in a review with this legislation in due course – or in due season, as Kevin Rudd would say. What I say to the minister is: ‘Make a decision and stand by it. Make a decision’. I say to her: ‘Make a decision that, even though we disagree with the wording of the Domestic Violence Act, we, as a parliament, send a strong message to the community that we do not tolerate domestic violence’.
I said to her: ‘This would be in a week where the government has very little in positive publicity; this would be a week where you could actually walk home with something’. When the word cooperation and the Council of Cooperation is being bandied around, would it not be good, in an area such as child protection if we, as a parliament, could say: ‘This is what we all reckon, and we think everyone in the community, not just health practitioners, should have the same reporting obligations. We also think children between 14 and 16 should not be chucked out the window by an incompetent minister in an incompetent government’. Would that not have been good?
But, no, the minister wants to continue to consult, continue to wring her hands, and continue to stand by this notion that a person in the community is guilty of an offence if they believe, on reasonable grounds, a child has suffered harm or is likely to suffer harm, or a child under the age of 14 has been, or is likely to be, a victim of a sexual offence. The minister and government just cannot bring themselves to change that particular section, as in the case of health practitioners in subsection (2) of the bill, from 14 to 16.
How can the government and the minister stand by what can only be described as poor public policy; to have different standards of reporting in relation to child protection? The minister sends out these puffy media releases saying: ‘We care’. Well, you would not have thought it.
I had, yet again, another good look at the Care and Protection of Children Act and after that, frankly, I do not believe the minister understands, unlike her predecessor, the member for Arafura, with whom I worked in a constructive manner. You win some, you lose some. We both did but we reached a reasonable solution and a reasonable outcome - eventually. Not this minister, who prides herself on crossing the floor for McArthur River, regards herself as a woman of principle and integrity. Well, you are not! Shame on you for coming up with this and standing by it. Shame on you!
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Araluen …
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of Government Business, you need to go to your own chair.
Dr BURNS: Madam Speaker, the member for Araluen well knows she is to direct her comments through the Chair.
Members interjecting.
_____________________
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Please pause. Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of Year 6 students from Alyangula Area School accompanied by Mrs Clarissa Johnson and Mrs Loraine McCarthy. On behalf of all honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
_____________________
Ms CARNEY: How nice it is to have young people in the gallery, Madam Speaker.
As I said earlier, in the parliament of the Northern Territory, most of us try our best to produce the very best laws we are able to come up with. The view on this side of the Chamber is people on that side of the Chamber have fallen short - have not gone that extra mile to make it as good as it can be, and as good as it should be, because it is all about the care and protection of children, which is terribly important - not that you would think so from the way the government has gone about this.
In the Care and Protection of Children Act, section 6 refers to a number of principles. Section 7 refers to the responsibility of the Territory government and it says:
- The Northern Territory Government has responsibility for promoting and safeguarding the wellbeing of children and supporting families in fulfilling their role in relation to children.
The Northern Territory government has a responsibility for promoting and safeguarding the wellbeing of children. We say the government has utterly failed in discharging its own responsibility by pressing on with this bill which is not as good as it could, or should, be.
As I said on Tuesday, the minister received on 17 August - and I was provided with a copy - a letter from the Northern Territory Law Society, an august body. The Law Society said it had received a copy of my bills and said they think my bills are very good; they aim to reduce the unintended harm caused by mandatory reporting of all sexual activity in young people. It went on and described them as positive and appropriate reform.
Everyone knows the government’s bill falls short. What people know - as if they did not know it before - is this government is not only tired and lazy, but arrogant. It does not accept there are other views. This government is turning into everything they said they hated about the CLP in the 1980s and the 1990s; they said they were arrogant, obsessed with themselves, and would not listen to anyone. What have you become? In the face of a preferred view by the Law Society, support from AMSANT and others, the minister just will not bring herself to stretch and accept another point of view.
Last night, in yet another phone call with the wringing-hands minister, she said: ‘We have sent your bill to the Department of Justice. They have some drafting concerns’. She did not tell me what those concerns were. I could put money on the fifth floor saying: ‘Find something. Send it to DOJ. Find something in Carney’s bill - anything will do’. I did say to the minister what she could do, whatever those concerns were, is put Department of Justice people with Parliamentary Counsel this morning. I even offered her the opportunity to bring the bill on later today. It is really important we get it right; everyone can do their best and get the right result. No, not even that was good enough. I genuinely believe the minister is less than bright and incompetent, which is always a fairly dangerous combination in any job, but probably more particularly in politics.
Let us talk briefly about the intervention. As a result of the NT Emergency Response, in recent days we have been talking about housing, a very important issue. However, child abuse was the catalyst, and it underpinned the intervention. When Nanette Rogers was interviewed on Lateline, the whole world went ballistic, it would seem, and everyone was suddenly very interested in child abuse. A couple of years down the track, despite numerous media releases from this government saying, collectively, they care, we now have a bill which just falls short, which does not meet the government’s own responsibility as prescribed by the act by promoting and safeguarding the wellbeing of children, and comes up with two different reporting obligations and, in relation to children who are 14 and 16, who had been or are victims of sexual offences, there is no obligation to make a report. I said it was disgraceful, and I stand by that.
I spoke, of course, with the member for Nelson. Although I disagree, he has done his best. From our discussion this morning, I do not think it is good enough. We spoke in a very frank but polite way; and that is the way it is. I understand the member for Nelson is concerned parents will have to report underage sexual activity. I say to the member for Nelson, and others, the advantage with the bill we proposed, the bill I was happy to give to the minister - with an assurance I would play dead publicly, blah, blah, blah - is that, yes, there is an obligation to report underage sexual activity. However, I proposed that six criteria needed to be met, which would mean people did not need to report - clarity and certainty, given the last six months - which has been required by all and sundry.
As to the minister’s future review of the act, I encourage her to read through all the debates we have had, all the publications from the Department of Health; go back to the original section 26. It was never the intention to provide different reporting obligations in this legislation, and there are good reasons for that. There are good reasons why there should be the same reporting obligations for everyone in the community. Underpinning it is the seriousness with which we, as a parliament, should regard child sexual abuse. Why should we have different people using different standards of reporting? Why is it a medical practitioner will be found guilty if that practitioner does not report a child who he or she believes, on reasonable grounds, has been a victim of sexual offence, if that child is aged between 14 and 16? Yet, someone else in the community does not have that obligation. It is not only a conundrum, it beggars belief. Certainty and clarity are required.
Sadly, we know sexual abuse is, unfortunately, common. Some would say it is also rampant in some bush communities. We have health practitioners and others working in that area who work in the bush. Would you not have thought they would very much appreciate two things: a clear statement from this parliament about the seriousness of child abuse; and the need to protect all children, noting that children are 16 years and younger. Would you not also have thought they would want a very clear set of circumstances or exemptions they could read and understand and know they would not be found guilty if a number of criteria were met?
That is not the situation. I feel very sorry for people looking through the legislation the government has proposed because they will ask: why are there two different standards? Why does a doctor have to report 14 to 16-year-olds, but the chemist, the counsellor, or a mum and dad do not? If I know a child has been a victim of a sexual offence, I would plan on telling authorities. The message the minister wants to send is: you do not need to worry about that unless you are a health practitioner. What a lame message; what a stupid message. The intervention is all about looking after the children - you would not think so.
To her great credit, the member for Macdonnell came out very strongly after the intervention saying it was good for her people. I remember reading a newspaper article in the Alice Springs News to that effect. It was great to see. I have spoken with the member for Macdonnell because she is the second of two Independents. She understands the logic behind coming up with a solution which is going to be meaningful and clearly understood by everyone, and is not going to send a conflicting message to the community. I look forward to her support.
In relation to the member for Nelson, both sides of the political aisle agree there is to be reporting of underage sex, but a person should not be guilty of an offence if the criteria contained in the opposition’s bill, introduced on Tuesday, are met; so there is that flexibility.
I am really disgusted at the way the minister has conducted herself. No wonder your government is not getting anything done. No wonder you finished at 4.05 pm yesterday. No wonder the day before there were only six or seven items on the Notice Paper. You have run out of puff; you got up and went. This talk about ‘we could not do this, we have to do this’ – make a decision; that is what you are paid for. You are happy to take the money, but you are gutless, because the minister fails to make a decision. Four days of hand wringing; we could have this done and dusted. Half-and-hour or so ago she said: ‘No, we cannot do that’, despite being given numerous alternatives, numerous ways, and political advice from me saying this is how your government can look good and we can all work together on this.
The minister speaks with forked tongue - she says let us all work together and, then, no. I do not hold out any hope because this minister has form. She comes up, she touches me on the arm and says: ‘We would really like to work together with you on this’. I do not think we have actually worked together on anything. The minister is not a person who is inclusive; she is not a person who wants to work with anyone. She is, obviously, so incompetent other people make decisions for her. They must, because if the minister was half smart she would know what AMSANT was saying, she would understand what the Law Society was saying, she would give effect to the responsibility of the Northern Territory government as outlined in legislation. She would not sanction a situation where children between 14 and 16 years are left out in the cold in the general public, unlike those same children in respect to health practitioners. It is bad public policy and it does not make any sense.
You are on notice, minister: I am chasing you. I am going to chase you now. I always thought you were half decent …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member well knows she needs to address her remarks through the Chair.
Ms CARNEY: Through you, Madam Speaker, I have always given the minister the benefit of the doubt. I always had a hunch she was not quite up to it. The last few days have certainly confirmed with me that she just is not. How can you be the Minister for Child Protection and come up with a bill like this when faced with credible and sensible alternatives? I have worked very hard on trying my best to persuade her it is the right alternative, when she knows it is the right alternative.
You take your knocks, but this minister is now in my sights. I cannot fathom such incompetence, such a lack of care about doing her job well. She has failed already in relation to child protection. We saw her appalling contributions during estimates. This is clearly not a person who is across her portfolios.
At the end of this debate I will move amendments. I do not expect those amendments to succeed, but my conscience dictates I must move those amendments. I know the parliament well; I know what is going to happen but, unlike the minister, I really enjoy having a very good sleep, and I plan on having one tonight.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I have to say that was one of the more disgraceful things I have witnessed in the Chamber. The shadow spokesperson directed her entire speech to a personal attack on a minister. Where is the substance in that contribution? The allegations bandied across the Chamber, that this government does not care about protecting children and has left 14- to 16-year-olds out in the cold, are pure nonsense. They are ridiculous and absurd.
This government undertook the most comprehensive reform for the care and protection of children across the Territory; a reform that had been wanting for two decades. This government put the effort and the resources into the reform; importantly, the legislative reform, which is the Care and Protection of Children Act for which we have an amendment before us to debate, but also reform in terms of the resources on the ground to provide the practitioners to care and provide for the protection of children. You cannot do one without the other.
We have quadrupled the child protection budget. What does that mean in a practical sense? That means there are qualified child protection workers to make the critically important professional assessments about whether a child is at risk. We took that a step further in reforms; we put together the child protection workers, the highest technical workers, with police and created CAT Force. CAT Force exists in the Top End, and in Central Australia. They are the front line in terms of making professional risk assessments about whether a child is at risk.
To accuse this government of not caring about children beggars the reality. If you do the hard yards and reform the legislation, which this government has done, then equally you do the hard yards and put resources into the front line, which this government has done. What is important in this picture is we also support families on the ground; we support the families to provide for a nurturing environment for children. We are also doing that. We are extending those support services beyond the urban environment where they only existed in the past, into the regions and, importantly, into the remote communities where they are needed most. We have paid child protection support workers in remote regions. We started with a trial at Maningrida but, under this minister, we are rolling it out across the remote areas. To say this government does not care about children because we have a disagreement in the Chamber today on the proposed amendments is purely absurd.
A large part of the shadow minister’s argument was this Minister for Child Protection does not listen. I will show the amendments brought to the Chamber by this minister are a direct consequence of her listening to a broad spectrum of people - parents, medical practitioners and the legal profession.
That disgraceful display by the member for Araluen was about her not getting her way and therefore it is all off. Unbelievable! And the vitriol of: ‘I will chase after you, I will get you’. What a disgrace!
She accused our minister of not listening to views. In fact, the amendments before the Chamber today are all about the effort the Minister for Child Protection has made to listen to the views of a broad range of people from different perspectives, to bring forward this amendment. As a government we have always said our reforms in care and protection, particularly those legislative reforms, were so significant and so broad-ranging that we would listen to people about how those reforms were implemented.
I believe a bit of hysteria was whipped up, by the CLP, around the reporting of teenagers having consensual sex. Those of us who actually understand the system understand the frontline workers in the Child Abuse Task Force - a combination of professional child protection workers and police - would not pursue prosecutions for those between the ages of 14 and 16 having consensual sex. But, no, no. Hysteria had to be whipped up by the CLP, which is why we have this amendment in the Chamber today. We recognise …
Mr Conlan: You are a grub – an absolute grub!
Ms LAWRIE: … they ran a good campaign on hysteria. That is what they do – fear and loathing ...
Mr Conlan: Absolute grub. As if we would use that to whip up hysteria.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Greatorex!
Mr Conlan: It is disgusting, listening to her.
Ms LAWRIE: We listened and recognised there was community concern, and the minister engaged in a series of discussions, meetings, and considerations about how to strike the balance between protecting children who are actually being abused, and not hurting teenagers aged 14 to 16 who are engaged in consensual sexual activity. We do not want them to peel away from the medical fraternity, so they get the appropriate professional advice and support. We also do not want to put parents in the predicament of being in breach of a law if they are aware their teenager between 14 and 16 is engaged in consensual sexual activity with someone within two years of their age grouping.
We looked at this very carefully. I know because I am the Attorney-General and I made every resource available to the Minister for Child Protection in looking at the legalities and how we move on this. We looked at New South Wales, which dealt with the age bracket within two years. We tested the workability of that in New South Wales. The feedback was positive. This is very difficult - is it 18 months, is it two years? We had to find a way to describe the age relationship between those teenagers.
However, we are not saying this will cover every situation that may arise. The law, by its nature, is never able to do that perfectly. What we are saying is this is a fair and right balance between protecting teenagers from predators, which we are genuinely doing and still exists when this amendment goes through - but also understanding, whether we like it or not as parents, and I am a parent and I have a teenager - some teenagers engage in consensual sexual activity. We have drawn a line which is genuinely agreed in this Chamber - 14 years and above. In terms of FACS, we do not believe children under 14 have the maturity to make those decisions. However, we recognise, particularly in the Territory, we have children from a broad range of cultures and, in some cultures, they are deemed to be old enough to have what we would normally see as adult consensual relationships. We recognise there are cultural realities in the Territory to deal with those 14- to 16-year-olds who may, in their culture, be deemed old enough ...
Mr Conlan: That is just a load of rubbish. You are an absolute grub. That is disgraceful, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, I ask you to withdraw that comment, thank you.
Mr Conlan: I will withdraw it. I will withdraw myself; I cannot listen to this crap.
Ms LAWRIE: I have not referred to which culture, and isn’t it funny how they assume the culture I am referring to. I sit in a very diverse electorate in the seat of Karama. There is an assumption made on that side of the Chamber about which culture I am referring to. What a ridiculous way they behave.
We have had mandatory reporting of child abuse for some time in the Northern Territory and, hopefully, all of us would say rightly so. However, mandatory reporting does not just relate to sexual abuse, but to any abuse and any neglect. The main purpose of having mandatory reporting is to increase reporting, to raise awareness that child abuse must not be tolerated, not in any circumstances, and anyone who witnesses it should speak up.
We also have legislation, the Criminal Code, which makes it clear a child under the age of 16 is unable to consent to sexual activity. We are not proposing to change that. We are not proposing to change the age of consent. We know the Little Children are Sacred Report clearly outlines that underage sex involving children aged 13 to 16 was of great concern and needed to be addressed. The inquiry found that: ‘Unchecked sexualised youth are more vulnerable to becoming victims or offenders of sexual abuse’.
The government introduced the Care and Protection of Children Act to ensure reporting levels increase, and any potential cases of child sexual abuse are dealt with. We recognise this is difficult legislation. We need to get the balance right, ensuring children who engage in underage sex feel able to come forward to receive medical attention - that is why we are focused on medical practitioners - and we are able to assess whether that underage sex is abusive, or clearly having a detrimental effect on the child.
Often this latter aspect requires an intervention against the will of the child. It is important to explain the legalities of this situation and the relationship between the provisions in the Care and Protection of Children Act and the Criminal Code. Section 127 of the Criminal Code provides it is an offence to have sexual intercourse or commit any act of gross indecency upon a child who is under the age of 16 years. By making such acts an offence, this provision in the Criminal Code intends to protect children under 16 from harm and exploitation. Section 26 of the Care and Protection of Children Act supports this intention by establishing an obligation to report sexual offences in certain circumstances. It does not change the status of a child being a victim of a sexual offence but, rather, it encourages people to take note and to act where children are at risk of harm because they are the victim of a sexual offence. It is aimed at protecting children and preventing harm.
Under common law, there is no obligation to report offences. The only way a person can be obliged to report an offence is by mandating a requirement to report through legislation. The act we passed in 2007 maintained the universal mandatory reporting of suspected child abuse and neglect of both harm and exploitation. Such a responsibility to report encourages change in the community attitude to sexual offences and to take action. Similar to the obligation to reporting domestic violence, the obligation to report aims to give voice to the victims of abuse who are often disempowered by the actions of the abuser and are not in a position, or not able, to take action themselves.
In looking at the act as a whole, the statutory child protection activity within the act ensures a broader range of responses are allowed to report about a child believed to be suffering harm or in need of protection, or where there is a concern about a child’s wellbeing; make inquiries and conduct investigations; coordinate assistance and arrange a mediation conference; take a child into provisional protection or temporary custody; apply for an assessment and/or protection order of placed children; and monitor and review their care.
The bill proposes to amend the reporting obligation to clarify the circumstances where reporting is required. The amendment recognises the reality that a child aged 14 to 16 may be consensually sexually active with a child of a similar age, for example, a 15-year-old boy who engages in sexual conduct with his 14-year-old girlfriend. The current position in the NT is that, where a 15-year-old boy and his 14-year-old girlfriend engage in consensual sex, a prosecution of a 15-year-old boy would depend on prosecutorial discretion. There is often no public interest in the prosecution of a child, especially in a case like this where the 14-year-old girlfriend is probably also committing an offence.
In the act, sexual intercourse with a child under 16 years is an offence. Under the Criminal Code the amendment clarifies a health practitioner is only required to report in circumstances where it is believed there is harm, or where the age difference is greater than two years. If the child is at least 14 years of age, and the age difference is less than two years, and there is no belief that harm is occurring, then there is no requirement to report the offence.
I understand the intent of amendments proposed by the opposition. However, I believe the bill as it stands provides a clearer, more robust legislative framework in relation to the responsibilities of a parent of a child aged 14 or 15 years who suspects their child may be sexually active.
The Minister for Children and Families conducted extensive consultations with stakeholders on the government’s bill, listening and talking with key stakeholders to achieve what we believe is a working balance between the protection of children from harm and exploitation, and the reality that children under 16 years do engage is consensual sexual activity.
It is important to ensure young people feel confident they can seek out adequate medical, physiological, and other support services they require for their sexual health.
The stakeholders variously advise they believe the government’s bill would be effective, and strikes the balance.
A working group was formed which comprised representatives of the Northern Territory Police; the Department of Health and Families; representatives of a coalition of community groups called the Really Caring for Kids Coalition, which represents 17 organisations; the Aboriginal Medical Services Alliance of the Northern Territory, AMSANT; the Australian College of Rural and Remote Medicine; the Australian General Practice Network; the Australian Medical Association; the Australian Nursing Federation; the Council of Remote Area Nurses of Australia; Family Planning Welfare Association of the Northern Territory; General Practice Network Northern Territory; Law Society Northern Territory; National Centre for HIV Epidemiology in Clinic Research; NAAJA; Public Health Association of the Northern Territory; Royal Australian College of General Practitioners; Royal Australian College of Physicians; Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists; Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, Northern Territory Branch; and Services for Rural and Remote Allied Health. It is a very broad, very professional, representative coalition.
The working group was able to agree on an approach to amend the act which it considers would effectively address the community concerns whilst still retaining the object of the legislation - to protect children from harm and exploitation. The approach this government has taken was recommended by the working group, and it is reflected in the government’s bill.
Under the government’s bill, and the opposition’s proposed amendments, everyone is still required to report harm or exploitation of children of any age. The differences occur where there is a sexual offence which is not regarded as harmful or exploitative for the age group 14 to 16 years. The government bill before us today reduces reporting requirements by relieving persons of the obligation to report sexual offences in certain circumstances. It does not change the status of the child being a victim of a sexual offence per se. Parents, extended family, friends, and other members of the community are only required to report a reasonable belief that a sexual offence has occurred where the victim is under the age of 14 years, or where a relationship of special care exists between the young person and the adult committing the sexual offence. Health practitioners, and persons determined by regulation will need to make additional considerations, giving them that all-important higher test.
The opposition amendments bring in more onerous reporting obligations. For example, a parent whose 14-year-old daughter is having consensual sex with her 16-year-old boyfriend would have to report, under the opposition amendments, but not under the government’s proposed bill. That is, essentially, the difference between the two in this debate.
I have advice from the Department of Justice the opposition’s proposed amendments are basically less workable, are confusing and introduce new terminology which will likely result in further confusion in the obligation to report. The legal advice I have received on these opposition amendments is: it is misleading and confusing to describe the relevant child as being, quote: ‘not the victim of a sexual offence’.
The government bill, as it stands, relieves persons of the obligation to report sexual offences in certain circumstances. It has not changed the status of a child being a victim of a sexual offence per se, and the opposition’s amendments seek to change the status of the victim in this legislation, which may confuse the obligation to report the commission of a sexual offence.
I believe all of us find this debate incredibly vexing; all of us want to ensure the protection of our children. The actions of this government show we are fair dinkum about that. We have reformed, most comprehensively, the legislation for the care and protection of our children.
We quadrupled the budget which deals with the protection of our children. We have put together a workable, operational task force, the CAT Force, with child protection workers sitting alongside police. I have been out there and the information they share is critical for professional assessments of risk, harm, and exploitation. We are seeing people charged, brought before our courts and gaoled as a result of these resources going into this area. We are genuine about protecting our children from harm and exploitation.
At the same time, we recognise and listen to community concerns about the activity of teenagers in those crucial years 14 to 16. You heard the list of organisations the minister engaged with in consultation and discussions; significant professionals who all agreed on the approach the government has brought before the Chamber in the amendment to this bill today.
The shadow spokesperson claims the minister does not listen to views. Well, she is wrong; she is absolutely wrong. We are here today with this bill amending the Care and Protection of Children Act because the minister listens to views of the coalition, of the professionals, of the parents - and she has struck the right balance.
The amendments proposed by the shadow spokesperson are flawed. They raise real workability issues, they add to confusion. I have the legal advice and I will back the Legal Policy Section of the Department of Justice any day over the member for Araluen ...
Mr Elferink: What about the Law Society?
Ms LAWRIE: The Law Society also believes the bill before us today gets it right.
So, on every objective assessment, what we have before us today, in terms of the bill, has been tested, has been consulted, and strikes the right balance. We will continue as a government to do whatever it takes to protect the children of the Northern Territory.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to the House.
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I congratulate the minister for Families for bringing this bill forward. At the same time, I congratulate the shadow spokesperson whose passion for this area is known in the House.
This is not about whether the government’s bill is better than the bill the shadow spokesperson has brought forward to this House; at the end of the day this is about the protection of our children, the most vulnerable children in the Northern Territory, who are our future.
The Deputy Chief Minister said we should not bring politics into it, yet she is the first one to bring politics into it by saying that funding has quadrupled since the Labor government came in. It had to, because many thousands of children are being born in the Northern Territory. Of course, the money has to increase, Deputy Chief Minister.
In supporting this bill I have made it known to my former colleague, the Minister for Children and Families, that I would like some type of education strategy to be put in place, some media strategy, so people in the bush are educated and know what is going on and that these changes are happening. We always seem to be moving the goal posts, and people in the bush really do not know what is going on. We have had the intervention now for two years, and under the intervention it is mandatory to report any kind of child abuse and child sexual abuse. I am concerned people out there do not get the right information. I put that view to the Minister for Children and Families, and I am not at all doubtful the minister will take that into consideration. We know the hardship people have outside hub towns like Darwin, Tennant Creek, Alice Springs, and Katherine, getting information that is so vital in bringing communities together and allowing families to move forward their family and their children, knowing very well there are these laws in place.
The shadow spokesperson does not bring many things forward to this House. She is very passionate about this issue and we have seen it in this House. We have seen her perform publicly outside this House with compassion and passion for protecting children. That is what she loves doing - the protection of children.
Of course, we will have little political fights like that in this House. This House is known as the Chamber of Clowns now, and we are all referred to as the clowns of Territory politics. But we have to go further and beyond our politics in this. It is not whether your politics is better than the politics of this side of the House; we are dealing with the most vulnerable children. This is the future generation of our Territory, and it is about moving the Territory forward, to have the best children we can have – children who are educated and healthy, and who have not been abused. We know children who are being abused are not going to be educated properly and they are not going to be healthy, because they keep that stored at the back of their mind.
I congratulate the minister and take this opportunity to say it would be really good if we can get some media strategies together to ensure it gets on the ground to our people.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, what more important bill could you have than one relating to the care of young children? That is the issue we have before us today.
I should say at the outset I understand this bill had to be brought forward as a matter of urgency, and the first time I have seen either the proposed bill or the member for Araluen’s amendments was this week. I thank the member for Araluen for bringing this forward for debate today.
I have struggled with this because I am not a lawyer; I am a dad. This is a very serious issue I have spent hours and hours working on; last night I was still working on it and, in fact, this morning I was having another go at it. I have taken a whole series of matters into consideration.
There is the legal side of what we are doing, and also the parental side - how we would react as parents in circumstances we may not morally agree with but would have to make a decision on. Whether the changes being put forward are going to make the decision we would have to make as parents more difficult than it should be, or if it puts restrictions on us that are unnecessary. In other words, do we use common sense when it comes to these particular matters?
We also have to look at the reasons for the bill. The bill was brought forward to encourage young children in the age bracket, and that is what we are really talking about - it is a very small time frame of ages, 14 and 15 - who may be having sexual activity to go to their GP or health practitioner to get information regarding sexual education without fear of being reported. That is a very fine balance, as people would know, and what makes this legislation so difficult. I do not believe anyone here is encouraging people under the age of 16 to be having sex, but the facts are people do have sex, and we have to deal with the situation as it is, not as we might think it should be, and so we have come forward with these bills.
I have been trying to do what research I can, but there are two letters - and I know the member for Araluen calls it the ‘august’ Law Society - I suppose if you were a lawyer you would call it that, but there are two letters, both supporting the government’s amendments ...
Ms Carney: And one is later than the other.
Mr WOOD: That is right; one is later than the other. We have two letters from the Law Society both supporting what is being put forward. If you are trying to make my life hard, the stuff in there is starting to make it hard.
I have gone through this bill, piece by piece, word by word, and had a look at it as best I can. It seems to me the crunch comes in relation to a couple of issues. One is what the member for Araluen is concerned about, and it is a fair concern: there is no reporting required for someone who is a victim of sexual offence in the age bracket 14 to 15. This is where it gets a little difficult. On the one hand, the member for Araluen says if we stick within these guidelines, then it is not necessary. On the other hand, when you read the bill, there are requirements. You are not exempt from reporting an offence if there are other matters that have to be taken into consideration. And those matters, are in section 26(1)(a):
- … believes, on reasonable grounds, any of the following:
(i) a child has suffered or is likely suffer harm or exploitation;
The way I see it, we are not supporting someone having sexual intercourse at this age. We are allowing parents to sort that out - and this is the area that concerns me - because there is a blanket requirement by the member for Araluen that all people report, and I understand that. But in this allowing of what I call a commonsense approach, it is not so much the act of sexual intercourse or sexual relationship, or even touching, that we are necessarily concerned about. As a dad, I would be concerned about it but, from the point of view of the law, what we worry about are the bits that could hang onto that, in the form of sexual abuse, exploitation of a child, any sort of physical violence if that was used in pornographic material, or prostitution was involved.
There are matters which are covered. This is the definition of sexual offence:
- Sexual offence means an indictable offence involving:
That is the offence. Bear in mind we are encouraging children in this particular age bracket to go to a health practitioner if they need to, the act does say you must report matters of harm or exploitation. So, I have taken the harm or exploitation sections of the definition of sexual offence and say: that is covered.
I will not get on to people who are employed, like teachers; what we are allowing is in relation to parents. I am trying to put myself in a position where if I knew my daughter or son was having sexual intercourse, or sexual penetration, or a sexual relationship, or even indecent touching - not assault - I would not want to be compelled to report that to an authority. As a parent I would sort that out myself. As much as I would not be pleased with it, I would try to deal with it as a loving parent, even though it might hurt. I would try to sort it out that way. That is why it is difficult; we have to find a legalistic approach to something that requires humanity and love you hope parents would give to their children. So, I prefer what the government is putting forward as it gives more flexibility to a parent making these judgments.
If my daughter was being bashed, came home with bruises; if I knew her photograph had been taken and put on the Internet; if she had psychological problems from what was happening, of course I would report that. The way I read this act - although it is not the clearest bit of legal jargon in the world - when you come to the review, I believe you need someone from the layman’s point of view to have a look at it and see if it is understood.
It has taken me a great effort to grasp the issues; you have so many definitions here. If you want some drafting - please put all the definitions in the one bill so I do not have to go to the Criminal Code, to the Care and Protection of Children Act which refers to the Sexual Offence Evidence and Procedure Act - that makes it pretty hard for someone. It is hard enough for me having to deal with this in parliament, but imagine if a parent just wanted to check the law; they would immediately understand why lawyers make so much money - they spend a lot of time trying to find out where they have put all these things.
I need to make this clear: I thank the member for Araluen very much for working through this. I know she has a different opinion to mine. She has given me a number of briefings, and I appreciate that very much. She will realise it is very hard for me to make a decision one way or the other, but I have taken a decision based on what I believe is a mixture of the legal, plus the human side. Putting those together, I believe the government’s amendments are the best ones. But I will also be keeping an eye on comments; I know the government is talking about putting certain employment classifications into the regulation and before that happens, teachers, and whoever else might be involved, need to have adequate time to discuss these proposals.
I am interested to see what comes out of the review. I hope the review comes back to parliament so we can all have a look at the comments. Some of the comments the member for Araluen made may be included in a new bill, if that is what comes out of the review.
I reiterate this is a very serious matter. I prefer it was not political at all. What I would like is not so much a conscience vote but, especially members of parliament who have children, to be able to get up here without the trappings of their parties, and just say, as parents, what you think about this bill. Do you think it gives fair protection, if these are your children we are talking about? I believe that would make for a far better debate; I do not want to hear yelling and arguing - it is too serious a matter for that.
Let us work towards what is better for the kids. We all have different opinions, but we will have time to review it in the future, so there is a chance for those opinions to be heard or brought back at a later date.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Speaker, as the minister has set out so eloquently we all want the best possible protection for our children, and this protection and care of our children should be above politics. It is our responsibility as parents. It comes first, before our responsibility as politicians.
We take the policy direction in this legislation very seriously, and this is why we have spent so much time getting it right. This bill amends the Care and Protection of Children Act; the amendments centre on section 26 which sets out the mandatory obligations which require all Territorians to report suspected or actual harm or exploitation of our children. We are all aware this section has attracted controversy since its commencement in December 2008, and we accept that. I have personally received hundreds of e-mails from people, I have met with people, I met with the AMA, and there was criticism about this particular act.
The current provision makes it an offence to fail to report the reasonable belief that a child has suffered, or is likely to suffer, harm or exploitation, or is a victim of a sexual offence. It is the primary function of section 26 of the act to ensure that any person who reasonably believes that a child has been harmed or exploited must report those concerns. I have to say, I do not need any legislation to report these kinds of activities. As a human being, if I become aware something like that is happening, my own humanity will come before any legislation, and I will definitely report it.
The form of harm that can occur includes physical violence, emotional abuse, neglect, maltreatment and sexual abuse. They are all reportable under section 26. It is a fact of our society that we protect those most exposed to potential harm. Sadly, as we see too often, children are very susceptible to exploitation; this is why we choose to act. We recognise it is a very complex area and we are dealing with complex issues facing families and children. We know it is difficult, but that does not mean we should not act.
Some members of the community have concerns about mandatory reporting requirements relating to children and sexual offences. As I said before, I have met with representative groups like the Australian Medical Association and AMSANT about their concerns. The government has great respect for their concerns and has tried to accommodate their views in these changes. A sexual offence may comprise a number of different crimes, many of which can be committed against both adults and children. It is also important to note some sexual offences specified are directed toward protecting children from sexual predators.
Most people in our community are aware it is unlawful to engage in sexual intercourse with a child under the age of 16. Our society believes children are not equipped, either physically or psychologically, to deal with the complex issues which can arise through a sexual relationship; but in parallel with that view, the government also recognises many adolescents under the age of 16 years, the legal age of consent, engage in sexual activity.
Only yesterday, I became aware more than 50% of children under 15 years in my country of birth have had a sexual experience - something that was unheard of when I was growing up in Greece. It was something that would not be tolerated by the families, and I am sure it is still not tolerated. The harsh reality is kids try to become adults before their time and, in many cases, they do it before they turn 15 or 16 years.
It is this knowledge that kids have sex under the age of 16 that has brought about government’s decision to review this section of the Care and Protection of Children Act. As I have stressed previously, and because of the complex nature of human relationships, these changes seek balance between the need to protect our children from all types of harm and exploitation with a need to ensure young people feel comfortable in seeking medical, psychological and other support services they require in relation to their sexual health.
In my own experience, with a wife who teaches in a high school in Darwin, in my contact with teachers and nurses, I have found, especially nurses expressing concern that children will not go to a nurse to seek information for sexually transmitted diseases or even contraception.
It is important to realise this bill does not remove mandatory reporting obligations on all people in the Northern Territory to report to the Department of Health and Families or police any reasonable belief that a child has suffered, or is likely to suffer, harm or exploitation. This obligation is mandatory and failure to report carries a significant fine.
Because of the significant legal issues that could surround this legislation, it is my intention to reiterate what the minister just said. She stated in her second reading speech:
- This obligation to report has been clarified with respect to the commission of sexual offences against children. All persons must continue to report a reasonable belief that a child has been, or is likely to be a victim of sexual offence where the child is under the age of 14 years.
- Madam Speaker, I believe everyone agrees that children under the age of 14 are simply not equipped, physically or emotionally, to participate in and deal with the consequences of sexual activity.
Further the minister noted:
- The bill maintains a requirement on all persons to report a reasonable belief that a child under the age of 18 years has been or is likely to be a victim of sexual offence pursuant to section 128 of the Criminal Code.
Section 128 of the Criminal Code relates to ‘special care’ relationships. Although the age of consent is 16 years, there are some circumstances where we say it is unacceptable for an adult to engage in a sexual relationship with a young person aged 16 or 17 years. These circumstances are determined by the nature of the relationship between the child and the adult. Examples of a special-care relationship are a step-parent, sporting coaches, teachers, or other adults who have developed a relationship of trust with a young person where there is the potential for a power imbalance to exist between the adult and a child. Hence, there is a mandatory obligation to report any reasonable belief that this type of sexual offence is occurring.
- The bill creates additional mandatory reporting obligations for health professionals if they reasonably believe:
This new provision means that health practitioners do not have to report sexual activity in adolescents aged 14 or 15 years, where the age difference between sexual partners is two year or less. That is, the sexual activity is occurring between adolescents of a similar age.
The bill envisages that certain other persons may also be given the same reporting obligations as health practitioners. This other persons, Madam Speaker, will be clearly set out in regulation. It is envisaged that only specific types of employment will be included in the Regulation. They may include those who, by reason of their profession, employment or business operation, come into contact with children.
Importantly, the additional reporting obligations for health practitioners in relation to 14- or 15-year-olds do not apply to parents, extended family, friends or other members of the community.
Madam Speaker, as a parent like you with a young child 15-years-old, I do not care what the legislation says. There is no way I would report my son if he is in a sexual relationship. I would guide him; I would provide correct information about welfare, health, and his emotional state. I would only take action if my son was sexually abused or if there was a significant difference in age between him and his partner. I do not care what the legislation says, and I do not believe any of you here would report your son or daughter if there was a love relation between them and another person of a similar age.
Parents, extended family, friends and other members of the community are still required to report a reasonable belief of sexual offences, including underage sex where the victim of sexual offence is under the age of 14 years, or where a relationship of special care exists between the young person and the adult committing the sexual offence.
We must continue to stress that, regardless of changes to this legislation, we are still required to report harm or exploitation of children of any age. The minister has outlined ways people can find out more about the reporting obligations, and how they can make a report to police or the Department of Health and Families. The Department of Health and Families has been working on a series of guidelines for health practitioners, people who work with children, or who work in or operate child-related services. This will be delivered across the Territory and will be supported by education and training programs. Information about the legislative changes will also be available to the public through the department’s website, community health centres, hospitals and other government offices.
Health practitioners will receive written advice explaining the changes to this very important law. Importantly, written advice will also be sent to schools, non-government organisations, private service providers and peak body organisations, in particular, youth-focused organisations.
The matters outlined in this bill are complex and making these changes to get the balance right has required a great deal of effort. I thank the minister for her advice, and the agency officials who deserve significant acknowledgment for their work and for their input into these changes.
Madam Speaker, as I said at the beginning, this is not about politics. This is about the safety of our children.
Debate suspended.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Years 7 to 11 Katherine High School, Stronger Smarter Sisters Program students, accompanied by Mr Stephen Margetts. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
CARE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 49)
(Serial 49)
Continued from earlier this day.
Dr BURNS (Business): Madam Speaker, this bill is a very important and serious bill which deals with a very sensitive matter - the care and protection of children. For all of us who are parents, or in families with children, that is certainly our aim, and a very important aim in our society. The purpose of this bill is to amend section 26 of the Care and Protection of Children Act, which contains obligations for members of the community to report a reasonable belief that a child has or is likely to suffer harm or exploitation.
As we are aware, harm or exploitation can take many forms. It can be physical, emotional, and - as has been discussed here today - also include sexual harm and exploitation. It is important we bear this in mind when discussing these amendments. While they do focus largely on reporting obligations when a person forms a reasonable belief that a child has been or is likely to be the victim of a sexual offence, the amendments also clearly state that mandatory reporting obligations still exist when a person forms a reasonable belief that other types of harm or exploitation are occurring.
There has been some discussion from the member for Araluen that there should be an amendment to the Criminal Code. I believe it is important all members remain mindful of the fact this bill does not change, as it is being proposed by the member for Arnhem, any of the offences in the Criminal Code; and it remains unlawful to engage in sexual activity with a child under the age of 16 years. That is very important to remember.
There has been much talk about consultation. The member for Karama detailed the type of consultation which has been undertaken by the member for Arnhem on this particular matter. There has been extensive consultation with community members and professionals. Some of the organisations consulted in relation to these amendments include the Law Society, and I was interested to hear the member for Nelson talk about this. There are actually two letters before this House, both opinions by the Law Society in relation to the bills and both appearing to give a tick to both bills. I believe you could argue until the cows come home about which is the better bill, but the Law Society has written two separate letters on this issue.
Other organisations consulted are: the Youth Justice Advisory Council; the Youth Round Table; NT Families and Children Advisory Council; the Really Caring for Kids Coalition, a wide-ranging coalition made up of the Australian College of Rural and Remote Medicine; the Australian General Practice Network; the Australian Medical Association; the Australian Nursing Federation; Council of Remote Area Nurses of Australia; Family Planning Welfare Association of the Northern Territory; General Practice Network Northern Territory - I have already mentioned the Law Society as part of this - the National Centre of Ethics; HID Epidemiology and Clinical Research; North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency; Public Health Association of the Northern Territory; Royal Australian College of General Practitioners; Royal Australian College of Physicians; Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists; Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, Northern Territory Branch; Services for Rural and Remote Allied Health; and the Aboriginal Medical Services Alliance of the Northern Territory.
By any estimation this is a very extensive group; primarily people involved in the health sector. I know many of the people who represent these organisations and many of them have spent a long time in the Northern Territory, and all of them are absolutely committed to the welfare of all Territorians but, of course, children in particular. It is important they were consulted because, as the minister said in her second reading speech, and the member for Karama, it is these health staff who are actually the frontline staff who deal with many of these issues and come into contact with young people who have problems in these particular areas; and it is very important they be involved.
A comment was made regarding why health practitioners and those involved in these sectors have special reporting obligations over and above other people have in the Northern Territory. The minister has made it very plain that she intends to continue consultation with other groups which may be brought into this form of reporting, and she wants to do that properly. Here is a minister who is very systematic and very sincere in her approach and wants to do the right thing.
Taking a step at a time, I believe, is the right way to go and starting with health practitioners is certainly the right way to go. Health practitioners have special obligations in reporting a whole range of infectious diseases, and special obligations under the Mental Health Act. Our medical and other practitioners, and nurses, have very special obligations beyond other community members. It is quite appropriate to start with the health practitioners. Many young people who are experiencing difficulties will come into contact with one or more of these health practitioners. That is a very important element.
The other important element the minister has introduced in her amendments to the act is about the two-year age difference. I feel there is a quite strong consensus about that, and that is very important. I was also in agreement with what the members for Nelson and Casuarina said; there is another important group - family and parents.
The member for Nelson talked about his feelings and views, and he made very plain he has certain views on moral issues, particularly involving teenagers at that particular age; and, if his children were involved in this sort of activity he, as a parent, would like to try to work that out. If it was consensual sexual activity in that 14 to 16 years age group, he would like to try to work it out. Similarly, with the member for Casuarina. I can also talk as a parent. My children are not teenagers any more, but I well remember their teenager years and their friends. It is a very turbulent time for young people.
One only has to read Shakespeare; I know he is put into a certain category by certain people, but Romeo and Juliet really spells out the tumultuous feelings young people have, and the difficulties they have when they feel they are in love and the whole world is against them, and the relationships are very difficult. We see the tragedy which was played out by Romeo and Juliet; there was a certain mindset in their relationship and they could not make it public.
We know there are many problems amongst young people around relationships and it is important we do not put a barrier between young people and their parents. That is why there should be an exception here; we have to look at things not only in a legislative and policy sense, but also in a human and family sense. I am very glad the minister is doing this, and she has my support in relation to that aspect.
I believe, by identifying professionals are able to provide essential information while not making a notification of the two-year age difference, really achieves a balance between ensuring young people of that age are safe while minimising undue interference in families.
It is also important that regulations will be drafted after consultation to consider expanding the professional groups for mandatory reporting of the two-year age group, and that is what the minister has undertaken to do. The minister also said there will be debate about precisely which groups should be included, and I believe that is a debate, as a community, we need to have. We also need to ensure people are equipped with the right tools and have the very clear obligation to ensure children are protected. As section 27 of the act states, people who fulfil their mandatory reporting obligations are protected from any legal or professional ramifications if they report concerns about a child’s safety in good faith; and that is a very important element in this bill.
The primary concern raised by the community was universal mandatory notification in relation to underage sexual activity may impact on a young person’s willingness to seek medical assistance and advice. Concerns were also raised in relation to the impact on family relationships, where family members were put in a position of having to notify authorities in relation to the sort of consensual sexual activity which has been spoken about here.
In conclusion, I commend these amendments to the House. It is a difficult issue. It is very difficult to get the balance, but the minister has endeavoured to do this and I believe she has achieved it. She has consulted widely, she is very thorough in her approach, she is very sincere, and I hope the House supports these amendments.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to the House.
____________________
Tabled Paper
Pairing Arrangement – Members for
Arafura and Goyder
Pairing Arrangement – Members for
Arafura and Goyder
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received a document relating to pairs. It is for the period 5.30 pm to 6.30 pm this evening for the members for Arafura and Goyder. It is signed by the government and the opposition Whips. I table that document.
____________________
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I was not initially intending to be involved in this debate. As Opposition Leader, I felt our spokesperson was first class and well able to represent the best interests of Territorians, and bring to bear possible solutions to this problem which has emerged through the crafting of the initial legislation, which requires a fix.
I have every confidence in what the member for Araluen has worked on, brought together, analysed, assessed, lobbied and made every effort to find a solution for. The former speaker made reference to the member for Araluen and the minister being sincere and earnest and so on. That is fine; that is a judgment which is made. However, the practical outworking of this requires engagement at a different level beyond sincerity; it is the capacity to abandon things we have been promised would be abandoned, and enter a new era where we would actually work together, genuinely, to find a new place. I have been asked, as Opposition Leader, to lead my team into a new place around this notion of a Council of Cooperation.
I am watching very carefully, and I cannot resist the opportunity to stand and say: this is ringing alarm bells. I am not overstating this, but if we are going to see this whole new era emerge then there needs to be a greater level of genuine engagement on this. You can be sincere, but you can also be unwilling to yield your position because you want to hold your position, because it is your position and you believe your position is right, no matter how nicely we engage.
I do not believe the member for Araluen has been given a fair hearing here, and I do believe it has passed through a filter to just protect the interests of government. I do not believe it augers very well for the landscape we have been asked to occupy in terms of a Council of Cooperation.
I know the member for Araluen has made every endeavour to plod her way through this, has in fact led the debate and, most notably, has not engaged in an overt sense to embarrass the government.
Here is an opportunity, we have reached this juncture, and we have been asked to go down the road less travelled. We now have the government, with all the words that are being used, all the arguments and sentences that have been constructed around their position, being determined, nonetheless, to do their own thing. I believe that is very concerning in the context of what we have been asked to consider this very week; in light of the crisis of last week, the resolution that was presented on Friday, and we now move forward.
There has been a very professional approach taken. The quality of the consideration, the material which has been provided, and the manner in which it has been conducted by the member for Araluen causes me to increase my reservation about what lies ahead. I am aware, and the minister would be quite aware, the Law Society has been actively, thoughtfully, and professionally engaged to weigh and carefully consider, and have also passed their opinion on the member for Araluen’s contribution to brokering a solution to this difficult situation.
In my view, as a local member and Leader of the Opposition, this has evoked an extraordinary response from the community. I commend the way the member for Araluen has responded to this, has not played politics with this and has endeavoured to lead. Yet, at this juncture, I have cause to give voice to my reservations about the true underpinnings of the attitude of government when they can assert a new era. In spite of words on the surface we have, in fact, very little difference and very little change.
I am disappointed, and I ask government to reflect upon these words. If you are going to ask us to be involved in something which has been constructed between the Chief Minister and the member for Nelson, we are watching, very carefully, the way you conduct this debate.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, it does not get more serious than the care and protection of children. The original purpose of section 26 should not be lost in the debate. We supported the intention of the original bill to protect a child from harm, exploitation and sexual offences. The definition of harm is subjective and set reasonably high, and the terminology used in section 15 of the act defines harm as something that causes:
- … any significant detrimental effect caused by any act, omission or circumstance on:
(a) the physical, physiological or emotional wellbeing of the child; or
- Exploitation includes any sexual and other forms of exploitation of the child.
Without limiting this provision it points at sexual exploitation as being sexual abuse involving a child and involving the child in an act of sexual nature, prostitution or a pornographic performance.
A sexual offence is clearly defined through reference to the Sexual Offences Act. There are eight categories in this definition of sexual offence. They are very clear, with no ambiguity or confusing language:
- (a) sexual intercourse or sexual penetration …; or …
(b) a sexual relationship; or
(c) sexual abuse; or
(d) indecent touching or an indecent assault; or
(e) any other indecent act directed against a person or committed in the presence of a child; or
(f) the making, collection, exhibition or display of an indecent object or indecent material; or
(g) sexual servitude or any other form of sexual exploitation; or
The Country Liberals still support the purpose and the intent of the original provisions contained in section 26, that is, to protect a child from harm, exploitation and sexual offences through mandatory reporting. We still support that. The Country Liberals believe the intention of this section should retain the requirement for reporting, but also acknowledge the concerns raised throughout the community that there may be circumstances where this may not be in the child’s best interest.
Evidence from anecdotal and professional groups indicates there is an inclination for children below the age of consent to engage in consensual experimentation with their sexual identity. The point was raised this would mean those children under 16 would be committing a sexual offence no matter how consensual both parties were, or how harmless the adult perceived the sexual interaction. Medical professionals were particularly concerned they would be committing an offence if they failed to report a child coming to them for advice on contraception, treatment for an STI, or in the event a young girl fell pregnant.
The general view was some children would become sexually active early in their teens, regardless of the views of their parents, teacher, doctor, or society in general. If they do become active, they should not be discouraged from approaching someone they trust for advice on that sexual relationship; or medical treatment if necessary.
In the attempt to rectify this reporting anomaly, the government has somehow managed to obscure the original intent of ensuring people report sexual abuse of children ...
Ms Lawrie: Not true.
Mr CONLAN: True, particularly in light of the high profile debate that has surrounded the development of these amendments. To simply remove the term ‘sexual offence’ does not make it clear to parents, teachers or anyone else that an act contained in this list I just mentioned is now considered grounds for mandatory reporting for a child over 14 years of age under the government’s amendments.
The government’s bill removes the explicit requirement for sexual offences against a child to be reported to police or the Department of Health and Families. In the protection of children there can be no grey areas. Either you know you have to report a sexual offence, or there are very clear guidelines where the adult has the discretion to decide about what is the most appropriate option.
I would like to comment on the member for Karama’s comments today during the debate prior to the luncheon break. She said the government’s amendments would require a parent to report their 14-year-old daughter who was having consensual sex with her 16-year-old boyfriend. This is simply wrong, and demonstrates the minister’s lack of understanding of the provisions created by the member for Araluen. In the event the minister described, sex between the 14-year-old and her 16-year-old boyfriend, would not be considered a sexual offence by the opposition amendments, and therefore, not subject to mandatory reporting for the following reasons:
1. the daughter is over the age of 14 when the sex is occurring, section (1A)(a);
3. the participation of a sexual act is by mutual agreement entered into voluntarily without coercion, section (1A)(d); and
4. provision that the other criteria are met; for example, they are not siblings or half siblings and the sex does not, or is not likely to, cause harm to either of the children, then the parent is not obliged to report the act.
My argument is there are no parameters set by the government’s bill. The potential for people to turn a blind eye to sexual offences by deciding the child is not being caused harm or is not being exploited through participating in a sexual act is extremely concerning. Our amendments are very well thought out and have been endorsed by the Northern Territory Law Society, and they also strengthened the proposed amendments to the Criminal Code. In the example the member for Araluen gave, the 16-year-old would be liable for prosecution under section 127 of the Criminal Code, regardless of the consensual nature of the act. This would mean that he would be liable for a prison sentence of up to 16 years, and subject to child sex offender reporting obligations.
I cannot finalise this contribution without making reference to the issue of the contribution by the member for Nelson. In his contribution to this debate he spoke of wanting to see the removal of politics from the issue. Did the member for Nelson not listen to anything the member for Araluen had to say in her contribution to this debate? The member for Araluen set out very clearly and in very detailed length the attempt she went to, to get bipartisan support and solution to this issue. She set out how she agreed to run dead in the media on the issue. She set out how she would work with the government to find a solution to the problems with the government’s bill. She even said to the minister to take the member for Araluen’s amendments and bring them back in government form - you can have them.
The member for Araluen pulled away from attempting to move her bill through all stages on the General Business Day in good faith, so the government could work to make their bill a better bill - a bill that would not create multiple standards and deliver mixed messages to the community. The question has to be asked: what did the member for Araluen receive in return? Obstruction, delays, and nothing but complete arrogance from the Northern Territory government, which is the government’s way.
I ask the member for Nelson: what did the government advisors tell him? Did they say the provisions the member for Araluen had set out in her complementary bill to amend the Criminal Code were drafted around a model criminal code on the issue? Did they tell the member for Nelson the child protection amendments gave a consistency of message and were the preferred option by the Northern Territory Law Society and the Australian Medical Association of the Northern Territory? I suspect not. I also suspect this is an indictment on those to whom the member for Nelson has hitched himself in this new form of alliance.
I say to the member for Nelson: it is the government that has played politics on this issue; they have failed to listen and to negotiate in good faith on this. Our side, the Country Liberals, understand the material. We have worked hard - the member for Araluen has worked extremely hard. This is the right amendment on the table. We have gone through every loop and every nook and cranny to work to improve the government’s bill, and here it sits with gaping holes and a seriously dangerous mixed message. This is the point: it is sending a very dangerous, mixed message to the community of the Northern Territory.
Member for Nelson, I suggest you do not look at this side when it comes to playing politics, especially on this very serious issue, the care and protection of children. We, on this side of the Chamber, have absolutely bent over backwards, over and over again, to get the politics out of this issue and get a resolution that best takes this issue forward and gives certainty ahead of the review.
Member for Nelson, when you take a look at this bill and at our approach to this bill, you should take a long hard look at the way it has been handled and the work that has gone into getting the balance right. We have shown we will come to the table and make changes in good faith. We did on the independent EPA; my colleague, the member for Brennan, worked very hard to ensure that concerns were met. What did he get in return? Nothing but a slap in the face and being accused of playing politics.
The Leader of the Opposition worked to address concerns in respect to a long-standing bill on the Notice Paper and, once again, where did it end up? Delayed. Where did we end up with respect to the police numbers, or certainty in sentencing, or inquiring into the broken and sick Health department? Again, accused of playing politics.
We have not played politics on this issue; in fact, far from it. I say to the member for Nelson: it is not too late to change your position on this. It is not too late to recognise who has been playing politics; and it is not too late for you to see this is a bill which needs to be passed. It is one the member for Araluen has worked extremely hard on, and has put a lot of thought into it. She knows this is right, we know this is right, and these amendments are the right way forward.
The member for Nelson has taken much responsibility as, essentially, the second Chief Minister of the Northern Territory, and if he truly wants to see politics for the people, then I say to the member for Nelson, take a long hard look around this Chamber and see who is playing politics.
As for the minister, well, it is a cowardly act for the minister to bring the member for Araluen to the table, in good faith, and yet offering no goodwill at all from her end.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, this is a highly emotional topic, and I do not particularly want to have a large amount of buy into it. There is not much I can add to this debate, suffice to say one thing: I notice the Leader of Government Business in his reply tried to use the example of Romeo and Juliet, the star-crossed lovers, to describe the types of relationships that kids have these days. I point out to the Leader of Government Business that in the stage directions to the play Romeo and Juliet, Juliet is listed as ‘Juliet, daughter of Capulet, aged 13’. Under his example, any sexual conduct, which is suggested in several places in the play between her and Romeo, would have been reportable in any instance.
Ms McCARTHY (Children and Families): Madam Speaker, I thank everyone for their contribution. It is an important debate, and it is an issue that affects every family across the Northern Territory.
It is important, first of all, to get a few things on the record quite clear. I heard the words of the member for Greatorex and the Leader of the Opposition, and I believe the full story has not been given. I believe it is important that our government’s attempts to work on a particular amendment in this legislation, in a sense of cooperation with the opposition, are recognised.
The member for Araluen highlighted in her speech the other day how this law came into being, and the fact she worked in a spirit of cooperation with the previous minister, the member for Arafura, in the lead-up to the 2007 debate; and how this particular aspect of the legislation, section 26, went through without - paraphrasing the member for Araluen - people recognising the impact of this aspect of the legislation in terms of the mandatory reporting obligations.
As minister, it came to my attention earlier this year after the first sittings of parliament, this was an issue. I recall having a conversation with the member for Araluen, in Alice Springs, raising the fact there were these concerns and it was quite an unworkable law. I said to the member for Araluen then we should start looking at this. So, we began a process in about May or June, and the discussion took place in a very cooperative fashion.
Naturally, I had a good look at the specific concerns being raised by the health profession and in legal circles across the Territory, and by families in general. By pulling together, with the Chief Minister, a working party with the Really Caring for Kids Coalition and, especially, the Northern Territory Police who are critical in informing us of their views on this and what is occurring currently in the community, I issued a media release on 25 July to indicate my intention to introduce the government bill in the August sittings.
On 7 August, I, my office, and the department gave a briefing to the member for Araluen on this bill - the bill she has had in her possession right up to Monday of this week when I requested to bring it before the parliament. I then received an e-mail late Sunday night, first thing Monday morning, that the member for Araluen wished to bring a bill on urgently as well. I thought: ‘Hang on, I thought we were working together on this’. You are bringing something on out of the blue, and we have been working …
Ms Carney: Out of the blue, rubbish. What a lie.
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I ask that the member for Araluen withdraw that remark. She can only make those assertions by substantive motion.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, I ask you to withdraw that comment.
Ms Carney: I withdraw, Madam Speaker.
Ms McCARTHY: I rang the member for Araluen first thing Monday morning when I realised she intended to introduce a bill. I had a discussion on the phone with her wanting to work out where this was coming from. I had a sense we had been working with a sense of cooperation knowing this was not about either the member for Araluen or me as the member for Arnhem, or the minister, that it was about the children of the Northern Territory. That for once, on this particular topic, it was absolutely crucial we had a same, single voice, recognising and respecting that we may be coming at it from different viewpoints.
That is the history of wanting to come together on this. Naturally, the member had her views, and I carefully tried to consider her views in the little time I had - 24 to 48 hours - to understand the aspect of the bill she wanted to introduce, trying to take into consideration the issues she was raising but, at the same time, wanting to express this very detailed process that had been travelled, and of which the member was aware.
It would be unfortunate if members left this House today thinking in any way our government had not been inclusive; our government had not wanted to see this in a spirit of harmony and cooperation and trying to work together. Not always agreeing, agreeing to disagree, but giving each other a decent amount of time to explore and analyse our positions.
As I said, I gave my bill, through my office, to the member for Araluen on 7 August. She introduced hers on Monday this week - which has given me very little time – but I am very confident, having worked through some aspects of the member for Araluen’s bill, the process our government has taken is the most appropriate process in this situation.
The Care and Protection of Children Act 2007 was developed after extensive consultation to replace the Community Welfare Act 1984. There has been public concern raised over the past few months about the requirement to report sexual offences involving children, including underage sex. The primary concern was the reporting requirement relating to underage sex may deter young people from seeking appropriate medical services and advice. In my role as the minister for Youth, I made sure I was listening to the young people across the Northern Territory, and this was a fundamental concern being raised with me.
An additional concern was the requirement for parents to report underage sex might unnecessarily intrude on the parent/child relationship, and parents would be very uncomfortable with the prospect of having to report knowledge of their own children being involved in underage sex.
In response to these concerns the government convened a working group to consider the issues associated with mandatory reporting of underage sex. The working group comprised the Northern Territory Police, the department of Health and Families, and representatives of the Coalition of Community Groups called the Really Caring for Kids Coalition. The coalition represents 17 organisations from across the health and allied health fields, including nursing, general practitioners, Aboriginal health workers, as well as other specialist medical areas and justice groups. It is important members in this House recognise the amount of work that goes into coordinating so many organisations, trying to canvass their views on the way we need to move forward on this very important amendment.
The working group was able to agree on an approach to amend the Care and Protection of Children Act. I make no excuses for focusing specifically on this area, recognising it was the health professionals who were certainly the loudest. In the youth groups I spoke to, the families I met, it was the relationship between young people and their general practitioner or family planning I knew our government had to deal with as a priority. I recognised there is another large group of people who work with children in child-related organisations that I was yet to canvass, but this was the area of primary urgency in bringing in this amendment.
The amendment seeks to effectively address community concerns whilst still retaining the object of the legislation, which is to protect children from harm and exploitation. I would like to thank those involved in the working group for the hard work they have put in to work with me to address concerns raised by the community; and I will read through the list of people who have been involved with that working group. They will continue to work with me as we progress to the act being fully reviewed in April.
I turn now to the discussion we had today in this parliament. I would like to thank members for the consideration you have given to this very difficult issue. I certainly understand there are many passionate voices at play, but let us remember the facts which come before this House need to be correct ones; and that includes the process in which we have travelled to get where we are today.
I put on the record the members of that working group so members of parliament can see this is not something our government has just come up with overnight. We certainly did not decide on Monday that we wanted to do this, it has been a work in progress for the last three, four, five months, and we know we have come forward with an amendment that is supported right across these groups.
The Really Caring for Kids Coalition includes: the Aboriginal and Medical Services Alliance of the Northern Territory; the Australian College of Rural and Remote Medicine; the Australian General Practice Network; Australian Medical Association; the Australian Nursing Federation; the Council of Remote Area Nurses of Australia; the Family Planning Welfare Association of the Northern Territory; the General Practice Network Northern Territory; the Law Society Northern Territory; the National Centre for HIV Epidemiology and Clinical Research; the North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency; Public Health Association of the Northern Territory; Royal Australian College of General Practitioners; the Royal Australian College of Physicians; the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists; the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists, Northern Territory Branch; the Services for Australian Rural and Remote Allied Health; the Law Society Youth Justice Advisory Council; the Northern Territory Families and Children Advisory Council; Northern Territory Police and Department of Health and Families.
Let me make it very clear to this House, at no stage have I, as minister in this role, thought to move ahead in the belief this was about our government being right - it was never about that. That is why I had such a massive consultation program with the focus on the health practitioner’s area.
I would like members opposite to understand what I have been accused of in this House is absolutely incorrect, and please read the Hansard and have a good look at what the process has been with the member for Araluen.
The specific requirement for health practitioners to notify in relation to young people aged 14 to 15 who are sexually active where there is an age difference of greater than two years, certainly has raised passionate debate. The amendment recognises the health professionals are community members who hold a unique position in ensuring the safety and wellbeing of our young people. It also recognises the identification of harm and exploitation is a specialised area requiring assessment from professionals trained in this area. These two elements resulted in a determination that it is appropriate for the health practitioners’ role and responsibilities in the protection of our children be made clear.
The working group identified there are other categories of child-related employment to which it may be appropriate to impose the same reporting requirements as imposed on health practitioners. Some obvious examples include teachers and social workers. I am very aware there is another group of people who need to have an opportunity to express their views. However, this focus is on health practitioners, and our government stands by that; we have solid support to do that. We recognise that is the way to deal with this as a matter of urgency. We also take into account over the coming months we will include regulation as part of this bill, and that regulation will be a response to consultation with groups such as teachers, social workers, footy coaches, the people who work with youth in child-related areas which are not health-related, with the view to having a review.
The bill provides scope for additional categories of employment to be prescribed in regulations down the track, and it is envisaged consultation will occur over the coming months and regulations will be introduced. I have also made a commitment to undertake a review of the entire Care and Protection of Children Act, including the new section 26 of the act, from April 2010. This will allow an opportunity for issues with the implementation of the act, including the mandatory reporting requirements, to be considered and appropriately addressed.
The question has been asked on the floor of parliament today: why not make reporting of underage sex in 14- and 15-year-olds a universal requirement? It must be remembered it was this very point which raised strong concern in the community and it is these concerns the government has listened to and acted on. A fundamental right of families is for families to function within their individual values and beliefs with the minimum interference from government. We do not require in any other area - parents, aunts, uncles, friends or neighbours - to report criminal offences which may have been committed by young people. The Territory already has the most stringent reporting requirements in Australia by requiring all people to report harm and exploitation.
In response to the contributions made here today, I appreciate the comments from the members for Johnston, Karama, and Casuarina. I respond, in particular, to the member for Macdonnell who raised a very important point in suggesting we need to ensure we put in place an education and media strategy which will reach the people in the bush to advise them about the care and protection of children. I appreciate what the member for Macdonnell said.
There is no doubt this House is aware of the importance of the care and protection of children. We know from the steps of the federal intervention into the Northern Territory, through the Little Children Are Sacred report, it is absolutely fundamental any message which comes out of the parliament is one that says to every single person in the Northern Territory that we must look out for our children.
As the member for Macdonnell said, there is the potential for people to gain a sense the goal posts are being moved, and I am very clear that we have to ensure there are no misconceptions. I personally give an undertaking that we will put in place a properly planned communication strategy to ensure people in remote areas of the Territory, in particular, have a clear and coherent understanding of what these changes mean to them.
I thank the member for Nelson for the time he has committed to coming to grips with the bill. I appreciate the incredible workload now on the member for Nelson, given the events of the past 10 days, and I recognise it is not an easy concept to get your head around. However, I appreciate he has been able to see the steps here have been a very commonsense approach which any Territorian, any family, will be able to appreciate and recognise. He can also see, in the discussions with health practitioners, with the Really Caring for Kids Coalition, I have highlighted the fact that I have focused on this particular group, but there is a reason why I have done that. There is also a reason, as we progress further over the coming months in the lead-up to April, why I need to allow other groups a very real opportunity, and the same opportunity, to be able to raise their issues with me.
It is a complex matter, as I say and as the member for Nelson says, it is not easy. It has been a difficult issue to deal with because, as he quite correctly says, this issue has to be viewed not just from a legal perspective, but also from the perspective of a parent. That is why, as he has identified, this has been a balancing act. It is a challenge to get that balance right. It is a challenge for our parliament to recognise there is an important need to amend this particular aspect of the act; but in our amendment we must get that balance right.
As the member for Nelson said, we are not seeking to encourage sexual activity amongst young people; we acknowledge it does take place, and we are acknowledging, in a commonsense way, parents have a responsibility to deal with matters relating to their children if they become aware they are engaged in sexual activity with young people of a similar age. The member for Nelson points out that, as a parent, he would prefer to address the issue himself, rather than have to report the matter. As a parent, I certainly share that view.
These amendments are the culmination of intense consultation and the willingness of government to listen to the concerns of the community. I asked the members opposite to have a very good look, and very open ears, to what has really taken place in the lead-up to this bill coming into the parliament, and recognise I have included your party every step of the way. I hope you will now clearly see this has been the case, and we will work together to ensure the children of the Northern Territory will remain cared for and protected.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Madam CHAIR: Honourable members, the committee has before it the Care and Protection of Children Amendment Bill 2009 (Serial 49), together with Schedule of Amendments No 17, circulated by the member for Araluen, Ms Carney.
Clauses 1 and 2, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 3:
Ms CARNEY: Madam Chair, I move amendment 17.1 and invite defeat of clause 3. In discussing why I invite defeat of clause 3, I need to refer to why the clause should be defeated and, in so doing, I will be making reference to the proposed alternative clause 3 which has been circulated.
There has been much discussion on this bill today, which is great. In the last couple of years, people have become interested in the area of child protection and child sexual abuse, and that can only be a good thing. However, we should not pull up short when there is so much more work to do; and this is an opportunity missed by the government.
I will be asking the minister some questions. In prefacing my questions, I was stunned at the contribution of the Attorney-General as first law officer. I will put to you, minister, some of the matters your colleague, the Attorney-General, put in her contribution, and I will ask you whether you share some of the views she has expressed. Some of the matters the Attorney-General addressed in her contribution were wrong, misleading, and extraordinary. I will get to those matters before too long.
At the outset, minister, in clause 3 there is a reference to section 26(2)(a), which refers to:
… a health practitioner or someone who performs work of a kind that is prescribed by regulation …
Can you outline what the regulations are, and what other people fall within the regulation?
Ms McCARTHY: As I outlined in my response in the second reading speech to the debate, this focus has been with the health practitioners. Once we have the support of the House to get this through this afternoon, I would like to continue the discussions with the child-related area: groups like teachers, social workers, youth organisers and youth workers. In terms of the regulation, I want to have that discussion with them; the regulation will then be a process which goes through the Cabinet Executive Council.
Ms CARNEY: Is your answer that you do not know what type of sectors, or individuals, are represented in the regulations to which this subsection applies?
Ms McCARTHY: They will be clearly defined; the consultation process has to begin. As I have outlined, our government has taken a very strong position as to why we have followed this particular process.
Ms CARNEY: Your answer is at present, notwithstanding there is legislation which prescribes various regulations, a list of people included under the definition of ‘health practitioners’ is included in that act - from memory, it refers to physiotherapists, chiropractors and so on. Can I ask whether you would be looking to include those individuals, the professions listed in the Health Practitioners Act? Can we expect your regulations to, in some way, mirror the professions outlined in the Health Practitioners Act?
Ms McCARTHY: I will take some advice to complete that question. But, first, let us recognise in the definition of health practitioners, some of those you have mentioned are already included in that. You want to know who else will be included in the regulation? If some of those you have mentioned already come under the health practitioners definition, then you are asking a question which has already been defined in the Health Practitioners Act
Ms CARNEY: I am trying to get at who is going to be in the regulations that are referred to in the bill. I would assume there would be some overlap with the Health Practitioner’s Act. From memory, an extensive list was provided in that act, so I am wondering if we can get an indication from you of the other types of areas or sectors which might be prescribed by regulation, given that in section 26(2)(a) you refer to:
- … a health practitioner or someone who performs work of a kind that is prescribed by regulation ...
I am after some direction as to what you anticipate.
Ms McCARTHY: Absolutely. It is a good question.
In the health practitioners’ definition there is a range of employment areas: the Aboriginal health workers, dentists, chiropractors, chemists; that is already defined within the words ‘health practitioner’.
As I outlined in my speech, member for Araluen, in regulation we are looking at teachers, social workers, and we naturally need to look at those who work with young people in any child-related organisation. It is a very broad, large area, and I am conscious of that; hence, the need for discussion and further consultation in that area.
Ms CARNEY: Minister, do you appreciate the difficulty we and others have, to go on blind trust; that you are asking us to just trust you? You are not quite sure what is going to be in the regulations yet, but you will provide a listing in due course.
You have had months to fix this problem. You went to great lengths to explain the type of detailed, extensive consultation you undertook in preparation for today. Why have you not been able to articulate the types of employment areas to be detailed in regulation? And, do you concede that is a policy failure on your part?
Ms McCARTHY: Member for Araluen, I have answered that question and said what will be in the regulation - those discussions with teachers, social workers, and youth organisations is that area. I believe I have answered your question.
Ms CARNEY: What type of time frame do you have for finalising - or starting and then getting finished - the regulations?
Ms McCARTHY: I would like to begin that immediately, as soon as I have the support of this House to see this amendment through.
Ms CARNEY: When do you anticipate that process to be finished so you can get the regulations up and running?
Ms McCARTHY: Sorry, did you say when?
Ms CARNEY: When do you expect to finish it? You have told me when you are going to start it - when are you going to finish it?
Ms McCARTHY: As you can appreciate, this will be an ongoing issue. I want to do it immediately. What I would like to investigate, in discussions with the department, is the amount of work which will be involved. I certainly would like to see it by the end of the year.
Ms CARNEY: Minister, in the bill we introduced we actually had a solution which would save you exhaustive consultations; would save a casual observer thinking: ‘Oh God, I wonder what is going to be in the regulations to be completed at some unknown time’. We have a solution which would have included the same requirement for reporting for everyone in the Northern Territory. Do you understand the inconsistency, and how do you reconcile it, given your insistence that you press on with the bill today?
Ms McCARTHY: I believe that is exactly where we agreed to disagree. You have a particular process, which I still do not understand, other than just talking to the Law Society. The process we have followed has been a very comprehensive process, and a very inclusive process. I am certainly not a minister who is going to insist to everyone: this is what you should be doing, and I am not going to listen to you.
I have been listening and discussing this in detail with those people who are at the very forefront of dealing with this issue when it comes to the workability of the Care and Protection of Children Act. So I certainly do not agree with you in regard to that point.
Sorry, the second part of your question?
Ms CARNEY: How do you reconcile the inconsistency?
Ms McCARTHY: I have clearly put the government’s position of why we have come to this. I recognise the Care and Protection of Children Act is in its first year of implementation. In the lead-up to the review I am going to have in April, I recognise there are aspects of the act that will need to be questioned more than once but, on this particular one, I am very confident we have followed a procedure which has the support of people. At the end of the day, what I need to ensure is people will be able to work with the particular amendment we take through.
Ms CARNEY: In your answer, you said you had consulted with everyone ‘at the very forefront’ of this area. Yet, an answer or so ago, you disclosed you had not consulted with teachers and social workers. How on earth can you expect us to take you seriously when two important sectors - social workers, for goodness sake - what do you reckon they do? Social workers in the Northern Territory who work at FACS offices deal with child abuse and child protection. You come into this Chamber and say you have not consulted with the AASW? You have to be joking!
This illustrates, Madam Chair, why it is the minister is so incompetent; there are inconsistencies left, right and centre with the matters she puts. It beggars belief that you would come here introducing a bill to a problem that has been burning away in the community for nearly six months, and you have not consulted with teachers and social workers. Why have you not consulted with those very important organisations?
Ms McCARTHY: As I have already explained, this process, first, was about dealing with the very issue of young people needing to go to their GP and having the confidence to speak about an area which is really difficult for our young people. I have had many young people in the Youth Justice Advisory Committee, the Youth Round Table, the Darwin City Council Youth Group, and many young people across the community who have raised it. I have recognised, not only as minister, but our government has recognised clearly, the first area we have had to deal with is this concern of young people going to a GP, going to a family counsellor, going to ask about contraception. That has been the focus and the concern for our government.
To get to that, I have had to coordinate the number of health practitioners and organisations, along with the Northern Territory Police, to come and sit down together. I have gone through this with you, member for Araluen, and you know this - in detail. You know very well the work that has gone into this; and you know the focus of our government, which I had hoped you would support, was to deal with this issue of young people having confidence in talking about any sexual issues, about their need to have contraception if that is the way they would like to go, and their concern of talking to their parents about it. You know, as well as I do, that was the absolute priority in trying to deal with this.
Trying to collate and get together all these organisations is a hefty task, member for Araluen, and I do not mind adding it has been an enormous task. However, I am very grateful for the fact every single one of those organisations, along with the Northern Territory Police, the Department of Children and Families, and youth organisations, agree this is the most appropriate direction to go for this parliament.
Ms CARNEY: It begs the question: how on earth do you know if you have not bothered to consult the AASW? How can you stand there with confidence and say: ‘I know everyone is happy with this’, when you know social workers are, to use your own words, ‘at the very forefront’ of the issue of child abuse in the Northern Territory? What do you think they do in the offices for which you are the minister?
In your answer, you also referred to the fact that young people would seek advice, and you referred to family counsellors. What do you think social workers do? I am genuinely amazed you have not consulted social workers, yet you proudly provide …
Ms Lawrie: Is there a question?
Ms CARNEY: I would be careful if I were you, Attorney-General, because you have said some dreadful things and, by golly, over the years you have come up with some shockers, and I cannot wait to go through some of the things you have said - so I would be very careful. I know you are a bit frustrated, of course, because of the deal, and members of the Labor Party are sort of rejoicing, because at least they are not going to get you and that …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Chair! We are drifting off into irrelevance here; so let us keep to the script.
Ms Carney: That is very provocative, Madam Chair.
Madam CHAIR: Thank you, member for Johnston. I ask members to exercise consideration for people on the floor speaking, if you could minimise interruptions. Member for Araluen, you have the call.
Ms CARNEY: Minister, yesterday you proudly gave me the list of organisations with which you have consulted, and you have said today you are going to do more consultation because, clearly, there can never be enough, yet you have not consulted with social workers.
That is somewhat remarkable in the circumstances. I hope there are people in FACS offices listening to this broadcast of parliament, because I believe it will come as a shock to them that they, or their peak organisation, a very active organisation in the Northern Territory - I do not always agree with the AASW – and certainly very committed to children of the Territory and to tackling abuse, have not been consulted. I think they will be very, very surprised.
Minister, when do you anticipate consulting with the education union, or teachers, and social workers? What time frame are you looking at?
Ms McCARTHY: As soon as we get this through the House today. I want to start working with those groups immediately.
May I pick up on some comments you just made? Please keep in mind, member for Araluen, we do have a Northern Territory Department of Health and Families, which advises me and provides great advice in terms of the direction we should be going. As I said, in that working group we not only had the department, we also had discussions with the advisory groups. I am aware of the social workers; I believe you need to be very careful about accusing the process we have taken of not listening to others. We have pointed out this is the direct way to go - working with health practitioners.
Ms CARNEY: I am not quite sure how to respond to that; but I know your comments in relation to the department and people from whom you receive advice, and I feel certain there are social workers, both in and out of the department, who would be surprised. Some of them, no doubt, would be appalled. I would have thought the AASW would be surprised they have not heard from you in relation to this matter.
The reason I asked when do you expect to consult with teachers and social workers, was that you referred to the review in April. So, can you confirm you will be consulting with teachers and social workers before April; and would you undertake to give a report to the House, or to me, formally or informally, as to those discussions?
Ms McCARTHY: As soon as the House is able to support this amendment, I will begin those discussions immediately.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you. Going back to the regulations; clearly this matter has come to the parliament on urgency, and there are very good reasons for that. Given you do not know, or do not yet have the regulations, will this legislation be delayed as a result of not having the regulations in place, or even close?
Ms McCARTHY: No.
Ms CARNEY: Why not?
Ms McCARTHY: It will not be delayed because it commences on assent. The regulation is part of this amendment.
Ms CARNEY: You have this empty chunk, which is the regulation; so you want the legislation to go through. You have a section in the proposed legislation referring to a health practitioner or someone who performs work of a kind that is prescribed by regulation. Will it not be potentially unworkable because you have not completed those regulations?
Ms McCARTHY: No.
Ms CARNEY: Why not?
Ms McCARTHY: Because, as I have outlined, we will have a process which will lead to how we go with the regulation. It is on assent; there is no issue there.
Ms CARNEY: What is the definition of health practitioner?
Ms McCARTHY: Health practitioner is a very broad definition, and there are a number of definitions for it. There are Aboriginal health workers, physiotherapists, chemists and, naturally, general practitioners.
Ms CARNEY: The ones you mentioned, is that the entire list of the definitions of health practitioners in the Northern Territory?
Ms McCARTHY: I have a list here, member for Araluen, I have tried to put it to memory and I usually do quite a good job. There are dentists, dental hygienists, dental prosthetists, dental specialists, and dental therapists. In the category of healthcare practice of medicine: medical practitioners. In the category of healthcare practice in midwifery: midwives and registered nurses authorised to practice midwifery. In the category of healthcare practice of nursing: registered nurses. In the category of healthcare practice: occupational therapists. In the category of healthcare practice of optometry: optometrists. In the category of healthcare practice of osteopathy: osteopaths. In the category of healthcare practice of physiotherapy: physiotherapists; and psychologist, and in nursing, enrolled nurse is a category of enrolment.
Ms CARNEY: Minister, how do you propose the legislation will work now we know what the definition of health practitioner is, given you have referred to ‘someone who performs work of a kind that is prescribed by regulation’? How does anyone else know who else there is, and what sort of comfort can you give to these people in the meantime until their profession or job description is outlined in your regulations?
Ms McCARTHY: It is important the House remembers today the focus is on health practitioners, member for Araluen. That is the focus for today
As I have outlined, and will continue to outline, and you know this, the discussions with the child-related organisations will be ongoing. We have to have workable legislation which goes through today and takes into account a very considered, very effective process which has been entirely supported. It will be a process which I would like to mirror in my discussions with child-related organisations.
Ms CARNEY: In relation to social workers, do you acknowledge, as a result of this proposed legislation, you have created absolute confusion for them because they do not fall within the definition of a health practitioner and, under your bill, they are not required to report a child aged less than 14 years who has been or is likely to be a victim of a sexual offence?
Ms McCARTHY: Member for Araluen, any child up to the age of 14 years, everyone has to report.
Ms CARNEY: Do you acknowledge that you have made it incredibly difficult for social workers who, according to the language in the bill, might believe on reasonable grounds that a child over the age of 14 years, and under the age of 16 years, has been or is likely to be the victim of a sexual offence?
Ms McCARTHY: Sorry, member for Araluen, I missed the beginning of that question?
Ms CARNEY: I cannot remember exactly what I said – but, do you acknowledge you created an enormous difficulty for social workers who, under your bill, are not required to report if they believe, on reasonable grounds, that a child over 14 and under 16 has been or is likely to be a victim of a sexual offence?
Ms McCARTHY: Let us make it very clear; the Northern Territory leads in the laws we have about the care and protection of our children; about any abuse against our children. Let us make it really clear any person who is aware of a child being abused, a child is in danger, or a child being harmed or exploited must do what any other person in the Territory must do; that is, look out for the child and meet the reporting requirements where necessary.
What our government has recognised is we have to deal with this issue of young people being unable to have the confidence to talk about sex, STIs, and contraception. That is why, member for Araluen, as you well know, we have focused on this particular aspect of the legislation.
Ms CARNEY: It comes back to one of the central points. Why do you require a specific provision for health practitioners to report a child between the age of 14 and 16 who, that health practitioner believes on reasonable grounds, has been, or is likely to be, a victim of a sexual offence; yet you do not require the same of social workers?
Ms McCARTHY: For the very same reason I answered your questions: this is to keep going; we have the regulation. We are just going around in circles here, member for Araluen. You know what the intent of this particular amendment is. What we have also to recognise is any child who is in danger is everyone’s responsibility - we do not take away from that.
What I also recognised in calling together the working group is, if we go back to 2007 - and your passionate speeches to the parliament in the lead-up to the intervention, about Nanette Rogers and the Little Children are Sacred report – we recall the young girl at Mutitjulu where this all began. We know many of the questions were focused around the reporting by clinicians across the Northern Territory. One of the positions I want to ensure, if we were going to make any amendment to this act, is every health practitioner across the Northern Territory needs to recognise we could not go back to a time when people did not report when a child came before them with STIs or was pregnant.
In calling together this working group I had to say to all present they had to ensure, in any amendment, the onus was still there to recognise and protect these children. That is why we are here today, to see an amendment which focuses, specifically, first on health practitioners - knowing I am then going out to continue that discussion with the broader community.
Ms CARNEY: I note in your answer you referred to the Little Children are Sacred report and you said you want everyone to report child abuse. In yet another somewhat astonishing inconsistency, in your reply before we moved into committee stage, you cited with approval the comments made by the member for Nelson who said he would rather address the issue himself than report. Do you not see the inconsistency? Minister, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot say, as you do in the media releases: ‘We want everyone to report. We think child abuse is terrible’. Then, at the same time, cite with approval the comments of someone else who clearly said he would rather address the issue himself than report. How on earth do you reconcile that glaring inconsistency?
Ms McCARTHY: It shows, quite obviously, everyone has a particular position on this issue which affects all families. There is no inconsistency in the sense we progress down this path because we are conscious of the parents’ involvement; parents concerned about the need to inform on their child.
The member for Nelson is a parent, I am a parent, and I know many people here who are parents ask the same question. What I have also said in my response is I agree with the member for Nelson; it is an issue. I have a 16-year-old son. It is an issue we can each ask ourselves personally, as well as collectively, as legislators.
However, the balance has to be found, and it can only be found through an inclusive process. What makes me very strong and convinced is because our process has been exactly that - inclusive. It has brought a particular focus on the health professionals because of the concern of young people. We did not want to see, as has been said in the media, another group of victims who could not, or felt they would not, seek any medical help for fear of being reported.
It is a fine balance, and we can argue forever in this parliament about who is right and who is wrong, you believe this, or what about that. It is our social nature; we are all going to have particular positions. I do not back away from that support, nor do I back away from the fact that any child under any threat should feel they are being cared for or protected. It is everyone’s responsibility, across the Northern Territory to be looking out for our children.
Ms CARNEY: Were do I start? Again, the inconsistencies are becoming embarrassing. The minister said she wants everyone to report, yet cites with approval someone who would elect not to report. She says all children need to be looked after, yet in the very bill we are debating specifically picks up a category of children - and they are still children in the eyes of the law - 14 to 16. I know it is hard for FACs workers, it is a tricky group; we all know that. Yet, minister, while you say everyone should report, you specifically have a provision which does not make it a requirement for people to report children between 14 and 16 years who have been, or are likely to be, a victim of sexual offence. You cannot possibly have it both ways.
In the answer before this one, you referred to the case at Mutitjulu, which was the second Lateline interview in May or June 2007, maybe 2006. You used that as a springboard to say everyone should report, yet you are the sponsor of a bill which specifically precludes everyone except health practitioners to report a sexual offence on a young person between 14 and 16 years. It is bizarre in the extreme, and it is fundamentally bad public policy. That is why we see the government all over the shop; that is why they knocked off at 4.05 pm yesterday afternoon.
You have just run out of puff, you have not thought these things through, you are not thinking sensibly. Even your answers, and I will read the Hansard after this - it is going to be a very circuitous read - your arguments are, to the extent they are arguments, circuitous and lacking logic.
In relation to the sexual abuse inquiry report, are you aware the authors of that report spent some time discussing the culture that existed in many remote communities which supported the non-disclosure of sexual abuse? How do you reconcile that with your position today in respect to the bill?
Ms McCARTHY: Member for Araluen, you and I seem to be going around in circles, because I have expressed this …
Ms CARNEY: I want you to keep answering.
Ms McCARTHY: Any sexual abuse against a child must be reported – you know that. I believe this is where we are going around in circles here. You know why our government has come to this position with health practitioners.
Responding to your question in regard to the Little Children are Sacred report, of course, I am very aware of the issues in communities. I am very conscious of the fact continual education programs need to be there so any child in our regions is aware of all these matters and, as part of the many programs we have going on, that education programs will be ongoing.
Ms CARNEY: As a result of some material in the Little Children are Sacred report, do you concede, in light of the bill - and given section 7 of the Care and Protection of Children Act, by only applying the bill insofar as reporting children between the ages of 14 and 16 who are the victim of sexual offence - you have failed because you have not promoted or safeguarded the wellbeing of children? Particularly given the information - and you know I did not agree with all the conclusions; I should be very specific about that - with a vast number of the recommendations, some of the material the authors gathered in the course of their inquiry made it abundantly clear not only was there a culture of secrecy and people hiding behind a veil of silence, but there was a need for the NT government and its agencies to promote and safeguard the welfare of children. How do you reconcile that with the bill you have brought into parliament today?
Ms McCARTHY: No, I do not agree; I do not agree we have failed at all. What I do agree with is the fact we have recognised there is a concern with section 26 of the Care and Protection of Children Act, and our government has moved to do the best it can, through the consultation process and working with the very people we need to address first regarding young people’s trust in their medical practitioners.
Ms CARNEY: I am going to move now to some of the things the Attorney-General, the first law officer of the Northern Territory, said in her bizarre contribution today. When we talk of the Deputy Chief Minister, all sorts of words - some of them most unparliamentary - spring to mind. Some of her contributions over the years have been reasonable but, today was, as I said, downright misleading and wrong. I do not believe I used the word gobsmacked when I got to my feet initially, but the word gobsmacked is a good Australian word and probably applies to much she said.
I know she probably does not think very much about what she said, and this last couple of weeks has, obviously, been devastating for her. However, as I said before, the people of the Northern Territory and the members of the Labor Party have at least, whilst they have a government with one or two hands tied behind its back, been saved from the member for Karama being Chief Minister. It just goes to show one door closes, another door opens, and there is invariably an upside when things get tough.
Where do we start with the member for Karama? I might spend a bit of time on this because it is important it is on the Parliamentary Record. For people listening to this debate who may have missed what the member for Karama, the Territory’s first law officer, had to say, I would like to enlighten them. The Attorney-General said in relation to the publicity the unintended consequences of section 26 caused, and I quote: ‘A bit of hysteria was whipped up, I believe, by the CLP in and around the reporting of those teenagers who are having consensual sex’.
I do not know why on earth the member for Karama, the Attorney-General - if she was a lawyer she would be told very early on not to mislead - said: ‘A bit of hysteria was whipped up, I believe, by the CLP’. From any other member of parliament I ask, on behalf of my colleagues and myself, for an apology, but knowing the type of individual the member for Karama is, we will not get one.
When the member for Karama, the Attorney-General, says ‘a bit of hysteria was whipped up’, I believe she was referring to those organisations which wrote to members of parliament - I assume they wrote to everyone, they certainly wrote to me, and I know they wrote to the minister- were going around whipping up hysteria, according to the Attorney-General. The Aboriginal Medical Services Alliance of the Northern Territory - I will be sure to tell them that they whipped up hysteria with their concerns about the unintended consequence of section 26.
The Royal Australian College of General Practitioners - I got a letter from them; they would be very interested in the view expressed by the Northern Territory’s chief law officer that they were whipping up hysteria. The Royal Australian College of Physicians - I remember getting a letter from them too and thinking what a nice letterhead they had. I feel certain they do not regard their interest in this area as a bit of hysteria they are whipping up. There were some other bodies, and I do not have the correspondence with me, but from all around the country we were getting - and the minister knows it - correspondence and representations saying you have to fix section 26. The Law Society, of course, was one of them.
So, two things have to be put on the public record. When the Attorney-General said: ‘a bit of hysteria was being whipped up, I believe, by the CLP’ - wrong, and it should have been withdrawn. Second, the Attorney-General knows better than to refer to the very strongly held concerns of some of the organisations to which I have referred as ‘a bit of hysteria’.
No wonder she did not last in the portfolio of Child Protection for very long. That clearly was a very good thing, and I guess she is stuck in the role of Attorney-General now …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Chair! We have indulged the member for Araluen; she is, obviously, making political points here, and seems to have drifted directly from the purpose of these committee stage debates, which is to debate the specific amendments the member for Araluen has put forward. I seek your guidance and advice. If it was a question in Question Time under Standing Order 112, there is hypothetical matter, there is asking for expressions of opinion.
I am just not really sure where the member for Araluen is going with this particular line of argument. If it is just a line of argument, fair enough, but it has gone on long enough and I ask her to get to a question that is relevant to this legislation ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Chair! There is no point of order. She has 10 minutes to say as she pleases; this is a House of debate.
Madam CHAIR: I have conferred with the Clerk on this very lengthy preamble to a question. I ask the member for Araluen to focus her question to the minister, and that it is in relation to the bill before us at the moment.
Ms CARNEY: Minister, do you agree with the Attorney-General that a bit of hysteria was whipped up in relation to the unintended consequences of section 26 of the Care and Protection of Children Act?
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Chair! I seek your guidance. I hope the questions asked in these committee stages are under the standing orders of parliament, similar to the ones we ask in Question Time - Standing Order 112. Is she asking for an expression of opinion, hypothetical? I ask for a ruling on this particular matter ...
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Chair!
Madam CHAIR: Thank you, member for Johnston. Your point of order, member for Port Darwin, and then I will be seeking advice from the Clerk.
Mr ELFERINK: You directed the member for Araluen to come to the point; she has come to the point very succinctly and put a straightforward question. The first law officer of the Northern Territory made a comment which reflects directly on the bill before the House at the moment. It should be answered by the responsible minister who is currently under questioning. I cannot see what the problem is.
Madam CHAIR: Thank you, member for Port Darwin. As I said, I will be seeking advice from the Clerk on this matter.
As to the point of order, we will allow the question, but it needs to be made very plain the minister is not in a position to be answering questions, necessarily, on the opinions others have expressed. What the minister is in a position to do is answer questions directly in relation to the bill before us.
Ms McCARTHY: Member for Araluen, let me repeat the sentiments of the member for Macdonnell, this amendment is far too important for any kind of personal politics to be played in this House.
Let me remind you I have said in discussions with you - this is about the children of the Northern Territory. I ask you, member for Araluen, in your questions to me, please keep focused on this bill, and please keep focused on the children of the Northern Territory.
Ms CARNEY: Do not patronise me, minister. I am commenting on a speech you cited, with approval, when you rose to your feet before we got to the committee stage. You thanked the Attorney-General for her contribution. Part of her contribution - and there are others I will get to - was the groundless, baseless assertion that ‘a bit of hysteria was whipped by the CLP’. In addition to it being wrong - talk about a bit of politics being played - spare me. Why did you, minister, cite with approval and thank the Attorney-General for her contribution, part of which you knew was wrong?
Ms McCARTHY: Member for Araluen, I also thanked you and other members of this House for your contribution because I believe, as Minister for Children and Families, this House must rise above the personal, petty politics for the sake of the children of the Northern Territory.
Ms CARNEY: I do not recall that you did thank me, minister, but that is the type of stuff we seem to be getting from government these days; you all seem to be telling so many whoppers you cannot keep up where the truth is. But, I digress; I will come back to that.
The Attorney-General also made repeated references in her contribution - for which you thanked her - to consensual sex between children under the age of 16. The Northern Territory’s first law officer refers to consensual sex with children under the age of 16. We had ...
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Chair. I have not seen the Hansard version of that …
Ms Carney: You should.
Dr BURNS: … and I would be very surprised if that was the case ...
Members interjecting.
Mr ELFERINK: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Chair. The Hansard rush has been obtained quite appropriately, and because the Leader of Government Business has chosen to keep himself ignorant is no reason the member for Araluen should not be allowed to ask questions.
Madam CHAIR: Please pause while I confer with the Clerk.
Dr BURNS: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Chair- and this is important for people listening - the rushes which come from Hansard are uncorrected rushes. From my eight years of experience here, the grammar, the punctuation, the way in which things can be misconstrued on Hansard rushes, can lead to problems.
There was an instance where I misheard the former member for Greatorex during, I believe, an estimates hearing. I became quite concerned about what I thought he had said but, at the end of the day, when he corrected the Hansard - and I believed his integrity in that regard - it was not at all what I had thought. We need to be very careful about uncorrected Hansard rushes being used as evidence in this Assembly ...
Members interjecting.
Madam CHAIR: Order! Thank you, member for Johnston. I would like to confer with the Clerk before I take any more points of order on this.
My advice is the minister is in a position to answer that question. Should it prove later to be in the corrected version of Hansard, then it will be corrected.
Mr Elferink: Wise counsel, Madam Chair. Thank you.
Ms CARNEY: The Territory’s first law officer made repeated - I counted at least seven - references to consensual sex between children under the age of 16. It is interesting the member for Johnston, in particular, would jump to his feet because he has been an Attorney-General and he knows the care and precision an Attorney-General needs to use when it comes to public utterances. We think, on this side of the Chamber, you were a pretty ordinary Health minister, and you were a much better Attorney-General. I certainly have no recollection of you as Attorney-General, member for Johnston, being so loose and so unwise with your comments.
The member for Karama did make repeated references to young people having consensual activity. The reason I raise it - and it does have particular application to our bill - is it is patently wrong. The law of the Northern Territory is children under the age of 16 cannot consent - and there are good reasons for that – and it is well understood in the Territory and elsewhere, although the age of consent is not necessarily uniform around the country.
I believe it was on 25 November 2003, we had the age of consent legislation and a debate that finished at about 2 am - a debate where, at some personal cost I might say, I voted with the government in support of that legislation because it was the right thing to do. The member for Karama was there and I do not remember her having anything to say; but I make no judgment about that. The member for Karama well understands the age of consent in the Northern Territory is 16.
Minister, do you understand the age of consent in the Northern Territory is 16?
Ms McCARTHY: Member for Araluen, the age of consent, as I understand it, is 16.
Ms CARNEY: Minister, in your bill, you leave open the possibility, if people believe their children under 16 but over 14 have been or are likely to be a victim of a sexual offence - why are you not requiring people to report that?
Ms McCARTHY: We have been through this and clearly we need to do it in the House. I certainly understand those matters, and I have taken those questions into consideration in putting this together. I am very aware the question of consent remains a criminal offence under the Criminal Code. There is no dispute with that.
Ms CARNEY: We will come back to that. So, you know, but the Attorney-General does not know - as evidenced by her continued references to consensual sexual activity. The reason we proposed the wording in our bill was, interestingly, because Parliamentary Counsel, in one version of our bill, actually used the word ‘consent’ in relation to children under the age of 16. I immediately, through the Leader of the Opposition’s Office, said: ‘No, you cannot possibly use that word, it is completely inconsistent because the law of the Northern Territory is, you cannot consent unless you are over 16 - wrong word completely to use in this context’.
We did some additional work and that is why, in our bill, we came up with the language of: ‘the other child did not coerce the relevant child’. Imminently sensible, of course, given children in the Northern Territory cannot consent to sexual intercourse and other sexual acts, because they are children, and that is why we have consent laws in the Northern Territory.
The criteria we outlined in our bill, contrary to what the Attorney-General said – and I will come back to that later – we used very specific language for a number of sound reasons. We wanted everyone in the Northern Territory to have the same obligation, and that is necessary in terms of clarity of message for the reasons I discussed earlier today. We provide six criteria by which someone does not have to report, so we preserve the law by preserving the consent laws. Equally, we provide some flexibility in terms of providing a series of exemptions or exclusions in relation to non-reporting.
That is why we went down the path we did and, naturally, I will be urging you to adopt our amendment. The Attorney-General, of course, does not accept the way our bill is presented; she does not accept there would be no requirement to report if our six criteria are met. Then she had the audacity to say what we came up with, she was advised - she did not table any advice and, if you would be good enough to table the advice you received from the Department of Justice, I would be grateful. I am still of the view you, or others, made it abundantly clear to those at DOJ to find something. And, of course, I gave you the opportunity last night, I said: ‘You could meet those concerns; you could come up with a hybrid and we could still rock and roll today’. But no, you did not want to go down that path. I stand by the wording of our bill and suggest to you it is much clearer and very sound.
I would like to get back to, as I am allowed to do, the comments made by the Attorney-General. After she says: ‘… in and around the reporting of those teenagers who are having consensual sex’, she then went on to say:
- Those of us who actually understand the system understand that the frontline workers in the Child Abuse Task Force - a combination of professional child protection workers and police - would not pursue prosecutions for those having consensual sex between the ages of 14 and 16.
It is incredibly serious, minister. Not only has the Attorney-General not understood the consent laws of the Northern Territory, she given a ringing endorsement to not pursuing prosecutions for children between 14 and 16. Not only has she spoken on behalf of the Child Abuse Task Force which, I believe will be very insulted, and said what they do is this, that, and the other, she has also said the Child Abuse Task Force would not pursue prosecutions for those having consensual sex. That is extremely worrying, and I ask you to be similarly worried about this. I know you are having a smile, but we regard this very seriously, and we are not going to let this one go.
Attorney-General, it is not the Child Abuse Task Force, in any event, which determines whether a prosecution is brought - that is the DPP! Give her a lesson, Burnsie, in Law 101. Give her the old separation of powers argument. Tell her about the DPP …
Mr Elferink: She has a track record of interfering in matters before the courts.
Madam CHAIR: Member for Araluen, I am asking if this preamble is leading to a question for the minister.
Ms CARNEY: Yes, it is, and can I …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Chair! I may not have heard the member for Port Darwin fully, but I believe he was alluding to an alleged lack of propriety on the part of the member for Karama. If he did, I ask him to withdraw. He knows, if he is, it is only by substantive motion.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Chair, the Leader of Government Business is entirely correct. I was reflecting entirely on the propriety of a decision the Attorney-General made in relation to a matter before the court. And no, I will not withdraw it because there are no grounds for me to withdraw it. She has admitted it. She said it was a good thing.
Madam CHAIR: Thank you. Member for Araluen, we will continue with your question.
Ms CARNEY: Of course, there is 10 minutes for every question; I am allowed, as members would know, a preamble. I know those opposite would much rather knock off at 4.05 pm and I note we have gone beyond that, which must be extremely troubling for them. However, we on this side (a) like hard work, and (b) will not let some of these offensive remarks just go by-the-by.
When the Attorney-General said: ‘Those of us who actually understand the system understand the frontline workers in the Child Abuse Task Force would not pursue prosecutions for those having consensual sex between the ages of 14 and 16’, did you, minister, know that is what the Child Abuse Task Force does? Do you know that is the position? Is that an official position of the Child Abuse Task Force?
Ms McCARTHY: Clearly, this issue has been complex from the very beginning. I urge you, member for Araluen, to keep focused on what we are about today in this House in terms of children of the Northern Territory. I have explained on numerous occasions, both here on the floor this afternoon and also privately to you, our government has followed a particular process. I am well aware of the issues you have raised, but I firmly believe the process we have followed and continue to follow, as a government, in terms of section 26 of the Care and Protection of Children Act, is the process we now need to support.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, minister. I am not sure you answered the question. Perhaps if I can put it this way, because I feel certain you appreciate the seriousness of it in light of the Attorney-General’s comments. You are, of course, the Minister for Children and Families, and even though I have been critical of the lack of numbers in the Child Abuse Task Force, I always assumed you and I had a sound understanding of what it was the Child Abuse Task Force did and how they operated.
So, can I ask whether it has been your belief the Child Abuse Task Force is not interested, or does not wish others to pursue, prosecutions for those young people between 14 and 16 having, as the Attorney-General would say, consensual sex …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Chair! Once again, I call relevance. We are debating the amendments put forward by the member for Araluen and we seem to be getting diverted into this almost pharisaic debate ...
Ms Carney: Oh, fair go!
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: It is. All the way along the line it is designed to trip people up, to prove your case, to have little wins. We are here about something serious and, basically, it sounds to me all about an even-up between the member for Araluen and the member for Karama, and it is getting into the realm of personal quarrel.
So, I ask this debate gets back on track where it should be – and where it should be is about the care and protection of children as put forward by this amendment today - instead of running down holes and trying, in a pharisaical way, to find people have said the wrong word here or there, and putting a legal dimension to everything they say when we are using commonplace language …
Members interjecting.
Madam CHAIR: Order! Member for Port Darwin! Order!
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Chair! I am now forming the opinion the Leader for Government Business is simply running interference for the minister. I point out to you page 188 of House of Representatives Practice, and I quote:
- Members have been disciplined by the Chair for raising spurious and frivolous points of order and for persisting with matters after the Chair has ruled.
I ask you to counsel the Leader of Government Business accordingly, and allow this debate to continue in the way it should continue.
The member for Araluen is referring to matters to which the Attorney-General herself has made comment, and interference is frivolous and spurious.
Madam CHAIR: There is no point of order, but I ask the member for Araluen to keep her line of questioning focused on the bill before us. There is, at committee stage, often a circuitous nature of question and answer, and the minister does not have to answer the questions. Member for Araluen, you have the call.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Chair, I would now like to ask a question.
Minister, I am starting to truly share the same fears the member for Araluen has been expressing, and those fears arise out of the observations made of language used by the Attorney-General which could only be described as devious in its intent, or reckless to an extreme. I find it astonishing the Attorney-General of the Northern Territory would refer to sexual congress of children between the age of 14 and the age of 16 as consensual.
Whilst I appreciate the minister may not have to, or feel obliged in any way to, answer these questions - how she conducts herself in this place is her issue - I find it highly surprising that she would restrain herself to supporting a minister who holds those world views.
So, minister, I put it to you: do you support the comments made by the Attorney-General in relation to consensual sex between the ages 14 and 16?
Ms McCARTHY: Member for Port Darwin, I am not sure if you have been listening to the debate this afternoon ...
Mr Elferink: I have been listening very carefully, and I have not heard your answer.
Ms McCARTHY: Let me share again for your purposes here this afternoon that, clearly, our government has been about a particular process we have followed with section 26 of the Care of Protection of Children Act. Regarding the questions by the member for Araluen concerning the Child Abuse Task Force, naturally, the focus of the task force is to respond to issues of children across the Northern Territory. In the case of any prosecution, naturally, that will be up to the Department of Public Prosecution.
Member for Port Darwin and members opposite, if I could bring you back to the importance of this debate - it is about care and protection of our children and the fact we have followed a particular process with the health professionals. I have said in this House already, and I will continue to say: our ongoing work with other sectors of the community will begin immediately, with the support of this House.
Mr ELFERINK: Long answer, no answer. The question I asked was: do you support the comments by the Attorney-General in relation to consensual sex between the age of 14 and 16? Is it government policy to consider sex between the ages of 14 and 16 consensual? It is a yes or no answer. I do not need to hear about section 26.
Ms McCARTHY: Member for Port Darwin, in my response to the second reading speech, I indicated my appreciation for the support given by members in their speeches in the debate, particularly from this side of the House.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Chair, I will finish with this observation. I do not really expect a reply from the minister, but small wonder the people of the Northern Territory look upon their politicians as people who make answers slipperier than eels in buckets of Vaseline. It is a straightforward yes or no answer, and I get led down this merry little path. The reason this occurs is because, if the answer is yes, then the minister agrees with the Attorney-General who made a statement which, basically, is unlawful. If the answer is no, then there is a difference between this minister and her Attorney-General. So, rather than answer at all, it just gets slipperier and slipperier. What a shame.
Ms CARNEY: Minister, I will take it from your answers, or lack of them, to the questions asked by my colleague, the member for Port Darwin, and those I asked in relation to the Child Abuse Task Force, you do not know whether it is their policy, your policy, or anyone else’s policy, whether they would pursue prosecutions or not want them pursued. I may at some point write to you - which is one of the options open to me – because, clearly, we would be wanting clarification.
I never give the member for Karama the benefit of the doubt, and I do not propose to start doing that now. I can only assume she genuinely believed that was the position of the Child Abuse Task Force. If that was a genuinely held view and, if that is your view, as minister, and the view of the government, then something needs to be done about it because it is just not on, and we both know it.
The Attorney-General, in her repeated references to 14- and 16-year-olds engaged in consensual sexual activity, continued to make herself look foolish, because she then contradicted herself and asserted what is actually correct, somewhere in her contribution, by stating the law of the Northern Territory is: ‘Sexual intercourse with a child under 16 years is an offence under the Criminal Code’. So she got there, then she jumped back into the consensual sex.
I am hopeful you will have a discussion with the Attorney-General - and I presume the member for Johnston will help - so we get the Attorney-General, who used to be the Minister for Children and Families, not running her own race but actually singing from the government’s song book; although she would still be so unhappy after the events of the last couple of weeks, I guess she is going off and doing her own thing. I digress.
The Attorney-General said she had advice from the Department of Justice the bill we introduced is: ‘less workable and confusing’. She said our amendments bring in more onerous reporting obligations and, in the course of making that point, she made yet another reference to consensual sex between children of 14 and 16.
Minister, do you have a copy of the legal advice obtained from the Department of Justice, or anyone else, and will you table it?
Ms McCARTHY: Sorry, member for Araluen. Did you ask me to table the letter? Is that what you asked?
Ms CARNEY: I asked you to table the legal advice, yes.
Ms McCARTHY: I will not be tabling anything.
Ms CARNEY: Right. So the Attorney-General, who has just been making it up as she goes along, says she has advice from the department. Well, we will never know whether she has that advice. I do not believe she did get advice or even if she did seek advice. I am not sure she was reading from that advice, or could possibly have been reading from that advice, because she said our amendments are less workable and confusing.
That is clearly not the case. In the opposition’s bill there are six criteria outlined which would give protection for, not only all children between 14 and 16, but that everyone would have to report unless the six criteria were met. It is important in the context of this debate, and noting we want our bill to succeed, I outline those six criteria, and then go back to what the Attorney-General had the audacity to say.
In new clause 3(1A) of our opposition bill to amend section 26 of the act, it says:
- … a child (a relevant child) who has participated in a sexual act with another child (the other child) is not a victim of a sexual offence because of the sexual act if all the following circumstances apply:
(i) by participating in the sexual act; or
(ii) as a consequence of participating in the sexual act.
That is our bill. For the Attorney-General to say it is confusing beggars belief. I know most members of this House, certainly members on this side, find it very difficult to believe anything the Attorney-General has to say - but this one is right up there! How on earth can she say such a clear set of criteria which provides exclusion from reporting is confusing? Particularly when the government’s own bill seeks to separate, in the clumsy way it does, health practitioners and everyone else, and then provides a different standard of reporting, or a different sliding scale, if you like.
So, minister, given you cited with approval the Attorney-General’s comments, and thanked her for her comments, why do you say our bill is confusing?
Ms McCARTHY: Member for Araluen, I have outlined from the outset the process we have followed. This is not an easy issue to deal with; we all have views on it.
I have read through section 3 of your proposed amendments, looking at: the sexual act occurred; the age difference between the relevant child and the other child; the other child is not a brother, half-brother, sister or half-sister of the relevant child. And we go on: what about the cousins, or the nieces, or the aunties? There is room in both bills, no doubt, for extra questions.
Let me reiterate, our government stands firm on the process we have followed with a very difficult issue. We stand firm on the process of discussing it with the health practitioners. We stand firm on the fact I will, with the support of this parliament, continue that process with other sectors of the community. We stand firm on our belief we have laws here in the Northern Territory which do protect our children. But we also recognise this is a difficult issue, and we recognise we have to find the balance.
Ms CARNEY: Thanks, minister. You did not answer the question. You referred to process; you referred to getting the balance right, etcetera. My question was: can you outline for the parliament why the Attorney-General and, presumably, you, regard the opposition’s bill as confusing?
Ms McCARTHY: Member for Araluen, the reason there are questions with your bill is you have wanted to encompass the whole community, where we have focused on the health practitioners. That is the difference between your bill and the bill we have before us. As I have said, and continue to say, we have focused on the health practitioners for a particular reason. Until we consult widely with the rest of those groups and child-related organisations, we cannot go in the direction you are asking us to go, because I am not convinced the process you have followed bears the depth of history and consultation I have taken.
Ms CARNEY: Gee whiz, it is hard going, minister. The best answer …
Dr Burns: It is.
Ms CARNEY: Well, it is your bill - you assert it is pretty good and ours is not up too much. We have every right in this House of debate, as you know, to get it on the Parliamentary Record why it is, in the absence of tabling legal advice …
Ms McCarthy: I never said that.
Ms CARNEY: Well, he did. You are saying: ‘We have advice that says your bill is confusing, misleading’, and a few of other words. I am asking, legitimately, why? I asked you to table that advice; you are not going to table that advice. The first time I asked you, you said it was process. The second time I asked you, the best I could get from your response was it is confusing because we seek to include the whole community.
Two questions arise from that, and I will ask them separately: is it not important, in something like this, to include the whole community?
Ms McCARTHY: I missed the last part of your question. If I go back a step, let me put on the Parliamentary Record I have not criticised your bill. Let me put on the Parliamentary Record I have wanted and thought I was working with you from the very beginning. Let me put on the Parliamentary Record I gave you a copy of this bill on 7 August 2009, and not once did you raise with me what your concerns were …
Ms CARNEY: No, you are wrong. I sent an e-mail to your office saying I had concerns and I was considering my position.
Madam CHAIR: Order!
Ms McCARTHY: It was not until Monday of this week you detailed what those concerns were. So, please member for Araluen …
Ms CARNEY: Is that your answer?
Ms McCARTHY: Let me put on the Parliamentary Record the reason we are in this position is because we believe in a particular process which we have followed, and wish to continue to follow.
Ms CARNEY: I appreciate when you stood up you did not hear the last part of my question. The question was: is it not important to include the rest of the community? I believe what you just said will be repeated if I ask you that question again. I said two questions arose from an answer before the one you have just given. That second question is: if our bill is confusing, how is yours less confusing?
Ms McCARTHY: Member for Araluen, thank you for the question.
Ms CARNEY: Cute one, isn’t it?
Ms McCARTHY: As I have said on numerous occasions, this is a complex issue, and I am not saying our bill stands way above; what I am defending here is …
Ms CARNEY: All right, I think I might have to …
Ms McCARTHY: … the process we have taken to get to this position. We are very confident, because of consultation with the Caring for Kids Coalition, with the youth groups, with the Family Advisory Group, in the process which has brought us to this position.
Ms CARNEY: Given you have not outlined why our bill is confusing, minister, I wonder whether you might, and I accept you are not going to table your legal advice, be good enough to read from it so we can be satisfied in our future endeavours in trying to come up with legislation, we will not make the same mistakes again? Would you be good enough to read from your legal advice where it says it is confusing and has the defects to which you vaguely referred in our telephone conversation last night?
Ms McCARTHY: Member for Araluen, I believe the member for Karama did that quite succinctly.
Ms CARNEY: What? We are gobsmacked! I used it before, I will use it again. Sorry, I am just trying to understand your answer.
Ms McCARTHY: My answer is I believe the member for Karama was referring to the letter she received from the Department of Justice.
Ms CARNEY: Well, you can never tell with the member for Karama; she really does have atrocious form in the parliament. I believe I will just have to leave this debate thinking the member for Karama believes there is something wrong with our bill. She probably has not read it, she certainly is all over the shop when it comes to understanding the law of the Northern Territory - which is regrettable given she is the Northern Territory’s first law officer.
She has had a couple of rough weeks, she cannot challenge the Chief Minister, so I suppose she is feeling pretty flat and not really able to come up with a good argument. She apparently could not persuade her colleagues they should vote for her in any leadership challenge. I would not have voted for her either, but there you go. That is the member for Karama …
Dr Burns: You have had a fair amount of experience in that.
Ms CARNEY: … she really should conduct herself in a much better way …
Dr BURNS: You, too!
Ms CARNEY: … just like you did, member for Johnston, when you were the Attorney-General.
We have dealt with a range of issues but I am still not satisfied by anything I have heard in - how long have we been here – just over an hour regarding the questions. I am not satisfied at all with any of the answers.
I remain concerned about the Attorney-General’s comments in relation to her understanding of the law, the Child Abuse Task Force etcetera. I am also concerned the minister was approving of the comments made by the member for Nelson - a remarkable position to adopt, given she is the Minister for Children and Families, and also the Minister for Child Protection.
I am still curious, and have not received anything in the way of a half-reasonable explanation, as to why our bill is confusing. All I have to go on is something said by the member for Karama whose relationship with the truth is, no doubt, a very difficult one.
I will finish at this juncture, and put you on notice, minister, I will be moving, at the end of this bill, a suspension of standing orders so the Criminal Code amendment can be dealt with. Putting aside the distance between us in relation to the Care and Protection of Children Act, there is still some merit in leaving the parliament tonight with the defence under the Criminal Code. I would like your support for, at least, having that debate about the Criminal Code.
Notwithstanding the distance between us, to leave the parliament after an issue like this, which has been brought on in urgency and leave the Criminal Code nowhere, would be most regrettable. When I seek that suspension of standing orders, I ask for you to accommodate my request. I have spoken to the member for Nelson as well. It will not be a long debate, but there are some very important matters I feel should be on the Parliamentary Record. I expect, at this stage, not to succeed in getting the Criminal Code amendment up but, with my powers of persuasion, it is worth a go. The member for Nelson may, indeed, be persuaded to come our way. I will put that on notice now, and I can almost hear the flurry of activity on the fifth floor and elsewhere in the building.
I will leave it at that, noting just your convenience, Madam Chair, I will not pursue the other matters in relation to the bill. I also note the defeat of clause 3 really does bring into question why on earth we would go to the other part. I am just trying to be as practical as possible.
Dr BURNS: To pick up on a few things said by the member for Araluen. I believe the minister has repeatedly made it very plain here today it has been the process of consultation that has really shaped the amendments she has put forward to the Care and Protection Children Act.
It has not been so much the legal process or which bill is so much better, she has responded to extensive consultation across a range of sectors, including young people, and that is why we are here today. She has also made it quite clear that has been framed and she will be carrying on further consultations, including other groups. This step-wise approach has been made very plain by the member for Arnhem. I know the member for Araluen has come back to the legal argument of exclusion and why ours is only focusing on the medical practitioners, while she wants to include everyone in hers. In my mind, the member for Arnhem has made it very clear why she has gone along that particular path.
There has been criticism of the member for Karama and also the member for Nelson; and far be it for me to defend either of them, they are quite capable of defending themselves. The member for Araluen has a number of avenues; she could have questioned people during Question Time today on those comments if she so desired. There are various avenues where she can ask people directly rather than asking another minister indirectly in the way that has been done.
Finally, Madam Chair, I would like to say, if the general public were to read the Hansard of all the offerings today in this debate, including the committee stage debate and the debate which preceded it, the member for Nelson’s comments and the reasons he gave for supporting the way in which the member for Arnhem has gone would be applauded. And he paid due respect to the efforts, passion and focus of the member for Araluen.
He talked, in many ways, as a father; the challenges of being a parent to people in that 14 to 16 age group, and the things families want to try to deal with within the family; things which arise in nearly every family.
I really empathise with what the member for Nelson said, and also the member for Casuarina. I do not think we should lose sight of the fact we are actually here to safeguard the rights of children, and we are certainly 100% in agreement about our commitment to protect children. However, we also have to keep in mind the basic context and building block of our society and our community - which is families.
When people come back to read this debate, they might see a lot of toing and froing, but I believe the sentiments put forward by the member for Nelson would really strike a chord in a lot of people in our community. That is another reason I am supporting the minister, and will not be supporting the amendments as put forward by the member for Araluen.
Madam CHAIR: Honourable members, the question is that Clause 3 stand as printed.
The committee divided:
Ayes 13 Noes 10
Mrs Aagaard Mr Bohlin
Ms Anderson Ms Carney
Dr Burns Mr Chandler
Mr Gunner Mr Conlan
Mr Hampton Mr Elferink
Mr Henderson Mr Giles
Mr Knight Mr Mills
Ms Lawrie Mr Styles
Mr McCarthy Mr Tollner
Ms McCarthy Mr Westra van Holthe
Mr Vatskalis
Ms Walker
Mr Wood
Motion agreed to.
Ms CARNEY: Madam Chair, I seek leave to withdraw the other clauses for which I invite defeat.
Leave granted.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Ms McCARTHY (Children and Families): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, it is not often in this House we get to a third reading debate. Given the importance of this debate, which has been going on for some hours now, it is important for us to reflect on where we have been today and where we can go tomorrow.
At the outset, I make it clear the opposition will not oppose this bill. I can say with certainty the minister would have expected me to have stated that position. We believe, using the Attorney-General’s words in relation to our bill, the government’s bill is less workable and confusing, but is not opposed because we all know we cannot leave tonight without the unintended consequences of section 26 being remedied. We stand by our views the way we would do it is better than the way suggested by government, but we roll on and it may be we come back another time to make further amendments - I would expect that to be the case.
I note the minister will be having a review from about April and probably, on a government timetable, it would be late next year that we would see some amendments.
We are committed absolutely on this side of the Chamber to making sure legislation which comes before us is well scrutinised and, where appropriate, we come up with our own legislation, as I alerted the minister some time ago.
It is regrettable it has taken this long, given the type of concerns raised many months ago by those in the medical profession, in particular, but let us not just confine it to that. The fact is there have been many concerns in the community, hence I come back to why on earth are you separating it. I do not agree, and I feel certain the minister does not agree, with every proposition put forward by the NT Mothers against Mandatory Reporting, but that is a group which has made representations to both government and opposition.
I have been receiving many phone calls from young people very keen to speak to me, and I sent them my bills and the Hansard from the other day; so to say it is really only the medical and allied health profession interested in this, just is not true. Even the minister in her response referred to the fact we really wanted everyone to report neighbours, friends and so on. So we still find it difficult to budge from why it is the government seeks to consolidate or confine its bill to the health profession or health practitioners in relation to children 14 and 16, but not for everyone else, for children 14 and 16.
I remain deeply concerned about the comments made by the Attorney-General which I have referred to in the committee stage, and hope someone can talk to her so some day she might have an idea of what she is talking about, but I live in hope. I thank my colleagues, in particular, who have been very supportive, not just today, but in the lead up to this. It is an issue I know they are very concerned about, as well; so I am very proud to stand with them.
I will leave it at that; but I do put the minister on notice that I will be moving a suspension of standing orders, and I undertake to her to be very short in that. It could just be that it may assist government in further working towards improving the situation for young people in the Northern Territory who are, sadly, abused and the people to whom they go and have contact with in allied health and other professions. I thank everyone for their participation.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Pass Bill through all Stages
Pass Bill through all Stages
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me from bringing on the Criminal Code Amendment (Child Sexual Offences) Bill 2009 (Serial 50), and for it to proceed through all stages.
Madam Speaker, I said I would be reasonably brief …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I seek a ruling; does the member need to seek leave to move a suspension of standing orders?
Madam SPEAKER: No, she can seek leave, but the member did not do that, she is seeking to suspend standing orders.
It is a debate only on the suspension of standing orders, member for Araluen.
Ms CARNEY: Sorry, only on the suspension of standing orders?
Madam SPEAKER: Only on the suspension of standing orders.
Ms CARNEY: Yes. We want the standing orders suspended so we can leave this building tonight with legislation passed, which can only be passed tonight, so there is a defence in the Criminal Code for those who have an obligation to report the sexual activity described by, or referred to, in the bill which we have just finished debating.
It is important we make some progress on this, and I ask the minister that the government has this debate. The suspension of standing orders will ensure one of two things: we have the debate about the need for a defence in the Criminal Code or, alternatively, we actually leave the building with a defence.
In the letter to which I referred today from the Law Society, dated 17 August 2009; the author of the letter, Barbara Bradshaw, in relation to the Criminal Code amendment which I introduced on Tuesday, wrote:
- They introduce a new similarity of age defence to the Criminal Code, not only into the reporting obligations. If passed, this would remedy an anomaly in the Criminal Code which currently criminalises all sexual activity involving anyone under 16 years.
Not only were the changes to the Care and Protection of Children Act supported, but the Criminal Code amendment was supported. It is a very important amendment, not only for the reason outlined by the Law Society, and it does fit with the bill which has just been passed. The reason for a defence in the Criminal Code really becomes even more important given the government’s bill has just been passed. The advantage of changing the code is it provides a defence to any prosecution ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, it is only about the suspension of standing orders. It is not about the bill itself.
Ms CARNEY: I understand that, Madam Speaker. My point is the advantage is we can have a defence in place which will run parallel to the changes brought about in the Care and Protection of Children Act. If we leave the building tonight without the Criminal Code and without the suspension of standing orders which will make that happen, then we really are leaving a significant gap and an area of uncertainty where everyone would agree that certainty is the order for the day.
In relation to the suspension of standing orders which is required for us to get to this point, I will make some comments in relation to the model Criminal Code which, in 1999, suggested there be a similarity of age defence, and the appropriate age difference would be two years.
I would like us to move to that debate; it will not take long. It is appropriate in the circumstances, given those opposite have said how important child protection is to them and, in particular, the minister has referred to health practitioners. So we owe it to them to leave the building tonight with a defence in place in the Criminal Code.
I am not sure there is much more I can add, Madam Speaker. I urge members to support the motion.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, government will not be supporting the motion. We believe it should sit on the Notice Paper and be debated at the next General Business Day.
The member for Araluen has introduced a number of bills at very short notice. She is proffering legal advice which has not been tested by the Department of Justice, and it would be the wrong thing for this House to plunge headlong into this area. It opens up issues around the age of consent, I have been advised, and I believe that is the type of issue which needs to be debated by the community. Those of us who were here during similar debates in the, was it the Tenth Assembly?
Madam SPEAKER: Ninth.
Dr BURNS: The Ninth Assembly.
Ms Carney: We have had so many.
Dr BURNS: We have had so many, and we could have had more, but there you go.
With all respect to the member for Araluen, we will not be supporting this motion to suspend standing orders in order to debate this bill.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, by leaving it on the Notice Paper, the logic of the argument from the Leader of Government Business is we will get around to talking about this eventually. I am sure I heard the member for Araluen say: if you have to defeat this bill, then defeat the bill, but let us at least have the debate. That is why she is seeking a suspension of standing orders.
By leaving it on the Notice Paper the government is, essentially, offering an olive branch, saying this might get passed into law. If it does, it would hardly be an equitable situation that, in the time between now and the next General Business Day when this becomes a matter of debate, there might be medical practitioners who fall into the grey area now left behind as a result of the passage of the bill before.
Consequently, it is incumbent on us to settle this matter, sooner rather than later, in an effort to create a legal environment which will not create, potentially, two standards resulting from conduct by medical practitioners over the next three months. It strikes me as common sense to bring this debate on now.
Madam SPEAKER: The question is the motion as moved by the member for Araluen be agreed to.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 10 Noes 12
Mr Bohlin Mrs Aagaard
Ms Carney Dr Burns
Mr Chandler Mr Gunner
Mr Conlan Mr Hampton
Mr Elferink Mr Henderson
Mr Giles Mr Knight
Mr Mills Ms Lawrie
Mr Styles Mr McCarthy
Mr Tollner Ms McCarthy
Mr Westra Van Holthe Mr Vatskalis
Ms Walker
Mr Wood
Motion negatived.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Nation Building and Jobs Plan –
Progress of Implementation
Nation Building and Jobs Plan –
Progress of Implementation
Dr BURNS (Business): Madam Speaker, today I am pleased to inform the House on progress made in implementing the federal government’s stimulus package and I refer to the plans for the package.
As members would be aware, the federal government delivered a $42bn Nation Building and Jobs Plan in February this year. That stimulus package was designed to do a number of things, including: providing direct payments to stimulate expenditure, providing tax breaks to ensure ongoing business investment, and supporting employment through massive infrastructure investment especially in schools, Defence housing, and roof insulation. The Prime Minister announced this plan in February and all Chief Ministers, Premiers, and Treasurers were brought together to hear what he wanted done. It was clear implementing this plan with speed was the order of the day. I agreed wholeheartedly with this decision.
The Northern Territory government responded to the stimulus package by announcing our five-point plan for implementation. That plan includes: the Development Consent Authority to meet every fortnight instead of every month; a summit of construction industry leaders to be held to brief industry and get all ideas on the table; dedicated Stimulus Action Squads set up in government departments to get projects up and running as fast as possible; to make it even easier for local companies to win local projects, a short and sharp review of procurement to streamline development processes and cut red tape, including raising the threshold before going to tender, and getting contractors involved earlier in the process.
I am pleased to report to the House the plan has been implemented and projects are already being delivered on the ground. While the Northern Territory has withstood the effects of the global financial crisis and has remained strong, Operation Stimulus has further strengthened our economic position and will continue to do so.
I will first deal with the Development Consent Authority to meet every fortnight instead of every month. As of 1 July, the Darwin and Litchfield divisions of the Development Consent Authority are now meeting fortnightly. The Department of Planning and Infrastructure is also working with the Development Consent Authority to have formal notification to applicants occur more quickly after meetings - often the next business day. Other divisions of the Development Consent Authority may meet more frequently if there is a need for this to occur, and the Department of Planning and Infrastructure will coordinate this with the Development Consent Authority.
To meet demand, the Department of Planning and Infrastructure has employed five more planners. In addition to this, from 1 July 2009, the government has established a one-stop shop for developers. The Department of Planning and Infrastructure is managing the one-stop shop process and is coordinating the input of many other government agencies and councils. The services offered cover the pre-application period right through to the development and assessment process.
As part of the one-stop shop and, for the first time, developers can brief the Development Consent Authority about their intended development before they lodge an application. Also, for the first time, services offered through the one-stop shop can be booked online. More information can be found on the Department of Planning and Infrastructure website, www.dpi.nt.gov.au. Like any new initiative, there will be some fine tuning of the one-stop shop and feedback can be provided to Richard Hancock, the CEO of Department of Planning and Infrastructure.
The government, through the Chief Minister, then hosted summits in February and July with construction industry leaders. We appointed a coordinator-general and established Stimulus Action Squads.
The coordinator-general will match the federal government’s arrangements and cut through any problems which may arise in delivery. The key departments of Housing, Education and Planning have staff dedicated to the implementation of this stimulus package.
In addition, the government established an industry reference group to work with the public service and to provide advice on the implementation of the stimulus plan. I am grateful to those members for their time and expertise in making it easier for local companies to win local projects and hold a short, sharp review of procurement to streamline the development processes and cut red tape.
The government held a very quick review of the procurement process, resulting in significant changes. Our first action was to raise the thresholds for quotes; we did this to cut down on the paperwork involved in 40% of all contracts. We also did it because contracts let on quotes must use Territory companies, unless an exemption is given.
Combined with our 20% local preference requirement, these measures were designed to increase the chances of local companies. The new measures came into effect on March 30.
Tier 1 requires one quote for contracts up to $15 000, that used to be $5000. Tier 2, minimum three written quotes for contracts up to $50 000, it used to be $10 000. Tier 3, minimum three written quotes with minimum contractor accreditation, limited CAL accreditation for $50 000 up to $200 000. Tier 4, full public tender assessment criteria weightings made public, and that is $200 000 rather than $5m; previously it started at $50 000.
To make sure all Territory businesses get a fair go under these changes, we mandated the use of an agency procurement requisition online system for all procurements above $15 000; allowed everyone, in addition to those invited to quote, to put in an expression of interest for quotations over $50 000; reduced the threshold for public disclosure of assessment criteria weightings from $1m to $200 000; supported and retained CAL and the NTICN measures, and outposted senior procurement officers in government agencies to improve professionalism across government.
In effect, the five-point plan is being well implemented and executed, and I am grateful to the public service and to industry for their efforts. The benefits are being seen across the Territory, especially in three key areas: $300m for school infrastructure, $65m for public and community housing, and $17m for repairs to regional roads, black spot funding and railway crossing boom gates.
I am pleased to inform the House already more than 300 contracts have been let valued at over $221m across the Northern Territory so far. The roll-out of the contracts reflects the varying lead times required for the different types of projects. The Department of Education and Training has awarded 292 contracts, totalling over $204m. The Department of Local Government and Housing has awarded four contracts totalling more than $2.3m. And road/rail has awarded eight contracts totalling over $14m.
These contracts are not concentrated in one area, but are distributed throughout the Territory. A breakdown of those contracts shows in the Central Australian region, 82 contracts, totalling over $34.3m have been awarded; 80 in education; one in housing, and two in road/rail.
The Barkly region has 20 contracts totalling over $11.77m awarded in Education. The Katherine region has 55 contracts, totalling over $30.4m awarded, 54 in Education, and one in road/rail. The Palmerston/Litchfield region has had 30 contracts, totalling over $30.8m awarded, 28 in Education, and two in road/rail.
The Top End rural areas have had 25 contracts, totalling over $14m awarded, 24 in Education, and one in road/rail. The East Arnhem region has had 35 contracts totalling over $36m awarded in Education. There are also two Territory-wide contracts that have been awarded totalling over $13m, one in Housing and one in road/rail. In Darwin some 54 contracts have been awarded, totalling over $50m, 51 in Education, two in Housing, and one in road/rail.
Some of these contracts have already been completed and final payments have been made. Some of these contracts have had work commence, and some are yet to commence.
The positive effect of over $220m, so far, being injected into the Territory economy has begun. The positive effects and benefits of Operation Stimulus include: increased business activities for the building and construction industry and its suppliers; the maintenance and creation of jobs; increased business for professional and technical services sector; and increased economic growth, including the flow-on effects to other sectors of the economy. It will also provide longer-term benefits including: improving our skills base; strengthening our capacity levels in the economy, and improving productivity. Operation Stimulus is building a better short and long-term outlook for the Territory and will create and secure many jobs in the delivery of the contracts generated by it.
The future: it is imperative to note Operation Stimulus is not complete, and there are still more contracts to be awarded and further stimulus to be injected into our economy. The total package for the Northern Territory is more than $600m over four years to 2011-12, with the majority of the money to be allocated in the first two financial years, 2008-09 and 2009-10. As you can see, we are only about halfway through the process and already the Territory economy has benefited greatly. There is still much to do to fully deliver Operation Stimulus, and we are doing it.
In the area of Education, 14 Territory schools were successful in the Science and Language Centres for the 21st Century Secondary Schools. These projects are being funded under Building the Education Revolution. Of the 14, eight Territory government schools will each receive $1.97m. This will involve the construction of six new science centres and two language centres for the following schools: Katherine High, sports science centre; Tennant Creek High, sports science centre; Gunbalanya School, science centre; Milingimbi School, science centre; Gapuwiyak School, science centre; Shepherdson College, aquaculture science centre; Centralian Middle School, language centre; and Maningrida School, language centre.
The eight projects must be completed by 30 June 2010. The six non-government school projects include: Good Shepherd Lutheran College, language centre; Kormilda College, language centre; O’Loughlin Catholic College, science laboratory refurbishment; Our Lady of Sacred Heart, Thamarrurr Catholic School, science centre; Palmerston Christian School, language hub and NTCSA network; and St. John’s College, language centre.
It is also worth noting the Commonwealth government received 1365 applications in total across the nation, all bidding for science and language centres for the 21st Century Secondary Schools. The Northern Territory submitted 41 of these. The remaining 27 applications submitted under this competitive bid category were endorsed by the National Science and Language Centre’s panel, and are also being considered for funding. The outcome of this special round two funding will be announced later this month. With such interest shown in our projects to be resubmitted for the second round, I look forward to more Territory schools receiving funding.
Another focus within the area of Education is the National School Pride Project, with 81 schools commencing projects to a value of $6.4m. The last focus at this stage, under the area of Education, is the Primary School for the 21st Century Project. Under this project, work has already commenced on the Umbakumba School, and a further 13 school projects awarded, with construction due to commence in the near future. A further nine projects are going through the assessment and approval process, and 10 projects are currently out for tender.
Part of the agreement with the Commonwealth for the delivery of the education component of Operation Stimulus is the commitment by the Northern Territory government to ensure no more than 4% of funding is used for project management, and no more than 1.5% of the funding is used for administration purposes. These requirements are to ensure the maximum amount of each project is expended into the intended purpose, and the business community. These requirements are being met in the delivery of Operation Stimulus.
I mentioned earlier there are deadlines for completion of the Science and Language Centres projects. There are also deadlines for all other Operations Stimulus projects, and these are set in conjunction with the Commonwealth as part of the funding arrangements. The deadlines are there to ensure the projects are completed in an orderly and timely manner to maximise the benefits to the community from the investment in the project. Those deadlines are being met, and will continue to be met in our delivery of Operation Stimulus. In fact, all road/rail projects covered by Operation Stimulus are being delivered within the deadlines and will provide Territorians with ongoing benefits for many years.
With regard to regional roads, $12m in repairs have been completed on the National Highway network comprising the Stuart, Victoria and Barkly Highways. This included contracts for the Darwin, Katherine and Tennant Creek regions, and additional works were also carried out in Katherine, Tennant Creek, and Alice Springs.
The project for boom gates on the railway has reached the stage where design and documentation for all three boom gates is complete. Preliminary installation works have commenced on-site and workshop testing is under way. All installation works are expected to be complete by December 2009.
To address the issue of black spots in our roads system, of the six black spot projects approved, two projects are complete, and a contract has been awarded for a third project. Woolner Road roundabout in Stuart Park has an estimated completion date of October 2009.
The area of Housing is progressing well, with 12 separate social housing project bids awaiting approval from the Commonwealth, worth a total value of over $54m. There are four projects in the Alice Springs region, and eight in the Darwin area which will provide 212 dwellings. $2.4m has already been spent on repairs and maintenance projects, including the completion of $500 000 in contracts for repair and/or replacement of roofs and solar hot water systems. Work has started on the construction of a four-bedroom house in Malak, and $1.3m has been committed for the design and construction of residences in Alice Springs and Tennant Creek.
As part of the Nation Building Economic Stimulus Plan, a number of other initiatives designed to boost economic activity and support thousands of jobs for Territorians are under way. One of these initiatives is the Energy Efficient Homes initiative which has allocated $3.4bn to provide free ceiling insulation for about 2.2m uninsulated owner/occupied homes with up to $1600 per home. It is estimated that $34m will be invested in the Territory to deliver this Energy Efficient Homes project.
There is a requirement for licensed installers to complete the installation of the insulation. I can report that, prior to Operation Stimulus, there were only two registered licensed installers in the Territory; there are now 16 registered licensed installers. To access the Energy Efficient Homes package, homeowners will need to select an appropriately registered installer to obtain a quote. Once the work has been completed, the installer will be able to claim the rebate directly from the Commonwealth, thereby reducing the time and effort required by the homeowner.
Other benefits to the Northern Territory include: $76m for 185 new Defence homes to be built; $12m for community infrastructure projects delivered by local councils across the Territory; $95m for individual payments of up to $900 for eligible Territorians paid in 2008-09; tax breaks for small Territory businesses of $27m for additional tax deductions for eligible assets.
This stimulus plan has been very successful in underpinning Territory jobs. A very important focus has been on apprenticeships and traineeships. We are leading the country in having the most stable employment of apprentices and trainees. The Department of Education and Training, in conjunction with industry associations, are closely monitoring apprentice and trainee trends in the Northern Territory. What we are finding, which is supported by advice from key industry associations, is while employers are not taking on new apprentices and trainees at the rate they have in the past few years, they are keeping the ones they already have. The current rate of new apprentice and trainee commencements appears to be levelling off from the record intakes we had over the past two years; however, the Northern Territory is still in a far better situation than other jurisdictions. On that positive note, and as is often the case in difficult economic times such as this, apprentice and trainee retention rates are improving.
Through Operation Stimulus, we have seen increased activity in the building and construction sector that has provided a boost for business confidence. We have also seen increased economic growth and increased business from flow-on effects to other sectors of the Northern Territory economy. Operations Stimulus will lead to an improved skills base amongst Territory workers which, in turn, strengthens capacity levels and improves productivity. We will continue to grow the Territory economy and protect Territory jobs.
There is no question this stimulus package has been an incredible success. I am proud of the speed with which the Northern Territory has been able to implement the package - a speed which has been noted nationwide.
I welcome the comments from all members on this statement.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of this statement.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, there are some interesting comparisons to be made in relation to the comments we have just heard from the minister; and another federal funding program which seems to have been the subject of debate in this House in recent times. I shall return to that shortly.
It is interesting to look at the context in which this stimulus package was created. One could be forgiven for thinking the minister was under the impression the Northern Territory government lived in some sort of splendid isolation or, for that matter, the Australian economy lived in some splendid isolation from the rest of the world.
The stimulus packages introduced around the world, particularly in Europe and in the United States, were the impetus and drive behind the stimulus package which was introduced by the federal government. The global financial crisis, or GFC, as it is now commonly referred to, was the product of a chain of events which started with the result of poor banking practices out of the United States; particularly bad loans being repackaged and given AAA ratings, then flogged into Europe and other places – basically the domino effect - when they started falling, the dominos continued falling.
A couple of years ago, I remember hearing when the first of these institutions started to go under. It was on radio, and I remember thinking to myself at the time: goodness, I hope there are not too many of those. It was only a passing thought really, but it is interesting now, in hindsight, that passing thought, if I had followed it to its logical conclusion and done some homework, I may have seen my own superannuation was going to cop the hiding it did cop - like so many other people’s superannuation.
Be that as it may; we then have to talk about the preparedness of government to bring these packages about. These packages are not the product of some magical largesse - it is not like the government can fire up printing presses - mind you, for money supply reasons they did do that in Great Britain. These packages are the product of borrowings.
I then compare Australia, as a nation, and how it positioned itself during the late 1990s and early this decade, with how the Northern Territory has positioned itself. The Australian government in 1996, when it came to power, was confronted with a legacy of debt totalling some $90bn …
Mr Tollner: $96bn.
Mr ELFERINK: $96bn - I thank the member for Fong Lim for his direction. When the dreadful and awful Howard government came to power, they set about creating a system by which we could start to garner and generate wealth for the state; and it was a time, with the exception of the period around 2001, of reasonably strong growth.
As a consequence of re-jigging the tax system, which was opposed by members who now hold the government’s benches in this House, the federal government was able to start paying off that $96bn debt. In doing so, during the good times, they were careful to squirrel that money away, and that squirreling continued, although 2000-01 looked a bit difficult, and Australia’s economy had to adjust itself to a new taxation system. That bedded down fairly quickly and the federal government started doing quite well out of the new taxation system; and so did the state jurisdictions start doing extremely well.
The federal government was probably, as far as the vertical fiscal imbalance is concerned, still the winner between the states and the federal government but, in dollar-terms, the states were doing extremely well. You can track it through the budget papers. As you look at the budget and then the final outcome for each financial year, particularly since 2001 when the new taxation system became operational, you can see the yawning gap between the expected income and the actual income the government has enjoyed.
So, not only do they reap in their predicted increases in income, which have not been insubstantial during that period, but also the unpredicted increases in income. Some of that is because the federal government pumped some money into the Territory government’s coffers for SPPs and, some of it - large slices of it - was unexpected GST revenue; and that GST revenue could have been used to get rid of debt in the Northern Territory. Indeed, a small amount of it was.
With the billions upon billions of extra dollars the Northern Territory received during that period, about $300m was wiped off the net debt situation, probably a little less - an unremarkable achievement. Often we hear the Treasurer come into this place and herald the budget surpluses but, as we all know, getting those budget surpluses was really the equivalent of walking around in the shower and boasting about your capacity and managerial ability in getting wet; it was a natural consequence of the large amounts of money that flowed into the Territory. Some of it was spent on infrastructure, but much of it was spent in other areas which, ultimately, did not produce great results for the Northern Territory.
Whilst we hear, ad nauseum, from the members opposite about all these extra doctors and nurses and police officers, the results on the street and on the front lines are not as edifying as we would hope - numbers of assaults go up; we still have many more presentations at our hospitals than we used to have; our education results, the NAPLAN results, are not improving at all. So, we have this situation where the government has learned how to spend but, less so, have they learnt how to develop results.
What happened? Well, during that period the government was warned by the many commentators, not least members on this side of the House - four of them as they were for part of that period. They were told: ‘You have to start saving some more money, the rainy days are coming’. And did they save more money? No, they did not. What they did was continue to spend the money.
So we have a situation where, in this year’s budget, because of their incapacity to prepare they have to engage in large amounts of borrowing, and we see it now with the tabled papers; they have gone right to the 5% limit, again, on their transfer of assets allocation for the last financial year. In fact, they might have gone over 5% slightly and had to borrow to cover that off from employee entitlements, but I would have to get some advice on that ...
Ms Lawrie: Not true.
Mr ELFERINK: I would have to get some more advice on that, I only had a quick look at it. Well, let us have a look. But it is back to the 5%, going right to the limit; we are racking it up on the Bankcard, and guess what? You read the budget papers and there was a time when the debt-to-income ratio for the Northern Territory, around 2000-01, was described as being in a state of disaster and peril and it was all horrible, and the debt-to-income ratio of 131% was just awful beyond words - it was the end of civilisation as we know it. I wonder why a debt-to-income ratio of 130% is so much nobler.
It turns out one of the things you have to understand when you read the debt-to-income ratio, is you have to factor in the 10-year bond rates; none of that was explained back in 2001, by the way – but, by God, we are relying on it now.
The fact is, this government has chosen to not prepare for the rainy day and, as a consequence, they have to borrow. There is an inconsistency in this philosophy I still do not entirely understand. The inconsistency is this: at no point has the Treasurer, or Access Economics, as far as I am aware, said the Territory was going to slip into a recessive environment. Whilst the federal government was certainly concerned about it, no projections I have seen released by the Territory Treasury, or any other informed commentators, have predicted a recessive environment. Yet, the argument from the Treasurer is we had to borrow as though we were entering into a recessive environment. That has not yet been explained away.
Whilst we have the federal government’s stimulus package being spent here in the Northern Territory, the Northern Territory government decided to engage in a stimulus package of its own by borrowing $200m - in fact, more for this financial year - to prop up a growth economy. On top of that, you have a federal government stimulus package, so you have all of this extra money coming into the Northern Territory - the Territory government’s borrowings as well as the federal government’s borrowings, plus the ongoing investments in an area of a growth in the economy anyhow. What do you expect to see happening?
When you start pump-priming an economy which is still on the right side of zero or 1%, the effect is you start to create a little heat. And how does that heat express itself? I am glad I asked me that question. The heat starts to express itself in things like housing prices. Because there is more money sloshing about in the economy …
Ms Lawrie: Population growth!
Mr ELFERINK: Well, you should be ready for population growth. I pick up on that. Why would the population be coming here? Why would people be coming to the Northern Territory putting pressure on our rental prices and our house prices? Because this is a growth economy. This is where they are coming to seek employment because they are worried about what is happening in other areas.
Much of this happens in spite of government, by the way. They like to claim they are great economic managers but, if you look at their fiscal management, you very quickly realise there is actually a great deal of trouble even joining those simple dots. What do we see? We see pressure on house prices, particularly, and rents start to creep up. Even whilst the rest of the country goes through a bit of a hiatus in housing prices - I notice there is some recovery in the southern states at this point - you are, nevertheless, getting to see all of those impacts from an economy with some heat in it.
We heard today about increasing activity in the gas industry, and we have the prospect of INPEX - touch wood - still coming to the Northern Territory; Greater Sunrise might still be just over the horizon, and they may still go with their floating platform, or they may choose to have a pipeline to Darwin. All of those things bode well for the Territory. On top of all of this, the global financial crisis, or the GFC, may not be as dire as originally expected. That may well be because of international stimulus packages, and I suspect the huge amount of borrowings on the international scene, particularly by the United States and Europe, may have had an effect on, if nothing else, the psychology of the GFC.
However, in Australia and, particularly here in the Northern Territory, you still have the federal government continuing to roll-out the stimulus money and, now, there are some people starting to say: ‘Hang on, do we need to continue priming the economy?’
The Reserve Bank certainly did not use the full arsenal available to it in relation to interest rates. It did not drop them to the levels seen in United States and Europe. In fact, the interest rates went down to about 3.5%, from memory, which means there was still a way to go with monetarist policy. For some reason the federal government chose not to wait for the Reserve Bank to drop interest rates any further. The advice we are getting from the Reserve Bank at the moment is, if interest rates are going to shift, they are going north, not south, which is also indicative of the Reserve Bank’s concerns there is going to be increased activity in the Australian economy.
So the GFC might not be as bad as it was initially anticipated. The stimulus money is now being looked at by some economic players as being excessive and, in the Northern Territory, particularly, we had the operation of the stimulus package, we had the operation of the government’s borrowings, and we had the operation of the rest of the world’s reliance on the petroleum product of the future; namely, liquid natural gas.
All those things combined together are fine for people like me, who owns a nice 1400 m2 at Narrows Road in the Northern Territory, but not fine for the poor people and first homeowners who are trying to get into the marketplace. You exacerbate that bad management, or questionable management, with the real bad management in relation to land releases, and that drives house prices up even further. Fine, if you happen to own a home and did not borrow last year, but the rest of the world has to struggle.
They bang on about Bellamack being such a great success for the people of the Northern Territory; where else in the world do you have to line up to get in a ballot so you are, if you are really lucky, allowed to go into debt for a couple of hundred grand? If you are unlucky, you have to keep paying rent.
I do not know if the Treasurer has ever flown over the Northern Territory; I presume she has. You realise very quickly, from 10 000 feet looking down, there is no land shortage in the Northern Territory. It is an artifice of bad management and bad planning. It is not a reality in any sense of the word.
This brings me to my next issue in relation to the stimulus package, and I pick up particularly on the comments by the minister, where he said the Commonwealth would demand from the Northern Territory government that no more than 4% of the funding is used for project management, and no more than 1.5% of the funding is used for administration purposes. There is another large amount of Commonwealth money in the pipeline for the Northern Territory, and we hear from the minister he is proud of the speed with which the Northern Territory has been able to implement the package.
It is very interesting when you listen to those sorts of comments, because the Northern Territory government has streamlined the whole process of making this package work, and you can see it through all the things the minister has spoken about here today. He has spoken about changing the operation of the Development Consent Authority, and if I have time I will come back to that. He has spoken about the changes to the procurement processes and the thresholds that were used, and all those sorts of things. But, gee whiz, when it comes to SIHIP and you compare how SIHIP has been managed, and you compare it to how this money is being managed, why is it this money can see no more than 5.5% used for project management and administration purposes, when SIHIP has to soak up huge amounts of money for administration and management purposes?
Whilst I hear what the Chief Minister has to say about the cost of delivering materials to remote places, which is not part of the stimulus package, why is it administration alone can be reduced to 1.5% and, in some cases, where the schools apply directly - I understand they are doing it inside their own budget - 100% of the money available through some of these packages in the private schools, at least, is finding its way into bricks and mortar?
Why is it that can happen for the stimulus package, but cannot happen for SIHIP and remote Aboriginal housing? Where is the enthusiasm which has been demonstrated by the minister today in terms of all the streamlining work, in SIHIP? The comparison between the two could not be starker. It just goes to show, if the government has a mind to, it can drive this stuff along. If it does not have a mind to, and does not have the will to drive it from Cabinet, then it gets bogged down in the bureaucratic machine.
We know the government machine can become so bureaucratic because the improvements of this stimulus package forced on the Northern Territory government should have already been in place. What the minister has described is a whole raft of efficiencies which have gone through the delivery of this package to the Northern Territory Public Service, and those efficiencies have seen, according to the minister, dividends being paid, and paid handsomely, to the recipients of that system of administration. Why has that not been in place for the last eight years, or five years? Why was this not done in a more timely fashion?
The procurement process has been the subject of many debates in this House. It is not like the government was unaware there were problems with the procurement thresholds and the procurement system, but when it comes to processing this money, they suddenly discover a way to fix it. This stuff has to be driven from a ministerial and chief ministerial level. If it is not driven from that level, the public service just continues ticking along providing the same service and not much changes.
Is it not amazing what happens when a little passion, a little drive, is brought by government to a particular area? I know government is passionate about the stimulus package because they keep coming into this House telling us how good it is; they are obviously enthusiastic about it. I wish they were just as enthusiastic about SIHIP, because it is a stark comparison.
I return to the Development Consent Authority. The Development Consent Authority has been the recipient of some criticism over recent times, particularly in the Darwin CBD, particularly in relation to the use of merit. We have a situation at the moment where the government wants to bring amendments into the planning scheme, which have caused great concern and great fear in the community for many reasons.
The Planning minister has been what I could only describe as reckless in her approach to this particular issue. The UDAP Report, with which she justifies her proposed planning amendment, says many things which are only picked up in a couple of places by the actual proposed amendments to the planning scheme. The Development Consent Authority has been the source of some of the concerns driving this process, particularly in the area of merit.
I am not going to go on about merit again. Suffice to say there was a time when the Development Consent Authority would have given consideration to what, in the greater scheme of things, would be purely small projects. If you take it on an Australian level, Darwin only started building really tall buildings in more recent years.
I do not wish to cast any aspersions or disrespect on members of the Development Consent Authority. I suspect the time has come to turn our attention to the makeup of the Development Consent Authority and the people who sit on it in terms of expertise and their professional backgrounds. It is time to look at whether we, as a government, should start spending some real money, because they are no longer concentrating on small projects, projects of a few million dollars here or there; they are now being asked to consider projects which will be worth hundreds of millions of dollars. As our city grows there is now room, in my opinion, and as I said, I mean no disrespect to the members of the Authority, to professionalise the Development Consent Authority.
Let us get some professional town planners in there, let us get professional architects in there, people who have experience in this particular field around the world. For that, you have to pay. However, when you come to the Darwin CBD and vet the development of the Darwin CBD, you either create its own authority, which deals with the Darwin CBD exclusively - something I still have sympathy towards - and load it up with exactly the professionals I have just described, or you professionalise the Development Consent Authority to deal with the CBD as well as consideration of the granting of development consents throughout the Northern Territory.
The proposed amendments to the Darwin Planning Scheme are almost universally disliked. Yes, there are some people who would not mind seeing those changes go through, and I would not be at all surprised if the owners of blocks of land on the periphery of Darwin will be delighted to see those changes go through. When developers such as Doug Gamble, and the good citizens of this town, say to the Development Consent Authority with a universal voice, it is a mistake - with the exception of one at a particular meeting I attended - then it is clear the reservations I harboured from day one, for which I was pilloried by the minister when I suggested it would encourage a form Soviet-style architecture, it appears that in pillorying me, she is pillorying all those people, some 200 individuals, as well as professional organisations, who have challenged her proposals.
I demand of the minister, in the face of near universal objections, to give reassurance and comfort to the people of Port Darwin, my electorate, that she will withdraw or not proceed with the proposed amendments to the Planning Scheme. Those changes are too radical. They change the scheme so substantially that people’s livelihoods will be affected.
We heard evidence at that meeting to which I referred, from one particular family whose block value was fundamentally changed. That block represented a large slice of that family’s savings. There are people at the moment who may well have purchased units at the top of tall buildings for the purposes of superannuation or saving. Now, all of a sudden, those sightlines might disappear under the proposal from the minister, and if those sightlines disappear, not only may all those people have an asset that does not accrue, but they may well have an asset that cannot even meet the liabilities they carry for those assets. Such is the radical nature of what is proposed by the minister.
The minister seems to think she lives in some splendid vacuum, and when she makes these determinations or decisions, for some reason they will not affect people. Well, they do affect people and affect them very badly. I would urge the minister to go back to the 1999 plan. I am happy to have the debate about whether merit should be banned entirely or redefined substantially. That is the issue which should be debated, not changing the plan so radically and so completely that it affects so many people in such a negative way.
Madam Speaker, I am not going to ask for an extension of time, although I could continue.
I note the minister has brought the statement into the House, and the most apparent issue in it is the ability of the government to manage this money, in comparison to SIHIP, which it has managed so poorly. When you think about how SIHIP is managed or not managed, I am struck by an article I read in The Australian today. I cannot lay my hands on it, but I believe it was in Gunbalanya where 60 houses were promised under the 99-year lease scheme; they are going to get 17 houses under SIHIP. How that is a good result for the people in that community is an absolute mystery to me.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to support the statement by the Minister for Business. The stimulus package has been, in my view, an unqualified success. It is one of the greatest nation building exercises anyone in this House has seen, or is likely to see, for many years. The stimulus package has proved to be extremely well targeted; it is being delivered across the nation in a way that is the envy of the rest of the world. I am sure Barack Obama is looking on with envy at the speed of delivery, given the bureaucratic tangle many aspects of his own package has been mired in.
The stimulus package has many elements to it. There are the general payments which delivered at least $900 to around 80 000 to 90 000 Territorians; this has injected around $95m into the Territory economy. There have been mixed views about these payments but, obviously, I am a supporter. I believe the Australian consumer is one of the most important players in our economic recovery as a nation. If the Australian consumer spends, the Australian economy benefits, and it is good for our own GST revenue as well. Spending delivers jobs and jobs means security for people, giving them the confidence to invest and spend more. That is why the stimulus package payments were important.
Whilst the Territory consumer remained a strong spender - our level of growth is still around 12% - the confidence shown by Australian consumers overall was quite low. Payments gave people confidence to spend, and that confidence has been infectious. It has lifted confidence across the economy to the benefit of the economy as a whole.
If I had to nominate the part of the package I admire most, it would have to be the infrastructure expenditure on our schools. There are three elements to the package: Primary Schools for the 21st Century, a program aimed at providing each primary school with an infrastructure upgrade; National School Pride Program involving money for repairs and maintenance for schools up to $200 000; and Science and Language Centres in Schools.
To date, around $150m has been approved for expenditure on Territory primary schools - that is $150m to fix and improve our schools. It is nothing short of fantastic, and there will be more. In total, we expect around $254m will be spent on Territory government schools, and $47m on non-government schools from this stimulus package. When we compare that to the total failure of the previous Howard government to invest in infrastructure at all, particularly in schools, it is an extraordinary turnaround.
On top of this, the Territory government has committed $264m worth of expenditure over four years in our schools in the Territory. In total, we can expect more than $550m spent on our schools over the next few years - an astonishing and great figure. This money is being spent on classrooms, halls and facilities across the Territory, for example:
Sadadeen Primary School will get $2m with work now under way; Acacia Hills School will get $50 000 for fixing its outdoor learning area, and $800 000 for more classrooms; Gillen Primary School will get $125 000 for joinery and classrooms, and a further $2m for a multipurpose learning area; Tennant Creek Primary School, $150 000 will be spent on securing the perimeter of the school, and $2.5m for a multipurpose hall; Tennant Creek High School has received almost $2m for a science centre, $3m for a new multipurpose sports facility; and $1.3m will be spent on a Tennant Creek Training Centre. That is a massive boost for Tennant Creek in facilities for education.
In Palmerston: Bakewell Primary School will get $3m for hall extensions and a classroom, $200 000 for beautification works, $2.5m for a new library, and $150 000 for energy efficiency and Occupational Health and Safety; $2.5m for a classroom block and library extension at Durack Primary School; $2.5m at Moulden Park Primary School for a library extension and hall extension. It is absolutely fantastic, and there is more to come.
In our 20 growth towns, schools are, or will be, upgraded: at Papunya, $850 000 for a resource centre, and $75 000 for repairs; $2m for a classroom block at Ntaria School, along with a further $125 000 for an outdoor learning area; $850 000 for classroom refurbishments at Yuendumu, and $75 000 for school beautification projects; $1.7m for a school upgrade at Ramingining, along with $125 000 for cabling upgrades; Borroloola School has been rebuilt by the Territory government as part of our 2005 election commitments and will now get a further $2m for a multipurpose facility, and $125 000 for a perimeter fence; Maningrida School will get $3m for a resource centre, $1.9m for a language centre and $200 000 for beautification projects - an amazing $5.1m to be spent at Maningrida School; Millingimbi School will get $2.5m for classrooms, $1.9m for a science centre, and $150 000 for security.
I could go on for some time, but all our schools across the Territory are getting significant upgrades as a result of this stimulus package and Northern Territory government funding.
It is to the opposition’s eternal shame they opposed this package. All our schools across the Northern Territory are getting funding they otherwise would not have if the opposition were on the Treasury benches.
As I said, this is not limited to government schools; non-government schools will receive an expected total of approximately $47m. It is the most extensive makeup and upgrade of schools in Australia’s history, and when you combine that with my government’s commitments, you get a major upgrade of schools across the Territory. Not only does this mean better facilities for educating young Territorians, it also means jobs.
I recently had dinner with a number of contractors in the construction field who have been involved with various projects over many years. To a person, they are staggered with the work flowing through from these projects. They were at first considering reducing the scale of their workforce, and now they are looking for more workers. That is exactly what this package was designed to achieve - more jobs, more confidence, more work - and, cleverly, the Rudd government has combined that outcome with a major nation-building exercise around our schools.
The next key element of this package is associated with social housing. As all members know, the costs associated with housing across Australia are enormous. We are working with the Commonwealth to deliver 750 new homes under SIHIP. I will take a couple of minutes to talk about the member for Port Darwin trying to compare SIHIP with this program. They are totally different. SIHIP is an alliance partnering contract, totally different to the design and construct process that government uses. There is an enormous training component to SIHIP, as well as a requirement to negotiate 40-year leases. We have been up hill and down dale over the last few weeks in this House about this, and some people just do not listen to the difference between these two programs.
In addition, we have increased our own investment in providing social housing. Our budget this year for housing as a whole is in the order of $390m. In addition, the federal government’s stimulus package has provided $11.2m for both building and repairing existing public housing; and we are awaiting the results of round 2. This next round will be focused on providing much needed emergency and short-term housing. The Territory government has put forward a comprehensive plan to ensure that emergency and short-term housing is focused where it is needed
When we combine the efforts in all areas of housing with the stimulus package, it is obvious we are in for a period of extensively adding to our overall housing stock, and I welcome that. In addition to social housing, the federal government has committed more to Defence housing; to date, $76m has been approved for expenditure in the Territory.
The stimulus package also goes to boom gates and black spots funding. In addition, it is estimated the likely outcome for energy efficient homes will be $34m, and councils have benefited from $12m.
To date, $244m is being expended in the Territory as a result of this package; with the expectation the total final expenditure will possibly be as high as $628m - a great outcome for the Territory. In addition to that, the Territory government pledged immediate support for the package and geared up to deliver on it, and I am proud of the efforts we have made in that regard. As the Minister for Business said, we immediately acted to reduce red tape around procurement by lifting the quote level to $200 000.
We have held stimulus summits to inform business, recently hosted a call-back summit, and we also established industry reference groups to ensure the industry had input into the way the package was rolled out. We responded rapidly and well to the difficult deadline set by the federal government, and I am extremely proud of the work being done by all those people engaged at agency level in rolling out this program.
The stimulus package is a great nation building package. It will have the effect of delivering on jobs and stimulating confidence in the community. It will provide more impetus to the development of national infrastructure, such as schools and housing. I am a great supporter of this program and look forward to the ongoing roll-out of it.
I put on record my thanks to the very good public servant who has been coordinator-general of this package, Alastair Shields. Alastair has done an amazing job pulling this together. I also thank the coordinators-general in all affected government agencies, and the working groups. Our public service has really done us proud in pulling together and getting this work to the benefit of business, to the economy, and jobs in the Northern Territory. So, to all of those public servants, through Alastair Shields, who have worked so hard on getting this work out, my personal thanks as Chief Minister.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend the statement.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Deputy Speaker, I support the statement because the federal government’s stimulus package, the Nation Building and Jobs Plan, is supporting our national economy to ward off the effects of the global economic downturn.
The global economic crisis was the worst global decline since The Great Depression. Late last year, the International Monetary Fund slashed its projections for the 2009 global growth to between minus 0.5% to minus 1%, significantly lower than its estimate of 2.2% issued in November 2008. We are now seeing signs recovery from the deep global recession has started. The International Monetary Fund’s latest forecast projects global economic growth reaching 2.5% in 2010. This improvement has largely been due to government intervention.
The federal government’s $42bn response to the economic crisis, the Nation Building and Jobs Plan, was swift and decisive, targeted at protecting Australian jobs. This plans aims to stimulate the national economy and avoid recession by achieving economic growth of 0.5% in 2008-09, and between 0.75% and 1% in 2009-10. The package is to be spent over four years, and took a three-pronged approach with: direct cash payments to stimulate spending in the community; tax breaks to support business investment; and the largest ever federal investment in infrastructure in our nation for schools, public and defence housing and roads. At the time of announcing this package, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry said the package is good for business, stating the package will encourage business to go out and invest and employ.
Cash payments predominantly targeted at low-income households, provided an effective means to quickly and positively support consumer demand and, thereby, jobs, particularly in the retail sector. These payments were estimated to be worth $95m to Territory families. While the Territory enjoys the strongest retail growth, year-on-year in the nation, the timing of the cash payments was important to maintaining confidence in the economy. There has been much said about the cash payments, and we know the members opposite sold out the Territory by not supporting the $42bn stimulus plan. They did not want Territory families to benefit from the $900 cash payments, and they did not want that crucial support for jobs.
If we look at the data, recent retail sales figures show retail growth in Australia reached 5.2% from November 2008 to the end of June this year. This compares to 1.8% in retail growth sales in the proceeding seven months - what a turnaround. The stimulus plan also targeted business investment with significant tax breaks for purchases of new equipment.
There are 12 000 small businesses across the Territory. The federal tax breaks were estimated to provide up to a combined $27m in tax relief for these Territory businesses, subject, of course, to take-up. Businesses welcome tax breaks and I am sure many operators welcomed these tax breaks particularly targeted at investment which, in turn, would support their business growth. The tax cuts provided an additional 30% tax deduction for eligible assets costing $1000 or more purchased from 13 December 2008 to 30 June this year, and installed by 30 June 2010. Businesses purchasing eligible assets from 1 July 2009 to 30 December this year and having them installed by 30 December 2010, can claim an additional 10% tax deduction; if you like, a set-down effect.
The federal government advertised this package widely to inform business of the opportunities, including significant advertising in the Territory. I heard from many Territory businesses what a great incentive and opportunity these tax deductions were in terms of the purchase of assets. They particularly liked the recognition from the federal government, through the stimulus package, of purchase at one point, and installation at a later date.
The infrastructure investment component of the Nation Building and Jobs Plan is immense for the Territory. In dollar terms, the package is estimated to be worth about $600m to the Territory’s economy. Benefits to the Territory over four years include an estimated $300m for school infrastructure and maintenance; $76m for Defence housing, that is 185 new Defence homes; $65m for new public and community housing and repairs; $34m for energy efficient homes, including free ceiling insulation, and increased solar hot water rebate; $29m for black spot funding, rail crossing boom gates, regional road repairs and community infrastructure projects, funding to councils; $27m in tax breaks for Territory businesses, and $95m in individual payments to Territorians.
The Territory has done extremely well from this package, more than our fair share. The benefits are already being seen across the Territory with $300m for school infrastructure; $65m for public and community housing, and $17m for repairs to regional roads, black spot funding and rail safety improvements. When I say more than our fair share, we are already receiving more stimulus funding than we would in a per capita carve up. This investment will leave a legacy of improved schools, better roads and more housing. It is targeted in the right areas; the areas where we know we have the most need.
Already, three hundred contracts have been met across the Territory. This has seen more than $220m injected into the economy. Right now this package is supporting jobs across the construction sector and our wider economy. The total infrastructure component of the stimulus plan has been estimated to support between 1400 and 1600 jobs across the Territory. This is money for jobs for the Territory, and this is the stimulus package the CLP wanted to oppose.
The stimulus plan was targeted at protecting jobs immediately by getting the funding to what we call shovel-ready projects. The federal government set very tight time lines and the Territory government responded quickly to implement this major package. We recognised to get this package where it was needed we would need to streamline procurement processes and work closely with industry. This strategy formed part of our five-point plan to respond to the package. The five points also included: increasing the capacity of the Development Consent Authority to fortnightly, rather than monthly meetings; a summit of our construction industry leaders to brief industry and get ideas on the table; the dedicated Stimulus Action Squads set up in government departments to get the projects up and running as fast as possible, making it even easier for local companies to get local projects; the review of procurement, which the Minister for Business went through. This has been very well supported by the business community, and has addressed areas where they wanted to see change: increased thresholds for quotes significantly improved business processes, cutting the paperwork involved in 40% of all contracts.
The Henderson government has a strong record of supporting Territory business. In the procurement review we were also focused on ensuring work flowed through to Territory businesses. Under the changes, contracts let on quotes must use Territory companies, unless an exemption is given. Combined with our 20% local preference requirement, these measures were designed to increase the chances of local companies getting the jobs. The changes to procurement are significant, and were focused on streamlining administration. The changes have also ensured transparency and given everyone a fair go. The changes we have seen have already been a success, evidenced by more than 300 contracts already let under the plan, in addition to the contracts being rolled out under our own record infrastructure budget. As part of the five-point plan we have boosted the resources for the DCA with five more planners, and the Darwin and Litchfield divisions of the DCA now meet more than monthly.
DPI is also working with the DCA to have formal notification to applicants occur more quickly after meetings, if possible, the next business day. This initiative has been welcomed by developers in the construction industry, and we will monitor whether other divisions of the DCA need to meet fortnightly, or more frequently.
In addition, my agency has established the development a one-stop shop to provide streamlined …
Mr BOHLIN: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I would like to draw the House’s attention to the state of the House.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ring the bells.
A quorum is now present.
Ms LAWRIE: The development of a one-stop shop comprises pre-application meetings with the planner to assist with the preparation of applications, allocation of a planner to guide applicants through the assessment process, pre-application planning forums, and pre-application briefings on the Development Consent Authority. They sound simple words to read out, but that is a dramatic change to the way developers are facilitated through the planning processes.
These services are supported by a website through which applicants can book appointments online, and includes direct links to information and the websites of participating agencies. A pre-application planning forum is held each Friday to allow prospective applicants to meet with representatives from a range of agencies involved in the all-important development assessment process. Pre-application briefings with the DCA allow prospective applicants to book an appointment to brief the members of the DCA and receive their feedback and questions on any forthcoming proposal. Reception to this new initiative has been positive, with 100 applications or inquiries recorded since the service started.
The government is getting on with the job of delivering the record infrastructure investment under the stimulus plan. The Department of Education and Training has awarded 292 contracts totalling over $204m. The Department of Local Government and Housing has awarded four contracts totalling more than $2.3m. Eight contracts under the road/rail package have been awarded, totalling over $14m. The work has been distributed through the Territory, benefiting Territorians right across our regions. In the Central Australian region, 82 contracts totalling over $34.3m have been awarded. The Barkly region has had 20 contracts totalling over $11.77m awarded. The Katherine region has had 55 contracts totalling over $30.4m awarded. Palmerston and Litchfield regions had 30 contracts totalling over $30.8m awarded. Top End rural area has had 25 contracts totalling over $14m awarded.
The East Arnhem region has had 35 contracts totalling $36m awarded in Education. There are also two Territory-wide contracts which have been awarded totalling over $13m, one in Housing and one in road/rail. In Darwin, 54 contracts have been awarded totalling over $50m, 51 in Education, two in Housing, and one in road/rail. The whole $12m roads package for our highways is already complete. This is just a start, and it has already delivered a direct injection of $220m into our economy.
I talk regularly to business operators, and they welcome this important infrastructure spending. Apart from the direct benefits which flow with increased construction spending - whether in the supply industry, building industry, the engineering and technical services sector - they also see the benefits in the legacy of this infrastructure: better schools for our students, science and language laboratories, and new school assembly areas. They see the benefits in jobs and training opportunities, in the extra public and community housing for our growing population; and like our budget with the targeted record investment in infrastructure to support jobs, they see this federal stimulus as integral to keeping and building the skilled workforce we have across our construction sector.
In my own electorate, constituents have welcomed this investment. Karama Primary School will receive a $124 000 extension to the school canteen, and $2m for a multipurpose area. Malak Primary School is receiving $125 000 to upgrade the quadrangle area. Malak Primary School has been a big winner in this package with $1m for an enclosed assembly hall, which is NT government funding, and $2m for the administration building upgrade to provide a meeting place. Manunda Terrace Primary has $125 000 for minor works for the canteen, caretaker’s residence, and early years play area. O’Loughlin College has $404 000 for a science laboratory; and Manunda Terrace Primary $2m for a library. The Holy Family Primary School has $2m for a library and an outdoor learning centre. Marrara Christian School receives $2.79m for a library.
This program is delivering much needed, new state-of-the-art facilities, and also jobs to our local construction sector. This is truly a win/win for our community.
I know members opposite opposed the nation building plan and they oppose the stimulus package. I heard the nonsense from the shadow Treasurer in debate today that it was not really needed because we have growth economy here in the Territory. He needs to have a good conversation with the Chamber of Commerce and the Territory Construction Association. If you talk to industry groups they all say this came with perfect timing, because we all knew it would occur and it has occurred as a consequence of the global financial crisis. Credit, in the early stages of the financial crisis, simply was no longer available. Credit markets froze, and when credit started to free up, for private investment, the price was just too high.
What we knew would occur as a result of the global financial crisis and, to an extent, is still occurring, private sector investment contracted dramatically. So, we were already in a growth economy in the Territory, and we continue to be in a growth economy but, if government had not stepped up through the stimulus package of the federal government and through our own infrastructure spending of $1.3bn, we would be in real strife, because government needed to step into the space where private sector contraction was occurring. That is exactly what we did.
The federal government did it quickly, swiftly, and decisively. Equally, the Territory government did it quickly, swiftly, and decisively. We matched the speed of the federal government’s $900 stimulus package to individuals, which was there to boost the retail sector and consumption spending, with something unique to the Territory’s circumstances - Buildstart. It was our stimulus response - we implemented Buildstart. We are the only jurisdiction to do it, because we saw the opportunity, with falling interest rates, to bring the investors back into the housing market to create that important rental stop.
I find it bizarre for the shadow Treasurer to think because we are a growth economy there was no need for the federal stimulus spending to come into the Territory, and certainly no need for the Territory’s own $1.3bn investment in Budget 2009-10 in infrastructure spending. A strange line to run. No wonder the business sector thinks the shadow Treasurer is out of touch with their needs. They recognise that we responded in a considered and decisive fashion, from the Buildstart stimulus through to the construction of the 2009-10 Budget and the delivery of that budget.
They recognised we heard the concerns that were occurring, because we are accessible and we are available. I, as Treasurer, and the Chief Minister, continue to do this, to meet with the financial banking sector in the Territory. They know what is on their books and what is happening to their business customers and their home customers. We also meet frequently with the construction sector; we hear them, they let us know what is going on in the industry and where government needs to be directing its effort and attention.
The opposition would like to think a growth economy just happens by accident - that is not true - it takes strong financial management from the government of the day to recognise where the needs are, to read the trends, respond to issues appropriately, but also show restraint. I know, I have sat around Cabinet budget tables and seen restraint shown when it is required, as it was with this recent budget. We directed focused spending into the area of stimulus need with $1.3bn investment in infrastructure.
We continue growth spending in core areas of police, health, and education. We are focused in what we do and how we are doing it. We are committed to continuing to close the gap on Indigenous disadvantage, which is why we see growth funds continue and be isolated and protected in that area of the budget. We are not touching that area. We continue to provide the savings we will need to implement our step-out plan out of deficit and back into surplus. We have guaranteed we will quarantine the Closing the Gap funds in forward budget projections, because we know we have enormous needs across the regions of the Territory.
We are very confident about where this Territory is headed, and business shares that confidence. We are the latest emerging oil and gas hub in the world. We will, I am sure, be competitive against Perth in a marine supply base. We are perfectly positioned and engaged for that, and our port is working on it. The Chief Minister’s Department is also working on it, with Treasury and others. We are going to do that work.
It is interesting to listen to people who say they nearly, could have, maybe, might have, predicted the global crisis - they did not. What did occur is the federal government and the Territory government both responded quickly and decisively to ensure we protected jobs. We could have had disastrous unemployment, but we saw the figures coming and we warded it off. We are still in recovery mode in terms of the broader global economy, but the Territory economy is strong and it will continue to grow stronger.
Madam Speaker, I commend the statement to the House.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Speaker, I support the statement by the Minister for Business on progress made in implementing the federal government’s stimulus package and of the further plans for the package.
This is particularly important for the Northern Territory - and nationally - given the impact of the global financial crisis.
Many people say: ‘Financial crisis in the Territory?’ The reality is we are not immune to the effects of the global financial crisis. Yes, we fare better than other states; we have done well here in the Territory; there are still many jobs and people are asking for workers rather than closing down businesses - but we are not immune.
We have weathered the influx very well. The stimulus package has strengthened our economic position, and will continue to do so - there are challenging times ahead, but the economic outlook is improved.
Nationally, business confidence amongst small to medium enterprises has rebounded strongly during the past quarter, the strongest increase in a single quarter in the 16-year of survey. Small and medium enterprises remain strongly supportive of the economic stimulus measures, and Territory businesses were the least impacted by the economic conditions.
Nationally, businesses had sought to reduce costs and increase advertising response to the current economic conditions. The Sensis report shows clearly what business thinks about future potential, especially here in the Territory, and I read from the Sensis report:
- The Northern Territory again recorded the highest level of confidence among small and medium sized enterprises of any state or territory.
SMEs in the Northern Territory reported the highest nett perceptions of the current state of the Australian economy.
Performance rose in sales, employment, wages and capital expenditure in the past quarter, with SMEs in the Northern Territory recording the highest performance in the past quarter of any state or territory for sales, employment, wages and prices
Looking forward, the Northern Territory recorded the highest expectations among SMEs of any state or territory for the coming quarter ...
Also, the support for the Territory government is the second highest in Australia, following Western Australia. The main reason SMEs gave support to the Northern Territory government include a belief we are trying to help small business; we talk with or consult with business, where possible, and provide good management training programs for small business.
In February this year, the Australian government delivered a $42bn Nation Building and Jobs Plan. This stimulus package provided direct payments to stimulate expenditure; delivered tax breaks to ensure ongoing business investment; and supported employment through massive infrastructure investment, especially when it came to our schools, Defence houses and roof insulation.
In seeking to ensure the urgent roll-out of the stimulus package, the Northern Territory responded with its own five-point plan.
So, what has this government done to assist? The answer is: we have achieved a great deal already. The Development Consent Authority is to meet every fortnight instead of every month. To meet demand, DPI has employed five more planners. A one-stop shop has been implemented by this government to assist developers. We have hosted summits of construction industry leaders. Two information summits have been held on these projects. We have put into place a Coordinator-General and established Stimulus Action Squads. A Coordinator-General has been appointed in association with the federal government’s arrangement to work through any challenges that arise. The departments of Housing, Education and Planning have staff dedicated to the implementation of the stimulus package. An industry reference group has been established to work with the public service and to provide advice on the implementation of the stimulus plan.
We are making it easy for local companies to win local projects. We are reviewing the guidelines to streamline development processes and cut red tape. The threshold for quotes has been reviewed to reduce the amount of paperwork involved. Contracts let on quotes must use Territory companies, unless there are no local suppliers. As the former Minister for Business and Employment, it is an area in which I have a particular interest.
The new thresholds are: Tier 1 requires one quote for contracts up to $15 000 where previously it was $5000; Tier 2 requires a minimum of three written quotes for contracts up to $50 000 where it used to be $10 000; Tier 3 is a minimum of three written quotes with minimum Contractor Accreditation Limited (CAL) accreditation for $50 000 up to $200 000; Tier 4 is full public tender with Assessment Criteria weightings made public - $200 000 to $5m, which used to start at $50 000; Tier 5 is the same as Tier 4 but also requires industry participation plan for over $5m.
To make sure Territory businesses get a fair go under these changes, we have:
Ensured the use of the Agency Procurement Requisition Online System for all procurements above $15 000. It allows everyone, in addition to those invited to quote, to put in an expression of interest for quotations over $50 000.
Public disclosure threshold for the assessment criteria weightings have been reduced from $1m to $200 000, and
Senior procurement officers have been outposted in government agencies to improve professionalism across government.
The stimulus package will be worth more than $600m over four years with the majority of the package to be delivered throughout 2008-09 and 2009-10. This will assist in boosting economic activity and in supporting jobs right here in the Territory.
The stimulus package is delivering: greater business activities for the building and construction industry and its suppliers; maintaining existing jobs and creating new positions; increased business for the professional and technical services sector; and increased economic growth including a flow-on affect to other sectors of the economy.
In monetary terms, it will provide around: $65m for public and community housing; $95m for individual payments to Territorians; $29m for repairs to regional roads, black spot funding and railway crossing boom gates and community infrastructure facilities; and $300m for school infrastructure.
When it comes to school infrastructure and maintenance, schools in my electorate have been beneficiaries. Alawa Primary School has received $125 000 for engaged play area. Nakara Primary School has received $150 000. Dripstone Middle School has received $200 000 for a shade project, and Casuarina Senior College has received …
Mr BOHLIN: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I call attention to the state of the House.
Madam SPEAKER: Ring the bells.
A quorum is present.
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Speaker, let me repeat what I was saying before: Casuarina Senior College has received $200 000 for a designated covered drop-off area.
The stimulus package will also deliver when it comes to regional roads: $12m in repairs to be completed on the National Highway Network comprising the Stuart, Victoria and Barkly Highways; includes contracts for the Darwin, Katherine and Tennant regions; and additional works have also been carried out in Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs.
The Minister for Business has outlined the important and significant contribution the stimulus package has offered to the Territory, and I seek to outline a range of initiatives by this government which will continue to support and stimulate the exploration and mining sectors during a very challenging time, both globally, and here in the Territory.
The stimulus has put a lot of money into the Territory, but this government is not relying only upon the stimulus, this government is actively supporting industry, is actively promoting the Territory as a destination for mineral exploration and for mining and the resources sector. We have seen the economic crisis hit the mining sector particularly hard; it hit the exploration sector because credit was not available for minor explorers. We have supported the explorers because we can now provide $1-for-$1 up to $100 000 for explorers to undertake exploration in agreed areas to provide us with a geoscientific data, and also to complete their explorations.
In addition, we have actively promoted the Territory as a mining destination. We are the only jurisdiction in Australia that has an active China investment attraction strategy. Other states now are copying our initiative. Western Australia and Victoria tried to find out how we did it, and they are trying to put the same package together to promote their jurisdiction to China. Western Australia relied for too long upon their existence as the mineral supplier in Australia, and was particularly hard hit by the world economic decline. The Chinese steel mills stopped buying iron ore and a number of mines in Western Australia had to cut down employment and mothball facilities because they could not sell the iron ore.
Recently, we have seen the Premier of Western Australia urgently undertaking a trip to China trying to persuade the Chinese steel mills to recommence buying iron ore from Western Australia. We have been there a long time; we have been there for four years, and have developed relations. This afternoon, I had representatives from the Chinese company, MCC, who came to the Territory to meet with us and a PNG company to discuss joint ventures with regard to resources in the Northern Territory. We had East China Exploration and Development Bureau forming a joint venture with Arafura Resources; they have paid $25m to take over 25% of Arafura Resources. We have Hunan Resources completely overtaking the Batchelor polymetallic mine where they are developing, on their own, a new facility to extract cobalt and copper from that mine.
We have travelled widely. I have been to China and as late as May, targeting Shanghai, meeting with the Shanghai Jiangxi Chamber of Commerce and the Shanghai Wenzhou Chamber of Commerce. Everywhere we went we promoted the Territory and, with the presentations we made, we believe we have done a great deal of work for the Territory, for Territorians, for companies in the Territory and, as a result, thousands of new jobs will be created in the near future by the sheer volume of minerals China will need for its reconstruction.
We are recognised now as the leaders in China investment attraction strategy. However, we have not stopped there. We have travelled to Japan to promote the Territory, and we had a very good result with Itochu buying a large area for exploration in the Roper Valley looking for iron ore. Recently, I went to Perth to present a seminar on mineral potential in the Territory to a significant number of Japanese investors; also present were the Council General of Japan and a high-ranking official of the Japanese ministry which explores for mineral resources overseas. During a uranium conference in Fremantle, in Western Australia, a significant number of Japanese investors talked to the people in our booth about the potential of the Territory.
In addition, we are well known for our can-do attitude. We had an American investor in the booth in Fremantle extremely frustrated because he has a uranium ore body in Queensland which he cannot touch because Queensland has a no uranium mining policy. He asked us if he could export the ore from Queensland and process it in the Territory. I wished him very good luck with Anna Bligh. He is very keen because he heard from many people you can do business in the Territory and, instead of putting obstacles in the way of business, government departments actually facilitate your business to progress.
I am very pleased with the outcomes from the activities of the department, and I congratulate the people in my department for developing the China Investment Strategy; for travelling and promoting, in person, the interests of the Territory overseas; working with and helping companies, and facilitating meetings with companies which have interests in the Territory with Chinese companies.
We have seen the results from areas which have been affected by the economic downturn. GBS Gold closed its mines a few months ago in Katherine, but now we have a Canadian company, Crocodile Gold, which has purchased all the assets of GBS Gold in the Pine Creek area for $51m; a deal which will see gold mining recommence in the Pine Creek area this year.
The most recent ABS exploration expenditure figures suggest the Territory exploration industry performed stronger than other jurisdictions during the early stages of the financial crisis. The expenditure for the December 2008 quarter was a new quarterly record for the Territory of $45.5m. That was a 19% increase over the same quarter the previous year, the highest increase of any state or territory.
The ABS figures also show while the Territory continued to strongly increase its exploration expenditure in the second half of 2008, some competitive states such as South Australia had sharply declining expenditure levels.
The current very high levels of international investment in the Territory’s exploration and mining industry, particularly from China, Japan and Canada, are underpinning the sustained exploration of the Territory’s resources during the current resources downturn. Yesterday, I received a press release from Denver, Colorado, saying the Hartley petroleum company announced they have undertaken a study of the Beetaloo Basin, and they estimate an undiscovered 80 billion barrels of oil and 64 trillion cubic feet of gas in the Beetaloo Basin. Of course, this has to be proved by exploration.
However, Falcon Petroleum has purchased all the interests of Sweetpea Corporation, the company which previously explored Beetaloo, and have paid up to $1.5m of Sweetpea’s debts, which indicates these people are here seriously, they are not coming here just to have a look – no one who comes to have a look would pay debts of $1.5m. Obviously, these people know something we did not know, because there has not been much geological exploration done, to date, in that area. I have to say the Territory is virtually unexplored and now we are putting the effort in, we keep discovering more and more mineral resources.
In closing, the initiatives of the Henderson Labor government in directly assisting implementation of the stimulus package, and supporting our exploration and mining sectors through its dedicated investment attraction strategies, is making a difference for the Territory. While the Territory has weathered the impact of the global financial crisis well, its impacts are still with us. The economic outlook has improved in recent times, but our government is determined to work even harder to ensure the Territory is protected from any economic downturn.
Debate adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Much has been happening at Leanyer Primary School - the Territory government funded $2m upgrade is nearly finished, giving the school four new classrooms and a completely new safe drop-off zone. Leanyer Primary School also received $3.2m from the federal government’s Building the Education Revolution, which has allowed them to build an upgraded assembly hall, resurface a basketball court, and provide new shade around the school. Leanyer Primary recently held their middle and upper primary concert, dubbed ‘Let’s Party!’ - and a party it was. Even though I could not be there, I was told it was a fantastic event; apparently the audience got right into it, even, at one point, dancing in the aisles.
The principal, Henry Gray, would like me to thank all the wonderful students in Years 4, 5, and 6, who were impeccably behaved; and also the Years 4, 5, and 6 teachers and support staff: Ms Visentin, Mrs Bevin, Ms Bartholomew, Mrs Maddock, Mr Nieminski, Mrs O’Gallagher, Mrs Hyde, Mr Foulkes, Mr Charman, as well as Mrs Scally, Mrs Reissis, and Mrs Nayda.
Henry would also like to thank Mrs Albion, the Assistant Principal, and the NT Music School staff: Mrs Lewis, Mr Sutton and Mr Hall, as well as the many other people who helped on the night to organise it.
I would also like to give big congratulations to students. Madam Speaker, I seek to incorporate those names.
Leave granted.
Perfect Attenders for Term 2
Module 1:
- Ryan McNamee, Keefir Lewis, Rebecca Woods
Module 2:
- Jeremiah Sadicon, Braden Vong, Chandra Rogers, Eric Zhu, Vivian Vong, Dustyn Lane, Victoria Goodman, Jack Clapson
Module 3:
Mayatili Picton, Joseph Ella-Tjung, Briana Pilicic, Maddison Purnell, Yazmin Robin-Cameirao, Jayde McCauley, Ryan De Vries, Rachel Byrne
Module 4:
Axel Milne, Brian Regi, Karla Duncan, Nur Juraidi, Roslyn Lane, Kirstie Park, Katherine Rideout, Jasmine Ristevski, Jasveen Kaur, Claudia Ennis, Courtney Pilicic, Alicia Scrimegour
Demountables:
Tara Bishop, Ashwin Kaur, Lauren Maddock, Mathew Sheedy, Ella Wild, Sarah Banks, Samuel Cooper, Joshua Pammit, Rhiannon Bishop, Shaana Bheu
Semester 1
Module 1:
Rebecca Woods
Module 2:
Chandra Rogers, Vivian Vong
Module 3:
Joseph Ella-Tjung, Briana Pilicic, Jayde McCauley
Module 4:
Axel Milne, Roslyn Lane, Kirstie Park, Jasveen Kaur, Claudia Ennis
Demountables:
Tara Bishop, Ashwin Kaur, Lauren Maddock, Sarah Banks, Samuel Cooper, Rhiannon Bishop
Mr HENDERSON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. These students were perfect attendees in Term 2 at Leanyer Primary School. As we all know, attendance is very important for our children to learn, and Leanyer certainly do some amazing things to encourage all children to be at school every day, and on time. It is great to be at their assemblies to recognise the students who receive certificates for being perfect attendees.
Wanguri Primary School is also a construction site at the moment, having received $2m from the federal Building the Education Revolution program for a new multipurpose learning area, which they have planned and will start building in October. They also received $125 000 to go towards new carpets, painting, wall panels, and signage around the school.
The Wanguri-Canberra trip is fast becoming a tradition at the school. Every year a group of six children travel to our capital, Canberra, to learn all about politics and governments as part of their Civics and Citizenship studies. This year, there are 14 students, as well as Jenny Robertson, our Principal, and four other helpers.
I thank the member for Solomon for taking the time to give them a tour around Parliament House, and I hear they also got a wave from the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister.
I welcome Judith Armstrong, the Assistant Principal at Wanguri, who takes over from Leah Crockford. I thank Leah for the hard work and great contribution she made to Wanguri Primary. Judith comes from Jingili Primary, she is a wonderful AP, and I am sure she will fit right in at Wanguri.
I take this opportunity to welcome Mrs Caroline Edwards as the new Principal at Henbury School. Caroline has worked at Henbury for some time now, and I know she will look after the school fantastically.
Henbury is also one of the big winners from the federal stimulus package. They have received $850 000 to extend and refurbish the school, and $75 000 for work around the grounds. Henbury is a great school and it is wonderful to see so much happening there.
I thank Michael Jones, the Acting Principal at Sanderson Middle School, who had been the Principal at Henbury for some five or six years. Michael did a fantastic job at Henbury, and I wish him all the best in his new challenge at Sanderson Middle School.
Recently, I headed down to the community of Lyons in my electorate for a fabulous afternoon of activities. It is the second time Lyons has held a family fun day, and it is fast becoming an institution. This year the theme was ‘Our Own Australia Day’. All things Aussie were on the agenda including football, meat pies, snags on the barbie, Holden cars, and vegemite sandwiches. Rotary raised $1700 via a donation from Lyons, and cooked the sausages for everyone there. Wanguri Pre-School and St Andrew’s Lutheran School also had a chance to fund raise through the stalls they set up.
The day was a huge success with over 1000 people attending and over 200 people staying on for a special screening of the Baz Lurhmann epic movie Australia. It was great to see such a turnout at such a wonderful community event.
I pay particular thanks to Sharon Feist who is the Community Affairs Manager at Lyons. Sharon is doing a fantastic job working with Canberra Investments in the sale of properties, and also working really hard at the community centre and making Lyons such a wonderful new suburb of Darwin.
Mrs AAGAARD (Nightcliff): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank and congratulate the Department of the Legislative Assembly for the excellent Open Day held here in Parliament House on Saturday, 15 August. I congratulate all those people involved, and the staff in my department. A great deal of work goes into organising such an event and the lead-up and the amount of effort was considerable.
I thank, in particular, Caroline Cavenagh, the Director of the Public Relations and Education Unit, and her staff: Karen Parker and Phyllis Mitchell; the staff who assisted visitors at the Open Day; other staff, Maria Viegas, Alice Tsang, Brenda Reid, Robert Donovan, Jo Burgess, Karen Philp, Vishal Mohan-Ram, and Tony Hibberd; the Public Tour guides who conducted three tours and assisted visitors throughout the day, Pearl Ogden - who gave a talk on the heritage of State Square - and Jane Farr; the security staff who worked on the day - Sam Day-Johnston, Esther Pesti, Nick, Yanni and Loz; the Statehood Steering Committee staff, including our new Executive Officer Michael Tatham, and a number of committee members who also attended; as well as staff who assisted with setting up the displays - Tony Hibberd, Jo Burgess, and Steve Castillon. I also thank the Clerk and the Deputy Clerk for their involvement.
In particular, I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, as member for Nhulunbuy who, with me and the members for Port Darwin and Drysdale, spoke to the many visitors who were here.
I understand about 1000 people came into the parliament on that day. It was an excellent opportunity to have both Government House and the Supreme Court open at the same time. I thank His Honour, Mr Tom Pauling QC for agreeing to that, and also the Chief Justice of the Northern Territory, Mr Brian Martin.
I hope to do this again, and I hope more members will be involved the next time we do this.
Mr STYLES (Sanderson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I talk tonight about the achievements of some wonderful people at Anula Primary School: two of the teaching staff, Mrs Nadia Gooding and Mrs Kim Bond, who put tireless effort into organising the recent 2009 walkathon at the school which raised a whooping $5000. This is an incredible effort put in by these people, and none more important than the participants, the students, who got sponsorship for this walkathon and helped raise the $5000.
The young people who really need to be acknowledged in this are the people who won the prizes for the first, second and third highest amounts of money raised. The first prize went to a lovely young lady, Taylah McKinnon, who raised $421, which is a substantial fundraising effort given they did not have a lot of time to do this; she went out and worked, sought sponsorship and raised that fantastic amount of money.
Second prize winner for the second highest amount was Chloe Fernandez and she raised $244 - a magnificent effort.
Chloe was followed very closely in third place by Talia Corrie, with the amount $171.
Merit certificates were handed out for the efforts of a number of students who raised substantial amounts of money, and they went to: Phoenix Langtree, Darcy Sach, Liam McKinnon, Jonty Pollard, Kristine Haycock, Casey Langtree, Tamiyah Perkins, Mackenzie Sach, Olivia Sach, Sh’Keah Rickard, Thor Lomkhong, Nikki Driss, Jing Jing Yao and Mickayla Perkins.
They were individuals; as important were the Class Prizes for the combined effort. The first prize went to area 4 Bond, which is a Year 1/2 class - $818; second prize went to Area 7, where Pat Myers is the teacher of the Year 3/4 class - they raised $780. And, most money raised by the Intensive English Unit classes: Area 7 Lohmeyer - a fantastic job by these young people to raise money to help their fellow students by improving their school.
The sports day at Anula was a magnificent event. I spent some time there participating in the festivities and the competitive stuff going on - it was a really fun day. Sophie Kalidonas, who has been a faithful servant at Anula school for over 30 years, said she cannot remember the last time Batumba won the sports day, but this year they took it out in fine style. Those in that particular group were very pleased with their efforts - and so they should be.
I move to Wulagi Primary School. I get there as often as I can, especially for important events such as choosing the fortunate winners for the ‘Way to Go’ prize. A prize which goes to a person who, every time they do positive things, they get part of a raffle ticket; the other part of the ticket goes into a box, and we draw out those people who have demonstrated very positive playground behaviour over the previous fortnight. The last one I drew was for Talihana Hill, a Year 1 student.
Also, we give out prizes at Wulagi for ‘Caught Being Good’, and movie passes went to Kelly Crowston from Year T1C and Deegan York from T1B; again, for recognising fantastic behaviour.
Madam Speaker, unfortunately the clock is going to beat me again. We still only have five minutes to recognise the wonderful things the people in our electorates do. It would be really nice if the government could consider, on a night when there is some time left over, extending our adjournment debates to 15 minutes again.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Madam Deputy Speaker, yesterday the member for Greatorex raised the issue of a copier of CT scans and X-rays, and asked me if I was aware of the lack of a CT scan in Alice Springs; he requested I investigate and ensure a CT scan is operating again in Alice Springs.
I thank him for providing me with a letter forwarded to him by a legal firm in Alice Springs. I want to clarify what the member for Greatorex was referring to was not a CT scan; it was actually a copier of CT scan and X-rays taken some time ago when the machines were still analogue. The copier is not used as a diagnostic tool or for treatment of illness or injury; it is only used to make copies of old X-rays and CT scans - so the lives of residents are not being put in any danger. As a matter of fact, the machine is just like a photocopier, for copying records.
The CT scanner and X-ray at Alice Springs Hospital are fully operational and used to diagnose illness and disease for Centralian residents. All current scans and X-rays are now stored digitally and can be accessed or transmitted via e-mail very easily.
I understand the copier is the property of a private company, Dr Jones and Partners Medical Imagining, who are under contract at the Alice Springs Hospital. The outdated copier is infrequently used as part of the contract with Dr Jones and Partners Medical Imagining. Their request from their legal firm Povey Stirk relates to records from 2006, and has been addressed by Alice Springs Hospital. Apparently, the legal firm requested a copy of some medical records, but it could not be done because the old machine was not operational at the time. However, the records were couriered to Tennant Creek, copied there and brought back to Alice Springs.
I point out that letter has not been forwarded to the hospital or to me; for some unknown reason it was forwarded only to the member for Greatorex.
Once again, I say it was not the CT scan which was not operating; it was a machine that copies records and it has no diagnostic value; it is the same as a plain photocopying machine.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, as you know, it has been a very interesting week or weeks and I will never forget 14 August. I decided to write a poem about that event, not just to remember this particular time, but also because it happens to be Seniors Poetry Day on Saturday at Taminmin High School, and it is nice to have some current events put into poetry style.
I also dedicate these words to my wife, Imelda, who has had to go along with all the stress that happened over the last three weeks; to Kim, my electorate officer, who I have not seen for three weeks, but know she was working extremely hard while I was away convincing people that I do exist; and to Michelle, my research officer who, as I said before, is a tower of strength. I would have hated to be here on my own without her. She was someone I could lean on when I needed to, and she listened to what I had to say, and gave good advice when I needed it as well. I very much appreciate the help she has given me through this period.
These are the two little ditties. The first one is called ‘The Fourteenth Day of August’:
- Some days are good, some days are bad, but none quite the same as the fourteenth day of August,
Sometimes I’m happy, sometimes I’m sad - and sometimes I feel like the fourteenth day of August,
Sometimes life’s easy, sometimes it’s not, that’s how it was on the fourteenth day of August,
Some days I can’t remember, some days I can, but I won’t forget the fourteenth day of August,
But life moves on and the sun comes up, so who cares about the fourteenth day of August?
And the other one is ‘Don’t Worry, Be Happy’:
- I sit upon my bottom as my mind begins to ache,
I ponder what has happened just a week ago to date.
It seems like just a dream and not the real state,
But when I open up my eyes I know it’s no mistake.
So what’s the use of pondering, if nothing is at stake?
Just get on with living and laugh, not contemplate.
A member: Well done!
Mr KNIGHT (Daly): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will always remember 14 August also, as the member for Nelson does. I also thank Neil, who has been in the gallery for the last week or so. He has been praying for us, I know, for wisdom and guidance. I believe it all helped, Neil. Thank you very much.
I dropped into Coomalie, in the Batchelor area, last week - I did literally drop in - from 10 000 feet. I attended the REL week in Batchelor. About 150 skydivers from all over Australia took part in this biennial international event during the long weekend. There were approximately 3000 drops into the drop zone at Batchelor and, as local member for the Coomalie region, I was pleased to assist with a grant from the government to help Darwin Parachute Club’s 30th anniversary event.
I move on to the Lingalonga Festival which was held in Batchelor the same weekend, and is always a great success. Approximately 1300 locals and visitors enjoyed the music, culture, food, and entertainment. A number of volunteers work tirelessly prior to and on the day of the event, and if it were not for them and their families, an event such as this would not work as well as it did. Congratulations to Marilyn Reeves, Victoria Edmonds, Sue Donnelly, Hilary Brett, Julia Moriarty, and also the Lingalonga Festival Committee, and everybody involved.
On behalf of the committee, I would like to place on the record a thank you to the many businesses, government organisations and, of course, the many stallholders, both local and those who travelled out to Batchelor for the event. A special thanks to Corrugated Iron Youth Arts, who shared their love of the performing arts with the youth of Coomalie - I have been told the kids who attended the circus and the drum workshops had a great time. Thank you also to the musicians and singers, to Tanya Ham and the Taminmin High School Choir for providing some great entertainment throughout the day.
I also headed off to the Adelaide River Show and Rodeo, and was very proud of the great performances at this year’s talent quest. As Patron of the Adelaide River Show Society, I was honoured to give the welcome speech, and especially pleased to award the great achievements of Coreena and Meg Reeves, Jack Thorne, and sisters, Kelsey and Stevie Pocock, who entertained us at the talent quest.
I usually judge some of the local exhibits, but I am glad I was not a judge this year as there were so many great arts and crafts and local produce - it was very hard to pick the best.
Congratulations to all the organisers, Deb, Sandy and Annette, and the entire ARSS committee and their many volunteers.
I look forward to heading back to Adelaide River this weekend for the second race day meeting this year, the first time they have had a second race meeting, and it is a great facility there.
Other events happening on the same weekend in the Coomalie region included the opening of four quite different gardens at: The Batchelor Pad, Swordfish, The Wicked Gardener, and the Rum Jungle Bungalows for the 2009 Australia’s Open Garden Scheme.
The Friends of the North Australian Railway celebrated Picnic Day weekend with their traditional railway picnic. As members would know, it is hard to be everywhere at the same time, and the Dry Season events calendar just does not have enough days in it, there is so much happening in the same region of my electorate. I did manage to get to as many events as possible on our last long weekend of the year.
It was great to catch up with so many of my constituents from the Coomalie region and beyond. I am so glad to have such a vibrant electorate, with so much going on, so much community contribution to what are unique events and they certainly make up the fabric of the Territory lifestyle.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016