2008-10-23
Madam Speaker Aagaard took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I thank you for joining in with the singing celebration in the Main Hall of Parliament House. I will be extending my congratulations and thanks to those students through Nora Lewis, and I will also be presenting some certificates to the schools involved. I will ask members in whose electorates those schools are located to sign the certificates with me.
Mr VATSKALIS (Business and Employment): Madam Speaker, I had the pleasure of launching the site for a new and exciting development for our manufacturing oil and gas industries on 3 June 2008, which will be a Common User Area. The need for a Common User Area was highlighted during the fantastic work done by our local businesses for the Rio Tinto Alcan upgrade. They have demonstrated they are capable of tendering successfully for pre-assemble modules and oil and gas infrastructure.
With the support of a $15 000 grant from my Department of Business and Employment, the Manufacturers Council of the Chamber of Commerce NT conducted a pre-feasibility study to identify the need for, and uses of, a Common User facility, including the benefits and costs. A wide range of potential uses beyond fabrication of modules was identified and based on future growth and related demand, including engineering and fabrication; assembly, oil and gas supply and service; mining supply and service, and transport and logistics.
This study drew together the key industry opportunities into an integrated vision to position the Northern Territory for opportunities that exist, not just in the Territory, but across the north Australian region. The study recommended the establishment of a multi-user, multipurpose assembly yard and lay down area at East Arm. An area of 20 ha on Berrimah Road, East Arm, was identified as the preferred site for the initial establishment of a basic Common User Area, with an adjacent 28 ha of additional land being set aside for future expansion of the facility.
The Land Development Corporation will act as the landlord, managing the facility on a day-to-day basis with the Common User Area being available on a first-come, first-served user pay basis on short-term, project based lease. The Land Development Corporation is developing a master plan to guide its future development with the assistance of a Strategic Management Group consisting of the Department of Business and Employment, the Darwin Port Corporation, the Manufacturers Council of the Chamber of Commerce NT, and the Northern Territory Industry Capability Network. This group also advises on the suitability of any proposals. The Land Development Corporation will advertise the tender for the construction of the access road on 30 October 2008, and a further tender will provide for power and water and internal services to the site. These works will total $2.5m.
This is an exciting infrastructure development, and one which will enable our local businesses to tender for new works on new projects.
I will be pleased, together with my Department of Business and Employment and the Land Development Corporation, to actively promote the Common User Area’s availability and benefits to major project proponents, prime contractors, in both the mining and oil and gas industries, and companies requiring short-term storage associated with the port and rail.
One of our first major promotional steps is for officers of my department and the Land Development Corporation to promote the new Common User Area on the Northern Territory’s stand at the Offshore South-East Asia (OSEA) conference and exhibition in Singapore from 2 to 5 December 2008. One of the largest oil and gas conferences in the world, the international focus of OSEA presents unparalleled marketing, education and networking opportunities. OSEA 2008 offers the ideal platform to promote Darwin’s new Common User Area to the international oil and gas industry. The event attracts over 10 000 visitors from over 50 countries, and representatives from over 40 international industry press organisations.
The new Common User Area will add to the attractiveness of Darwin as a maintenance and operations base for supporting the construction of major projects across north-west Australia, including the Kellogg Joint Venture - Gorgon Project, consisting of international engineering firms KBR, JGC and Hatch and Clough, examining the capability of Darwin to support the fabrication of multiple pre-assembled units and pre-assembled pipe racks up to 500 tonnes each for the development of the massive Gorgon Project - Barrow Island LNG Plant.
Madam Speaker, I commend this report to the House.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I note the minister’s report and I look forward to reading his comments in the Hansard.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I had the pleasure of attending the October Graduation Ceremony of Charles Darwin University on Friday, 10 October at the Darwin Convention Centre. It was the first time the ceremony had been held at the Convention Centre - previously, the October presentation has been held at the Entertainment Centre - and I think everyone who attended would agree just how great the venue was.
I acknowledge that this was Vice-Chancellor, Professor Helen Garnett’s final CDU graduation ceremony, as you will be aware that she leaves her current role at the end of this year. I hosted a function on Monday for Professor Garnett, and I am sure there will be a number of farewell functions before the end of the year. I wish Professor Garnett all the very best for the next stage in her life, and thank her for the enormous contribution she has made to the university.
Graduation ceremonies are wonderful to attend, and this one was no different. It is uplifting to see students who have achieved such milestones in their lives, and to see their proud families and friends celebrating with them. There are awards ranging from Certificate I level to Doctorates being conferred – all outstanding achievements. The conferring of degrees and awards were in the areas of Education, Health and Science; Law, Business and Arts; and Vocational Education and Training. On the night, there were also honorary degrees awarded.
Dr Len Notaras received the Honorary Degree of Doctor of Science Honoris Causa. Dr Notaras also provided the Occasional Address, where he spoke of the work of the Royal Darwin Hospital staff and his leadership during the Bali bombing, as well as giving a short history of his work at Royal Darwin Hospital. Congratulations to Dr Notaras on an outstanding and well deserved achievement.
The other Honorary Degree of Science Honoris Causa was awarded posthumously to Dr Alan Walker, who passed away in April last year. Dr Walker was the Territory’s first paediatrician and cared for Territory children for over 40 years. His work will be long remembered and the Honorary Degree is fitting recognition for a very special Territorian.
Further, at the graduation, Dr MaryAnn Bin-Sallick was awarded Emeritus Professor of the university. I congratulate Dr Bin-Sallick on an outstanding career.
Finally, congratulations to all the students who graduated, including the member for Sanderson, Mr Peter Styles. Hopefully, for all the graduates, the investment that they have made in their education at Charles Darwin University has been rewarding, and the qualifications they have gained will be of benefit to their own careers and lives, and will also be of benefit to the Territory.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I welcome the statement. Unfortunately, I was unable to attend this particular graduation, but have attended many. As the member for Sanderson made his walk across the stage to receive the award, as many have over many years, I always reflect on what is behind that walk – the story behind it. I am one who has commenced tertiary studies and completed, but there are others who are still going, and probably going on forever. I know how difficult it is for those who make a decision to increase their capacity to serve the Northern Territory and how it concludes with that walk across that stage. I congratulate every one of those graduates and the people behind them.
I acknowledge the service of the academic staff of CDU to the Territory community, and others who support the university and recognise the potential of the Territory and invest in the Territory through the university so that we can be prepared for the opportunities that lie in wait for us. I note that Engineering Australia, through the assistance of Power and Water, have established a Chair at CDU so that we can have more graduates in engineering through CDU. I commend those agencies and bodies within our community that make this significant investment. I commend Professor Helen Garnett for the tasks she has undertaken. She was the first to be in that position when there was the change from NTU and we had Professor McKinnon and then it was handed to her to lead it to this next stage, and she has done well. We look forward to the next episode.
The opposition offers our support to the CDU, and recognise the quality of leadership that is required in education to confront the challenges and make sure that we can capitalise on the opportunities available through serious, quality leadership.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his response. I, too, offer my congratulations to the university. It is important that we have a very strong university, not just here in Darwin but also at the Alice Springs campus. The Vice Chancellor, Professor Helen Garnett, has shown a lot of leadership when you look at where the university is today.
Once again, congratulations to all of those students who have graduated. The Leader of the Opposition is right: all those friends and families who have gone on that journey with those graduates, it is an important milestone for them. I offer genuinely my congratulations to the member for Sanderson for graduating. It was fantastic to see the number of graduates, that talent, and the level of skills that we are seeing in the Territory.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms ANDERSON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I report today on the Environment Grants Program.
This government introduced the Environment Grants Program in 2004. Since this date we have provided almost $2m to fund a diverse range of projects. 2008-09 is the fifth year in which Environment Grants have been made available to Territorians, and this year we increased funding by $100 000 more than last year. I am delighted to inform the House that this year the government introduced a special wildlife category which focuses on outcomes that result in better management of native and pest species. Other categories included in the Environment Grants Program are energy efficiency, water conservation, sustainable technology, recycling, and resource efficiency.
The environment grants are made available to three different sectors of the Territory society. First, there are the school grants which I reported to the House yesterday. Second, there are operational grants available to non-profit environmental organisations to assist in meeting their ongoing operational expenses. Organisations that have received this funding in 2008-09 include Keep Australia Beautiful Council, the Arid Lands Environment Centre, Environment Centre NT, Australian Marine and Conservation Society, Environmental Defenders Office, Conservation Volunteers Association, Wildcare Alice Springs Rescue, Wildcare NT, and Wildlife Rescue.
The third area of environment grants are targeted at individuals, community groups, and industries, and provide up to $10 000 per project. There were 27 fantastic projects that received funding this year. Unfortunately, there are too many to list here today but I will mention just a few from our regional areas to give members some idea of the type of practical projects we support. The first project I would like to highlight is the home energy audit service to be conducted in Tennant Creek by the Arid Lands Environment Centre. This project will assist residents in Tennant Creek to reduce power bills through tailored, practical advice and in so doing, reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Another project worthy of mention is the partnership between St Joseph’s College and Greening Australia in Katherine which aims to protect and enhance a degraded sink hole located on a limestone area within the school grounds. Another project delivering real results will be carried out by the Dhimurru Land Management Aboriginal Corporation in East Arnhem which involves walking track and camp site upgrades, including interpretive materials, fencing and site signs.
These are ordinary Territorians doing great things on their own initiative with a little help from the government. They deserve our thanks and our congratulations.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister. It is very important that these types of grants continue to grow. This government supports many of the issues in our environment. Waterways and weeds is just one of the areas that need to be continually monitored and, where possible, resourcing provided. It is important that our rural areas are kept in the loop and are involved in any of these processes and funding applications.
I took the opportunity, an invitation from the minister whilst in Alice Springs recently, to visit the Desert Park. I take this opportunity to say what a fantastic Desert Park we have in Alice Springs. It is fantastic for the many people who visit the Northern Territory each year. I take my hat off to the managers and the organisers and the people who work there every day, it is a fantastic facility.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr CHANDLER: I will always support funding initiatives for dealing with our animals, and I note the mention of Wildcare there. They do an excellent job and with more resources they could do so much more. I thank the minister.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for her report. It is important that we give community groups a chance to carry out environmental projects in regions across the Territory. One concern that I have been given is that there seems to have been a reduction in some of the funding for areas like Waterwatch and Landcare. More money seems to be going into government-run type projects. I am interested to know whether that is the fact. There does not appear to be so many of those community groups as there were some years ago when I was involved in Waterwatch. I know there has been a concern that departments tend to be able to get their hands on the funds and there is not so much going into the community. It is good to hear there is still some money going into those areas.
I noticed some money goes out to some of the particular environmental groups. Occasionally, I get concerned that some of the environmental groups have a particular philosophy which I do not agree with, and those environmental groups have to be careful that they do not become political, or over political, or so biased against something that they make that their main focus. I especially mention the Arid Lands Environment Centre. I get many e-mails from them and it is nearly always anti-uranium. While it is fair enough to have some discussion about the pros and cons of uranium, you also have to have a balanced approach, especially in relation to how it fits into the environment in the Northern Territory. It is mined and the role of these groups is to make sure it is mined in an environmentally sensitive way. There is no doubt we have to be careful in all forms of mining. We have to make sure that some people’s philosophy does not get in the road of actually doing the job of what these environment groups are for - making sure sustainable development continues and we keep an eye on what is happening, but that does not mean we totally are opposed to it.
Ms ANDERSON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I thank both the speakers and thank my opposition shadow for his comments. The Desert Park is a beautiful place and it is placed in the most beautiful place in Central Australia, Alice Springs.
I thank the member for Nelson for his comments. I will get back to you on the information that you require. This government supports all the little entities that we have on the ground and this is the way of us all in the Territory protecting the environment and being aware of what we are doing to the environment as Territorians.
Reports noted pursuant to sessional order.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of the bill is to provide certainty for the Ichthys LNG project particularly in those areas which involve the acquisition and development of land, and in the performance by the Territory, its ministers and the Land Development Corporation on matters contractually agreed with the proponents for the project.
It is usual for major project proponents to negotiate the details of a proposed development with government due to their complex nature. Often the outcomes of these negotiations are encapsulated within a development agreement and include the contractual obligations between the parties to the agreement.
During the negotiations for the Ichthys LNG Project Development Agreement between the Northern Territory government and the Ichthys Joint Venture, a number of issues were identified within the Northern Territory Regulatory Framework, including associated processes and procedures which increase the risk of the project. The Northern Territory government holds fast to the principle that all project proponents must comply with the Northern Territory Regulatory Framework. This provides for a level playing field. Whilst this is the starting point, there may be issues identified during project development which have an adverse impact on a project’s development. Once an issue is identified, it is a matter for the Northern Territory government to determine how the issue may best be resolved. Options can include legislative amendments, contractual arrangements or protocols which clearly define the roles and responsibilities of the parties.
In considering a possible legislative amendment, this government needs a clear definition of that issue, an understanding of the desired outcome, and whether such change provides a nett benefit for the Northern Territory. Issues identified for the Ichthys LNG Project may be characterised as follows: a lack of express power within the relevant legislation to undertake the action contemplated; the lack of a clearly defined process to provide certainty of outcome; and minor conflict between the contractual obligations contained in the Ichthys LNG Project Development Agreement and the Northern Territory Regulatory Framework.
In respect to the lack of express power, a recent examination of the Crown Lands Act has brought into question the ability of the Minister for Planning and Lands to grant an option in land. Clause 5 of the Ichthys LNG Project Bill makes it clear that the Territory has the ability to grant an option in land. A major capital investment such as the Ichthys LNG project requires a great deal of certainty in regard to outcome. Often an act will use terms such as ‘may’, ‘with regard to’, or ‘as the minister sees fit’. While such discretion is typically constrained by precedence, the actual outcome may not be guaranteed to the level necessary by project financiers for a multibillion dollar investment. Certainty is an essential element in securing investment.
The agreement identifies a number of areas of discretion within the Crown Lands Act. For these areas, the manner in which this discretion was to be applied was agreed within the agreement. It was identified by the proponent and confirmed by the Solicitor for the Northern Territory that such prescribed performance in the agreement does not prevail over statutory discretion vested in current, or future, legislation. This translates as a lack of certainty, or risk for the project.
Clause 5(1) of the bill authorises implementation of the Ichthys LNG Project Development Agreement. This and the remaining provisions of clause 5 make it certain that a minister will exercise their discretion, as enshrined in statute of the Northern Territory, in conformity with the contractual obligations contained in the agreement. Further, clause 5 makes it clear that the Territory must provide as agreed the following:
the grant of an option, a lease, estate in fee simple, or other tenure including an easement over Crown land;
The form and terms of these interests in land are to be as contractually agreed in the agreement.
Review of Northern Territory statute has revealed that sections 27(f) and 27(j) of the Crown Lands Act do not align with the agreement. To give effect to the agreement, clause 5(5) makes it clear that these sections of the Crown Lands Act do not apply in relation to the agreement.
Clause 5(1) and clause 6 of the bill similarly relate to actions of the Territory and the Land Development Corporation. The Land Development Corporation, while it has management of the areas relevant to the agreement at this stage does not have title and, therefore, is not party to the project development agreement. The bill makes it clear that the corporation is bound to act as if it were party to the agreement and required to fulfil obligations contained in the agreement.
For the Ichthys Joint Venture, it is essential that they be able to deliver the project. Compensation for breach of contract does not deliver the project. In addressing risk for the project, the Territory has adopted the position in clause 7 that specific performance applies to the Territory. In effect, were there to be a breach by the Territory or Land Development Corporation of its obligations to perform the contract a court can order the Territory or the Land Development Corporation to remedy the breach.
Each party to the project development agreement has used their best endeavours to identify in a timely manner all areas of concern. There is a possibility, despite these efforts, that subsequent to the passing of this bill other conflicts may be identified between the rights conferred contractually by the project development agreement and Northern Territory statute. Clause 8 will allow broad regulation-making powers on matters arising or in connection within the agreement. Cognisant of the broad nature of these powers it is proposed to limit this to a period of 12 months from the commencement date of the act, that is, until 17 July 2009. A similar power was provided in the AustralAsia Railway (Special Provisions) Act to facilitate the rail project. The powers provided are to be used in a manner which assists the project and does not decrease their rights or impose additional liabilities.
This bill provides certainty for the Ichthys LNG Project, a project which will provide significant nett benefit to the Territory. I commend this bill to honourable members and table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 11 September 2008
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, this bill is one of the government’s law and order bills, introduced as a result of promises made during the August election. Given the high rate of crime in the Territory, and given the promises made only a couple of months ago, Territorians expected much more of this government, and of the amendments it has made. They would have the right to be disappointed if they look through this bill. Most Territorians, of course, will not look through the bill. They will just get a filtered version of it via the government’s spin machine and those friendly in the media. With an increase in violent crime in excess of 80% since Labor came to office, Territorians deserve and expect so much more.
Typically, during the election campaign, Labor said that it would be tough on crime, and that it would bring forward legislation that would send hard core criminals to gaol. As usual, there is a difference between what Labor says and what Labor does. This bill falls short of the rhetoric. We are concerned that the bill provides no certainty in sentencing, and offenders can still be sentenced to ‘the rising of the court’. We say that is not good enough for offenders who cause serious harm, or for those convicted of committing subsequent offences.
The bill does not provide for any minimum sentences and we believe that sentencing must meet community expectations. The government’s proposed amendments are intended to deter violent offenders and repeat offenders by introducing tougher sentencing. On balance, it falls short. Certainly, the bill does provide for an actual term of imprisonment, or a term that is partly but not wholly suspended for first offences. There will be no more wholly suspended sentences for first time offenders. For a first offence without harm being caused, the court has discretion not to sentence an offender to gaol. We agree with this part of the bill. However, if an offender causes serious harm to be suffered, he or she will go to gaol, and this is pursuant to an amendment that was circulated last week, only if the harm is a physical injury that interferes with the victim’s health.
This is significant, because there are other types of harm defined in the Criminal Code in the definition section 1A, such as harm to a person’s mental health, or harm that is caused but does not interfere with a person’s health. The government’s bill, and its claims of mandatory imprisonment, therefore does not extend to offenders who assault another person and cause injury, and pain and suffering that does not ‘interfere with the victim’s health’. How this is to be measured is not explained or defined in the bill or the amendments.
We maintain that there should be minimum sentences prescribed for violent offences committed by a first time offender who causes serious harm. The government does not favour our approach. We are concerned that there are no minimum sentences, and that there remains the possibility for offenders who cause serious harm being sentenced to ‘the rising of the court’.
The government admits in the second reading speech made by the Attorney-General on 11 September, although I am sure it will not be found in any government media releases, and I quote, that:
The Attorney-General is referring to offences which cause harm or serious harm and there is no change. We say that is not a problem. However, the problems the government has left unresolved are: offenders who cause harm or serious harm can still be sentenced to ‘the rising of the court’ and no minimum period of imprisonment is prescribed.
The Chief Minister was quoted in the Northern Territory News on 12 September declaring that the new phrase ‘term of actual imprisonment’ - and it is not a new phrase – ‘would close the loophole’, namely, ‘the rising of the court’. However, the phrase ‘term of imprisonment’ appears in the existing act and there is nothing in the bill, as was asserted by the Chief Minister, which does anything to close the loophole to which he was referring.
The Chief Minister demonstrates on a regular basis his lack of knowledge on a range of matters but, in particular, legal matters, and he never fails to surprise me in that regard. After all, it was he who referred to the separation of powers, in December 2005 in this place, as, and I quote:
Before moving to summarise our amendments - and the Attorney-General is aware of them and we have provided them to him and his office - it is necessary to look at the Attorney-General’s own comments on the bill. More is expected of him because he is the Territory’s first law officer and he should know, at least, about the bills he introduces. He demonstrated that he did not read or understand the bill - which is surprising to say the least for the Territory’s first law officer.
Members will recall his comments in the Northern Territory News on 17 September, several days after the bill was introduced. He said minor assaults were not included or provided for in the bill and that, quote: ‘Common assault is not included’. He was criticised by lawyers everywhere, and I am sure the Attorney-General is familiar with the criticism and that article. The Attorney-General referred to section 188 and other assault provisions in the second reading speech. If anyone looks at the Criminal Code, they will see what it says right next to section 188, the words: ‘common assault’. The Attorney-General demonstrated a degree of ignorance and appeared to have no idea what was in the bill he introduced only a few days beforehand.
It shows the Attorney-General cannot concentrate on anything. He is a part-time Attorney-General and a part-time Health minister and, frankly, he is not doing very well at either job. He is also a wind-up minister. Those around him just wind him up and tell him what to say. He does not understand nor does he take any responsibility for anything, and he seems very happy to be run by remote control. That is, indeed, a shame.
In terms of the opposition amendments which we seek, and it pertains to criticism of the bill, we want to amend the bill so Territorians can have some certainty in sentencing. In other words, we want meaningful minimum sentences. Our amendments will put in place minimum sentences for violent criminals. If those opposite are serious about taking steps to address rising violent crime in any sort of comprehensive manner, and if they are serious about having real disincentives for hard-core criminals, and if they are serious about taking steps to address violent crime, and if they are serious about doing in any way what they said they would do at or before the election, then those opposite will support our amendments and establish minimum sentences for violent criminals.
Violent criminals need to know once and for all that their behaviour is simply unacceptable. Violent criminals need to know once and for all that they will be punished and the community expects their government to ensure they are punished. I believe our amendments reflect this community expectation. Labor knows it, too - they just cannot bring themselves to do it. No doubt they fear being criticised, perhaps by the legal community, but I am sure the Attorney-General, who is clearly used to it, should not be bothered by that criticism. I digress.
The intention of our amendments will be to set out specific minimum sentences for violent offences which affect some first time offences and all second and subsequent offences. The amendments will be moved during the committee process and will remove the ability for suspension of any minimum sentence and suspension of sentences for second or subsequent offences. If you are a first time offender and cause serious harm to another person, you will go to gaol for six months. This is in addition to the amendments we seek in relation to those convicted of a second or subsequent offence, and it provides certainty. The amendments will target section 78BA of the Sentencing Act and will substitute a new section 78BA.
If adopted, the new section 78BA would apply to adults and would record a conviction as set out in minimum sentences. The minimums would be one month for a second or subsequent offence for assault that causes serious harm; three months for second or subsequent offence where there are aggravating factors; six months for a first time offence that causes serious harm; and 12 months on a second or subsequent offence that causes serious harm. The policy framework that will be set out in our amendments will also require the minimum sentence stipulated to be served without suspension.
We believe that if a person has committed a violent offence in the last 10 years, then the commission of another violent offence in that period amounts to a second or subsequent offence and the court should not suspend any part of the sentence imposed for the current offence. This is reflected in our amendments. I will move to the amendments at the relevant time, but I am sure by now those on the other side understand the nature of the amendments.
There is another matter I would like to address in this debate given that it is all about sentencing. In my view, government should have used this opportunity to make other or consequential - although I suspect other - different amendments dealing with the ability of magistrates to impose sentences in respect of sections 188 and 189A of the Criminal Code. Those convicted of offences under section 188 face:
For offences under section 189A(2)(a):
The Attorney-General must surely know that a large number of offenders charged with these offences appear before magistrates every day of the week. This makes up a significant part of the matters that come before them. Yet our magistrates are hamstrung by the very sentence prescribed in the Code being reduced simply because the matter is dealt with by the lower courts. In other words, the government and others can tell their fellow Territorians that there is a five year sentence or a seven year sentence for particular offences, but what they are not told and what they do not know is that sentences are reduced if the matters are dealt with in the lower court. The current situation is limiting our magistrates and this restriction should, I think, be removed. I look forward to hearing from the Attorney-General about this particular matter in reply or at another time. I am happy to indicate to him that, subject on my part to some further discussions with members of the legal profession, I may bring on a bill to try to effect that change in due course.
If the government does not support our amendments, we will support their bill because some improvements are made. We just do not think they have gone far enough. That is the difference between the two sides of this House. I feel quite certain that the government understands where we are coming from.
We all know the crime figures. Violent offences have gone up since Labor came to office but, in fairness, all of us know that crime and crimes of violence in the Northern Territory have always been too high. It is important in a debate such as this for each and every one of us to remember who we are talking about when we discuss this bill. We should think about the victims of crime. We are not just talking about a bunch of procedural amendments; we are talking about people.
I used to act for people who were victims of crime and I am sure that we all know someone, sadly perhaps more than one person, who has been a victim of crime. We know how distressing it is for them. In addition to the immediate pain and suffering and shock that results, more often than not the effects of serious assault are endured for weeks, months and, in some cases, years. In relation to sentencing, we say that if you cause serious harm to another human being you should go to gaol for a minimum period. I believe that such a view is widely supported, perhaps overwhelmingly supported, in the community and that is why we as legislators should deliver.
When the Domestic and Family Violence Bill was introduced on 17 October 2007, the then Attorney-General, Syd Stirling, said and I quote:
He said that sent:
Two points need to be made in relation to those comments and their application to this debate. First, if minimum sentences are good enough for that bill, why not extend it to this bill? Second, it should be noted, of course, that the minimum sentences in the Domestic and Family Violence Bill - now an act - only extends to those who fall within the definition contained in that act. A minimum sentence, albeit for seven days, does not extend to those who do not, obviously, fall within the definition. We know that in the Indigenous and non-Indigenous community, there are violent men who bash women, violent men who bash children, and violent men who bash other men. We say violence is violence.
It is interesting that some people, politicians among them, have developed what seems to me to be a relatively recent interest in violence against women and children. Whatever their motivations, my view is that there is still not enough being done and physical, emotional and sexual violence against women and children shames us all. We should not rest in our efforts to eliminate it. Violence is violence. Whether it is perpetrated against women, children or men, violence is violence and everyone in the community should do all within their power to eliminate it and deter and punish the perpetrators. Governments are the decision-makers who must do more.
If we look at our Indigenous offender population, for instance, we know that every day across the Territory violent men bash women and children. These are violent, nasty offenders who should be sent a very clear message that violence will not be tolerated. All violent offenders need to get the message that violence is unacceptable. In sentencing, we say that given the extremely high rates of violent assaults in the Territory minimum sentences are one way of sending a message to those perpetrators who cause serious harm. I repeat: violence is violence and it is not acceptable.
With those comments, Madam Speaker, I will conclude and we will be moving to the committee stage in due course.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the opposition for giving me their amendments. I must admit that it is a little hard when you get them at the beginning of the debate and have to absorb what is there. I get the gist of what they are saying. It is an issue that I raised at the briefing; that is, although this amendment says that people should go to prison, it does not say for how long. I suppose, if you took it in theory, you could say a person could go to prison for one day based on a violent offence. I will come back to that a little later.
You can look at this bill from two aspects. One is the need to do something about those who perpetrate violence. With violence, it is not even a matter of whether it is male or female; it is a case of violence against one human being by another. That is the way we should look at it. That is not acceptable and we need to do something about it.
What the government and opposition are saying is ‘We think the way to get that message out that it is not acceptable is to tell people that if they are violent and cause serious harm they will go to gaol’. I do not necessarily have anything against that. I have always believed that people should know the difference between right and wrong and those who offend against the law - which violence is - should take responsibility for their actions. Violence is an area where some form of imprisonment should occur.
My concerns are that we only have one option when it comes to imprisonment; that is, the big concrete Berrimah gaol. When we start to debate this issue, it is not a simple issue. There are many other things that need to be looked at in relation to violence. We need to look at the cause of the violence; we need to see ways in which people who have problems with violent behaviour can change that behaviour.
The problem I have with this is singular debate is that it is difficult to believe that this on its own will make a difference. I am not saying it is not an important cog in the wheel, but I worry that the government brings forward this type of a bill, to some extent based on a lot of the debate in the public arena, the political debate, that there is too much violence in our communities. I am not denying that, and I am not saying we should not do things. However, we then react with, ‘well, we will do this’, and the other side will say, ‘well, we will do better than you’. I can only judge what comes out in the wash in the end. There is always a danger in the very emotional period, especially with elections, where both sides come forward with legislation which may have not had enough thought. This particular legislation does not necessarily fall into that bracket but we do have to be careful that we do not become single-minded over a particular issue because that is only what the public wants to hear.
Good governments have to think broader than that, and they have to look at the other issues that I was talking about. What is the cause of violence, and how can we stop violence in the long term? The reality is that the government is saying: ‘We have a problem, we will do this. We will put people in gaol’. Is that the best place to put violent offenders? It may be; it may not be. Not all violent offenders are the same. That is why I was looking through the CLP amendments. They have five categories.
Should the government be looking at other forms of imprisonment? I am not trying to bring forward a debate which I have for the next General Business day, but I would argue prison farms, and I have argued this before, are an option that we should look at. We only seem to have one option, and that is to put people in the big gaol and that is it. It may be that some of these violent offenders are, generally speaking, in normal life without alcohol, not violent offenders. They are not the sort of people who would normally be violent but because of other influences they are violent. In some cases, these people should not go to Berrimah; they should go to another institution. A prison farm is an option we should have.
In this debate the government should be looking at what are its policies in relation to alternative forms of imprisonment? The other side of this is what are they doing to help people who have problems with violence? During the briefing I asked what programs are provided in gaol to help people who have been gaoled. It is no good putting people in gaol and saying: ‘That will teach you a lesson’. That might cause the opposite reaction to what we want. They might say: ‘Well, stuff you mob. Next time I am here, I will make it worth your while’. Also, those prisoners might mix with other violent prisoners, which is not exactly the best way for you to change someone’s way of life. It is a bit like they have just joined another gang and they happen to be in prison, all for the same reason. At the briefing I asked if there were any programs to help violent offenders and I was told that that does not occur unless prisoners are in gaol for more than six months. So there is a gap there. Even under the CLP’s amendments, there is a range of imprisonment, depending on the extent of the violence, for three months and for one month.
It does not make any sense to throw someone in gaol for one month - this might be their first time ever in gaol - if we do not have a program to make sure they do not come back in. I am not saying these violent offenders should not go to gaol. However, if you do not balance it with other programs then you will probably see these people come back again.
I am looking at what the CLP put forward and at what the government has put forward. I believe that all people in parliament are trying to find ways to reduce the number of violent offences. We need to reduce the amount of violence in our society. What sort of programs is the minister putting in place for this increased number of people who are going to end up in our gaols? Is there going to be enough room in gaol? Our gaol is now full.
Dr Burns: That is a very good question. I will be answering that.
Mr WOOD: Very good question. Of course that does not mean you have to pull it down. You could actually use alternative forms of imprisonment such as prison farms. I am sure the member for Katherine …
Mr Westra van Holthe: We will stick our hand up for a prison down there.
Mr WOOD: Yes. There are alternative ways of doing things. The government is a bit tunnel visioned when it comes to thinking there is only one form of imprisonment. We have this bill coming forward today but I do not believe we have heard enough about the broader aspects of what we are trying to do.
Per head of population, we have the largest number of Aboriginal people in prison, and many of them are in there for violent offences. With this law, I imagine that is going to continue to rise. I am not saying that people should not be punished. I believe you cannot introduce a law like this without some broader policy being put forward regarding where these people will be imprisoned, or the most suitable place for these people to be imprisoned, and the programs that will be in place to ensure these people not only do not come back into prison but are starting to learn to control the problems they have in life – the violence – and be able to live normal lives.
Violence is not just at home. Violence is to some extent everywhere. People saw the paper, the NT News, with a young girl being bashed up in the toilet at a high school in Darwin. What is the story with that type of attack? These are juveniles, minister. It has been filmed on a mobile phone and then on to YouTube. If there is a proven offence, under this legislation would those people serve a term of imprisonment? From what I saw – I can only say from what I read in the paper and I am not sure of the total accuracy of that - it appeared to be a fairly violent offence. We have had issues in Alice Springs at the end of the AFL grand final where there was quite a bit of unacceptable violence.
There are some good sides to these laws that will send out a message to people that type of violence is not acceptable. Violence in a public arena, like at a football match, has effects far greater than just the people who have been physically harmed. Young children who are visiting the football match would see that violence and can be scarred for a long time.
I remember when I was a young child I stopped at a set of traffic lights, I was sitting in the back seat of Dad’s car, and I looked out my side and there was a 1950s version of road rage. One bloke had jumped out of the car and decided to punch up the driver of the car in the front. For a young child, like myself, I had nightmares about that. Violence does have an effect, not just on the people who are the direct victims, but it can have an effect on the people around. I imagine that happens in communities where violence is very common in some places, especially where it is fuelled by alcohol. There are other people who are affected by the amount of violence.
Minister, I am interested to hear where you are going to put all these people. I do not believe that building bigger prisons and one type of prison is the answer. What about juveniles? What is the law on juveniles in relation to violent crime? Recently in the paper there was a case of a 13-year-old running amuck with a knife and stabbing a lady and scaring a number of people at the Casuarina Shopping Centre. What would happen in that case? It is still a serious offence even though it is only a young child.
I appreciate what the CLP has done here. It has tried to put some teeth into the actual amount of time a person is in prison. I have not had a chance to analyse this, which I would rather do before I say whether I support it. One of the issues I have picked up in the amendment the CLP has put forward is 4(d) in relation to imprisonment for one month. It says under subsection (3) the person has caused harm when committing the current offence as distinct from serious harm. I have to get some more clarification on that.
One reason the government introduced its amendments is to try to move from the type of assault which could be a push - which most people probably would not regard as an offence that one should go to prison for. You might get ticked off in court, you might get a fine, but we have to make sure that what we are doing is also sensible. You can have the old stand-up and chest someone - that type of offence - it may not necessarily be regarded as violent …
A member interjecting.
Mr WOOD: That is why we would need a definition of what harm is. My understanding is the government introduced its changes because there was concern that the intention was to put people in prison for violent offences and we did not want to grab a group of people who really the best that could have been done was a bit of a ticking off, or there was no real need to take people to court. We needed to make sure people did not have to go to prison for that type of offence.
Madam Speaker, I will be interested in the debate. I support what the government has put forward. That is not to say I do not support what the CLP has put forward. It is hard when an amendment like this is put to you 10 minutes before one is to speak on it. I will be cautious before I say that I would give this total support. I may say, in principle, that I support it at the present time. It may be unwise of me to give it carte blanche support without having more time and it may not be today. I am always wary of making a very quick assessment and a quick conclusion to legal bills. At times I find the language difficult to understand and I need advice on whether the way I see something is the way the author intended. I am interested in the debate and welcome the minister’s comments.
Ms McCARTHY: (Children and Families): Madam Speaker, the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General has expressed the government’s concern about the impact of violent crime on the Northern Territory. Unfortunately, violent crime has historically been a significant problem in communities across the Territory. This government recognises the need to send the strongest possible message to the community that violent crime will not be tolerated and that perpetrators can expect to be seriously punished.
The Sentencing Amendment (Violence Offences) Bill will provide the authorities with additional capacity to meet the challenge of violent crime. Good governance requires the laws align with community expectations. There is no doubt that the Territory community is concerned about violent crime; there is also no doubt that the Territory community wants an assurance that those guilty of violent crime receive real punishment. This bill will do just that. This bill ensures that serious assaults will see the offender serve gaol time. Current legislation provides people a second chance in relation to serious assaults. There will be no second chances under the new law. This bill sends the strongest of messages because that is what the Territory community expects.
Having said that, it is also fair to say that the Territory’s level of violent crime is a result of a complex mix of causes which is why this government has put in place other measures which will help in our response to violent crime. This government realises that we must reflect community expectations and continue to be tough with the perpetrators of violent crime. We also recognise we have to implement strategies to help prevent Territorians, young Territorians in particular, from finding themselves caught up in violence.
I believe the community also expects its government to play a role in shepherding young people away from antisocial, criminal or violent behaviour. I pick up on some of the member for Nelson’s comments regarding concerns about youth. In my role as the Minister for Children and Families and also for Youth, I am deeply aware of those issues. Let me reassure this House that our government is working hard to work with these young people. In my role as Minister for Women’s Policy, I am interested in learning about these issues and how we can divert them, and also looking at some of the issues that are affecting people, particularly in our regions, who head towards crime.
That is why the government also announced initiatives such as our Youth Justice Strategy. The Northern Territory government’s Youth Justice Strategy provides a multifaceted approach to help keep young people away from a criminal environment. In the April/May sittings of the Assembly, we amended the Youth Justice Act to enable a range of government agencies to enter into family responsibility agreements and orders with families whose children are exhibiting negative and antisocial behaviour. We bolstered this initiative in this year’s budget through a $2.5m allocation to implement the Youth Justice Strategy.
As part of the initiative, a new Youth Services Branch was established within NT Families and Children. The new branch will manage a range of services and activities. These include: three youth rehabilitation camps including a referral process for young people to access the camps; coordination of the new family responsibility provisions of the Youth Justice Act; new government service centres in Darwin and Alice Springs to help support families experiencing difficulties with the behaviour of young people - the government’s Property Services Branch is currently looking to finalise a lease for the Darwin centre; and an inter-government agency to develop an information sharing code of practice to deal with details on client families and young people.
I turn to our commitment to youth rehabilitation camps as part of our Youth Justice Strategy. The three camps - two in the Top End and one in the Centre - have been operating since 1 March and are for young people aged 10 to 18 years who are exhibiting antisocial and offending behaviour. To date, they have dealt with 57 young people. The camps are operated by Tangentyere Council in Central Australia, and Balunu Foundation and Brahminy Group in the Top End, and offer programs that involve challenges for young people while operating on a strict set of rules.
I have been to both camps in the Top End and spoken with the staff. From speaking to the two organisations, I know how dedicated they are and committed to wanting to ensure that the services they provide will make a difference in the lives of these children. At Balunu, people like David Cole and Ann Marie McLeod do tremendous work and are committed to working with these young people, many of whom society has pretty much given up on. It is these young people who become our adults and the ones who go into the prisons. We have to look at how we are dealing with these young people. This government is committed to that. We know it is going to take some time, but we know we have to persevere because it is these young people who are slipping through. I reiterate to the House my absolute commitment to wanting to ensure that our young people are looked after in that regard and given some guidance for their future.
The Department of Health and Families has worked with the providers to implement the recommendations and to ensure the service models best reflect the diversity and complex needs of young people attending the camps. Of the 57 youngsters who have attended the camps, I am pleased to report that evidence indicates some positive signs of behavioural change including an improved capacity to re-engage with the community. Since 1 July this year, the camps have received a total of $185 000 in the Top End, with a further $215 000 committed to Central Australia. Right now, the Department of Health and Families, in consultation with other Northern Territory government stakeholders, is working to develop the service provision model, establish baseline service standards, and establish clear referral pathways for the future of the Territory’s youth camps.
Madam Speaker, the Territory community has had enough of violent crime, and the Territory community expects surety when it comes to sentencing the perpetrators. The bill that my colleague, the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General, has before the House will help deal with violent crime, but equally as important, the other initiatives I have outlined will help steer young Territorians away from the prospect of violent crime.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I support the passage of the Sentencing Amendment (Violent Offenders) Bill 2008. As my colleague, the Minister for Children and Families said, people across the Northern Territory have had enough of violent crime. The community has expected, and does expect, that this parliament takes this issue very seriously and sends a very strong message to people who may potentially commit serious acts of violence against fellow Territorians, and that if they are caught and convicted they will go to gaol. I know there is very strong support for this in the community, because people have had enough. We need to get these types of people off the street, and a term of imprisonment allows them to contemplate their behaviour and, hopefully, see sense and not repeat it when they are released.
There are a number of examples of our willingness to try innovative approaches that have already come before this House, for example, the new Family Responsibility Provisions. My government is committed to seeing positive interventions directed and targeted at people who the Police, or FACS, or Education Officers see at risk, and to have some positive interventions into those families before those juveniles get formally caught up in the Corrections system. It is a bold and innovative approach. Nowhere else in Australia has attempted to structure arrangements where there are positive early interventions with families. There are many families out there who are crying out for help, who are finding it very difficult to control kids who are off the rails for whatever reason; to have a regime where, by consent in the first instance, through the department of Families, people can sit down with families affected, identify the support they need, the one-on-one essential support that family needs, whether it is parental skills, or problems with alcohol or substance abuse that need to be dealt with in that family. We will provide this level of support if families make significant and stringent efforts to have better control over their children. Nobody has tried this before and we are putting that in place at the moment.
In the event that those agreements do not work because the parents or the guardians fail to commit to their side of the bargain, in serious cases there will be a move to Parental Orders which will be orders of the court to insist that those parents or guardians hold up their side of the bargain and ensure those orders, whether they be to attend alcohol or drug rehabilitation, or gambling rehabilitation, or to participate in parental courses, or to ensure that bail conditions of their children are met, or to ensure that their kids go to school. In the event that those conditions are not complied with, then those parents are back before the courts.
Nobody has tried this before. It really is aimed at supporting parents and guardians in the first instance directly, and if that does not work, having a set of court-imposed orders. That is all about assisting the young people who either are offending or at risk of offending because, at the end of the day, as the member for Port Darwin said in previous debate in the first sittings of this parliament, there is no one better placed to make decisions about children and influence their behaviours than parents. When parents are struggling or parents are failing, if we can provide interventions to up-skill those parents or get that family back on track, that is a much better option for the child than having that child removed from the family unit and placed into the minister’s care or into foster care.
We are taking bold and innovative approaches to try to prevent people falling into the criminal justice system, falling into drug and alcohol abuse, and then potentially moving through various levels of criminal activity to the point where they are serious violent offenders who commit serious violent offences. We are taking a very innovative approach.
My colleague, the Minister for Children and Families, mentioned the three youth diversion camps this government has established at Hamilton Downs, Balunu on Talc Head and Brahminy at Batchelor. It is great to hear from the minister of the early successes we are having through those programs. This is an opportunity for the courts to take these juveniles who have offended or are at serious risk, and get them out of the environment in which they are living, the networks in which they are associating, the influences that are around them, away from the substances that they may be abusing, and get them into a remote facility with some very strong role models and positive activities to build self-esteem and break the cycles that these kids are in, and show them that there is a different way. There is a different way and there are different choices these kids can make, that are much healthier choices for them.
Fifty-seven juveniles have already taken part. I am meeting with the Minister for Children and Families early next week to have an in-depth look at this and to hear some of the success stories where kids have actually turned their behaviours around and positively reunited with their parents and guardians for the first time in some time. This is a big step forward.
David Cole briefed me in my electorate office a few weeks ago about what he was doing. There were some issues contractually with the agency that the minister has sorted out. I was absolutely taken aback with his commitment to making a difference, and a positive difference, in these young people’s lives. It is not a holiday camp. The Leader of the Opposition talks about boot camps. I really do not know what he is talking about. He has not defined what a boot camp is and I do not know what his definition is. Maybe it is putting kids in uniforms with boots and having them marching up and down and saluting him on a dais or something like that. I do not know what this boot camp is that he is talking about, he has not defined it. However, when you talk to somebody like David Cole, as opposed to the Leader of the Opposition, and see his very real and absolute commitment and understanding of what it takes to turn some of these kids around, it is very refreshing.
It is no holiday camp over there. Those kids get up very early in the morning. There is a lot of physical activity involved. They have to take responsibility for cooking, cleaning, and maintaining premises, but it is in a very positive way – it is about positive self-esteem rather than a pernicious military-style operation.
The Leader of the Opposition was talking about this and his rhetoric ramped up during the election. The Leader of the Opposition is a very decent – and I mean this sincerely – person and he thinks deeply about issues. I recall when his home was broken into and he actually apprehended the young offender and managed to keep the young offender there until the police arrived. The Leader of the Opposition followed this young person through the juvenile correction system, and I applaud him for that. It is a case study to see what the system does with these kids who are breaking into people’s homes. I applaud him for his actions; the fact that he, from a public policy point of view as well as from the human interest point of view, followed that case through the system to see the outcome, and how the system deals with these kids. The outcome was very early in the stages of the Balunu operation at Talc Head and that kid went there and had a very positive experience which turned this kid around.
I know the Leader of the Opposition went there and saw the program firsthand. I have not done that yet; it is certainly on my ‘to do’ list. Hopefully, by the end of the year, I will get over there. I have made a couple of attempts and they have not had kids there. So impressed was the Leader of the Opposition with how David Cole and the Balunu Foundation worked with that young person that he made a video clip which was on the Balunu Foundation’s website. He spoke very glowingly about this being exactly the type of intervention that was needed to turn these kids around, and he was caught up in the emotion of it all. I watched the clip, it was streaming off the Internet for quite sometime, and the Leader of the Opposition was 100% absolutely committed that this is what we needed. It had turned this kid around, and it was a pretty emotional experience. You could see that through the video clip, and I thought: ‘Good on him. That was a very positive thing to do’.
But then, as the ramp-up to the election occurred, the rhetoric started to change. I admit that the Leader of the Opposition was there with Balunu before the government was. He spoke positively about it and we looked at it and said we should have a look at this as well, in terms of youth diversion camps. We had already funded Hamilton Downs. I remember the Cabinet meeting with the Justice minister and we looked at, in an interim way, what was available in the Northern Territory. We found out about the Alan Brahminy operation at Batchelor, and we said we will put some money into this organisation as an initial support whilst we look at what we might be doing longer term. We came out and we said as part of the package of measures that we are going to support Balunu and Brahminy and continue with Hamilton Downs until we had a longer term look at the future for a youth diversion camp in the Top End.
That was very positive and I give credit to the Leader of the Opposition: he spotted that policy initiative before we did. Then, as we moved into the election campaign, the rhetoric changed. All of a sudden the rhetoric changed from being a really positive intervention and something that should be supported in a structured way, it turned into a holiday camp, and that was not tough enough for the Leader of the Opposition: what we needed was a boot camp because what Labor was proposing were holiday camps and that was not good enough. Lo and behold, Madam Speaker, the streaming video image which was on the Balunu website, where the Leader of the Opposition was talking so positively about this particular intervention, was pulled off.
The initial policy position of the CLP on crime issues were ratcheted up during the lead-up to the election. What was, from the Leader of the Opposition, an absolute first-rate operation which was providing a really positive outcome for juveniles - so positive was it that the Leader of the Opposition was prepared to participate in a streaming video clip to support the foundation and prepared to lend his name to the good work they were doing – but with the political imperative to look tough on law and order, all of that commitment, all of that personal endorsement, all went out the window: ‘We need a boot camp because these things are not good enough’.
We are sticking with it. I am looking to, within the bounds of appropriate public policy, support and build capacity in these organisations rather than look for something fresh and new. I know that David Cole has actually had conversations with the Leader of the Opposition regarding his change of heart about that particular organisation.
Then we go to the election campaign. We are all aware - we are all politicians – of a series of violent incidents which were reported in the media. Our community was saying: ‘Enough is enough. We want to see the law and we want to see the courts treat these types of offences more seriously’. The opposition heard that message from our community; we heard that message from our community. We were looking at an appropriate legislative and policy response. As I said, we had a whole range of options on the juvenile side: parental agreements, orders, closing the revolving door on juvenile diversion, giving kids two opportunities at diversion then going before the courts, and looking at establishing juvenile diversion camps as an opportunity to try to turn these kids around.
Then we looked at the legislation at the end point and saw that, under the Sentencing Act - currently under the legislation until this bill passes – if you commit and are found guilty of a serious violence offence on a second occasion then a gaol sentence has to be imposed. Cabinet looked at that and decided the principle was already there in the legislation, but people have had enough and we needed to elevate that provision to a first offence. Essentially, that is what we have done. That is the legislation we are debating today. As my colleague, the Attorney-General said, we have been absolutely consistent.
Let us look at where the opposition has come from and where they went to and, now, where they are today because they have had at least three positions on this issue in the last three or four months. First, in the lead-up to the election, the CLP took out some advertisements on television – tough on crime. ‘I am Terry Mills, I am tough on crime and we are going to introduce this package, we are going to have these boot camps. They used to be good but they are not good. We are going to have boot camps now’. Then we had the Leader of the Opposition in the advertisement in the lead-up to the election saying: ‘Enough is enough, if you commit a serious violent offence, on the first occasion when you go before the courts we will leave it up to the judge to determine the sentence but, if you are done again, you will go to gaol’ …
Dr Burns: But that was the law, anyway.
Mr HENDERSON: That was the law, anyway, as pointed out by the Attorney-General. However, he presented himself as this tough-on-crime crime fighter, took out those ads - I think they ran for two weeks, a pretty high rotation for two weeks …
Members interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: A pretty high rotation. ‘We will introduce boot camps to replace the things which used to be good but are not good two weeks later, and we are going to give the judges discretion on the first occasion …’, which they already had, ‘… and on the second offence, we are going to put you in gaol’.
Fair enough. But then, by the time of their campaign launch, we had announced our policy, and they announced a compulsory term of imprisonment for a first offence. They said: ‘Well, maybe, because Labor has actually said first offence, and we have said second offence …’, which was already in the law, ‘… we had better match them’. I think about two weeks after they had their initial policy position of leaving it up to the judge on the first time, ‘we better toughen up and make it on a first offence’. But only for offences that cause serious harm.
That was in the campaign launch in the documentation. That is a real Clayton’s amendment since convictions for serious harm invariably lead to a prison sentence anyway. I can see what is going on behind the scenes in the party room as they wrestle with this policy position. Again, they say serious harm, and it leads to a prison offence anyway, so nothing has changed.
We have a committee stage amendment today. I think there has been three different versions of this circulated, so that is five different positions that they have had on sentencing in the space of about three months. They have been all over the place on this issue, purely for the politics of looking tough. Not anything about a good policy and legislative and sentencing outcome - purely for presentation purposes of looking tough on crime. That is all this has been about and they have been all over the place on this particular issue.
We have been consistent all of the way through. Our legislation is here; we are debating it today. I believe it reflects the will of Territorians. They have had enough and want a very strong signal sent by this parliament through the laws we pass, that if you commit a serious violent offence against a fellow human being and you are convicted, you will go to gaol. That is what we are debating here today. We have been consistent in our position.
As minister for Police, I am pleased that this will increase the authority of the police uniform, and that where a police officer is correctly carrying out his or her duties, if they are the subject of such an assault, the offender will go to gaol. Our police officers - and we have four ex-officers on the other side of the benches, I think even they will admit that, in my time as the Police minister, I have been totally committed to supporting our police force and seeing them supported by the government of the day. They are out there in the front line. They intervene in all sorts of areas and issues, whether it is drunken brawls in Mitchell Street on a Saturday night, or in domestic violence situations, or in situations where there is real possibility of conflict. They put themselves on the line, and that uniform should offer them as much protection as possible in terms of respect. If a serious assault is committed on a police officer, they should be protected and that offender, if convicted, goes to gaol.
My government is making a considerable investment to increase the size of our police force through such initiatives as Safer Streets and the Police Beat initiatives, and our police, who do a great job investigating and apprehending offenders, alongside the victims they serve and protect, need better satisfaction than to see offenders back out on the streets without any time behind bars to contemplate their behaviour.
It is not just the police who are out on our urban streets; it is those out in the bush. I acknowledge today, and through the intervention into the Northern Territory, the last of the 18 remote police stations was opened this week at Haasts Bluff. I have been to a number of those sites and the police are doing a great job in our regions of the Northern Territory as well as remote communities.
We are serious about making life tougher for offenders and denying them access to bail when they commit such assaults. Territorians deserve a safer community. By comparison, offenders who conduct the type of assaults we are considering here today deserve no second chance, which is the case under the current law. I believe all of us, when we see incidences of unprovoked, violent assaults against people and if they are accompanied by other people, or if they are accompanied by any sort of weapon - and totally unprovoked – consider those types of offences as absolutely unacceptable in the Northern Territory.
Madam Speaker, this bill, when it passes today, will send a very serious and real message to people who commit these types of offences - that we have had enough, Territorians have had enough - and if you commit these types of offences and you are convicted, you will go to gaol.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to the House.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I need to respond to some of the comments made by the Chief Minister. I believe the Chief Minister, in an attempt to carve this up and score political or debating points on a serious matter, has overlooked something - quite deliberately I would suggest. No matter what mechanisms are put in place - and I stand completely behind what I described during the campaign - I believe in the position that I held and described then and I hold the same view now.
The issue is primarily the attitude which is brought to bear on the situation, the recognition that we have a very serious problem, and acknowledging that the statistics, as they are presented, reveal a story of great concern and it requires a genuine response.
If we are going to carve up the story in a way that makes one side look different from the other, the point is: we have to take a different approach. I did not think I would have to explain this, but the issue with the boot camps - it has been described to the Balunu Foundation and the position has been put before - I believe it goes back to the Alice Springs sittings before last, describing the approach that we need to have with young people. The word ‘comprehensive’ was used many times during the campaign. Our community is requiring a comprehensive and genuine approach to these social problems which result in a whole spectrum of offences from social disorder and kids at risk, all the way to violent assaults - serious violent assaults - where kids are beyond reach of a normal program. It is not a one-size-fits-all.
These guys are imitators and counterfeiters. They look around and think: let us have a look at the polling; the object of the exercise is to hold onto government and then we will come up with some kind of response that satisfies a public concern, which is, in fact a political issue, and craft a response. The community is concerned about young people; let us get a youth diversionary camp. They actually use the ‘boot camp’ phrase from time to time because they know they have hit the target. The thing is, you have to be serious and genuine about this.
As has been described, the member for Nelson for many years has been describing the same approach, and if you listen to your community and walk in step with them, they want a different approach. If it is some clever little argument about my language changing in the course of a campaign, then you are overlooking this: behind that, if you were sincere, you would have looked at the papers which were presented, the conversations that were had, the debates we have had in parliament, and recognise there is a need for a comprehensive approach, which includes the Balunu approach, which includes the Hamilton Downs approach, which includes Brahminy, and includes a number of other programs of that kind, including a very tough option. You look at that young kid in Alice Springs, that seven-year-old. Do not tell me they are going to need just an ordinary approach. It needs an extraordinary approach to reach into kids who are showing profoundly disturbing behaviours. There has to be a range of options.
It is irresponsible and it shows the insincerity of the approach and the recognition of a problem affecting Territorians if you are going to carve it up in those simple and crass terms. There needs to be a range of approaches, a comprehensive approach. If the Chief Minister is serious and has a genuine attitude shift on these matters rather than the word change to suit a political objective, he would acknowledge that in meetings with the Balunu Foundation who also agreed there needs to be a tougher option. They also agreed. Anyone who works with young people knows if you want to change behaviour, you have to have the range of options including the boot camp.
The point is that when we go to an election we have limited opportunities to explain our message - such is the nature of modern politics. When this Labor government, with their track record, says something, the community, frankly, do not believe them. There is no attitude shift because sitting behind the attitude is a fundamental belief that an individual is not wholly responsible for their actions. I differ on that. You have to recognise that essential ingredient and whatever policy fix you have in response to that must carry the central idea that an individual, the dignity of a human being, whatever their circumstances, you cannot, essentially, discount the responsibility they must personally and individually bear. That is the difference. The point is, as the result of this Chamber here, the electorate does not believe the Labor Party. They do not believe them on matters of law and order. The evidence of that is in the Chamber.
We will not back away from a completely different approach, a genuine approach, to the problem of law and order. It is not a matter of clever debating points. It is a genuine approach and personal buy-in if we are going to shift this. It is not a talk about statistics. It is not talking about some clever observations that have been made. It is genuine. We have a serious problem. I urge the Chief Minister to take it seriously. There are none so deaf that cannot hear - choose not to hear.
Ms ANDERSON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I support my colleague, the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General, in his second reading speech in the Sentencing Amendment (Violent Offences) Bill.
I would like to talk from experience of living on an Aboriginal community, growing up on an Aboriginal community, and seeing these horrific offences committed against our women and children.
I want to make sure I get the message clearly to the Attorney-General: violent offenders should not be let off.
I want to put this question to the member for Araluen: are the comments she makes in this House based on things she has seen, or based on things she has experienced firsthand?
I can tell you, as an eight-year-old child growing up and mothering your own brother - this kind of thing upsets me to talk about. My Dad actually broke my mother’s nose when I was eight years-old and my Mum had to be evacuated to Alice Springs. I then had to become not just a sister, but a mother for six months, to look after my young brother. So it started from a very early age.
There has been a consistency of this violence that we have seen in Indigenous communities, and we still see it in our town of Alice Springs today, and the consistency of the normalisation of this behaviour. We see it in our town camps and we still see it today in places like Papunya and Kintore. There was a recent incident, only a week old, where this 22-year-old girl who is pregnant and comes from my electorate, has been bashed to the extent that both of her eyes have nearly popped out of her head. She is currently in Alice Springs Hospital as we speak. These people need to be locked up. There is just no two ways about whether you save these people.
This ongoing violence is so horrific to a society, not just to the Indigenous society but to the society of the Territory. We heard it at the last election. We read about it every day in the newspapers and hear about it on the radio.
Today, I support my colleague because I am talking from experience of how we see young people now travelling. We see these young people falling into the same pattern that I saw as an eight-year-old child, having to be the sister and then a mother to my own young brother and my step-sister. I have seen this in my own step-sister who, my colleagues know, often lives here in Darwin. She has been the victim of a crime that has been committed against her, where her now ex - I think - has violently abused her to the extent that she was in the Intensive Care Unit in Darwin. Her head is not going to be the same. She is now suffering fits. I saw her back on my brother’s outstation just last week when I went to Papunya. It is good that she is back at home, but she will never be the same after that horrible hit that she received on her head.
This is what our women are going through every day. The children just fall into this pattern after seeing their dads do this to their mothers. They think that, as grown-up adults, as Territorians – not as Indigenous Territorians, but as Territorians; we all live in the Territory – that is all normal behaviour. So, they fall into that pattern.
One thing I will say to the Chief Minister and the Attorney-General: you can set up all these little boot camps or whatever you want to call them, but you have to do something with these violent offenders; you just cannot help these people. As ex-cops, you will know – you saw it at Kintore yourself – it continues to happen. I see it in the streets of Alice Springs at one o’clock in the morning. The last time I visited Alice Springs I saw eight-year-old children – and I brought this to the attention of the Alice Springs Town Council when I met with them – in the street at one o’clock in the morning, riding their bikes, being abusive to people, and throwing the rubbish bins all around the main street of Alice Springs. These are eight-year-old children. Guess what? My little grandson was one of those little eight-year-olds - from my nephew, which we call grandson. As soon as he heard my voice, he was on that bike and he was gone. I went around to see the mother the very next morning at the town camp. And guess what? The mother was drunk. What do we expect this child to do when the only parent who looks after him is lying down on the ground under the influence of alcohol, unable to get herself up even to feed the child?
This is why it is very important that, as politicians who sit in this House, we do not trivialise what goes on in the Territory with Indigenous people. Unless you have had the firsthand experience of watching your mother’s nose being smashed - and my mother’s nose has never ever been fixed up because when she was admitted into the Alice Springs Hospital all those many years ago it was before the technology of surgery came in where she could have the reconstruction. So, her nose is like that until she dies. She is now blind and 76 years old. That is something that my father did all those years ago that she has to carry. It was so very hard for me to train myself and to talk to my young siblings and explain to them that that behaviour is not a behaviour that anyone, any human being, does in a society.
We sit in this House not to trivialise and fight about who is right and wrong. This bill quite clearly sends the message to perpetrators and offenders out there that the Territory government is not going to mess around with this kind of thing anymore.
It is a strong message that will hopefully encourage our young adolescents today in the communities, and in the town camps, and in the streets of Alice Springs, that this is a government that takes the law very seriously. I hope we can grow intelligent, smart, young Territorians to have a future in the Territory that is vibrant, with good education and good cultural knowledge. As the Leader of the Opposition says: you sow what you reap. Through this law, I feel that we are sowing good people, and we are going to sow good people. It easy to sit inside this House and fling at each other, but I take these matters very seriously; because it has happened to me, it has happened to my immediate family.
Going home for the weekend, I showed a friend of mine, when we went to my brother’s outstation, adolescents from the ages of 10 to 18 walking around, unemployed, all waiting for the welfare to come in, and these kids will re-offend. There is a cycle inside the justice system we do not want to see them go through, and I feel this bill stops that from happening.
It is an education strategy as well, and a serious, strong education message that this government is sending out to our kids out there, saying: ‘You cannot do that. We are taking the law that serious that this is what is going to happen to you’. With all the multitude of programs that we have put in underneath this bill, beside this bill, over this bill, that will embrace and encompass the Territory only to breed good Territorians and good Australians.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, yesterday during the Matter of Public Importance on Housing, the member for Daly made an unparliamentary remark regarding the member for Fong Lim. I did not hear the remark, and it was not drawn to my attention at the time, but it appears in the Hansard. The member for Fong Lim has taken offence at the remark. I ask the member for Daly to withdraw the remark and apologise to the member for Fong Lim under Standing Order 62(1).
Mr KNIGHT (Daly): Madam Speaker, I apologise and unreservedly withdraw my comments about the member for Fong Lim sleeping in his car.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Whilst I accept that the member has apologised, he may have made a more determined reference to the injury that he caused the member for Fong Lim, and at least pointed out that he made an outrageous allegation against the member for Fong Lim, suggesting that he was intoxicated and sleeping in a car; a matter which has been followed up by the media and which has resulted in this matter being brought on today.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order. The member has withdrawn unreservedly and apologised.
Continued from earlier this day.
Dr BURNS (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I thank all members who have made a contribution to this very important debate. It is a debate about crime, and violent crime in particular, and this government’s intention to address this issue. We have been very clear about our intentions right from the time the Chief Minister announced this policy prior to the election campaign. In essence, it was in response to public concerns about violent crime, particularly repeat offenders of violent assaults and the sentencing regimes that apply to these people. It is there in the second reading speech which says:
That is the essence of it. That has been government’s intention all the way through. As the Chief Minister pointed out, the opposition has had a number of positions on this particular aspect. It was the Opposition Leader who came out earlier and said: ‘If you have a first offence we will leave that to the discretion of the court and then a second violent offence you will go to gaol’. That was his first position. Once our position was made very clear, he rearranged it to come in line with what the government was proposing. It was evident when he came out with his first position, which is actually the law as it currently stands, more or less. He was informed by a number of lawyers and others in the media that that was the case, and it must have been quite embarrassing for the Opposition Leader to hear that. I suppose he would be wondering about the legal advice that he had received in formulating that particular policy.
The intention of government is very clear. The member for Araluen said that the opposition supports the bill, but she believes, and put forward the case, that the bill needs some improvements. She identified those improvements as being minimum sentencing and she has put forward a proposal for minimum sentencing as a committee stage amendment. I will discuss her amendments in detail at that particular time.
The member for Araluen talked about the Domestic Violence Orders and people who breach Domestic Violence Orders and commit an assault against someone; they get seven days mandatory imprisonment. However, I did not hear the member for Araluen say that that is for a second or subsequent breaking of a Domestic Violence Order. It is not on the first offence. The government would argue that what we are proposing here is on a first offence. We are certainly not going with minimum sentencing and, no doubt, we will debate very carefully why. Basically, we believe that our regime is fair. It is the policy intent of government. I am prepared to argue in committee stages with the member for Araluen over the nitty gritty of why the government will not be accepting the amendments that she has proposed.
Member for Nelson, I hope I heard you correctly, but I will stand corrected if I am wrong. I believe you were saying there is a large section of the public who have probably had enough of what some people might call the law and order option between the major parties. You wanted to know more about programs in gaols and the impact of some of these particular policies and changes to the act on the prison population. As is well known, government has put forward a master plan for our correctional facilities, to have a 1000 bed facility on a greenfield site. That announcement, as I have discussed with the member for Nelson, will be made in the next little while. Without going into the issue of where it will be sited, I believe the expansion will provide sufficient capacity to handle any increase caused by our tough but responsible sentencing amendments.
The strong advice that I have had, member for Nelson, that even under the current growth, that is the growth that we have had to date without these laws being brought in, the model you put forward and the model the opposition, and particularly the Leader of the Opposition, put forward will fail in four years. There simply will not be anywhere to put prisoners by 2012. That is the site at Berrimah. I am prepared to argue in detail about that at the appropriate time. No doubt we will have a debate in this place on that issue. That is my very strong advice. The model that you have proposed will exacerbate the situation and make it even more unworkable.
We have done an assessment. I am sure there will be a question on prison population and the effects of prison population from these amendments. My advice is it is very difficult on a day-to-day basis to assess prison population: people in remand, people who may be at various stages of serving their sentence. It is a lot easier if you have a wider time frame, particularly a year. It is easy enough to get an estimate over a year, but we know that crime and punishment tends to spike a little. The advice that I have had from Corrections is that there will be capacity within the system to have any influx due to these changes here. Member for Nelson, I know we will have a more detailed debate at another time about gaols, locations of gaols, capacity of gaols, and other issues related to that.
Implicit in your question, apart from the capacity of gaols, was the issue of rehabilitation and giving prisoners some support for when they come out of gaol to be equipped to handle life and not re-offend and get back inside again. That is one of the reasons why government has proposed and will be building a new gaol. Any look at the education facilities and rehabilitation facilities at Berrimah as it stands now is just woeful. In fact, it is embarrassing to see the lack of facilities there for prisoners. Part of the main driver for government about having a greenfield site is the fact that we will be able to expand educational facilities both in terms of infrastructure and programs that are being offered.
The member for Nelson raised a specific case about whether these particular laws would apply in the case of the much publicised incident that occurred at a middle school where a girl was attacked in the toilets and was filmed and shown on YouTube. These are juveniles and these laws will not apply to juveniles. You talked a little about Family Responsibility Orders and camps - as did the Chief Minister, who complimented the Leader of the Opposition for taking an active interest in Balunu. The Chief Minister also said that government has taken up funding for Balunu and for Brahminy in the Top End and Hamilton Downs in Central Australia. I have not had the opportunity to look at either Brahminy or Balunu, but it was my pleasure to go to the Hamilton Downs facility with Ren Kelly probably a couple of months ago now. It was a great drive out there.
Mr Elferink: How is Ren?
Dr BURNS: What is that?
Mr Elferink: How is he? I have not seen him for ages.
Dr BURNS: He is pretty good.
Mr Elferink: That is good news. I am pleased to hear it.
Dr BURNS: I will pass on your best wishes, member for Port Darwin.
Mr Elferink: Thank you.
Dr BURNS: He is very passionate about this facility and it is great to see someone like Ren Kelly and other members of the Alice Springs community getting squarely behind a facility such as Hamilton Downs, not only for troubled youth but for youth generally. It was great to hear some of the history of Hamilton Downs - not just the more recent history but some of its pioneering history. For me, it was a great day out. I do not get out much anymore, unfortunately, in places like that to go for a drive, so I really appreciated the trouble Ren went to. Ren’s wife made some lovely scones and cakes and we had a cup of tea in a Thermos, and it was a feast all around. I really enjoyed it.
The Chief Minister also talked about, as did other members such as the member for Arnhem, family responsibility orders, and a framework - not just these laws but a framework for youths - trying to get youth before they go off the rails and become repeat offenders as adults, and what government is doing in that regard with camps and closing the door on juvenile diversion. Unfortunately, as the member for Macdonnell pointed out, there are some people who go through life and think that some of this violent behaviour is normal and they continue to offend. I appreciated the contribution of the member for Macdonnell about her own tragic family experience and her view and her passion that, as a government, through all of the strategies that we have, including these laws, that what we are trying to do is reduce the amount of violence perpetrated within our community.
The Chief Minister also talked about one aspect of the changes in the law which relates specifically to police and aggravated assaults on police with very hefty penalties. This is a government that really wants to support our police force. These amendments will go a long way to helping police. They have a very difficult job, they confront very violent offenders, and it is dangerous work in which they are involved.
The Leader of the Opposition, in a way, responded to the Chief Minister’s offering and talked about political point scoring. I was a bit lost when he said he holds the same position now as at the election because, basically, that is not the way I recall it. He has had a number of policy positions. First he said: ‘First offence we will leave it up to the judge’. Then he followed on with: ‘Second offence you will go to gaol’. That was his first foray into this policy area in the lead-up to the election. By the time of the campaign launch, in a desperate attempt to catch up, he announced ‘a compulsory term of imprisonment for the first offence but only for offences that cause serious harm’. So, it was a very narrow band of offences.
What we propose are a number of offences. Amongst others, section 181, serious harm; section 186, harm; section 188, assault resulting in harm or serious harm to the victim; and section 189A, as I have just alluded to, assaults on police causing harm or serious harm to the victim. The crux of these offences is that harm is caused. In our proposal we have been consistent right throughout the election campaign up to the introduction to parliament. We have been very consistent about our view. Our view is that the community is very concerned about those who perpetrate violent offences - not just the sort of minor argy-bargy that goes on within any society at the level of common assault, as I will call it, but something that is more serious; something that actually causes palpable harm and particularly physical harm to the victim. That was always our intent.
The other thing to note is that serious harm, as proposed during the campaign by the opposition, is a very serious penalty in itself. It has a maximum penalty of 14 years. Invariably that leads to a prison sentence anyway, so it was a bit of a Clayton’s amendment. As I have said publicly and in the media earlier today, there have been three versions of committee stage amendments put forward by the shadow Attorney-General - that has been over the last three to four days - each of which has a different take on when people should go to prison. They are overly complex, I believe, and they have a very legalistic take on sentencing.
As we will find out in the committee stages, there are many steps involved in section 4, particularly the committee stage amendment the member for Araluen is talking about. There is (a) to (d), and we will go through it in much detail in the committee stage debate.
In being briefed on what the member for Araluen has proposed, my feeling was it has more steps than a Mayan temple. It has many steps and is complex - a bit like a Mayan temple. When you get to the end of the steps, there is a sacrifice. The sacrifice in what the member for Araluen is proposing here is all about simplicity, clarity and workability. I ask members to contrast that approach, which is very much policy on the run and trying to keep up with the government and get a headline, with our very clear approaches.
In the committee stage I will outline and define what physical harm is, and making that, to a large degree, the test of someone actually going to prison for what they have done. We are not interested in the minor argy-bargy. We are interested in serious assaults, and our legislation and the committee stage amendment that I will be introducing as part of the committee stage reflect that.
I have covered to some degree what people have talked about. Surprisingly enough, the Leader of the Opposition called the ALP imitators and counterfeiters. I believe I have demonstrated, and I will demonstrate, and I will continue to demonstrate, that that is the role the CLP has taken in this particular debate and this particular issue. It has been catch up all the way, and they have been the imitators and counterfeiters. As we enter into the committee stage debate, that will be well and truly exposed.
The Leader of the Opposition accused the Labor Party of holding a view, and I quote: ‘Individuals are not wholly responsible for their actions’. I rebut that completely. I refute that completely. This is a government, in all areas, that really wants people to take responsibility for their lives, for their families. That has been reflected through our Family Responsibility Orders and Agreements. That is our policy intent also. So I was bit perplexed when the Leader of the Opposition said that. That is our view and the strong statements made by the member for Macdonnell and the member for Arnhem, and others here, really demonstrate that the government is intent on making people take responsibility for their actions.
I believe I have dealt with what the Leader of the Opposition said. As I have said previously, the member for Macdonnell talked from her own experience. Her exact words were: ‘Violent offenders should not be let off’. That is what this legislation, in a very clear and concise way, will address. She also talked about some of this violence being a normalisation of behaviour and, unfortunately, that is very true. There are some people in the Territory who think that violence is a normal way of life and it is the normal way to react to situations. Unfortunately, that is not the case and these are the people that this legislation will target.
I reiterate what the Chief Minister said on 14 July 2008 in his media release:
He also said:
That is the intent of government put forward by the Chief Minister. It is still the intent of government. I commend this bill to the House and look forward to the committee stage debate.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Madam CHAIR: The committee has before it the Sentencing Amendment (Violent Offences) Bill 2008 (Serial 7) together with Schedule of Amendments No 3 circulated by the member for Araluen and a Schedule of Amendments No 4 circulated by the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General.
Is it the wish of the committee that Clauses 1 to 4 be taken together?
Ms CARNEY: Aye. I will do the government’s work for them. They really want to say aye to this.
Dr BURNS: There could be no objection and it can be so ordered. So there you go, member for Araluen.
Ms CARNEY: You had no idea what was going on.
Ms LAWRIE: You can be silent.
Madam CHAIR: Order!
Ms CARNEY: You are Leader of Government Business. Do not speak from that seat. You never know what is going on.
Madam CHAIR: Thank you. Order!
Clauses 1 to 4, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 5:
Ms CARNEY: Madam Chair, I move amendment 3.1 to clause 5 standing in my name and circulated to members. The minister and others have a copy of the amendment. I will reply to some of the matters the minister discussed before, but let us get through this part of it first.
These amendments are made for the reasons I outlined in my reply to the minister’s second reading speech earlier today. The minister said in his response that they were complex. Let me lead the minister, the first law officer of the Northern Territory, through our amendments.
The amendments fulfil an election promise to impose certain minimum sentences on serious violent offenders. The amendments will allow the court to decide the outcome for first time offenders, except where serious harm is caused to the victim. The amendments will require the courts to impose the following sentences:
for a violent offence causing serious harm and where the offender is an adult and has recorded a previous conviction for a violent offence – 12 months;
for a violent offence causing serious harm and the offender is an adult who has had no previous conviction for a violent offence – six months;
for a violent offence with aggravated factors where the person is an adult and has recorded a previous conviction for a violent crime – three months;
for a violent offence causing harm and the offender is an adult and has recorded a previous conviction for a violent offence – one month; and
for all other second and subsequent violent offences, the court must record a conviction and impose a term of actual imprisonment or a term of imprisonment that
is partly, but not wholly suspended. On a second or subsequent offence where the victim suffers no harm and there are no aggravating factors in the offence, then
the committee stage amendments will leave the sentence to the discretion of the court which includes the rising of the court, and for a second or subsequent offence
that happens within 10 years on conviction for a previous violent offence, the court must not suspend any part of the sentence. Apart from the subsections that refer
only to adults, the section applies to adult offenders and also to juvenile offenders who have been sentenced and treated as an adult offender in the Supreme Court.
Minister, you are clearly a man who thinks size matters. Your amendments are certainly smaller, it would appear, than ours. That does not lessen their significance and nor are the amendments complex. They are remarkably straightforward for magistrates and judges to follow. Why? Because they are prescribed minimum sentences. Straightforward for the people of the Northern Territory because they know that is what the tariff is, what the minimum requirement is, when offenders commit serious harm. The offenders not only know what to expect, but the people of the Northern Territory know what they are going to get.
I was going to say I was not going to go into the committee stage process in great detail. I was going to repeat to some extent what I said earlier today - that we have different approaches to sentencing but, frankly, I found your response so rude, offensive and patronising that you are about to get everything you deserve.
You are a very odd fellow, Attorney-General. At times I think you are a decent fellow. However, when I hear the sort of rubbish I heard from you earlier, I question your integrity. I have not questioned your integrity before, but I do it now. You had a bit of a go about the draft. I understand one was an office stuff-up and the other two drafts resulted from discussions with Parliamentary Counsel. How dare you seek to take the mickey for getting additional drafts when you as Attorney-General, your predecessor and the one before him, not to mention your colleagues in respect of other legislation, have come into this House in terms of second and subsequent offences fixing up the bills that you introduced because you discover months and, in some cases, years down the track that they were stuffed up when you introduced them.
We call them your ‘oops’ bills. I do not have a count of how many ‘oops’ bills you have introduced as a government but there are buckets of them. With all of the resources of government, with all of your collective wisdom, when you keep coming in here over the last seven years with ‘oops’ bills, how dare you have a go in respect of the drafts in relation to this bill. You can sit there smiling like, who is it? Dr Burns from the Simpsons?
A member: Montgomery.
Ms CARNEY: Montgomery. This is a very serious matter. I feel certain that those in Parliamentary Counsel will take, as they should, a dim view of your implicit criticism of them. As an opposition, everyone makes mistakes; as a government, everyone makes mistakes. You seem to think, minister, that you are perfect. May I respectfully suggest to you that you are not - and you are, my friend, a long way from it.
Then there was the offensive suggestion that the opposition was playing catch-up. Not true and you know it. The Labor Party did not even know, let alone embrace it, the meaning of the word ‘mandatory’ until - what was it, a couple of years ago? – all of a sudden, it started to find its way into legislation. You hypocrites! You came in here on 16 October 2001, hand on heart, saying: ‘We are going to get rid of mandatory sentencing. We think it is outrageous’. How many times have we seen the word ‘mandatory’ surface since then? You are, my friends, the ones who have been playing catch-up. Indeed, in respect of minimum sentences, if memory serves me correctly - and I will stand to be corrected on this - I feel certain we, the opposition, talked about minimum sentences in this place in the past. Certainly, with your great resources on the fifth floor of this place, you will know that I have made various references to minimum sentences in the media over the past few years.
Why have I and the opposition referred to minimum sentences? Because we know - and you do too; you just cannot bring yourselves to admit it - the public wants it. As a government or, indeed in opposition, you do not always do everything the public wants, but you cannot ignore community expectation. How dare you sanctimoniously sit there and assert that you represent your constituents and the electorate of the Northern Territory when you fail to listen to them? You are not listening.
I repeat the point about the high rates of crime and violence in the Northern Territory. They are too high. Is it not the case, at the very least - and I put it the purpose of our amendments is, in fact, put much more highly than this - but indulge me for a minute and go down the alternative track. At the very least, might not minimum sentences for violent offenders be worth a go in due course? Well, they should be.
In relation to your suggestion that there is some catch-up being played here, once again, your sanctimonious utterings are surprising and offensive. You have been in government for seven years. How dare you say that we are playing catch-up when you lot are only just beginning to understand - because I feel certain your polling said it - that the community expects more.
We say that these amendments should be supported. I know they will not be, but they should be. I wonder, given the form of this government, whether in a couple of years time we are going to see a media release with your pearly whites, or the mate sitting next to you, on it saying: ‘We are going to embrace and support minimum sentences’. Well, you do have form. So, how dare you say to us in the rude, patronising and sanctimonious, hypocritical way that you do - that we are playing catch-up? Nothing could be further from the truth. You want to get to work? We will get to work and we will go through the committee stages. But do not be rude and offensive like that to me ever again.
Dr BURNS: Madam Chair, I am not sure which part of the member for Araluen’s speech she wants me to respond to. I am more than happy to respond to the substantial issues around minimum sentencing. Are we talking about that now, member for Araluen?
Ms Carney: It is an inane question.
Dr BURNS: Well, we seem to be talking about something else.
Ms Carney: I have moved the amendment – stay awake!
Dr BURNS: You talked about this government repealing mandatory sentencing laws in 2001 and, of course, we did, and we are proud of it, member for Araluen. It was specifically about mandatory sentencing for property crime, which did create a number of injustices which have been well documented and, moreover, was shown not to work in reducing property crime within the Northern Territory, and within my electorate in particular. Government brought in a number of strategies regarding property crime, and there has been, overall, a substantial reduction in property crime not seen under the regime of mandatory sentencing.
I believe the public does have a different view of sentencing for violent offences which, I believe, are in a different category. I believe what the government has proposed in our regime for sentencing for serious violent assaults is fair. As I have said previously, it is tough, but it is fair.
The member for Araluen said: ‘Why not give it a go?’ Well, coming back to part (4) of what you read out before, which you prcis-ed a little, member for Araluen, so I will read out your part (4):
I suppose, being a lawyer, the member for Araluen is well able to follow that, but I believe our amendments to 78BA are much simpler. Basically, we have nominated a number of offences, which I have outlined before, and I will repeat them:
(a) section 181 - serious harm.
(b) section 186 – harm.
(c) section 188 - assault resulting in harm or serious harm to the victim.
(d) section 189A - assault on police resulting in harm or serious harm to the victim.
I believe our regime is very clear and straightforward if you are found guilty of those offences I have just mentioned. The committee stage amendment that I will be moving is simply:
With that covering section and the clear intent of government relating to this serious set of offences, I honestly believe, member for Araluen, that our regime is certainly much simpler. There are deeper problems with your regime; in any mandatory sentencing regime there is always the potential for injustice. Under your minimum sentencing model, there is potential injustice, and I will give you a fairly practical example that I have been given.
Eight years ago, say, a man pushed another man in a disagreement and was found guilty of common assault. Eight years further on, the man is somewhere with his partner, there is a drunk or some obnoxious person who insults, in a fairly profound way, and provokes the male in question. In both regimes, I acknowledge that provocation is not a defence. However, the man retaliates and he might punch the other person in the altercation and that person gets a slight black eye or something that does not permanently affect their health. I am advised and you might tell me differently, member for Araluen, that this person, if found guilty of course, would be sentenced to a minimum of one month under your regime.
I think much of the public would say, in that case, if there has not been serious harm done or serious injury to the person’s health, in the circumstances of the crime, that a month might be a fairly severe sentence - a minimum of one month. With ours, there could be either part or all of the sentence, so the court could determine that it could be an hour, a day, the rising of the court, or it could be overnight that person is incarcerated. The person would still have to serve a term of actual imprisonment. The court could even determine that the person be held to the rising of the court.
I believe there are instances, and we hear about them in the paper, where injustices are done, where the public feels that the perpetrator got off very lightly, but there are also times when the public read an incident that has happened in the paper and think that a sentence or a penalty is too severe.
I argue, and the government argues, that the regime put up by the member for Araluen is not only overly complex but it sweeps in offences at the minor end of the scale. Our regime does not include common assault which is under the umbrella, I am advised, member for Araluen, of a violent offence. I am advised that your regime sweeps in common assault. The government has always made it plain that we will not be going down that track of including common assault which is at the very minor end of the scale of our sentencing regime. Yes, I am advised that it would include common assault for a first offence.
Ms CARNEY: There you go, you still do not understand it, do you? You sought to mislead me and mislead the parliament, until you had a word to an advisor. You are a disgrace, minister.
Dr BURNS: We will not be looking at the regime put forward by the member for Araluen. We will be sticking to our regime, in essence, and focus on the serious end of the offending spectrum in terms of serious harm, harm, assault causing harm, or serious harm to the victim, or assaults on police.
Amendment negatived.
Dr BURNS: Madam Chair, I move amendment 4.1. This amendment amends clause 5 of the Sentencing Amendment (Violent Offences) Bill to remove redundant words. Serious harm is a subset of harm. The threshold for the operation of the amendment is that harm results. If, in fact, serious harm results that threshold is clearly met.
Ms CARNEY: Minister, you sought to mislead the parliament when you said only minutes ago that your amendment of the bill did not include common assault. Then you sought advice from an advisor, and you said, ‘Oops, yes it does.’ Minister, I have one question: do you understand your bill and the amendment, yes or no?
Dr BURNS: I am advised that the bill does not include common assault for first offence.
Ms CARNEY: Oh, you have changed your mind again.
Dr BURNS: What is that?
Ms CARNEY: You have changed your mind again.
Dr BURNS: No, I have just said what I have just said, member for Araluen.
Amendment agreed to.
Ms CARNEY: I do not know how you can think that, with great respect, Madam Chair, given that not one government member indicated support for their own amendment. You lot are a rabble, a shambles, a disgrace. I cannot believe it.
Dr BURNS: Madam Chair, I move amendment 4.2. This amendment also amends clause 5 by inserting after the proposed 78BA(1) a qualification for the operation of proposed section 78BA(1A) to ensure that the proposed section 78BA(1A) does not cause injustice by applying to minor assaults. Where the offending causes or results in physical harm, that harm must be such as to amount to a physical injury that interferes with the victim’s health. If the victim suffers pain or discomfort but it does not amount to a physical injury that interferes with health, then the sentencing regime of section 78BA does not apply. This is as I foreshadowed.
Government’s intent has never been to capture violent offences at the minor end of the scale, as I called it, the minor argy-bargy that does go on from time to time. This is all about capturing serious offences at the serious end of the spectrum that do cause harm and injury to someone’s health.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Dr BURNS (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 18 September 2008.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, the Assembly should know that the Country Liberals value highly the need for comprehensive action on addressing our terrible road toll. Currently, our road toll this year stands at 65 versus 39 at the same time last year. Since 2005, when a discussion around a review of the road strategy was initially thought about and 2006, when the road safety package was implemented, our road toll has continued to go from bad to worse. It is a sad fact that more than 50% of our road toll currently has incidences of drink-driving and also people not wearing a seat belt.
From time to time, matters arise in parliament where true bipartisanship is required for a common good. I would like to think that addressing road safety and reducing our road toll is one of those points.
I briefly spoke about our road toll figures over the last few years. When you look over a five-year average, there have been 244 fatalities on Territory roads, with alcohol being a factor in 124 of those deaths - approximating to 51% of all road deaths. There are more alarming statistics provided by police. These indicate that over the three-year period of 2005, 2006 and 2007, there were 6169 recorded drink-driving offences in the Northern Territory, of which 1130 people or 18% were apprehended for a second and subsequent offence; 2308 people or 37% recorded blood alcohol content readings of more than 0.15%, a high level; and 1301 people or 21% were apprehended in the rural area - that is areas outside of Darwin, Palmerston, Alice Springs, Katherine, Tennant Creek and Nhulunbuy.
Publicly, I have previously made the offer to sit down with the member for Karama and undertake a comprehensive review of the road safety package and open up the Country Liberal’s policy to review our package at the same time, working together to identify which elements are working and which elements are not, and seeking out new ways to improve road safety - ultimately seeking to reduce the carnage and our road toll. This offer has not been taken up; however, I still extend an open invitation to the member for Karama.
This bill which is before us today is about alcohol ignition locks. The alcohol ignition lock is a device that is fitted to a car by a professional which would see the driver, in layman’s terms, blow into the device and register a blood alcohol reading. If that blood alcohol reading is at the allowable level, the ignition will start. If not, the vehicle will not start. There are instances where that ignition lock can be beaten, such as tampering with the starter motor, jump-starting the car, and other methods. We do recognise, though, that the alcohol ignition lock, the AIL, is a device which, generally, is difficult to tamper with, but can be tampered with.
I previously sent the member for Karama a letter requesting amendments be made to my bill. However, after having a briefing with the department on Monday, I do have a large number of unanswered questions which I have serious concerns about as to the roll-out of alcohol ignition locks. I have presented that to the member for Karama.
It should be noted that, even if legislation were passed today, it would be assumed that no one would have an alcohol lock until well before the end of next year or even the year after. That would be as a result of delays in getting the program to start and the time frame for mandatory periods. We could possibly say that this may not be starting until the end of 2009 or 2010, depending upon the start of the program.
One of the questions I raised with the member for Karama by correspondence is: when will that actual program commence? From my briefing by the department, those questions have not been answered, and I am very keen to hear from the member for Karama when the program will commence, which would allow for people to start being sentenced and for mandatory periods of sentencing to commence before the AIL could even come into play.
Other important questions are: how much it will cost to install? How much it will cost to service monthly? And how much it will cost to remove the AIL? I am advised that it would be around $1400 to install an alcohol ignition lock; $140 a month to service an alcohol ignition lock; and up to $1000 to remove the alcohol ignition lock. That is a very costly process. I am sure that many constituents within our electorates will find it difficult to pay this amount of money. I am very keen to find out exactly what the cost scheme is for people who do wish to take up the AILs.
Another question is: how do installations work in rural and remote areas? I am advised there are two companies that can provide an alcohol ignition lock. One company recommends - in layman’s terms - a Joe Blow who seems to know what they are doing can fit one, and the other one is that a licensed electrician has to be able to fit an alcohol ignition lock. If 21% of our three years of drink-drivers who were apprehended came from areas outside the rural area of Darwin, Palmerston, Alice Springs, Katherine, Tennant Creek, and Nhulunbuy, I wonder how many people in those areas will be able to take up an AIL if there are no licensed or capable people who can fit the alcohol ignition lock.
In reviewing many documents that relate to alcohol ignition locks around Australia, throughout the United States, Canada and Europe, I have come across many reports which review AILs and how well they perform, and how much they seem to limit the rate of recidivism once people come off alcohol ignition locks. Some of the information that I have come across says to me that alcohol ignition locks do get drink-drivers back on the road after the mandatory period, but the evidence would say that they are not significantly positive in stopping people from re-offending after the alcohol ignition locks come back on.
Other questions that I put to the department in a briefing, and I have also put to the member for Karama, are: how many departmental staff or MVR staff would be required to manage this program; how much the program in administration components will cost to manage the AIL program; and, will it bring benefits to those people who do take up an AIL?
One of the important components with the AIL is that we are trying to rehabilitate, or change the behaviour of people who are repeat drink-driving offenders. The government proposes a three year period and our amendments propose a five year period. However, I have not been able to identify, through correspondence to the member for Karama or through briefings, exactly how many people we expect will take up the AIL; how many people we expect will stop drink-driving once that AIL period finishes; how many people will not be able to afford to go on the program; and where we expect the program to be taken, whether it is in a rural, remote or urban location, whether it is north or south, or in the middle of this vast Territory. I am very interested in hearing from the member for Karama about who we are actually targeting and who it is going to affect, because without that, it makes it very difficult to know exactly what we are trying to do, to put it simply.
When we are talking about AILs, this is a drastic measure. It is an important measure, but it is a drastic measure. It is an important measure because we have got to the point where people are not valuing other people on the road. They are prepared to drink-drive, and they are putting their lives at risk and they are putting other people’s lives at risk - your and my family and friends. We come in with this drastic measure, taking account of the number of people who do re-offend in terms of drink-driving. If we are going to come in with a very heavy hand, with an alcohol ignition lock to make things tougher for people and try to get them to rehabilitate their behaviour, I would say that we should not just be just looking at the past three years of offending, we should be looking at a five year period to see if these people are still offending so we can try to get some of these drunk people off the road and stop them driving.
Another concern that I have raised is about something that I refer to as ‘aid and abet laws’ for people who may be keen to assist a drunk driver start his car, maybe by blowing into the alcohol ignition lock and getting the car started so they can drive off. There are third party rules that need to come into place so that people who aid and abet potential drink-drivers are held accountable for their actions. It is the responsibility of the whole community to be getting these drink-drivers off the road.
These are serious questions and without having an answer to these questions it makes it difficult to support the legislation. I look forward to some advice from the member for Karama regarding how much the device will cost, how many people it expects to target, how it will be installed, and how it will be removed in certain areas.
Let us not forget that we do not expect there to be anyone who has an alcohol ignition lock in the near future, given the timetable for this to start up and the mandatory period that someone must serve for a sentence.
As I have said, the program may not be ready until the second half of next year or even 12 months for someone who gets a 12 month mandatory licence period. We are trying to remove drink-drivers from our roads. There have been 65 fatalities against 39 for the same time last year and when we take a look at how we perform against other states and territories around the country, clearly the Northern Territory is by far the worst. The 65 fatalities on our roads this year compared with 39 last year, represents a 67% increase in people dying on Territory roads as opposed to last year, and we are not even looking at the year before.
If we look at New South Wales, as of 30 September, they had 266 people who had died on their roads as against 307 the year before, a decrease of 15%. Tasmania has seen a decrease of 23%. Interestingly enough, with a small population in Tasmania, albeit bigger than ours, and understanding the geographical differences, there have only been 31 people killed on Tasmanian roads as at the 22 September. In South Australia there was a 28% reduction with 60 people dying as at 1 September. In Queensland there has been a 15% decrease, and Western Australia has had a 25% decrease in their rate of fatalities. However, in the Northern Territory we have a 67% increase in the number of people dying on our roads. That is an absolute disgrace.
We need firm action and that is why we are talking about the alcohol ignition lock. 2010 is a long time away, if that is when the first person gets the AIL - or a little before or after, we will wait and see. I look forward to those answers. We have to remember that you can only get an AIL if people are actually caught drink-driving. It is all right to talk about alcohol ignition locks coming in, but if you are not caught drink-driving you are never going to get an alcohol ignition lock.
The most recent figures I could find available for drivers tested for drink-driving is looking at the 2006-07 Police, Fire and Emergency Services Annual Report. This is the year the road safety strategy came into place with much pomp and grandeur. In the annual report there was a target for 85 000 drivers to be tested for drink-driving, yet in that year only 66 000 or thereabouts were tested. In a year when the road safety package came about I would have expected that drink-driving tests were conducted on a more regular basis, not scaling back the number of people who were tested for drink-driving. I would say if the government took the matter seriously, they would have been conducting drink-driving tests on at least the targeted levels, if not more. It is interesting to see that the estimate for this year is lower than the estimate for the 2006-07 financial year, based on the annual report.
I have just spoken about the complacency to test drink-drivers, but even in the bill there is complacency against those convicted of low range drink-driving. For those caught with a low-level range three times in three years, under the government’s proposal there is still no requirement to have an alcohol ignition lock installed. I believe that if you get caught drink-driving three times in three years you are a repeat offender and you need sterner action. If nothing is changing, if your behaviour is not changing and you are still putting your own life and my life, your life and everyone else’s life at risk, something needs to happen.
For those reasons, I have proposed in my amendments, which we will talk about later, that an AIL be installed on a low-level range drink-driver. For the low-level range drink-driver not to be included as part of this amendment to put the AIL in, I would say the government clearly thinks it is all right for people to drink a little over the limit. It is all right if it is 0.05 to 0.08, you are not going to get penalised. Enough is enough. Sixty-five people have been killed on our roads this year, 50% of them drink-driving. A 67% increase over last year, and what does the government say? It is all right to be a little over the limit. I do not support that and I do not think any of my colleagues support that. It is time to get tough and it is time to toughen right up and that is why, in my amendments, I say an AIL should be installed on the third offence for a low-level range offence within a five year period not a three year period. I have sent a letter to the minister for Transport asking for this amendment to be made so that those caught three times with low range have an AIL installed. I have not heard anything back but I expect the member for Karama may talk about that shortly.
I will just go back to a few more numbers. Catching drink-drivers is a difficult task and I have referred before to the 2006-07 annual report. In that report it says that 16% of people who have driven in the past 12 months had possibly driven over the 0.05 limit. Now, 16% of people in a whole year, of all the Territory drivers, driving over the 0.05 limit is fairly high. I do mention the word ‘possibly’ because people are guessing that they are over the 0.05 limit. If we think about 16% of people over that 12 month period driving over the 0.05 limit, we have seen that only 6% of drivers were actually detected for drink-driving. What that is saying is 10% of people who believe that they were drink-driving did not get caught in the Northern Territory. I find those figures alarming.
You cannot catch a drink-driver if the DUI blitzes are not out and about at the right time. We have heard a couple of weeks prior, I do not have the date in front of me now, on a radio interview with one of the senior heads of police talking about testing a large number of drink-drivers on a Monday afternoon in Darwin. He was saying that no one was caught drink-driving. That is positive news. I have repeatedly been saying through the media that drink-driving blitzes need to be occurring at the times when people are drink-driving. If I have a drink at a pub I will see people there who are clearly over the limit. When I leave the pub or the club - I am not over the limit - but I will drive home and I never see a DUI blitz around the streets, whether it is in Darwin, Katherine, Tennant Creek or Alice Springs where I frequent more often. I know there are many people inside those establishments who will be drink-driving on their way home.
I will use an example of the Alice Springs casino. I know many people who go to the casino on a Friday and Saturday night and are possibly doing the wrong thing by drinking too much. When those people leave, they never see a drink-driving blitz on the street. That is the time when people are drink-driving. We do not have to be scientists to work out when people drink-drive; it is when they have been drinking. You have to be drinking to be drink-driving. Why don’t we see the alcohol blitzes at the right times when people are drink-driving more?
It is quite funny - and this is only anecdotal; I am not making accusations here - but every time I talk about drink-driving in the media there is a drink-driving blitz right out the front of my house. Every single time. There is never a drink-driving blitz on the Stuart Highway at the front of the Wintersun Caravan Park unless I talk about it. I am talking about it now so we will find out if there is a drink-driving blitz out the front of the caravan park on the Stuart Highway at Alice Springs tonight.
Mr Knight: What are you saying about the police then?
Mr GILES: I am not talking about the police. I am just saying, member for Daly, that it is very funny that every time I talk about it there is a drink-driving blitz out the front of my house.
I also thought it was very funny that before the election campaign there had not been a radar detector, that I had ever seen, outside the Wintersun Caravan Park. Every day of the election campaign when I drove past there was a speed camera or a drink-driving blitz there. I thought that was quite funny. Talking about it today may mean that we might get some more people off the road this afternoon if they are drink-driving.
Mr Vatskalis: There was one last night.
Mr GILES: There was one last night? Oh good. There may be another one today if I am talking about it.
I have spoken about catching drink-drivers; sentencing is another issue. The key purpose of penalties is to change behaviours. I have spoken about the recidivism rates. Research from around the country shows that the AILs do not curb drink-driving after the AIL is removed. I will table from the Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing, the National Drug Strategy titled The Avoidable Cost of Alcohol Abuse in Australia and the Potential Benefits of Effective Policies to Reduce the Social Cost of Alcohol, published through Macquarie University, the University of Queensland and the University of New South Wales. On page 31, section 6.2, it says about alcohol ignition locks:
I have quoted a line from there which indicates that once people have those alcohol ignition locks taken out of their cars they go back to driving, they go back to drink-driving.
As I have mentioned before, it is important for us to ensure that we catch people who are low-level drink-driving offenders. By that I mean from 0.05 to 0.08. It is important that we catch them and utilise a full five-year period to identify prior convictions. It is important that we say: ‘We are going to get tough on those low-level offenders and install an alcohol ignition lock in their car’. It is also important that we have a final stop-gap measure after the AIL that says if you get caught again and again and again, we will be tougher than the AIL.
I have raised questions about the target group for the AILs, and how many people we think it would target. That report was interesting. I have read 1000 reports. There is another one here from Alberta in Canada which talks about similar things. This one talks about the cost of having an interlock. I will just read from the report The Impact of Mandatory versus Voluntary Participation in Alberta Ignition Interlock Program:
This is what I was referring to earlier. I mentioned my briefing the other day and information that I am waiting to receive from the member for Karama, and how the department did not have any indication of how many people will be taking up the AIL, especially given that other studies indicate the cost is an issue for people.
It is indicative of the government coming through an election process and recognising some of the solid policies that the Country Liberals have put forward. I make note that, on 13 July 2008, the Leader of the Opposition, in this media release, talked about seat belts, mandatory three month licence suspension for seat belts, and confiscation of cars. There are previous media releases where we have spoken about alcohol ignition locks prior to the election, and the government being very keen to say: ‘We have this road toll on our hands. We have a disaster coming up this year. More people continue to die. What are we going to have to do? We have to come up with some sort of solution so we will copy the Country Liberal’s policy …’ - our Country Liberal’s policy – ‘… on the ignition locks’.
Every time someone dies and I talk about it, and someone else talks about it and says the government is doing nothing, what has the government done? It has copied our policy. That is the height of flattery when the government recognises that. One of the issues in copying our policy and rushing it out as quickly as they can is that they have not thought the AIL policy and program through regarding its guidelines and implementation. We do not know when it is going to start; we do not know how it is going to work.
Something I have not mentioned yet is that with an alcohol ignition lock there are the legislative components and then there are the regulations about how it all works. With the ignition lock there is a possibility - and it is a good idea - that you blow into this little machine that lets you start the car and after that you can set it up how ever you like. I am keen to find out how it will work before I support the legislation.
This is why it is important to know who you are targeting. If you are in a big city and have to drive a long way, you can set it up so that it will give you a retest in 10 minutes. Any time within that 10 minute period you get an indication that you have to do another test. The car has to pull over in a period of time, that could be one minute, could be three or five minutes, and then they have to do a retest. The machines can be set up so that you might be going on a big drive and the car has not been turned off for a while. You might be driving from Darwin to Katherine and, in the program guidelines, you set the machine up to say within an hour, randomly set up, we will test the person again. So that person has whatever that period of time may be to pull of the side of the road and test again.
Alternatively, you might live in a small town like Tennant Creek in terms of geography, and it might only take one or two minutes to drive down the road. So you blow in the thing, start the ignition and go down the road, you are already at the paper shop, you have not had time for a retest, so maybe you need to have shorter retest periods. You may need different guidelines for different locations throughout the Territory, whether you are in a remote community, or in Alice Springs, or Darwin, or Nhulunbuy - keeping in mind that 20% of those drink-drivers I spoke of before live outside the urban areas.
It is difficult to talk about supporting the legislation when we do not know how the alcohol ignition locks are going to work. I have written to the member for Karama asking for this to come up at a later date. Once they get it all together, we can talk about it then. If we do not know how the program is going to work, we do not know who is going to targeted, we do not know how successful the program is going to be, we do not know how much it is going to cost, we do not know who is going to install it, and we do not know how much it is going to reduce the road fatality rate. It clearly shows to me that we really do not know anything.
All we know is, the Country Liberals had a great policy and the government decided to copy it. They were in so much trouble with the road toll which kept going up, they had to copy our policy. I am only new to parliament, and I come to this House with a number of good ideas, as my colleagues will tell me, and I am more than happy to write a few more policies if you would like to copy them to help you to move forward.
Members interjecting.
Mr GILES: Well, the next four years, or three years, or two years, I am not sure how long the knife is, if they change leaders and all that sort of thing, but I am happy to write policies for the government so that they can copy them, they can steal them, and they can take this forward.
In the haste of copying our policies, they clearly do not have a clue about how any of this is going to work. When you talk to a lot of people, as I have done since this matter came up, they say: ‘Oh, the alcohol ignition law, it is a great idea. I was really happy when the Country Liberals introduced that idea’. So the government has copied it, that will be great, and then they ask: ‘How does it work?’ and I say, ‘I know how I would like it to work, but the government does not have a clue’. The government does not have a clue about how it is going to work.
How on earth can this government be in charge of reducing the road fatality level when they do not even know how one of its key copied policies is going to work when it is put into production? They do not even know when it is going to start. Let me tell you, if it does not start, if the first person does not get an alcohol ignition lock until this time or later next year, this is an absolute farce. It is an absolute farce because our death toll is rising now. People are drinking and driving on our roads now, and we are hearing that this is not going to happen for a long time. I am very interested to find out when this is going to start.
Madam Speaker, I spoke briefly about how our amendments seek to come in at the lower end. We are people who recognise that being a bit over the limit is not a good thing. The government wants to think that being a little over is okay, and you can keep doing it. You can keep being a little over, and you get involved in accidents, or all those different things that happen when you are drink-driving - putting people’s lives at risk and putting all of our lives at risk and our families and friends.
We have put in our amendment so that people, who get caught three times on a low-level offence over a five year period, will be subject to an alcohol ignition law. At the same time, and this is where the big one comes in – this is the one that people are interested in. This is the one that people from the AANT talk about, and all the people in the street say: ‘Well, it is about time someone did something’ - that is, if you get caught three times within five years, when one of those occasions is when you have a high blood alcohol level, your motor vehicle will be confiscated – it will be forfeited. We will take it. It is time to put a line in the sand and say: ‘If you are a repeat high-level drink-driver, you have to lose your car’. Blowing over 0.15, it is absolutely atrocious that you are on our roads.
Ms Carney: You should do it. Take their car away from them.
Ms Lawrie: Take it away from their …
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr GILES: Madam Speaker, the member for Karama would be aware that I have made this amendment. I have put this to the member for Karama and I have asked her to consider it. I know, by the government copying our policies, that they would not be ready to implement the first part of our policy. How on earth would they be ready to copy the second party of our policy that I proposed? I have a feeling they will copy it because I really want their support on it, but I recognise that they will not be able to take this one up straightaway when they cannot get their first part in straightaway.
Our policy, for people caught drink-driving three times within a five-year period, when one occasion is with of a high blood alcohol level, is that your car will be forfeited. I commend that to the House and all of us on this side of the House think that it is a great idea.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr GILES: I have not conducted a straw poll, but I have spoken to hundreds of people about this and said: ‘What do you reckon if your car gets forfeited for drink-driving?’ They said: ‘That is a bit hard’. I asked: ‘What if you have done it three times?’ They said: ‘That is a great idea’. If you are not learning the first time, well, you might have made a mistake. If you are not learning the second time, well, you might have been stupid. The third time, Madam Speaker, you are a bloody idiot, and you deserve to have your car forfeited.
Ms Carney: Not you, Madam Speaker.
Mr GILES: No, not you, Madam Speaker, the person who was driving the car. Thank you very much.
Ms Carney: A point of clarification.
Mr GILES: I recommend that we should not be considering this legislation until we have more information so we know exactly who we are targeting; how it is going to work; when it is going to work; where it is going to work; how much it is going to cost; what the provisions are within the program; how it will work for people who might have to drive long distances or short distances, and how it will work for younger people or older people. Will you be able to put a two-year-old child on your lap and get them to blow in the ignition lock and get it to work for you? Could you get a bunch of balloons and blow them up and put them on your back seat; go inside, drink as much beer as you can, come back out, let a balloon out on the ignition lock with all your air in it that does not have any alcohol content, and then you are right to drive? These are some serious questions that we need answered.
I recognised, through my briefing on Monday this week, that the government is not ready with the legislation. I commend my amendments and I put them to the government to consider. I say to them: ‘Let us work together, in a bipartisan way, and we will be tough as an Assembly, not just tough as one party’.
Madam Speaker, I know we are not ready so I move that I can continue my remarks at a later date.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! We are in the second reading debate. How is the member going to continue his remarks at a later date? The legislation will be passed regardless of the matters he is raising. He has committee stage amendments which will be debated in committee stage. I will be responding to various matters he has raised.
Madam SPEAKER: It is improper to attempt to move that. There is already a motion before the House which is the bill. Those matters should be dealt with in committee. You are not able to speak again in the second reading debate. That is the process in this parliament.
Mr GILES: Madam Speaker, I will just repeat what I said. I move to continue my remarks at a later date – offering a bipartisan way – to give the government more time to work out exactly how this legislation is going to work so that we can come back here and debate it in a fully effective way.
Madam SPEAKER: You cannot move without seeking leave because we already have a motion before the House.
Mr GILES: Madam Speaker, I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later date.
Madam SPEAKER: Is leave granted?
Members: No.
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is not granted.
Mr GILES: Madam Speaker, I call a division, thanks.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no division on seeking leave.
Mr GILES: Okay.
Mr Knight: Up she gets!
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): I beg your pardon? Your point?
Mr Knight: Up she gets!
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Daly, cease interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: You have already got yourself into strife, sport.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, you have the call.
Ms CARNEY: Madam Speaker, in an earlier debate involving the Attorney-General I used words like hypocrites and sanctimonious. I also used some other words. In relation to hypocrisy I note there is an inconsistency that does amount to hypocrisy when it comes to that part of our policy that involves the confiscation of vehicles.
I know and others know that, in the general course of events, the Attorney-General does not have his head around the legislation he introduces. It would appear that that problem is not just restricted to the Attorney-General and that it applies to the minister for Transport. It must also go deeper to the Cabinet. They either do not understand their own bill or they do not understand the opposition’s amendments, or they have deliberately forgotten - how that could be the case I find remarkable - the provisions that apply in relation to the hooning laws.
Those hooning laws were introduced a year or so ago or thereabouts. Have a look, minister, advisors if there is anyone listening out there. The lights are on but probably no one is home. Have a look at 29AG of the Traffic Act. I will quote subsection (2):
The minister for Transport has a habit, as do some of her colleagues, of not addressing issues and not answering questions. I invite her to address this inconsistency in her reply. I feel certain we will be doing our best to alert the citizens of the Northern Territory to this inconsistency. I feel certain that government will not. I doubt government has included in any of its media releases: did you know, citizens of the Northern Territory, that in relation to hooning we think it is a good idea to take your car off you, but if you are a repeat drink-driver we are more than happy for you to stay on the roads in your cars?
You should be embarrassed to maintain such a position. I am not surprised because you are an embarrassing government. You are two-and-a-half months into your third term and I will say it again: ‘By God, your first one was your best one’. Two-and-a-half months into your third term and as I said last night: ‘Your get up and go, got up and went.’ You are not doing anything you told the people of the Northern Territory at the election you would do.
In the earlier debate, the Attorney-General said: ‘I don’t get out much anymore’. Well, he should, as should his colleagues, because if they got out more they would be in touch with community expectations; they would be talking to the people the member for Braitling referred to; they would be doing their job as a government. However, the Attorney-General does not get out much anymore and neither, it seems, do his colleagues.
I just thought I would raise that point; I have raised a couple of others along the way. I do not expect the minister for Transport to take on my comments about what an atrocious government they are, but I do expect, and the parliament of the Territory and the people of the Territory are entitled to even a remotely sensible explanation about this inconsistency.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, I support the bill. As the member for Braitling has just said, and the members for Araluen and Karama have said many times, we have a very serious problem with safety on our roads. The road toll just keeps climbing.
Sixty-five people this year have died on our roads. This time last year, it was 39. A major part of that road toll is from drink-driving. It is a serious, sombre issue. This legislation will go a long way to prevent occurrences of drink-driving. Every occurrence of drinking-driving is a potential death on our roads.
This bill needs to be considered in its context. I mentioned the member for Karama. She has done a very good job for a very long time in tackling the issue of road safety and problems we have on our roads in the Territory. Since 2007, we have introduced a range of measures including: increased penalties for drink-driving, speeding and not wearing seat belts; red light cameras; and speed limits on Northern Territory roads. These measures are not always popular in the community and are still not fully supported by the other side. We have taken these steps because we believe they are critical in tackling the issues of road safety.
It is interesting to hear the opposition talk about the importance of road safety when the message they continue to send to young people in the Territory is that they should be able to drive as fast as they like.
We have also taken significant measures with education campaigns. Members have probably seen the new advertisements in papers and on television. They are asking the question: why? It appears that the message is just not getting through, which is why we are here today. This bill will allow the installation of alcohol interlocks. As I said up-front in this speech, the legislation will go a long away to prevent occurrences of drink-driving. Every occurrence of drink-driving is a potential death on our roads.
The statistics the minister spoke of were compelling. Last year, in close to 40% of fatalities, not wearing a seat belt was a factor and, in the last five years, in just over 50% of fatalities, alcohol was a factor. The minister provided more statistics on the numbers of people caught drink-driving and, worse, the number of people caught repeatedly offending. That is why we have taken this tough, targeted action because, quite frankly, enough is enough. Driving is a privilege, not a right, and repeat drink-drivers have shown they cannot be trusted and should face greater consequences.
This bill delivers our government’s commitment to get tough on drink-driving, to change the behaviour of people who drink and drive. One of the effects of alcohol is impaired judgment and decision-making. The message is simple: if you are going to drink, plan not to drive - arrange a Sober Bob, ask someone to collect you, call a cab, take public transport, try the new dial-a-driver service, or stay overnight. We need to make our best efforts to change the behaviour of people having a few or many, and then driving. Introducing alcohol ignition interlocks for repeat drink-drivers is one step in trying to change that behaviour. We have to be clear, though; the introduction of alcohol ignition interlocks will not wipe out drink-driving. I echo the minister’s remarks: no legislation or device will wipe out drink-driving. We need a change in behaviour to achieve a major reduction in the rate of drink-driving.
Madam Speaker, I take this opportunity to commend the member for Karama for the significant amount of work she has done to date on measures to combat illegal behaviour on our roads. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I also appreciate some of the amendments the CLP has brought forward. I probably could be smart and say thank you for bringing up some of those proposals that I thought of, like confiscating the vehicle. I have notes here like: why are low alcohol reading persons not included in this? Anyway, I thank the CLP for adding those particular amendments to the bill today.
I know this bill is going to go through. I am not here to knock the concept of the interlock devices; they appear to be part of a raft of options that government has to look at to try to reduce the disgraceful number of fatalities on roads in the Northern Territory. My concern is more of a general concern. I know that many drivers, especially in rural Darwin, and it may not only be in rural Darwin, drive without licences, without registration, and they drive under the influence. If the government is to have people drive around with alcohol interlocking devices on vehicles, or expect people to have them on, I would say people will say they do not want them, and continue to drive.
If the government is serious about catching those people, it has to put more effort into resourcing breathalyser stations and roadworthy inspections. I take up the member for Braitling’s point that we do not see breathalyser stations as often as we used to. I can only go on anecdotal evidence, but I know in the Howard Springs area, it was a very common occurrence around Easter when people are heading off down the track, that when they got to the Howard Springs/Stuart Highway intersection, you could bet your bottom dollar, everyone would be out there: the Emergency Services people were there to pull you over, the MVR was there to check out your vehicle and boat, and the police were there to do the breathalyser test. They did the whole box and dice. That was fairly regular at that particular intersection. I do not recall seeing much of that in the last few years.
If we are serious about catching these people and making sure we remove people who should not be driving from our roads, then we have to up the ante when it comes to inspections. I hate getting inspected as much as everyone else. We have 67 people killed on our roads already. The police say in a lot of cases it was a mixture of alcohol, no seatbelts, speed, and not handling the conditions properly. If the government is serious about making this work and not just putting it out there as: ‘Look, we have done this, therefore, we will wipe our hands of it because it is out there’. It has to ensure it is enforced.
The other reason people are not going to be too keen to put these devices on is that many people who might end up with the option of having one of these fitted may not be people in the high socioeconomic bracket. The figures I received at the briefing, and I thank the minister for the briefing, and these are ball park figures, is that you are looking at $150 a month and probably $100 for installation. Say they are required to have one of these interlocking devices for two years, which is 24 times 150 - my maths is terrible, but it is a fair bit of money - probably over $2000. People are going to say: ‘Stuff it, I am not going to have one of these; I cannot afford it. I am going to do what I have always done and drive around the countryside and take the risk’. For them, the fine might be cheaper than the bill for putting one of these devices on their cars. I will say again, minister, if there are not more checks on who is on our roads and who should be having one of these interlocking devices, then people will try to find ways around it or avoid having them altogether.
The opposition’s amendments include vehicle removal. I have felt for a long time that vehicles should be removed. You know my opinion on the hoon legislation, and we will debate that next week. In that legislation, as in other states, there is the ability to confiscate cars, but there is also the ability to get around that in certain circumstances, if they are reasonable. It is not always the case that, in hardship, the car is necessarily taken away. Buy at least there is that possibility it will be taken away, and that it is important with people who continually offend by drink-driving. I actually believe it should be applied to people who drive unregistered. If your car is continually unregistered it is not supposed to even be on the road. If you want your car back, you pay the rego and then we will get it back to you. So there are other circumstances where we should take people’s cars away.
The same with your licence: if you are continually driving without a licence, we will give your car back when you can show us that you have a licence that enables you to drive it. That is not taking it away forever, it is just saying you turn up with the required legal piece of paper and you will get your car back. There is certainly room for that form of punishment for people who are continual offenders.
There are a couple of questions I will ask now and the minister may cover them in the committee stage. The one that I believe is a little sneaky, I must admit, and I probably do not have any friends on this side who have had some association with the police force. I reckon the sneaky one is bringing in that you have to carry your licence. We are dealing with an act that is about road safety. The minister proposes clause 8 which replaces section 113:
If I read this right, if you go to subsection (3) of the new section 113, you have to go to court to state your defence:
The existing law under the Motor Vehicles Act, section 113 says:
I know people on this side will not agree with me, but the issue is about road safety, and whether you have a licence or not is not going to make any difference to if you are driving over the limit. It is dangerous driving. You might have two vehicles and you left your licence in your other car, or you might have left your wallet behind. Technical people who love regulations would say: ‘Too bad, you should have remembered’. I say, fair enough. I do not believe it is the end of the world if you do not have your licence on you. It may annoy the police officer if he finds he really needs to make sure you are who you say you are. In relation to road safety, I do not really see that as part of what we are about here today. It seems to me just a convenient time to put it in to change the act; and I suppose that is the way it is.
I realise certain people must always carry a licence. The AIL people will always have to have a licence when they are driving with an interlocking device. It is one of those things that have been put in there which many people would not know about anyway. I did not see an amendment by the opposition to that, so I do not think I would get a lot of support.
I agree with the opposition about the low blood alcohol content levels being part of this particular amendment to the Traffic Act. I ask the member for Braitling to tell us which clause covers that low BAC level.
Mr Giles: What are you after?
Mr WOOD: People found guilty of low-level blood alcohol content. It does not really matter. You are saying that after the second offence you require an interlocking …
Mr Giles: Third.
Mr WOOD: Third. That is reasonable and reflects the actual serious or less serious nature of the offence.
There are two other matters which would be interesting to know - and it did not occur to me to ask during the briefing: what is the reliability of this equipment not breaking down? I refer to someone who works on a cattle station who is required to have one of these interlocking devices on a four-wheel-drive. He is driving on a long and dusty road in October or November in central Northern Territory where to break down can endanger one’s life because of the heat; what sort of guarantee do we have that one of these interlocking devices could not malfunction? Is that a possibility?
I know that might be fairly rare, but then again even if you were travelling down the track or driving out to Kununurra on the Victoria Highway around October/November, if you decided to stop by the road for a call of nature, turned off the vehicle, got back in and it would not start again. Is that a possibility? It might not be a problem for people who live in the city, but it might be a problem for people who live in remote areas.
The last thing is: this would be new equipment we are using in the Northern Territory, and it is scientific equipment. The member for Braitling said he doubted these things will change people’s habits. We should have some sort of scientific report which comes back to parliament in, say, five years. It would be based on an independent assessment by people who are able to do that type of assessment accurately on a scientific basis, and report to parliament advising the number of interlocking devices equipped to X number of vehicles in the Northern Territory over that period; and report if there has been a reduction or increase in the number of people charged with drink-driving offences. We should also be able to see whether those drink-drivers were people who had previously had an interlocking device attached to their vehicle.
I ask that the review be a scientific review. At least that would enable this parliament to see whether we are wasting our money or getting value for our money. If these things are not changing the number of fatalities on the roads, then it might be time to change tack, or use better equipment.
I just raise those issues, Madam Speaker. I am not necessarily opposed to what the government is putting forward. I appreciate some of the amendments and what the CLP has done; although it has some doubts about the legislation it has actually found a nice medium because it is saying: ‘Let us go along with the locking devices, but we will add a few things to it’. One is the confiscation of vehicles, which I would have supported, and people would support - especially on a third offence. You have to take into account people on low blood alcohol, and that is good as well.
The government should think about whether they could support those two things. It would not make any major changes to what the government is already trying to do; it would tighten it up and, in some cases, make it better.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I support the Transport Legislation (Alcohol Ignition Lock) Bill. The issue of drink-driving and repeat drink-driving offenders is a very serious issue. Members on both sides of the House agree on this. It requires strong and decisive action, and strong and clear legislation. This high-risk driving behaviour, as the minister has said, contributes significantly to the Territory’s road toll.
This government takes seriously its responsibility to do all we can to keep our roads and road users safe. No matter how many additional police officers we recruit and train to patrol our roads to keep them safe, it will have little impact on this problem of individuals who are repeat drink-driver offenders. Catching drink-drivers, as the member for Braitling has said, is a difficult task. We also know that these people do not respond to punitive measures such as increased penalties for drink-driving, and that intensive road safety education campaigns through the media, no matter how graphic or shocking or gut-wrenching, will not have any impact on their decision to get behind the wheel of a car after consuming alcohol.
We are dealing with behaviour which makes it difficult for individuals to make a decision about whether they are fit to drive, because their ability to do so is impaired by alcohol and an uncontrolled drinking problem. We need to address the behaviour. These people are loose cannons. When behind the wheel of a car, these people initiate a very deadly game of Russian roulette and all other road users on the road at the same time as this drink-driver - who is a repeat offender - are unwitting and innocent participants in this deadly game. It is a bit like the Grim Reaper in the bowling alley advertisement in the early 1980s which shocked people with the knowledge that AIDS and the HIV virus were completely indiscriminate as who this deadly virus could infect and kill. Whilst we may well say that any drink-driver on the roads is deadly - and they most certainly are - we need to target those drink-drivers who continue to re-offend, because they are certainly the deadliest.
As stated by the minister in her second reading speech, in the five-year period from 2003 to 2007, 18.3% of drink-driving offenders apprehended in the Territory were apprehended for a second or subsequent offence, and this is too high. These offenders cost the community millions of dollars - the cost of police and emergency response, ambulances, hospitals and associated health services for injured persons, the insurance industry, and the courts. What we cannot put a value on is the lives that are destroyed and lost - babies, children, teenagers, men and women, young and old. The member for Braitling is concerned that the cost of these AILs is unreasonable. However, it is a much lesser concern in the bigger picture than the very real and immeasurable human cost.
Alcohol interlock device programs were an initiative identified in the National Road Safety Strategy in 2002. A quick Internet search confirms that these devices, about the size of an electric shaver, have been in use in the United States, Canada and Europe. In fact, politicians in some of these countries have called for alcohol interlock devices to be installed as standard equipment in all vehicles. I am old enough to remember a time when seatbelts were not standard equipment, and yet who would consider buying a brand new vehicle today without these very basic safety measures in place? Many people would also say that airbags should be regarded as a standard safety device in vehicles. It is hard to imagine now, but there was a time when seatbelts, as I have said, were not standard, and there was a time when they were standard but it was not compulsory to wear them: I remember it quite well.
I was raised in a small country town in South Australia where my father was the country doctor. He attended innumerable motor vehicle accidents where he had to deal with victims who had died needlessly, and could have been prevented. I remember one particular accident where an entire family, three children and two adults, were all killed on impact; it was very preventable. And he lobbied hard to see seatbelt legislation - compulsory wearing - introduced in South Australia. It was taken up and, of course, saw a dramatic turnaround in the number of road fatalities associated with people not wearing seatbelts.
These AIL devices were first legislated in Australia in Victoria, I believe, in 2003. South Australia has also adopted these devices but, as I understand it, it is on a volunteer basis; and Tasmania commenced a trial in August this year. Statistically-based evidence from Victoria would indicate that alcohol interlock devices are working in reducing the number of drivers who re-offend, reducing motor vehicle accidents and so reducing injuries and fatalities. In fact, as of 1 January this year, the Victorian alcohol interlock legislation was amended and expanded by introducing alcohol interlocks as mandatory for first time drink-driving offenders on a provisional licence or aged under 26, obviously addressing the very high number of people in that age bracket who are injured and who are offending. Furthermore, Victoria has also introduced mandatory alcohol interlocks for all drivers who, on a first offence, record blood alcohol content greater than 0.15%.
Current strategies and learning from other jurisdictions would suggest that alcohol interlock devices are working, and that they are successful in reducing the number of motor vehicle accidents involving drink-drivers. The whole issue of these devices is raising community awareness that drink-driving and those who are repeat offenders are behaviours which are not acceptable in our community and will not be tolerated.
I know there has been some discussion about confiscation of the offender’s vehicle as opposed to the alcohol interlocks, but it would be a penalty not only imposed on the offender but also on a family and children, in many circumstances. Installation of the alcohol interlock on a family vehicle still allows the offender and his family to have mobility and, therefore, access to employment. Quite possibly, the employment could be contingent on the offender having access to a vehicle. It also allows the family to continue with their normal daily activities, and family members are able to use the vehicle though, of course, they must also use the alcohol interlock - a small inconvenience, if at all.
In closing, Madam Speaker, the member for Braitling asked if these alcohol interlocks would bring benefits to the user. I suspect he means in terms of rehabilitating and not re-offending. The more important question is: will it benefit the would-be victims of repeat drink-drivers? I would say the answer to that is a resounding, yes. It is important those who re-offend as drink-drivers know they will be subject to a system which will prevent them from driving whilst under the influence of alcohol and therefore prevent them from the risk of causing injury and death on our roads. More importantly, it gives members of our community, including other road users, some assurance that roads will be safer. I commend the minister and this bill.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, as a former police officer of 22 years, it is nice to debate an issue that relates to criminal law. It is something I have had a big hand in over quite a number of years. It must be refreshing for this House to have someone in here who can actually speak from experience, having been out there and applied the criminal laws of the Northern Territory and seen how they operate, how they fail, taking into account the demographic we have in the Northern Territory. It is quite different from Victoria - and I will come back to Victoria in a moment. It is important for us to be able to recognise that experience will speak loudly in this House when it comes to debating issues like this.
As a police officer I have seen a lot of death and a lot of alcohol-related road deaths as well. I would dearly love to see some measures put in place by the government which will make a real difference to the alcohol-related death rate in the Northern Territory. I am in favour of virtually any measure that will reduce death as it relates to alcohol consumption, not just in the Territory but right across Australia.
Listening to the government, I wonder if they may have lost their humanity a little. Behind these drink-driving accidents there is real human tragedy. When was the last time the minister for Transport dragged a dead body out of a motor vehicle after an accident? When was the last time the Transport minister had to deliver a death message to the parents of a youngster killed as the result of an alcohol-related motor vehicle accident? It is not good enough fort this government to continue with its dispassionate view in relation to this legislation. It seems to me this government wants to be seen as achieving something, but they are not getting around to the job of actually achieving it.
This bill is wishy-washy, just like the previous bill that was discussed, the Sentencing bill. It is a case of a measure put in place which seems to be politically okay but is not tough enough to upset people. What is happening here is the government seems bent on making legislative changes which are not really going to hurt them politically but it will make it look like they are trying to do something about the problems we have in the Northern Territory. I do not think the Sentencing bill really reflects the mood of Territorians to be tough on assaults, and I do not believe this bill before us now does that, either.
The government needs to start getting tough on drink-drivers. Speaking of tough, is it not time the government started taking tough decisions in addressing some of the underlying problems? It seems to be okay these days to pluck a little idea out of the air and say: ‘Let’s run with this’; or maybe I woke up this morning with a good idea in my head: ‘Let’s run with that’; and try to present it as a cure-all when there are so many deeper issues which need to be addressed before legislation like this can have a real effect. This is simply window dressing. It will not do anything towards addressing the real issue which is the vast number of drink-drivers we have on our roads.
This measure of alcohol ignition locks on its own, I, frankly, believe is discriminatory. The member for Nhulunbuy mentioned Victoria and how alcohol locks are working there. I ask the minister for Transport if she has that report referred to by the member for Nhulunbuy, that it be tabled. The demographic of Victoria is somewhat different to the Northern Territory; I expect most people would accept that. We have a large Indigenous population. The Indigenous population represents a demographic: they are, unfortunately, largely low income earners or largely unemployed. They do not have the means of the average Joe in Melbourne, or remote or rural Victoria.
I go back to the discriminatory aspect I mentioned before. If coppers are not good at much else, they are good at looking at the practical applications of how things play out. I can imagine being in court with this AIL legislation in place, with a low socioeconomic defendant. The lawyer is standing at the Bar table giving sentencing submissions. The sentencing submissions in part would go something like this. ‘Your Honour, this is discriminatory. My client cannot afford to have this AIL installed in the vehicle. My client cannot afford the ongoing costs to have it calibrated every month. As a result of that, Your Honour, the previous defendant who was convicted for the very same offence has been given the benefit of coming back on the road sooner because he could afford to have an AIL fitted to his motor vehicle’.
I can just picture that. I have seen this type of scenario played out in court many times in my career. Lawyers - bless their little cotton socks - have a wonderful knack of bringing to the court the most amazing submissions when it comes to sentencing. That in itself is going to cause some problems in the application of it. People are going to be unhappy. You cannot do this in isolation because it will screw up. If you have a range of measures in place that address the problem, whether it be addressing the underlying causes or whether it be punitive in nature, then no one can say they are being discriminated against because they are given other opportunities to address the problem, which is: drinking. Drinking alcohol is the problem.
I pick up on a point made by the member for Fannie Bay. I do not remember exactly what he said but if I can paraphrase: it seemed a bit odd to him that we were against this legislation because we were against speed limits or something like that. I thought that was a bit odd. I wonder why the speed limit came in. It has done nothing to address road deaths. You only have to look at the statistics.
Ms Lawrie: Not true. Have a look at where the unlimited have brought restrictions in. Have a look at that before you make that assertion.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Whether it was true or not, and I was not here when it came in …
A member: The minister has been on the road just like you have. She knows it all.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Well, apparently so. I was not here when that legislation came in regarding the speed limits but there are plenty of anecdotes around to suggest the federal government said: ‘We are not going to fund you unless you do something about the speed limits in the Northern Territory.’ I am not accusing anyone of anything. I am just saying that is the anecdote I hear around the traps.
Ms Lawrie: Well, it is wrong.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Well, it might be, and I am glad if you are able to correct me, minister for Transport. However, it goes to the point I was making before about introducing wishy-washy legislation to address the niceties of politics, rather than getting to the underlying causes.
Mr Giles: They are trying to look tough, but they don’t act it.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: They are. When I say tough, I go back to ‘let us do it tough’, rather than take an individual tactic and throw it at the Northern Territory and say: ‘Here, this is going to fix it.’ Let us go for an overall strategy which will start to address many of the issues that we have. Let us face it, many of the issues do relate to alcohol consumption in the Northern Territory.
The member for Braitling said that seven studies in a report, in that document which I believe was tabled …
Mr Giles: Seven out of eight.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Seven out of eight studies showed that alcohol interlocks do not work. The question I have for the Transport minister is: Where do you get the idea this is going to work in the Northern Territory? Are you solely coming from the Victorian report, or are there other reports which indicate this actually might work?
I also want to pick up on what the member for Braitling said about recidivism. If you cannot address the underlying problem - and you cannot - you have shown that because you have had eight years to do it and nothing has changed …
A member: It just got worse.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: It has gotten worse. Sometimes you have to take, perhaps, draconian measures to change behaviour. If you would like to stop recidivist offending without addressing underlying causes, you may have to take that draconian action such as, in this case, make provision for the seizure and forfeiture of motor vehicles.
The member for Braitling also mentioned random breath testing stations. He said he does not see them very often, except when he talks about them in this House or in the media. I have been there and I can tell you the situation. This is what it is: there are not enough coppers to go around. There are not enough police officers to do these random breath testing stations …
Mr Giles: Hang on a second. There are not enough police in the Territory.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: There are not enough police officers for two reasons. First of all, no one has done anything to address the underlying causes of why police officers leave the Northern Territory; and topping them up all the time is not working because you are barely keeping up with it. On top of that, you have the situation where alcohol-related crime and antisocial behaviour and all that other raft of stuff that goes with alcohol problems in the Northern Territory, are getting worse. So, the coppers are constantly going from job to job to job; they do not have time to do proactive policing - they are constantly being reactive.
Random breath testing stations are a proactive means of addressing drink-driving. They need to be targeted; they need to be strategically placed and thought about as far as timing goes - not Monday afternoons. They need to be put in the right places at the right times. That is the bottom line. A ministerial will come down and say there are not enough random breath testing stations, there are not enough people being tested. The practicality then is: the orders come down from on high, they get down to the sergeant at the police station, the sergeant says to his troops: ‘Go out and do four random breath testing stations every shift. I do not care where you do them, just do them and get the numbers’. That is policing …
Mr Bohlin: That happens.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: You are darn right it happens. That is policing and that is government by statistics …
Mr Giles: Does that mean if I spoke about it, the minister could do a ministerial and it comes down to your level, and you have to get more?
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: That is it. That is the reality of it …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Katherine, please direct your comments through the Chair.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Yes, Madam Speaker.
This bill is simply not enough. I have not seen any evidence to suggest this is going to work. I am not going to repeat the words of the member for Braitling. There is a whole lot of stuff that we do not know about alcohol ignition locks. It seems to me to be a stab in the dark and I cannot figure out why the government seems so hell-bent on such placid measures, when drink-driving causes such mayhem and carnage on our roads.
Toughen up, Labor government of the day. It is time you started to make some tough decisions and did the right thing by Territorians. They are calling out for it, they need it, they want it and, it is, indeed, time.
Ms LAWRIE (Infrastructure and Transport): Madam Speaker, many questions have been raised, and I will do my utmost to respond to those questions. I acknowledge that we also go into committee where we will have the opportunity to be free flowing in the questions and answers.
We all agree that the road toll is unacceptable. We all agree that drink-driving is a significant component of the road toll. When I talk about the road toll, I am not talking just of fatalities; I frequently talk about the number of serious injuries which are occurring across our road network in the Territory as well.
I take offence at the assertion made by the member for Katherine that there is a lack of humanity in the government’s approach, or the ALP, or Labor Party’s approach. On the issue of addressing fatalities and serious injuries on our road network, I tend to think that, in parliaments around the nation, there is a bipartisan acceptance that we both genuinely, regardless of policy differences, want to see a reduction in deaths and serious injuries. Paint us out to be ogres if you like, but sometimes you go a little too far. I have always said, as Transport minister, I take my responsibility to address the road toll very seriously.
I have always recognised that if there was a silver bullet, we would have used it. There are many factors impacting on the toll and the serious injuries and we will continue to do a raft of things, whatever it takes, to bring that toll down, to save the lives of Territorians, interstate and overseas visitors, and to protect people from serious injury that occurs on the road network.
I will take that responsibility extremely seriously, so much so that I will take all the mud and the nastiness which has been thrown at me from the opposition regarding the implementation of the Road Safety Task Force recommendations. That was the seismic shift in the Territory in the approach to addressing the road toll. We brought together experts, every one of them a Territorian of 20-plus years, and stood up bravely, for the first time in the history of the Territory and said: ‘Okay, we will do it. We will introduce demerits. We will introduce a speed limit on our open roads. We will put in the millions of dollars in funding to put the curriculum into the schools, to put the public awareness campaign out there, to bring back the police traffic branch which has not existed for years, resourcing police’. We said to all those recommendations, yes, we will do it.
There was one minor exception, which I will note. The recommendation said to bring in 110km/h. We looked at it for a long time and discussed it for a long time. As a Cabinet we said that we understand people travel long distances between Darwin and Katherine, Katherine and Tennant, Tennant and Alice; and bit the bullet on that one. We still remain the only place in Australia where you can go over 110km/h, even though everyone sent hate mail to me saying: ‘By the way, I am now going to move interstate because of that’. Well, I kept going to what? To 100km/h limit or 110km/h limit? Spare me the Johnny-come-latelies who come in here and say we have to get a bit of spine, we have to toughen up. We were tougher than the CLP ever dared to be on road safety. So spare me the patronising.
The shadow minister comes in here and says: ‘We have adopted their interlock policy.’ Well, no, actually, you are wrong. I went to Australian Transport Commission meetings as the Transport minister and I listened and I learnt and I ferreted around and I found out anything – anything - we could use to address any component of our road toll. I have been out there campaigning nationally for electronic stability control to come into our cars as a mandated requirement - new technology. I grasped alcohol interlocks and I lobbied for and got them in through the Cabinet process and they will come in. We will pass this legislation. We will have a long debate but I stand here and say: we will introduce an alcohol interlock system into the Territory for the first time. It is not a copycat, or finding a CLP website policy or whatever was in the fantasy of the shadow minister.
When he started spouting, I thought, what on earth? We will have points of difference in this debate, but I will also answer questions because there are many questions. You are right: this is legislation before all the detail is locked down. Why? I have had quite a few years’ experience as a minister and you get your enabling legislation in because, my God, that focuses the minds of every single public servant required to deliver it. It sets the time lines because if you try to do everything else first, guess what? You wait a lot longer. That is by no means disparaging to the public servants who have worked diligently and hard and long hours to get this legislation here. However, I have learnt a few tricks in my time and one of them is: get your enabling legislation in place as quickly as you can because then you will get your system in place as quickly as you can, and then you are saving lives as quickly as you can. Keep it simple, stupid, is one of the sayings that goes around.
The member for Braitling, the shadow minister, has many appropriate and pertinent questions and I will answer them. He asked about cost and received a briefing on the indicative costs of the program in the Territory. We expect them to be similar to those in South Australia where there is an initial fee of $400; the monthly rental which you heard the member for Nelson talk about; the service and administration fee is approximately $160 per month. We are saying: yes, we are considering subsidies for the lower socioeconomic.
A member: That is more discrimination.
Ms LAWRIE: Sometimes it is pretty galling to get random allegations from members, but can I say that in no way is this system or is this legislation discriminatory. If you are a second or subsequent offender drink-driver, you are captured. It does not matter what your racial background is. It does not matter where you live in the Territory. You are captured, and it might come as news to the members opposite, but poverty does not discriminate.
What will we do when we are looking at a subsidy regime that I, as Treasurer, will be able to deliver, because that is the opportunity I have? There are three different jurisdictions which currently provide some form of subsidy. We are working with the stakeholders; the main stakeholder, of course, is the providers of alcohol interlocks, but we will look at the card regimes and the subsidy regimes that exist - for example, Centrelink, our own Health and Families, and our own senior Territorians-types of cards. The MVR has a robust system in being able to deal with cards and the like. We will pool all of that knowledge together and we will have models; we will test it and I will take a proposal to my Cabinet colleagues.
Yes, we recognise that this is a penalty. It is meant to be a penalty. It is for repeat drink-drivers. It is for people who put their life and the lives of others at risk. So, yes, it is a penalty regime. That is right, and it will hurt the hip pocket; I make no apologies for that. We will do our very best to ensure that we capture the issues of the impoverished, the lower socioeconomic, in fairness within the subsidy regime. Other jurisdictions have managed to land on subsidy regimes and we will be able to land on a subsidy regime as well.
Mr Westra van Holthe: So, the taxpayers will be footing the bill.
Ms LAWRIE: I pick up on the interjection: ‘So the taxpayers will be footing the bill’. There is a lot of research that tells you the cost to the taxpayer of an accident on the road network, whether it is the police, the ambulance, the health system. I am certainly very aware of the Motor Accident Compensation system in the Territory and what our lifetime quadriplegics cost. I am a former minister for disability. I have worked in the sector. There are a lot more costs than what the subsidy will be. Money well spent. I am just pointing out the idiocy of some of the interjections. They might want to wisen up.
In terms of how many people are likely to take up the program after the mandatory period, and I think it is an excellent question from the member for Braitling; I can advise that for the period 2005-07 there were about 1100 repeat drink-drivers. This translates to about 350 potential program participants a year. If we go on the Victorian experience, about 87% of the drivers with an alcohol interlock condition on their licence have had an alcohol interlock fitted. That is why we are able to extrapolate what we think the actual program participants a year will translate to: around 350 people a year driving on our roads using an alcohol interlock system, not drink-driving. They cannot drink-drive under the system in a car with the alcohol interlock. That is going forward.
How would the program be administered, particularly in remote and regional areas? That is a good question from the member for Braitling, the shadow minister. I am glad he got a briefing. I recommend to the member for Katherine the next time he participates in debate on legislation that he join the briefing.
A member: Have you got a briefing on our amendments?
Ms LAWRIE: Yes, I have, from my very capable departmental and legal advisors. I have to say they are exceptionally good.
A member: Oh, so you did not come to talk to us. Come and get a briefing, she says. You could not be bothered to do it yourself, you wally.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Ms LAWRIE: They are exceptionally good - not the amendments, by the way - the advisors.
The alcohol interlock program will be administered through our existing MVR offices in the Territory alongside provider-approved agents, for example, auto electricians. For installation, removal and recalibration in the major population centres - Darwin, Katherine, Palmerston, Nhulunbuy, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs, and also Batchelor, Jabiru, Alyangula, Borroloola and Yulara - my department is working with the providers to have approved agents in these remote and regional areas. We will talk to the police because they are a key aspect to the actual effectiveness of alcohol interlocks on the ground.
We will look at the issues regarding regular servicing. Those of us who know bush communities know that from time to time they come into the service hubs, so the six months requirement is quite easy for them to capture, in terms of the legislation. So, can it be managed out there? We have tested all of that and yes, it can. We know the skill levels required for regular servicing already exist in our remote areas. We have a great deal of confidence in that advice.
The operating parameters of the NT program will be similar to those operating in other jurisdictions, but we will make some adjustments to suit the Territory environment. At the moment, my department is currently working with the providers to detail these program specifics. For example, there are numerous operational specifics which we will determine, such as the lock-out times after failing breath tests; the times for re-tests; the stalled vehicle free-start times; the AIL recall count for high BAC readings; and the vehicle lock-out events and warning times. For example, do we make the time for re-test 15 or 10 minutes? Okay, it is 15 minutes elsewhere; potentially 10 minutes in the Territory. That is the stuff we are testing with the providers. It will be based on understanding the Territory conditions and requirements.
In giving you all these details, I will put the regime out into the public domain before it kicks in; all this detailed information will be provided. I am certainly more than happy, shadow minister, to take you through all of it in a briefing context. However, the reason why I have the legislation before all of this is to get all that work done as quickly as possible. You learn some tricks when you become a bit of an old dog in the ministerial seat.
When is the program to be implemented? Drop dead, I want - drop dead, whether it happens or not, but my last date is mid-next year. What am I aiming for? As soon as possible. Could it be …
Mr Elferink: Last date is mid-next year?
Ms LAWRIE: Last date, middle of next year. Could it be …
Mr Elferink: What? 30 June? 1 July?
Ms LAWRIE: Yes, 30 June. I will take that.
Mr Elferink: Good. Got you. Thank you.
Ms LAWRIE: Could it be before the end of this year? I am not ruling that out, okay? I have the resources and my agency applied to this system, so I am not ruling out before the end of this year. To be fair to my departmental officers, who are as working as hard as they can on all of this, I will give them that deadline of 30 June 2009.
Mr Elferink: Looking forward to Bellamack early next year, which is your deadline cut-off date. It is in your media releases.
Ms LAWRIE: I have a busy year every year.
Mr Elferink: I will remember that: Bellamack early 2009.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Port Darwin!
Ms LAWRIE: As I said, the department is working on specific program parameters but, also, on the regulations which will support that: the AIL provider approvals; the changes to the MVR computer business systems; the changes to the Department of Justice computer business systems; the operational procedures; development and staff training; and public education and awareness. The public education and awareness is critically important. So, if we can get all of that work done before 30 June 2009, it will be in.
What is the profile of our repeat drink-driving offenders and how will this program encourage them to change their behaviour? We are targeting all drink-drivers regardless of their demographics. We are not being discriminatory; it is all of them regardless of their demographics. Data from Amity House indicates that the drink-drivers attending mandatory courses: 80% were male and 40% were Indigenous. We also know, based on data provided by the police regarding repeat drink-drivers: 41% were high-range - and you have had this information – and 39% were medium-range offences. Some other breakdowns: 76.5%, that is 865 repeat drink-driving offences occurred in the urban areas of Darwin, Palmerston, Katherine, Nhulunbuy, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs – that is the bulk of our repeat drink-drivers. You have already heard me say that in those areas we have a very easy regime in terms of calibration and testing. So, 23.3%, that is 266 repeat drink-driving offences occur in rural areas. That is based on the average over 2005 to 2007.
You could argue this is because there are more police in the urban areas capturing the drink-drivers, and that is a fair argument. That is why I am putting it on the record here. Fundamentally, the best thing to tackle drink-driving is more police and enforcement. That is not what this debate is about. This debate is about adding to ways of preventing those recidivist drink-drivers, and adding to the whole picture of trying to drive down drink-driving on our roads.
There is an expert view that some offenders do learn from having alcohol interlocks in their vehicles, leading to long-term behavioural modifications and consequential reduction in recidivism. I recognise the research done by the shadow minister but, fundamentally, what we know is they are very effective in the car when they are used. As you know, the studies are limited, but the early signs are showing that 18 months or two years after having it removed from the car, people are starting to come back to that type of behaviour. There are also studies overseas which argue the effectiveness of this as a tool to combat drink-driving.
We can argue about the studies, but I am saying we have seen that it is effective in other jurisdictions in Australia. We have seen its effectiveness overseas. We want it to be effective here too, so we have given it a red-hot go, maybe not to the extent, in terms of compensation and the low-level drink-drivers that the opposition would have, but we are giving it a red-hot go.
The member for Nelson made a very good point about whether the machine is robust enough to handle our rough road conditions in the bush. The experience in Canada and the US is that, yes, they are used in very rough terrain in the remote and regional areas and they have withstood the test. That brings me to think of the debate we had about the technology which will ultimately go into heavy vehicles - is it robust and will it deal with conditions? Yes, it will. Technology these days is tested in very extreme conditions. They put them into machines, they shake them about and the experience in the US and Canada, regional and remote, is that they are not faulty and they handle the conditions. Of the two devices, the one the providers say will be best for our regional and remote areas is simply a more robust device, so we can see where they are coming from. I digress, but it was a good question from the member for Nelson.
How successful has the program been in other jurisdictions, especially in regard to regional areas? They all have their own arrangements to accommodate their regional and remote areas. You have heard me talk about the sorts of arrangements we will be putting in place. We believe the experience in remote and regional areas is not readily transferable to the Territory environment. This is why we are focused on how it will work in our regional and our remote areas.
The question was asked about research done by the Northern Territory government into the demographics of repeat drink-drivers and any studies to inform of our drink-driving program. I refer to the breakdowns provided by Amity. We are targeting all the high and medium-range drink-drivers regardless of the demographic makeup of the group. We know you are pretty fond of quoting the Queensland trials, but they were based on a 28 month trial conducted in six trial courts, with a sample of 225 offenders. We do not see how this sample in the south-east corner of Queensland is representative of the whole state. I know you are relying on it, but we do not believe that it is transferable to the Territory context. But we have had a look at it.
The question of low drink-drivers, low-range offenders, are 6% of the statistics. We are targeting that bulk area where 41% were high-range and 39% at medium-range.
Mr Giles: What was the number, sorry?
Ms LAWRIE: Thirty-nine per cent were medium-range offenders, 41% were high-range offenders and 6% were low-range offenders. The remaining 14% are other alcohol offenders. We have 6% in that low-range of offenders; the remaining balance is refusals under DUIs. Generally, those with an alcohol dependence problem - this gets to the recidivism aspect that we are targeting - are those who commit the medium to high-range drink-driving offences. They are the ones who dominate the repeat offenders group, and they are the ones we are going after, those repeat drink-drivers. They have alcohol dependency issues, they are out there repeatedly drink-driving, and that is borne out in our statistics. They are the ones we are targeting with this legislation.
There was a question regarding whether we would consider rewarding people who have behaved well while on the alcohol interlock system, and reducing that period. We believe that alcohol interlocks are a court imposed penalty. We are really not considering reducing the period the interlock is installed because of behaviour. We believe that rewarding offenders by reducing the interlock period would increase the risk of the offender again drinking and driving because, as we know, it is really effective when it is in the car. So we think once you take it out of the car, the risk factors start to increase of them potentially drink-driving again. I understand what you are looking at with the good behaviour, but we do not want to get those risk factors kicking back in once it is out the car.
Evidence shows that most people do not intentionally set out to drink and drive. They make that decision when they have been drinking. They do not say: ‘Okay, I am going to drink and drive’. They make that decision when they have been drinking. We believe that the interlock system is a way to avoid that. Once they have been drinking there is the temptation to drive.
That is getting into the detail of answering the legitimate questions asked by the member for Braitling.
I have just touched on the reliability of the equipment question from the member for Nelson. I have covered that. Fundamentally, we would all agree that more police and more enforcement are going to be a part of reducing the road toll. The police do a fantastic job. I am a huge fan of Superintendent Bob Rennie. I have frequent conversations with the Police minister about breathalysers and the like. I am on the public record constantly saying I love police blitzes when it comes to the roads. No arguments from the Transport minister on the issue of do we want police out there and breathalyser stations at the times when we know they are going to get those drink-drivers. There is no argument from the Transport minister on that one. Tick. We are all agreed.
The issue of confiscation was the issue most raised by the member of Araluen. Essentially, this legislation is for repeat drink-drivers to have alcohol interlocks installed which stops them from drink-driving. That is what we are about. Overseas experience shows the impounding tool, which is the opposition’s proposed amendment, that offenders tend to purchase cheap cars – bombs, if you like - and when their car is impounded, that is confiscated, they will continue to drink-drive in other vehicles. So alcohol interlocks in their car, a tool that prevents them from physically starting and driving off, is more effective than a confiscation regime where they will go and get a cheap car and drive that bomb, or they will try to get someone else’s car to use - so you are not being effective. But if they have transport, which is pretty important in people’s lives, and have that system in their car, they can get around - but they cannot get around when they are having a drink in the pub with their mates other than getting a taxi, or getting a Sober Bob, or walking.
I am advised by my transport experts that the profile of hoons is a very different profile to that of the alcoholic, recidivist, high-level or medium-range, real problem with alcohol drink-drivers who we are targeting with this legislation. We are targeting a core group of people with this legislation.
Madam Speaker, I not have answered everyone’s questions, however, I thank all members who have participated in the debate - the members for Nhulunbuy, Fannie Bay, Katherine, Braitling and Araluen. I am sure that we will go into committee.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Madam SPEAKER: I will vacate the Chair.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, just before you do, I put to you the usual arrangements in relation to the musical chairs we play over here.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, you have my indulgence for the member for Braitling to sit in your chair. I call the Chairman of Committees.
In committee:
Madam CHAIR: The committee has before it the Transport Legislation (Alcohol Ignition Locks) Amendment Bill 2008 (Serial 9) together with Schedule of Amendments No 1 circulated by the member for Braitling.
Clauses 1 to 5, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Mr GILES: Madam Chair, I seek leave to move clauses 6 and 18 together with their respective amendments as one item as they are dependent clauses.
Ms LAWRIE: That is fine if they are introduced as one item and we debate them as one item. We are not passing them; we are just debating those clauses as one item.
Mr GILES: Yes, one item.
Ms LAWRIE: I am just clarifying that for the Chair.
Mr GILES: I speak to clauses 6 and 18. Clause 6 is simply an insertion of a reference within the Motor Vehicles Act to a section introduced by clause 18 which we are proposing to insert into the Traffic Act. To get to the nub of it, we will make it an offence for someone to aid and abet a driver who has AIL restrictions imposed on him or her. That is, if someone provides a breath sample in order to start a vehicle or to keep a vehicle running on behalf of someone with AIL restrictions, then the person who provided the breath sample will be committing an offence.
It is very important that we raise this. Slowly people are becoming aware of what an alcohol ignition lock device is, and we recognise that there will be people who will be drunk and who will try to drive. I am in agreement with the minister for Transport when she says: ‘When an AIL is installed on a car it works well to stop people drink-driving’. My general disagreement is that it does not change people’s behaviour so when the alcohol ignition lock is removed people will stop drink-driving.
One of the key failures in the legislation - and not failure in the negative sense but a failure in terms of something that is missing - is the aid and abet law. As the member for Karama pointed out, people who do have a drinking problem will jump in the car and they will try to drive. If they cannot get their car started, the natural thing for someone who is drunk to do is to ask someone to blow in this device to start the car so they can drive away. A person who is highly intoxicated, that is, has a reading over 0.15, has no sense of responsibility. If someone quite happily blows into the ignition lock so the driver can drive away, they too have abdicated their responsibility to society and, I believe, such an action warrants an offence.
I implore the Transport minister to accept this amendment to make it an offence to aid and abet someone to start their car when they have an AIL installed.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I understand the intent of this but, realistically, there are a few flaws. First of all, the experience elsewhere has been that people do not go out of their way to aid and abet. I will give you a scenario most people would understand. A bloke has been at the pub drinking with his mates. He has an AIL device attached to his car, and he says to one his mates: ‘Come on, come on, blow in it; I want to get home’. The experience is that people say: ‘You are kidding me, aren’t you? I am not going to help you be an idiot’ - to use a colloquial phrase –‘a bloody idiot’. Is it in the realms of the norm? Experience says no. It is really outside the norm that someone would help someone be a complete bloody idiot. Mates tend to take the keys off them if they can, in those pub scenarios, and convince them not to do it. That is the experience.
The other thing is, in a practical sense - and I guess the police experience on that side might get what I am talking about in this flaw – it would be absolutely problematic to catch, in an evidentiary sense, let alone prove that someone had been providing their breath sample for a driver with an AIL licence condition. I see the member for Port Darwin getting ready to jump, but …
Mr Elferink: Absolutely.
Ms LAWRIE: I am just talking about the flaws. After years of international experience, the requirement to continually provide further breath samples - that all-important requirement - after starting the vehicle is designed to overcome this scenario where someone else to blows in it to get the vehicle started. As we know, the blowing itself, you have to be trained to do it. Some blow and hum, some are different. You are trained; it is not just a blow the way people think of a blow. You are actually trained how to use your gadget. Perhaps we can all compete and test the gadgets.
Such an offence would require the creation of defences to cover those situations where family members were being coerced. I am particularly concerned about that one in the Territory scenario. We would not want to see that situation. That is why the government understands your intent, but we will not be accepting the amendment.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Chair, two points about that. One, you do not disallow an offence because it is hard to prove. The offence of murder is actually quite hard to prove, but you do not run the excuse: ‘We are not going to make it an offence because it is hard to prove’. That is just a spurious and really vacuous argument. The fact is, any offence in criminal law has to meet certain evidentiary elements - and these are even regulatory offences like not wearing your seat belt - before the offence is committed. To say: ‘I do not know. It is just a little hard to prove so we just will not make it an offence at all’, does not work …
Ms Lawrie: That was not what I said.
Mr ELFERINK: The second aspect of this is you are worried about coercion being applied to family members to drive the car. Coercion is actually a defence, and duress and coercion in the different offences is actually a defence under the Criminal Code. We are not arguing for anything that would not be defendable by a family member, and the law is easily structured already to accommodate those particular issues. So, strike one on the assertion that it is too hard - do not do it. Strike two on the fact that the law cannot deal with the elements of coercion - that goes back over centuries. Strike three for simply dodging a bullet on what I think is simply an oversight.
Ms LAWRIE: It is not an oversight. I clearly gave a whole range of reasons. You chose to ignore some of the reasons. That is fine, you can. However, I will repeat to you: after years of international experience, the requirement to continually provide further breath samples after starting the vehicle is designed in the system to overcome the problems of a third party starting the alcohol interlock fitted vehicle.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Minister, you talked about practical applications. I will just run this scenario by you. This is why it is important to have an aid and abet clause contained within that legislation. Let us say - I cannot remember the new name of the camp - but Warlpiri camp in Katherine is an Indigenous camp. There is a strong cultural element to the people who live there. The family structure is set up so that, as you allude to, family can coerce or put other family members under duress to get them to do things. I submit that one of the things a potential drunk driver would get his family member to do is to blow into the AIL for him. That would start the car. There is really nowhere in Katherine that is 10 minutes, or more than 10 minutes, from any location, including Warlpiri camp.
So how, in practical application, is this going to actually work? I mean, it cannot possibly. Are you saying that, in the space of two minutes, the alarms will go off and there will be 120 decibel sirens and lights flashing and all that sort of thing going on in the car? It has to address the minutiae of what will actually happen. If your system is set up so that the timing of the second opportunity to blow into the AIL is random, how do you set it up so that it will occur within a space of time that is applicable to the location where this AIL is supposed to be located?
Ms LAWRIE: I am very confident the people in my department who are working with the providers on this, and who have already been discussing the different scenarios in terms of the distances people drive in the Territory and, as we know, bless the Territory, in a lot of areas we are not driving too far - it is one of the reasons we love the lifestyle here - then, in other areas, of course, we are driving long distances. That is why I say we are not going to directly translate and transfer the operating parameters from other jurisdictions to the Territory. We are going to strike Territory operating parameters.
Mr GILES: Minister, in your first conversation before I was beaten, you made reference to some previous studies which show that aid and abet is not an issue in other jurisdictions. Could you quote what those studies are, and could you table them so I can have a look at them?
I am also trying to come to terms with what the two members beside me have said; putting into context if someone does not have a licence and is not intoxicated and is a responsible adult; and, someone who is intoxicated and does have a licence says: ‘I have the licence so I better drive’. What responsibility does the person who then blows into the machine to make the car go, have? Surely the aid and abet laws put the clear focus on that passenger who does not have a licence and has helped get that vehicle to move. That is one of the reasons we have proposed this amendment. It is not to be tough or to be difficult, but it is to send a clear message as we get tough on drink-driving offences in the Northern Territory. This is to say, you cannot blow in the AIL to get the vehicle working. It is pretty simple to me that you need an offence to get someone who does that.
The member for Port Darwin said sometimes it is hard to prove that someone has aided and abetted. The example of a murder is a perfect case in point. If people do the wrong thing, and we catch those people, they should be held accountable and responsible for doing that.
Ms LAWRIE: I did not refer to any studies in reference to the experience in other jurisdictions. But the norm is that a Sober Bob does not blow into a mate’s vehicle to let that drunken mate drive his car. That was from talking to people who have been working with these systems in place in their jurisdictions. They are saying that is the experience; that is the norm. We all know, in Australia, the research is in its early days. I am not quoting studies. I am quoting discussions with people who have had that experience in other jurisdictions.
Why would someone risk their life, in the scenario where you have not had a drink and you do not have a licence, and your mate is drunk and you say: ‘I am going blow into your device so that you, my drunk mate, can drive me and risk your life and mine?’ We do not accept that is the scenario at all, and it is not the experience that has been happening in jurisdictions where this exists.
Mr GILES: I accept your assumption of what sort of person in their right mind would say: ‘Look, I am sober and he is drunk. I will blow in the thing and let him drive’? The point is, if he has a licence, the sober person might do it. There are thousands of people who have been caught for drink-driving at high-range, at medium-range. Look at the number of people who are repeat offenders for drink-driving. What sort of a moron gets in a car and drink-drives in the first place? Then they do it twice, and then they do it three times.
We are not talking about some of the most sensible decisions that have ever been made. I am sure there are idiots out there who will try to get someone’s car started so they can get a lift home because they do not have a licence. I know a stack of people who have done the wrong thing by getting into a car with a drink-driver when they are not drunk. I am not talking about the AIL. This happens now, and it will continue to happen. There are many people in the Northern Territory who have the clear message that you need a licence to drive and if you do not have a licence, you should not drive. Not everyone is that way, but the people who have that clear message, who do not have a licence, who get in the car with someone who does have a licence, may make that car go. We have to hold that person to account. That is what the law is about and we should be doing that. I ask you to rethink that.
Ms LAWRIE: Getting in a car with someone who has had a drink is a very different scenario to you having no liquor at all in your system yourself, you are completely sober; you know how to work their particular device, not that you have been trained, and you are happy to put to your mouth on their stinky little gadget? No. It is a completely different scenario.
Mr BOHLIN: Madam Chair, I will only speak briefly on this. Have you used one of these devices?
Ms LAWRIE: Is that a question, or is it rhetorical?
Mr BOHLIN: Actually, no. I will wait. First, have you used one? I will go on to say: ‘Yes. I have used one’. I could take you to where one is fitted right now and I could show you how to use it. Then I will hand it to anyone in this room and anyone can use it. It is not handmade, as you are suggesting, for one person. Anyone can use it. The same as the hand-held devices we use on the street. That little argument you came up with is not really sound in basis.
I support the member for Braitling because it is a very small adjustment to your legislation, but it adds great value to your legislation. It is a simple thing. All you have to say is: ‘Good idea’, for once, ‘that may help us prevent people from dying’. That is what this is about. All it is saying is there is the possibility, and it happens.
I am having a few drinks down the pub. I have my AIL licence. I have had a couple of schooners. I know I should not be driving. But it is my car, it is my V8. My mate here, he does not drink. In fact, the member for Port Darwin there does not drink. So he is having a squash. But it is my V8; I am a young fellow; it is my car. ‘Get in the car, mate. Let’s go home’. ‘Hey, mate, you’ve had …’ ‘Nah, nah, blow in this, will you?’ That will happen. It is not going to be an excuse. It is going to happen. All we are saying is: ‘Let us put legislation in place - and it is only a small piece - and it is going to add value to your creation’, and it will. It will make this much better if we add this bit of legislation.
The police officer rocks around the corner and says: ‘Whoo whoo. Random breath-testing, thank you very much’. He tests the driver and the driver is over the limit. He says: ‘You have an AIL licence. How did you make that work?’ And the driver replies: ‘It was not me’. Then the police officer says: ‘Well, you are the only two people in the car, so let us start doing the investigation and find out who …
Ms Lawrie: ‘I will confess’. Yes, right. It is good evidence.
Mr Elferink: It is actually the best form of evidence. You know, it actually is. You want to study the laws of evidence.
Mr BOHLIN: It proves that …
A member: You are kidding.
Madam CHAIR: Order!
Members interjecting.
Mr BOHLIN: It proves that …
A member: This is a very likely outcome.
Madam CHAIR: Order! Member for Drysdale, you have the call.
Mr BOHLIN: All it is, is we are adding value to try to save lives. It is the simplest thing. Being pigheaded about something does not save lives.
This is a small amendment. I urge you strongly to consider it. It is not unfeasible. It is quite achievable to prosecute. It is not going to be prosecuted every day - and I hope not. I hope they learn, but they are not learning and they are dying on our roads. Why not add just a bit of beef to your sandwich so it can work just that little better? You said you would do anything. Let us do this.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Madam Chair, I am surprised at the attitude of the minister for Transport on this. She is sitting there smiling. On behalf of the member for Drysdale, I was quite offended. He is trying to make a serious point and the minister for Transport is sitting there with a smile on her face. She is belittling him.
The minister for Transport should get some practical experience in the community. Obviously the minister for Transport has completely lost touch. For the minister for Transport to deny that the types of scenarios which the member for Drysdale described would not happen, is beyond belief. Those things do happen. For the minister to say people are not going to do stupid things when there are drunk people around, is off this planet. She has lost it.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, a point of order! I am not off the planet. I have not lost it. It is normal in committee stage amendment for there to be to-and-fro, and I will repeat: after years of international experience the requirement to continually provide further breath samples after starting the vehicle is designed to overcome the problem of a third party starting the alcohol Interlock system vehicle. Okay? Okay, we have chitchat, chitchat. That is at the core of it.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I do not think there was a point of order in there. The reality is scenarios like that happen every day in the Northern Territory, to a greater or lesser degree. I have been in situations in my previous career where you will find a car with four, six or eight people crowded into it and the person driving, who might be 0.24, is considered to be the least drunk. That is why they are driving the car - because the rest of them are absolutely blind.
Ms LAWRIE: And there is no one sober in there?
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I beg your pardon?
Ms LAWRIE: There is no one sober in there. Under your scenario there was a sober person sitting in the passenger seat.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: What the minister is saying is no one is going to get themselves in this situation of making a stupid decision like blowing into the AIL on behalf of somebody else. People make stupid decisions all the time. If the minister thinks for a moment this will not happen, that people are not going to continue to make stupid decisions based on some misguided sense of loyalty, or because the family member told them to; then I am afraid the minister has no idea.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Chair, I sympathise with the former police in this House who are trying to prosecute this. I will try to make it simpler.
Two guys in the car. Copper walks up to the car window, says: ‘Hang on, you are testing positive. What happened?’ ‘Oh, this bloke sitting next to me blew into the AIL’. ‘Did you?’ ‘Yeah, what are you going to do about it, copper?’ ‘Oh nothing, just inquiring’. That is how silly it is going to be, and that is how silly the police are going to look when that happens. For goodness sake, give the coppers the tools to do their jobs and create laws that are going to make the Territory safe! That is all you have to do. It is not a pivotal amendment …
Mr Westra van Holthe: Do not let pride get in the way of making the right decision.
Ms Lawrie: I do not have pride.
Mr GILES: There are 1000 examples we can give where this is going to happen. We know people will aid and abet people to get their car started if they have an alcohol ignition lock installed. We have put forward a sensible amendment to put a law in place to stop people from bypassing what you are trying to do.
We are offering our support for your legislation with additional components through aid and abet so that we will get more drunks off the road; so that people know there is a penalty for blowing in it. If people know that there is a penalty and, if it stops one person from blowing in that AIL, if it stops one person from drink-driving, stops one accident, and stops one person from dying - when our road toll is 65, 67% more than last year, the highest ever on record on your watch, under your road safety program - this is what has to happen. If you will not support a tiny little amendment, you are not giving that respect, the courtesy, and you do not have the courage and the commitment for the people of the Northern Territory to get the drink-drivers off the road; and you are doing a terrible job at it.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Madam Chair, I would just like to change the subject a little while still staying on the amendment. Section ...
Mr WOOD: Could I just interrupt? Where exactly are we in relation to the clauses in the act?
Ms LAWRIE: We are dealing with the amendments brought forward by the shadow minister, dealing with clauses 6 and 18 together.
Mr Wood: Clauses 6 and 18 together?
Ms LAWRIE: Yes. Clause 18 is a new one.
Mr Wood: I was hoping to speak. I did not know we had gone past clause 6.
Ms LAWRIE: It has no correspondence to the act. It is what they want to put into the act, but it is …
Mr Wood: As long as we can come back to clause11.
Ms LAWRIE: Yes, of course, I would like to. They are not finished shouting at me yet.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I withdraw that, Madam Chair. I will come back to that later.
Amendments negatived.
Mr GILES: Division, Madam Chair.
Ms LAWRIE: You do not call division on clauses in committee.
Madam CHAIR: The question is that the clause stand as printed.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, there is point of clarification. Which clause are you referring to stand as printed - just for mine and the member for Nelson’s sake?
Madam CHAIR: Clause 6.
Ms LAWRIE: Clause 6 as existing in the legislation. And clause 18? We dealt with clauses 6 and 18 together?
Madam CHAIR: Clause 18 is actually listed separately.
Ms LAWRIE: That is fine, just deal with clause 6. I may have to revisit this.
Madam CHAIR: We are referring to clause 6. The question now is that clause 6 stand …
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Chair! Can I get some clarification as to when you can call a division in the committee?
Ms LAWRIE: At the end.
Ms Carney: How about you not provide the advice and let someone else do it.
Madam CHAIR: My advice is when we move at the end to report the bill to Madam Speaker there is an opportunity to divide.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Leave granted to put the question on clause 18 at a later stage.
Clauses 7 to 10, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 11:
Mr WOOD: Minister, I raise my questions at this point because some of the detail in this particular amendment is also repeated elsewhere. It relates to a question I would have asked in the general discussion. Where in the act does it allow someone not to have an AIL? And, if so, where in the act does it explain clearly to a normal person who is trying to read this, what the conditions of an AIL actually are? I should say: what is the penalty if you do not want to have an AIL?
Ms LAWRIE: The penalty is you serve your full suspension period. You cannot be back driving earlier if an alcohol interlock system is not fitted.
Mr WOOD: Can you explain what part of the bill tells me that?
Ms LAWRIE: Yes, I thought it was the case, but I wanted to wait for the advice. It is not in the act. It is part of the court sentencing and part of the program. For example, in looking at clause 11, they will disqualify you for the mandatory period, and they will disqualify you for a further period under clause 11(b)(i) and (ii) unless you have an alcohol interlock fitted.
Mr WOOD: That is what I thought. But if you read clause 11(b)(ii) can you honestly believe that is English? That it actually says what you are trying to say? I have read it a number of times, and if I was to give that to the ordinary person in the street, they would not believe that that is what it meant. I am asking if the government would consider rewriting that later on and having a clause which says: ‘If an offender does not wish to have an AIL licence, this is what will occur’, in clear and precise terms. That is unreadable for the average person.
Ms LAWRIE: The plain English version, I am advised, will be in the program guidelines.
Mr WOOD: It will be in which sort of guidelines?
Ms LAWRIE: The program guidelines.
Mr WOOD: Minister, I am not a lawyer, but one of the basic questions I had was: where is it in here that says if you opt out? It does not even have a heading saying: ‘if you wish to not participate, this is the following …’ Heaven help me, I am not going to Parliamentary Counsel, but it is very hard for people to understand what exactly is meant by that. I thank you for your explanation, minister, but I believe that part of the act needs to be rewritten. And in subsequent clauses - clause 12 has it as well, and it might turn up elsewhere. That is something that could be amended for the better.
Mr GILES: Madam Chair, I seek leave to move opposition clauses 11, 13, 14, 14A, 16, and 17 together.
Madam Chair, they are being introduced together as they make the same changes to different sections of the Traffic Act. They aim to give a longer time frame so that a court must consider certain previous driving offences from three years to five years. That is what it is about.
Ms LAWRIE: I have a suggestion. I understand your intent and we can move through in blocks so that it makes sense. Having been a Deputy Speaker and being in a position that the Deputy Speaker is in, you have a very clear process to follow on the advice of the Table Office and others. What we can do is debate them as one, if you like - this is just a suggestion - so that we will resolve the fundamental in that first debate and then the Deputy Speaker will just keep reading through what is in front of her and then you will not jump to your feet at those different times. That is just a functional suggestion.
Mr GILES: I am pretty sure that I provided advice earlier that I was going to actually say that and do that.
Ms LAWRIE: I am not sure whether you have provided the advice to the Table Office and …
Mr GILES: I will repeat the clauses. I am happy to do what you say. I am happy for you to argue against what I am recommending, anyway. The clauses are 11, 13, 14, 14A, 16, and 17.
What we are moving is that we extend the period from three years to five years for prior offences. That is when the courts take into account previous offences in terms of drink-driving and how they relate to the law. Instead of just looking back for the last three years to see if there has been a prior conviction, they can look back to the last five years. I am sure that the minister for Transport will accept this amendment because she has spoken at length today about how people who are drink-drivers have a problem with alcohol and how repeat drink-drivers are a problem and it is important to get the repeat drink-drivers off the road. Although she does not have much of a concern about low-level drink-drivers, because according to the government, being a little over is all right; it is only those serious ones we have to worry about.
The government needs to focus on getting repeat drink-drivers off the road, and should recognise that since the road safety package came into being the road toll is worse than last year - now it is at 65 and the worst it has ever been – and the minister should recognise that the government is not doing enough. I believe she also recognises that I am offering a partnership to try to improve the road toll in the Northern Territory and get the drink-drivers off the road.
Keeping that in mind, I am sure the minister for Transport will recognise if people are repeat drink-driving offenders the purpose of this amendment is to say it does not matter if you had been caught drinking in the last three years, you can still be a repeat offender in the last five years. People may say: ‘Five years is a long time’. I have looked through the police annual report and we see there is an estimation that 16% of all drivers in the Northern Territory in any one year are driving over the level 0.05. We are driving over the level of 0.05 but we are only catching, through limited police resources, through drink-driving blitzes, 6% of those drink-drivers. There are a large number of people - 10% - we are missing according to their annual report of 2006-07.
I have not done the statistics on this - I should have - but in any three year period the 10% of people who get missed drink-driving under that possibility, could be significant. You can go three years without being caught. If you are a repeat drink-driver you might get caught once in three years, although we know the drink-driving blitz numbers are going down due to lack of police resources, as the report says. But also, as some of my former police colleagues tell me, we know fewer people are getting caught.
We know there are a large number of people, 10% of all drink-drivers in the Northern Territory, who are not getting caught at all in one year, as they say. For a period of three years, where people may have been drink-driving and not getting caught, we say if they are repeat drink-drivers we should be looking at a five year period to say: ‘Let us take it back five years because we know the police resources on the ground are not enough.’ The estimations the police make about how many drink-driving blitzes they will do and how many they actually do, unless they get the ministerials or whatever it may be to increase the numbers, it is important we catch people because without catching people, no one is going to get an AIL.
What this clause really does is try to identify repeat drink-drivers, but it also recognises the government is clearly not doing enough to try to catch those drink-drivers in the first place. If they were, they would catch all 16% of those people who say they drink-drive in any one year, and we might not have to go back five years to find out who has been caught before. Now, we do have to go back five years. That is why I have recommended an amendment to this bill that the time frame be extended from three years to five years. I commend the minister for Transport to accept this amendment.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I guess it is where the intent comes from here. Our intent is, as I said, to capture those people who are alcohol dependent and repeatedly drink-driving. Not the 0.05s to 0.08s. That is our intent and that is where we are coming at it from. It may not suit what you are arguing, but that is our intent and that is how we will approach this.
The second point: bringing the time period to five years - the intent of this legislation is to get these alcohol interlock machines into cars. We believe experience shows they are effective tools. We want them in our repeat drink-drivers’ cars; we want them in those medium to high-level repeat drink-drivers’ cars. Extending the period of disqualification from three years to five years means they do not have access to the car and the gadget in the car for two years. It is a difference in approach and a difference in intent - a fundamental difference.
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Chair! I am not quite sure the minister for Transport understands the amendment. It is not about extending forwards, it is about extending backwards: checking how far back people might have had prior convictions. I think what you just said then …
Ms LAWRIE: So capturing more, yes?
Mr GILES: I am pretty sure what you just said then reflected it being a longer time frame before people get an AIL. I do not really understand …
Ms LAWRIE: Okay, no. That is certainly not what I meant at all. I understand that you are extending the period of capturing, if you like, if they have offended previously.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: What we are trying to achieve here is to cast the net wider to catch those people who slip through in the three year period. I would hazard a guess that the statistics are very conservative on the number of people who (a) say they drink-drive in any given year; and (b) people who say they drink-drive after they have been caught once, but not caught again. I do not think the strategies are working all that well to reel those people in and bring them back into the justice system, which is where they belong if they continue to drink and drive. All this is trying to do is extend the net so we have a better chance of capturing these recidivist offenders who continue to re-offend, notwithstanding that they simply do not get caught all the time.
Mr GILES: Madam Chair, I will talk briefly. The minister for Transport, a minute ago, said that the intent of the legislation is to get the alcohol ignition locks into cars. That is all well and good. I would have taken an approach to say that the intent of the legislation is trying to get drink-drivers off the road and get people to stop drink-driving. That is what I would have said - not just to get these new devices into the car so you can get some political opportunism out of them.
I could stand here and pontificate, and hang my glasses from my mouth, but I do not have any; but I am in the right chair. I see you have your glasses in your mouth, Madam Chair.
Extending it from three years to five years casts the net wider and when we pick up people for drink-driving, it is going to get more of them off the road and sooner. That is what this amendment is going to do. It is not an amendment that needs a lot of clarification and explanation about what it is going to do and why it is there. It will catch more people who are drink-driving, who are repeat offenders, and get them off the roads. If you do not support that, you do support action on drink-driving. This government is clearly failing even further to address the devastating road toll in the Northern Territory - 65 from 39, a 67% increase in one year alone. You should be ashamed.
Madam CHAIR: Members, I just clarify. I understand it is your wish that clauses 11, 13, 14, 14A, 16 and 17 - be taken together. I am required to go through the clauses sequentially. So, we need to do clause 11 first, then 12, and then we can take the next group together.
So, in regard to clause 11, the question is that the words proposed to be inserted.
Amendment negatived.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, are we going to do clause 18? I know it was done. I was totally confused as to why we were discussing this section when I thought we were discussing an earlier clause.
Madam CHAIR: We are getting to clause 18, member for Nelson.
Ms LAWRIE: We will stop at clause 18 for you, Gerry.
New clause 12A:
Mr GILES: Madam Chair, I move amendment 1.3 regarding clause 12A. I have moved this amendment to try to stem the increase in numbers of drink-drivers on our roads. This amendment is to include people who are low-range offenders - that is, people who get caught a third time in a low-range category of drink-driving - and have those people subject to an alcohol ignition lock. I go back just a couple of minutes when the minister for Transport said that the intent of the legislation is to get alcohol ignition locks into cars. If that is her intent, my intent is to get drink-drivers off the road but, in this case, I am happy to help.
We have moved an amendment so that people who are caught drink-driving at a low range within the set period are subject to an alcohol ignition lock if they want to get back on the road. The minister for Transport would be very happy with this amendment. This would go to the heart of what she was just saying about getting AILs into cars. Repeat offenders, clearly, should be getting a consistent message, regardless of the amount of alcohol in their system. If you are 0.15%, or 0.08% or 0.05%, or 0.3%, or whatever, you still have to get the same message.
I am curious as to why the government’s bill has overlooked the introduction of AILs for low-level offenders. I thought you were trying to get drink-drivers off the road and lower the road toll. But if you are happy to leave this in here and allow the road toll through low-level, repeat drink-drivers - I will not labour the point, but it beggars belief that you would leave that out.
These are the people who have been stupid enough, and I have said it before, to say: ‘Oops, I accidentally went over’, accidentally got caught over the limit; fortunately, no accident. They got caught and they got into trouble, they got a fine or whatever happens to those people. They get a stern warning. The second time they have not had an accident, they have not just been stupid, they have been an idiot. They have been an absolute idiot for getting caught a second time. They serve their time, and they do what has to happen to those people on the low-level, but then they come in a third time.
I know when I was at school, if I did the wrong thing, I got the cane. It did not hurt me too much, but I did not really like it. If I did the wrong thing again, I would get the cane a couple of times. If I had not learnt by then, which I always had, I would have had the cane a stack more times.
Surely, at some point in time, you have to change your behaviour. The lack of focus on low range offenders, I believe is a stupid omission from this proposed legislation. It actually continues that culture of people who I know, and you know, and we all know, who think it is all right to go down the pub and then drive home. We spoke about the Masters Games - how many people were drink-driving at the Masters? We had that wonderful dry town legislation that is not managed, but anyway …
Mr Wood: It is sponsored by alcohol companies.
Mr GILES: That is right, yes. All sponsored by alcohol. Everyone was drinking at the Masters Games and everyone was driving everywhere. That is not a good thing. I encouraged every person I saw who was drinking, or was about to drink-drive, or was drink-driving, not to drink-drive. I gave them a good boot, as we should do as responsible citizens.
But, how does that message change? Clearly the thing people think about, the people who do not pay attention to education campaigns, and the people who do not see the deaths on the road and take note and want to make changes, these people’s only concern when they drink and drive is not to get caught and how to avoid the breathalyser, if ever there is one.
There are so many in the community who just drink and drive. They do not even know they are drinking and driving. ‘What are you doing this afternoon?’ ‘I am going down the pub. I will sink ten schooners and get in the car to drive home.’ They do it everywhere and they do it all the time. We are not catching those people. These are the people who would fall into that low-level range; the people who say: ‘I am only a little over. She’ll be right’. And what happens? They go home and they are fine - they have not had an accident. This happens everywhere all the time. Just a little over. I knock off from work and I go to Ducks Nuts and I will have a few. Then I will just drive home, just a little over.
The intent of what we have introduced in these amendments is to say that those people who are just a little over, who think it is okay, who have a culture of driving when they are a little over, these are the people we should also be targeting. If you say that driving between 0.05 and 0.08 is not a problem, why did you have a limit of 0.05 in the first place?
You are going to introduce tough legislation for alcohol ignition locks and try to look like you are getting tough, even though you have not accepted any of our amendments which would have made it tough and would have got drink-drivers off the road and would have reduced the road toll. If you say you want change, I do not understand why this would not be accepted by the minister for Transport.
I think about those people who do drink-drive, and I have spoken to a few people. There are a couple of people I know who I would consider alcoholics. They may not be full-blown alcoholics, but they get pissed every night and then drive. I say to these people: ‘This is the legislation.’ They will get an alcohol ignition lock for a second offence and they will get an alcohol ignition lock for the third. I told them that I am proposing they get their cars confiscated for the third and they say: ‘Yes, that is all right, but it is a bit hard’. ‘What do you mean: it is a bit hard?’ ‘Well, how am I going to get home if I lose my car?’ I say: ‘Do not have a drink’ or ‘Why not catch a taxi?
The people who are low-range alcohol consumers are people who, I would say, drive home at a low range on a consistent basis. They say: ‘What is going to happen to me? Do I have to blow into one of those stupid things?’ I say to them: ‘Under the current government’s proposal you will not have to have an alcohol ignition lock on your car. Under my proposal you will’. They say: ‘We support the government’s proposal’. Why? ‘How else am I going to get home? If I have to drive my family I have to be able to drive my car’. That is atrocious.
What this actually does, through the omission of this government in not including alcohol ignition locks for low-range repeat offenders, is saying: ‘You are all right as long as you are under 0.05. We probably will not catch you anyway because we only get 6% of our 16% in the drink and drive, mainly because we do not have enough police on the ground. But you will be right. You just drink and drive’.
What will happen is those people will continue to drink and drive. The people who get their alcohol ignition locks set at a higher range will get their alcohol ignition locks, and they will find a different car and drive that car.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Chair! I want to draw the member’s attention, the committee’s attention, expansive is fine, explaining the intent and the scenarios is fine but you are starting to repeat yourself even within the same speech. We have clauses to discuss and move through. I urge you to consider that we are in committee rather than a second reading debate.
Mr GILES: I understand why the minister for Transport would not want me to debate legislation - because she must want to get home early too.
Members interjecting.
Mr GILES: … ‘Madam Chair, can you please make him sit down; can you make him stop debating legislation; this is not a house of debate.’ Well, I think it is. This is the minister for gagging trying to gag us. I am standing up here doing my best at my first go, trying to debate legislation to get the drunks off the road - that you do not care about - to try to reduce our road toll, and you want me to sit down. I am trying to debate to get the drunks off the road, and you want me to stop talking …
Ms LAWRIE: I am pointing out that you are repeating yourself in little loops.
Mr GILES: Hello, it must be dinner time. I must be getting hungry.
Madam CHAIR: Order!
Mr GILES: It is the last day, and you want to go home early. This is a disgrace.
Ms LAWRIE: Give us something new.
Mr GILES: We should work like ordinary Territorians. We have had a three hour lunch today. We had two hours this morning – well, not quite - three o’clock to eight – so we have done seven hours today. What about those other Territorians who work 10 hours a day. Time to go home, Madam Chair.
Mr Vatskalis: How do you know? You were always a public servant?
Mr GILES: What was that?
Mr VATSKALIS: How do you know how to work? You were a public servant, were you not?
Mr GILES: To be honest, I cannot even hear you, let alone understand you. Madam Chair, I will talk. I will talk …
Members interjecting.
Madam CHAIR: Order!
Mr GILES: I will continue to talk about the importance of low-range, repeat drink-drivers. I notice the member for Port Darwin has just come in. I had better start again …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Whilst I appreciate the member for Braitling is a novice in this House, he must be aware that referring to my absence or otherwise is a bit naughty.
Ms Lawrie: A point of order on his own colleague!
Mr Elferink: It was a joke - it is called humour.
Madam CHAIR: Order! Member for Braitling has the call.
Mr GILES: I have given a few reasons why I had a go at the government. They do not care about people who are low-range, re-offender drink-drivers. They think it is all right to have a few drinks, get a little over and keep driving. They do not have enough police on the ground to catch drink-drivers at the moment. The road toll continues to go up and they are going to let the low-level repeat offenders continue to repeat offend and not try to put in a behavioural change mechanism through an alcohol ignition lock to get positive charge.
I recommend the minister for Transport accepts my recommendation and makes all repeat drink-drivers accountable through the alcohol ignition lock system; that we are toughen up - like the Country Liberals want to do, like our original proposal for alcohol ignition locks; that we toughen up on people who aid and abet; that we toughen up on people who repeat drink-drive on a high range, that we toughen up, more importantly, on people who are low range re-offenders.
Ms LAWRIE: Under the CLP there was no disqualification at all for repeat low-level offenders. This is a man lecturing your own party’s track record. It was Labor that introduced the low-range disqualifications. They did it on 1 July 2007. We did it and we shifted the Territory in leaps and bounds in road safety. We brought in demerit points for drink-driving, including low-level drink-driving, to stop repeat drink-driving - and guess what? The CLP opposed us. Previously, you would be caught as often as you liked under 0.08 and not lose your licence. Thanks to Labor, you lose your licence. We changed it. The CLP opposed it.
The absurd situation in here is that the CLP is opposing suspending the licence of repeat drink-drivers. They want us to confiscate the cars. They want us to put the interlock systems in. You have been shifting all over the place. We have been consistent. Consistently in this debate I have said we are going after repeat drink-drivers in the medium to high range, the ones who make up the bulk of our offenders in the system, and the ones who are the danger to us. They are the ones we are going after.
You argue your bit and you can be dramatic and theatrical, but I have said consistently what we are doing.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Madam Chair, I was wondering if the minister for Transport could give us the version in 25 words or less why she is not prepared to admit this amendment which has been put forward.
Ms LAWRIE: I did. You clearly missed it.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Is that because you say that you have done enough already?
Ms LAWRIE: I just did. Clearly, you missed it.
Mr GILES: Madam Chair, I can understand why the minister for Transport would not want to talk. It is past 8 o’clock and she must be tired. We had a late night last night and …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Chair! This is just getting beyond a joke. These members are reflecting in a personal way and an unnecessary way on the minister. The minister has been very patient with these members and they are turning to personal invective now and reflecting badly on her. I ask for them to correct it.
Mr ELFERINK: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Chair.
Madam CHAIR: Please pause while I confer with the Deputy Clerk. Member for Johnston, there is no point of order. However, I ask the member for Braitling to speak to the clauses, please.
Mr GILES: Thank you, Madam Chair. I can understand why it would be very difficult to answer the question from the member for Katherine on this matter, because we have not actually heard - we did not have 25 words or less - why you would not have an inclusion for low-level repeat drink-drivers - people from 0.05 to 0.08 - on the third offence to have an alcohol ignition lock. What we heard was something about the CLP in 1940, was it? I cannot remember - a long time ago, way before there was a 67% increase in the fatality level on Northern Territory roads. Sixty-five people have now died on Northern Territory roads; 50% of them related to drink-driving.
Here we have a positive amendment to try to get drink-drivers off our roads. You were the ones who explained to us that you think alcohol ignition locks are going to change people’s behaviour. I say they will not. I will say that while they are fitted to the car, it will help people stop drink-driving but, once those alcohol ignition locks go, people will come back to the same levels of drink-driving they had before.
What we are trying to do is get low-level drink-drivers off the road. For the minister for Transport to not even be able to give a reason why you would not want low-level drink-drivers off the road, or why you would not want low-level drink-drivers to have an alcohol ignition lock. I say an alcohol ignition lock on your car will stop you from drink-driving.
There are problems around aid and abet and all those things, and we have tried to move amendments to fix that. Here is an opportunity to have an alcohol ignition lock in the car of low-level offenders. You will get drink-drivers off the road. Your position against my amendment will allow people to drink-drive; those people will be drink-driving. This is going to get drink-drivers off the road. I would be more than happy for you to tell me - and I will sit down now, so be very quick, in 25 words or less - why you will not support getting low-level offenders off the road with an alcohol ignition lock?
Mr WOOD: I will try to do 25 words or less. I would support this particular amendment. I support it, not because of history or whether it was different in years gone by, but the act as it is now is very similar to medium-range blood alcohol content and high-range blood alcohol content in the format that there are penalties which say you can be imprisoned for three months or six months and your licence can be cancelled for three months or six months, not necessarily the same amounts, but similar to what happens in the high- and medium-range legislation.
The government has introduced this particular section of the act because it thinks that people driving, even with low-range blood alcohol, are dangerous - otherwise they would not have put those serious penalties in there such as imprisonment and loss of licence. They recognise that it is the low end of the scale of seriousness because, for the first offence, I think, you can get an infringement notice.
The amendment that the opposition has put forward has recognised that by saying instead of after two offences, at least after three offences. It has realised that this is not quite as serious as the other two offences. However, if I was to read the government’s mind when it put this act together, it believed that low-range blood alcohol was a serious enough offence that people could go to prison. That is exactly what they said for medium and for high blood alcohol content.
If you take that sort of logic, it would be good if they applied the same principal to a person who has been repeatedly charged with low-range blood alcohol content and should be required to put an alcohol interlocking device in his or her car.
Ms LAWRIE: Yes. As I say, we looked at the data we had on recidivism and the types of people we wanted to capture - the recidivists. The recidivists are the high-range and the medium-range, by a long, long way; they are the recidivists. It is about getting those repeat drink-drivers off the road – the second and subsequent offence drink-drivers. I have explained that previously, which is why we are targeting the medium to high-range, which is where our policy settings are different. We are not capturing the low-range in this alcohol interlock approach. We have a fundamental disagreement on that, granted, but I have explained our approach to it.
I put up with some seriously rude things being said to me about that, but I have explained it. Whether they accept it or not, so be it; but I have explained our approach.
Mr WOOD: Minister, I understand what you are saying, and there is some logic in what you are saying. However, there are obviously some repeat offenders in the low alcohol content group. It is not really the end of the world to pick up those people. I presume you will have a company and we will get on to that a bit later - some company will be given the contract to supply these machines to those people who want to take up the option of driving with one. So it is up to them to go to the company to get one fitted.
A slight change to the legislation which said basically, whatever is in the high blood alcohol content and the medium blood alcohol content regulations will, with slight change, also apply to the low blood alcohol content. A person who has been charged has been told that they can continue to drive as long as they get one of these fitted. It is not really a big change for the bureaucracy, you might say, but it will pick up those odd people. Maybe they are small in number, but at least it will be good that they are covered.
Mr GILES: Madam Chair, I was going through some of the figures the minister gave before. I think she said that 6% of people were low-range re-offenders. Is that correct? Based on some numbers you mentioned earlier, if I do a quick calculation that would be 68 people. Sixty-eight people are low-range re-offenders in the Northern Territory. I am happy to take advice if I am wrong - I just checked and 68 is right. I note what the member for Nelson has said, and I know 68 is not a large number when you are talking about thousands of people who drink-drive. The similarity of the sixties: 68 people; 67% increase in the road deaths this year; 65 people have died this year. It is all in the sixties.
I would wonder: if you know there are around 68 people who are low-level re-offenders, why would you not want them off the road? Can you explain that? If someone was killed tomorrow by one of those 68 people, what would you say?
Ms LAWRIE: Actually we want them off the road, which is why we captured them in the Road Safety Task Force and the legislative amendments we have made. We captured them when the CLP previously had not. You are asking: why do you not want them being able to drive on the road with an alcohol interlock system in their car, capture them into this system. That is the difference between us. It is not whether we want them on the road or off the road.
Mr GILES: Let me rephrase it. Why would you not want to try to change the behaviour of those 68 people to stop them from drinking and driving in the future? If someone was killed or a family was killed or someone was maimed or someone was hurt because you did not act through the alcohol ignition lock program to try to rehabilitate those people, which would be quite unfortunate.
Ms LAWRIE: Why would we not want to change their behaviour? If that were the case, we would not have captured them in the demerit scheme and we would not have made it an offence in the first place, as we have. Your assertion is that we are somehow ignoring this catchment of people who previously got traffic infringement notices. Well we are not, okay? They are captured. They are not captured with the alcohol interlock system because we have structured the alcohol interlock system around medium-range and high-range alcoholic recidivists. That is the difference between our policy settings. We can debate this for as long as you like, because I am a very patient person. I do yoga.
Mr GILES: I note you have done a number of things in terms of transport. I do not agree with all of them. I know what you are saying about drink-drivers. I will put it to you, as I have to some of my other colleagues, that I believe things should change for those 68 people. I am wondering if you - and I cannot quite hear, Madam Chair …
Members interjecting.
Madam CHAIR: Order, please. The member for Braitling cannot hear.
Ms LAWRIE: It is actually 21. Someone has done the figures for us. It is 21.
Mr GILES: I am wondering if you have done enough in your policies so none of those 21 or 68 people will kill anyone on the road through drink-driving.
Ms LAWRIE: Your question is highly offensive.
Mr Elferink: We will take that as a no.
Mr GILES: Madam Chair, I did not mean to be offensive to the member for Karama. The intent of the question was: have you done enough? The proposed legislation in front of us provides an opportunity, through our amendments, to go further. The minister is clearly saying that it is not necessary to take those amendments on board. To me that sounds as if she is saying: ‘We have the right package. We have done enough’.
Ms LAWRIE: We have confiscated their licence. They cannot drive on the road because we changed the laws to confiscate their licence. Your party was handing out traffic infringement notices to them.
Mr GILES: Madam Chair, I am pretty sure today is October 2008 and we are looking at what is happening today. There are 65 people who have died on our roads this year, a 67% increase over the same time last year when there were 39. You talk about being a good debater, member for Karama. You mentioned earlier how you have reports which show alcohol ignition locks will change people’s behaviour so they will not re-offend in terms of drink-driving. I would like you to table those reports so I can see where you get your evidence to say that those people will not re-offend. You cannot? Does that mean it cannot be done?
Ms LAWRIE: I am happy to source reports for you and to pass reports through to you. No problem with that. We have all done our research. We have Canada, we have the US, and we know it is happening. Okay, so …
Mr GILES: Would you please, minister, provide me with some sort of quotations from those reports which say that this is the case? We are debating legislation. I would like to know where it says that AILs will change people’s behaviour. I have read other information, which I have already tabled.
Ms LAWRIE: I am saying - be very clear about this - demerits are where the experts say it changes behaviour. What I am saying is AILs in the car prevents you from driving the car if you have alcohol in your blood and on your breath. You are throwing words at me. You are ignoring what I am saying. That is fine; we can go round in circles here. That is fine.
Mr GILES: I take it you just said - and my ears could be wrong. It is a bit hard to hear over here. We need to get the sound system fixed. I am pretty sure you said that demerit points stopped people drink-driving. Is that right?
Ms LAWRIE: Demerit points change people’s behaviour. Yes, that is what I said.
Mr GILES: So would you be happy to say that if demerit points changed people’s behaviour - and we have seen the fatality rate go up last year and also go up by 67% at the same time this year, would you say that your argument is wrong? Clearly, it has not changed people’s behaviour. There are 65 people who have died on the roads this year.
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Mr GILES: It is 65; a 67% increase on last year, member for Fong Lim. I have asked for the reports because I do not believe there are reports of a significant nature which say that AILs will change behaviour.
Ms LAWRIE: I will write to you on demerit points quite happily but what I will also say is this: all the people say demerit points take a long time to change drivers’ behaviour. Road safety initiatives take a long time to change drivers’ behaviour.
Mr GILES: However, where you say that AILs do work, we accept that.
Ms LAWRIE: It does not happen overnight. There is no silver bullet.
Mr GILES: So the point of the argument is if you say AILs are this ‘you beaut’ thing, you know there are people out there who re-offend on low range alcohol drink-driving, but you are not prepared to put AILs onto those people. You have not sold your argument to say they work here but we are not going to use them, what we are going to do, we are going to let people continue to drink and drive at low-level range on our roads while the road toll is going up. This is an absolute joke.
Madam CHAIR: The question is that the proposed new clause 12A be inserted in the bill.
Motion negatived.
Madam CHAIR: Member for Braitling, if I could just clarify before …
Mr GILES: I can barely hear you sorry, Madam Chair.
Madam CHAIR: Before we put the next question about clause 13, can we clarify that we are taking clauses 13 and 14 together?
Mr GILES: Clauses 11, 13, 14, 14A, 16 and 17.
Madam CHAIR: No, we need to take clauses 13 and 14 together and then you can move to insert your new clause 14A and then we have to do clause 15.
Mr GILES: Okay.
Clauses 13 and 14, by leave, taken together.
Mr GILES: Madam Chair, I move amendments to clauses 13 and 14 standing in my name.
Amendments negatived.
Clauses 13 and 14, as printed, agreed to.
Mr GILES: Madam Chair, I move the amendment to insert new clause 14A into the bill.
New clause 14A negatived.
Mr WOOD: You said 14A was included in that.
Madam CHAIR: Yes.
Mr WOOD: Was 14A one of the amendments?
Madam CHAIR: Yes.
Mr WOOD: Has that just been passed then?
Madam CHAIR: Clauses 13, 14 and 14A have just been dealt with.
Ms LAWRIE: We agreed to deal with them in a block earlier in the debate but, Gerry; you were not necessarily part of the agreement.
Madam CHAIR: The question is that clause 15 stand as printed.
Motion agreed to.
Madam CHAIR: I am going to clarify: we will be taking clauses 16 and 17 together.
Mr GILES: Unless you want to talk about low range offences again.
Madam CHAIR: The question is that clauses 16 and 17 stand as printed.
Motion agreed to.
Madam CHAIR: The question is that clause 18 stand as printed.
Mr GILES: I seek leave, sorry, hang on a second, I am getting instructions here.
Ms LAWRIE: The member for Nelson has a question. Go for it, Gerry. Is this about the licence?
Mr WOOD: I am getting a bit confused now. Is this dealing with the amendment that the opposition was putting forward about the person who was not the driver? Clause 18 of the amendment is the same …
Ms LAWRIE: We dealt with that earlier.
Mr WOOD: I understand that but, unless you were a genius - I was not sure where that was going because we were dealing with a clause right at the beginning at the same time as we were dealing with the clause there.
Madam CHAIR: Member for Nelson, we will just seek clarification from the member for Braitling.
Mr GILES: We were dealing with clauses 6 and 18 concurrently but it could not be done because the paperwork had not been done. So, we dealt with it in terms of debate, we now just have to put it to the vote.
Mr WOOD: I asked that I could comment on clause 18. We really need to keep the clauses in some form of organisation.
I do not have a problem with this, either. I understand the minister is saying how many people would eventually get caught by it? It is like a lot of legislation; it sends a message, but it is not necessarily how many people get caught by it. I am sure if I sat down and worked out the number of laws we have in our society which probably rarely get used, but people know it is an offence to do it. It is the message it sends in this case that you are breaking the law if you blow into the AIL to enable someone else to drive the vehicle.
That is something, regardless of how many people get caught, the government - and I presume you will have an education campaign in relation to this - could include so it is clear to people that it is an offence to do this. Not just do not do it, but that it is an offence. I do not think this is something that is the end of the world, but it would be important. I believe it would actually help the act. I am not trying to be silly and argue for the sake of argument, but it would improve the bill we are trying to put through. I support that change.
Ms LAWRIE: We debated it earlier.
Clause 18, as printed, agreed to.
Mr GILES: Madam Chair, I seek leave to debate opposition clauses 18A to 18C and 20 together, and recognise that we will come back for individual votes based on the paperwork you have in front of you - same as the other items.
Mr WOOD: Could I just check there. We are now on Division 9 of the amendment bill. Could I ask some general questions before we get into specific questions? We are dealing with alcohol ignition locks. It is a different area to what we were discussing before. Madam Chair, could I ask some general questions in relation to this section?
Ms LAWRIE: I think it is good, Gerry. Go for it.
Mr WOOD: Thank you. The question I would like answered by the minister is partly what I spoke about before, and partly what the member for Katherine spoke about before. If the government is aiming purely at urban areas for the establishment of these locks, then the issue of whether people in Aboriginal communities out in remote areas being affected is irrelevant. However, that does not mean there are not going to be people in urban areas who have low incomes. I am looking at the practical side. Has the government come up with a plan to encourage people to be able to afford to put these locks on vehicles?
Ms LAWRIE: Yes, I went through this earlier and I am more than happy to go through it again. We have talked about the indicative cost of the program. I know you had a good briefing on the South Australian program - that initial fee of $400 and the monthly rental service admin fee of approximately $160 per month.
There are three jurisdictions with these programs in place which have subsidies; so what we are doing is working with stakeholders on what they could look like, including Centrelink, NT Department of Health and Families, and looking at the seniors’ card-type model. Where there are subsidy cards existing, we are looking at that in the Territory context and how the subsidy regime would work. Picking up on your point, and I made the point in the debate earlier, poverty is not discriminatory; it is right across our urban, regional and remote centres. So it is accepting that we have an impoverished cohort in the Territory, regardless of race, who, to have the same opportunity, would need a subsidy system operating. We are going through the details, trawling through, looking at how it would work, looking at the cards, etcetera.
Mr WOOD: In relation to maintenance of these instruments, will that be a great cost? How regularly would it be required? Who is going to do it in areas, for instance, which might not be that remote but, say, I live at Dundee, do I have to come into Darwin to get it checked? There are issues related to people who may not be regarded as remote, but who live a reasonable distance away, to get these locks maintained on a regular basis; there will be a cost factor.
Ms LAWRIE: I went through this earlier; I am happy to go through it again. The calibration is six monthly; the download is monthly. It requires a many auto-electricians for the calibration work. We have had a look at where they are available; for example all the major population centres - Darwin, Palmerston, Katherine, Nhulunbuy, Tennant Creek, and Alice Springs and, we also believe _ Batchelor, Jabiru, Alyangula, Borroloola and Yulara. For the six-monthly requirement to get to someone with the expertise, that is where you can go. Is that accessible in the remotes? We believe so, if you look at where those people, who have a car, travel within a six month period. Do we think it is workable in those areas? Yes, we do.
Downloads, for example, are very easy, very simple, and MVR, police, etcetera can be used. Again, it is a highly distributive network for downloads. That goes into the detail that is not in the legislation; that will be coming post-legislation and is being worked through with all the stakeholders, as well as other government departments and the people who provide the equipment, because they know what works.
Mr GILES: Madam Chair, I seek leave to debate the opposition’s new clauses 18A to 18C together.
Leave granted.
Mr GILES: Madam Speaker, I move the new clauses 18A to 18C be inserted in the bill.
Madam Chair, this is the third component of the amendments we have put forward, and it is probably the one that will get the most headlines. This is the one which shows the people of the Northern Territory that we are serious; this is the one which shows the people of the Northern Territory that you do not get change without a stick; this is the one that shows people you can give all the carrots you want, and you can try to wriggle these alcohol ignition locks, which have a certain role in changing drink-driving behaviour.
This is the amendment which says: when the Country Liberals want to make changes to stop our road toll increasing so much; when the Country Liberals say to people we do not accept high-range drink-driving on our streets - and we do not - and this is the signal we give the people of the Northern Territory when we say enough is enough and it is time for change. This is where we say: you get to that certain point; you get caught once at low, medium or high-range; you get caught a second time at low, medium or high-range and you are completely stuffed up; and then you get caught a third time.
When you get caught the first time, you could have made a mistake; you could have made a little mistake or a medium mistake or a big mistake, depending on your blood alcohol content. You get done the second time and you are really being a moron. If you get done a third time when you have already been convicted of high-range, or if your third time is high-range, that is over 0.15 - that is when the Country Liberals say we will take your car. You will be forfeiting your vehicle because you clearly have not learnt from this amazing road safety package the government has brought in with its demerit points, fines or with its wonderful new alcohol ignition locks which, of course, will make changes while people have them in their cars and they are driving.
This is the clause which says: Gee whiz, these people must be serious - if they are taking our car, they are serious. This is not about headline grabbing. This is not like the government saying: ‘Gee, the Country Liberals have a great policy - ignition locks. The road toll is going out of control and clearly we are not doing enough, as the government, about road transport. We had better copy the Country Liberals’ policy of ignition locks’. This is a policy which, if we were in government, we would put it in today because it would change the road toll and stop people dying on our roads.
This government is kidding itself. We have heard that the government looks down upon this amendment. The government does not think this amendment should be inserted. I am sure we will soon hear from the minister for Transport something about how confiscating cars will be hard, and all that sort of thing. We will hear that we are a bit mean and what about the people who have to drive to work, and what about the family, and what if you have to drive long distances?
Well, they should not drink-drive in the first place.
Mr Elferink: Or the second or the third.
Mr GILES: That is right. If you get done three times with a high-range level, you will forfeit your vehicle. That is a plain and simple policy and that policy would be in place tomorrow if we were in government. We would put that straight in place.
A member: You are not.
Mr GILES: We are not far behind. Great election result for you.
Members interjecting.
Madam CHAIR: Order!
Members interjecting.
Madam CHAIR: Order! Please cease interjecting, member for Port Darwin. Member for Braitling, you have the call.
Mr GILES: Thank you, Madam Chair. When we first started debating this bill, I think it was when we first spoke on the second reading, the member for Araluen spoke a about this amendment we are putting forward, the amendment to forfeit cars for idiots who drink-drive three times at a high-range. That is when the member for Araluen said: ‘What a great idea’. She has supported it for a while and said it was a great idea.
She said: ‘You know the best thing about this amendment, the best thing about forfeiting cars, about confiscating cars from people who drink-drive three times within a five year period and one of those at a high range. You know it is the best thing. You know why the government is going to support this - not just because it is going to get drink-drivers off the road - it is not just because we are going to have an opportunity to lower our fatality level on the roads; it is not just because the roads are going to be safer for the mums and dads and kids, and the aunties and uncles, and the grandmothers and grandpas. Not for any those reasons. Why should this government be accepting this, member for Araluen? Because it is based on the government’s legislation.
Remember when all the hoons were driving around and the government needed some political quick-fix? What did they say? ‘We will take your car.’ So we said all right, not a bad idea. If you get done three times drink-driving with one offence at high-range, whether it is the first second or third offence - you will lose your car, you will forfeit your car. It might sound tough, but if we are going to clean up our streets in terms of drink-driving, we have to be tough.
If there is a lack of action by this government to get tough, and someone I know repeatedly drink-drives at high range, I will not be happy. When the opportunity is here to be tough and to take cars - you might laugh …
Ms Lawrie: I am not laughing.
Madam CHAIR: Order!
Mr GILES: There were 65 people who died on our roads this year, a 67% increase in the road death rate. It is not a laughing matter.
Ms Lawrie: I am not laughing.
Mr GILES: I will remind my colleagues on this side of parliament - the people who are tough and want to see change - of something that happened in the debate in committee tonight. That is, the government does not support our motion to introduce aid and abet laws - which is where someone can blow into an alcohol ignition lock and allow people to start their cars and drive. The government has also said - and this is an important point; I hope my colleagues are listening - if you are a low-range drink-driver, we are not going to change the law for you because it is all right to drink and be just a little over the limit; it is all right to be between 0.05 and 0.08. You do not need to change. There are only 68 people who drink at that level. That will be all right; we just hope that they will not kill anybody on the road. They are not prepared to make change.
There are two important points: they are happy for people to aid and abet to get around an AIL; and they are happy for low-level drink-drivers to continue on our roads. The funny part - and this is the point of this amendment - they are happy to forfeit a car when someone has been doing a burn-outs in the street; if someone is hooning, doing burn-outs, driving pretty fast, they are very happy to take the car. But if someone is drink-driving at 0.30 for the third time - we cannot take the car. That is an absolute disgrace.
Come up to the Northern Territory - we are trying to attract new workers - come up here and get pissed and drive on our roads, but do not do burn-outs because we will take your car. Get blind and have a drive; you never, never know, if you never, never go. What a joke!
This is about a change in policy. This is about legislation. This is about fixing our road tolls. It is not about taking a car for burn-out. You get tough on your hoon laws and get your front page of the paper on all those things. This is about stopping people from dying through drink-driving. It is important to bring the focus back to that point. Sixty-five people have died. We have a total population of 218 000. We are catching up with South Australia; we might even have passed them. This is very important.
Ms Carney: You have 50 seconds left.
Mr GILES: I will stand here for 50 seconds. Fifty seconds is about as long as it takes to do a burn-out in a car; about as long as it takes to lose your vehicle under this government’s legislation, but it is not long enough to lose your car for killing someone in a drink-driving accident when you have been drink-driving three times.
More people have died on our roads than in South Australia this year. Here we have an opportunity to make changes, to confiscate the car of someone who drink-drives at a high level. And what does this government say? ‘No, those changes are poor. How can you dare insert that legislation?’
Members interjecting.
Mr GILES: This is your rule. We are just taking it from hooning and putting it into drink-driving – the thing that is killing people on our roads. Sixty-five people have died; half of them drink-driving - and you are not prepared to do anything about those people at the high-range. You read the numbers out for yourself. You need to support our legislation.
Madam CHAIR: Honourable members, I will suspend the committee for five minutes until the ringing of the bells.
Madam CHAIR: Honourable members, we are resuming committee debate on proposed new clauses 18A to 18C.
Mr GILES: Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister for Transport, I am looking at a transcript of your second reading speech where you spoke about the legislation we are debating tonight. I quote: ‘This legislation is designed to assist in bringing about this change in culture.’ You were referring to alcohol ignition locks.
We are now debating the forfeiture of cars. I put to the minister for Transport a question which relates to the success of alcohol ignition locks in bringing about a change in culture. I looked at a report and I spoke about it earlier, but I did not table it properly; so I will table it properly now. The report is by the Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing, a 2008 report, released not that long ago, titled: The avoidable costs of alcohol abuse in Australia and the potential benefits of effective policies to reduce the social costs of alcohol. I quote from page 31, section 6.2, where it says:
I take the Australian government seriously. This is a Labor government. I note the Department of Health and Ageing did a vast study identifying that the interlock does not do exactly what you said, in my interpretation of your second reading speech, when you said this legislation is designed to assist in bringing about change in this culture. Clearly …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Chair. Could I ask the member to table that report and the extract of the report he is reading from. I would like to read it. It is obviously a very important part of his argument and members should have access to it. I ask the member to table it, please.
Madam CHAIR: Member for Braitling, are you prepared to table those documents?
Mr GILES: I am prepared to table that - I know the speaker system here does not work very well - I did say probably 30 seconds ago that I am prepared to table them. They are here to table.
Dr BURNS: No, the document you are reading from.
Mr GILES: Same document. It is a photocopy. I am happy to put that one down.
Dr BURNS: Good.
Madam CHAIR: Thank you, member for Braitling.
Mr GILES: This is highlighted as well; so yours is highlighted. Mine is not. But we are on the same page now.
Dr BURNS: Thank you for being so helpful, member for Braitling.
Mr GILES: Not a problem.
Ms Carney: In stark contrast to Question Time.
Mr GILES: Exactly right. I am prepared to answer the questions, Minister for Health.
I have a question for the minister for Transport. When the Australian government undertakes a study to look at the avoidable costs of alcohol abuse in Australia and the potential benefit of effective policies to reduce the social cost of alcohol, and that study says seven of the studies found that once the interlock is removed offenders have the same recidivism rate as suspended offenders, my question to the minister for Transport is: does she know more than the Department of Health and Ageing or the Australian government?
Ms LAWRIE: We had a discussion and debate about the forfeiture and confiscation earlier, and these are the clauses we are debating now. I am happy to go right to the heart of policy difference - and that is what it is. It is a policy difference between the opposition and the government. I will go right to the heart of it.
The offences currently targeted by Part 5A of the Traffic Act involve reducing antisocial driving behaviour, commonly referred to as the anti-hooning provisions. For these offenders, the vehicle impounding is for 48 hours, then up to three months, then forfeiture of the vehicle. If their driving is dangerous, they will be charged with dangerous driving, which carries mandatory disqualification.
The proposed amendments by the opposition, we believe, will cover a much broader section of our community; many are families living in rural and remote areas where there is little or no public transport. As a consequence, the effect of impounding of a vehicle or its forfeiture will be much greater on the offender and their immediate family in terms of independence, personal health and safety, economic standing and cultural wellbeing.
Confiscating vehicles is just one of many strategies available to change the pattern of drink-driver behaviour on our roads. We believe alcohol interlocks offer more value. Confiscating vehicles from all repeat drink-drivers could potentially create significant consequences for our police and court systems. We have looked at the issue; I am not dismissing your issue out-of-hand. We genuinely have had a look at it. We believe the focus should be on repeat offenders – the direction and structure of which we have brought before the Chamber - the second and subsequent medium and high-range offenders. The research shows the people who repeat will continue to repeat for many years and treatment, rather than short-term punitive action, is what is required. We believe alcohol ignition locks are part of a longer term solution for this group. That is where our policy settings are, and they are different to yours.
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Chair. The minister for Transport did not actually answer the question. The question was: does she know more than the Australian government, the Department of Health and Ageing?
Madam CHAIR: There is no point of order.
Ms LAWRIE: It is a ridiculous question. I am not going to get into ridiculous questions. I have clearly stated the government’s policy position. You clearly have a different policy position, and you have enunciated it. I have enunciated ours.
Mr GILES: Madam Chair, the point of making that policy position, as we call it - I would not call it a policy position; to me it is something much more obscure - when the Australian government says interlocks will not change the recidivism rate, but the Transport minister says the legislation will bring about a change in the culture …
Ms Lawrie: They are not saying that.
Mr GILES: … through her second reading speech - and I did not quote …
Ms Lawrie: It is quoting the report.
Mr GILES: Madam Chair, I wonder how alcohol ignition locks - for those people who are at the higher end of the scale, the people who are caught at high-range – are going to change the culture. If we have a soft approach on alcohol ignition locks - which I acknowledge work while they are on the car, I do acknowledge that - however, when people come off they go back to re-offending drink-driving. We need a tougher approach at the end.
Only the Country Liberals have the fortitude to bring about that tough approach. If we do not bring about the tough approach, it clearly shows that people who may get caught a third time for high-range drink-driving will simply go back to drink-driving. The Australian government reports show that, overseas reports show that, interstate reports show that. I am wondering why the government will not support forfeiture laws - a tough approach. A tough approach is needed to keep drink-drivers off the road …
Ms LAWRIE: If he wants to ask the question, I will repeat it, or is he just talking to himself?
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Chair!
Madam CHAIR: You have the call, member for Braitling.
Mr GILES: Thank you very much, minister for Transport, for trying to gag me …
Ms Lawrie: No, I am not. Do not be ridiculous.
Madam CHAIR: Order, please.
Mr GILES: The purpose of tabling this report was to point out the difference between what the Australian government is saying and what the intent of the government policy is doing. Clearly, that intent will not occur through this legislation; it needs to have a stronger intent at the end of it so people know there is a significant difference.
The argument of taking people’s cars and being tough on drink-drivers is just not fair, because people have to drive to work or they have to drive family around - I understand that, I appreciate that it is tough. We have included a hardship clause the same as the hooning legislation - the one where you lose your car if you do a burn-out. It is exactly the same legislation. However, if you are worried about not being able to get to work because you lost your car because you have been drink-driving – do not drink-drive. Is that a simple argument? I am not really sure.
If you get done a first time - I have said this before - you make a mistake. If you get done a second time, you are an idiot. However, if you get done a third time, you are a bloody idiot and you deserve to lose your car. To say: ‘How can you dare be so tough on someone who drinks and drives and puts the lives of other people on Northern Territory roads at risk? How dare you be hard on those people! How dare you!’ Well, Madam Chair, I dare. If you are going to put people’s lives at risk on Territory roads, especially when the road toll is 67% higher than it was last at the same time last year - 65 people have died on our roads - we are the worst in the nation; we are a disgrace. We have to get tough.
We can give people back their cars with an alcohol ignition lock that stops them from drink-driving while they have it - I get that. I understand that all the programs are not in place to make it work yet, and that concerns me, but we do need to get tough at the end of it.
I just remind people: we are the people who support stopping people from drink-driving; for being tough at the end. We start soft; we slowly get hard at the end point. We have our hardship provisions, but we get tough at the end point.
This is a government with policies that say ‘medium-range offenders’. If you are a medium-range drink-driver, and you have been done a couple of times, you can have an alcohol ignition lock. If you are a person who gets done a few times on low-range offences, that is, between 0.05% and 0.08%, she’ll be right – it is okay to be a little over. But if you get done at high-range - where we say you lose your car - the government says: ‘Geez, you are a bit bloody tough. How am I going to get to work? How am I going to get the kids to school, or how am I going to get to the pub next time?’ Imagine, if you did not have a car to get to the pub so you could drink-drive again.
That is the core difference in this point. We are the people who mean business about reducing the road toll. These are the people who are choosing a political stunt and copying our policies to try to get a headline about something you cannot even prove is going to work, and is not going to change recidivism rates according to many reports around the world, including the Australian government - your comrades in Canberra.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, I support the amendment because I believe that removing a person’s vehicle is the last resort, you might say, in punishing someone. I do except this can cause hardship, but that is already in our act. Under section 29AG(2) of the Traffic Act it says:
Even if that is not law enough to cover the family, it does mean that you could not allow that to happen within the existing legislation to cover the cases you speak about. Even if not every car was taken off the road because of that matter of causing hardship to a family, you are sending the signal out. I support the idea of confiscating a vehicle because it is not the driver who is the killer in that sense; it is the vehicle that kills. If you can get that vehicle off the road, at least that is taking the implement that kills off the road.
It may not occur very often. It is a bit like the other issue we were talking about: saying to people it is an offence to blow into the bag to allow someone who should not be driving to drive. You will lose your vehicle if you continue to misbehave, to break the law. There will be exemptions, and laws still have to be reasonable and take each matter into account. By putting it into the law you are sending the message out: we are fed up with the number of people dying on our roads, the numbers of people who are drink-driving on our roads, and we are saying you will lose your vehicle.
We have the weakest hooning laws in Australia. I would be preempting debate, I suppose, if I said much more than that. Look at the legislation in other states - we are mild. Other states do have sections - I know the Queensland act, I have part of it here, has a section which says if the vehicle is being used by a child, for instance, and the parents do not know their child is actually doing burn-outs when they send him to the shops to get the bread and the milk, there is an allowance within legislation to allow the car not to be impounded.
Put it into legislation and let each impounding order be taken on its merits according to circumstances. I would rather do that than not have it in at all, because I think it sends out the message we are trying to put across.
Mr BOHLIN: Madam Chair, I support our shadow minister for Transport, who is doing a fantastic job of trying to value add to this significant change to legislation which, I grant, is there to make an attempt to reduce our ridiculous, unacceptable road toll which is claiming lives throughout our Territory. I know on many occasions, and again tonight, the minister for Transport has refused to accept that small amounts of legislation by our side would value add - make it better, stronger and tougher for the laws to stand on their own feet - so that the magistrates have some teeth, the police have some teeth to take some action to curb this road toll. That is what it is about.
We are not standing here for any other reason. We are not arguing against stuff. We are saying; let us help make this better. Let us help keep families alive and together, because they are dying on our roads. Let us stop the carnage and the trauma that is passed onto the police, emergency services, the fire and the ambulance crews who go to these traumatic events. Let us support what you have to say and let us add a few more things; come to some basic, common ground and some reality. You are all educated people; you should be able to see that simple modifications in common sense and united agreement will assist this legislation.
It is a big step to seize a vehicle but the hooning act is where we can seize vehicles and it is a hard thing to say to a kid: ‘You have just lost your car’; but it is there to deter him or her so that, we hope, police save their life. That is the point of it - to save their life. So we are not going to seize the car of a recidivist drink-driver because that could save their life, or my life, or your life, Madam Chair. That is very important to consider. What about the poor family driving down the road? It could save their lives by seizing that motor car.
If we go to the Liquor Act; if you have a bottle of rum in your car in parts of central and northern Australia we can seize your car. I support that legislation. It is brilliant legislation because a bottle of rum is like taking a couple of cases of alcohol in there. It is a powder keg; it is like putting dynamite into a dry community, and it can save lives in itself. There are many of us who have spoken here today, and I appreciate their expression and sharing of family events in their lives and who know and have seen the damage alcohol causes in our communities. That is why we are tough in seizing those cars. In most cases, they do not ever go back, but they do go through a court appeal. We are not suggesting that it should not go through a court appeal. That is the second time in current legislation we can seize a vehicle. Can it be hard on them as well? Of course it can be hard on them. Can it be hard on the victim when they are bashed after someone brought grog into the community? Of course that is hard on the victim; the poor victim. Think about the victim for once - the people of this Territory.
I do not have time to find the exact part of the Fisheries Act, but I can have too many barramundi in my boat, in the esky, in the trailer attached to my car, and we can take both the car and the boat and I am not going to get it back. I support that act too, because we need to protect the fish stock. We need to protect our land, our country, our environment.
But pity help if we want to seize a motor car that might save someone’s life, might save a family’s life. It is a shame you have not considered this. It is a shame that you do not have that extra bit of strength to join together as a team and do something great for the Territory. We stand in this great room because we can make a difference for Territory people. The death rate on our roads this year is disgusting - It is disgusting. The minister for Transport has several times used the name of a very experienced traffic officer, Superintendent Bob Rennie. Ask him. I would say that he would think seizing their car is quite reasonable too, because they are his men who have suffered this year because of the road deaths. They have suffered; they are never going to be better, those officers who go to these accidents, these traumatic events every week or so this year. Their entire lives have changed because of drink-drivers, because they have put on a uniform to protect this community.
Get the strength to get the community to give it up, and let us make something different. Let us go together as a complete parliament, both sides of parliament, to agree on something which will save lives. Do not mess around. It is not a football game. Think about it and be serious. You will be held to account if you do not pick up the football. This point is important.
Chief Minister, consider it; talk to your counterparts and show the leadership which is needed today. This is vitally important. This is not a monkey’s game. Let us save lives together and do something really strong that shows leadership in government.
Ms CARNEY: Madam Chair, I have some questions for the minister which arose partly from comments I made earlier, and partly from comments and issues raised by the member for Braitling this evening. I will try to do it in the most orderly fashion I can.
Minister, can you advise me of the policy rationale behind the decision in this bill not to provide for impounding or forfeiting vehicles compared to the policy rationale which forms the basis of the Traffic Act in 2003?
Ms LAWRIE: As I said in a previous answer, the anti-hooning legislation which brought in impounding, forfeiture, confiscation - whichever words you wanted to use to describe it - affects a far narrower catchment of our society than introducing it in the legislation as proposed by the opposition, and we believe that the broader impact on families is beyond what we want to do. We believe the alcohol interlock system has proven to be effective in the cars to which they are fitted. In other jurisdictions they have proven to be effective in preventing drink-driving. We have targeted those recidivist drink-drivers, the second and subsequent offences in the medium to high-range.
We are saying this is a new bill to introduce alcohol interlocks. It is not about introducing an additional penalty regime of confiscation, albeit a regime which exists for hooning. As I said, hoons are a smaller catchment of our society than the broader catchment of drink-drivers. I am not …
Mr Wood: Some of them do both.
Ms LAWRIE: I pick up on the interjection from the member for Nelson. He is quite right, some of them do both.
Ms Carney: Can you speak up, please.
Ms LAWRIE: I pick up on the interjection from the member for Nelson. Some of them do both, and if they fall within the confines of our AIL, that is from medium to high-range, and they are repeat offenders, then they will not be able to drive that vehicle without an alcohol interlock fitted. Or, they can have an extended disqualification period which is a penalty regime we are introducing in this legislation. So, in the future will you have a mandated licence disqualification period and you will have an additional period of licence disqualification unless you get an alcohol interlock system fitted to your vehicle. That is a tough new regime. Very clearly, that is what we are saying.
It is a significant change. It is will be a cost impost as an extra penalty because they will be paying for those alcohol interlocks going into the car. We understand that. I, for one, am very proud that when we have this system operating, we will have a new device available to get repeat drink-drivers off our roads. That is where the government is. I know the opposition wants confiscation. The government disagrees.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, minister. As I understood your answer, you said – and I will paraphrase you – that punitive provisions like those that exist in section 29AG of the Traffic Act can be used in relation to a smaller group of people, namely hoons …
Ms Lawrie: A targeted group and hoons; a targeted group.
Ms CARNEY: Yes, but those punitive provisions are not good in relation to a larger number of people. Have I understood you correctly?
Ms LAWRIE: No. Punitive provisions, obviously, are good for addressing drink-driving. That is why you have now, because of the changes the government has made, immediate suspension of your licence if you are caught drink-driving, second offences and the like. There is a whole raft of them. I could go through them and bore you. That is a punitive measure; hat is a relatively new punitive measure. So, punitive measures are good. It is what punitive measures you choose to pull in as a trigger. In this legislation, we are saying this punitive measure is alcohol interlocks, not confiscation.
Ms CARNEY: I asked you about the policy rationale which it is targeted at people who are problems on our roads - hoons and drink-drivers. Have I understood you correctly - and please tell me if I have not - your two answers so far to the questions I have asked appear to be that punitive measures such as those contained in section 29AG of the Traffic Act apply - and you are happy about that - to a relatively small group of people namely …
Ms Lawrie: Targeted, yes; targeted at hooning.
Ms CARNEY: Okay. Then, why does not a similar policy rationale or thinking apply to a group of people who can be just as difficult on the roads in endangering the lives of others? Why is it good for one group of morons, but not good for another group of morons?
Ms LAWRIE: I have answered it twice now, but I know that is probably not sufficient, so I will answer it again. With anti-hooning and confiscation, we are targeting the hoons with that provision within the Traffic Act. With this legislation, we are introducing alcohol ignition locks as another punitive measure to address the recidivist drink-drivers. Sadly, the recidivist drink-drivers on our roads are significant in number; tragically, the recidivist drink-drivers on our roads are significant in numbers - that is clearly one of the reasons why we have an absolutely unacceptable road toll. We have a driving culture in the Territory which needs to be addressed, particularly the drink-driving culture. This is targeted at drink-drivers and it is a big catchment - an unacceptable catchment - on our roads. That is the difference, as I have articulated a few times to you. Agree or not, that is the difference.
Ms CARNEY: Madam Chair, I am not sure that the minister’s answers, with respect, actually address what is the policy inconsistency. What you are saying is we are introducing anti-ignition locks. You keep coming back to that.
Ms Lawrie: Alcohol.
Ms CARNEY: Yes, alcohol ignition locks. That is not my point. My point is about policy, but you are unable or unwilling to answer that.
I will move to something else. In terms of changing the culture of drivers, were the punitive measures outlined in section 29AG of the Traffic Act and introduced in 2003 designed to change the culture of hoons?
Ms LAWRIE: It was designed as a punitive measure to get the hoons off the road.
Ms CARNEY: I will ask the question again. Were the punitive provisions outlined in section 29AG of the Traffic Act designed to – sorry, I will rephrase that. You said you just want to get hoons off the road. I take it from your answer that the changes to 29AG …
Ms LAWRIE: No, you asked me about the measures in the Traffic Act and what they were designed to do. I said they were designed to get hoons off the road, okay?
Ms Carney: Okay.
Ms LAWRIE: What I have also said is there is a range of punitive measures which can be taken. What we are dealing with here is alcohol ignition locks. This is what we are bringing in as a new punitive measure, and we are dealing with alcohol interlocks.
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Chair! I think the member for Araluen had the call.
Madam CHAIR: Indeed, member for Araluen.
Ms CARNEY: When you introduced the amendments in 2003 to the Traffic Act, was that intended to change the culture of hoons?
Ms LAWRIE: I have answered several times.
Ms CARNEY: I can assist - or just designed to get them off the roads? Which one or both? Minister, why do you refuse to answer that question?
Ms LAWRIE: I have answered several times. You do not like what you are hearing.
Ms CARNEY: No, you have not answered the question in relation to the intention of the 2003 amendments to the Traffic Act with respect to culture. Do you want me to ask it again, or do you want it recorded on Hansard that you refused to answer that question?
Madam CHAIR: Member for Araluen, the minister has said that she has answered this question. It has been answered.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Madam Chair. I disagree with the minister’s response, but we will move to other matters.
Minister for Transport; is it your view, or indeed the government’s view, that the amendments made in 2003 with respect to hoons have been successful?
Ms LAWRIE: We are not debating the anti-hooning amendments here, that is a matter for General Business Day next week. We will have the anti-hooning debate next week.
Ms CARNEY: I ask, minister, that you reconsider your position because, this evening you have been saying the AILs will work for drink-drivers. When asked about the inconsistency in relation to hoons, you said they were, apparently, enacted for quite different purposes. Is it not the case that, whether or not those punitive measures and the intentions behind the legislation in 2003 are very relevant to this bill because, even though you say the aims are slightly different, you are still targeting two key groups – hoons and repeat drink-drivers? Surely you assert that the 2003 amendments were successful, otherwise the implications are that they were not successful, and that would be an embarrassment, would it not, minister?
Ms LAWRIE: As I said, we are debating the anti-hooning amendments next week.
Ms CARNEY: We are debating the opposition’s amendments which relate to forfeiture or confiscation of vehicles. Therefore it is appropriate, minister, and I know you know it, for us to refer to impounding or forfeiture provisions in another piece of legislation. Nevertheless, you refuse to answer that. I ask, and as Transport minister I would assume that you know most of this, since the changes to the Traffic Act were enacted in 2003, how many vehicles have been impounded pursuant to section 29AG(1)(a) of the Traffic Act?
Ms LAWRIE: I repeat: we will debate the anti-hooning amendments next week. Feel free to ask me questions on those during Question Time next week.
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Chair! The member for Araluen has repeatedly asked the Transport minister questions relating to the hooning legislation, specifically because our amendments for forfeiture of vehicles of drink-drivers is based around that same legislation. There is a point of relevance where we are trying to identify the success rate of the hooning legislation so we can relate that to our current amendments. I would appreciate if you would direct …
Madam CHAIR: Member for Braitling, there is no point of order. Please resume your seat. Minister, you have the call.
Ms LAWRIE: I have repeatedly said I will debate anti-hooning next week on General Business Day, or if they bring it on as an MPI. But we are dealing with alcohol interlocks now.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Madam Chair. I am sorry you are stuck in the crossfire here. I am compelled to refer once again to the minister’s arrogance, or perhaps it is lack of knowledge, which in itself would be astonishing as Transport minister. I ask you another question, minister, which is relevant, and you know it: since the amendments to the Traffic Act were made in 2003, how many vehicles have been impounded pursuant section 29AG(1)(b) of the Traffic Act?
Ms LAWRIE: I disagree regarding its relevance. We have brought in alcohol interlock legislation and not a trigger for us on confiscation. We have a completely different policy setting on what we are doing. You guys want to confiscate vehicles. I have explained why the government is not accepting your amendment for repeat drink-drivers in terms of confiscating the vehicles, that is, it is a much broader catchment of our community. Again, I articulated the impact it would have on our community. I have said that a number of times during the debate and previously in debate and also in my summing up in second reading. You do not agree with me; that is fine. I have said it several times.
Ms CARNEY: I remind the minister that the member for Braitling moved a number of amendments; it is those amendments we are debating. I ask her to do her best to fulfil her obligations as a minister for the Crown and a parliamentarian, and answer the question. My question is: since the amendments to the Traffic Act were enacted in 2003, how many vehicles have been impounded; and how many vehicles have been forfeited pursuant section 29AG(1)(c)(i) and section 29AG(1)(c)(ii) respectively?
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Chair! Repetitive questions, Standing Order 114. I have answered several times.
Ms CARNEY: A point of order, Madam Chair! It is not a repetitive question. It is a different question, as can be seen from the act and, indeed, heard with the minister’s ears.
Madam CHAIR: I cannot control how the minister answers the question. She is answering the question and if she believes she has answered the question and has nothing further to say, I have no influence over the minister’s answering of those questions, member for Araluen.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Madam Chair. In summary, minister, you have refused to answer or give any information as to the impounding or forfeiture of any vehicles made under amendments to legislation which Labor introduced in 2003. My question is this: how can your government oppose an amendment brought by the opposition which pertains to confiscation of vehicles if you do not know whether it is going to be successful based on your own legislation of some years standing with respect to the confiscation or impounding or forfeiture of vehicles?
Ms LAWRIE: What we are clearly saying is that the provision under the Traffic Act is targeted at hoons - a very different group of people to the target group for the alcohol interlock legislation which we have before us. If we make the amendments the opposition want us to make to include the confiscation of vehicles as an additional penalty, this will be a different catchment of Territorians, and have a far broader impact on Territorians, as I have said.
It would have a much broader effect on the many families living in rural and remote areas where there is little or no public transport. We have had a look at the impacts of what is proposed by the opposition on confiscation. We disagree with bringing that in as an amendment. We are focused on the ability to ensure the penalty of the alcohol interlock system exists in the Territory.
Ms CARNEY: When the amendments to the Traffic Act were debated in parliament in 2003, the then Transport minister referred to:
Towards the end of his contribution where changes to the bill were introduced he said, and I quote:
Minister, if the punitive measures contained in that bill as it was at the time, were made to address the ‘life-endangering actions of a small few’, why will not you adopt similar punitive measures in respect the behaviour of people who embark on life-endangering actions, namely, repeat drink-drivers?
Ms LAWRIE: First of all, we are proposing to introduce an alcohol interlock system to deal with the life-endangering behaviour of those repeat drink-drivers. Second, as I have said before, we are aware of the consequences of the actions the government takes in a legislative sense in introducing new regimes and penalties. We are very aware of the impact a confiscation regime would have on people living in rural and remote areas of the Territory where there is little or, in some places, no opportunity of public transport. I can say that time and time again.
Ms CARNEY: Does it follow from your answer that hooning does not occur in rural and remote areas of the Northern Territory?
Ms LAWRIE: No, it does not follow from my answer.
Ms CARNEY: I look forward to reading the Hansard, minister, because as I understood it – well, it is very difficult to understand anything you say really. You remind me of the tennis ball that, as a kid with a tennis racket, I used to hit against the wall of the shop opposite our house. I used to bang it against the wall and it just kept coming back to me. I would do a forehand and it would come back to me; I would do a backhand and it would come back to me. I would like to keep serving, minister, but I am not sure that it is going to do much because like the tennis ball, you will just keep coming back at me.
There is a limit to how much patience I have. Your reluctance to answer questions in a forthright and honest manner is alarming in itself. I am concerned that you have not, as minister for Transport, explained in any meaningful or logical way the policy rationale between the measures you introduced in 2003 and the reason why you will not support the amendments which are similarly punitive in nature.
I am extremely concerned, and I am sure others will be too, as the Northern Territory minister for Transport, you have no idea whether your own legislation has been successful.
Ms Lawrie: Not true, not true.
Ms CARNEY: Could the minister advise how successful the amendments …
Ms Lawrie: I will debate that on General Business Day, or bring on an MPI …
Madam CHAIR: Order! Minister, cease interjecting, please. Member for Araluen, you have the call.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you. I will pick up on the minister for Transport’s interjection. Can the minister outline the success or otherwise, by providing details of the number of vehicles which have been impounded and/or forfeited pursuant to section 29AG(1) of the Traffic Act?
Ms LAWRIE: As I have repeatedly advised the member for Araluen, we are dealing with the alcohol interlock legislation here. It is not a debate about the hooning legislation and how many vehicles, as a consequence of that legislation, have been confiscated. Different debates.
Madam CHAIR: Member for Araluen, we appear to be going in a rather circuitous route.
Ms CARNEY: Well, it is the tennis ball, Madam Chair. However I ask the question, the ball keeps coming back. It is important for the sake of the Parliamentary Record to record my dissatisfaction, and I feel certain the dissatisfaction of my colleagues, about the policy inconsistency of the legislation and the bill, and the minister for Transport’s inability to advise the number of vehicles which have been impounded or forfeited since 2003. I guess we might be able to make it a freedom of information request in due course because, with respect, getting information from the minister is like getting blood from a stone.
In any event, they are both relevant points. We are debating the opposition’s amendments which are about confiscation of vehicles for repeat drink-drivers. The minister’s arguments, such as they are, are just unsustainable. There is the minister, laughing about the road death toll in the Northern Territory ...
Ms Lawrie: No, I am not laughing about the road death toll. Do not be ridiculous …
Ms CARNEY: I am stunned; I am appalled that the minister for Transport finds this issue so hilarious …
Ms Lawrie: No, I find your behaviour hilarious. There is a big difference.
Ms CARNEY: Sorry, can you repeat that?
Ms Lawrie: There is a big difference. I do not find this issue hilarious. I find your attitude and behaviour hilarious …
Madam CHAIR: Order! Member for Araluen, you have the call.
Ms CARNEY: Maybe the minister could stop laughing, Madam Chair, during this very serious issue.
One final question and I guess, in a sense, it is a policy question, but a slightly different policy question from the ones I started with. Today, when debating other legislation, namely the Sentencing bill, government members said, and I think media releases in the past have said, that changes to the Sentencing bill were meant to send a clear message to offenders. Presumably, when changes to the Traffic Act were made in 2003 it was intended, amongst other things, to send a clear message to hoons. My question is this: why, as a member of Cabinet, do you want to send a message to hoons and violent offenders, but not to repeat drink-drivers?
Ms LAWRIE: I welcome the question. The government is sending a very clear, tough message to repeat drink-drivers. With the passage of this legislation we will have a very tough, new penalty regime in place in the Territory. We will have the mandatory licence disqualification period, plus we will be adding the mandatory alcohol interlock disqualification period. If no alcohol interlock is installed, then they will have that extended disqualification. Also, under this legislation, if they are caught driving under disqualification licensing conditions - that is, driving without an alcohol interlock in their car, which is required as a condition on their licence - they go to gaol. That is a very clear message and tough message the government is sending to repeat drink-drivers. A new, tough penalty regime is coming their way.
Mr GILES: Madam Chair, we are going to wrap this up. We are getting nowhere. It is clear to those present that the government is soft on drink-drivers. They are soft on low-level drivers, they are soft on medium-level drink-drivers, and they are soft on high-level drink-drivers. That is clear. People in the community will know that. People across the Territory already know this government is non-performing in many fields: whether it is health, education, or power and water. Now they know the government is not serious about drink-drivers. They are prepared to let the road toll skyrocket. It will continue to skyrocket from 65, where it is today, and it will head further north, far exceeding last year’s unfortunate fatality rate.
I believe this sends a clear message that this government talks about listening to people, Madam Chair. It talks about listening, talks about getting a kick in the backside at the election. I am pretty sure that if you listen, people would say: ‘We do not want to be in an accident and get hit by people who are drink-driving’. I am pretty sure that people would say that. There could be some people who say: ‘Look, I would love to get run over by a drink-driver’, but I am pretty sure that there will be some people who say: ‘I do not want to get hit by a drink-driver. I do not want my kids getting hit by a drink-driver’. It is time for people to come down hard, it is time for government to come down hard. It is time for government to get tough on these drink-drivers.
Unfortunately, that is not going to happen. Why is that not going to happen? Because we have a soft government. That is why. Soft on crime, soft on power, soft on schools, soft on planning, soft on housing. This government is just a ‘soft on’ - soft on everything. Here is a perfect opportunity to work with a bipartisan approach. We offered amendments to try to support your legislation and get it straight through, that would have got more people off the roads, that would have sent a clear message that would have been tougher, and – nothing, absolutely nothing.
Madam Chair, I rest my case. This is a soft government.
Clauses 18A to 18C negatived.
Clauses 19 and 20, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Mr GILES: Madam Chair, I move my amendment to insert a New Part 4.
New Part 4 negatived.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Question – That the bill reported without amendment – put.
The committee divided:
Ayes 13 Noes 11
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 Ms Purick
Mr McCarthy Mr Styles
Ms McCarthy Mr Tollner
Ms Scrymgour Mr Westra van Holthe
Mr Vatskalis
Mr Wood
Motion agreed to.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Ms LAWRIE (Infrastructure and Transport): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise that earlier this afternoon I received a letter from the member for Port Darwin, pursuant to Standing Order 83, in which he raised a matter of privilege and sought precedence of other business for the purpose of moving a motion to refer the matter to the Committee of Privileges.
I advise the Assembly that I have considered the request of the member for Port Darwin and have taken into account the guidelines provided for by the resolution of the Assembly dated 23 May 1996. I have determined that the motion should be given precedence of other business and that it be dealt with following the consideration of today’s routine business, that is, at the end of business of the day, the last item being discussion of a Matter of Public Importance pursuant to Standing Order 94, standing in the name of the member for Greatorex.
Accordingly, I call on the member for Port Darwin to give notice of his motion.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I give notice I will move today that this House refer the member for Arafura to the Committee of Privileges in relation to statements made by her in this House about her reasons for failing to meet with Territory teachers during recent industrial action and the contradictory statements contained in The Australian newspaper written by Natasha Robinson on 23 October 2008; and further, that the committee be empowered by this motion to examine the relevant witnesses and call for the production of relevant documents. I submit the signed motion.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have given my leave to the member for Nelson to make a personal explanation. I remind honourable members that a personal explanation is not a debate and it is usually listened to in silence.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, today I asked a question in Question Time which was trying to highlight the fact that: the government is offering unrealistic salaries to attract engineers to the Territory; that these low salaries mean there are few applicants for the jobs, and the only way to find people to work for those pay rates is to go overseas and recruit people using 457 visas; and that the government should be offering pay rates comparable to other states so we do not have to go overseas to recruit engineers.
My comments, quoted on TopFM by the Chief Minister, regarding people from India coming to Australia was not said as opposition to people from India coming to Australia to work as engineers. I was concerned that recruiting people from India for senior jobs may create some difficulties in relation to working and fitting into a unique Territory environment. From memory - as I do not have a copy of the transcript - I went on further to say I felt if they were employed, it would be better if they were initially employed at lower levels so they had a chance to understand the unique Territory work environment.
If any person from India felt offended by those statements, I apologise. But I say categorically there was no offence intended by what I said on radio or by the question I asked in parliament.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received the following letter from the member for Greatorex.
Is the proposed discussion supported? I call on the member for Greatorex.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, as you just read out this matter of public importance is the need for genuine consideration of and resources to be committed to the resolution of the many pressing social issues facing Alice Springs.
It is no secret there are many social issues facing the mighty town of Alice Springs. There have been many social issues facing that town for many years. We have seen a big decline in the town since 2001 which appears to be the time the foot was taken off the pedal, if you will, to respect, pay attention and provide resources to, not just Alice Springs, but across regional Northern Territory.
Alice Springs, particularly by virtue of its size, is the king of the Outback, the biggest outback town. The member for Stuart and I discussed this on the flight up for these sittings. There is not much within a 1500 km radius of Alice Springs in the interior of this country. Alice Springs is certainly the king of the Outback. It is the biggest town in this area, hence it tends to wear the brunt of those social issues. By virtue of its size, and the bright lights, it tends to attract people into the town. We are seeing a massive urban drift into Alice Springs.
It is everyone’s right to move into a town if they want to. That is the great part about this country and this Territory - people can wander wherever they like. However, with that come many social issues which need to be addressed. We have seen that this government has not addressed those issues. They have failed, in fact, to address those social issues facing Alice Springs.
We can start with crime. There has been an 83% rise in crime since this government came to office in 2001. The people of Alice Springs will tell you there are problems on the street, and there is no doubt about that. They will tell you this government went to an election ignoring Alice Springs. On 10 August 2008 this government woke up, and the Chief Minister woke up, and said: ‘Okay, I am going to start addressing Alice Springs’. In fact, when he became Chief Minister in November 2007, he said, and I paraphrase: ‘I have a soft spot for Alice Springs. My wife grew up in Alice Springs and went to school in Alice Springs. I have a particular fondness for Alice Springs. Therefore, I will be focusing my attention on Alice Springs’.
Well, he has not done that. In fact, he has completely ignored Alice Springs. The vote in Alice Springs …
Mr Henderson: Rubbish! Just because I do not visit you when I am there; you are the last person I would want to visit.
Mr CONLAN: … at the election will …
Mr Tollner: That is a bit harsh, Hand.
Mr CONLAN: I am not sure what he said, but I am sure it was just frivolous and, again, just an example of his attitude towards the people of Alice Springs.
Nevertheless, the Chief Minister has completely ignored Alice Springs. His government has completely ignored Alice Springs hence, we now have a multitude of social issues facing the mighty town of Alice. Youth crime and general crime across Central Australia is out of control – an 83% rise in crime in Alice Springs since this government came to office. It is a very ordinary and a very poor performance, indeed.
In the wake of the election result, you would have thought this government may address some of those issues. We thought, perhaps the first thing out of the mouth of this government when the new parliament, the Eleventh Assembly, sat in September, would have been a statement, a ministerial report, a ministerial statement on Central Australia - but we have heard nothing, despite the vote in Alice Springs. It would be great to claim all the credit for the vote, but it is clearly a vote against this government in Central Australia. It is a vote against the Henderson government’s lack of interest, lack of will to address issues facing Central Australia, and Alice Springs in particular. This government has said that they are going to do something about police numbers, police on the streets. They said they were going to introduce more police into Alice, but we are yet to see them. In fact, the latest is we will get them sometime in 2010 – or something.
A long-standing policy of the Country Liberals is a shopfront or the Police Beat, something this government said was not on their agenda in the previous couple of years. Now we see they are about to put something in Central Australia - a Police Beat or a police shopfront. We will wait and see. I am not sure when that is going to happen. Nevertheless, it is just another indication of the Chief Minister’s neglect of Central Australia, his lack of vision when it comes to the regional and remote development of the Northern Territory. His focus is clearly on the northern suburbs of Darwin, and the rest of the Northern Territory suffers as a result of that.
Housing problems: where do we start with housing in Central Australia, public housing particularly? In the electorate of Greatorex in Alice Springs, it causes all sorts of grief. In the electorates of Braitling and Araluen, I know the number of e-mails, the number of complaints, the concerns we get from families, mums and dads, about public housing tenants who are drinking, who are blatantly defying the ‘no grog’ signs on some of the fences of those homes. Some of these public housing properties have become urban town camps with rubbish, cans, parties all night, kids out the front, young kids – eight, nine, 10, 11 - who are out the front in the driveway throwing rocks across the street, throwing rocks into other people’s homes, while mum and dad are getting drunk inside or out the back.
The government has particularly dropped the ball on public housing, or at least maintaining public housing to a standard that is satisfactory for neighbouring properties. I quote from a letter, and I will not say the name of this person, but this is just one example. I am happy to table it, but I will black out the name to protect this person’s identity. This is just one example of the letters that all local members receive in Central Australia, particularly the urban seat members:
She goes on:
Ms Carney: That is unbelievable.
Mr CONLAN: Well, it is unbelievable, but that is a feeling, a general feeling of a lot of people in Central Australia as a result of the depressing social issues facing Central Australia which have been allowed to spiral out of control as a result of the neglect by, not only the Labor government but, in particular, the Henderson Labor government since it came into office in November 2007. Despite all the rhetoric and the lip service he gives the people of Central Australia, nothing has changed.
That is just one example, Madam Speaker. I have a whole stack of those e-mails, and I know the member for Araluen and the member for Braitling have as well.
Housing is a big problem. It is a very big problem and, as a result, we are losing people. We want to grow this mighty town, this great outback town – but people are leaving. If we want to do this, how do we go about addressing this problem? That is a question the Henderson government needs to ask themselves, and it is also something the NT government needs to action very quickly. We are losing good people as a result of these pressing social issues facing the Centre.
Land release is another big problem. Perhaps they go hand in hand. Land release has all but stagnated. There are about 30 blocks over here, and another 30 over there - token gestures of land release in Central Australia. Central Australia needs 1000 blocks of land and it needs to be released probably over a 10-year period; 100 blocks a year over a period of 10 years to demonstrate confidence in Central Australia. There are many sites. I know the Arid Zone Research area is a perfect site for that. There are no native title issues there, and I think they can be turned off very quickly - they need to be turned off very quickly.
White Gums is another proposal. I know it is a little controversial in some people’s eyes, but for some political reason the previous Planning minister refused to entertain any idea of releasing land at White Gums. In fact, the lack of consultation they have had with the people at White Gums has been absolutely deplorable. It is a simple: no, you cannot do it. It is pretty easy to pick up the phone and ask: ‘What can we do?’ Or, ‘This is what you need to do to get our approval. How about you go ahead and do that?’ They completely stymied this proposal from the very beginning.
There is also Melanka’s, a prime site in the middle of the CBD, which is now a vacant block. It is a construction site, which is an absolute tragedy. We have lost 400 beds there as a result of Gilligan’s pulling out. Why cannot someone like Centrecorp, for example, buy it and staff it with Aboriginal staff? I do not know why they cannot, or will not, and I do not know why the Northern Territory government has not investigated the possibility of that.
We need a couple of new hotels. I do not know why we cannot get a couple of Aboriginal organisations to build a couple of hotels and staff them with Aboriginal people and get Aboriginal people into the workforce in Alice Springs in the hotels. We need hotels and we need land. There are plenty of opportunities in Central Australia for that, but this government has turned its back on land release and housing in central Australia.
This has been highlighted since 2001, but personified, you might say, since 2007 since the current Chief Minister became Chief Minister. Despite all his rhetoric and all his lip service about the Centre, nothing has changed. All you need to do is ask the member for Araluen or the member for Braitling - we are not making this up - or the member for Port Darwin, who used to be the member for Macdonnell; he would be very well aware of this situation and some of these social issues facing Central Australia. We are not making this up to fill 20 minutes and stay till 10.30 at night. This is a matter of public importance.
There is a need for genuine consideration of and resources committed to resolve the many pressing social issues confronting Central Australia. There were 500 people at the convention centre last year who protested on just that point. As we have said in this place many times, these were people who do not normally protest; these were people who are generally pretty quiet - in fact, it was organised by one of the quietest blokes I know in Central Australia. He drove that protest, and as a result we had 500 people out the front of the convention centre, aka Parliament House in 2007, a little over 18 months ago, to protest about exactly that: - the pressing social issues facing Central Australia and Alice Springs.
We had a lot of promises about meetings and forums and talkfests and the like, but we have really not seen any action. We have seen dry town legislation introduced, which has not worked. In fact, it has probably done exactly the opposite. We had an Operation City Safe program introduced which was all very good but that has now ceased to exist. We had a small contingent of mounted police for a while. This was all very good while the protest was fresh in people’s minds. It lasted for about six months or so and now it has gone by the wayside and as a result the issues have become worse. There is no doubt about it.
We call upon this government to seriously address these pressing social issues in Central Australia, and the issues in other parts of regional Northern Territory, not just the northern suburbs and not just Darwin. This is a government for the whole of the Northern Territory, but you would not think so by their actions. If their track record is anything to go by, you would think they are the government of Darwin as opposed to the government of the Northern Territory.
Health is another issue facing the people of Central Australia. The Patient Assisted Travel Scheme is a classic example; it is perhaps the best example of how the government neglects the health concerns of the people of Central Australia.
Despite all the letters, e-mails, concerns, protests, meetings and information nights over the last couple of years urging the Northern Territory government to allow those with cancer seeking oncology services to continue to use Adelaide as an option for treatment, even if Darwin’s oncology unit is completed – and, once again, I will give the government the benefit of the doubt that we will ever see it; but let us for a moment say it will be completed - those people in Central Australia who require oncology services want to continue to have that choice. That choice will be ripped from under them and they will be forced to utilise the Darwin Oncology Unit once it is completed, if it is completed. That is simply insensitive, rude and outrageous. It is another example of how out of touch this government, and this Chief Minister particularly, is.
Ms Carney: Just like his predecessor.
Mr CONLAN: I would suggest worse. I thought his predecessor was pretty good.
Ms Carney: She said on election night she was passionate about Alice Springs.
Mr CONLAN: She did. She was pretty good at pretending that she cared about Central Australia, whereas this current Chief Minister does not give two hoots about Central Australia.
Mr Henderson: Wrong.
Mr CONLAN: You can see it straight away.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order! Member for Araluen!
Ms Carney: Thanks, Madam Speaker. I am so sorry.
Mr CONLAN: I pick up the interjection. He has a big workload ahead of him, Madam Speaker, if your primary vote of 69% is anything to go by – 75% two party preferred; it is quite incredible. It just goes to show how people respect those who are passionate and care about Central Australia; it is pretty obvious those people who do not care about Central Australia are shown the door very quickly. This government was shown the door very quickly in the last election. As I have said, it was a vote against this government more than, perhaps, a vote for …
Ms Carney: Well, equally.
Mr CONLAN: You could say that. Wouldn’t it be great to claim 75% and say we are that popular there …?
Ms Carney interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Araluen!
Mr CONLAN: That is something when diehard Labor supporters come up to you and say: ‘I will vote for you’. Even I had a couple of those, member for Araluen.
Nevertheless, PATS is a very serious problem. Hospital waiting lists are a huge problem in Central Australia. This is part of health. The uranium mine, too, I believe is a big problem; I believe it will come back and really hurt this government. We suggested an Environmental Protection Authority, an independent EPA, one with teeth; not one that is answerable to government. I believe people in Central Australia …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex your time has expired.
Mr HAMPTON (Regional Development): Madam Speaker, I say to the member for Greatorex, well done on this matter of public importance. It is fantastic that we can spend two hours, or whatever it may be, on Alice Springs. I welcome it. However, your contribution was pretty disappointing, member for Greatorex. It is the same sort of thing we have been hearing for the last year since you have been a member of this Legislative Assembly; nothing positive. No positive things to say about Alice Springs.
Mr Conlan: Nothing has changed.
Mr HAMPTON: Well, I do not know. Get on the Alice News website, it has ‘2001, things went backwards in Alice because of the Labor government’. Blame the Labor government. Get on the Alice News website and have a look pre-2001. Have a look at the headlines ...
Mr Conlan: No, no. I said that there have been issues for a long time, mate. They just got worse under you.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr HAMPTON: Do you want to hear the headlines? Here is one here, 1 August 2001:
Classic example. These issues have not come since Labor came into government; these issues have been here for a long time ...
Mr CONLAN: I said they got worse. A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Stuart is clearly misrepresenting what I had to say. I said the issues have been around for a long time, they have become worse since 2001 …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex …
Mr CONLAN: Maybe you need to check the Hansard, minister; we can get a rush copy so you do not embarrass yourself …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, resume your seat!
Mr CONLAN: … so you do not embarrass yourself anymore …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex! Resume your seat. You are on a warning.
Minister, please direct your comments through the Chair.
Mr HAMPTON: I am actually looking at the laptop I have, Madam Speaker. Thank you.
My point is that these issues have been around for a long time, before the Labor government came into power in the Northern Territory. They have not worsened because Labor is in. They have been bad for a long time. These are generational issues, and it is going to take generations to fix them. I can stand proudly and say, as a Labor Party member, as a member of the Henderson Labor government: we are working to our best ability to try to fix these problems.
I will just give a few examples of what we have been doing in Alice Springs in my portfolios. All you need to do is look at regional development. Since the election, we have made a commitment to relocate the Department of Regional Development, Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources to Alice Springs ...
Mr Giles: Three staff - that will make a big difference.
Mr Knight: You ripped jobs out of there.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Giles: I beg your pardon? Ripped jobs out of there? You are weak, you are weak!
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Daly, cease interjecting. Member for Braitling!
Mr HAMPTON: As I said, my Department of Regional Development has been, and will continue to be closely involved in Indigenous business success stories in Alice Springs …
Mr Knight: You gutted the place.
Mr Giles: You are weak.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Daly, cease interjecting. Member for Braitling!
Mr HAMPTON: Madam Speaker I draw to the attention of members businesses like Jungala Enterprises, Oak Valley Aboriginal Corporation …
Mr Giles: You are absolutely weak; you can’t look after Power and Water.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Braitling!
Mr Giles: You are incompetent.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, cease interjecting!
Ms ANDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Can we have the debate on Alice Springs, please?
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I remind you of Standing Order 51:
The minister has the call. Please direct your comments through the Chair. Thank you.
Mr HAMPTON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. As I said, I am passionate about Alice Springs. I was born there; I grew up at The Gap and my kids have grown up there; they have gone to the public education system in Alice Springs, and I am proud of that. But, as I know, Alice Springs does have its challenges. As an Alice Springs resident and as a member of this government, I am aware of that.
This government is focused on trying to improve things. It is not doom and gloom; we are actually trying our best. I go back to the point about my portfolios. I am very proud to say that this government, through the last election, has made a decision to relocate my Department of Regional Development to Alice Springs. I also draw to the attention of members in this House that this department and this government will continue to work closely with many Indigenous businesses across Alice Springs - businesses such as Jungala Enterprises, Oak Valley Aboriginal Corporation, RT Tours, Centrefarm Aboriginal Horticulture Company, Blue Bush Free Range Eggs, Rainbow Valley Cultural Tours, Kopp Constructions, Red Centre Paint and Panel, Thorny Arts and Tjuilpa, just to name a few. All these are examples of Indigenous-owned and operated businesses in Central Australia which are creating jobs, employing local people, and making a significant contribution to the regional economy.
I worked in the employment and training area for 10 years before I came into parliament and I understand that getting a good job relies strongly on having a good start in life. That is why getting a good education is so important, not only for Central Australians but all Territorians. In Central Australia we are fortunate to have quality schools with outstanding programs, as I know firsthand. I visit many of the local schools in Alice Springs such as Sadadeen Primary School, Ross Park, Bradshaw, Braitling, the Acacia Hill Special School, Centralian College, and ANZAC Hill High School. The member for Greatorex mentioned none of these schools - because they do a fantastic job. Maybe you should visit them to have a look.
In early 2007, the Alice Springs Football Academy, a great success story in Alice Springs, kicked off - the local arm of the Clontarf Football Academy that started in Western Australia. I had the opportunity to meet Gerard Neesham and listen to his story of how Clontarf began; it is such an inspiring story. The Northern Territory government has committed to $1.9m over four years to support the Alice Springs Football Academy. Academies have started at ANZAC Hill High School, Alice Springs High School and Centralian College, with 120 students enrolled. This initiative has had outstanding success; enrolments have increased to 240 students this year, with the average attendance at 87%. It is a real success story.
In addition, the retention of students from Year 9 to Year 10 at Centralian College was 100%, where previously many students would drop out rather than make the move from high schools to senior school.
I urge members opposite, particularly those whose electorates are in Alice Springs, to talk to some of these young men who are involved in the Alice Springs Football Academy. They certainly make me feel proud, and I hope they do the same for you.
A program aimed at improving attendance, retention and academic outcomes for young women also started this year. The Smith Family Foundation is delivering the Girls at the Centre program at Alice Springs High School. Funding of more than $250 000 has been provided so far, and I understand currently there are around 25 girls in the program.
Another innovative and outstanding program in Alice Springs is the Alice Springs Partnerships for Success Program at Centralian College. The program was sponsored by the Alice Springs Indigenous Education and Employment Task Force and was launched last year, and I was pleased to be at the launch. The Partnerships for Success Program is funded by the Polly Farmer Foundation, the NT Department of Education and Training, Centrecorp, and the federal government.
It is an academic program for Indigenous students who have the capacity, interest and potential to complete their secondary education and make a successful transition to further education, training and employment. It provides practical assistance and support for the 33 students enrolled. Reports are that the students are highly motivated in their studies, and interested in broadening their options when it comes to future tertiary education courses and their careers.
Madam Speaker, I visit these schools regularly, and I urge all members in Alice Springs - I know the member for Macdonnell does - to get out and meet some of them; talk to them about their achievements and aspirations, and what they really feel about their chances. Once the students have completed their secondary studies, we are providing further education opportunities. Our $30m investment in the Desert Knowledge Precinct will see a first class facility developed for training Indigenous people. The construction of the first stage of the Desert Peoples Centre, at a cost of over $10m from the NT government, is well under way …
Mr CONLAN: A point of order, Madam Speaker! This MPI specifically says ‘… the many pressing social issues confronting Alice Springs’. All we are hearing from the minister is a bunch of propaganda from his government. He is not addressing or recognising any of the pressing social issues confronting Alice Springs. I would urge you to direct him to speak to the MPI.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, resume your seat. Minister, if you can keep as close as possible to the matter of public importance, thank you.
Mr Knight: You need to run it down like the member for Greatorex.
Mr Conlan: Whatever, mate.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Daly, cease interjecting.
Mr HAMPTON: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker, I have acknowledged in the beginning …
Madam SPEAKER: No, we are not speaking to the point of order. I have already ruled on the point of order. Please, just continue with your speech.
Mr HAMPTON: All right, I will continue with my statement.
Ms CARNEY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! You have ruled on the member for Greatorex’s point of order by asking the member for Stuart to keep his comments as close as possible, or words to that effect, to the MPI. The member for Stuart, when he got to his feet, said he will keep reading his statement. I am concerned, given that he is going to keep reading his statement, he is not going to abide by your ruling and may, in fact, be showing dissent from your ruling.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, there is no point of order. The minister has the call and is, in fact, continuing to speak. I am sure we will hear whether it is relevant. Minister, please continue.
Mr HAMPTON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. As I stated at the beginning my speech, there are problems in Alice Springs and I acknowledge that. I have lived there all my life. I have seen it. I have lived with it. What I am trying to get at is: education is a very important part of dealing with these issues.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr HAMPTON: This government is serious about dealing with these issues. I can demonstrate clearly what this government is doing in terms of education. I will continue, Madam Speaker, along those lines because I feel it is very relevant to this particular MPI.
Sports are a huge part of the Alice Springs lifestyle. The Northern Territory government has invested heavily in developing first class sporting infrastructure in this town. Once again, sport is very important in helping to deal with the matter before us in this House. We have just had a very successful Masters Games and everywhere I went in town last week, spectators and participants were full of praise for our facilities. We have invested more than $5.5m into Traeger Park and have been able to host top-line AFL, cricket and other sporting fixtures in Alice Springs, as well as providing excellent facilities for local sports. We have invested $600000 in soccer facilities at Ross Park, and it is great to see hosts of youngsters and adults out there on weekends playing the round ball games.
I am also looking forward to the opening, very soon, of Stage 1 of the Alice Springs Aquatic Centre. The Northern Territory government has committed $8.1m to the aquatic centre which includes a heated pool. Personally, I cannot wait to plunge into our heated pool on a cool winter’s day.
As I said yesterday on 8HA, I do not believe just because Darwin gets something, that Alice should get it too. It is a different place, with different needs and desires, as we hear in this MPI. That is why government supports the principle of having local people make the decisions which will have local effects. That is why my department of Regional Development will be headquartered in Alice Springs, making decisions about the regions, in the regions - being there. I am sure you can see, as you fly over Central Australia on your way to Darwin or Brisbane, that Alice Springs is a regional service centre for around 200 remote communities. This throws up some real challenges and they are challenges this government is facing head on. We are putting in real resources, real programs and are determined to make a real difference. It is why we are investing in Central Australia and the wider region and we are committed to our Closing the Gap action plan.
Alice Springs is growing and developing, despite what members opposite would have us believe. I have spoken about some of the major government investments in my home town which are having an impact socially and economically. We are dealing with the big issues such as land release. We have seen a very successful land release at Larapinta where the Northern Territory government has provided $1.95m in headworks. Next cab off the rank is the Mt John subdivision where $1.2m in headworks were recently completed.
We have invested over $3.6m in additional short-term accommodation. Over the past year there has been an additional 90-plus beds in the town. I am sure that is not enough; more are needed, but it is a start. We have also committed to redeveloping the police station at a cost of $6m. We are building a new Accident and Emergency Department at the Alice Springs Hospital – again, another commitment of $6m. This is on top of the millions of dollars we are spending to right the wrongs of the past, to rectify the shoddy work undertaken on the hospital redevelopment under the watch of the former CLP government.
We have committed to working in partnership with the Alice Springs Town Council to revitalise the CBD and we have emphasised this commitment with a $5m contribution to get this exciting project under way. The most recent construction snapshot shows $57.3m worth of NT government major projects under way in Central Australia. This Northern Territory government investment supports recent private sector and commercial developments in Alice Springs. I am sure if the member for Drysdale was down there last week, he would have seen companies like Target, Harvey Norman, Clark Rubber, and Quest have invested in the town and opened premises; hopefully he spent a few of his dollars there.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HAMPTON: In the tourism sector, we are supporting an industry with the recent $2.2m Get CeNTred Red Centre global tourist campaign following on the previously successful ‘Destinations Alice’ campaigns.
Tourism is a part of the Centre’s lifeblood. It is a major employer and offers hope and opportunity for Indigenous communities to participate in the economy. This government will continue to support it and will continue to invest in it because we believe in it.
I hope I have painted a more balanced picture of my home town than that put forward by the member opposite, the member for Greatorex, who claims to represent Alice Springs. As I said …
Mr CONLAN: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Can I seek some clarification on the ruling, your warning? Does it mean I have to sit here in silence, or am I allowed some interjection? It is very difficult to sit here and listen to a prepared propaganda speech which the minister is reading while he is taking quite pathetic swipes at the opposition. He is clearly out of line. I just want some clarification on that.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, quite frankly, it is unparliamentary to interject. However, in a robust parliament certain levels of interjections are to be expected. When you are on a warning, it would be in your best interest to keep them to a very small number and be extremely quiet. That would be my advice to you.
Mr CONLAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I can do that for the next five minutes. Come on Karl, bring it on, mate.
Mr HAMPTON: The Henderson Labor government is genuine about what it is delivering in Alice Springs. The Henderson Labor government is putting a lot of resources, not only into Alice Springs, but into the Central Australian region.
Finally, in terms of the communities and my portfolio of Regional Development, my priority is creating real jobs in the bush. I have worked in the employment and training area for 10 years prior to coming into politics, in the public, private and community sector. It is a challenge and it also impacts on what the member for Greatorex has brought forward here tonight.
Madam Speaker, I am proud to be a member of this government. I am going to do my best in my portfolios in Sport and Recreation and as Minister for Regional Development. I am looking forward to the challenge and I thank the member for bringing on this MPI.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I am also going to talk about Alice Springs and the matter of public importance which has been brought before us by my colleague, the member for Greatorex.
The member for Greatorex was right to raise some of the serious issues and concerns there are in Alice Springs and the greater Central Australian region. Whether the concerns and issues are small or large, by talking about them does not mean you are talking the town down. You have to talk about the issues to bring them to the forefront, to discover solutions, to improve things.
I recognise what the member for Stuart said: that the town is great and there are many things happening. I recognise that, and I support that. I love Alice Springs. Of all the places I have lived, and I have lived in four different states - I have been fortunate - Alice Springs is the best place I have ever lived. I absolutely love it and I am not talking it down.
I was aware of many issues before I was elected …
A member: It is not as good as Palmerston.
Mr GILES: It is a long way in front of Palmerston. Since being elected I have spent a lot of my time dealing with negative issues in Alice Springs, in my electorate. Let me put it this way: when I talk about issues or when I come upon issues, I like to try to identify all the issues within that cycle of what is going on. I like to try to come up with a comprehensive plan for what we can do to fix some of these things. I would like to think the speeches I have made in this parliament have talked about futuristic opportunities and how we can make improvements on some of the issues we have, whether they are negative issues or positive issues. The town is good, but how do we grow it? That is an issue, but it is a positive issue. There are positive steps to take. We always need to add value in that regard.
I am going to talk about issues and I am not staving the government off. My electorate covers Larapinta, the western part of Alice Springs, the industrial area, the CBD and the northern part, incorporating eight schools and eight town camps, the business area and lots of different things. Basically, I spend most of my time in Larapinta, the township, within the Braitling electorate.
More often than not, I am out at Larapinta dealing with housing issues. I am always dealing with public housing issues. I have worked in public housing for many years, managing some very big problems, such as all of western Sydney, for a period of time. I understand that a public housing issue and a bad public housing tenant is not just about the public housing tenant. There are many reasons which go into why that tenant is a bad public housing tenant. It might be through overcrowding, lack or education, substance abuse, any of those sorts of things. I appreciate all that.
I believe, though, we have to get tough on bad public housing tenants. Not all public housing tenants are bad. In getting tough on bad public housing tenants you have to understand why they might be bad public housing tenants. Some are bad because they are just bad; others are bad because of the circumstances or issues which put those people in those places in the first place.
We often hear the terminology ‘urban drift’ in Alice Springs. Urban drift is people coming to town. As the member for Greatorex said, people have a right to come to town. One of the best things we have done, as governments – Australian, John Howard’s government, and every government - and I listened intently to what is happening at Nhulunbuy with the roll-out of broadband. The roll-out of broadband and access and opportunities for people to get greater knowledge is very important as we grow the Territory. It is highly important. As we grow broadband, access information, mobile telephone services and things such as greater mail services, people in communities have a greater knowledge of what you might call ‘the outside world’ as a generalisation. More people want to come to services and experience all these different things, so more people are coming to town. They should be entitled to come to town, and that is positive.
I also believe we should be supporting the regions to grow, so the regions are places where people want to live, where there are proper opportunities and they become solid townships in themselves; just one, off the top of my head, in the member for Stuart’s electorate is Yuendumu. I ask the question: why is Yuendumu not a vibrant town? It should be. As a regional centre, we should ensure that. It is the same in the member for Macdonnell’s electorate around Ampilatwatja and the Alpara area in the Utopia region. There is an opportunity there to be a vibrant hub, and that is what we should work towards. We have an opportunity to do that across the Territory.
Members opposite might have heard today that I gave notice I want to talk about secondary schooling on General Business Day. I want to talk about secondary schooling – not everywhere because I know there already is secondary schooling out there - but in a couple of key locations where there is an opportunity to start developing strong regions.
You might think I have digressed, Madam Speaker, but what I have actually done is highlight the importance of growing those regions in the context of urban drift, of people coming into town, into my electorate, and into Larapinta specifically, but also the other areas. Let us look at Alice Springs. If Alice Springs was a motel there would be a great big sign out the front, one of those old-fashioned signs that says: ‘Vacancy/No Vacancy’, and there would be a slide across to say: ‘No Vacancy’, because it is full. There is nowhere for more people to live.
I said I support people coming to town, and I do support people coming into town. I support all access to services, but there has to be a specific social policy shift to increase the size of the town, or move people out. I support increasing the size of the town. There are simply not enough houses for people to live in, in Alice Springs. That is a huge issue.
I have been critical of government in regard to planning and release of land. I am critical because there is not enough release of land. There are people out there who want to build houses. The more houses we have and the quicker that process happens, the more places people have to live, which will lower overcrowding in certain areas. We will be able to get a better tenure mix through appropriate policy. What will happen through increased housing, although it is only one intervention, is there will be a significant die-off in the number of social issues we have, because people need room to live, and they do not have that now.
I do not want to be alarmist, but I will say this: the way things are at the moment, in certain pockets of Larapinta where the member for Macdonnell lives, in certain houses and the little community around that house, it might only be three or four houses, is at boiling point. There are parts of Alice Springs at boiling point. I have people come to me who want to flog people in a public housing house with a baseball bat. That is how serious it is, and it is serious because of housing. I put that as the core thing. I know there are other things; but I put that at the core.
The minister is right to talk about eduction. That is an answer to a lot of problems as well. But housing is the problem. There are people out there who want to belt people with baseball bats. Much of it comes back to bad public housing tenants. When I say it is at boiling point, it is not alarmist, but places in Alice Springs are at boiling point. People are pretty much fed up and are leaving town because of it. When people leave town it is bad because we lose skills, experience and dollars, all those sorts of things. If we are going to start addressing the boiling point in Alice Springs we need to start addressing the housing crisis.
Madam Speaker, the issues we see coming out because of bad public housing tenants - I am generalising a little, but I am sure my colleagues on both sides of the House who are based in Alice Springs will appreciate this - is that with overcrowding comes a lack of places for people to sleep, a lack of opportunity for kids to have a sleep. It makes it difficult: there is wear and tear on the house; people want to have a shower and the taps are broken; the oven does not work so it is hard to cook food; the fridge does not work, and all these sorts of things. It goes on and on and on, so we get spill-out.
I want to talk about Lyndavale Drive where there is spill-out into the park near the corner of Patterson Crescent - there is a bit of a problem there. Some people might know that area. There are problems there at night. I have problems with neighbours. I am not sick of dealing with these problems, I enjoy dealing with these problems because I understand them and I want to work for a solution. When everyone gets in that park at night, they drink, and we have social problems. They might not have a job, and I do not want to generalise, but there might be employment issues or education issues, and there are housing stress issues and housing affordability, and all that stuff, and people are drinking. When they drink, there are problems. Those problems go to the next person, and they go to the next person, and they go to the next person. We have been talking about drink-driving tonight. Well, I tell you, we never got to the point of what the drink-driving legislation is, and that is alcoholism. That is what the problem of drink-driving is. These people are alcoholics driving on the road.
There are people living in Alice Springs who are subject to those circumstances which bring them into a collective togetherness where those social issues, pumping together, are a hive of complexities that contribute to alcoholism, and that alcoholism is spreading throughout the place. We have dry town legislation which is not working. I will put it on the record now: dry town is not working. We have people living in the hills all over the place, in the bush all over the place, drinking themselves into a stupor every night.
I go to people’s houses and I talk to people who are making complaints about public housing issues. I will tell a story: come over to my place and have a look at my fridge. And what do you find in there, grog. When I tell that story, everyone says: ‘Hmm, you must be a drinker’. And I say: ‘Well, go into the other person’s house where the drinking problems are, where the social issues are, and have a look in their fridge, and what is in there?’ Nothing, and people say: ‘So they are not drinking and you are drinking’. And I say: ‘No, it is the reverse. I will have a beer - I know when to stop. They will have a beer and they will not know when to stop, and they will drink and drink and drink and drink’.
We do not just have housing issues. We have alcohol issues, and we are not dealing with alcoholism. I am a person who believes in free trade of alcohol. I do not support restrictions, but I support supporting those people who do have alcohol problems. One of the best policies released in the election for the Country Liberals was a policy that said we were going to build an alcohol rehabilitation facility in Katherine. That would do things for the people. That would change things.
While we sit on our hands as government, as an Assembly, and do nothing, the people who have the alcohol problems will continue to fester and have more alcohol problems and more social problems, and nothing will change - it will get worse. The boiling point which might be this big will get this big - and gets bigger. There are parts of Alice Springs that are thriving and are really good. But the boiling point issues are a massive problem. I do not see the day too far away, when possibly - I am not saying it is going to happen - but possibly there could be some big violence in terms of troubles in Alice Springs. There will be a tipping point.
A member: There already has been.
Mr GILES: No, there will be a tipping point. There has not been the tipping point I am talking about. I am talking about the tipping point between Indigenous and non-Indigenous relations. That might not be the whole town coming together, but it might start here and grow. That is a serious concern in Alice Springs because we are not dealing with the fundamentals of housing and alcoholism. We need to get those people who are alcoholics out of town. Not just out of Alice Springs and plonk them over there. We need to get them out of town and help them. We are not helping them by saying: ‘You cannot buy grog before 6 pm’. Well, they will go and see someone else to do it - aid and abet. Someone else will aid and abet these people. I go in to buy a six pack on the way home and you see people with carton, carton, and carton. It is happening all the time.
The alcohol laws are not working. I believe in freedom of alcohol laws, but the people who have an alcohol problem are causing issues in Alice Springs. I am a person who knows the historical elements of why these issues are there and why these people are alcoholics. I know that. I am not hard on those people, but I am hard on the issue. The issue is there are alcoholics with a problem, creating a boiling point, which could one day become a tipping point. If we do not intervene to help those alcoholics, the situation will continue to get worse until there is a tipping point. That is the purpose of this MPI: to talk about that.
It is not to talk the town down. It is to talk about the issues and to try to talk the town up and to solve the issues. Until we get more housing in Alice Springs, nothing is going to change.
I have 30 seconds left. Very quickly, let me kick the government: we did not get a waterfront, we do not have a good sports complex, we do not have good roads, land has not been released, and we do not have the infrastructure for our land release.
Today we spoke about Palmerston and Darwin. We spoke about INPEX; we talked about the economic growth of the Territory, and that is Darwin. I am not bashing Darwin or anywhere in the Northern Territory, but let us not forget we have Alice Springs. This government allowed Alice Springs to go from the second biggest town to the third biggest town and it is about time they got a kick in the arse for doing it.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, your time has expired.
Ms ANDERSON (Central Australia): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Greatorex for proposing this matter of public importance on the many pressing social issues confronting Alice Springs. I also thank my colleague, the member for Stuart, for his contribution to this House and the member for Braitling for his contribution.
There really is a serious issue in Alice Springs. As the Minister for Central Australia going to the markets and going to Hoppy’s, and living in Patterson Crescent, as the member for Braitling mentioned, it is at a boiling point. I have brought back certain e-mails from residents who are fed up with Territory Housing houses in Bokhara Street - they are just down the road from where I live - and I have handed them to the Minister for Housing.
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! On a personal note to the member for Macdonnell, I have to leave for a personal reason. I am not deliberately walking out of here. I apologise for that. I will be up in my room packing my stuff and watching you on television. It is not personal. I do have to go.
Ms ANDERSON: Thank you.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell, before you go on, I have a procedural matter.
I have received a document on pairing. From 11 pm until adjournment, the pairs are the member for Arnhem and the member for Braitling. It is signed by the Government Whip and the Opposition Whip. It is just a procedural matter.
Ms ANDERSON: Madam Speaker, I live and breathe the social issues facing Alice Springs, and I have done so for my entire life. Before dealing with the problems and challenges facing Alice Springs, I would like to reflect on the beauty of our town.
Alice Springs was my home when I was a youth and it is a shining example of a multicultural society which began with the traditional owners and developed over time through the hard work and cooperation of great families from diverse backgrounds like the Trindalls; the Dianos; the Swans; the Hamptons; the Abbotts; the Kilgariffs; the Necks; the Lillis’s and many others. There were also families from surrounding pastoral stations who contributed much to the town, such as the Mortons, the Savages, the Lalleys, the Conways, the Chisholms, the Webbs and the Greens, just to name a few from outlying stations.
Then there were families such as mine. My mother and cousin were fringe dwellers, where that creek is running just near the Yipirinya School. My auntie and my mum and my cousins, Maureen and my Aunty Mary, and my mum and their siblings lived there as fringe dwellers before the town camps. Not in a $500 000 government-funded house, but in tents.
The beauty of that was how the Lutheran Church looked after these people. They had land in Gap Road at the back of the Lutheran Church. They took these people in who came in from communities like Haasts Bluff and Hermannsburg, which were ration depots, and put them on the old Mission Block. They had cottages out the back and they said to these people: ‘Why have you moved into town?’ And they said: ‘We have come into town, pastor, because we want to educate our children. We want to get away from the communities.’ They wanted to be away from communities because they could see antisocial behaviour beginning. The Lutheran Church helped these people live in the cottage and trained them to clean the houses. Then they applied to Territory Housing to have them put in on The Gap.
I lived with my Aunty for a certain number of years before I boarded at St Phillip’s College. My Aunty did some night work, ironing and looking after children for lawyers, and for the Kilgariffs. We went to the Mission Block church and they continued to look after the people in The Gap area. We had Greek people who owned their own houses right next door to us. Our house did not look like a Territory Housing house because we kept the yard clean and the houses clean. This is where the member for Greatorex and member for Braitling are coming from.
The attitude that we have had as a society, and I have to say this, is that we think there is a black way and white way to do things. There is one way to do things, and that is the right way to do things.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms ANDERSON: Society has taken the step to think there is a black way to educate children; that is maybe why we have so much failure in literacy and numeracy. There is no black way or white way to educate children, but the right way to educate children.
There is not a black way or a white way to live inside a house, but there is the right way to live inside a house. It is about amalgamating people to live and work and enjoy the vibrant town, deal with the issues as a society, not as an Indigenous person or a white person, but as people who live in Central Australia or people who live in Alice Springs.
I remember, and I said this to Mathew and he laughed, my Mathew that is – I hope you are listening, Mathew. One of the things we did every Sunday - it was a ritual. We lived down the Gap as the member for Stuart said, we were poor, but we did book at the Mission Block so we booked every fortnight and the money would be deducted out of my Auntie’s pension. It was a ritual every Sunday that we went to the Alice Springs rubbish dump to scrounge. One of the good things that happened with the non-Indigenous people when they brought their rubbish was that they would not throw it on the ground; they would give it to us in our hands. If there were bags of clothes they were throwing away, they would give them to us.
Where Ilparpa rural area is now, there used to be old people like Mr and Mrs Armstrong living there in the first town camp. We used to get the meat that the butchers used to - not throw away, but give to us - and we would walk across to Aunty Lorna and get Aunty Lorna to cook it. One of the things I said to Mathew was we would often have lots of non-Indigenous kids coming to our home at Gnoilya Street, but we were a little embarrassed that we did not have the flash stuff that these kids had. So we used to pick all the flash tins at the rubbish dump, clean then up and pretend that they were full and put them inside our cupboards at home so when our friends came over they could think we were rich because we had all these empty cans inside the cupboard. That was how we were.
We played sports with people like Lisa Diano and, of course, the wife of the member for Stuart, the Trindalls – it was a multicultural little town. We had a ‘walk-in’, and we walked to the walk-in, watched the movies and walked back to The Gap. We always had Uncle Milton Liddle or Mort Conway, who were taxi drivers, who got employment through the private enterprise of taxis and lifted the poverty of their own families. The Liddle family was a well recognised family who blended into the town of Alice Springs. We had the Hatzimihalis’s, the Dianos, the Lillis’s, and the Necks. Alice Springs was just a beautiful town and it was a safe little town.
However, with every growing town you get these problems. The issue we have with Alice Springs is that it is a hub town. We have Indigenous people moving in to access medical services like renal dialysis. What we have to do is to really start treating these people as people who are coming in to live in mainstream society, and not treat them differently to anyone else. As I said, my family did it and we were traditional Aboriginal people just like these people who come from a remote Aboriginal community. We lived on the fringes of town. We were moved in by the Lutherans to the Mission Block and then we were given a Territory Housing Commission house at The Gap, and we lived there.
The important thing was that we always went to school every day, five days a week. I remember I even went to my school in my PJs. I thought it was a beautiful outfit I had, and I did not believe that you could sleep in something so beautiful. When the kids teased me at school and said: ‘You have PJs on’, I said: ‘Who said they are pyjamas? They are beautiful. I am going to stay at school with these on because they are so beautiful’.
Alice Springs gave us so many opportunities, and that opportunity is still there. But, as the members for Greatorex and Braitling and my colleague, the member for Stuart, said, there is only so much that governments can do. Half of the problem is with the responsibility of my people, and the parents of these children who do not go to school - the parents of these children who hang around in our streets at 1 am and 2 am.
Alcoholism is a sickness, and these people are sick. We have a huge problem in Alice Springs. I drive around that roundabout and go inside my driveway to get to my office at 9 am, and there are people sitting in that alleyway already drinking at nine o’clock in the morning. They know now to save the alcohol because they know the takeaway shops do not open until a certain time the next morning. So, they are saving it and they are putting it inside cool drink cans so the police cannot get to them. The police are doing a wonderful job.
This is now a great opportunity for the members for Araluen, Greatorex, Braitling, Stuart and me, for all of us to get together and really do something magical for Alice Springs as five members. We can make Alice Springs grow better. The five of us, together with the town of Alice Springs, can bring the antisocial behaviour down.
There is a crisis in Territory Housing. I have spoken to many people in the 10 days I have spent in Alice Springs, people from youth services; from Tangentyere, from Lhere Aretepe, even Indigenous people, complaining about their rights as traditional owners of that country being abused by people who come in from the remote bush. Certainly, we need these people to come in and access services and enjoy our town, and we love them for coming in to use our town’s services. We respect them, but they should turn around and respect the traditional owners of that country, and respect the town as well.
As I said, Caterpillar Dreaming was the Dreamtime of the Yipirinya that formed Alice Springs, which made Lhere Aretepe the head of that Mbantua. But since then, Alice Springs bred so many people, the Murray Necks, the Lillis’s, the Hatzimihalis’s, the Dianos, the Hamptons, the Trindalls, the Abbotts, and the list goes on. That is the five of us can get together, along with our town, and try to put up some proposals, with all the stuff that the government is doing - you cannot just keep throwing money - it is about the responsibility of my people as well. If we can start working together, we can only turn things around for the better; not just for Alice Springs, but the whole Territory. We can lead by example.
I know there is real frustration among lots of people in Alice Springs, and I have certainly heard those frustrations. We cannot deny that problems exist in Alice Springs - here are huge problems. As the member for Braitling said, it is at boiling point. It really is at boiling point. All you have to do is come down my street, off Lyndavale into Patterson, into Saltwell, into Bokhara, in Larapinta, and really see what the member for Braitling is talking about. I am one of those people, on occasions, who will sit in the car in the car park opposite my office and watch these children aged from five to 12 roaming the streets of Alice Springs at one and two o’clock in the morning. I ask myself, where are these children’s parents? It is about us directing and saying to these people, you cannot abuse your children, you cannot abuse this town, but please, we welcome you to come in and access our services, but do not destroy our town.
Members: Hear, hear!
Discussion concluded.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I call the member for Port Darwin to move a motion in relation to a matter of privilege.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I move that this House refer the member for Arafura to the Privileges Committee in relation to statements made by her in this House about her reasons for failing to meet with Territory teachers during recent industrial action, and the contradictory statements contained in The Australian newspaper written by Natasha Robinson on 23 October 2008; and further, that the committee be empowered by this motion to examine relevant witnesses and call for the production of relevant documents.
Madam Speaker, I sign that motion and table it for the purposes of the Tabled Papers Office.
The matter I seek the House to refer the member for Arafura to the Committee of Privileges is a matter which all members who watched the news tonight would be familiar with. It is a matter of the utmost gravity. Amongst all the sins that can be committed in this place, there has to be one paramount sin, and that is the sin of lying to this House. That is what this motion is all about. We throw the word ‘lie’ around, and immediately pounce on it with such vehemence because of the nature of the allegation being so serious. Points of order are constructed around that single word; probably more passionately than any other form of point of order in this House.
The member for Arafura is now in the invidious situation by her words, on my estimation of it, that she now should face an investigation by the Privileges Committee which is a committee of this parliament. There is no greater contempt of this House possible than to mislead it.
I am mindful of a couple of issues which I wish to address at the outset before I go any further. It was touched upon by the minister herself in an answer today in parliament. I would like to quote the minister, and she said: ‘It is unclear to me why my personal appointments and my family and what is left of my private life are of such interest to members’. I am mindful of that. Those of us who are in public life lose so much of what is in our private life. Whilst I am at pains to try to respect the minister’s privacy, sadly it was the use of that privacy in the form of the defence offered in this House yesterday which draws us irrevocably to have to invade it. Further, I am mindful the minister’s daughter is unwell, or was unwell at that stage, and I hope and pray that she has recovered. If she has not recovered from that, I hope and pray she has a speedy recovery.
However, it is important that we bring the minister’s daughter into this particular debate because, sadly, it was the illness of the daughter which became the defence to the accusations levelled at the minister.
When I heard the minister yesterday speak during the Censure Motion about this defence, I was moved to sympathy as a result of the reasoning given by the minister. I thought to myself: my goodness, we have to be careful how we proceed because under such circumstances as the minister has described I feel very uncomfortable about proceeding down this path any further. I note from reading the daily Hansard about this particular debate, other members clearly felt the same way. They obviously felt the same way because references to the trip to the beauty salon started disappearing from the debate.
The problem we have is that during the debate the minister said, and I quote from several points and there were certain interjections when the Leader of the Opposition was on his feet and referred to, quote: ‘You were at the beauticians’. Ms Scrymgour; it says in the Hansard: ‘Wrong’. ‘The hairdresser’, said the Leader of the Opposition. The member for Arafura then replied: ‘Wrong, I will answer that’.
The member for Arafura did go on to answer that when she was on her feet in her contribution in the Censure Motion. The member for Arafura offered us this:
It is clear from those words and those interjections that the minister was denying that she was getting any form of beauty treatment herself at that salon. The reason she was doing so is because she needed to demonstrate to the teachers who were protesting in front of this House that she was seriously involved in something else other than receiving a beauty treatment at a salon. The reason being, of course, is that it would have portrayed or painted the minister as being a most indifferent individual to the needs of the teachers who work for her, because she is the minister for Education, if she were seen to be doing the modern equivalent of a Marie Antoinette response of: ‘Let them eat cake’.
Clearly the minister is mindful of that. So it was at the top of her mind to be able to run a defence, and the defence offered to this House was that she was attempting to, I presume, cheer up her daughter, or support her daughter, after some bad medical news by a trip to the beauty salon. That, on the face of it, was a reasonable position to take.
However, that invited a response from The Australian this morning. In that article, the journalist says she did some homework and, as a consequence, the journalist points out that the minister not only attended the beauty salon - that much has been established - but there were two appointments made at that salon: one at 4.30 pm and the other at 5 pm for Ms Scrymgour and her daughter. The appointment book relating to Ms Scrymgour’s appointments at 5 pm reads: ‘Marion: EBW (eyebrow wax) lip, chin’.
It was clear the minister was not sitting and merely supporting her daughter at this point. She was engaged in what so many people had already accused her of being engaged in - that is getting a beauty treatment herself. This then goes to certain types of evidence which would be available to a Privileges Committee investigation. The first evidence available is direct evidence. Direct evidence is the form of evidence which is collected by the five senses: ‘I heard, I saw, I touched, I tasted, I smelled’. Clearly, the minister was seen to be in the salon at that time.
There is also a secondary form of evidence available to a Privileges Committee investigation and that is documentary evidence. There is clearly some sort of written record at the salon of the minister’s presence there. So we have direct evidence and we also have two possible identifiable witnesses who can place the minister at the salon at that point. We know that Natasha Robinson, the author of the article, has some form of direct evidence which can be offered to us. We also know there was a beautician who carried out Ms Scrymgour’s treatment and who told The Australian that she specifically remembered performing the eyebrow, lip and chin waxes on both Ms Scrymgour and her daughter. So we have direct evidence and documentary evidence.
There is also available to the committee another form of evidence and that is what you would call, in the legal system, ‘similar facts evidence’. Similar facts evidence is introduced in the legal system where there is a form of conduct which begins to appear as a pattern in a person’s behaviour. So if a person, for argument’s sake, is on trial for a particular offence then it is possible to admit evidence where the person has been convicted or it has been demonstrated at some point in history, that the person has done similar things.
To that end, I point members to particularly the ABC News which reported on this tonight. There were several references to previous conduct which reflected poorly on the minister.
Only a week ago, the minister was found to have ‘misspoke’ her words when it came to the departure of Margaret Banks from the CEO’s position at the Education department. The minister has in this House, if memory serves me correctly, actually corrected the word that she had ‘retired’ and then, she ‘offered to resign’, and she even used the word ‘sacked’ at one point during the censure motion. Retired, resigned and sacked are three completely different forms of departure from a professional position. Each one carries with it all sorts of connotations about what is attached to it. If somebody retires and somebody is sacked, two completely different things have occurred. She used one word to describe an action which is best described by another which, in itself, is misleading. To use it in the context which the minister has used it one would be mindful of it, and would say it was deliberately misleading.
Madam Speaker, to continue the investigation of similar fact evidence in this case, there is also the issue of the vote on the McArthur River Mine expansion in May 2007 …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The motion that is before the Chair at the moment is very specific in regard to allegations around the recent teachers’ industrial action and statements contained in The Australian newspaper written by Natasha Robinson on 23 October. I nearly jumped before when the member for Port Darwin was talking about the issue of the CEO but I thought I will let it go. The McArthur River Mine has absolutely nothing to do with the question before the Chair. I ask you to get the member back on to the point.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, may I speak to the point of order?
Madam SPEAKER: Yes.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, as I am attempting to have the matter referred to the Privileges Committee, I am examining the different forms of evidence which will be available to the committee to assist it in making up its mind. It is for that reason I have discussed direct evidence, documentary evidence and now I am going through the similar fact evidence that will also be available to the committee, thus making what I am talking about now not only relevant, but very relevant.
Madam SPEAKER: I will seek some advice on this.
Member for Port Darwin, I ask you to keep as close as possible to the motion which you have put before the Assembly, and to not anticipate or attempt to anticipate what a committee might or might not look at.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you, Madam Speaker. In that case, I urge the House to consider the issue in this way. Similar fact evidence, as a system of discovering a pattern of behaviour, is an extremely useful tool. Consequently, I argue that the admission of similar fact evidence into the committee in the future would be a useful tool to establish the minister’s pattern of behaviour, which has finally come to such a pointed end for us to consider here tonight, and all of those aspects in the past which relate to how the minister has conducted herself with information in the public arena. I urge members to understand that this is extremely relevant in the way that we consider whether or not a person has a pattern of behaviour, a habit if you like, of being a misleading individual.
Today, there was a much more directed statement than the one I quoted earlier. The one I quoted earlier had, for me, still the potential for a bit of wriggle room, if you like. There was actually no direct reference yesterday, although very close, but no actual direct reference to the minister not getting any treatment yesterday - certainly implied in what she said, but no actual direct reference. However, this morning, that particular observation changed.
I refer members to Question Time today, and if those who had seen the commercial channel, Channel 9, as well as the ABC, they both ran the same quote, and I found it in the Hansard rushes, so I use it, of course, advisedly, because it is an uncorrected proof. However, I think it is useful enough for our purposes here today. The minister said:
I will repeat that last set of words, Madam Speaker:
I did not have any treatment that day.
Madam Speaker, we are presented with quite strong evidence to the contrary, and as these words were uttered in this parliament, then we must and cannot be otherwise but drawn to the fact that either the minister has lied to this House, for which she should be referred to the Privileges Committee, or Natasha Robinson of The Australian newspaper has lied about the minister. It cannot be otherwise. So the minister is what I would call on trial, or should be on trial for her reputation.
If she has nothing to fear, if she indeed is a person who is innocent and has been the subject, as she feels, of some personal vendetta carried out by a journalist, then not only would I expect her to seek every possible forum to correct the record, but she should welcome this motion, and she should passionately argue, as should her colleagues, that this motion should be brought forward, because this motion will provide the vehicle for her exoneration if she is to be exonerated, because the motion I am bringing forward is a motion which seeks to set up, essentially, a court of this House. And that court will listen to the evidence that it can collect.
Madam Speaker, whilst I am aware of the standing orders, the committee has the ability to call witnesses and to summon, if you like, documents, I have also said in this motion that the committee should be empowered to do so. The reason I have done so is that once this committee collects evidence from witnesses, from books, considers things like same fact evidence, collects the notes of the journalist who made the particular allegation, collects the book in which the appointment is recorded, seeks evidence from the beautician who claims in this story to have provided beauty therapy to the minister - and why wouldn’t she welcome this? Why wouldn’t she say: absolutely, let us go and do this; if indeed she is telling the truth? Because, through this system, the truth will out. Once you collect all this evidence it will become apparent to any reasonable person similarly circumstanced as the members of the committee, as to who is telling the truth and who is lying.
I have no reason to doubt Natasha Robinson. I have no reason to doubt the beautician who spoke to Natasha Robinson. I have no reason to doubt the appointment entry …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Port Darwin is on the Privileges Committee and it appears to me that he has already pre-empted a judgment on this matter. I ask you to rule on whether he is surmising evidence and reaching a conclusion even before this particular motion is brought before the House.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order, Attorney-General. I believe if the motion is carried perhaps we could consider whether the member for Port Darwin should be on the Privileges Committee. At this stage we will just let the member for Port Darwin continue.
Mr ELFERINK: I have, however, a real reason to doubt the motive of the minister for saying what she said, because to admit to the accusation which was levelled at her would have been an admission of callousness. However, if it gives comfort to the member for Johnston I am prepared to be convinced on the evidence.
What I have in front of me in some quarters would be called mere prima facie evidence. I do not have enough evidence to convict. There needs to be a proper investigation. If through the process of that investigation it turns out that Natasha Robinson is a liar and that the beautician is a liar and the entry into the manual is a falsehood, then I will gladly stand up and say the minister is utterly exonerated of the charges which have been levelled against her.
If, on the other hand, the evidence collected by the committee does support the case submitted in The Australian by Natasha Robinson, then I, in the same way, will stand up and condemn the minister for taking an approach to her ministry which is dishonest.
I do not want to run a kangaroo court. What I want to see is an opportunity for a committee of this House to take the time to carefully examine the evidence that is available before it determines whether the minister of the Crown has lied to this House. Is that an unreasonable thing to ask? I suspect not, Madam Speaker. However, by the mood of the members opposite, I have already started to gain an indication that my desire to find the truth through an investigative process will not be supported. If it is not supported, the question must be asked collectively: what do they have to hide?
If they do not support this motion, and if this minister does not support this motion, then a cloud will hang over her reputation from now until the day she resigns from this House.
Members interjecting.
Mr Mills: … see whether we find out the truth.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms Scrymgour: Be very careful.
Mr Mills: Why?
Ms Scrymgour: You bend the truth. You are a hypocrite.
Mr Mills: That is what this is about.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: If that is the will of this government …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I am listening intently to the member for Port Darwin. This is a very serious motion that he has brought forward against the minister for Education. The Leader of the Opposition is making interjections in a very bullying manner across the Chamber at the minister for Education. Just back off and let us deal with this, because you are getting a bit of form too, mate.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Leader of Government Business, resume your seat.
Mr MILLS: Madam Speaker, I made but a response to the Deputy Chief Minister who accused me of bending the truth. If the member, who is far closer to the Deputy Chief Minister than I am, I think we need to question her motives and her capacity to comprehend what the truth in fact is.
Madam SPEAKER: Attorney-General, resume your seat. There have been a number of interjections, none of which I was actually able to hear but there were clearly things happening across the Chamber. I would appreciate it if we could just keep the interjections to a minimum. This is a very serious motion, the most serious motion which has been before me as the Speaker. I ask the member for Port Darwin to continue, bearing in mind Standing Order 51.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I am mindful of the seriousness and the gravitas that surrounds this motion. It is for that reason that I am choosing my words very carefully as we proceed here tonight. As I was saying, if the evidence of such an investigation did find that the minister was guilty of misleading this House, it would lead to some very serious repercussions for the minister. If, however, the government chooses not to take this opportunity to comfort Territorians with a full and open investigation into this matter, then a cloud will not only hang over the integrity of the minister from now until the time she leaves this place, that cloud will grow into a thunderstorm that hangs over the head of the whole government and all those who vote against this motion.
This is not a call to condemn the minister at all. This is a call to have the matter investigated so we all, including yourself, Madam Speaker, and including all Territorians, may be comforted in that a proper process was held within the rules of the parliamentary system which led to all information in relation to this matter becoming available.
Surely, that is not too much to ask. Surely, if the minister and the member for Arafura has absolutely nothing to hide and stands by her denials today, then she would welcome this opportunity for exoneration with open arms.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms LAWRIE (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, the matter of referral of a member of the Assembly to the Privileges Committee is amongst the most serious actions a member of the Assembly can take in this House. Matters referred to the Privileges Committee are required to be of such importance that the very operation of the Assembly may be threatened unless the matter is dealt with immediately. That is why a referral to the Privileges Committee can take precedence in the business of the Assembly following appropriate consideration by the Speaker. Members must consider the matter to be so grave that all other business is put aside for that moment.
The referral proposed by the member for Port Darwin fails that most important test. The referral he makes is lightweight and, importantly, without substance. For someone who prides himself on being able to prosecute a case, he must be starting to feel now that perhaps he has failed.
Essentially, he proposes that the minister for Education has a different view of events to that of a journalist. That assertion does not make a case to refer a member to the Privileges Committee. We all have respect for the views and opinions of journalists. Indeed, as a former member of the fourth estate and now as a politician, I know well that we exchange vigorous opinions which are put forcefully and often disagreed with. Put simply, because a journalist writes something, even if it appears in published form, it does not count as evidence of misleading this House.
The journalist, in this case, has her facts wrong. In her article, she says the minister claims she accompanied her daughter to a medical appointment on the afternoon of 21 September. The minister made no such assertion. The 21st was a Sunday. There were no teachers on protest outside Parliament House that Sunday, and the minister did not visit the salon on a Sunday. The minister has categorically rejected what the journalist had said. She said so in parliament today.
The opposition has spent two Question Times and a want of confidence motion, trying to show the minister has a case to answer about going to a beauty salon. She has clearly shown there is no case to answer. As the minister herself says, the opposition is continuing to take a very high - bordering on unhealthy - level of interest in the personal life of the minister and her family.
The member for Port Darwin has also moved to refer the minister to the Privileges Committee for ‘… failing to meet with Territory teachers during recent industrial action …’ …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! That quote is not complete. The actual quote the minister should be using is about ‘… her reasons for failing to meet …’ with the teachers during recent industrial action. I do not mind having the debate and I do not mind my arguments being challenged, but to change the meaning of the motion by selective quoting is bordering on dishonesty.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Minister, please continue.
Ms LAWRIE: I am happy to include ‘about her reasons’ because I have been talking about that.
The member opposite would lead us to believe that going to the beauty salon is a heinous crime because the minister is not meeting with the teachers in the Education EBA. That is wrong, and wrong in fact. The minister has met with the teachers’ union during the EBA dispute - the long-running EBA dispute - even though it was not her portfolio responsibility to meet with the teachers; it is the Minister for Pubic Employment who deals with the EBA. I know that. I am the former Minister for Public Employment who met with teachers’ representatives during the EBA dispute just as the now Minister for Public Employment meets the teachers’ representatives of the union during the EBA dispute.
It is just another example of how the member for Port Darwin does not understand how government works.
The member for Port Darwin’s motion fails on all counts; it is inaccurate and without substance.
The person I believe should be condemned for this motion today in the Chamber is the Leader of the Opposition. Over the past two days, he has raked over personal matters relating to the Education minister. He has made accusations about her family that he has failed to substantiate. His behaviour has been of the lowest order. The level of personal attacks and abuse he has hurled at the minister for Education, I believe, has no place in this parliament. This is a place for robust debate on the issues that are of concern to Territorians. When we get into personal issues of members, I believe this brings the parliament into disrepute. Hopefully, next week the opposition will stick to the important issues rather than personal attacks.
I listened carefully to the quotes the member for Port Darwin attributed to the minister for Education. Yes – and I paraphrase - essentially he was accurate: she took her daughter to a doctor’s appointment, and then she took her daughter to a beauty salon, and she sat in that salon. Then, the minister clarified even further - which he seems to think is an issue - the next day and said: ‘I did not get a treatment’. The Natasha Robinson article had appeared in The Australian, so the minister quite clearly came in here and said: ‘No, I did not get a treatment’. She is not setting out to mislead the Housel; she has not misled the House. She is saying what she did. We have Natasha Robinson’s view, with no evidence, nothing.
The Minister for Education and Training is one of the most intelligent woman I have ever met, and I have met a lot of women over the years, and I am a very big fan of women, and do not worry, I like blokes too, they are all good. She is not foolish enough to walk in here and say something about a beauty salon treatment, for Christ’s sakes …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! There is a standing order in relation to using the name of Christ in a derogatory fashion.
Ms LAWRIE: I withdraw ‘for Christ’s sakes’, and I apologise if I have offended any member by using that reference.
Why on earth are we expected to entertain this kangaroo court, this waste, and delving into beauty salons, over something that very clearly is the minister’s word against Natasha Robinson’s?
I will tell you how, from the journalist’s perspective, this works. The minister is saying: ‘Well no, actually, that report is wrong. What has been reported did not occur like that’. Well, a journo worth her salt will follow up if they have even the slightest shred, and if they can stack that up, a journo worth her salt will follow it up. And as we all know, we are absolutely under the scrutiny of the media, as we should be, but we do not need the kangaroo court approach in this Assembly on a personal issue of going somewhere with your daughter.
Even if you try to delve within the layers of it, it does not materially or immaterially affect the teachers’ EBA. The teachers’ EBA is a matter for the Cabinet that we consult with our Caucus about, which involves key discussions between the Chief Minister, the Minister for Public Employment, the Treasurer and the Minister for Education and Training. It does not affect any substance of the teachers’ EBA, even if you take the ludicrous line of the importance of a beauty salon visit.
The minister has twice in this Chamber, in Question Time, on the public record, with the Internet, live, streaming out to the public, categorically explained she did not have a waxing treatment - twice. We had a want of confidence motion on this and, again, the minister has told the truth. Now, you choose to believe a journalist in the article in The Australian, who said that it all happened on a Sunday.
Madam Speaker, as parliamentarians, we put up with a lot, and there is a reason for that. We have an enormous privilege and opportunity to do great things for the people of the Territory, and for that, we put up with much. We put up with a lot of intrusion into our lives that people in other walks of life would never have to put up with. Quite frankly, I cannot imagine another workplace trawling over the beauty salon issue the way we have through two Question Times and a want of confidence motion and now a motion for the Privileges Committee. This is getting extreme in the response and overreaction of the opposition.
Well, enough is enough. I have worked alongside the minister for Education, the member for Arafura, from the day I was elected to this parliament. I knew her before that when we were both candidates. I know she is not a fool. She is highly intelligent and what she says she comes in here and says with full understanding of the importance of telling the truth in this House. I know that. I know the woman. I know the woman well.
I do not need some kangaroo court. If there was a matter of importance to the Territory that we had to deal with regarding a minister, that is when you look at Privileges. But beauty salon, waxings - where are we going here? What is this about? Should I start thinking about when I go to the hairdresser or not? What is this about? Is this some sort of strange voyeurism that we want to get into on who is getting waxings and who is going to beauticians?
This is bizarre. Can we stop with the bizarre and get back to the issues; back to the issues that affect the lives of Territorians. We are not standing here and saying that all is good in the Territory and we can just coast along through this term of government. We do expect and understand that there will be robust debate in this Chamber over the issues which affect Territorians’ lives, as we have had robust debate in the Chamber today and the days since the third term.
We do not have to muckrake people’s personal lives; that is not serving Territorians well. That is not changing one iota the living conditions or the opportunities for Territorians. It serves no good purpose. I do not live in a perfect world. I have probably gone to hairdressers when I should have been at work - but that is because I work all the time. When are you not working? That is what you do as a pollie.
I remember when I was first elected I asked the Clerk: ‘Where is the bit in the RTD about annual leave?’ He said: ‘You do not have annual leave; you just take your leave when you can’. I had a child and I did not have maternity leave; that is the job. You take that in the job; you work pretty well all the time. There are times in your working life as a politician that you have to stop; it does not matter what is going on. You have to stop and you have to tend to what is going on. The only time I think any one of us does that is when it is family. Sometimes you do not necessarily even get the chance to always be there for your family.
Madam Speaker, there has been no evidence. It is an article written by Natasha Robinson. That is it. Facts are wrong in the article, the date is wrong. That is it. If she is such a fine journalist she will follow up - as the media here have. This issue will not go away if we pass this motion tonight. None of us believes that. The media will chase it down until it is finally at its full stop, end point. That is what happens when you are in public life. We have no problem with that, we understand that. I do have an issue with how low a bar, and how flimsy an approach, and how ridiculous an approach the opposition want to take towards a Privileges Committee referral. We have an issue with that. There is no evidence to support that.
Madam Speaker, we are not supporting this motion. I move that the question be put.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, this is an outrage. What are you afraid of? You are hiding. This is a disgrace.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order! Honourable members, I remind you of Standing Order 71: no debate is permitted on the question being put.
The question is that the question be now put.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes: 12 Noes: 10
Ms Anderson Mr Bohlin
Dr Burns Ms Carney
Mr Gunner Mr Chandler
Mr Hampton Mr Conlan
Mr Henderson Mr Elferink
Mr Knight Mr Mills
Ms Lawrie Ms Purick
Mr McCarthy Mr Styles
Ms Scrymgour Mr Tollner
Mr Vatskalis Mr Westra van Holthe
Ms Walker
Mr Wood
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: The question now is that the motion be agreed to.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes: 10 Noes: 12
Mr Bohlin Ms Anderson
Ms Carney Dr Burns
Mr Chandler Mr Gunner
Mr Conlan Mr Hampton
Mr Elferink Mr Henderson
Mr Mills Mr Knight
Ms Purick Ms Lawrie
Mr Styles Mr McCarthy
Mr Tollner Ms Scrymgour
Mr Westra van Holthe Mr Vatskalis
Ms Walker
Mr Wood
Motion negatived accordingly.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, tonight I would like to talk in a little more detail about the storm that occurred in Alice Springs. There was a ministerial report on Tuesday about it, but the opposition only has two minutes to respond and that was not sufficient time, obviously, given the gravity of the storm and the effects of it.
The storm, only a few weeks ago, was extraordinary. In a very short period of time it created an amazing amount of damage throughout Alice Springs. It is remarkable there were no reports of admissions to the hospital. However, damage to property was extensive to say the least.
I remember having lunch in the mall on that day and seeing the storm come through and trees in the mall falling over. The mall was pretty much blocked. After the storm finished, I went walking around the CBD and saw firsthand the immediate aftermath of the storm. My office is in the CBD and that area had the power cut off for a significant period of time. I am aware of the businesses in the CBD which were affected. There was tree damage in the CBD, power outages and, throughout the suburbs of Alice Springs, there was significant damage to people’s homes.
For my own part, I travelled extensively around my electorate the following day thinking that I would, as I did, talk to constituents and offer any help I could. What was interesting about the storm was the immediate response by so many. I pay tribute to the Alice Springs Town Council, in particular, for the great work they did.
Before going to the efforts of the council, I would like to congratulate Alan Whyte from Power and Water; Bert Hofer, Commander of Police, and Rob Romaldi and his team at the Fire Service. They were the ones who were pretty much in the public eye and were coordinating what was, in essence, a mini-disaster that struck Alice Springs.
I also pay tribute to the ABC. I do not know whether the current tariff is 8 a day, but we do get great value from our ABC. Historically, in times of crisis in this country, the ABC always steps up and serves as a marvellous communicator and a communications system for Australians throughout the country and, in this particular case, everyone in Alice Springs who had a battery radio, as I did.
I also congratulate the Territory Insurance Office. I know that they had people working very long and very hard. I made an insurance claim because of storm damage at my house, but that was very minor when compared to trees crashing into homes, collapsing roofs and so on, that I saw around the town.
I also thank my colleague, the member for Braitling, for an action he undertook off his own bat, as it were. After a day-and-a-half, or perhaps a couple of days, when it became clear that there were certain parts of his electorate, and mine, where the power was not restored – and, of course, it was restored relatively quickly elsewhere – but when it became clear that some pockets of the town did not have power, the member for Braitling negotiated with Coles Supermarket and the Salvation Army to obtain $20 vouchers for people who had food damaged in their fridges, and those vouchers were made available. So, good on him for thinking of such an idea and publicising it as widely as he possibly could.
It is also important to comment on the way not only those I have mentioned, stepped up, but the way the town stepped up generally. I was actually locked out of my office because I have electronic access to my office, and I, probably like many others, was locked out. I really had no choice but to go home. When I drove home I saw civilians directing traffic – that was pretty amazing. I saw police officers directing traffic as well. In a very real sense, people stepped up.
I believe the people who really stepped up were those who work at the Alice Springs Town Council. This is certainly not by way of a criticism of any individual or organisation, but I am just not sure if the Alice Springs Town Council has received the thanks and praise that it, and everyone who works for the council, deserves. I take this opportunity to read from some information provided to me at my request from the CEO at the Alice Springs Town Council, Mr Rex Mooney. I contacted him on Monday or Tuesday of this week and asked him if he could assist me for the purposes of talking in this parliament tonight. I know that all members of the Legislative Assembly, regardless of where they live, join with me in congratulating the staff of the Alice Springs Town Council. I will read parts of the material Rex Mooney provided to me.
First, the depot team, Craig Pankhurst, Manager Works; Scott Allen, Supervisor of Parks and Gardens; and Trevor Packham, the Supervisor Works:
As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, and indeed other members of the Assembly know, the Masters Games was just a few short weeks away but the depot team leaders, namely those I mentioned, and their team worked tirelessly to restore Alice Springs to its former natural beauty whilst always prioritising public safety. Their hard work certainly made a difference, and I can vouch for that. When I was driving around my electorate and walking around the CBD the following day I saw council workers loading tree trunks and branches into trucks and I made a point of talking to them.
There were a number of compliments received from Masters Games participants who had come from all over the country, who marvelled not only at the amazing quality and range of sporting facilities Alice Springs boasts, but also of the total lack of telltale signs of the destruction they had seen on their televisions a few weeks previously.
Thank you to Craig Pankhurst, Scott Allen and Trevor Packham for their outstanding leadership and their hard work, and also to the many people who worked with them. I also thank all the directors at the council, in particular Mr Greg Buxton, the Director of Technical Services. He was the acting CEO at the time of the storm. All directors hit the ground running immediately following the storm, led by Greg, coordinating council’s response teams; helping nearby damaged businesses; braving the still-ending storm with their work crews; juggling the flood of incoming calls to customer service lines and making sure all council staff were able to contact friends and family and get home safety.
Many of us forget that those at the front line, whether they are Emergency Services or, in this case, council workers, have homes to go to as well. I know pretty much all over town people were very anxious to go home to see what sort of damage, if any, occurred at their place. Given the timing as well, I know that many parents were keen, particularly those with primary-aged schoolchildren, to get to their school and see how their school had fared in the storm and to check on their families, such was the ferocity of the storm.
The calmness and leadership during the immediate aftermath of the storm really does speak volumes about the personal attributes of Greg Buxton and his team, and also noting their personal concern about their homes, or their friends or family. Their capacity to get on with the job deserves thunderous applause.
It is important that I also refer to a very important initiative that the council undertook as a result of the storm. The council’s landfill site was naturally heavily utilised during the initial storm response period. The Alice Springs Town Council acted promptly to aid residents, waiving all landfill fees, both residential and commercial, for the entire weekend following the storm – that is Saturday, 27 September and Sunday, 28 September – to allow residents and business owners to dump all manner of green waste and storm debris as effectively as possible. Further, commercial green waste fees were waived for two weeks following the storm – that is Monday, 22 September to Sunday, 5 October. Residential green waste is always free.
Significantly, during this period, I am advised that 1000 tonnes of green waste and just over three tonnes of storm-damaged goods, that is not green waste, were dumped at the council’s landfill site. During a regular week the council receives approximately 50 tonnes of green waste, pointing to in excess of 900 tonnes of extra green waste produced by the storm. That represents, I am advised, an 1800% increase during the two week period immediately following the storm on 22 September. For a relatively small town, for a small landfill site, it was a significant increase in landfill.
I congratulate, as I am sure all members will with me, the council for taking this initiative. After all the damage, all the trees and tree trunks, branches and other items of damage had to be taken somewhere. To throw the gates open, as it were, I thought was a good initiative and one that I know was appreciated by residents.
I also thank the customer service staff on the front counter at the Civic Centre. I believe they were inundated with calls and, as did their colleagues in council, they would have had concerns about their own homes and their own friends and families, but the customer service staff took the calls.
It was coincidental that the Mayor of Alice Springs was here earlier in the week. Damien Ryan, as the mayor, deserves congratulations as well. I was listening to ABC radio and there were regular reports from Alan Whyte and reports and interviews with Damien Ryan. In a crisis they are the people the residents of Alice Springs were looking to, to be informed about what was happening, and everyone gave the information as best they could in the circumstances. Given that I am paying particular attention to the Alice Springs Town Council, it is appropriate that I recognise the leadership of the mayor.
The total estimated cost of the storm to the Alice Springs Town Council at this stage is approximately $600 000. That is clearly an unexpected cost and a significant one. I do not know how the council proposes to deal with this, but I would like to think, in the event that council needed an injection of funds from the government, that the government would do the decent thing and assist.
Madam Deputy Speaker, it is important as a local member from Alice Springs, whose electorate was damaged and whose town was damaged, to place my comments on the record.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Deputy Speaker, at the last sittings I mentioned two upcoming events which I was looking forward to.
The Millner Primary School celebrated its 40th birthday on 19 September with an international and Indigenous food fair. It was a fantastic night made all the more memorable by the fantastic turnout of people who thoroughly enjoyed themselves. The staff, the parents, and the students excelled in providing outstanding food and entertainment, and nostalgia via the memorabilia over the past 40 years of the school history.
Mr Levy Sumaguewas also honoured on the night as a dedicated teacher who has spent over 36 years at Millner Primary School having taught in excess of 720 Territory kids. What a remarkable achievement! I should mention that it was the night of the major power outages associated with the Casuarina Substation and the school was in darkness. The kids, particularly the preschoolers, wanted to give a presentation with some song and dance and, unfortunately, there was no power. I went home and got my generator - I do have a generator; I have had one for a couple of years - and I took it there. It was a bit hard navigating with no traffic lights, but the generator was started up and we had some fairly basic power from my very little generator which was greatly appreciated by the school and I received many thanks from the school council. It was a pleasure to do it. Even though the night was improvised, without full power, everyone had a great time and it was a great community get together.
Another great event I mentioned last sittings was the 2008 NT BMX titles which were held at the Jingili BMX Club with pre-titles on Wednesday, 1 October and the titles on Friday, 3 October and Saturday, 4 October. The committee did a fantastic job of ensuring the championships were a great success. I congratulate the president, Brooke Ellison; vice president, Jai Mertin; secretary and canteen manager, Jacqui Dobson; public officer, Jason Eecen; treasurer, Helen Pitts; race registrar, Lisa Coon; and riders’ rep, Vanessa King.
The 2008 Jingili winners were Gavan Ascoli, Open Mountain Bike; Samuel Ewing, Junior Boys Mountain Bike; Ryan York-Morris, first in the 8-year-old Boys; Shannan Stacey, 8-year-old Girls; Paige Barcroft, Junior Girl Cruiser and 12/13 Girls; Paull McLaughlin, 30+ Men’s Cruiser; Matt Ellison, 9-year-old Boys; Jake Tunney, 10-year-old Boys; Gavin Cubillo, 12-year-old Boys; Bradley Anthes, 13-year-old Boys; and Matthew Juster, Open Men. Congratulations to all the riders, especially the Jingili BMX Club for their great participation and success.
Two other newsworthy events which have come to my notice are fundraisers. I am always amazed at how our community gets together to find ways to help those in need. The Jingili Primary School continues to support and raise funds to help out the Lea Lau School in East Timor. The students of Jingili recently raised $200 to purchase books, etcetera, for the children at Lea Lau by holding a trash and treasure stall. The old saying ‘your trash, my treasure’ sure rings true for the young kids in East Timor.
The Relay for Life was a special event at which I was honoured to be able to start the teams on their way. The fundraiser was held at Gardens Oval on Friday, 26 September and over 43 teams comprising over 500 walkers helped celebrate those survivors who have beaten cancer and to remember those who have died. The teams raised – and it is an unbelievable figure – over $195 000 towards helping cancer support and services. All in this House take our hats off to the Relay for Life and their supporters.
Among the teams was one from Casuarina Senior College; they walked around the oval for many hours. Their contribution to the effort raised $1200 towards the final tally. I congratulate the students and staff members who did such a fantastic job. Well done to Lawrence Jong, Fabio Lee Serra, Laura Nutton, Louise Butcher, Neville Baluyot, Sarah Chau, Sam Cooper, Alice Cotton, Michaela Da Costa, Ella Deans, Catrin Ffoulkes, Sean Kennedy, Jennifer Lee, Helen Raikkonen, Amanda Riley, Shana Stringer, Stefan Tam and Rhys Thomas, together with staff Team Members: Shelley Worthington, Kylie Murphy, Cindy Implemans and Carleen Dreghorn. Your support for cancer suffers and survivors is admirable. I understand there is already keen support for next year’s relay.
I take great pride in the students in my electorate, so it is with pleasure that I mention the following students who have achieved exceptional results from the Australian Maths Trust Competition recently held at Casuarina Senior College. Paul Bandarian and Patrick McCann were awarded High Distinctions; Alice Cotton, Angus Fuller, Thompson Lam, Lachlan Prescott, Amanda Schmidt and Ali Khan received Distinctions; and Jesse Chow, Chantal La and Jasmine Tremblay, were all awarded a Credit. Also of note were Tiana Haste and Tim Farrell who participated in the competition run by the Mathematics Teachers Association of the NT. Tiana and Tim have been nominated as reserves for the NT’s representative to the National Summer School of Mathematics to be held in Canberra next January. Well done to these students.
As a local member, we are sometimes asked to help out with funding. It gave me great pleasure to assist the Jingili Primary School Beat Choir to hire a bus to get them to the Darwin Entertainment Centre for rehearsals. Amber Muir-McKay went to the trouble of personally writing to me on behalf of the Student Representative Council, and I was more than happy to assist. I was then fortunate to attend the school assembly recently, at the invitation of Claudia Lee on behalf of the Jingili Beat Choir, and heard the choir perform Eagle Rock. They were absolutely fantastic.
I turn to matters related to my portfolio areas: Mrs Janice McGovern retired from the Department of Health and Families after more than 21 years of service on 3 October 2008. Madam Deputy Speaker, as the member for Nhulunbuy I know you join with me, and I am sure you also speak about Janice in your adjournments.
Janice commenced at the Gove District Hospital as a Registered Nurse in March 1987 and moved to Patient Services in 2001. Initially, she worked as a Registered Nurse on Ward 1, and was highly regarded for her clinical skills and professionalism. Janice had two breaks in her nursing career to have children, and was welcomed back on her return. Janice then decided to have a change of career and applied for a position in Patient Services and Medical Records. Janice has been an invaluable and highly respected member of our staff, and her medical knowledge was a distinct advantage in her later role. Her colleagues will all miss Janice for her fairness, friendliness and corporate knowledge. We all wish her well in retirement.
As members of this place would know, Mr Geoff Hackett-Jones recently retired as the Northern Territory Parliamentary Counsel. While Parliamentary Counsel falls under the Chief Minister’s administrative responsibility, the Department of Justice probably has more contact with the Office of Parliamentary Counsel than any other agency. This reflects the sheer volume of legislation in the Attorney-General’s portfolio. Staff have reported to me that Geoff was extremely hard-working, but always maintained a very calm and courteous demeanour, even under extreme pressure - and we know that there is extreme pressure in the Parliamentary Counsel offices. There are deadlines to meet, and a lot of pressure. The quality of his work is reflected in the numerous bills presented to parliament over the past two years. I always enjoyed conversations with Geoff, and I thank him for his efforts and wish him well in his retirement.
I recently visited David Lisson and met some of his hard-working team at the office of the Solicitor for the Northern Territory. I was also pleased to thank Anita Kneebone, who runs the Aboriginal Land section, and other members of her team, who have done excellent work for the Northern Territory over the years in relation to native title claims and in other portfolio areas when I had been minister, such as Lands minister. Anita has really assisted me and briefed me very well. I was only able to wave hello in passing to Ingrid and Tom, as they were in what seemed to be a complex legal discussion; and I did not want to disturb them. Apparently there was some discussion before I arrived about whether staff should tidy their offices, which was overruled in favour of enabling me to see their real working life and the towering files that are part of their day-to-day work.
I especially thank the Proceeds of Crime Team for explaining their work. I was pleased to know how successful they are given the challenges they are presented with in contributing to ensuring that crime does not pay in the Northern Territory.
I congratulate all Royal Darwin Hospital staff who worked incredibly hard on their usual shifts during the recent power outages, and those staff who came in to assist. I particularly thank the engineering staff from Royal Darwin Hospital who, in association with local contractors in the Department of Planning and Infrastructure, have devised and implemented contingency plans for Royal Darwin Hospital’s electrical supply systems. Of course, Royal Darwin Hospital and Darwin Private Hospital are currently powered by the Casuarina Substation. They have both experienced, on a couple of recent occasions, prolonged interruptions for power, and needed to resort to the use of back-up generators. In every incidence staff members have worked tirelessly to ensure that patient safety was paramount.
When I visited Royal Darwin Hospital following the outages, I met with senior nursing, medical and maintenance and engineering staff, many of whom had been up all night. I conveyed the government’s appreciation of their hard work and dedication to maintaining high health care standards. I am sure all members join me in thanking those hard-working maintenance people at Royal Darwin Hospital and all staff at Royal Darwin Hospital for their hard work and commitment during the outages.
Members: Hear, hear!
Dr BURNS: On Wednesday, 22 October in Question Time, the Leader of the Opposition said that I had made the following comment in relation to Mr Peter Campos, and I quote from Hansard:
That was the quote that was attributed to me by the Leader of the Opposition. It is seen in quotes in Hansard. However, at the time, I raised a point of order that the Leader of the Opposition had completely misrepresented what I had said on this matter. I have reviewed the Hansard record and recordings of interviews that I have done in relation to this matter, and I have never made the comment attributed to me by the Leader of the Opposition.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I ask that the Leader of the Opposition not represent me in such a fashion in future. There was debate in here tonight about standards of honesty and integrity, etcetera. Here is a blatant example of the Leader of the Opposition misrepresenting me and saying that I had said something which I have never said. He needs to clean up his act a little. If he is going to quote someone, or quote from Hansard, or directly from an interview where someone has been directly quoted, he should not attribute things to an individual that have never been said.
Mr STYLES: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! Can I ask the minister to table the document that he actually was referring to then?
Dr BURNS: My verbatim speech will be in the Hansard. I can table the Hansard record where, on page 1, of the Hansard Question Paper:
Here it is in the Hansard record. You can see it for yourself, member for Sanderson. I am simply quoting what the Leader of the Opposition said in here in Question Time on Wednesday. It is on the Hansard record. I have been through the Hansard records of that time. I have also been through the voice recordings I made during interviews with the media at that time. I have certainly never said what was attributed to me by the Leader of the Opposition.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Johnston. That document is tabled.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Deputy Speaker, tonight I speak about my recent trip to Alice Springs. I went to Alice Springs Friday week ago. I drove down and caught up with a number of people at the Masters Games. I was fortunate to get there to play my favourite sport - basketball. I played three or four games in the Masters competition. It was quite enjoyable and a big challenge. There were a number of teams from all over the country and a massive number of women’s teams.
I was also very fortunate to be picked up by one of the Alice Springs cricket teams, the Westies Mob. I played three games of cricket. They were a great bunch of people. I visited the club house with them and got to know some of the people in Alice Springs from the Westies Cricket Club.
As mentioned by the member for Stuart and the member for Nelson, I also managed to get out on the football field on Wednesday night. I cannot say I kicked the ball around, I cannot say I took a mark - I can say I touched the ball! I had a bit of trouble gathering it in - in fact; I could not gather it in. It was my first game of football and I found it an enjoyable event to be involved in, irrespective of my lack of ability in that particular sport. I was quite amazed; they had a crowd of over 500 people turn up to watch that football game. For a field full of ‘has-beens’, so to speak, I thought it quite remarkable that so many people would come and watch. I was very fortunate to get around to a range of the other sporting events as well. I checked out the netball, softball, touch football, hockey, and baseball, and I am sure there were other sports I got to see as well.
Primarily, the reason I went to Alice Springs was not to play sport or to watch sport, but to understand the contribution the Alice Springs Masters Games makes to tourism in Central Australia. In that regard I was absolutely blown away with the number of people who come to Alice Springs and the amount of money those people spend in Alice Springs. I am very familiar with the Arafura Games which occurs here in Darwin, but what sets the Masters Games apart from the Arafura Games are the competitors themselves.
The Arafura Games, whilst not wanting to lessen their impact on the Top End, they do tend to be younger people, people quite often with very little means who turn up in Darwin and they are billeted with families and the like. In contrast, the Masters Games is obviously people of a greater age group, people generally - I would say generally - who have succeeded in life in their working careers and arrive in Alice Springs with money in their pockets, prepared to pay quite large amounts for accommodation, are prepared to use the restaurants and to spend money in the town. The Masters Games provides a fantastic injection for the Central Australian business community and tourism industries.
I had the opportunity to speak to a range of Alice Springs businesses and spent some time discussing issues with business people. The overwhelming feedback from those businesses was the 10 days of the Masters Games really is boom time for those businesses and they very much look forward to the Masters Games every two years. As far as tourism businesses are concerned, Central Australia is a beautiful spot and a tourism mecca for those 10 days while the Masters is on. Businesses and tourism businesses do very well in that period.
I was fortunate to catch up with Peter Greig, the Executive Officer of the Central Australia Tourism Industry Association. Peter took me on a tour of Alice Springs, and outlined some of the concerns that he and the tourism industry have in relation to Alice Springs, the social issues that occur there. I will not expand on them now, but it was a very enlightening trip. I thank Peter for the time he took out of his schedule to show me around. Additionally, Peter took me to an executive meeting of CATIA on the Wednesday. I was fortunate to meet executive members of the Central Australia tourism body and briefly discuss with them some of their concerns and what they want to see developed in Alice Springs. I am very grateful for the time CATIA could give me.
Likewise, I also had the opportunity to catch up with several of my parliamentary colleagues. I spent some time with the members for Araluen, Braitling, and Greatorex. They also took the time to explain to me some of the concerns they have about Alice Springs, and some of the aspirations and hopes they have for the township as well.
It was an extraordinarily worthwhile trip in the way it opened my eyes to the potential of Alice Springs, the way it opened my eyes to some of the wonderful things that go on in Alice Springs. In speaking to business people in Alice Springs, one thing I did notice was the serious decline in social problems. Many of the businesses and people I spoke to put much of that down to the National Emergency Response. I was told, in the last 12 months, Alice Springs had become a far more liveable place. I was told that by local residents, and by people in the business community who said that it has really made a positive impact in Alice Springs, and they would encourage that intervention to continue. That is food for thought in our future discussions about the National Emergency Response, and how that should be dealt with in the future.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, it was a wonderful trip, and an enlightening trip. The briefings I received from all the people I mentioned were very worthwhile. I personally thank the people of Alice Springs, the many thousands of people who turned up to Alice Springs, who took their business to Alice Springs and gave Alice Springs their custom. They did a great service for the township of Alice Springs. I feel it is very worthwhile putting those thoughts on the record tonight.
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I take this opportunity to thank the organisers of the Masters Games and those many volunteers who helped bring the whole sporting event together. Without those volunteers, nothing happens. Thanks to all those people who came to our beautiful town to participate in the different activities that we had in Alice Springs.
I congratulate the Alice Springs Town Council, and especially the Mayor, Damien Ryan, and all the other businesses and the people of Alice Springs. I believe the behaviour was of a certain standard during the Masters Games; they really behaved for all our visitors who came from the south, west, east, and north. I saw many of those people from Darwin on the plane coming home, and they really enjoyed themselves.
Tonight, I also thank the Tiwi Island Land Council who generously invited me to visit the magnificent Tiwi Islands on 15 October this year. It was truly a privilege to experience the extraordinary determination of the Tiwi Island leadership to make a difference in the lives of their community. They are people committed to success in the modern economy, without compromising their law and culture. It was also an honour to experience such gracious and welcoming hosts.
The primary purpose of the visit was to examine the forestry operations on the islands. My first stop on Melville Island was to the new Tiwi College. An extraordinary and groundbreaking educational institute is being built in this patch of paradise. There is simply not enough time tonight to go through everything that has been achieved so far, and everything that will be achieved in the future years by the students, staff and Tiwi elders associated with this secondary college. I extend my absolute admiration for the Tiwi College and everything it stands for. It is a beacon for the path of Indigenous education in the Territory.
I toured a number of the forestry blocks, and met Tiwi Islanders working for Great Southern Plantation, pruning trees, inspecting for termites, doing wildlife surveys and training on the job. These were young people, 18, 19 and 20, and they were absolutely enjoying themselves. I do not want to pass comment on the breaches of the forestry on the buffer zones which have received a good deal of media in the last week. We need to talk about the Tiwi Islands in a positive way, to ensure that we encourage these people to continue on the path they are on, educating their children, and making sure that they are talking about economic growth.
I witnessed, firsthand, a very strong and respectful partnership between the Tiwi Island Land Council and Great Southern Plantation. I witnessed a company and landowners who share a commitment to break the bonds of welfare dependency and establish an economic base in the Tiwi Islands. I witnessed a strong commitment to reach a sustainable balance between economic development and protection of biodiversity.
We stopped for lunch at Snake Bay at the Melville Island Fishing Club and I was honoured to receive a gift of books on the Tiwi Islands from the land council. I was also treated to a tour of the various initiatives being undertaken in the township, particularly by the Sports and Social Club which has established new visitor accommodation and new restaurant facilities. I also visited the nursery, which is supplying native plants for rehabilitation, as well as fruit and vegetables for the local community. The community of Snake Bay was pretty as a picture, and I ended up buying some material and skirts from that little community.
I had the privilege of visiting Garden Point to inspect the facilities of Port Melville. I also paid a visit to Sister Barbara and had a cup of tea with her.
Time does not permit me to acknowledge all those I met on a jam-packed visit to the Tiwi Islands, but I would like to say a special thanks to Land Council Chairman, Robert Tipungwuti and Tiwi Island elder, Cyril Rioli, who were the senior hosts for my visit and are such passionate advocates for the future of their glorious community. It is wonderful to see elders of the past talking about the future and moving the next generation of Tiwi people forward with a really positive outlook and making sure that education is at the forefront of these children’s minds. We need our children to understand that education is the key to knowledge.
I want to inform the House about an event of the highest cultural significance that I attended last weekend in the remote community of Kintore, the capital of Pintupi people, a place very close to my heart. The occasion was the launch of a magnificent new book, a labour of love and a definitive work of reference - Lives of the Papunya Tula Artists, compiled and written Dr Vivien Johnson, and newly published by IAD Press of Alice Springs.
This book sets new standards in its biographies of the desert painters whose efforts paved the way for the Indigenous art movement that we see today. Old men who inspired me in my childhood years in Papunya are captured in its pages. They were artists, but before that they were men of the law, and they were figures who filled me with admiration, respect and even fear. I see them in the pages of Dr Johnson’s book. I am lifted by the sense of privilege that I knew them and that I can read about their paintings and their life experiences, and come to understand them from new perspectives. Mick Wallankari Tjakamarra, Paddy Carroll Tjungurrayi, Uta Uta Tjangala, and Old Tutuma Tjapangati - these people are all once more brought back before our eyes. These men were masters of their landscape and their art. They were the kings of the desert universe.
In the later sections of the book, brief accounts are also given of the lives of younger artists. It was Vivien Johnson’s aim to include all painters who had worked for Papunya Tula, and I myself am in there, with a picture from younger days when I was full of hope for the remote world and its progress. I am overjoyed to find myself included in such company.
On the drive out to Kintore on Saturday from Papunya, I had the company of my two beloved aunties, Topsy and Daisy Nakamarra, and all the way along the corrugated road we spoke of the old times and sang to the country as we went. When the twin mountains behind Kintore became visible at last ahead of us, we felt almost as if we were entering a purer world.
In the community, the artists had already begun gathering at the new painting studio opened there a year-and-a-half ago by the Papunya Tula Artists company. There were old people and children and, as usual, when you have food and people gathering, all the camp dogs were there too. There were also many men and women whose efforts over the years have been vital to the endurance of Pintupi society and the success of the desert painting movement. I name only a few: the linguist, Ken Hansen; the Papunya Tula field worker from earlier days, John Kean; and artists, Marina Strocchi, whose work was instrumental in encouraging Western Desert women to paint; Vivien Johnson herself; and above all others, Daphne Williams, who ran Papunya Tula for years with a wise and compassionate heart.
It was an occasion for smiles and for tears as well as so many of the great artists who painted for Papunya Tula have now passed on - too many. It is impossible for me, as a desert woman, to visit a community like Kintore today and not feel some sadness, some regret, for what might have been had government policies been better crafted to help ensure the viability of such remote embattled places.
My talks with my sisters and my brothers there leave me even more strongly convinced that a wholesale approach to remote Aboriginal society is now needed. There was a sense of crisis abroad in the community on several fronts. Education there is failing, health is poor, nutrition is poor, and far graver than all these things it is now plain that the culture of my people, our backbone, is itself in some jeopardy. The art of the desert is one aspect of that culture, and the time is also at hand for reconsideration of the so-called art industry in Indigenous communities. Whose end does it serve? What is it for?
When I launched Vivien’s book at the Kintore studio, my thoughts were mixed. It was a day of triumph for the men and women gathered there. They could see how glorious the art tradition is. They could at last place its evolution through the generations of what it had brought to them - fulfilment, prosperity. It was hard for me not to consider the difference between the fate of the art and the fate of the artist. Can desert society thrive and can the art of the desert continue to thrive?
The art in Vivien’s book is not just an art of beautiful images. It is the desert people, it is us, it is our being, an x-ray of our souls. It is based on countless years of tradition and song cycles, on generations of walking in the desert and loving and caring for our country.
All those years of traditional life built up the beauty of our culture. Our culture has been spread out to the world, and I often ask myself: ‘How much is left? What is there that we can pass on to our children? What have we kept back for ourselves? How are we going to keep our law and culture strong so the art can keep flowing?’ We need to stop and think hard about our future at this time where new policies to shape and direct desert society are being written down, and when we need to take control of the way our culture is sent out into the world. If there is a code of conduct for dealing in desert art, we will be the ones who write it. This is regulating people and undermining the people as if to say: ‘Well, you people do not understand, so we will make this code of conduct for you’, without consultation with the people on the ground.
I am not simply talking about money questions, although it is obvious to everyone that large sums of money have been made from Aboriginal art. The deeper issue is that our culture has become an industry for outsiders. Now we must become the ones who decide its future. That should have already happened over the last 40 years. It is a source of great concern to me that there are no young desert people at the helm of the Indigenous art world. Why have they not been trained and encouraged? It is hard for us to look at the art market; a market based on traffic in our traditions, and not be worried by what we see.
How will things be in 10 more years when old masters of the desert tradition are gone? How will things be when the last outstations have been closed from the lack of government funding, and all our people have been gathered into a few towns and core communities? You can see that from the desert point of view there is something sad and tragic about all the beauty collected in Vivien’s majestic book for mainstream Australians in the cities to admire.
Even as our life in the bush is under threat, I think back to the men and women who figure in Vivien’s pages as the subject of her ‘lives’. How can we keep their culture strong? How can we honour them and honour the law that gave birth to all this splendour?
I remember the old men who taught me. I loved them and I listened to them. I have tried to keep the law and culture they have passed on to me alive, and to live it. It teaches me, it shapes me. I hope that we, both desert Aboriginal people and our friends in the wider world, find a way to craft the right policies for the future, to preserve and respect our tradition, and to help our society grow in the right direction and become strong.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, these were some of the thoughts that came to me as I travelled through my country bound for the delights of a parliamentary fortnight here in Darwin.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, this evening I would like to talk about a few things which have happened in my electorate.
The Gove Peninsula Surf Lifesaving Club was established in 1974 and since then has consistently patrolled the town beach in Nhulunbuy every Sunday morning from May until October, providing a safe beach environment for the town and regular patrols of the surrounding beaches. The club has a large membership base and a number of volunteers who tirelessly provide an important service in such areas as Emergency Search and Rescue and medical services; delivery of surf safety information through community education programs; management of youth development programs; promotion of health lifestyle programs; and provision of preventative education to ensure beach visitors avoid the dangers associated with beach activities - generally speaking, a surf sports area for both young and older people.
The Northern Territory government was very pleased, through former member, Syd Stirling, to announce in June that a grant of $150 000 was forthcoming to assist with the upgrade of the Surf Club’s facility which is in need of much repair.
Gove Surf Lifesaving has also assisted Surf Lifesaving Northern Territory in providing training in lifesaving skills in an exciting venture in extending their services to the Yirrkala community and Laynhapuy homelands, in promoting surf lifesaving to Indigenous youth. In fact, Tony Snelling, the CEO of Surf Lifesaving Northern Territory, tells me that this is a pilot program for the NT and has been developed as a result of the high number of drowning of Indigenous people. The program kicked off in September and attracted many eager participants.
I attended the 2008 Gove Surf Lifesaving Presentations on Saturday, 11 October. It was held on the lawns of the Surf Club under a beautiful moonlit sky, in what is surely one of Nhulunbuy’s most picturesque locations. That evening we had a power outage as well. It certainly did not stop proceedings, slowed down maybe for a short while, but sitting out there under an almost full moon and with some car headlights switched on we managed to get through until the power came back on.
I congratulate the following recipients of the major awards which were presented that evening. The Female Surf Rescue Certificate to Emma Whelan; Male Surf Rescue Certificate to Will Pickett; the Female Bronze Medallion to Brinkley Dennerley; and the Male Bronze Medallion to Sam Putland. The Young Achiever of the Year was Emma Whelan; the Under 15 Award also went to Emma Whelan; and the Under 17 Award to Sam Putland; and the Under 19 Award to Monika O’Hanlon. The recipients I have just named are all students at Nhulunbuy High School.
The adult recipients were: Volunteer of the Year was Pat Mayer. Pat works tirelessly as the Volunteer Licensee at the Gove Peninsula Surf Lifesaving Club, and basically in all spare hours that is where you will find Pat Mayer. The Most Patrol Hours went to Bernie Whelan. Bernie works tirelessly for Surf Lifesaving. In the patrol season, she had tallied something like 96 hours in patrol hours, which is fantastic. Rookie of the Year went to Ange Morris, and Lifesaver of the Year also went to Bernie Whelan. Life Membership was awarded to Sheena Rudolph and Trevor Webb, and the President’s Awards were presented to Chris and Sally Putland, and Steve and Deanne Castelli in recognition of their hard work over the year; not to mention many years before that. Congratulations also to President Greg Whelan and his committee on a fantastic year serving our region in a very constructive and most important way. It is a club that I value, as does the rest of the community.
Continuing on with the theme of community service groups, on Monday 13 October in Nhulunbuy, I attended the annual inspection of St John Ambulance adult and cadet divisions. I was pleased to meet St John Commissioner, Mr Steve Peers; Mr Mike Mooney, Chairman of the Board; Mr Ross Coburn, CEO; and Ms Gywn Balch, the Volunteer Coordinator, who were all visiting from Darwin for this occasion. The evening’s program included a number of presentations including the presentation of Preliminary First Aid Certificates, as well as Family Care Certificates to the cadets.
I commend Mandy Paradise who has done an enormous amount of work in the last 18 months or so in restarting the cadet’s division with excellent support from Makaylia Bretag.
There were also some special awards presented amongst the cadets. Most Improved went to B’Naye Thackrah and Tiffany Christison. The Cadets Community Service award went to Kasey Baker; and Cadet of the Year went to Jonathon McBride. Amongst the adults, presentation of a Nine Year Bar for Service went to Makaylia Bretag; and presentation of a Three Year Bar for Service went to Reece Ravlich.
There was also a special presentation by a group of people who had participated in the Tour de Arnhem Land. By way of clarification, the Tour de Arnhem Land was a group of local mountain biking enthusiasts from Nhulunbuy. I recall there were probably about two dozen of them who planned and undertook a bike ride from Nhulunbuy to Jabiru along what is described as the Top Track. That is quite a long journey. I cannot remember exactly how far, but I would estimate it is probably at least 600 km; quite a considerable undertaking.
They did not do it just for the fun of it, although there was a lot of that, and a lot of beautiful scenery they passed through. They made it a fundraising exercise and the recipient of the funds raised was St John Ambulance. Remarkably, they raised $30 000. On this particular evening they took the opportunity to present that cheque to St John Ambulance volunteers. St John, in turn, announced that those funds, which were obviously most welcome, would be used to purchase a vehicle for use by St John Ambulance volunteers to enable them to get to and from functions where they are undertaking public duties; so that was fantastic.
The St John cadets attending that evening were Ashleigh Baker; Aubrey Hawthorne; B’Naye Thackrah; Caitlin Lobenwein; Emily McIntyre; Emily Liley; Emma Andrews; Jonathon McBride; Kasey Baker; Ky Baker; Rebecca Hill; Tiffany Christison; accompanied by their supervisors, Makaylia Bretag and Cadet Superintendent, Mandy Paradise.
The adult volunteers attending that evening were Reece Ravlich; Ray Roles; Anne Rolls; Rob Spivey; Julie Nicklin; Michelle Heard; Klayton Robb; Phil Sampson; Rhian Davies; Karl Visser; and the Superintendent, Wayne Bevan.
Recently, I had the pleasure of representing the Chief Minister at the NT Literary Awards, held in the Main Hall on Friday, 3 October. Specifically, I made the presentation of the Chief Minister’s History Book Award. This award is for a book which was published in 2007 and deals with our Northern Territory history. There were 12 entrants this year, with seven local authors and five interstate authors. I acknowledge their contribution to the written history of the Northern Territory.
The finalists were: Alone on the Soaks: the Life and Times of Alec Kruger, by Alec Kruger and Gerard Waterford; Australia’s Muslim Cameleers: Pioneers of the Inland 1860s-1930s, by Philip Jones and Anna Kenny; Australia’s Northern Secret: Tourism in the Northern Territory, 1920s to 1980s, by Baiba Berzins; In the Name of the Law: William Willshire and the Policing of the Australian Frontier, by Robert Foster and Amanda Nettlebeck; An Intruder’s Guide to East Arnhem Land by Andrew McMillan – a book about my electorate and one I have enjoyed reading; and The Murranji Track: Ghost Road of the Drovers, by Darrell Lewis. The winner of the History Book Award for 2008, the Chief Minister’s Award, was Ochre and Rust: Artefacts and Encounters on Australian Frontiers by Philip Jones.
Unfortunately, Philip Jones was overseas and unable to attend on the evening. One of the finalists able to attend was Baiba Berzins, who I was very pleased to meet. Baiba wrote to me after the event and kindly sent me a copy of her book which, when I finish reading, I will be donating to Nhulunbuy Community Library. In her letter, she noted her disappointment about the lack of media interest in the event. I must say that I was a little disappointed to see, on the following day, there was no media coverage other than an advertisement placed in the classifieds announcing who the winners were.
She is quite right: these writers should be acknowledged for their participation. I did commit to her that I would be more than pleased to place on the public record, through Hansard, those authors who were finalists in the 2008 Chief Minister’s History Book Award.
This time last week, there was news of a Mission Aviation Fellowship aircraft that had gone down en route between Galiwinku and Elcho Island to the community of Mata Mata. This aircraft had disappeared somewhere between those two places. A couple of days ago, debris from the aircraft were discovered in Buckingham Bay. It is a tragic event. The young pilot, a 23-year-old single fellow, Hadleigh Smith, a New Zealander, had been flying with MAF; I am not sure exactly for how long, but certainly in my region for around six months. There was no one else on board the aircraft with him. He was carrying fuel and some freight to the community of Mata Mata, but did not arrive. The search was called off on Tuesday afternoon.
It is an incredibly sad time for Hadleigh Smith’s family and friends, and his colleagues in MAF. Mission Aviation Fellowship has operated in the Nhulunbuy region for years. They are a very close-knit family of pilots who work together and provide an incredible service to people in East Arnhem Land, as pilots do who operate in remote areas. They are the lifeline between communities, getting people from place to place, and bringing them much needed goods. They also fly in some fairly challenging conditions in terms of climate. They are very skilful pilots in handling aircraft in the conditions where they land.
I have had firsthand experience of this, especially in the last few months since I have become the member for Nhulunbuy, as the electorate is so widespread. Whilst I try to drive where I can, I need to fly to places like Elcho Island. I have flown with a number of MAF pilots. I love flying. I certainly have no fear of flying, and I certainly have no fear of flying in small aircraft. I have always felt entirely safe in the hands of those pilots, who do an incredible job. This is a very sad time and a great loss to our community and to MAF.
To give a quick snapshot of Hadleigh from the Arafura Times, Nhulunbuy’s local newspaper – he had been in Arnhem Land since April 2008, with over 1000 hours of flying experience, including an Instructors Rating. He got himself through flight training by doing things like paper runs and he studied hard. After leaving high school, he studied at the Bible College of Victoria, and joined the Army Reserve. His desire was to serve remote areas and Indigenous communities with his skills as a MAF pilot. He was considering serving with MAF in Papua New Guinea. Hadleigh was a young man with a strong Christian faith. I pay tribute to Hadleigh and extend my sincere condolences to his family and friends.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Singing Celebration
Singing Celebration
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I thank you for joining in with the singing celebration in the Main Hall of Parliament House. I will be extending my congratulations and thanks to those students through Nora Lewis, and I will also be presenting some certificates to the schools involved. I will ask members in whose electorates those schools are located to sign the certificates with me.
MINISTERIAL REPORTS
Common User Areas
Common User Areas
Mr VATSKALIS (Business and Employment): Madam Speaker, I had the pleasure of launching the site for a new and exciting development for our manufacturing oil and gas industries on 3 June 2008, which will be a Common User Area. The need for a Common User Area was highlighted during the fantastic work done by our local businesses for the Rio Tinto Alcan upgrade. They have demonstrated they are capable of tendering successfully for pre-assemble modules and oil and gas infrastructure.
With the support of a $15 000 grant from my Department of Business and Employment, the Manufacturers Council of the Chamber of Commerce NT conducted a pre-feasibility study to identify the need for, and uses of, a Common User facility, including the benefits and costs. A wide range of potential uses beyond fabrication of modules was identified and based on future growth and related demand, including engineering and fabrication; assembly, oil and gas supply and service; mining supply and service, and transport and logistics.
This study drew together the key industry opportunities into an integrated vision to position the Northern Territory for opportunities that exist, not just in the Territory, but across the north Australian region. The study recommended the establishment of a multi-user, multipurpose assembly yard and lay down area at East Arm. An area of 20 ha on Berrimah Road, East Arm, was identified as the preferred site for the initial establishment of a basic Common User Area, with an adjacent 28 ha of additional land being set aside for future expansion of the facility.
The Land Development Corporation will act as the landlord, managing the facility on a day-to-day basis with the Common User Area being available on a first-come, first-served user pay basis on short-term, project based lease. The Land Development Corporation is developing a master plan to guide its future development with the assistance of a Strategic Management Group consisting of the Department of Business and Employment, the Darwin Port Corporation, the Manufacturers Council of the Chamber of Commerce NT, and the Northern Territory Industry Capability Network. This group also advises on the suitability of any proposals. The Land Development Corporation will advertise the tender for the construction of the access road on 30 October 2008, and a further tender will provide for power and water and internal services to the site. These works will total $2.5m.
This is an exciting infrastructure development, and one which will enable our local businesses to tender for new works on new projects.
I will be pleased, together with my Department of Business and Employment and the Land Development Corporation, to actively promote the Common User Area’s availability and benefits to major project proponents, prime contractors, in both the mining and oil and gas industries, and companies requiring short-term storage associated with the port and rail.
One of our first major promotional steps is for officers of my department and the Land Development Corporation to promote the new Common User Area on the Northern Territory’s stand at the Offshore South-East Asia (OSEA) conference and exhibition in Singapore from 2 to 5 December 2008. One of the largest oil and gas conferences in the world, the international focus of OSEA presents unparalleled marketing, education and networking opportunities. OSEA 2008 offers the ideal platform to promote Darwin’s new Common User Area to the international oil and gas industry. The event attracts over 10 000 visitors from over 50 countries, and representatives from over 40 international industry press organisations.
The new Common User Area will add to the attractiveness of Darwin as a maintenance and operations base for supporting the construction of major projects across north-west Australia, including the Kellogg Joint Venture - Gorgon Project, consisting of international engineering firms KBR, JGC and Hatch and Clough, examining the capability of Darwin to support the fabrication of multiple pre-assembled units and pre-assembled pipe racks up to 500 tonnes each for the development of the massive Gorgon Project - Barrow Island LNG Plant.
Madam Speaker, I commend this report to the House.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Speaker, I note the minister’s report and I look forward to reading his comments in the Hansard.
Charles Darwin University – Graduation Ceremony
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I had the pleasure of attending the October Graduation Ceremony of Charles Darwin University on Friday, 10 October at the Darwin Convention Centre. It was the first time the ceremony had been held at the Convention Centre - previously, the October presentation has been held at the Entertainment Centre - and I think everyone who attended would agree just how great the venue was.
I acknowledge that this was Vice-Chancellor, Professor Helen Garnett’s final CDU graduation ceremony, as you will be aware that she leaves her current role at the end of this year. I hosted a function on Monday for Professor Garnett, and I am sure there will be a number of farewell functions before the end of the year. I wish Professor Garnett all the very best for the next stage in her life, and thank her for the enormous contribution she has made to the university.
Graduation ceremonies are wonderful to attend, and this one was no different. It is uplifting to see students who have achieved such milestones in their lives, and to see their proud families and friends celebrating with them. There are awards ranging from Certificate I level to Doctorates being conferred – all outstanding achievements. The conferring of degrees and awards were in the areas of Education, Health and Science; Law, Business and Arts; and Vocational Education and Training. On the night, there were also honorary degrees awarded.
Dr Len Notaras received the Honorary Degree of Doctor of Science Honoris Causa. Dr Notaras also provided the Occasional Address, where he spoke of the work of the Royal Darwin Hospital staff and his leadership during the Bali bombing, as well as giving a short history of his work at Royal Darwin Hospital. Congratulations to Dr Notaras on an outstanding and well deserved achievement.
The other Honorary Degree of Science Honoris Causa was awarded posthumously to Dr Alan Walker, who passed away in April last year. Dr Walker was the Territory’s first paediatrician and cared for Territory children for over 40 years. His work will be long remembered and the Honorary Degree is fitting recognition for a very special Territorian.
Further, at the graduation, Dr MaryAnn Bin-Sallick was awarded Emeritus Professor of the university. I congratulate Dr Bin-Sallick on an outstanding career.
Finally, congratulations to all the students who graduated, including the member for Sanderson, Mr Peter Styles. Hopefully, for all the graduates, the investment that they have made in their education at Charles Darwin University has been rewarding, and the qualifications they have gained will be of benefit to their own careers and lives, and will also be of benefit to the Territory.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I welcome the statement. Unfortunately, I was unable to attend this particular graduation, but have attended many. As the member for Sanderson made his walk across the stage to receive the award, as many have over many years, I always reflect on what is behind that walk – the story behind it. I am one who has commenced tertiary studies and completed, but there are others who are still going, and probably going on forever. I know how difficult it is for those who make a decision to increase their capacity to serve the Northern Territory and how it concludes with that walk across that stage. I congratulate every one of those graduates and the people behind them.
I acknowledge the service of the academic staff of CDU to the Territory community, and others who support the university and recognise the potential of the Territory and invest in the Territory through the university so that we can be prepared for the opportunities that lie in wait for us. I note that Engineering Australia, through the assistance of Power and Water, have established a Chair at CDU so that we can have more graduates in engineering through CDU. I commend those agencies and bodies within our community that make this significant investment. I commend Professor Helen Garnett for the tasks she has undertaken. She was the first to be in that position when there was the change from NTU and we had Professor McKinnon and then it was handed to her to lead it to this next stage, and she has done well. We look forward to the next episode.
The opposition offers our support to the CDU, and recognise the quality of leadership that is required in education to confront the challenges and make sure that we can capitalise on the opportunities available through serious, quality leadership.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his response. I, too, offer my congratulations to the university. It is important that we have a very strong university, not just here in Darwin but also at the Alice Springs campus. The Vice Chancellor, Professor Helen Garnett, has shown a lot of leadership when you look at where the university is today.
Once again, congratulations to all of those students who have graduated. The Leader of the Opposition is right: all those friends and families who have gone on that journey with those graduates, it is an important milestone for them. I offer genuinely my congratulations to the member for Sanderson for graduating. It was fantastic to see the number of graduates, that talent, and the level of skills that we are seeing in the Territory.
Members: Hear, hear!
Environment Grants Program
Ms ANDERSON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I report today on the Environment Grants Program.
This government introduced the Environment Grants Program in 2004. Since this date we have provided almost $2m to fund a diverse range of projects. 2008-09 is the fifth year in which Environment Grants have been made available to Territorians, and this year we increased funding by $100 000 more than last year. I am delighted to inform the House that this year the government introduced a special wildlife category which focuses on outcomes that result in better management of native and pest species. Other categories included in the Environment Grants Program are energy efficiency, water conservation, sustainable technology, recycling, and resource efficiency.
The environment grants are made available to three different sectors of the Territory society. First, there are the school grants which I reported to the House yesterday. Second, there are operational grants available to non-profit environmental organisations to assist in meeting their ongoing operational expenses. Organisations that have received this funding in 2008-09 include Keep Australia Beautiful Council, the Arid Lands Environment Centre, Environment Centre NT, Australian Marine and Conservation Society, Environmental Defenders Office, Conservation Volunteers Association, Wildcare Alice Springs Rescue, Wildcare NT, and Wildlife Rescue.
The third area of environment grants are targeted at individuals, community groups, and industries, and provide up to $10 000 per project. There were 27 fantastic projects that received funding this year. Unfortunately, there are too many to list here today but I will mention just a few from our regional areas to give members some idea of the type of practical projects we support. The first project I would like to highlight is the home energy audit service to be conducted in Tennant Creek by the Arid Lands Environment Centre. This project will assist residents in Tennant Creek to reduce power bills through tailored, practical advice and in so doing, reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Another project worthy of mention is the partnership between St Joseph’s College and Greening Australia in Katherine which aims to protect and enhance a degraded sink hole located on a limestone area within the school grounds. Another project delivering real results will be carried out by the Dhimurru Land Management Aboriginal Corporation in East Arnhem which involves walking track and camp site upgrades, including interpretive materials, fencing and site signs.
These are ordinary Territorians doing great things on their own initiative with a little help from the government. They deserve our thanks and our congratulations.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister. It is very important that these types of grants continue to grow. This government supports many of the issues in our environment. Waterways and weeds is just one of the areas that need to be continually monitored and, where possible, resourcing provided. It is important that our rural areas are kept in the loop and are involved in any of these processes and funding applications.
I took the opportunity, an invitation from the minister whilst in Alice Springs recently, to visit the Desert Park. I take this opportunity to say what a fantastic Desert Park we have in Alice Springs. It is fantastic for the many people who visit the Northern Territory each year. I take my hat off to the managers and the organisers and the people who work there every day, it is a fantastic facility.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr CHANDLER: I will always support funding initiatives for dealing with our animals, and I note the mention of Wildcare there. They do an excellent job and with more resources they could do so much more. I thank the minister.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for her report. It is important that we give community groups a chance to carry out environmental projects in regions across the Territory. One concern that I have been given is that there seems to have been a reduction in some of the funding for areas like Waterwatch and Landcare. More money seems to be going into government-run type projects. I am interested to know whether that is the fact. There does not appear to be so many of those community groups as there were some years ago when I was involved in Waterwatch. I know there has been a concern that departments tend to be able to get their hands on the funds and there is not so much going into the community. It is good to hear there is still some money going into those areas.
I noticed some money goes out to some of the particular environmental groups. Occasionally, I get concerned that some of the environmental groups have a particular philosophy which I do not agree with, and those environmental groups have to be careful that they do not become political, or over political, or so biased against something that they make that their main focus. I especially mention the Arid Lands Environment Centre. I get many e-mails from them and it is nearly always anti-uranium. While it is fair enough to have some discussion about the pros and cons of uranium, you also have to have a balanced approach, especially in relation to how it fits into the environment in the Northern Territory. It is mined and the role of these groups is to make sure it is mined in an environmentally sensitive way. There is no doubt we have to be careful in all forms of mining. We have to make sure that some people’s philosophy does not get in the road of actually doing the job of what these environment groups are for - making sure sustainable development continues and we keep an eye on what is happening, but that does not mean we totally are opposed to it.
Ms ANDERSON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I thank both the speakers and thank my opposition shadow for his comments. The Desert Park is a beautiful place and it is placed in the most beautiful place in Central Australia, Alice Springs.
I thank the member for Nelson for his comments. I will get back to you on the information that you require. This government supports all the little entities that we have on the ground and this is the way of us all in the Territory protecting the environment and being aware of what we are doing to the environment as Territorians.
Reports noted pursuant to sessional order.
ICHTHYS LNG PROJECT BILL
(Serial 10)
(Serial 10)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of the bill is to provide certainty for the Ichthys LNG project particularly in those areas which involve the acquisition and development of land, and in the performance by the Territory, its ministers and the Land Development Corporation on matters contractually agreed with the proponents for the project.
It is usual for major project proponents to negotiate the details of a proposed development with government due to their complex nature. Often the outcomes of these negotiations are encapsulated within a development agreement and include the contractual obligations between the parties to the agreement.
During the negotiations for the Ichthys LNG Project Development Agreement between the Northern Territory government and the Ichthys Joint Venture, a number of issues were identified within the Northern Territory Regulatory Framework, including associated processes and procedures which increase the risk of the project. The Northern Territory government holds fast to the principle that all project proponents must comply with the Northern Territory Regulatory Framework. This provides for a level playing field. Whilst this is the starting point, there may be issues identified during project development which have an adverse impact on a project’s development. Once an issue is identified, it is a matter for the Northern Territory government to determine how the issue may best be resolved. Options can include legislative amendments, contractual arrangements or protocols which clearly define the roles and responsibilities of the parties.
In considering a possible legislative amendment, this government needs a clear definition of that issue, an understanding of the desired outcome, and whether such change provides a nett benefit for the Northern Territory. Issues identified for the Ichthys LNG Project may be characterised as follows: a lack of express power within the relevant legislation to undertake the action contemplated; the lack of a clearly defined process to provide certainty of outcome; and minor conflict between the contractual obligations contained in the Ichthys LNG Project Development Agreement and the Northern Territory Regulatory Framework.
In respect to the lack of express power, a recent examination of the Crown Lands Act has brought into question the ability of the Minister for Planning and Lands to grant an option in land. Clause 5 of the Ichthys LNG Project Bill makes it clear that the Territory has the ability to grant an option in land. A major capital investment such as the Ichthys LNG project requires a great deal of certainty in regard to outcome. Often an act will use terms such as ‘may’, ‘with regard to’, or ‘as the minister sees fit’. While such discretion is typically constrained by precedence, the actual outcome may not be guaranteed to the level necessary by project financiers for a multibillion dollar investment. Certainty is an essential element in securing investment.
The agreement identifies a number of areas of discretion within the Crown Lands Act. For these areas, the manner in which this discretion was to be applied was agreed within the agreement. It was identified by the proponent and confirmed by the Solicitor for the Northern Territory that such prescribed performance in the agreement does not prevail over statutory discretion vested in current, or future, legislation. This translates as a lack of certainty, or risk for the project.
Clause 5(1) of the bill authorises implementation of the Ichthys LNG Project Development Agreement. This and the remaining provisions of clause 5 make it certain that a minister will exercise their discretion, as enshrined in statute of the Northern Territory, in conformity with the contractual obligations contained in the agreement. Further, clause 5 makes it clear that the Territory must provide as agreed the following:
the grant of an option, a lease, estate in fee simple, or other tenure including an easement over Crown land;
The form and terms of these interests in land are to be as contractually agreed in the agreement.
Review of Northern Territory statute has revealed that sections 27(f) and 27(j) of the Crown Lands Act do not align with the agreement. To give effect to the agreement, clause 5(5) makes it clear that these sections of the Crown Lands Act do not apply in relation to the agreement.
Clause 5(1) and clause 6 of the bill similarly relate to actions of the Territory and the Land Development Corporation. The Land Development Corporation, while it has management of the areas relevant to the agreement at this stage does not have title and, therefore, is not party to the project development agreement. The bill makes it clear that the corporation is bound to act as if it were party to the agreement and required to fulfil obligations contained in the agreement.
For the Ichthys Joint Venture, it is essential that they be able to deliver the project. Compensation for breach of contract does not deliver the project. In addressing risk for the project, the Territory has adopted the position in clause 7 that specific performance applies to the Territory. In effect, were there to be a breach by the Territory or Land Development Corporation of its obligations to perform the contract a court can order the Territory or the Land Development Corporation to remedy the breach.
Each party to the project development agreement has used their best endeavours to identify in a timely manner all areas of concern. There is a possibility, despite these efforts, that subsequent to the passing of this bill other conflicts may be identified between the rights conferred contractually by the project development agreement and Northern Territory statute. Clause 8 will allow broad regulation-making powers on matters arising or in connection within the agreement. Cognisant of the broad nature of these powers it is proposed to limit this to a period of 12 months from the commencement date of the act, that is, until 17 July 2009. A similar power was provided in the AustralAsia Railway (Special Provisions) Act to facilitate the rail project. The powers provided are to be used in a manner which assists the project and does not decrease their rights or impose additional liabilities.
This bill provides certainty for the Ichthys LNG Project, a project which will provide significant nett benefit to the Territory. I commend this bill to honourable members and table the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
SENTENCING AMENDMENT (VIOLENT OFFENCES) BILL
(Serial 7)
(Serial 7)
Continued from 11 September 2008
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, this bill is one of the government’s law and order bills, introduced as a result of promises made during the August election. Given the high rate of crime in the Territory, and given the promises made only a couple of months ago, Territorians expected much more of this government, and of the amendments it has made. They would have the right to be disappointed if they look through this bill. Most Territorians, of course, will not look through the bill. They will just get a filtered version of it via the government’s spin machine and those friendly in the media. With an increase in violent crime in excess of 80% since Labor came to office, Territorians deserve and expect so much more.
Typically, during the election campaign, Labor said that it would be tough on crime, and that it would bring forward legislation that would send hard core criminals to gaol. As usual, there is a difference between what Labor says and what Labor does. This bill falls short of the rhetoric. We are concerned that the bill provides no certainty in sentencing, and offenders can still be sentenced to ‘the rising of the court’. We say that is not good enough for offenders who cause serious harm, or for those convicted of committing subsequent offences.
The bill does not provide for any minimum sentences and we believe that sentencing must meet community expectations. The government’s proposed amendments are intended to deter violent offenders and repeat offenders by introducing tougher sentencing. On balance, it falls short. Certainly, the bill does provide for an actual term of imprisonment, or a term that is partly but not wholly suspended for first offences. There will be no more wholly suspended sentences for first time offenders. For a first offence without harm being caused, the court has discretion not to sentence an offender to gaol. We agree with this part of the bill. However, if an offender causes serious harm to be suffered, he or she will go to gaol, and this is pursuant to an amendment that was circulated last week, only if the harm is a physical injury that interferes with the victim’s health.
This is significant, because there are other types of harm defined in the Criminal Code in the definition section 1A, such as harm to a person’s mental health, or harm that is caused but does not interfere with a person’s health. The government’s bill, and its claims of mandatory imprisonment, therefore does not extend to offenders who assault another person and cause injury, and pain and suffering that does not ‘interfere with the victim’s health’. How this is to be measured is not explained or defined in the bill or the amendments.
We maintain that there should be minimum sentences prescribed for violent offences committed by a first time offender who causes serious harm. The government does not favour our approach. We are concerned that there are no minimum sentences, and that there remains the possibility for offenders who cause serious harm being sentenced to ‘the rising of the court’.
The government admits in the second reading speech made by the Attorney-General on 11 September, although I am sure it will not be found in any government media releases, and I quote, that:
- These amendments will not change the sentencing regime for other violent offences, whereby offenders guilty of a second or subsequent offence must serve an actual term of imprisonment.
The Attorney-General is referring to offences which cause harm or serious harm and there is no change. We say that is not a problem. However, the problems the government has left unresolved are: offenders who cause harm or serious harm can still be sentenced to ‘the rising of the court’ and no minimum period of imprisonment is prescribed.
The Chief Minister was quoted in the Northern Territory News on 12 September declaring that the new phrase ‘term of actual imprisonment’ - and it is not a new phrase – ‘would close the loophole’, namely, ‘the rising of the court’. However, the phrase ‘term of imprisonment’ appears in the existing act and there is nothing in the bill, as was asserted by the Chief Minister, which does anything to close the loophole to which he was referring.
The Chief Minister demonstrates on a regular basis his lack of knowledge on a range of matters but, in particular, legal matters, and he never fails to surprise me in that regard. After all, it was he who referred to the separation of powers, in December 2005 in this place, as, and I quote:
- Between the parliament, the police and the judiciary.
Before moving to summarise our amendments - and the Attorney-General is aware of them and we have provided them to him and his office - it is necessary to look at the Attorney-General’s own comments on the bill. More is expected of him because he is the Territory’s first law officer and he should know, at least, about the bills he introduces. He demonstrated that he did not read or understand the bill - which is surprising to say the least for the Territory’s first law officer.
Members will recall his comments in the Northern Territory News on 17 September, several days after the bill was introduced. He said minor assaults were not included or provided for in the bill and that, quote: ‘Common assault is not included’. He was criticised by lawyers everywhere, and I am sure the Attorney-General is familiar with the criticism and that article. The Attorney-General referred to section 188 and other assault provisions in the second reading speech. If anyone looks at the Criminal Code, they will see what it says right next to section 188, the words: ‘common assault’. The Attorney-General demonstrated a degree of ignorance and appeared to have no idea what was in the bill he introduced only a few days beforehand.
It shows the Attorney-General cannot concentrate on anything. He is a part-time Attorney-General and a part-time Health minister and, frankly, he is not doing very well at either job. He is also a wind-up minister. Those around him just wind him up and tell him what to say. He does not understand nor does he take any responsibility for anything, and he seems very happy to be run by remote control. That is, indeed, a shame.
In terms of the opposition amendments which we seek, and it pertains to criticism of the bill, we want to amend the bill so Territorians can have some certainty in sentencing. In other words, we want meaningful minimum sentences. Our amendments will put in place minimum sentences for violent criminals. If those opposite are serious about taking steps to address rising violent crime in any sort of comprehensive manner, and if they are serious about having real disincentives for hard-core criminals, and if they are serious about taking steps to address violent crime, and if they are serious about doing in any way what they said they would do at or before the election, then those opposite will support our amendments and establish minimum sentences for violent criminals.
Violent criminals need to know once and for all that their behaviour is simply unacceptable. Violent criminals need to know once and for all that they will be punished and the community expects their government to ensure they are punished. I believe our amendments reflect this community expectation. Labor knows it, too - they just cannot bring themselves to do it. No doubt they fear being criticised, perhaps by the legal community, but I am sure the Attorney-General, who is clearly used to it, should not be bothered by that criticism. I digress.
The intention of our amendments will be to set out specific minimum sentences for violent offences which affect some first time offences and all second and subsequent offences. The amendments will be moved during the committee process and will remove the ability for suspension of any minimum sentence and suspension of sentences for second or subsequent offences. If you are a first time offender and cause serious harm to another person, you will go to gaol for six months. This is in addition to the amendments we seek in relation to those convicted of a second or subsequent offence, and it provides certainty. The amendments will target section 78BA of the Sentencing Act and will substitute a new section 78BA.
If adopted, the new section 78BA would apply to adults and would record a conviction as set out in minimum sentences. The minimums would be one month for a second or subsequent offence for assault that causes serious harm; three months for second or subsequent offence where there are aggravating factors; six months for a first time offence that causes serious harm; and 12 months on a second or subsequent offence that causes serious harm. The policy framework that will be set out in our amendments will also require the minimum sentence stipulated to be served without suspension.
We believe that if a person has committed a violent offence in the last 10 years, then the commission of another violent offence in that period amounts to a second or subsequent offence and the court should not suspend any part of the sentence imposed for the current offence. This is reflected in our amendments. I will move to the amendments at the relevant time, but I am sure by now those on the other side understand the nature of the amendments.
There is another matter I would like to address in this debate given that it is all about sentencing. In my view, government should have used this opportunity to make other or consequential - although I suspect other - different amendments dealing with the ability of magistrates to impose sentences in respect of sections 188 and 189A of the Criminal Code. Those convicted of offences under section 188 face:
- … 5 years or, upon being found guilty summarily, to imprisonment for 2 years.
For offences under section 189A(2)(a):
- … the offender is liable to imprisonment for 7 years or, upon being found guilty summarily, to imprisonment for 3 years; …
The Attorney-General must surely know that a large number of offenders charged with these offences appear before magistrates every day of the week. This makes up a significant part of the matters that come before them. Yet our magistrates are hamstrung by the very sentence prescribed in the Code being reduced simply because the matter is dealt with by the lower courts. In other words, the government and others can tell their fellow Territorians that there is a five year sentence or a seven year sentence for particular offences, but what they are not told and what they do not know is that sentences are reduced if the matters are dealt with in the lower court. The current situation is limiting our magistrates and this restriction should, I think, be removed. I look forward to hearing from the Attorney-General about this particular matter in reply or at another time. I am happy to indicate to him that, subject on my part to some further discussions with members of the legal profession, I may bring on a bill to try to effect that change in due course.
If the government does not support our amendments, we will support their bill because some improvements are made. We just do not think they have gone far enough. That is the difference between the two sides of this House. I feel quite certain that the government understands where we are coming from.
We all know the crime figures. Violent offences have gone up since Labor came to office but, in fairness, all of us know that crime and crimes of violence in the Northern Territory have always been too high. It is important in a debate such as this for each and every one of us to remember who we are talking about when we discuss this bill. We should think about the victims of crime. We are not just talking about a bunch of procedural amendments; we are talking about people.
I used to act for people who were victims of crime and I am sure that we all know someone, sadly perhaps more than one person, who has been a victim of crime. We know how distressing it is for them. In addition to the immediate pain and suffering and shock that results, more often than not the effects of serious assault are endured for weeks, months and, in some cases, years. In relation to sentencing, we say that if you cause serious harm to another human being you should go to gaol for a minimum period. I believe that such a view is widely supported, perhaps overwhelmingly supported, in the community and that is why we as legislators should deliver.
When the Domestic and Family Violence Bill was introduced on 17 October 2007, the then Attorney-General, Syd Stirling, said and I quote:
- … the court must record a conviction and impose a sentence of imprisonment of at least seven days for a second or subsequent offence where harm results …
He said that sent:
- … a strong consistent message to perpetrators …
Two points need to be made in relation to those comments and their application to this debate. First, if minimum sentences are good enough for that bill, why not extend it to this bill? Second, it should be noted, of course, that the minimum sentences in the Domestic and Family Violence Bill - now an act - only extends to those who fall within the definition contained in that act. A minimum sentence, albeit for seven days, does not extend to those who do not, obviously, fall within the definition. We know that in the Indigenous and non-Indigenous community, there are violent men who bash women, violent men who bash children, and violent men who bash other men. We say violence is violence.
It is interesting that some people, politicians among them, have developed what seems to me to be a relatively recent interest in violence against women and children. Whatever their motivations, my view is that there is still not enough being done and physical, emotional and sexual violence against women and children shames us all. We should not rest in our efforts to eliminate it. Violence is violence. Whether it is perpetrated against women, children or men, violence is violence and everyone in the community should do all within their power to eliminate it and deter and punish the perpetrators. Governments are the decision-makers who must do more.
If we look at our Indigenous offender population, for instance, we know that every day across the Territory violent men bash women and children. These are violent, nasty offenders who should be sent a very clear message that violence will not be tolerated. All violent offenders need to get the message that violence is unacceptable. In sentencing, we say that given the extremely high rates of violent assaults in the Territory minimum sentences are one way of sending a message to those perpetrators who cause serious harm. I repeat: violence is violence and it is not acceptable.
With those comments, Madam Speaker, I will conclude and we will be moving to the committee stage in due course.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the opposition for giving me their amendments. I must admit that it is a little hard when you get them at the beginning of the debate and have to absorb what is there. I get the gist of what they are saying. It is an issue that I raised at the briefing; that is, although this amendment says that people should go to prison, it does not say for how long. I suppose, if you took it in theory, you could say a person could go to prison for one day based on a violent offence. I will come back to that a little later.
You can look at this bill from two aspects. One is the need to do something about those who perpetrate violence. With violence, it is not even a matter of whether it is male or female; it is a case of violence against one human being by another. That is the way we should look at it. That is not acceptable and we need to do something about it.
What the government and opposition are saying is ‘We think the way to get that message out that it is not acceptable is to tell people that if they are violent and cause serious harm they will go to gaol’. I do not necessarily have anything against that. I have always believed that people should know the difference between right and wrong and those who offend against the law - which violence is - should take responsibility for their actions. Violence is an area where some form of imprisonment should occur.
My concerns are that we only have one option when it comes to imprisonment; that is, the big concrete Berrimah gaol. When we start to debate this issue, it is not a simple issue. There are many other things that need to be looked at in relation to violence. We need to look at the cause of the violence; we need to see ways in which people who have problems with violent behaviour can change that behaviour.
The problem I have with this is singular debate is that it is difficult to believe that this on its own will make a difference. I am not saying it is not an important cog in the wheel, but I worry that the government brings forward this type of a bill, to some extent based on a lot of the debate in the public arena, the political debate, that there is too much violence in our communities. I am not denying that, and I am not saying we should not do things. However, we then react with, ‘well, we will do this’, and the other side will say, ‘well, we will do better than you’. I can only judge what comes out in the wash in the end. There is always a danger in the very emotional period, especially with elections, where both sides come forward with legislation which may have not had enough thought. This particular legislation does not necessarily fall into that bracket but we do have to be careful that we do not become single-minded over a particular issue because that is only what the public wants to hear.
Good governments have to think broader than that, and they have to look at the other issues that I was talking about. What is the cause of violence, and how can we stop violence in the long term? The reality is that the government is saying: ‘We have a problem, we will do this. We will put people in gaol’. Is that the best place to put violent offenders? It may be; it may not be. Not all violent offenders are the same. That is why I was looking through the CLP amendments. They have five categories.
Should the government be looking at other forms of imprisonment? I am not trying to bring forward a debate which I have for the next General Business day, but I would argue prison farms, and I have argued this before, are an option that we should look at. We only seem to have one option, and that is to put people in the big gaol and that is it. It may be that some of these violent offenders are, generally speaking, in normal life without alcohol, not violent offenders. They are not the sort of people who would normally be violent but because of other influences they are violent. In some cases, these people should not go to Berrimah; they should go to another institution. A prison farm is an option we should have.
In this debate the government should be looking at what are its policies in relation to alternative forms of imprisonment? The other side of this is what are they doing to help people who have problems with violence? During the briefing I asked what programs are provided in gaol to help people who have been gaoled. It is no good putting people in gaol and saying: ‘That will teach you a lesson’. That might cause the opposite reaction to what we want. They might say: ‘Well, stuff you mob. Next time I am here, I will make it worth your while’. Also, those prisoners might mix with other violent prisoners, which is not exactly the best way for you to change someone’s way of life. It is a bit like they have just joined another gang and they happen to be in prison, all for the same reason. At the briefing I asked if there were any programs to help violent offenders and I was told that that does not occur unless prisoners are in gaol for more than six months. So there is a gap there. Even under the CLP’s amendments, there is a range of imprisonment, depending on the extent of the violence, for three months and for one month.
It does not make any sense to throw someone in gaol for one month - this might be their first time ever in gaol - if we do not have a program to make sure they do not come back in. I am not saying these violent offenders should not go to gaol. However, if you do not balance it with other programs then you will probably see these people come back again.
I am looking at what the CLP put forward and at what the government has put forward. I believe that all people in parliament are trying to find ways to reduce the number of violent offences. We need to reduce the amount of violence in our society. What sort of programs is the minister putting in place for this increased number of people who are going to end up in our gaols? Is there going to be enough room in gaol? Our gaol is now full.
Dr Burns: That is a very good question. I will be answering that.
Mr WOOD: Very good question. Of course that does not mean you have to pull it down. You could actually use alternative forms of imprisonment such as prison farms. I am sure the member for Katherine …
Mr Westra van Holthe: We will stick our hand up for a prison down there.
Mr WOOD: Yes. There are alternative ways of doing things. The government is a bit tunnel visioned when it comes to thinking there is only one form of imprisonment. We have this bill coming forward today but I do not believe we have heard enough about the broader aspects of what we are trying to do.
Per head of population, we have the largest number of Aboriginal people in prison, and many of them are in there for violent offences. With this law, I imagine that is going to continue to rise. I am not saying that people should not be punished. I believe you cannot introduce a law like this without some broader policy being put forward regarding where these people will be imprisoned, or the most suitable place for these people to be imprisoned, and the programs that will be in place to ensure these people not only do not come back into prison but are starting to learn to control the problems they have in life – the violence – and be able to live normal lives.
Violence is not just at home. Violence is to some extent everywhere. People saw the paper, the NT News, with a young girl being bashed up in the toilet at a high school in Darwin. What is the story with that type of attack? These are juveniles, minister. It has been filmed on a mobile phone and then on to YouTube. If there is a proven offence, under this legislation would those people serve a term of imprisonment? From what I saw – I can only say from what I read in the paper and I am not sure of the total accuracy of that - it appeared to be a fairly violent offence. We have had issues in Alice Springs at the end of the AFL grand final where there was quite a bit of unacceptable violence.
There are some good sides to these laws that will send out a message to people that type of violence is not acceptable. Violence in a public arena, like at a football match, has effects far greater than just the people who have been physically harmed. Young children who are visiting the football match would see that violence and can be scarred for a long time.
I remember when I was a young child I stopped at a set of traffic lights, I was sitting in the back seat of Dad’s car, and I looked out my side and there was a 1950s version of road rage. One bloke had jumped out of the car and decided to punch up the driver of the car in the front. For a young child, like myself, I had nightmares about that. Violence does have an effect, not just on the people who are the direct victims, but it can have an effect on the people around. I imagine that happens in communities where violence is very common in some places, especially where it is fuelled by alcohol. There are other people who are affected by the amount of violence.
Minister, I am interested to hear where you are going to put all these people. I do not believe that building bigger prisons and one type of prison is the answer. What about juveniles? What is the law on juveniles in relation to violent crime? Recently in the paper there was a case of a 13-year-old running amuck with a knife and stabbing a lady and scaring a number of people at the Casuarina Shopping Centre. What would happen in that case? It is still a serious offence even though it is only a young child.
I appreciate what the CLP has done here. It has tried to put some teeth into the actual amount of time a person is in prison. I have not had a chance to analyse this, which I would rather do before I say whether I support it. One of the issues I have picked up in the amendment the CLP has put forward is 4(d) in relation to imprisonment for one month. It says under subsection (3) the person has caused harm when committing the current offence as distinct from serious harm. I have to get some more clarification on that.
One reason the government introduced its amendments is to try to move from the type of assault which could be a push - which most people probably would not regard as an offence that one should go to prison for. You might get ticked off in court, you might get a fine, but we have to make sure that what we are doing is also sensible. You can have the old stand-up and chest someone - that type of offence - it may not necessarily be regarded as violent …
A member interjecting.
Mr WOOD: That is why we would need a definition of what harm is. My understanding is the government introduced its changes because there was concern that the intention was to put people in prison for violent offences and we did not want to grab a group of people who really the best that could have been done was a bit of a ticking off, or there was no real need to take people to court. We needed to make sure people did not have to go to prison for that type of offence.
Madam Speaker, I will be interested in the debate. I support what the government has put forward. That is not to say I do not support what the CLP has put forward. It is hard when an amendment like this is put to you 10 minutes before one is to speak on it. I will be cautious before I say that I would give this total support. I may say, in principle, that I support it at the present time. It may be unwise of me to give it carte blanche support without having more time and it may not be today. I am always wary of making a very quick assessment and a quick conclusion to legal bills. At times I find the language difficult to understand and I need advice on whether the way I see something is the way the author intended. I am interested in the debate and welcome the minister’s comments.
Ms McCARTHY: (Children and Families): Madam Speaker, the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General has expressed the government’s concern about the impact of violent crime on the Northern Territory. Unfortunately, violent crime has historically been a significant problem in communities across the Territory. This government recognises the need to send the strongest possible message to the community that violent crime will not be tolerated and that perpetrators can expect to be seriously punished.
The Sentencing Amendment (Violence Offences) Bill will provide the authorities with additional capacity to meet the challenge of violent crime. Good governance requires the laws align with community expectations. There is no doubt that the Territory community is concerned about violent crime; there is also no doubt that the Territory community wants an assurance that those guilty of violent crime receive real punishment. This bill will do just that. This bill ensures that serious assaults will see the offender serve gaol time. Current legislation provides people a second chance in relation to serious assaults. There will be no second chances under the new law. This bill sends the strongest of messages because that is what the Territory community expects.
Having said that, it is also fair to say that the Territory’s level of violent crime is a result of a complex mix of causes which is why this government has put in place other measures which will help in our response to violent crime. This government realises that we must reflect community expectations and continue to be tough with the perpetrators of violent crime. We also recognise we have to implement strategies to help prevent Territorians, young Territorians in particular, from finding themselves caught up in violence.
I believe the community also expects its government to play a role in shepherding young people away from antisocial, criminal or violent behaviour. I pick up on some of the member for Nelson’s comments regarding concerns about youth. In my role as the Minister for Children and Families and also for Youth, I am deeply aware of those issues. Let me reassure this House that our government is working hard to work with these young people. In my role as Minister for Women’s Policy, I am interested in learning about these issues and how we can divert them, and also looking at some of the issues that are affecting people, particularly in our regions, who head towards crime.
That is why the government also announced initiatives such as our Youth Justice Strategy. The Northern Territory government’s Youth Justice Strategy provides a multifaceted approach to help keep young people away from a criminal environment. In the April/May sittings of the Assembly, we amended the Youth Justice Act to enable a range of government agencies to enter into family responsibility agreements and orders with families whose children are exhibiting negative and antisocial behaviour. We bolstered this initiative in this year’s budget through a $2.5m allocation to implement the Youth Justice Strategy.
As part of the initiative, a new Youth Services Branch was established within NT Families and Children. The new branch will manage a range of services and activities. These include: three youth rehabilitation camps including a referral process for young people to access the camps; coordination of the new family responsibility provisions of the Youth Justice Act; new government service centres in Darwin and Alice Springs to help support families experiencing difficulties with the behaviour of young people - the government’s Property Services Branch is currently looking to finalise a lease for the Darwin centre; and an inter-government agency to develop an information sharing code of practice to deal with details on client families and young people.
I turn to our commitment to youth rehabilitation camps as part of our Youth Justice Strategy. The three camps - two in the Top End and one in the Centre - have been operating since 1 March and are for young people aged 10 to 18 years who are exhibiting antisocial and offending behaviour. To date, they have dealt with 57 young people. The camps are operated by Tangentyere Council in Central Australia, and Balunu Foundation and Brahminy Group in the Top End, and offer programs that involve challenges for young people while operating on a strict set of rules.
I have been to both camps in the Top End and spoken with the staff. From speaking to the two organisations, I know how dedicated they are and committed to wanting to ensure that the services they provide will make a difference in the lives of these children. At Balunu, people like David Cole and Ann Marie McLeod do tremendous work and are committed to working with these young people, many of whom society has pretty much given up on. It is these young people who become our adults and the ones who go into the prisons. We have to look at how we are dealing with these young people. This government is committed to that. We know it is going to take some time, but we know we have to persevere because it is these young people who are slipping through. I reiterate to the House my absolute commitment to wanting to ensure that our young people are looked after in that regard and given some guidance for their future.
The Department of Health and Families has worked with the providers to implement the recommendations and to ensure the service models best reflect the diversity and complex needs of young people attending the camps. Of the 57 youngsters who have attended the camps, I am pleased to report that evidence indicates some positive signs of behavioural change including an improved capacity to re-engage with the community. Since 1 July this year, the camps have received a total of $185 000 in the Top End, with a further $215 000 committed to Central Australia. Right now, the Department of Health and Families, in consultation with other Northern Territory government stakeholders, is working to develop the service provision model, establish baseline service standards, and establish clear referral pathways for the future of the Territory’s youth camps.
Madam Speaker, the Territory community has had enough of violent crime, and the Territory community expects surety when it comes to sentencing the perpetrators. The bill that my colleague, the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General, has before the House will help deal with violent crime, but equally as important, the other initiatives I have outlined will help steer young Territorians away from the prospect of violent crime.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I support the passage of the Sentencing Amendment (Violent Offenders) Bill 2008. As my colleague, the Minister for Children and Families said, people across the Northern Territory have had enough of violent crime. The community has expected, and does expect, that this parliament takes this issue very seriously and sends a very strong message to people who may potentially commit serious acts of violence against fellow Territorians, and that if they are caught and convicted they will go to gaol. I know there is very strong support for this in the community, because people have had enough. We need to get these types of people off the street, and a term of imprisonment allows them to contemplate their behaviour and, hopefully, see sense and not repeat it when they are released.
There are a number of examples of our willingness to try innovative approaches that have already come before this House, for example, the new Family Responsibility Provisions. My government is committed to seeing positive interventions directed and targeted at people who the Police, or FACS, or Education Officers see at risk, and to have some positive interventions into those families before those juveniles get formally caught up in the Corrections system. It is a bold and innovative approach. Nowhere else in Australia has attempted to structure arrangements where there are positive early interventions with families. There are many families out there who are crying out for help, who are finding it very difficult to control kids who are off the rails for whatever reason; to have a regime where, by consent in the first instance, through the department of Families, people can sit down with families affected, identify the support they need, the one-on-one essential support that family needs, whether it is parental skills, or problems with alcohol or substance abuse that need to be dealt with in that family. We will provide this level of support if families make significant and stringent efforts to have better control over their children. Nobody has tried this before and we are putting that in place at the moment.
In the event that those agreements do not work because the parents or the guardians fail to commit to their side of the bargain, in serious cases there will be a move to Parental Orders which will be orders of the court to insist that those parents or guardians hold up their side of the bargain and ensure those orders, whether they be to attend alcohol or drug rehabilitation, or gambling rehabilitation, or to participate in parental courses, or to ensure that bail conditions of their children are met, or to ensure that their kids go to school. In the event that those conditions are not complied with, then those parents are back before the courts.
Nobody has tried this before. It really is aimed at supporting parents and guardians in the first instance directly, and if that does not work, having a set of court-imposed orders. That is all about assisting the young people who either are offending or at risk of offending because, at the end of the day, as the member for Port Darwin said in previous debate in the first sittings of this parliament, there is no one better placed to make decisions about children and influence their behaviours than parents. When parents are struggling or parents are failing, if we can provide interventions to up-skill those parents or get that family back on track, that is a much better option for the child than having that child removed from the family unit and placed into the minister’s care or into foster care.
We are taking bold and innovative approaches to try to prevent people falling into the criminal justice system, falling into drug and alcohol abuse, and then potentially moving through various levels of criminal activity to the point where they are serious violent offenders who commit serious violent offences. We are taking a very innovative approach.
My colleague, the Minister for Children and Families, mentioned the three youth diversion camps this government has established at Hamilton Downs, Balunu on Talc Head and Brahminy at Batchelor. It is great to hear from the minister of the early successes we are having through those programs. This is an opportunity for the courts to take these juveniles who have offended or are at serious risk, and get them out of the environment in which they are living, the networks in which they are associating, the influences that are around them, away from the substances that they may be abusing, and get them into a remote facility with some very strong role models and positive activities to build self-esteem and break the cycles that these kids are in, and show them that there is a different way. There is a different way and there are different choices these kids can make, that are much healthier choices for them.
Fifty-seven juveniles have already taken part. I am meeting with the Minister for Children and Families early next week to have an in-depth look at this and to hear some of the success stories where kids have actually turned their behaviours around and positively reunited with their parents and guardians for the first time in some time. This is a big step forward.
David Cole briefed me in my electorate office a few weeks ago about what he was doing. There were some issues contractually with the agency that the minister has sorted out. I was absolutely taken aback with his commitment to making a difference, and a positive difference, in these young people’s lives. It is not a holiday camp. The Leader of the Opposition talks about boot camps. I really do not know what he is talking about. He has not defined what a boot camp is and I do not know what his definition is. Maybe it is putting kids in uniforms with boots and having them marching up and down and saluting him on a dais or something like that. I do not know what this boot camp is that he is talking about, he has not defined it. However, when you talk to somebody like David Cole, as opposed to the Leader of the Opposition, and see his very real and absolute commitment and understanding of what it takes to turn some of these kids around, it is very refreshing.
It is no holiday camp over there. Those kids get up very early in the morning. There is a lot of physical activity involved. They have to take responsibility for cooking, cleaning, and maintaining premises, but it is in a very positive way – it is about positive self-esteem rather than a pernicious military-style operation.
The Leader of the Opposition was talking about this and his rhetoric ramped up during the election. The Leader of the Opposition is a very decent – and I mean this sincerely – person and he thinks deeply about issues. I recall when his home was broken into and he actually apprehended the young offender and managed to keep the young offender there until the police arrived. The Leader of the Opposition followed this young person through the juvenile correction system, and I applaud him for that. It is a case study to see what the system does with these kids who are breaking into people’s homes. I applaud him for his actions; the fact that he, from a public policy point of view as well as from the human interest point of view, followed that case through the system to see the outcome, and how the system deals with these kids. The outcome was very early in the stages of the Balunu operation at Talc Head and that kid went there and had a very positive experience which turned this kid around.
I know the Leader of the Opposition went there and saw the program firsthand. I have not done that yet; it is certainly on my ‘to do’ list. Hopefully, by the end of the year, I will get over there. I have made a couple of attempts and they have not had kids there. So impressed was the Leader of the Opposition with how David Cole and the Balunu Foundation worked with that young person that he made a video clip which was on the Balunu Foundation’s website. He spoke very glowingly about this being exactly the type of intervention that was needed to turn these kids around, and he was caught up in the emotion of it all. I watched the clip, it was streaming off the Internet for quite sometime, and the Leader of the Opposition was 100% absolutely committed that this is what we needed. It had turned this kid around, and it was a pretty emotional experience. You could see that through the video clip, and I thought: ‘Good on him. That was a very positive thing to do’.
But then, as the ramp-up to the election occurred, the rhetoric started to change. I admit that the Leader of the Opposition was there with Balunu before the government was. He spoke positively about it and we looked at it and said we should have a look at this as well, in terms of youth diversion camps. We had already funded Hamilton Downs. I remember the Cabinet meeting with the Justice minister and we looked at, in an interim way, what was available in the Northern Territory. We found out about the Alan Brahminy operation at Batchelor, and we said we will put some money into this organisation as an initial support whilst we look at what we might be doing longer term. We came out and we said as part of the package of measures that we are going to support Balunu and Brahminy and continue with Hamilton Downs until we had a longer term look at the future for a youth diversion camp in the Top End.
That was very positive and I give credit to the Leader of the Opposition: he spotted that policy initiative before we did. Then, as we moved into the election campaign, the rhetoric changed. All of a sudden the rhetoric changed from being a really positive intervention and something that should be supported in a structured way, it turned into a holiday camp, and that was not tough enough for the Leader of the Opposition: what we needed was a boot camp because what Labor was proposing were holiday camps and that was not good enough. Lo and behold, Madam Speaker, the streaming video image which was on the Balunu website, where the Leader of the Opposition was talking so positively about this particular intervention, was pulled off.
The initial policy position of the CLP on crime issues were ratcheted up during the lead-up to the election. What was, from the Leader of the Opposition, an absolute first-rate operation which was providing a really positive outcome for juveniles - so positive was it that the Leader of the Opposition was prepared to participate in a streaming video clip to support the foundation and prepared to lend his name to the good work they were doing – but with the political imperative to look tough on law and order, all of that commitment, all of that personal endorsement, all went out the window: ‘We need a boot camp because these things are not good enough’.
We are sticking with it. I am looking to, within the bounds of appropriate public policy, support and build capacity in these organisations rather than look for something fresh and new. I know that David Cole has actually had conversations with the Leader of the Opposition regarding his change of heart about that particular organisation.
Then we go to the election campaign. We are all aware - we are all politicians – of a series of violent incidents which were reported in the media. Our community was saying: ‘Enough is enough. We want to see the law and we want to see the courts treat these types of offences more seriously’. The opposition heard that message from our community; we heard that message from our community. We were looking at an appropriate legislative and policy response. As I said, we had a whole range of options on the juvenile side: parental agreements, orders, closing the revolving door on juvenile diversion, giving kids two opportunities at diversion then going before the courts, and looking at establishing juvenile diversion camps as an opportunity to try to turn these kids around.
Then we looked at the legislation at the end point and saw that, under the Sentencing Act - currently under the legislation until this bill passes – if you commit and are found guilty of a serious violence offence on a second occasion then a gaol sentence has to be imposed. Cabinet looked at that and decided the principle was already there in the legislation, but people have had enough and we needed to elevate that provision to a first offence. Essentially, that is what we have done. That is the legislation we are debating today. As my colleague, the Attorney-General said, we have been absolutely consistent.
Let us look at where the opposition has come from and where they went to and, now, where they are today because they have had at least three positions on this issue in the last three or four months. First, in the lead-up to the election, the CLP took out some advertisements on television – tough on crime. ‘I am Terry Mills, I am tough on crime and we are going to introduce this package, we are going to have these boot camps. They used to be good but they are not good. We are going to have boot camps now’. Then we had the Leader of the Opposition in the advertisement in the lead-up to the election saying: ‘Enough is enough, if you commit a serious violent offence, on the first occasion when you go before the courts we will leave it up to the judge to determine the sentence but, if you are done again, you will go to gaol’ …
Dr Burns: But that was the law, anyway.
Mr HENDERSON: That was the law, anyway, as pointed out by the Attorney-General. However, he presented himself as this tough-on-crime crime fighter, took out those ads - I think they ran for two weeks, a pretty high rotation for two weeks …
Members interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: A pretty high rotation. ‘We will introduce boot camps to replace the things which used to be good but are not good two weeks later, and we are going to give the judges discretion on the first occasion …’, which they already had, ‘… and on the second offence, we are going to put you in gaol’.
Fair enough. But then, by the time of their campaign launch, we had announced our policy, and they announced a compulsory term of imprisonment for a first offence. They said: ‘Well, maybe, because Labor has actually said first offence, and we have said second offence …’, which was already in the law, ‘… we had better match them’. I think about two weeks after they had their initial policy position of leaving it up to the judge on the first time, ‘we better toughen up and make it on a first offence’. But only for offences that cause serious harm.
That was in the campaign launch in the documentation. That is a real Clayton’s amendment since convictions for serious harm invariably lead to a prison sentence anyway. I can see what is going on behind the scenes in the party room as they wrestle with this policy position. Again, they say serious harm, and it leads to a prison offence anyway, so nothing has changed.
We have a committee stage amendment today. I think there has been three different versions of this circulated, so that is five different positions that they have had on sentencing in the space of about three months. They have been all over the place on this issue, purely for the politics of looking tough. Not anything about a good policy and legislative and sentencing outcome - purely for presentation purposes of looking tough on crime. That is all this has been about and they have been all over the place on this particular issue.
We have been consistent all of the way through. Our legislation is here; we are debating it today. I believe it reflects the will of Territorians. They have had enough and want a very strong signal sent by this parliament through the laws we pass, that if you commit a serious violent offence against a fellow human being and you are convicted, you will go to gaol. That is what we are debating here today. We have been consistent in our position.
As minister for Police, I am pleased that this will increase the authority of the police uniform, and that where a police officer is correctly carrying out his or her duties, if they are the subject of such an assault, the offender will go to gaol. Our police officers - and we have four ex-officers on the other side of the benches, I think even they will admit that, in my time as the Police minister, I have been totally committed to supporting our police force and seeing them supported by the government of the day. They are out there in the front line. They intervene in all sorts of areas and issues, whether it is drunken brawls in Mitchell Street on a Saturday night, or in domestic violence situations, or in situations where there is real possibility of conflict. They put themselves on the line, and that uniform should offer them as much protection as possible in terms of respect. If a serious assault is committed on a police officer, they should be protected and that offender, if convicted, goes to gaol.
My government is making a considerable investment to increase the size of our police force through such initiatives as Safer Streets and the Police Beat initiatives, and our police, who do a great job investigating and apprehending offenders, alongside the victims they serve and protect, need better satisfaction than to see offenders back out on the streets without any time behind bars to contemplate their behaviour.
It is not just the police who are out on our urban streets; it is those out in the bush. I acknowledge today, and through the intervention into the Northern Territory, the last of the 18 remote police stations was opened this week at Haasts Bluff. I have been to a number of those sites and the police are doing a great job in our regions of the Northern Territory as well as remote communities.
We are serious about making life tougher for offenders and denying them access to bail when they commit such assaults. Territorians deserve a safer community. By comparison, offenders who conduct the type of assaults we are considering here today deserve no second chance, which is the case under the current law. I believe all of us, when we see incidences of unprovoked, violent assaults against people and if they are accompanied by other people, or if they are accompanied by any sort of weapon - and totally unprovoked – consider those types of offences as absolutely unacceptable in the Northern Territory.
Madam Speaker, this bill, when it passes today, will send a very serious and real message to people who commit these types of offences - that we have had enough, Territorians have had enough - and if you commit these types of offences and you are convicted, you will go to gaol.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to the House.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I need to respond to some of the comments made by the Chief Minister. I believe the Chief Minister, in an attempt to carve this up and score political or debating points on a serious matter, has overlooked something - quite deliberately I would suggest. No matter what mechanisms are put in place - and I stand completely behind what I described during the campaign - I believe in the position that I held and described then and I hold the same view now.
The issue is primarily the attitude which is brought to bear on the situation, the recognition that we have a very serious problem, and acknowledging that the statistics, as they are presented, reveal a story of great concern and it requires a genuine response.
If we are going to carve up the story in a way that makes one side look different from the other, the point is: we have to take a different approach. I did not think I would have to explain this, but the issue with the boot camps - it has been described to the Balunu Foundation and the position has been put before - I believe it goes back to the Alice Springs sittings before last, describing the approach that we need to have with young people. The word ‘comprehensive’ was used many times during the campaign. Our community is requiring a comprehensive and genuine approach to these social problems which result in a whole spectrum of offences from social disorder and kids at risk, all the way to violent assaults - serious violent assaults - where kids are beyond reach of a normal program. It is not a one-size-fits-all.
These guys are imitators and counterfeiters. They look around and think: let us have a look at the polling; the object of the exercise is to hold onto government and then we will come up with some kind of response that satisfies a public concern, which is, in fact a political issue, and craft a response. The community is concerned about young people; let us get a youth diversionary camp. They actually use the ‘boot camp’ phrase from time to time because they know they have hit the target. The thing is, you have to be serious and genuine about this.
As has been described, the member for Nelson for many years has been describing the same approach, and if you listen to your community and walk in step with them, they want a different approach. If it is some clever little argument about my language changing in the course of a campaign, then you are overlooking this: behind that, if you were sincere, you would have looked at the papers which were presented, the conversations that were had, the debates we have had in parliament, and recognise there is a need for a comprehensive approach, which includes the Balunu approach, which includes the Hamilton Downs approach, which includes Brahminy, and includes a number of other programs of that kind, including a very tough option. You look at that young kid in Alice Springs, that seven-year-old. Do not tell me they are going to need just an ordinary approach. It needs an extraordinary approach to reach into kids who are showing profoundly disturbing behaviours. There has to be a range of options.
It is irresponsible and it shows the insincerity of the approach and the recognition of a problem affecting Territorians if you are going to carve it up in those simple and crass terms. There needs to be a range of approaches, a comprehensive approach. If the Chief Minister is serious and has a genuine attitude shift on these matters rather than the word change to suit a political objective, he would acknowledge that in meetings with the Balunu Foundation who also agreed there needs to be a tougher option. They also agreed. Anyone who works with young people knows if you want to change behaviour, you have to have the range of options including the boot camp.
The point is that when we go to an election we have limited opportunities to explain our message - such is the nature of modern politics. When this Labor government, with their track record, says something, the community, frankly, do not believe them. There is no attitude shift because sitting behind the attitude is a fundamental belief that an individual is not wholly responsible for their actions. I differ on that. You have to recognise that essential ingredient and whatever policy fix you have in response to that must carry the central idea that an individual, the dignity of a human being, whatever their circumstances, you cannot, essentially, discount the responsibility they must personally and individually bear. That is the difference. The point is, as the result of this Chamber here, the electorate does not believe the Labor Party. They do not believe them on matters of law and order. The evidence of that is in the Chamber.
We will not back away from a completely different approach, a genuine approach, to the problem of law and order. It is not a matter of clever debating points. It is a genuine approach and personal buy-in if we are going to shift this. It is not a talk about statistics. It is not talking about some clever observations that have been made. It is genuine. We have a serious problem. I urge the Chief Minister to take it seriously. There are none so deaf that cannot hear - choose not to hear.
Ms ANDERSON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I support my colleague, the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General, in his second reading speech in the Sentencing Amendment (Violent Offences) Bill.
I would like to talk from experience of living on an Aboriginal community, growing up on an Aboriginal community, and seeing these horrific offences committed against our women and children.
I want to make sure I get the message clearly to the Attorney-General: violent offenders should not be let off.
I want to put this question to the member for Araluen: are the comments she makes in this House based on things she has seen, or based on things she has experienced firsthand?
I can tell you, as an eight-year-old child growing up and mothering your own brother - this kind of thing upsets me to talk about. My Dad actually broke my mother’s nose when I was eight years-old and my Mum had to be evacuated to Alice Springs. I then had to become not just a sister, but a mother for six months, to look after my young brother. So it started from a very early age.
There has been a consistency of this violence that we have seen in Indigenous communities, and we still see it in our town of Alice Springs today, and the consistency of the normalisation of this behaviour. We see it in our town camps and we still see it today in places like Papunya and Kintore. There was a recent incident, only a week old, where this 22-year-old girl who is pregnant and comes from my electorate, has been bashed to the extent that both of her eyes have nearly popped out of her head. She is currently in Alice Springs Hospital as we speak. These people need to be locked up. There is just no two ways about whether you save these people.
This ongoing violence is so horrific to a society, not just to the Indigenous society but to the society of the Territory. We heard it at the last election. We read about it every day in the newspapers and hear about it on the radio.
Today, I support my colleague because I am talking from experience of how we see young people now travelling. We see these young people falling into the same pattern that I saw as an eight-year-old child, having to be the sister and then a mother to my own young brother and my step-sister. I have seen this in my own step-sister who, my colleagues know, often lives here in Darwin. She has been the victim of a crime that has been committed against her, where her now ex - I think - has violently abused her to the extent that she was in the Intensive Care Unit in Darwin. Her head is not going to be the same. She is now suffering fits. I saw her back on my brother’s outstation just last week when I went to Papunya. It is good that she is back at home, but she will never be the same after that horrible hit that she received on her head.
This is what our women are going through every day. The children just fall into this pattern after seeing their dads do this to their mothers. They think that, as grown-up adults, as Territorians – not as Indigenous Territorians, but as Territorians; we all live in the Territory – that is all normal behaviour. So, they fall into that pattern.
One thing I will say to the Chief Minister and the Attorney-General: you can set up all these little boot camps or whatever you want to call them, but you have to do something with these violent offenders; you just cannot help these people. As ex-cops, you will know – you saw it at Kintore yourself – it continues to happen. I see it in the streets of Alice Springs at one o’clock in the morning. The last time I visited Alice Springs I saw eight-year-old children – and I brought this to the attention of the Alice Springs Town Council when I met with them – in the street at one o’clock in the morning, riding their bikes, being abusive to people, and throwing the rubbish bins all around the main street of Alice Springs. These are eight-year-old children. Guess what? My little grandson was one of those little eight-year-olds - from my nephew, which we call grandson. As soon as he heard my voice, he was on that bike and he was gone. I went around to see the mother the very next morning at the town camp. And guess what? The mother was drunk. What do we expect this child to do when the only parent who looks after him is lying down on the ground under the influence of alcohol, unable to get herself up even to feed the child?
This is why it is very important that, as politicians who sit in this House, we do not trivialise what goes on in the Territory with Indigenous people. Unless you have had the firsthand experience of watching your mother’s nose being smashed - and my mother’s nose has never ever been fixed up because when she was admitted into the Alice Springs Hospital all those many years ago it was before the technology of surgery came in where she could have the reconstruction. So, her nose is like that until she dies. She is now blind and 76 years old. That is something that my father did all those years ago that she has to carry. It was so very hard for me to train myself and to talk to my young siblings and explain to them that that behaviour is not a behaviour that anyone, any human being, does in a society.
We sit in this House not to trivialise and fight about who is right and wrong. This bill quite clearly sends the message to perpetrators and offenders out there that the Territory government is not going to mess around with this kind of thing anymore.
It is a strong message that will hopefully encourage our young adolescents today in the communities, and in the town camps, and in the streets of Alice Springs, that this is a government that takes the law very seriously. I hope we can grow intelligent, smart, young Territorians to have a future in the Territory that is vibrant, with good education and good cultural knowledge. As the Leader of the Opposition says: you sow what you reap. Through this law, I feel that we are sowing good people, and we are going to sow good people. It easy to sit inside this House and fling at each other, but I take these matters very seriously; because it has happened to me, it has happened to my immediate family.
Going home for the weekend, I showed a friend of mine, when we went to my brother’s outstation, adolescents from the ages of 10 to 18 walking around, unemployed, all waiting for the welfare to come in, and these kids will re-offend. There is a cycle inside the justice system we do not want to see them go through, and I feel this bill stops that from happening.
It is an education strategy as well, and a serious, strong education message that this government is sending out to our kids out there, saying: ‘You cannot do that. We are taking the law that serious that this is what is going to happen to you’. With all the multitude of programs that we have put in underneath this bill, beside this bill, over this bill, that will embrace and encompass the Territory only to breed good Territorians and good Australians.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to the House.
Debate adjourned.
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Unparliamentary Remark – Minister for Housing and Member for Fong Lim
Unparliamentary Remark – Minister for Housing and Member for Fong Lim
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, yesterday during the Matter of Public Importance on Housing, the member for Daly made an unparliamentary remark regarding the member for Fong Lim. I did not hear the remark, and it was not drawn to my attention at the time, but it appears in the Hansard. The member for Fong Lim has taken offence at the remark. I ask the member for Daly to withdraw the remark and apologise to the member for Fong Lim under Standing Order 62(1).
Mr KNIGHT (Daly): Madam Speaker, I apologise and unreservedly withdraw my comments about the member for Fong Lim sleeping in his car.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Whilst I accept that the member has apologised, he may have made a more determined reference to the injury that he caused the member for Fong Lim, and at least pointed out that he made an outrageous allegation against the member for Fong Lim, suggesting that he was intoxicated and sleeping in a car; a matter which has been followed up by the media and which has resulted in this matter being brought on today.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order. The member has withdrawn unreservedly and apologised.
SENTENCING AMENDMENT (VIOLENT OFFENCES) BILL
(Serial 7)
(Serial 7)
Continued from earlier this day.
Dr BURNS (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I thank all members who have made a contribution to this very important debate. It is a debate about crime, and violent crime in particular, and this government’s intention to address this issue. We have been very clear about our intentions right from the time the Chief Minister announced this policy prior to the election campaign. In essence, it was in response to public concerns about violent crime, particularly repeat offenders of violent assaults and the sentencing regimes that apply to these people. It is there in the second reading speech which says:
- The purpose of this bill is to amend section 78BA of the Sentencing Act to require courts to sentence offenders who are guilty of committing certain violent offences to serve a term of actual imprisonment.
That is the essence of it. That has been government’s intention all the way through. As the Chief Minister pointed out, the opposition has had a number of positions on this particular aspect. It was the Opposition Leader who came out earlier and said: ‘If you have a first offence we will leave that to the discretion of the court and then a second violent offence you will go to gaol’. That was his first position. Once our position was made very clear, he rearranged it to come in line with what the government was proposing. It was evident when he came out with his first position, which is actually the law as it currently stands, more or less. He was informed by a number of lawyers and others in the media that that was the case, and it must have been quite embarrassing for the Opposition Leader to hear that. I suppose he would be wondering about the legal advice that he had received in formulating that particular policy.
The intention of government is very clear. The member for Araluen said that the opposition supports the bill, but she believes, and put forward the case, that the bill needs some improvements. She identified those improvements as being minimum sentencing and she has put forward a proposal for minimum sentencing as a committee stage amendment. I will discuss her amendments in detail at that particular time.
The member for Araluen talked about the Domestic Violence Orders and people who breach Domestic Violence Orders and commit an assault against someone; they get seven days mandatory imprisonment. However, I did not hear the member for Araluen say that that is for a second or subsequent breaking of a Domestic Violence Order. It is not on the first offence. The government would argue that what we are proposing here is on a first offence. We are certainly not going with minimum sentencing and, no doubt, we will debate very carefully why. Basically, we believe that our regime is fair. It is the policy intent of government. I am prepared to argue in committee stages with the member for Araluen over the nitty gritty of why the government will not be accepting the amendments that she has proposed.
Member for Nelson, I hope I heard you correctly, but I will stand corrected if I am wrong. I believe you were saying there is a large section of the public who have probably had enough of what some people might call the law and order option between the major parties. You wanted to know more about programs in gaols and the impact of some of these particular policies and changes to the act on the prison population. As is well known, government has put forward a master plan for our correctional facilities, to have a 1000 bed facility on a greenfield site. That announcement, as I have discussed with the member for Nelson, will be made in the next little while. Without going into the issue of where it will be sited, I believe the expansion will provide sufficient capacity to handle any increase caused by our tough but responsible sentencing amendments.
The strong advice that I have had, member for Nelson, that even under the current growth, that is the growth that we have had to date without these laws being brought in, the model you put forward and the model the opposition, and particularly the Leader of the Opposition, put forward will fail in four years. There simply will not be anywhere to put prisoners by 2012. That is the site at Berrimah. I am prepared to argue in detail about that at the appropriate time. No doubt we will have a debate in this place on that issue. That is my very strong advice. The model that you have proposed will exacerbate the situation and make it even more unworkable.
We have done an assessment. I am sure there will be a question on prison population and the effects of prison population from these amendments. My advice is it is very difficult on a day-to-day basis to assess prison population: people in remand, people who may be at various stages of serving their sentence. It is a lot easier if you have a wider time frame, particularly a year. It is easy enough to get an estimate over a year, but we know that crime and punishment tends to spike a little. The advice that I have had from Corrections is that there will be capacity within the system to have any influx due to these changes here. Member for Nelson, I know we will have a more detailed debate at another time about gaols, locations of gaols, capacity of gaols, and other issues related to that.
Implicit in your question, apart from the capacity of gaols, was the issue of rehabilitation and giving prisoners some support for when they come out of gaol to be equipped to handle life and not re-offend and get back inside again. That is one of the reasons why government has proposed and will be building a new gaol. Any look at the education facilities and rehabilitation facilities at Berrimah as it stands now is just woeful. In fact, it is embarrassing to see the lack of facilities there for prisoners. Part of the main driver for government about having a greenfield site is the fact that we will be able to expand educational facilities both in terms of infrastructure and programs that are being offered.
The member for Nelson raised a specific case about whether these particular laws would apply in the case of the much publicised incident that occurred at a middle school where a girl was attacked in the toilets and was filmed and shown on YouTube. These are juveniles and these laws will not apply to juveniles. You talked a little about Family Responsibility Orders and camps - as did the Chief Minister, who complimented the Leader of the Opposition for taking an active interest in Balunu. The Chief Minister also said that government has taken up funding for Balunu and for Brahminy in the Top End and Hamilton Downs in Central Australia. I have not had the opportunity to look at either Brahminy or Balunu, but it was my pleasure to go to the Hamilton Downs facility with Ren Kelly probably a couple of months ago now. It was a great drive out there.
Mr Elferink: How is Ren?
Dr BURNS: What is that?
Mr Elferink: How is he? I have not seen him for ages.
Dr BURNS: He is pretty good.
Mr Elferink: That is good news. I am pleased to hear it.
Dr BURNS: I will pass on your best wishes, member for Port Darwin.
Mr Elferink: Thank you.
Dr BURNS: He is very passionate about this facility and it is great to see someone like Ren Kelly and other members of the Alice Springs community getting squarely behind a facility such as Hamilton Downs, not only for troubled youth but for youth generally. It was great to hear some of the history of Hamilton Downs - not just the more recent history but some of its pioneering history. For me, it was a great day out. I do not get out much anymore, unfortunately, in places like that to go for a drive, so I really appreciated the trouble Ren went to. Ren’s wife made some lovely scones and cakes and we had a cup of tea in a Thermos, and it was a feast all around. I really enjoyed it.
The Chief Minister also talked about, as did other members such as the member for Arnhem, family responsibility orders, and a framework - not just these laws but a framework for youths - trying to get youth before they go off the rails and become repeat offenders as adults, and what government is doing in that regard with camps and closing the door on juvenile diversion. Unfortunately, as the member for Macdonnell pointed out, there are some people who go through life and think that some of this violent behaviour is normal and they continue to offend. I appreciated the contribution of the member for Macdonnell about her own tragic family experience and her view and her passion that, as a government, through all of the strategies that we have, including these laws, that what we are trying to do is reduce the amount of violence perpetrated within our community.
The Chief Minister also talked about one aspect of the changes in the law which relates specifically to police and aggravated assaults on police with very hefty penalties. This is a government that really wants to support our police force. These amendments will go a long way to helping police. They have a very difficult job, they confront very violent offenders, and it is dangerous work in which they are involved.
The Leader of the Opposition, in a way, responded to the Chief Minister’s offering and talked about political point scoring. I was a bit lost when he said he holds the same position now as at the election because, basically, that is not the way I recall it. He has had a number of policy positions. First he said: ‘First offence we will leave it up to the judge’. Then he followed on with: ‘Second offence you will go to gaol’. That was his first foray into this policy area in the lead-up to the election. By the time of the campaign launch, in a desperate attempt to catch up, he announced ‘a compulsory term of imprisonment for the first offence but only for offences that cause serious harm’. So, it was a very narrow band of offences.
What we propose are a number of offences. Amongst others, section 181, serious harm; section 186, harm; section 188, assault resulting in harm or serious harm to the victim; and section 189A, as I have just alluded to, assaults on police causing harm or serious harm to the victim. The crux of these offences is that harm is caused. In our proposal we have been consistent right throughout the election campaign up to the introduction to parliament. We have been very consistent about our view. Our view is that the community is very concerned about those who perpetrate violent offences - not just the sort of minor argy-bargy that goes on within any society at the level of common assault, as I will call it, but something that is more serious; something that actually causes palpable harm and particularly physical harm to the victim. That was always our intent.
The other thing to note is that serious harm, as proposed during the campaign by the opposition, is a very serious penalty in itself. It has a maximum penalty of 14 years. Invariably that leads to a prison sentence anyway, so it was a bit of a Clayton’s amendment. As I have said publicly and in the media earlier today, there have been three versions of committee stage amendments put forward by the shadow Attorney-General - that has been over the last three to four days - each of which has a different take on when people should go to prison. They are overly complex, I believe, and they have a very legalistic take on sentencing.
As we will find out in the committee stages, there are many steps involved in section 4, particularly the committee stage amendment the member for Araluen is talking about. There is (a) to (d), and we will go through it in much detail in the committee stage debate.
In being briefed on what the member for Araluen has proposed, my feeling was it has more steps than a Mayan temple. It has many steps and is complex - a bit like a Mayan temple. When you get to the end of the steps, there is a sacrifice. The sacrifice in what the member for Araluen is proposing here is all about simplicity, clarity and workability. I ask members to contrast that approach, which is very much policy on the run and trying to keep up with the government and get a headline, with our very clear approaches.
In the committee stage I will outline and define what physical harm is, and making that, to a large degree, the test of someone actually going to prison for what they have done. We are not interested in the minor argy-bargy. We are interested in serious assaults, and our legislation and the committee stage amendment that I will be introducing as part of the committee stage reflect that.
I have covered to some degree what people have talked about. Surprisingly enough, the Leader of the Opposition called the ALP imitators and counterfeiters. I believe I have demonstrated, and I will demonstrate, and I will continue to demonstrate, that that is the role the CLP has taken in this particular debate and this particular issue. It has been catch up all the way, and they have been the imitators and counterfeiters. As we enter into the committee stage debate, that will be well and truly exposed.
The Leader of the Opposition accused the Labor Party of holding a view, and I quote: ‘Individuals are not wholly responsible for their actions’. I rebut that completely. I refute that completely. This is a government, in all areas, that really wants people to take responsibility for their lives, for their families. That has been reflected through our Family Responsibility Orders and Agreements. That is our policy intent also. So I was bit perplexed when the Leader of the Opposition said that. That is our view and the strong statements made by the member for Macdonnell and the member for Arnhem, and others here, really demonstrate that the government is intent on making people take responsibility for their actions.
I believe I have dealt with what the Leader of the Opposition said. As I have said previously, the member for Macdonnell talked from her own experience. Her exact words were: ‘Violent offenders should not be let off’. That is what this legislation, in a very clear and concise way, will address. She also talked about some of this violence being a normalisation of behaviour and, unfortunately, that is very true. There are some people in the Territory who think that violence is a normal way of life and it is the normal way to react to situations. Unfortunately, that is not the case and these are the people that this legislation will target.
I reiterate what the Chief Minister said on 14 July 2008 in his media release:
- If you commit a serious violent assault you will go to jail, first time – no second chances.
He also said:
- You don’t deserve a second chance if you seriously injure someone – if you injure their eye, break their jaw or give them broken ribs – you should go to jail.
That is the intent of government put forward by the Chief Minister. It is still the intent of government. I commend this bill to the House and look forward to the committee stage debate.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Madam CHAIR: The committee has before it the Sentencing Amendment (Violent Offences) Bill 2008 (Serial 7) together with Schedule of Amendments No 3 circulated by the member for Araluen and a Schedule of Amendments No 4 circulated by the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General.
Is it the wish of the committee that Clauses 1 to 4 be taken together?
Ms CARNEY: Aye. I will do the government’s work for them. They really want to say aye to this.
Dr BURNS: There could be no objection and it can be so ordered. So there you go, member for Araluen.
Ms CARNEY: You had no idea what was going on.
Ms LAWRIE: You can be silent.
Madam CHAIR: Order!
Ms CARNEY: You are Leader of Government Business. Do not speak from that seat. You never know what is going on.
Madam CHAIR: Thank you. Order!
Clauses 1 to 4, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 5:
Ms CARNEY: Madam Chair, I move amendment 3.1 to clause 5 standing in my name and circulated to members. The minister and others have a copy of the amendment. I will reply to some of the matters the minister discussed before, but let us get through this part of it first.
These amendments are made for the reasons I outlined in my reply to the minister’s second reading speech earlier today. The minister said in his response that they were complex. Let me lead the minister, the first law officer of the Northern Territory, through our amendments.
The amendments fulfil an election promise to impose certain minimum sentences on serious violent offenders. The amendments will allow the court to decide the outcome for first time offenders, except where serious harm is caused to the victim. The amendments will require the courts to impose the following sentences:
for a violent offence causing serious harm and where the offender is an adult and has recorded a previous conviction for a violent offence – 12 months;
for a violent offence causing serious harm and the offender is an adult who has had no previous conviction for a violent offence – six months;
for a violent offence with aggravated factors where the person is an adult and has recorded a previous conviction for a violent crime – three months;
for a violent offence causing harm and the offender is an adult and has recorded a previous conviction for a violent offence – one month; and
for all other second and subsequent violent offences, the court must record a conviction and impose a term of actual imprisonment or a term of imprisonment that
is partly, but not wholly suspended. On a second or subsequent offence where the victim suffers no harm and there are no aggravating factors in the offence, then
the committee stage amendments will leave the sentence to the discretion of the court which includes the rising of the court, and for a second or subsequent offence
that happens within 10 years on conviction for a previous violent offence, the court must not suspend any part of the sentence. Apart from the subsections that refer
only to adults, the section applies to adult offenders and also to juvenile offenders who have been sentenced and treated as an adult offender in the Supreme Court.
Minister, you are clearly a man who thinks size matters. Your amendments are certainly smaller, it would appear, than ours. That does not lessen their significance and nor are the amendments complex. They are remarkably straightforward for magistrates and judges to follow. Why? Because they are prescribed minimum sentences. Straightforward for the people of the Northern Territory because they know that is what the tariff is, what the minimum requirement is, when offenders commit serious harm. The offenders not only know what to expect, but the people of the Northern Territory know what they are going to get.
I was going to say I was not going to go into the committee stage process in great detail. I was going to repeat to some extent what I said earlier today - that we have different approaches to sentencing but, frankly, I found your response so rude, offensive and patronising that you are about to get everything you deserve.
You are a very odd fellow, Attorney-General. At times I think you are a decent fellow. However, when I hear the sort of rubbish I heard from you earlier, I question your integrity. I have not questioned your integrity before, but I do it now. You had a bit of a go about the draft. I understand one was an office stuff-up and the other two drafts resulted from discussions with Parliamentary Counsel. How dare you seek to take the mickey for getting additional drafts when you as Attorney-General, your predecessor and the one before him, not to mention your colleagues in respect of other legislation, have come into this House in terms of second and subsequent offences fixing up the bills that you introduced because you discover months and, in some cases, years down the track that they were stuffed up when you introduced them.
We call them your ‘oops’ bills. I do not have a count of how many ‘oops’ bills you have introduced as a government but there are buckets of them. With all of the resources of government, with all of your collective wisdom, when you keep coming in here over the last seven years with ‘oops’ bills, how dare you have a go in respect of the drafts in relation to this bill. You can sit there smiling like, who is it? Dr Burns from the Simpsons?
A member: Montgomery.
Ms CARNEY: Montgomery. This is a very serious matter. I feel certain that those in Parliamentary Counsel will take, as they should, a dim view of your implicit criticism of them. As an opposition, everyone makes mistakes; as a government, everyone makes mistakes. You seem to think, minister, that you are perfect. May I respectfully suggest to you that you are not - and you are, my friend, a long way from it.
Then there was the offensive suggestion that the opposition was playing catch-up. Not true and you know it. The Labor Party did not even know, let alone embrace it, the meaning of the word ‘mandatory’ until - what was it, a couple of years ago? – all of a sudden, it started to find its way into legislation. You hypocrites! You came in here on 16 October 2001, hand on heart, saying: ‘We are going to get rid of mandatory sentencing. We think it is outrageous’. How many times have we seen the word ‘mandatory’ surface since then? You are, my friends, the ones who have been playing catch-up. Indeed, in respect of minimum sentences, if memory serves me correctly - and I will stand to be corrected on this - I feel certain we, the opposition, talked about minimum sentences in this place in the past. Certainly, with your great resources on the fifth floor of this place, you will know that I have made various references to minimum sentences in the media over the past few years.
Why have I and the opposition referred to minimum sentences? Because we know - and you do too; you just cannot bring yourselves to admit it - the public wants it. As a government or, indeed in opposition, you do not always do everything the public wants, but you cannot ignore community expectation. How dare you sanctimoniously sit there and assert that you represent your constituents and the electorate of the Northern Territory when you fail to listen to them? You are not listening.
I repeat the point about the high rates of crime and violence in the Northern Territory. They are too high. Is it not the case, at the very least - and I put it the purpose of our amendments is, in fact, put much more highly than this - but indulge me for a minute and go down the alternative track. At the very least, might not minimum sentences for violent offenders be worth a go in due course? Well, they should be.
In relation to your suggestion that there is some catch-up being played here, once again, your sanctimonious utterings are surprising and offensive. You have been in government for seven years. How dare you say that we are playing catch-up when you lot are only just beginning to understand - because I feel certain your polling said it - that the community expects more.
We say that these amendments should be supported. I know they will not be, but they should be. I wonder, given the form of this government, whether in a couple of years time we are going to see a media release with your pearly whites, or the mate sitting next to you, on it saying: ‘We are going to embrace and support minimum sentences’. Well, you do have form. So, how dare you say to us in the rude, patronising and sanctimonious, hypocritical way that you do - that we are playing catch-up? Nothing could be further from the truth. You want to get to work? We will get to work and we will go through the committee stages. But do not be rude and offensive like that to me ever again.
Dr BURNS: Madam Chair, I am not sure which part of the member for Araluen’s speech she wants me to respond to. I am more than happy to respond to the substantial issues around minimum sentencing. Are we talking about that now, member for Araluen?
Ms Carney: It is an inane question.
Dr BURNS: Well, we seem to be talking about something else.
Ms Carney: I have moved the amendment – stay awake!
Dr BURNS: You talked about this government repealing mandatory sentencing laws in 2001 and, of course, we did, and we are proud of it, member for Araluen. It was specifically about mandatory sentencing for property crime, which did create a number of injustices which have been well documented and, moreover, was shown not to work in reducing property crime within the Northern Territory, and within my electorate in particular. Government brought in a number of strategies regarding property crime, and there has been, overall, a substantial reduction in property crime not seen under the regime of mandatory sentencing.
I believe the public does have a different view of sentencing for violent offences which, I believe, are in a different category. I believe what the government has proposed in our regime for sentencing for serious violent assaults is fair. As I have said previously, it is tough, but it is fair.
The member for Araluen said: ‘Why not give it a go?’ Well, coming back to part (4) of what you read out before, which you prcis-ed a little, member for Araluen, so I will read out your part (4):
- The sentence must include a minimum term of actual imprisonment as follows:
(a) 12 months if the person:
- (i) is an adult who has been found guilty of a previous violent offence, and
- (ii) has caused serious harm when committing the current offence;
(b) 6 months - if the person:
- (i) is an adult who has not previously been found guilty of a violent offence; and
(ii) has caused serious harm in committing the current offence;
(c) 3 months if:
- (i) the person is an adult who has been found guilty of a previous violent offence; and
- (ii) paragraph (a) does not apply, and
- (iii) there are aggravating factors in relation to the commission of the current offence (see sections 5(2)(f) and 6A);
(d) 1 month if:
(i) the person is an adult who has been found guilty of a previous violent offence, and
- (ii) neither paragraph (a) nor (c) apply; and
- (iii) the person has caused harm when committing the current offence.
I suppose, being a lawyer, the member for Araluen is well able to follow that, but I believe our amendments to 78BA are much simpler. Basically, we have nominated a number of offences, which I have outlined before, and I will repeat them:
(a) section 181 - serious harm.
(b) section 186 – harm.
(c) section 188 - assault resulting in harm or serious harm to the victim.
(d) section 189A - assault on police resulting in harm or serious harm to the victim.
I believe our regime is very clear and straightforward if you are found guilty of those offences I have just mentioned. The committee stage amendment that I will be moving is simply:
- (1A) However, an offence in subsection (1)(a) relates to causing or resulting in only physical harm to a victim, this section applies only if the harm is a physical injury that interferes with the victim’s health.
With that covering section and the clear intent of government relating to this serious set of offences, I honestly believe, member for Araluen, that our regime is certainly much simpler. There are deeper problems with your regime; in any mandatory sentencing regime there is always the potential for injustice. Under your minimum sentencing model, there is potential injustice, and I will give you a fairly practical example that I have been given.
Eight years ago, say, a man pushed another man in a disagreement and was found guilty of common assault. Eight years further on, the man is somewhere with his partner, there is a drunk or some obnoxious person who insults, in a fairly profound way, and provokes the male in question. In both regimes, I acknowledge that provocation is not a defence. However, the man retaliates and he might punch the other person in the altercation and that person gets a slight black eye or something that does not permanently affect their health. I am advised and you might tell me differently, member for Araluen, that this person, if found guilty of course, would be sentenced to a minimum of one month under your regime.
I think much of the public would say, in that case, if there has not been serious harm done or serious injury to the person’s health, in the circumstances of the crime, that a month might be a fairly severe sentence - a minimum of one month. With ours, there could be either part or all of the sentence, so the court could determine that it could be an hour, a day, the rising of the court, or it could be overnight that person is incarcerated. The person would still have to serve a term of actual imprisonment. The court could even determine that the person be held to the rising of the court.
I believe there are instances, and we hear about them in the paper, where injustices are done, where the public feels that the perpetrator got off very lightly, but there are also times when the public read an incident that has happened in the paper and think that a sentence or a penalty is too severe.
I argue, and the government argues, that the regime put up by the member for Araluen is not only overly complex but it sweeps in offences at the minor end of the scale. Our regime does not include common assault which is under the umbrella, I am advised, member for Araluen, of a violent offence. I am advised that your regime sweeps in common assault. The government has always made it plain that we will not be going down that track of including common assault which is at the very minor end of the scale of our sentencing regime. Yes, I am advised that it would include common assault for a first offence.
Ms CARNEY: There you go, you still do not understand it, do you? You sought to mislead me and mislead the parliament, until you had a word to an advisor. You are a disgrace, minister.
Dr BURNS: We will not be looking at the regime put forward by the member for Araluen. We will be sticking to our regime, in essence, and focus on the serious end of the offending spectrum in terms of serious harm, harm, assault causing harm, or serious harm to the victim, or assaults on police.
Amendment negatived.
Dr BURNS: Madam Chair, I move amendment 4.1. This amendment amends clause 5 of the Sentencing Amendment (Violent Offences) Bill to remove redundant words. Serious harm is a subset of harm. The threshold for the operation of the amendment is that harm results. If, in fact, serious harm results that threshold is clearly met.
Ms CARNEY: Minister, you sought to mislead the parliament when you said only minutes ago that your amendment of the bill did not include common assault. Then you sought advice from an advisor, and you said, ‘Oops, yes it does.’ Minister, I have one question: do you understand your bill and the amendment, yes or no?
Dr BURNS: I am advised that the bill does not include common assault for first offence.
Ms CARNEY: Oh, you have changed your mind again.
Dr BURNS: What is that?
Ms CARNEY: You have changed your mind again.
Dr BURNS: No, I have just said what I have just said, member for Araluen.
Amendment agreed to.
Ms CARNEY: I do not know how you can think that, with great respect, Madam Chair, given that not one government member indicated support for their own amendment. You lot are a rabble, a shambles, a disgrace. I cannot believe it.
Dr BURNS: Madam Chair, I move amendment 4.2. This amendment also amends clause 5 by inserting after the proposed 78BA(1) a qualification for the operation of proposed section 78BA(1A) to ensure that the proposed section 78BA(1A) does not cause injustice by applying to minor assaults. Where the offending causes or results in physical harm, that harm must be such as to amount to a physical injury that interferes with the victim’s health. If the victim suffers pain or discomfort but it does not amount to a physical injury that interferes with health, then the sentencing regime of section 78BA does not apply. This is as I foreshadowed.
Government’s intent has never been to capture violent offences at the minor end of the scale, as I called it, the minor argy-bargy that does go on from time to time. This is all about capturing serious offences at the serious end of the spectrum that do cause harm and injury to someone’s health.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Dr BURNS (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
TRANSPORT LEGISLATION (ALCOHOL IGNITION LOCKS) AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 9)
(Serial 9)
Continued from 18 September 2008.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, the Assembly should know that the Country Liberals value highly the need for comprehensive action on addressing our terrible road toll. Currently, our road toll this year stands at 65 versus 39 at the same time last year. Since 2005, when a discussion around a review of the road strategy was initially thought about and 2006, when the road safety package was implemented, our road toll has continued to go from bad to worse. It is a sad fact that more than 50% of our road toll currently has incidences of drink-driving and also people not wearing a seat belt.
From time to time, matters arise in parliament where true bipartisanship is required for a common good. I would like to think that addressing road safety and reducing our road toll is one of those points.
I briefly spoke about our road toll figures over the last few years. When you look over a five-year average, there have been 244 fatalities on Territory roads, with alcohol being a factor in 124 of those deaths - approximating to 51% of all road deaths. There are more alarming statistics provided by police. These indicate that over the three-year period of 2005, 2006 and 2007, there were 6169 recorded drink-driving offences in the Northern Territory, of which 1130 people or 18% were apprehended for a second and subsequent offence; 2308 people or 37% recorded blood alcohol content readings of more than 0.15%, a high level; and 1301 people or 21% were apprehended in the rural area - that is areas outside of Darwin, Palmerston, Alice Springs, Katherine, Tennant Creek and Nhulunbuy.
Publicly, I have previously made the offer to sit down with the member for Karama and undertake a comprehensive review of the road safety package and open up the Country Liberal’s policy to review our package at the same time, working together to identify which elements are working and which elements are not, and seeking out new ways to improve road safety - ultimately seeking to reduce the carnage and our road toll. This offer has not been taken up; however, I still extend an open invitation to the member for Karama.
This bill which is before us today is about alcohol ignition locks. The alcohol ignition lock is a device that is fitted to a car by a professional which would see the driver, in layman’s terms, blow into the device and register a blood alcohol reading. If that blood alcohol reading is at the allowable level, the ignition will start. If not, the vehicle will not start. There are instances where that ignition lock can be beaten, such as tampering with the starter motor, jump-starting the car, and other methods. We do recognise, though, that the alcohol ignition lock, the AIL, is a device which, generally, is difficult to tamper with, but can be tampered with.
I previously sent the member for Karama a letter requesting amendments be made to my bill. However, after having a briefing with the department on Monday, I do have a large number of unanswered questions which I have serious concerns about as to the roll-out of alcohol ignition locks. I have presented that to the member for Karama.
It should be noted that, even if legislation were passed today, it would be assumed that no one would have an alcohol lock until well before the end of next year or even the year after. That would be as a result of delays in getting the program to start and the time frame for mandatory periods. We could possibly say that this may not be starting until the end of 2009 or 2010, depending upon the start of the program.
One of the questions I raised with the member for Karama by correspondence is: when will that actual program commence? From my briefing by the department, those questions have not been answered, and I am very keen to hear from the member for Karama when the program will commence, which would allow for people to start being sentenced and for mandatory periods of sentencing to commence before the AIL could even come into play.
Other important questions are: how much it will cost to install? How much it will cost to service monthly? And how much it will cost to remove the AIL? I am advised that it would be around $1400 to install an alcohol ignition lock; $140 a month to service an alcohol ignition lock; and up to $1000 to remove the alcohol ignition lock. That is a very costly process. I am sure that many constituents within our electorates will find it difficult to pay this amount of money. I am very keen to find out exactly what the cost scheme is for people who do wish to take up the AILs.
Another question is: how do installations work in rural and remote areas? I am advised there are two companies that can provide an alcohol ignition lock. One company recommends - in layman’s terms - a Joe Blow who seems to know what they are doing can fit one, and the other one is that a licensed electrician has to be able to fit an alcohol ignition lock. If 21% of our three years of drink-drivers who were apprehended came from areas outside the rural area of Darwin, Palmerston, Alice Springs, Katherine, Tennant Creek, and Nhulunbuy, I wonder how many people in those areas will be able to take up an AIL if there are no licensed or capable people who can fit the alcohol ignition lock.
In reviewing many documents that relate to alcohol ignition locks around Australia, throughout the United States, Canada and Europe, I have come across many reports which review AILs and how well they perform, and how much they seem to limit the rate of recidivism once people come off alcohol ignition locks. Some of the information that I have come across says to me that alcohol ignition locks do get drink-drivers back on the road after the mandatory period, but the evidence would say that they are not significantly positive in stopping people from re-offending after the alcohol ignition locks come back on.
Other questions that I put to the department in a briefing, and I have also put to the member for Karama, are: how many departmental staff or MVR staff would be required to manage this program; how much the program in administration components will cost to manage the AIL program; and, will it bring benefits to those people who do take up an AIL?
One of the important components with the AIL is that we are trying to rehabilitate, or change the behaviour of people who are repeat drink-driving offenders. The government proposes a three year period and our amendments propose a five year period. However, I have not been able to identify, through correspondence to the member for Karama or through briefings, exactly how many people we expect will take up the AIL; how many people we expect will stop drink-driving once that AIL period finishes; how many people will not be able to afford to go on the program; and where we expect the program to be taken, whether it is in a rural, remote or urban location, whether it is north or south, or in the middle of this vast Territory. I am very interested in hearing from the member for Karama about who we are actually targeting and who it is going to affect, because without that, it makes it very difficult to know exactly what we are trying to do, to put it simply.
When we are talking about AILs, this is a drastic measure. It is an important measure, but it is a drastic measure. It is an important measure because we have got to the point where people are not valuing other people on the road. They are prepared to drink-drive, and they are putting their lives at risk and they are putting other people’s lives at risk - your and my family and friends. We come in with this drastic measure, taking account of the number of people who do re-offend in terms of drink-driving. If we are going to come in with a very heavy hand, with an alcohol ignition lock to make things tougher for people and try to get them to rehabilitate their behaviour, I would say that we should not just be just looking at the past three years of offending, we should be looking at a five year period to see if these people are still offending so we can try to get some of these drunk people off the road and stop them driving.
Another concern that I have raised is about something that I refer to as ‘aid and abet laws’ for people who may be keen to assist a drunk driver start his car, maybe by blowing into the alcohol ignition lock and getting the car started so they can drive off. There are third party rules that need to come into place so that people who aid and abet potential drink-drivers are held accountable for their actions. It is the responsibility of the whole community to be getting these drink-drivers off the road.
These are serious questions and without having an answer to these questions it makes it difficult to support the legislation. I look forward to some advice from the member for Karama regarding how much the device will cost, how many people it expects to target, how it will be installed, and how it will be removed in certain areas.
Let us not forget that we do not expect there to be anyone who has an alcohol ignition lock in the near future, given the timetable for this to start up and the mandatory period that someone must serve for a sentence.
As I have said, the program may not be ready until the second half of next year or even 12 months for someone who gets a 12 month mandatory licence period. We are trying to remove drink-drivers from our roads. There have been 65 fatalities against 39 for the same time last year and when we take a look at how we perform against other states and territories around the country, clearly the Northern Territory is by far the worst. The 65 fatalities on our roads this year compared with 39 last year, represents a 67% increase in people dying on Territory roads as opposed to last year, and we are not even looking at the year before.
If we look at New South Wales, as of 30 September, they had 266 people who had died on their roads as against 307 the year before, a decrease of 15%. Tasmania has seen a decrease of 23%. Interestingly enough, with a small population in Tasmania, albeit bigger than ours, and understanding the geographical differences, there have only been 31 people killed on Tasmanian roads as at the 22 September. In South Australia there was a 28% reduction with 60 people dying as at 1 September. In Queensland there has been a 15% decrease, and Western Australia has had a 25% decrease in their rate of fatalities. However, in the Northern Territory we have a 67% increase in the number of people dying on our roads. That is an absolute disgrace.
We need firm action and that is why we are talking about the alcohol ignition lock. 2010 is a long time away, if that is when the first person gets the AIL - or a little before or after, we will wait and see. I look forward to those answers. We have to remember that you can only get an AIL if people are actually caught drink-driving. It is all right to talk about alcohol ignition locks coming in, but if you are not caught drink-driving you are never going to get an alcohol ignition lock.
The most recent figures I could find available for drivers tested for drink-driving is looking at the 2006-07 Police, Fire and Emergency Services Annual Report. This is the year the road safety strategy came into place with much pomp and grandeur. In the annual report there was a target for 85 000 drivers to be tested for drink-driving, yet in that year only 66 000 or thereabouts were tested. In a year when the road safety package came about I would have expected that drink-driving tests were conducted on a more regular basis, not scaling back the number of people who were tested for drink-driving. I would say if the government took the matter seriously, they would have been conducting drink-driving tests on at least the targeted levels, if not more. It is interesting to see that the estimate for this year is lower than the estimate for the 2006-07 financial year, based on the annual report.
I have just spoken about the complacency to test drink-drivers, but even in the bill there is complacency against those convicted of low range drink-driving. For those caught with a low-level range three times in three years, under the government’s proposal there is still no requirement to have an alcohol ignition lock installed. I believe that if you get caught drink-driving three times in three years you are a repeat offender and you need sterner action. If nothing is changing, if your behaviour is not changing and you are still putting your own life and my life, your life and everyone else’s life at risk, something needs to happen.
For those reasons, I have proposed in my amendments, which we will talk about later, that an AIL be installed on a low-level range drink-driver. For the low-level range drink-driver not to be included as part of this amendment to put the AIL in, I would say the government clearly thinks it is all right for people to drink a little over the limit. It is all right if it is 0.05 to 0.08, you are not going to get penalised. Enough is enough. Sixty-five people have been killed on our roads this year, 50% of them drink-driving. A 67% increase over last year, and what does the government say? It is all right to be a little over the limit. I do not support that and I do not think any of my colleagues support that. It is time to get tough and it is time to toughen right up and that is why, in my amendments, I say an AIL should be installed on the third offence for a low-level range offence within a five year period not a three year period. I have sent a letter to the minister for Transport asking for this amendment to be made so that those caught three times with low range have an AIL installed. I have not heard anything back but I expect the member for Karama may talk about that shortly.
I will just go back to a few more numbers. Catching drink-drivers is a difficult task and I have referred before to the 2006-07 annual report. In that report it says that 16% of people who have driven in the past 12 months had possibly driven over the 0.05 limit. Now, 16% of people in a whole year, of all the Territory drivers, driving over the 0.05 limit is fairly high. I do mention the word ‘possibly’ because people are guessing that they are over the 0.05 limit. If we think about 16% of people over that 12 month period driving over the 0.05 limit, we have seen that only 6% of drivers were actually detected for drink-driving. What that is saying is 10% of people who believe that they were drink-driving did not get caught in the Northern Territory. I find those figures alarming.
You cannot catch a drink-driver if the DUI blitzes are not out and about at the right time. We have heard a couple of weeks prior, I do not have the date in front of me now, on a radio interview with one of the senior heads of police talking about testing a large number of drink-drivers on a Monday afternoon in Darwin. He was saying that no one was caught drink-driving. That is positive news. I have repeatedly been saying through the media that drink-driving blitzes need to be occurring at the times when people are drink-driving. If I have a drink at a pub I will see people there who are clearly over the limit. When I leave the pub or the club - I am not over the limit - but I will drive home and I never see a DUI blitz around the streets, whether it is in Darwin, Katherine, Tennant Creek or Alice Springs where I frequent more often. I know there are many people inside those establishments who will be drink-driving on their way home.
I will use an example of the Alice Springs casino. I know many people who go to the casino on a Friday and Saturday night and are possibly doing the wrong thing by drinking too much. When those people leave, they never see a drink-driving blitz on the street. That is the time when people are drink-driving. We do not have to be scientists to work out when people drink-drive; it is when they have been drinking. You have to be drinking to be drink-driving. Why don’t we see the alcohol blitzes at the right times when people are drink-driving more?
It is quite funny - and this is only anecdotal; I am not making accusations here - but every time I talk about drink-driving in the media there is a drink-driving blitz right out the front of my house. Every single time. There is never a drink-driving blitz on the Stuart Highway at the front of the Wintersun Caravan Park unless I talk about it. I am talking about it now so we will find out if there is a drink-driving blitz out the front of the caravan park on the Stuart Highway at Alice Springs tonight.
Mr Knight: What are you saying about the police then?
Mr GILES: I am not talking about the police. I am just saying, member for Daly, that it is very funny that every time I talk about it there is a drink-driving blitz out the front of my house.
I also thought it was very funny that before the election campaign there had not been a radar detector, that I had ever seen, outside the Wintersun Caravan Park. Every day of the election campaign when I drove past there was a speed camera or a drink-driving blitz there. I thought that was quite funny. Talking about it today may mean that we might get some more people off the road this afternoon if they are drink-driving.
Mr Vatskalis: There was one last night.
Mr GILES: There was one last night? Oh good. There may be another one today if I am talking about it.
I have spoken about catching drink-drivers; sentencing is another issue. The key purpose of penalties is to change behaviours. I have spoken about the recidivism rates. Research from around the country shows that the AILs do not curb drink-driving after the AIL is removed. I will table from the Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing, the National Drug Strategy titled The Avoidable Cost of Alcohol Abuse in Australia and the Potential Benefits of Effective Policies to Reduce the Social Cost of Alcohol, published through Macquarie University, the University of Queensland and the University of New South Wales. On page 31, section 6.2, it says about alcohol ignition locks:
- … seven of the studies found that, once the interlock is removed, offenders have the same recidivism rate as suspended offenders.
I have quoted a line from there which indicates that once people have those alcohol ignition locks taken out of their cars they go back to driving, they go back to drink-driving.
As I have mentioned before, it is important for us to ensure that we catch people who are low-level drink-driving offenders. By that I mean from 0.05 to 0.08. It is important that we catch them and utilise a full five-year period to identify prior convictions. It is important that we say: ‘We are going to get tough on those low-level offenders and install an alcohol ignition lock in their car’. It is also important that we have a final stop-gap measure after the AIL that says if you get caught again and again and again, we will be tougher than the AIL.
I have raised questions about the target group for the AILs, and how many people we think it would target. That report was interesting. I have read 1000 reports. There is another one here from Alberta in Canada which talks about similar things. This one talks about the cost of having an interlock. I will just read from the report The Impact of Mandatory versus Voluntary Participation in Alberta Ignition Interlock Program:
- The costs of having the interlock installed and maintained (as much as $1000 per year) combined with the annoyance and potential embarrassment of having to provide breath samples repeatedly would appear to be disincentives to participation.
This is what I was referring to earlier. I mentioned my briefing the other day and information that I am waiting to receive from the member for Karama, and how the department did not have any indication of how many people will be taking up the AIL, especially given that other studies indicate the cost is an issue for people.
It is indicative of the government coming through an election process and recognising some of the solid policies that the Country Liberals have put forward. I make note that, on 13 July 2008, the Leader of the Opposition, in this media release, talked about seat belts, mandatory three month licence suspension for seat belts, and confiscation of cars. There are previous media releases where we have spoken about alcohol ignition locks prior to the election, and the government being very keen to say: ‘We have this road toll on our hands. We have a disaster coming up this year. More people continue to die. What are we going to have to do? We have to come up with some sort of solution so we will copy the Country Liberal’s policy …’ - our Country Liberal’s policy – ‘… on the ignition locks’.
Every time someone dies and I talk about it, and someone else talks about it and says the government is doing nothing, what has the government done? It has copied our policy. That is the height of flattery when the government recognises that. One of the issues in copying our policy and rushing it out as quickly as they can is that they have not thought the AIL policy and program through regarding its guidelines and implementation. We do not know when it is going to start; we do not know how it is going to work.
Something I have not mentioned yet is that with an alcohol ignition lock there are the legislative components and then there are the regulations about how it all works. With the ignition lock there is a possibility - and it is a good idea - that you blow into this little machine that lets you start the car and after that you can set it up how ever you like. I am keen to find out how it will work before I support the legislation.
This is why it is important to know who you are targeting. If you are in a big city and have to drive a long way, you can set it up so that it will give you a retest in 10 minutes. Any time within that 10 minute period you get an indication that you have to do another test. The car has to pull over in a period of time, that could be one minute, could be three or five minutes, and then they have to do a retest. The machines can be set up so that you might be going on a big drive and the car has not been turned off for a while. You might be driving from Darwin to Katherine and, in the program guidelines, you set the machine up to say within an hour, randomly set up, we will test the person again. So that person has whatever that period of time may be to pull of the side of the road and test again.
Alternatively, you might live in a small town like Tennant Creek in terms of geography, and it might only take one or two minutes to drive down the road. So you blow in the thing, start the ignition and go down the road, you are already at the paper shop, you have not had time for a retest, so maybe you need to have shorter retest periods. You may need different guidelines for different locations throughout the Territory, whether you are in a remote community, or in Alice Springs, or Darwin, or Nhulunbuy - keeping in mind that 20% of those drink-drivers I spoke of before live outside the urban areas.
It is difficult to talk about supporting the legislation when we do not know how the alcohol ignition locks are going to work. I have written to the member for Karama asking for this to come up at a later date. Once they get it all together, we can talk about it then. If we do not know how the program is going to work, we do not know who is going to targeted, we do not know how successful the program is going to be, we do not know how much it is going to cost, we do not know who is going to install it, and we do not know how much it is going to reduce the road fatality rate. It clearly shows to me that we really do not know anything.
All we know is, the Country Liberals had a great policy and the government decided to copy it. They were in so much trouble with the road toll which kept going up, they had to copy our policy. I am only new to parliament, and I come to this House with a number of good ideas, as my colleagues will tell me, and I am more than happy to write a few more policies if you would like to copy them to help you to move forward.
Members interjecting.
Mr GILES: Well, the next four years, or three years, or two years, I am not sure how long the knife is, if they change leaders and all that sort of thing, but I am happy to write policies for the government so that they can copy them, they can steal them, and they can take this forward.
In the haste of copying our policies, they clearly do not have a clue about how any of this is going to work. When you talk to a lot of people, as I have done since this matter came up, they say: ‘Oh, the alcohol ignition law, it is a great idea. I was really happy when the Country Liberals introduced that idea’. So the government has copied it, that will be great, and then they ask: ‘How does it work?’ and I say, ‘I know how I would like it to work, but the government does not have a clue’. The government does not have a clue about how it is going to work.
How on earth can this government be in charge of reducing the road fatality level when they do not even know how one of its key copied policies is going to work when it is put into production? They do not even know when it is going to start. Let me tell you, if it does not start, if the first person does not get an alcohol ignition lock until this time or later next year, this is an absolute farce. It is an absolute farce because our death toll is rising now. People are drinking and driving on our roads now, and we are hearing that this is not going to happen for a long time. I am very interested to find out when this is going to start.
Madam Speaker, I spoke briefly about how our amendments seek to come in at the lower end. We are people who recognise that being a bit over the limit is not a good thing. The government wants to think that being a little over is okay, and you can keep doing it. You can keep being a little over, and you get involved in accidents, or all those different things that happen when you are drink-driving - putting people’s lives at risk and putting all of our lives at risk and our families and friends.
We have put in our amendment so that people, who get caught three times on a low-level offence over a five year period, will be subject to an alcohol ignition law. At the same time, and this is where the big one comes in – this is the one that people are interested in. This is the one that people from the AANT talk about, and all the people in the street say: ‘Well, it is about time someone did something’ - that is, if you get caught three times within five years, when one of those occasions is when you have a high blood alcohol level, your motor vehicle will be confiscated – it will be forfeited. We will take it. It is time to put a line in the sand and say: ‘If you are a repeat high-level drink-driver, you have to lose your car’. Blowing over 0.15, it is absolutely atrocious that you are on our roads.
Ms Carney: You should do it. Take their car away from them.
Ms Lawrie: Take it away from their …
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr GILES: Madam Speaker, the member for Karama would be aware that I have made this amendment. I have put this to the member for Karama and I have asked her to consider it. I know, by the government copying our policies, that they would not be ready to implement the first part of our policy. How on earth would they be ready to copy the second party of our policy that I proposed? I have a feeling they will copy it because I really want their support on it, but I recognise that they will not be able to take this one up straightaway when they cannot get their first part in straightaway.
Our policy, for people caught drink-driving three times within a five-year period, when one occasion is with of a high blood alcohol level, is that your car will be forfeited. I commend that to the House and all of us on this side of the House think that it is a great idea.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr GILES: I have not conducted a straw poll, but I have spoken to hundreds of people about this and said: ‘What do you reckon if your car gets forfeited for drink-driving?’ They said: ‘That is a bit hard’. I asked: ‘What if you have done it three times?’ They said: ‘That is a great idea’. If you are not learning the first time, well, you might have made a mistake. If you are not learning the second time, well, you might have been stupid. The third time, Madam Speaker, you are a bloody idiot, and you deserve to have your car forfeited.
Ms Carney: Not you, Madam Speaker.
Mr GILES: No, not you, Madam Speaker, the person who was driving the car. Thank you very much.
Ms Carney: A point of clarification.
Mr GILES: I recommend that we should not be considering this legislation until we have more information so we know exactly who we are targeting; how it is going to work; when it is going to work; where it is going to work; how much it is going to cost; what the provisions are within the program; how it will work for people who might have to drive long distances or short distances, and how it will work for younger people or older people. Will you be able to put a two-year-old child on your lap and get them to blow in the ignition lock and get it to work for you? Could you get a bunch of balloons and blow them up and put them on your back seat; go inside, drink as much beer as you can, come back out, let a balloon out on the ignition lock with all your air in it that does not have any alcohol content, and then you are right to drive? These are some serious questions that we need answered.
I recognised, through my briefing on Monday this week, that the government is not ready with the legislation. I commend my amendments and I put them to the government to consider. I say to them: ‘Let us work together, in a bipartisan way, and we will be tough as an Assembly, not just tough as one party’.
Madam Speaker, I know we are not ready so I move that I can continue my remarks at a later date.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! We are in the second reading debate. How is the member going to continue his remarks at a later date? The legislation will be passed regardless of the matters he is raising. He has committee stage amendments which will be debated in committee stage. I will be responding to various matters he has raised.
Madam SPEAKER: It is improper to attempt to move that. There is already a motion before the House which is the bill. Those matters should be dealt with in committee. You are not able to speak again in the second reading debate. That is the process in this parliament.
Mr GILES: Madam Speaker, I will just repeat what I said. I move to continue my remarks at a later date – offering a bipartisan way – to give the government more time to work out exactly how this legislation is going to work so that we can come back here and debate it in a fully effective way.
Madam SPEAKER: You cannot move without seeking leave because we already have a motion before the House.
Mr GILES: Madam Speaker, I seek leave to continue my remarks at a later date.
Madam SPEAKER: Is leave granted?
Members: No.
Madam SPEAKER: Leave is not granted.
Mr GILES: Madam Speaker, I call a division, thanks.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no division on seeking leave.
Mr GILES: Okay.
Mr Knight: Up she gets!
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): I beg your pardon? Your point?
Mr Knight: Up she gets!
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Daly, cease interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: You have already got yourself into strife, sport.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, you have the call.
Ms CARNEY: Madam Speaker, in an earlier debate involving the Attorney-General I used words like hypocrites and sanctimonious. I also used some other words. In relation to hypocrisy I note there is an inconsistency that does amount to hypocrisy when it comes to that part of our policy that involves the confiscation of vehicles.
I know and others know that, in the general course of events, the Attorney-General does not have his head around the legislation he introduces. It would appear that that problem is not just restricted to the Attorney-General and that it applies to the minister for Transport. It must also go deeper to the Cabinet. They either do not understand their own bill or they do not understand the opposition’s amendments, or they have deliberately forgotten - how that could be the case I find remarkable - the provisions that apply in relation to the hooning laws.
Those hooning laws were introduced a year or so ago or thereabouts. Have a look, minister, advisors if there is anyone listening out there. The lights are on but probably no one is home. Have a look at 29AG of the Traffic Act. I will quote subsection (2):
- However, the Court must not make an impounding order or forfeiture order if it is satisfied impounding or forfeiting the vehicle will cause severe financial or physical hardship to the owner or usual driver of the vehicle.
The minister for Transport has a habit, as do some of her colleagues, of not addressing issues and not answering questions. I invite her to address this inconsistency in her reply. I feel certain we will be doing our best to alert the citizens of the Northern Territory to this inconsistency. I feel certain that government will not. I doubt government has included in any of its media releases: did you know, citizens of the Northern Territory, that in relation to hooning we think it is a good idea to take your car off you, but if you are a repeat drink-driver we are more than happy for you to stay on the roads in your cars?
You should be embarrassed to maintain such a position. I am not surprised because you are an embarrassing government. You are two-and-a-half months into your third term and I will say it again: ‘By God, your first one was your best one’. Two-and-a-half months into your third term and as I said last night: ‘Your get up and go, got up and went.’ You are not doing anything you told the people of the Northern Territory at the election you would do.
In the earlier debate, the Attorney-General said: ‘I don’t get out much anymore’. Well, he should, as should his colleagues, because if they got out more they would be in touch with community expectations; they would be talking to the people the member for Braitling referred to; they would be doing their job as a government. However, the Attorney-General does not get out much anymore and neither, it seems, do his colleagues.
I just thought I would raise that point; I have raised a couple of others along the way. I do not expect the minister for Transport to take on my comments about what an atrocious government they are, but I do expect, and the parliament of the Territory and the people of the Territory are entitled to even a remotely sensible explanation about this inconsistency.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, I support the bill. As the member for Braitling has just said, and the members for Araluen and Karama have said many times, we have a very serious problem with safety on our roads. The road toll just keeps climbing.
Sixty-five people this year have died on our roads. This time last year, it was 39. A major part of that road toll is from drink-driving. It is a serious, sombre issue. This legislation will go a long way to prevent occurrences of drink-driving. Every occurrence of drinking-driving is a potential death on our roads.
This bill needs to be considered in its context. I mentioned the member for Karama. She has done a very good job for a very long time in tackling the issue of road safety and problems we have on our roads in the Territory. Since 2007, we have introduced a range of measures including: increased penalties for drink-driving, speeding and not wearing seat belts; red light cameras; and speed limits on Northern Territory roads. These measures are not always popular in the community and are still not fully supported by the other side. We have taken these steps because we believe they are critical in tackling the issues of road safety.
It is interesting to hear the opposition talk about the importance of road safety when the message they continue to send to young people in the Territory is that they should be able to drive as fast as they like.
We have also taken significant measures with education campaigns. Members have probably seen the new advertisements in papers and on television. They are asking the question: why? It appears that the message is just not getting through, which is why we are here today. This bill will allow the installation of alcohol interlocks. As I said up-front in this speech, the legislation will go a long away to prevent occurrences of drink-driving. Every occurrence of drink-driving is a potential death on our roads.
The statistics the minister spoke of were compelling. Last year, in close to 40% of fatalities, not wearing a seat belt was a factor and, in the last five years, in just over 50% of fatalities, alcohol was a factor. The minister provided more statistics on the numbers of people caught drink-driving and, worse, the number of people caught repeatedly offending. That is why we have taken this tough, targeted action because, quite frankly, enough is enough. Driving is a privilege, not a right, and repeat drink-drivers have shown they cannot be trusted and should face greater consequences.
This bill delivers our government’s commitment to get tough on drink-driving, to change the behaviour of people who drink and drive. One of the effects of alcohol is impaired judgment and decision-making. The message is simple: if you are going to drink, plan not to drive - arrange a Sober Bob, ask someone to collect you, call a cab, take public transport, try the new dial-a-driver service, or stay overnight. We need to make our best efforts to change the behaviour of people having a few or many, and then driving. Introducing alcohol ignition interlocks for repeat drink-drivers is one step in trying to change that behaviour. We have to be clear, though; the introduction of alcohol ignition interlocks will not wipe out drink-driving. I echo the minister’s remarks: no legislation or device will wipe out drink-driving. We need a change in behaviour to achieve a major reduction in the rate of drink-driving.
Madam Speaker, I take this opportunity to commend the member for Karama for the significant amount of work she has done to date on measures to combat illegal behaviour on our roads. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I also appreciate some of the amendments the CLP has brought forward. I probably could be smart and say thank you for bringing up some of those proposals that I thought of, like confiscating the vehicle. I have notes here like: why are low alcohol reading persons not included in this? Anyway, I thank the CLP for adding those particular amendments to the bill today.
I know this bill is going to go through. I am not here to knock the concept of the interlock devices; they appear to be part of a raft of options that government has to look at to try to reduce the disgraceful number of fatalities on roads in the Northern Territory. My concern is more of a general concern. I know that many drivers, especially in rural Darwin, and it may not only be in rural Darwin, drive without licences, without registration, and they drive under the influence. If the government is to have people drive around with alcohol interlocking devices on vehicles, or expect people to have them on, I would say people will say they do not want them, and continue to drive.
If the government is serious about catching those people, it has to put more effort into resourcing breathalyser stations and roadworthy inspections. I take up the member for Braitling’s point that we do not see breathalyser stations as often as we used to. I can only go on anecdotal evidence, but I know in the Howard Springs area, it was a very common occurrence around Easter when people are heading off down the track, that when they got to the Howard Springs/Stuart Highway intersection, you could bet your bottom dollar, everyone would be out there: the Emergency Services people were there to pull you over, the MVR was there to check out your vehicle and boat, and the police were there to do the breathalyser test. They did the whole box and dice. That was fairly regular at that particular intersection. I do not recall seeing much of that in the last few years.
If we are serious about catching these people and making sure we remove people who should not be driving from our roads, then we have to up the ante when it comes to inspections. I hate getting inspected as much as everyone else. We have 67 people killed on our roads already. The police say in a lot of cases it was a mixture of alcohol, no seatbelts, speed, and not handling the conditions properly. If the government is serious about making this work and not just putting it out there as: ‘Look, we have done this, therefore, we will wipe our hands of it because it is out there’. It has to ensure it is enforced.
The other reason people are not going to be too keen to put these devices on is that many people who might end up with the option of having one of these fitted may not be people in the high socioeconomic bracket. The figures I received at the briefing, and I thank the minister for the briefing, and these are ball park figures, is that you are looking at $150 a month and probably $100 for installation. Say they are required to have one of these interlocking devices for two years, which is 24 times 150 - my maths is terrible, but it is a fair bit of money - probably over $2000. People are going to say: ‘Stuff it, I am not going to have one of these; I cannot afford it. I am going to do what I have always done and drive around the countryside and take the risk’. For them, the fine might be cheaper than the bill for putting one of these devices on their cars. I will say again, minister, if there are not more checks on who is on our roads and who should be having one of these interlocking devices, then people will try to find ways around it or avoid having them altogether.
The opposition’s amendments include vehicle removal. I have felt for a long time that vehicles should be removed. You know my opinion on the hoon legislation, and we will debate that next week. In that legislation, as in other states, there is the ability to confiscate cars, but there is also the ability to get around that in certain circumstances, if they are reasonable. It is not always the case that, in hardship, the car is necessarily taken away. Buy at least there is that possibility it will be taken away, and that it is important with people who continually offend by drink-driving. I actually believe it should be applied to people who drive unregistered. If your car is continually unregistered it is not supposed to even be on the road. If you want your car back, you pay the rego and then we will get it back to you. So there are other circumstances where we should take people’s cars away.
The same with your licence: if you are continually driving without a licence, we will give your car back when you can show us that you have a licence that enables you to drive it. That is not taking it away forever, it is just saying you turn up with the required legal piece of paper and you will get your car back. There is certainly room for that form of punishment for people who are continual offenders.
There are a couple of questions I will ask now and the minister may cover them in the committee stage. The one that I believe is a little sneaky, I must admit, and I probably do not have any friends on this side who have had some association with the police force. I reckon the sneaky one is bringing in that you have to carry your licence. We are dealing with an act that is about road safety. The minister proposes clause 8 which replaces section 113:
- (1) The driver of the motor vehicle must produce his or her licence to the Registrar, an Inspector or Police Officer for inspection immediately after the Registrar inspects or officer
him or her to do so, 20 penalty points …
If I read this right, if you go to subsection (3) of the new section 113, you have to go to court to state your defence:
- It is a defence to a prosecution for an offence against subsection (1) and (2) if the defendant establishes a reasonable excuse.
The existing law under the Motor Vehicles Act, section 113 says:
- (1) Any driver of a motor vehicle who, when required by the Registrar, any inspector, any officer in the execution of his duty or any member of the Police Force, to produce for inspection
or endorsement his licence to drive a motor vehicle, fails to do so shall be guilty of an offence unless he has a reasonable excuse and, within 3 days after being so required, produces
his licence at the office of the Registrar or as directed by the Registrar, inspector, officer or member.
I know people on this side will not agree with me, but the issue is about road safety, and whether you have a licence or not is not going to make any difference to if you are driving over the limit. It is dangerous driving. You might have two vehicles and you left your licence in your other car, or you might have left your wallet behind. Technical people who love regulations would say: ‘Too bad, you should have remembered’. I say, fair enough. I do not believe it is the end of the world if you do not have your licence on you. It may annoy the police officer if he finds he really needs to make sure you are who you say you are. In relation to road safety, I do not really see that as part of what we are about here today. It seems to me just a convenient time to put it in to change the act; and I suppose that is the way it is.
I realise certain people must always carry a licence. The AIL people will always have to have a licence when they are driving with an interlocking device. It is one of those things that have been put in there which many people would not know about anyway. I did not see an amendment by the opposition to that, so I do not think I would get a lot of support.
I agree with the opposition about the low blood alcohol content levels being part of this particular amendment to the Traffic Act. I ask the member for Braitling to tell us which clause covers that low BAC level.
Mr Giles: What are you after?
Mr WOOD: People found guilty of low-level blood alcohol content. It does not really matter. You are saying that after the second offence you require an interlocking …
Mr Giles: Third.
Mr WOOD: Third. That is reasonable and reflects the actual serious or less serious nature of the offence.
There are two other matters which would be interesting to know - and it did not occur to me to ask during the briefing: what is the reliability of this equipment not breaking down? I refer to someone who works on a cattle station who is required to have one of these interlocking devices on a four-wheel-drive. He is driving on a long and dusty road in October or November in central Northern Territory where to break down can endanger one’s life because of the heat; what sort of guarantee do we have that one of these interlocking devices could not malfunction? Is that a possibility?
I know that might be fairly rare, but then again even if you were travelling down the track or driving out to Kununurra on the Victoria Highway around October/November, if you decided to stop by the road for a call of nature, turned off the vehicle, got back in and it would not start again. Is that a possibility? It might not be a problem for people who live in the city, but it might be a problem for people who live in remote areas.
The last thing is: this would be new equipment we are using in the Northern Territory, and it is scientific equipment. The member for Braitling said he doubted these things will change people’s habits. We should have some sort of scientific report which comes back to parliament in, say, five years. It would be based on an independent assessment by people who are able to do that type of assessment accurately on a scientific basis, and report to parliament advising the number of interlocking devices equipped to X number of vehicles in the Northern Territory over that period; and report if there has been a reduction or increase in the number of people charged with drink-driving offences. We should also be able to see whether those drink-drivers were people who had previously had an interlocking device attached to their vehicle.
I ask that the review be a scientific review. At least that would enable this parliament to see whether we are wasting our money or getting value for our money. If these things are not changing the number of fatalities on the roads, then it might be time to change tack, or use better equipment.
I just raise those issues, Madam Speaker. I am not necessarily opposed to what the government is putting forward. I appreciate some of the amendments and what the CLP has done; although it has some doubts about the legislation it has actually found a nice medium because it is saying: ‘Let us go along with the locking devices, but we will add a few things to it’. One is the confiscation of vehicles, which I would have supported, and people would support - especially on a third offence. You have to take into account people on low blood alcohol, and that is good as well.
The government should think about whether they could support those two things. It would not make any major changes to what the government is already trying to do; it would tighten it up and, in some cases, make it better.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I support the Transport Legislation (Alcohol Ignition Lock) Bill. The issue of drink-driving and repeat drink-driving offenders is a very serious issue. Members on both sides of the House agree on this. It requires strong and decisive action, and strong and clear legislation. This high-risk driving behaviour, as the minister has said, contributes significantly to the Territory’s road toll.
This government takes seriously its responsibility to do all we can to keep our roads and road users safe. No matter how many additional police officers we recruit and train to patrol our roads to keep them safe, it will have little impact on this problem of individuals who are repeat drink-driver offenders. Catching drink-drivers, as the member for Braitling has said, is a difficult task. We also know that these people do not respond to punitive measures such as increased penalties for drink-driving, and that intensive road safety education campaigns through the media, no matter how graphic or shocking or gut-wrenching, will not have any impact on their decision to get behind the wheel of a car after consuming alcohol.
We are dealing with behaviour which makes it difficult for individuals to make a decision about whether they are fit to drive, because their ability to do so is impaired by alcohol and an uncontrolled drinking problem. We need to address the behaviour. These people are loose cannons. When behind the wheel of a car, these people initiate a very deadly game of Russian roulette and all other road users on the road at the same time as this drink-driver - who is a repeat offender - are unwitting and innocent participants in this deadly game. It is a bit like the Grim Reaper in the bowling alley advertisement in the early 1980s which shocked people with the knowledge that AIDS and the HIV virus were completely indiscriminate as who this deadly virus could infect and kill. Whilst we may well say that any drink-driver on the roads is deadly - and they most certainly are - we need to target those drink-drivers who continue to re-offend, because they are certainly the deadliest.
As stated by the minister in her second reading speech, in the five-year period from 2003 to 2007, 18.3% of drink-driving offenders apprehended in the Territory were apprehended for a second or subsequent offence, and this is too high. These offenders cost the community millions of dollars - the cost of police and emergency response, ambulances, hospitals and associated health services for injured persons, the insurance industry, and the courts. What we cannot put a value on is the lives that are destroyed and lost - babies, children, teenagers, men and women, young and old. The member for Braitling is concerned that the cost of these AILs is unreasonable. However, it is a much lesser concern in the bigger picture than the very real and immeasurable human cost.
Alcohol interlock device programs were an initiative identified in the National Road Safety Strategy in 2002. A quick Internet search confirms that these devices, about the size of an electric shaver, have been in use in the United States, Canada and Europe. In fact, politicians in some of these countries have called for alcohol interlock devices to be installed as standard equipment in all vehicles. I am old enough to remember a time when seatbelts were not standard equipment, and yet who would consider buying a brand new vehicle today without these very basic safety measures in place? Many people would also say that airbags should be regarded as a standard safety device in vehicles. It is hard to imagine now, but there was a time when seatbelts, as I have said, were not standard, and there was a time when they were standard but it was not compulsory to wear them: I remember it quite well.
I was raised in a small country town in South Australia where my father was the country doctor. He attended innumerable motor vehicle accidents where he had to deal with victims who had died needlessly, and could have been prevented. I remember one particular accident where an entire family, three children and two adults, were all killed on impact; it was very preventable. And he lobbied hard to see seatbelt legislation - compulsory wearing - introduced in South Australia. It was taken up and, of course, saw a dramatic turnaround in the number of road fatalities associated with people not wearing seatbelts.
These AIL devices were first legislated in Australia in Victoria, I believe, in 2003. South Australia has also adopted these devices but, as I understand it, it is on a volunteer basis; and Tasmania commenced a trial in August this year. Statistically-based evidence from Victoria would indicate that alcohol interlock devices are working in reducing the number of drivers who re-offend, reducing motor vehicle accidents and so reducing injuries and fatalities. In fact, as of 1 January this year, the Victorian alcohol interlock legislation was amended and expanded by introducing alcohol interlocks as mandatory for first time drink-driving offenders on a provisional licence or aged under 26, obviously addressing the very high number of people in that age bracket who are injured and who are offending. Furthermore, Victoria has also introduced mandatory alcohol interlocks for all drivers who, on a first offence, record blood alcohol content greater than 0.15%.
Current strategies and learning from other jurisdictions would suggest that alcohol interlock devices are working, and that they are successful in reducing the number of motor vehicle accidents involving drink-drivers. The whole issue of these devices is raising community awareness that drink-driving and those who are repeat offenders are behaviours which are not acceptable in our community and will not be tolerated.
I know there has been some discussion about confiscation of the offender’s vehicle as opposed to the alcohol interlocks, but it would be a penalty not only imposed on the offender but also on a family and children, in many circumstances. Installation of the alcohol interlock on a family vehicle still allows the offender and his family to have mobility and, therefore, access to employment. Quite possibly, the employment could be contingent on the offender having access to a vehicle. It also allows the family to continue with their normal daily activities, and family members are able to use the vehicle though, of course, they must also use the alcohol interlock - a small inconvenience, if at all.
In closing, Madam Speaker, the member for Braitling asked if these alcohol interlocks would bring benefits to the user. I suspect he means in terms of rehabilitating and not re-offending. The more important question is: will it benefit the would-be victims of repeat drink-drivers? I would say the answer to that is a resounding, yes. It is important those who re-offend as drink-drivers know they will be subject to a system which will prevent them from driving whilst under the influence of alcohol and therefore prevent them from the risk of causing injury and death on our roads. More importantly, it gives members of our community, including other road users, some assurance that roads will be safer. I commend the minister and this bill.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, as a former police officer of 22 years, it is nice to debate an issue that relates to criminal law. It is something I have had a big hand in over quite a number of years. It must be refreshing for this House to have someone in here who can actually speak from experience, having been out there and applied the criminal laws of the Northern Territory and seen how they operate, how they fail, taking into account the demographic we have in the Northern Territory. It is quite different from Victoria - and I will come back to Victoria in a moment. It is important for us to be able to recognise that experience will speak loudly in this House when it comes to debating issues like this.
As a police officer I have seen a lot of death and a lot of alcohol-related road deaths as well. I would dearly love to see some measures put in place by the government which will make a real difference to the alcohol-related death rate in the Northern Territory. I am in favour of virtually any measure that will reduce death as it relates to alcohol consumption, not just in the Territory but right across Australia.
Listening to the government, I wonder if they may have lost their humanity a little. Behind these drink-driving accidents there is real human tragedy. When was the last time the minister for Transport dragged a dead body out of a motor vehicle after an accident? When was the last time the Transport minister had to deliver a death message to the parents of a youngster killed as the result of an alcohol-related motor vehicle accident? It is not good enough fort this government to continue with its dispassionate view in relation to this legislation. It seems to me this government wants to be seen as achieving something, but they are not getting around to the job of actually achieving it.
This bill is wishy-washy, just like the previous bill that was discussed, the Sentencing bill. It is a case of a measure put in place which seems to be politically okay but is not tough enough to upset people. What is happening here is the government seems bent on making legislative changes which are not really going to hurt them politically but it will make it look like they are trying to do something about the problems we have in the Northern Territory. I do not think the Sentencing bill really reflects the mood of Territorians to be tough on assaults, and I do not believe this bill before us now does that, either.
The government needs to start getting tough on drink-drivers. Speaking of tough, is it not time the government started taking tough decisions in addressing some of the underlying problems? It seems to be okay these days to pluck a little idea out of the air and say: ‘Let’s run with this’; or maybe I woke up this morning with a good idea in my head: ‘Let’s run with that’; and try to present it as a cure-all when there are so many deeper issues which need to be addressed before legislation like this can have a real effect. This is simply window dressing. It will not do anything towards addressing the real issue which is the vast number of drink-drivers we have on our roads.
This measure of alcohol ignition locks on its own, I, frankly, believe is discriminatory. The member for Nhulunbuy mentioned Victoria and how alcohol locks are working there. I ask the minister for Transport if she has that report referred to by the member for Nhulunbuy, that it be tabled. The demographic of Victoria is somewhat different to the Northern Territory; I expect most people would accept that. We have a large Indigenous population. The Indigenous population represents a demographic: they are, unfortunately, largely low income earners or largely unemployed. They do not have the means of the average Joe in Melbourne, or remote or rural Victoria.
I go back to the discriminatory aspect I mentioned before. If coppers are not good at much else, they are good at looking at the practical applications of how things play out. I can imagine being in court with this AIL legislation in place, with a low socioeconomic defendant. The lawyer is standing at the Bar table giving sentencing submissions. The sentencing submissions in part would go something like this. ‘Your Honour, this is discriminatory. My client cannot afford to have this AIL installed in the vehicle. My client cannot afford the ongoing costs to have it calibrated every month. As a result of that, Your Honour, the previous defendant who was convicted for the very same offence has been given the benefit of coming back on the road sooner because he could afford to have an AIL fitted to his motor vehicle’.
I can just picture that. I have seen this type of scenario played out in court many times in my career. Lawyers - bless their little cotton socks - have a wonderful knack of bringing to the court the most amazing submissions when it comes to sentencing. That in itself is going to cause some problems in the application of it. People are going to be unhappy. You cannot do this in isolation because it will screw up. If you have a range of measures in place that address the problem, whether it be addressing the underlying causes or whether it be punitive in nature, then no one can say they are being discriminated against because they are given other opportunities to address the problem, which is: drinking. Drinking alcohol is the problem.
I pick up on a point made by the member for Fannie Bay. I do not remember exactly what he said but if I can paraphrase: it seemed a bit odd to him that we were against this legislation because we were against speed limits or something like that. I thought that was a bit odd. I wonder why the speed limit came in. It has done nothing to address road deaths. You only have to look at the statistics.
Ms Lawrie: Not true. Have a look at where the unlimited have brought restrictions in. Have a look at that before you make that assertion.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Whether it was true or not, and I was not here when it came in …
A member: The minister has been on the road just like you have. She knows it all.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Well, apparently so. I was not here when that legislation came in regarding the speed limits but there are plenty of anecdotes around to suggest the federal government said: ‘We are not going to fund you unless you do something about the speed limits in the Northern Territory.’ I am not accusing anyone of anything. I am just saying that is the anecdote I hear around the traps.
Ms Lawrie: Well, it is wrong.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Well, it might be, and I am glad if you are able to correct me, minister for Transport. However, it goes to the point I was making before about introducing wishy-washy legislation to address the niceties of politics, rather than getting to the underlying causes.
Mr Giles: They are trying to look tough, but they don’t act it.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: They are. When I say tough, I go back to ‘let us do it tough’, rather than take an individual tactic and throw it at the Northern Territory and say: ‘Here, this is going to fix it.’ Let us go for an overall strategy which will start to address many of the issues that we have. Let us face it, many of the issues do relate to alcohol consumption in the Northern Territory.
The member for Braitling said that seven studies in a report, in that document which I believe was tabled …
Mr Giles: Seven out of eight.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Seven out of eight studies showed that alcohol interlocks do not work. The question I have for the Transport minister is: Where do you get the idea this is going to work in the Northern Territory? Are you solely coming from the Victorian report, or are there other reports which indicate this actually might work?
I also want to pick up on what the member for Braitling said about recidivism. If you cannot address the underlying problem - and you cannot - you have shown that because you have had eight years to do it and nothing has changed …
A member: It just got worse.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: It has gotten worse. Sometimes you have to take, perhaps, draconian measures to change behaviour. If you would like to stop recidivist offending without addressing underlying causes, you may have to take that draconian action such as, in this case, make provision for the seizure and forfeiture of motor vehicles.
The member for Braitling also mentioned random breath testing stations. He said he does not see them very often, except when he talks about them in this House or in the media. I have been there and I can tell you the situation. This is what it is: there are not enough coppers to go around. There are not enough police officers to do these random breath testing stations …
Mr Giles: Hang on a second. There are not enough police in the Territory.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: There are not enough police officers for two reasons. First of all, no one has done anything to address the underlying causes of why police officers leave the Northern Territory; and topping them up all the time is not working because you are barely keeping up with it. On top of that, you have the situation where alcohol-related crime and antisocial behaviour and all that other raft of stuff that goes with alcohol problems in the Northern Territory, are getting worse. So, the coppers are constantly going from job to job to job; they do not have time to do proactive policing - they are constantly being reactive.
Random breath testing stations are a proactive means of addressing drink-driving. They need to be targeted; they need to be strategically placed and thought about as far as timing goes - not Monday afternoons. They need to be put in the right places at the right times. That is the bottom line. A ministerial will come down and say there are not enough random breath testing stations, there are not enough people being tested. The practicality then is: the orders come down from on high, they get down to the sergeant at the police station, the sergeant says to his troops: ‘Go out and do four random breath testing stations every shift. I do not care where you do them, just do them and get the numbers’. That is policing …
Mr Bohlin: That happens.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: You are darn right it happens. That is policing and that is government by statistics …
Mr Giles: Does that mean if I spoke about it, the minister could do a ministerial and it comes down to your level, and you have to get more?
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: That is it. That is the reality of it …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Katherine, please direct your comments through the Chair.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Yes, Madam Speaker.
This bill is simply not enough. I have not seen any evidence to suggest this is going to work. I am not going to repeat the words of the member for Braitling. There is a whole lot of stuff that we do not know about alcohol ignition locks. It seems to me to be a stab in the dark and I cannot figure out why the government seems so hell-bent on such placid measures, when drink-driving causes such mayhem and carnage on our roads.
Toughen up, Labor government of the day. It is time you started to make some tough decisions and did the right thing by Territorians. They are calling out for it, they need it, they want it and, it is, indeed, time.
Ms LAWRIE (Infrastructure and Transport): Madam Speaker, many questions have been raised, and I will do my utmost to respond to those questions. I acknowledge that we also go into committee where we will have the opportunity to be free flowing in the questions and answers.
We all agree that the road toll is unacceptable. We all agree that drink-driving is a significant component of the road toll. When I talk about the road toll, I am not talking just of fatalities; I frequently talk about the number of serious injuries which are occurring across our road network in the Territory as well.
I take offence at the assertion made by the member for Katherine that there is a lack of humanity in the government’s approach, or the ALP, or Labor Party’s approach. On the issue of addressing fatalities and serious injuries on our road network, I tend to think that, in parliaments around the nation, there is a bipartisan acceptance that we both genuinely, regardless of policy differences, want to see a reduction in deaths and serious injuries. Paint us out to be ogres if you like, but sometimes you go a little too far. I have always said, as Transport minister, I take my responsibility to address the road toll very seriously.
I have always recognised that if there was a silver bullet, we would have used it. There are many factors impacting on the toll and the serious injuries and we will continue to do a raft of things, whatever it takes, to bring that toll down, to save the lives of Territorians, interstate and overseas visitors, and to protect people from serious injury that occurs on the road network.
I will take that responsibility extremely seriously, so much so that I will take all the mud and the nastiness which has been thrown at me from the opposition regarding the implementation of the Road Safety Task Force recommendations. That was the seismic shift in the Territory in the approach to addressing the road toll. We brought together experts, every one of them a Territorian of 20-plus years, and stood up bravely, for the first time in the history of the Territory and said: ‘Okay, we will do it. We will introduce demerits. We will introduce a speed limit on our open roads. We will put in the millions of dollars in funding to put the curriculum into the schools, to put the public awareness campaign out there, to bring back the police traffic branch which has not existed for years, resourcing police’. We said to all those recommendations, yes, we will do it.
There was one minor exception, which I will note. The recommendation said to bring in 110km/h. We looked at it for a long time and discussed it for a long time. As a Cabinet we said that we understand people travel long distances between Darwin and Katherine, Katherine and Tennant, Tennant and Alice; and bit the bullet on that one. We still remain the only place in Australia where you can go over 110km/h, even though everyone sent hate mail to me saying: ‘By the way, I am now going to move interstate because of that’. Well, I kept going to what? To 100km/h limit or 110km/h limit? Spare me the Johnny-come-latelies who come in here and say we have to get a bit of spine, we have to toughen up. We were tougher than the CLP ever dared to be on road safety. So spare me the patronising.
The shadow minister comes in here and says: ‘We have adopted their interlock policy.’ Well, no, actually, you are wrong. I went to Australian Transport Commission meetings as the Transport minister and I listened and I learnt and I ferreted around and I found out anything – anything - we could use to address any component of our road toll. I have been out there campaigning nationally for electronic stability control to come into our cars as a mandated requirement - new technology. I grasped alcohol interlocks and I lobbied for and got them in through the Cabinet process and they will come in. We will pass this legislation. We will have a long debate but I stand here and say: we will introduce an alcohol interlock system into the Territory for the first time. It is not a copycat, or finding a CLP website policy or whatever was in the fantasy of the shadow minister.
When he started spouting, I thought, what on earth? We will have points of difference in this debate, but I will also answer questions because there are many questions. You are right: this is legislation before all the detail is locked down. Why? I have had quite a few years’ experience as a minister and you get your enabling legislation in because, my God, that focuses the minds of every single public servant required to deliver it. It sets the time lines because if you try to do everything else first, guess what? You wait a lot longer. That is by no means disparaging to the public servants who have worked diligently and hard and long hours to get this legislation here. However, I have learnt a few tricks in my time and one of them is: get your enabling legislation in place as quickly as you can because then you will get your system in place as quickly as you can, and then you are saving lives as quickly as you can. Keep it simple, stupid, is one of the sayings that goes around.
The member for Braitling, the shadow minister, has many appropriate and pertinent questions and I will answer them. He asked about cost and received a briefing on the indicative costs of the program in the Territory. We expect them to be similar to those in South Australia where there is an initial fee of $400; the monthly rental which you heard the member for Nelson talk about; the service and administration fee is approximately $160 per month. We are saying: yes, we are considering subsidies for the lower socioeconomic.
A member: That is more discrimination.
Ms LAWRIE: Sometimes it is pretty galling to get random allegations from members, but can I say that in no way is this system or is this legislation discriminatory. If you are a second or subsequent offender drink-driver, you are captured. It does not matter what your racial background is. It does not matter where you live in the Territory. You are captured, and it might come as news to the members opposite, but poverty does not discriminate.
What will we do when we are looking at a subsidy regime that I, as Treasurer, will be able to deliver, because that is the opportunity I have? There are three different jurisdictions which currently provide some form of subsidy. We are working with the stakeholders; the main stakeholder, of course, is the providers of alcohol interlocks, but we will look at the card regimes and the subsidy regimes that exist - for example, Centrelink, our own Health and Families, and our own senior Territorians-types of cards. The MVR has a robust system in being able to deal with cards and the like. We will pool all of that knowledge together and we will have models; we will test it and I will take a proposal to my Cabinet colleagues.
Yes, we recognise that this is a penalty. It is meant to be a penalty. It is for repeat drink-drivers. It is for people who put their life and the lives of others at risk. So, yes, it is a penalty regime. That is right, and it will hurt the hip pocket; I make no apologies for that. We will do our very best to ensure that we capture the issues of the impoverished, the lower socioeconomic, in fairness within the subsidy regime. Other jurisdictions have managed to land on subsidy regimes and we will be able to land on a subsidy regime as well.
Mr Westra van Holthe: So, the taxpayers will be footing the bill.
Ms LAWRIE: I pick up on the interjection: ‘So the taxpayers will be footing the bill’. There is a lot of research that tells you the cost to the taxpayer of an accident on the road network, whether it is the police, the ambulance, the health system. I am certainly very aware of the Motor Accident Compensation system in the Territory and what our lifetime quadriplegics cost. I am a former minister for disability. I have worked in the sector. There are a lot more costs than what the subsidy will be. Money well spent. I am just pointing out the idiocy of some of the interjections. They might want to wisen up.
In terms of how many people are likely to take up the program after the mandatory period, and I think it is an excellent question from the member for Braitling; I can advise that for the period 2005-07 there were about 1100 repeat drink-drivers. This translates to about 350 potential program participants a year. If we go on the Victorian experience, about 87% of the drivers with an alcohol interlock condition on their licence have had an alcohol interlock fitted. That is why we are able to extrapolate what we think the actual program participants a year will translate to: around 350 people a year driving on our roads using an alcohol interlock system, not drink-driving. They cannot drink-drive under the system in a car with the alcohol interlock. That is going forward.
How would the program be administered, particularly in remote and regional areas? That is a good question from the member for Braitling, the shadow minister. I am glad he got a briefing. I recommend to the member for Katherine the next time he participates in debate on legislation that he join the briefing.
A member: Have you got a briefing on our amendments?
Ms LAWRIE: Yes, I have, from my very capable departmental and legal advisors. I have to say they are exceptionally good.
A member: Oh, so you did not come to talk to us. Come and get a briefing, she says. You could not be bothered to do it yourself, you wally.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Ms LAWRIE: They are exceptionally good - not the amendments, by the way - the advisors.
The alcohol interlock program will be administered through our existing MVR offices in the Territory alongside provider-approved agents, for example, auto electricians. For installation, removal and recalibration in the major population centres - Darwin, Katherine, Palmerston, Nhulunbuy, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs, and also Batchelor, Jabiru, Alyangula, Borroloola and Yulara - my department is working with the providers to have approved agents in these remote and regional areas. We will talk to the police because they are a key aspect to the actual effectiveness of alcohol interlocks on the ground.
We will look at the issues regarding regular servicing. Those of us who know bush communities know that from time to time they come into the service hubs, so the six months requirement is quite easy for them to capture, in terms of the legislation. So, can it be managed out there? We have tested all of that and yes, it can. We know the skill levels required for regular servicing already exist in our remote areas. We have a great deal of confidence in that advice.
The operating parameters of the NT program will be similar to those operating in other jurisdictions, but we will make some adjustments to suit the Territory environment. At the moment, my department is currently working with the providers to detail these program specifics. For example, there are numerous operational specifics which we will determine, such as the lock-out times after failing breath tests; the times for re-tests; the stalled vehicle free-start times; the AIL recall count for high BAC readings; and the vehicle lock-out events and warning times. For example, do we make the time for re-test 15 or 10 minutes? Okay, it is 15 minutes elsewhere; potentially 10 minutes in the Territory. That is the stuff we are testing with the providers. It will be based on understanding the Territory conditions and requirements.
In giving you all these details, I will put the regime out into the public domain before it kicks in; all this detailed information will be provided. I am certainly more than happy, shadow minister, to take you through all of it in a briefing context. However, the reason why I have the legislation before all of this is to get all that work done as quickly as possible. You learn some tricks when you become a bit of an old dog in the ministerial seat.
When is the program to be implemented? Drop dead, I want - drop dead, whether it happens or not, but my last date is mid-next year. What am I aiming for? As soon as possible. Could it be …
Mr Elferink: Last date is mid-next year?
Ms LAWRIE: Last date, middle of next year. Could it be …
Mr Elferink: What? 30 June? 1 July?
Ms LAWRIE: Yes, 30 June. I will take that.
Mr Elferink: Good. Got you. Thank you.
Ms LAWRIE: Could it be before the end of this year? I am not ruling that out, okay? I have the resources and my agency applied to this system, so I am not ruling out before the end of this year. To be fair to my departmental officers, who are as working as hard as they can on all of this, I will give them that deadline of 30 June 2009.
Mr Elferink: Looking forward to Bellamack early next year, which is your deadline cut-off date. It is in your media releases.
Ms LAWRIE: I have a busy year every year.
Mr Elferink: I will remember that: Bellamack early 2009.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Port Darwin!
Ms LAWRIE: As I said, the department is working on specific program parameters but, also, on the regulations which will support that: the AIL provider approvals; the changes to the MVR computer business systems; the changes to the Department of Justice computer business systems; the operational procedures; development and staff training; and public education and awareness. The public education and awareness is critically important. So, if we can get all of that work done before 30 June 2009, it will be in.
What is the profile of our repeat drink-driving offenders and how will this program encourage them to change their behaviour? We are targeting all drink-drivers regardless of their demographics. We are not being discriminatory; it is all of them regardless of their demographics. Data from Amity House indicates that the drink-drivers attending mandatory courses: 80% were male and 40% were Indigenous. We also know, based on data provided by the police regarding repeat drink-drivers: 41% were high-range - and you have had this information – and 39% were medium-range offences. Some other breakdowns: 76.5%, that is 865 repeat drink-driving offences occurred in the urban areas of Darwin, Palmerston, Katherine, Nhulunbuy, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs – that is the bulk of our repeat drink-drivers. You have already heard me say that in those areas we have a very easy regime in terms of calibration and testing. So, 23.3%, that is 266 repeat drink-driving offences occur in rural areas. That is based on the average over 2005 to 2007.
You could argue this is because there are more police in the urban areas capturing the drink-drivers, and that is a fair argument. That is why I am putting it on the record here. Fundamentally, the best thing to tackle drink-driving is more police and enforcement. That is not what this debate is about. This debate is about adding to ways of preventing those recidivist drink-drivers, and adding to the whole picture of trying to drive down drink-driving on our roads.
There is an expert view that some offenders do learn from having alcohol interlocks in their vehicles, leading to long-term behavioural modifications and consequential reduction in recidivism. I recognise the research done by the shadow minister but, fundamentally, what we know is they are very effective in the car when they are used. As you know, the studies are limited, but the early signs are showing that 18 months or two years after having it removed from the car, people are starting to come back to that type of behaviour. There are also studies overseas which argue the effectiveness of this as a tool to combat drink-driving.
We can argue about the studies, but I am saying we have seen that it is effective in other jurisdictions in Australia. We have seen its effectiveness overseas. We want it to be effective here too, so we have given it a red-hot go, maybe not to the extent, in terms of compensation and the low-level drink-drivers that the opposition would have, but we are giving it a red-hot go.
The member for Nelson made a very good point about whether the machine is robust enough to handle our rough road conditions in the bush. The experience in Canada and the US is that, yes, they are used in very rough terrain in the remote and regional areas and they have withstood the test. That brings me to think of the debate we had about the technology which will ultimately go into heavy vehicles - is it robust and will it deal with conditions? Yes, it will. Technology these days is tested in very extreme conditions. They put them into machines, they shake them about and the experience in the US and Canada, regional and remote, is that they are not faulty and they handle the conditions. Of the two devices, the one the providers say will be best for our regional and remote areas is simply a more robust device, so we can see where they are coming from. I digress, but it was a good question from the member for Nelson.
How successful has the program been in other jurisdictions, especially in regard to regional areas? They all have their own arrangements to accommodate their regional and remote areas. You have heard me talk about the sorts of arrangements we will be putting in place. We believe the experience in remote and regional areas is not readily transferable to the Territory environment. This is why we are focused on how it will work in our regional and our remote areas.
The question was asked about research done by the Northern Territory government into the demographics of repeat drink-drivers and any studies to inform of our drink-driving program. I refer to the breakdowns provided by Amity. We are targeting all the high and medium-range drink-drivers regardless of the demographic makeup of the group. We know you are pretty fond of quoting the Queensland trials, but they were based on a 28 month trial conducted in six trial courts, with a sample of 225 offenders. We do not see how this sample in the south-east corner of Queensland is representative of the whole state. I know you are relying on it, but we do not believe that it is transferable to the Territory context. But we have had a look at it.
The question of low drink-drivers, low-range offenders, are 6% of the statistics. We are targeting that bulk area where 41% were high-range and 39% at medium-range.
Mr Giles: What was the number, sorry?
Ms LAWRIE: Thirty-nine per cent were medium-range offenders, 41% were high-range offenders and 6% were low-range offenders. The remaining 14% are other alcohol offenders. We have 6% in that low-range of offenders; the remaining balance is refusals under DUIs. Generally, those with an alcohol dependence problem - this gets to the recidivism aspect that we are targeting - are those who commit the medium to high-range drink-driving offences. They are the ones who dominate the repeat offenders group, and they are the ones we are going after, those repeat drink-drivers. They have alcohol dependency issues, they are out there repeatedly drink-driving, and that is borne out in our statistics. They are the ones we are targeting with this legislation.
There was a question regarding whether we would consider rewarding people who have behaved well while on the alcohol interlock system, and reducing that period. We believe that alcohol interlocks are a court imposed penalty. We are really not considering reducing the period the interlock is installed because of behaviour. We believe that rewarding offenders by reducing the interlock period would increase the risk of the offender again drinking and driving because, as we know, it is really effective when it is in the car. So we think once you take it out of the car, the risk factors start to increase of them potentially drink-driving again. I understand what you are looking at with the good behaviour, but we do not want to get those risk factors kicking back in once it is out the car.
Evidence shows that most people do not intentionally set out to drink and drive. They make that decision when they have been drinking. They do not say: ‘Okay, I am going to drink and drive’. They make that decision when they have been drinking. We believe that the interlock system is a way to avoid that. Once they have been drinking there is the temptation to drive.
That is getting into the detail of answering the legitimate questions asked by the member for Braitling.
I have just touched on the reliability of the equipment question from the member for Nelson. I have covered that. Fundamentally, we would all agree that more police and more enforcement are going to be a part of reducing the road toll. The police do a fantastic job. I am a huge fan of Superintendent Bob Rennie. I have frequent conversations with the Police minister about breathalysers and the like. I am on the public record constantly saying I love police blitzes when it comes to the roads. No arguments from the Transport minister on the issue of do we want police out there and breathalyser stations at the times when we know they are going to get those drink-drivers. There is no argument from the Transport minister on that one. Tick. We are all agreed.
The issue of confiscation was the issue most raised by the member of Araluen. Essentially, this legislation is for repeat drink-drivers to have alcohol interlocks installed which stops them from drink-driving. That is what we are about. Overseas experience shows the impounding tool, which is the opposition’s proposed amendment, that offenders tend to purchase cheap cars – bombs, if you like - and when their car is impounded, that is confiscated, they will continue to drink-drive in other vehicles. So alcohol interlocks in their car, a tool that prevents them from physically starting and driving off, is more effective than a confiscation regime where they will go and get a cheap car and drive that bomb, or they will try to get someone else’s car to use - so you are not being effective. But if they have transport, which is pretty important in people’s lives, and have that system in their car, they can get around - but they cannot get around when they are having a drink in the pub with their mates other than getting a taxi, or getting a Sober Bob, or walking.
I am advised by my transport experts that the profile of hoons is a very different profile to that of the alcoholic, recidivist, high-level or medium-range, real problem with alcohol drink-drivers who we are targeting with this legislation. We are targeting a core group of people with this legislation.
Madam Speaker, I not have answered everyone’s questions, however, I thank all members who have participated in the debate - the members for Nhulunbuy, Fannie Bay, Katherine, Braitling and Araluen. I am sure that we will go into committee.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Madam SPEAKER: I will vacate the Chair.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, just before you do, I put to you the usual arrangements in relation to the musical chairs we play over here.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, you have my indulgence for the member for Braitling to sit in your chair. I call the Chairman of Committees.
In committee:
Madam CHAIR: The committee has before it the Transport Legislation (Alcohol Ignition Locks) Amendment Bill 2008 (Serial 9) together with Schedule of Amendments No 1 circulated by the member for Braitling.
Clauses 1 to 5, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Mr GILES: Madam Chair, I seek leave to move clauses 6 and 18 together with their respective amendments as one item as they are dependent clauses.
Ms LAWRIE: That is fine if they are introduced as one item and we debate them as one item. We are not passing them; we are just debating those clauses as one item.
Mr GILES: Yes, one item.
Ms LAWRIE: I am just clarifying that for the Chair.
Mr GILES: I speak to clauses 6 and 18. Clause 6 is simply an insertion of a reference within the Motor Vehicles Act to a section introduced by clause 18 which we are proposing to insert into the Traffic Act. To get to the nub of it, we will make it an offence for someone to aid and abet a driver who has AIL restrictions imposed on him or her. That is, if someone provides a breath sample in order to start a vehicle or to keep a vehicle running on behalf of someone with AIL restrictions, then the person who provided the breath sample will be committing an offence.
It is very important that we raise this. Slowly people are becoming aware of what an alcohol ignition lock device is, and we recognise that there will be people who will be drunk and who will try to drive. I am in agreement with the minister for Transport when she says: ‘When an AIL is installed on a car it works well to stop people drink-driving’. My general disagreement is that it does not change people’s behaviour so when the alcohol ignition lock is removed people will stop drink-driving.
One of the key failures in the legislation - and not failure in the negative sense but a failure in terms of something that is missing - is the aid and abet law. As the member for Karama pointed out, people who do have a drinking problem will jump in the car and they will try to drive. If they cannot get their car started, the natural thing for someone who is drunk to do is to ask someone to blow in this device to start the car so they can drive away. A person who is highly intoxicated, that is, has a reading over 0.15, has no sense of responsibility. If someone quite happily blows into the ignition lock so the driver can drive away, they too have abdicated their responsibility to society and, I believe, such an action warrants an offence.
I implore the Transport minister to accept this amendment to make it an offence to aid and abet someone to start their car when they have an AIL installed.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I understand the intent of this but, realistically, there are a few flaws. First of all, the experience elsewhere has been that people do not go out of their way to aid and abet. I will give you a scenario most people would understand. A bloke has been at the pub drinking with his mates. He has an AIL device attached to his car, and he says to one his mates: ‘Come on, come on, blow in it; I want to get home’. The experience is that people say: ‘You are kidding me, aren’t you? I am not going to help you be an idiot’ - to use a colloquial phrase –‘a bloody idiot’. Is it in the realms of the norm? Experience says no. It is really outside the norm that someone would help someone be a complete bloody idiot. Mates tend to take the keys off them if they can, in those pub scenarios, and convince them not to do it. That is the experience.
The other thing is, in a practical sense - and I guess the police experience on that side might get what I am talking about in this flaw – it would be absolutely problematic to catch, in an evidentiary sense, let alone prove that someone had been providing their breath sample for a driver with an AIL licence condition. I see the member for Port Darwin getting ready to jump, but …
Mr Elferink: Absolutely.
Ms LAWRIE: I am just talking about the flaws. After years of international experience, the requirement to continually provide further breath samples - that all-important requirement - after starting the vehicle is designed to overcome this scenario where someone else to blows in it to get the vehicle started. As we know, the blowing itself, you have to be trained to do it. Some blow and hum, some are different. You are trained; it is not just a blow the way people think of a blow. You are actually trained how to use your gadget. Perhaps we can all compete and test the gadgets.
Such an offence would require the creation of defences to cover those situations where family members were being coerced. I am particularly concerned about that one in the Territory scenario. We would not want to see that situation. That is why the government understands your intent, but we will not be accepting the amendment.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Chair, two points about that. One, you do not disallow an offence because it is hard to prove. The offence of murder is actually quite hard to prove, but you do not run the excuse: ‘We are not going to make it an offence because it is hard to prove’. That is just a spurious and really vacuous argument. The fact is, any offence in criminal law has to meet certain evidentiary elements - and these are even regulatory offences like not wearing your seat belt - before the offence is committed. To say: ‘I do not know. It is just a little hard to prove so we just will not make it an offence at all’, does not work …
Ms Lawrie: That was not what I said.
Mr ELFERINK: The second aspect of this is you are worried about coercion being applied to family members to drive the car. Coercion is actually a defence, and duress and coercion in the different offences is actually a defence under the Criminal Code. We are not arguing for anything that would not be defendable by a family member, and the law is easily structured already to accommodate those particular issues. So, strike one on the assertion that it is too hard - do not do it. Strike two on the fact that the law cannot deal with the elements of coercion - that goes back over centuries. Strike three for simply dodging a bullet on what I think is simply an oversight.
Ms LAWRIE: It is not an oversight. I clearly gave a whole range of reasons. You chose to ignore some of the reasons. That is fine, you can. However, I will repeat to you: after years of international experience, the requirement to continually provide further breath samples after starting the vehicle is designed in the system to overcome the problems of a third party starting the alcohol interlock fitted vehicle.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Minister, you talked about practical applications. I will just run this scenario by you. This is why it is important to have an aid and abet clause contained within that legislation. Let us say - I cannot remember the new name of the camp - but Warlpiri camp in Katherine is an Indigenous camp. There is a strong cultural element to the people who live there. The family structure is set up so that, as you allude to, family can coerce or put other family members under duress to get them to do things. I submit that one of the things a potential drunk driver would get his family member to do is to blow into the AIL for him. That would start the car. There is really nowhere in Katherine that is 10 minutes, or more than 10 minutes, from any location, including Warlpiri camp.
So how, in practical application, is this going to actually work? I mean, it cannot possibly. Are you saying that, in the space of two minutes, the alarms will go off and there will be 120 decibel sirens and lights flashing and all that sort of thing going on in the car? It has to address the minutiae of what will actually happen. If your system is set up so that the timing of the second opportunity to blow into the AIL is random, how do you set it up so that it will occur within a space of time that is applicable to the location where this AIL is supposed to be located?
Ms LAWRIE: I am very confident the people in my department who are working with the providers on this, and who have already been discussing the different scenarios in terms of the distances people drive in the Territory and, as we know, bless the Territory, in a lot of areas we are not driving too far - it is one of the reasons we love the lifestyle here - then, in other areas, of course, we are driving long distances. That is why I say we are not going to directly translate and transfer the operating parameters from other jurisdictions to the Territory. We are going to strike Territory operating parameters.
Mr GILES: Minister, in your first conversation before I was beaten, you made reference to some previous studies which show that aid and abet is not an issue in other jurisdictions. Could you quote what those studies are, and could you table them so I can have a look at them?
I am also trying to come to terms with what the two members beside me have said; putting into context if someone does not have a licence and is not intoxicated and is a responsible adult; and, someone who is intoxicated and does have a licence says: ‘I have the licence so I better drive’. What responsibility does the person who then blows into the machine to make the car go, have? Surely the aid and abet laws put the clear focus on that passenger who does not have a licence and has helped get that vehicle to move. That is one of the reasons we have proposed this amendment. It is not to be tough or to be difficult, but it is to send a clear message as we get tough on drink-driving offences in the Northern Territory. This is to say, you cannot blow in the AIL to get the vehicle working. It is pretty simple to me that you need an offence to get someone who does that.
The member for Port Darwin said sometimes it is hard to prove that someone has aided and abetted. The example of a murder is a perfect case in point. If people do the wrong thing, and we catch those people, they should be held accountable and responsible for doing that.
Ms LAWRIE: I did not refer to any studies in reference to the experience in other jurisdictions. But the norm is that a Sober Bob does not blow into a mate’s vehicle to let that drunken mate drive his car. That was from talking to people who have been working with these systems in place in their jurisdictions. They are saying that is the experience; that is the norm. We all know, in Australia, the research is in its early days. I am not quoting studies. I am quoting discussions with people who have had that experience in other jurisdictions.
Why would someone risk their life, in the scenario where you have not had a drink and you do not have a licence, and your mate is drunk and you say: ‘I am going blow into your device so that you, my drunk mate, can drive me and risk your life and mine?’ We do not accept that is the scenario at all, and it is not the experience that has been happening in jurisdictions where this exists.
Mr GILES: I accept your assumption of what sort of person in their right mind would say: ‘Look, I am sober and he is drunk. I will blow in the thing and let him drive’? The point is, if he has a licence, the sober person might do it. There are thousands of people who have been caught for drink-driving at high-range, at medium-range. Look at the number of people who are repeat offenders for drink-driving. What sort of a moron gets in a car and drink-drives in the first place? Then they do it twice, and then they do it three times.
We are not talking about some of the most sensible decisions that have ever been made. I am sure there are idiots out there who will try to get someone’s car started so they can get a lift home because they do not have a licence. I know a stack of people who have done the wrong thing by getting into a car with a drink-driver when they are not drunk. I am not talking about the AIL. This happens now, and it will continue to happen. There are many people in the Northern Territory who have the clear message that you need a licence to drive and if you do not have a licence, you should not drive. Not everyone is that way, but the people who have that clear message, who do not have a licence, who get in the car with someone who does have a licence, may make that car go. We have to hold that person to account. That is what the law is about and we should be doing that. I ask you to rethink that.
Ms LAWRIE: Getting in a car with someone who has had a drink is a very different scenario to you having no liquor at all in your system yourself, you are completely sober; you know how to work their particular device, not that you have been trained, and you are happy to put to your mouth on their stinky little gadget? No. It is a completely different scenario.
Mr BOHLIN: Madam Chair, I will only speak briefly on this. Have you used one of these devices?
Ms LAWRIE: Is that a question, or is it rhetorical?
Mr BOHLIN: Actually, no. I will wait. First, have you used one? I will go on to say: ‘Yes. I have used one’. I could take you to where one is fitted right now and I could show you how to use it. Then I will hand it to anyone in this room and anyone can use it. It is not handmade, as you are suggesting, for one person. Anyone can use it. The same as the hand-held devices we use on the street. That little argument you came up with is not really sound in basis.
I support the member for Braitling because it is a very small adjustment to your legislation, but it adds great value to your legislation. It is a simple thing. All you have to say is: ‘Good idea’, for once, ‘that may help us prevent people from dying’. That is what this is about. All it is saying is there is the possibility, and it happens.
I am having a few drinks down the pub. I have my AIL licence. I have had a couple of schooners. I know I should not be driving. But it is my car, it is my V8. My mate here, he does not drink. In fact, the member for Port Darwin there does not drink. So he is having a squash. But it is my V8; I am a young fellow; it is my car. ‘Get in the car, mate. Let’s go home’. ‘Hey, mate, you’ve had …’ ‘Nah, nah, blow in this, will you?’ That will happen. It is not going to be an excuse. It is going to happen. All we are saying is: ‘Let us put legislation in place - and it is only a small piece - and it is going to add value to your creation’, and it will. It will make this much better if we add this bit of legislation.
The police officer rocks around the corner and says: ‘Whoo whoo. Random breath-testing, thank you very much’. He tests the driver and the driver is over the limit. He says: ‘You have an AIL licence. How did you make that work?’ And the driver replies: ‘It was not me’. Then the police officer says: ‘Well, you are the only two people in the car, so let us start doing the investigation and find out who …
Ms Lawrie: ‘I will confess’. Yes, right. It is good evidence.
Mr Elferink: It is actually the best form of evidence. You know, it actually is. You want to study the laws of evidence.
Mr BOHLIN: It proves that …
A member: You are kidding.
Madam CHAIR: Order!
Members interjecting.
Mr BOHLIN: It proves that …
A member: This is a very likely outcome.
Madam CHAIR: Order! Member for Drysdale, you have the call.
Mr BOHLIN: All it is, is we are adding value to try to save lives. It is the simplest thing. Being pigheaded about something does not save lives.
This is a small amendment. I urge you strongly to consider it. It is not unfeasible. It is quite achievable to prosecute. It is not going to be prosecuted every day - and I hope not. I hope they learn, but they are not learning and they are dying on our roads. Why not add just a bit of beef to your sandwich so it can work just that little better? You said you would do anything. Let us do this.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Madam Chair, I am surprised at the attitude of the minister for Transport on this. She is sitting there smiling. On behalf of the member for Drysdale, I was quite offended. He is trying to make a serious point and the minister for Transport is sitting there with a smile on her face. She is belittling him.
The minister for Transport should get some practical experience in the community. Obviously the minister for Transport has completely lost touch. For the minister for Transport to deny that the types of scenarios which the member for Drysdale described would not happen, is beyond belief. Those things do happen. For the minister to say people are not going to do stupid things when there are drunk people around, is off this planet. She has lost it.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, a point of order! I am not off the planet. I have not lost it. It is normal in committee stage amendment for there to be to-and-fro, and I will repeat: after years of international experience the requirement to continually provide further breath samples after starting the vehicle is designed to overcome the problem of a third party starting the alcohol Interlock system vehicle. Okay? Okay, we have chitchat, chitchat. That is at the core of it.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I do not think there was a point of order in there. The reality is scenarios like that happen every day in the Northern Territory, to a greater or lesser degree. I have been in situations in my previous career where you will find a car with four, six or eight people crowded into it and the person driving, who might be 0.24, is considered to be the least drunk. That is why they are driving the car - because the rest of them are absolutely blind.
Ms LAWRIE: And there is no one sober in there?
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I beg your pardon?
Ms LAWRIE: There is no one sober in there. Under your scenario there was a sober person sitting in the passenger seat.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: What the minister is saying is no one is going to get themselves in this situation of making a stupid decision like blowing into the AIL on behalf of somebody else. People make stupid decisions all the time. If the minister thinks for a moment this will not happen, that people are not going to continue to make stupid decisions based on some misguided sense of loyalty, or because the family member told them to; then I am afraid the minister has no idea.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Chair, I sympathise with the former police in this House who are trying to prosecute this. I will try to make it simpler.
Two guys in the car. Copper walks up to the car window, says: ‘Hang on, you are testing positive. What happened?’ ‘Oh, this bloke sitting next to me blew into the AIL’. ‘Did you?’ ‘Yeah, what are you going to do about it, copper?’ ‘Oh nothing, just inquiring’. That is how silly it is going to be, and that is how silly the police are going to look when that happens. For goodness sake, give the coppers the tools to do their jobs and create laws that are going to make the Territory safe! That is all you have to do. It is not a pivotal amendment …
Mr Westra van Holthe: Do not let pride get in the way of making the right decision.
Ms Lawrie: I do not have pride.
Mr GILES: There are 1000 examples we can give where this is going to happen. We know people will aid and abet people to get their car started if they have an alcohol ignition lock installed. We have put forward a sensible amendment to put a law in place to stop people from bypassing what you are trying to do.
We are offering our support for your legislation with additional components through aid and abet so that we will get more drunks off the road; so that people know there is a penalty for blowing in it. If people know that there is a penalty and, if it stops one person from blowing in that AIL, if it stops one person from drink-driving, stops one accident, and stops one person from dying - when our road toll is 65, 67% more than last year, the highest ever on record on your watch, under your road safety program - this is what has to happen. If you will not support a tiny little amendment, you are not giving that respect, the courtesy, and you do not have the courage and the commitment for the people of the Northern Territory to get the drink-drivers off the road; and you are doing a terrible job at it.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Madam Chair, I would just like to change the subject a little while still staying on the amendment. Section ...
Mr WOOD: Could I just interrupt? Where exactly are we in relation to the clauses in the act?
Ms LAWRIE: We are dealing with the amendments brought forward by the shadow minister, dealing with clauses 6 and 18 together.
Mr Wood: Clauses 6 and 18 together?
Ms LAWRIE: Yes. Clause 18 is a new one.
Mr Wood: I was hoping to speak. I did not know we had gone past clause 6.
Ms LAWRIE: It has no correspondence to the act. It is what they want to put into the act, but it is …
Mr Wood: As long as we can come back to clause11.
Ms LAWRIE: Yes, of course, I would like to. They are not finished shouting at me yet.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I withdraw that, Madam Chair. I will come back to that later.
Amendments negatived.
Mr GILES: Division, Madam Chair.
Ms LAWRIE: You do not call division on clauses in committee.
Madam CHAIR: The question is that the clause stand as printed.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, there is point of clarification. Which clause are you referring to stand as printed - just for mine and the member for Nelson’s sake?
Madam CHAIR: Clause 6.
Ms LAWRIE: Clause 6 as existing in the legislation. And clause 18? We dealt with clauses 6 and 18 together?
Madam CHAIR: Clause 18 is actually listed separately.
Ms LAWRIE: That is fine, just deal with clause 6. I may have to revisit this.
Madam CHAIR: We are referring to clause 6. The question now is that clause 6 stand …
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Chair! Can I get some clarification as to when you can call a division in the committee?
Ms LAWRIE: At the end.
Ms Carney: How about you not provide the advice and let someone else do it.
Madam CHAIR: My advice is when we move at the end to report the bill to Madam Speaker there is an opportunity to divide.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Leave granted to put the question on clause 18 at a later stage.
Clauses 7 to 10, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 11:
Mr WOOD: Minister, I raise my questions at this point because some of the detail in this particular amendment is also repeated elsewhere. It relates to a question I would have asked in the general discussion. Where in the act does it allow someone not to have an AIL? And, if so, where in the act does it explain clearly to a normal person who is trying to read this, what the conditions of an AIL actually are? I should say: what is the penalty if you do not want to have an AIL?
Ms LAWRIE: The penalty is you serve your full suspension period. You cannot be back driving earlier if an alcohol interlock system is not fitted.
Mr WOOD: Can you explain what part of the bill tells me that?
Ms LAWRIE: Yes, I thought it was the case, but I wanted to wait for the advice. It is not in the act. It is part of the court sentencing and part of the program. For example, in looking at clause 11, they will disqualify you for the mandatory period, and they will disqualify you for a further period under clause 11(b)(i) and (ii) unless you have an alcohol interlock fitted.
Mr WOOD: That is what I thought. But if you read clause 11(b)(ii) can you honestly believe that is English? That it actually says what you are trying to say? I have read it a number of times, and if I was to give that to the ordinary person in the street, they would not believe that that is what it meant. I am asking if the government would consider rewriting that later on and having a clause which says: ‘If an offender does not wish to have an AIL licence, this is what will occur’, in clear and precise terms. That is unreadable for the average person.
Ms LAWRIE: The plain English version, I am advised, will be in the program guidelines.
Mr WOOD: It will be in which sort of guidelines?
Ms LAWRIE: The program guidelines.
Mr WOOD: Minister, I am not a lawyer, but one of the basic questions I had was: where is it in here that says if you opt out? It does not even have a heading saying: ‘if you wish to not participate, this is the following …’ Heaven help me, I am not going to Parliamentary Counsel, but it is very hard for people to understand what exactly is meant by that. I thank you for your explanation, minister, but I believe that part of the act needs to be rewritten. And in subsequent clauses - clause 12 has it as well, and it might turn up elsewhere. That is something that could be amended for the better.
Mr GILES: Madam Chair, I seek leave to move opposition clauses 11, 13, 14, 14A, 16, and 17 together.
Madam Chair, they are being introduced together as they make the same changes to different sections of the Traffic Act. They aim to give a longer time frame so that a court must consider certain previous driving offences from three years to five years. That is what it is about.
Ms LAWRIE: I have a suggestion. I understand your intent and we can move through in blocks so that it makes sense. Having been a Deputy Speaker and being in a position that the Deputy Speaker is in, you have a very clear process to follow on the advice of the Table Office and others. What we can do is debate them as one, if you like - this is just a suggestion - so that we will resolve the fundamental in that first debate and then the Deputy Speaker will just keep reading through what is in front of her and then you will not jump to your feet at those different times. That is just a functional suggestion.
Mr GILES: I am pretty sure that I provided advice earlier that I was going to actually say that and do that.
Ms LAWRIE: I am not sure whether you have provided the advice to the Table Office and …
Mr GILES: I will repeat the clauses. I am happy to do what you say. I am happy for you to argue against what I am recommending, anyway. The clauses are 11, 13, 14, 14A, 16, and 17.
What we are moving is that we extend the period from three years to five years for prior offences. That is when the courts take into account previous offences in terms of drink-driving and how they relate to the law. Instead of just looking back for the last three years to see if there has been a prior conviction, they can look back to the last five years. I am sure that the minister for Transport will accept this amendment because she has spoken at length today about how people who are drink-drivers have a problem with alcohol and how repeat drink-drivers are a problem and it is important to get the repeat drink-drivers off the road. Although she does not have much of a concern about low-level drink-drivers, because according to the government, being a little over is all right; it is only those serious ones we have to worry about.
The government needs to focus on getting repeat drink-drivers off the road, and should recognise that since the road safety package came into being the road toll is worse than last year - now it is at 65 and the worst it has ever been – and the minister should recognise that the government is not doing enough. I believe she also recognises that I am offering a partnership to try to improve the road toll in the Northern Territory and get the drink-drivers off the road.
Keeping that in mind, I am sure the minister for Transport will recognise if people are repeat drink-driving offenders the purpose of this amendment is to say it does not matter if you had been caught drinking in the last three years, you can still be a repeat offender in the last five years. People may say: ‘Five years is a long time’. I have looked through the police annual report and we see there is an estimation that 16% of all drivers in the Northern Territory in any one year are driving over the level 0.05. We are driving over the level of 0.05 but we are only catching, through limited police resources, through drink-driving blitzes, 6% of those drink-drivers. There are a large number of people - 10% - we are missing according to their annual report of 2006-07.
I have not done the statistics on this - I should have - but in any three year period the 10% of people who get missed drink-driving under that possibility, could be significant. You can go three years without being caught. If you are a repeat drink-driver you might get caught once in three years, although we know the drink-driving blitz numbers are going down due to lack of police resources, as the report says. But also, as some of my former police colleagues tell me, we know fewer people are getting caught.
We know there are a large number of people, 10% of all drink-drivers in the Northern Territory, who are not getting caught at all in one year, as they say. For a period of three years, where people may have been drink-driving and not getting caught, we say if they are repeat drink-drivers we should be looking at a five year period to say: ‘Let us take it back five years because we know the police resources on the ground are not enough.’ The estimations the police make about how many drink-driving blitzes they will do and how many they actually do, unless they get the ministerials or whatever it may be to increase the numbers, it is important we catch people because without catching people, no one is going to get an AIL.
What this clause really does is try to identify repeat drink-drivers, but it also recognises the government is clearly not doing enough to try to catch those drink-drivers in the first place. If they were, they would catch all 16% of those people who say they drink-drive in any one year, and we might not have to go back five years to find out who has been caught before. Now, we do have to go back five years. That is why I have recommended an amendment to this bill that the time frame be extended from three years to five years. I commend the minister for Transport to accept this amendment.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I guess it is where the intent comes from here. Our intent is, as I said, to capture those people who are alcohol dependent and repeatedly drink-driving. Not the 0.05s to 0.08s. That is our intent and that is where we are coming at it from. It may not suit what you are arguing, but that is our intent and that is how we will approach this.
The second point: bringing the time period to five years - the intent of this legislation is to get these alcohol interlock machines into cars. We believe experience shows they are effective tools. We want them in our repeat drink-drivers’ cars; we want them in those medium to high-level repeat drink-drivers’ cars. Extending the period of disqualification from three years to five years means they do not have access to the car and the gadget in the car for two years. It is a difference in approach and a difference in intent - a fundamental difference.
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Chair! I am not quite sure the minister for Transport understands the amendment. It is not about extending forwards, it is about extending backwards: checking how far back people might have had prior convictions. I think what you just said then …
Ms LAWRIE: So capturing more, yes?
Mr GILES: I am pretty sure what you just said then reflected it being a longer time frame before people get an AIL. I do not really understand …
Ms LAWRIE: Okay, no. That is certainly not what I meant at all. I understand that you are extending the period of capturing, if you like, if they have offended previously.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: What we are trying to achieve here is to cast the net wider to catch those people who slip through in the three year period. I would hazard a guess that the statistics are very conservative on the number of people who (a) say they drink-drive in any given year; and (b) people who say they drink-drive after they have been caught once, but not caught again. I do not think the strategies are working all that well to reel those people in and bring them back into the justice system, which is where they belong if they continue to drink and drive. All this is trying to do is extend the net so we have a better chance of capturing these recidivist offenders who continue to re-offend, notwithstanding that they simply do not get caught all the time.
Mr GILES: Madam Chair, I will talk briefly. The minister for Transport, a minute ago, said that the intent of the legislation is to get the alcohol ignition locks into cars. That is all well and good. I would have taken an approach to say that the intent of the legislation is trying to get drink-drivers off the road and get people to stop drink-driving. That is what I would have said - not just to get these new devices into the car so you can get some political opportunism out of them.
I could stand here and pontificate, and hang my glasses from my mouth, but I do not have any; but I am in the right chair. I see you have your glasses in your mouth, Madam Chair.
Extending it from three years to five years casts the net wider and when we pick up people for drink-driving, it is going to get more of them off the road and sooner. That is what this amendment is going to do. It is not an amendment that needs a lot of clarification and explanation about what it is going to do and why it is there. It will catch more people who are drink-driving, who are repeat offenders, and get them off the roads. If you do not support that, you do support action on drink-driving. This government is clearly failing even further to address the devastating road toll in the Northern Territory - 65 from 39, a 67% increase in one year alone. You should be ashamed.
Madam CHAIR: Members, I just clarify. I understand it is your wish that clauses 11, 13, 14, 14A, 16 and 17 - be taken together. I am required to go through the clauses sequentially. So, we need to do clause 11 first, then 12, and then we can take the next group together.
So, in regard to clause 11, the question is that the words proposed to be inserted.
Amendment negatived.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, are we going to do clause 18? I know it was done. I was totally confused as to why we were discussing this section when I thought we were discussing an earlier clause.
Madam CHAIR: We are getting to clause 18, member for Nelson.
Ms LAWRIE: We will stop at clause 18 for you, Gerry.
New clause 12A:
Mr GILES: Madam Chair, I move amendment 1.3 regarding clause 12A. I have moved this amendment to try to stem the increase in numbers of drink-drivers on our roads. This amendment is to include people who are low-range offenders - that is, people who get caught a third time in a low-range category of drink-driving - and have those people subject to an alcohol ignition lock. I go back just a couple of minutes when the minister for Transport said that the intent of the legislation is to get alcohol ignition locks into cars. If that is her intent, my intent is to get drink-drivers off the road but, in this case, I am happy to help.
We have moved an amendment so that people who are caught drink-driving at a low range within the set period are subject to an alcohol ignition lock if they want to get back on the road. The minister for Transport would be very happy with this amendment. This would go to the heart of what she was just saying about getting AILs into cars. Repeat offenders, clearly, should be getting a consistent message, regardless of the amount of alcohol in their system. If you are 0.15%, or 0.08% or 0.05%, or 0.3%, or whatever, you still have to get the same message.
I am curious as to why the government’s bill has overlooked the introduction of AILs for low-level offenders. I thought you were trying to get drink-drivers off the road and lower the road toll. But if you are happy to leave this in here and allow the road toll through low-level, repeat drink-drivers - I will not labour the point, but it beggars belief that you would leave that out.
These are the people who have been stupid enough, and I have said it before, to say: ‘Oops, I accidentally went over’, accidentally got caught over the limit; fortunately, no accident. They got caught and they got into trouble, they got a fine or whatever happens to those people. They get a stern warning. The second time they have not had an accident, they have not just been stupid, they have been an idiot. They have been an absolute idiot for getting caught a second time. They serve their time, and they do what has to happen to those people on the low-level, but then they come in a third time.
I know when I was at school, if I did the wrong thing, I got the cane. It did not hurt me too much, but I did not really like it. If I did the wrong thing again, I would get the cane a couple of times. If I had not learnt by then, which I always had, I would have had the cane a stack more times.
Surely, at some point in time, you have to change your behaviour. The lack of focus on low range offenders, I believe is a stupid omission from this proposed legislation. It actually continues that culture of people who I know, and you know, and we all know, who think it is all right to go down the pub and then drive home. We spoke about the Masters Games - how many people were drink-driving at the Masters? We had that wonderful dry town legislation that is not managed, but anyway …
Mr Wood: It is sponsored by alcohol companies.
Mr GILES: That is right, yes. All sponsored by alcohol. Everyone was drinking at the Masters Games and everyone was driving everywhere. That is not a good thing. I encouraged every person I saw who was drinking, or was about to drink-drive, or was drink-driving, not to drink-drive. I gave them a good boot, as we should do as responsible citizens.
But, how does that message change? Clearly the thing people think about, the people who do not pay attention to education campaigns, and the people who do not see the deaths on the road and take note and want to make changes, these people’s only concern when they drink and drive is not to get caught and how to avoid the breathalyser, if ever there is one.
There are so many in the community who just drink and drive. They do not even know they are drinking and driving. ‘What are you doing this afternoon?’ ‘I am going down the pub. I will sink ten schooners and get in the car to drive home.’ They do it everywhere and they do it all the time. We are not catching those people. These are the people who would fall into that low-level range; the people who say: ‘I am only a little over. She’ll be right’. And what happens? They go home and they are fine - they have not had an accident. This happens everywhere all the time. Just a little over. I knock off from work and I go to Ducks Nuts and I will have a few. Then I will just drive home, just a little over.
The intent of what we have introduced in these amendments is to say that those people who are just a little over, who think it is okay, who have a culture of driving when they are a little over, these are the people we should also be targeting. If you say that driving between 0.05 and 0.08 is not a problem, why did you have a limit of 0.05 in the first place?
You are going to introduce tough legislation for alcohol ignition locks and try to look like you are getting tough, even though you have not accepted any of our amendments which would have made it tough and would have got drink-drivers off the road and would have reduced the road toll. If you say you want change, I do not understand why this would not be accepted by the minister for Transport.
I think about those people who do drink-drive, and I have spoken to a few people. There are a couple of people I know who I would consider alcoholics. They may not be full-blown alcoholics, but they get pissed every night and then drive. I say to these people: ‘This is the legislation.’ They will get an alcohol ignition lock for a second offence and they will get an alcohol ignition lock for the third. I told them that I am proposing they get their cars confiscated for the third and they say: ‘Yes, that is all right, but it is a bit hard’. ‘What do you mean: it is a bit hard?’ ‘Well, how am I going to get home if I lose my car?’ I say: ‘Do not have a drink’ or ‘Why not catch a taxi?
The people who are low-range alcohol consumers are people who, I would say, drive home at a low range on a consistent basis. They say: ‘What is going to happen to me? Do I have to blow into one of those stupid things?’ I say to them: ‘Under the current government’s proposal you will not have to have an alcohol ignition lock on your car. Under my proposal you will’. They say: ‘We support the government’s proposal’. Why? ‘How else am I going to get home? If I have to drive my family I have to be able to drive my car’. That is atrocious.
What this actually does, through the omission of this government in not including alcohol ignition locks for low-range repeat offenders, is saying: ‘You are all right as long as you are under 0.05. We probably will not catch you anyway because we only get 6% of our 16% in the drink and drive, mainly because we do not have enough police on the ground. But you will be right. You just drink and drive’.
What will happen is those people will continue to drink and drive. The people who get their alcohol ignition locks set at a higher range will get their alcohol ignition locks, and they will find a different car and drive that car.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Chair! I want to draw the member’s attention, the committee’s attention, expansive is fine, explaining the intent and the scenarios is fine but you are starting to repeat yourself even within the same speech. We have clauses to discuss and move through. I urge you to consider that we are in committee rather than a second reading debate.
Mr GILES: I understand why the minister for Transport would not want me to debate legislation - because she must want to get home early too.
Members interjecting.
Mr GILES: … ‘Madam Chair, can you please make him sit down; can you make him stop debating legislation; this is not a house of debate.’ Well, I think it is. This is the minister for gagging trying to gag us. I am standing up here doing my best at my first go, trying to debate legislation to get the drunks off the road - that you do not care about - to try to reduce our road toll, and you want me to sit down. I am trying to debate to get the drunks off the road, and you want me to stop talking …
Ms LAWRIE: I am pointing out that you are repeating yourself in little loops.
Mr GILES: Hello, it must be dinner time. I must be getting hungry.
Madam CHAIR: Order!
Mr GILES: It is the last day, and you want to go home early. This is a disgrace.
Ms LAWRIE: Give us something new.
Mr GILES: We should work like ordinary Territorians. We have had a three hour lunch today. We had two hours this morning – well, not quite - three o’clock to eight – so we have done seven hours today. What about those other Territorians who work 10 hours a day. Time to go home, Madam Chair.
Mr Vatskalis: How do you know? You were always a public servant?
Mr GILES: What was that?
Mr VATSKALIS: How do you know how to work? You were a public servant, were you not?
Mr GILES: To be honest, I cannot even hear you, let alone understand you. Madam Chair, I will talk. I will talk …
Members interjecting.
Madam CHAIR: Order!
Mr GILES: I will continue to talk about the importance of low-range, repeat drink-drivers. I notice the member for Port Darwin has just come in. I had better start again …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Whilst I appreciate the member for Braitling is a novice in this House, he must be aware that referring to my absence or otherwise is a bit naughty.
Ms Lawrie: A point of order on his own colleague!
Mr Elferink: It was a joke - it is called humour.
Madam CHAIR: Order! Member for Braitling has the call.
Mr GILES: I have given a few reasons why I had a go at the government. They do not care about people who are low-range, re-offender drink-drivers. They think it is all right to have a few drinks, get a little over and keep driving. They do not have enough police on the ground to catch drink-drivers at the moment. The road toll continues to go up and they are going to let the low-level repeat offenders continue to repeat offend and not try to put in a behavioural change mechanism through an alcohol ignition lock to get positive charge.
I recommend the minister for Transport accepts my recommendation and makes all repeat drink-drivers accountable through the alcohol ignition lock system; that we are toughen up - like the Country Liberals want to do, like our original proposal for alcohol ignition locks; that we toughen up on people who aid and abet; that we toughen up on people who repeat drink-drive on a high range, that we toughen up, more importantly, on people who are low range re-offenders.
Ms LAWRIE: Under the CLP there was no disqualification at all for repeat low-level offenders. This is a man lecturing your own party’s track record. It was Labor that introduced the low-range disqualifications. They did it on 1 July 2007. We did it and we shifted the Territory in leaps and bounds in road safety. We brought in demerit points for drink-driving, including low-level drink-driving, to stop repeat drink-driving - and guess what? The CLP opposed us. Previously, you would be caught as often as you liked under 0.08 and not lose your licence. Thanks to Labor, you lose your licence. We changed it. The CLP opposed it.
The absurd situation in here is that the CLP is opposing suspending the licence of repeat drink-drivers. They want us to confiscate the cars. They want us to put the interlock systems in. You have been shifting all over the place. We have been consistent. Consistently in this debate I have said we are going after repeat drink-drivers in the medium to high range, the ones who make up the bulk of our offenders in the system, and the ones who are the danger to us. They are the ones we are going after.
You argue your bit and you can be dramatic and theatrical, but I have said consistently what we are doing.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Madam Chair, I was wondering if the minister for Transport could give us the version in 25 words or less why she is not prepared to admit this amendment which has been put forward.
Ms LAWRIE: I did. You clearly missed it.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Is that because you say that you have done enough already?
Ms LAWRIE: I just did. Clearly, you missed it.
Mr GILES: Madam Chair, I can understand why the minister for Transport would not want to talk. It is past 8 o’clock and she must be tired. We had a late night last night and …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Chair! This is just getting beyond a joke. These members are reflecting in a personal way and an unnecessary way on the minister. The minister has been very patient with these members and they are turning to personal invective now and reflecting badly on her. I ask for them to correct it.
Mr ELFERINK: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Chair.
Madam CHAIR: Please pause while I confer with the Deputy Clerk. Member for Johnston, there is no point of order. However, I ask the member for Braitling to speak to the clauses, please.
Mr GILES: Thank you, Madam Chair. I can understand why it would be very difficult to answer the question from the member for Katherine on this matter, because we have not actually heard - we did not have 25 words or less - why you would not have an inclusion for low-level repeat drink-drivers - people from 0.05 to 0.08 - on the third offence to have an alcohol ignition lock. What we heard was something about the CLP in 1940, was it? I cannot remember - a long time ago, way before there was a 67% increase in the fatality level on Northern Territory roads. Sixty-five people have now died on Northern Territory roads; 50% of them related to drink-driving.
Here we have a positive amendment to try to get drink-drivers off our roads. You were the ones who explained to us that you think alcohol ignition locks are going to change people’s behaviour. I say they will not. I will say that while they are fitted to the car, it will help people stop drink-driving but, once those alcohol ignition locks go, people will come back to the same levels of drink-driving they had before.
What we are trying to do is get low-level drink-drivers off the road. For the minister for Transport to not even be able to give a reason why you would not want low-level drink-drivers off the road, or why you would not want low-level drink-drivers to have an alcohol ignition lock. I say an alcohol ignition lock on your car will stop you from drink-driving.
There are problems around aid and abet and all those things, and we have tried to move amendments to fix that. Here is an opportunity to have an alcohol ignition lock in the car of low-level offenders. You will get drink-drivers off the road. Your position against my amendment will allow people to drink-drive; those people will be drink-driving. This is going to get drink-drivers off the road. I would be more than happy for you to tell me - and I will sit down now, so be very quick, in 25 words or less - why you will not support getting low-level offenders off the road with an alcohol ignition lock?
Mr WOOD: I will try to do 25 words or less. I would support this particular amendment. I support it, not because of history or whether it was different in years gone by, but the act as it is now is very similar to medium-range blood alcohol content and high-range blood alcohol content in the format that there are penalties which say you can be imprisoned for three months or six months and your licence can be cancelled for three months or six months, not necessarily the same amounts, but similar to what happens in the high- and medium-range legislation.
The government has introduced this particular section of the act because it thinks that people driving, even with low-range blood alcohol, are dangerous - otherwise they would not have put those serious penalties in there such as imprisonment and loss of licence. They recognise that it is the low end of the scale of seriousness because, for the first offence, I think, you can get an infringement notice.
The amendment that the opposition has put forward has recognised that by saying instead of after two offences, at least after three offences. It has realised that this is not quite as serious as the other two offences. However, if I was to read the government’s mind when it put this act together, it believed that low-range blood alcohol was a serious enough offence that people could go to prison. That is exactly what they said for medium and for high blood alcohol content.
If you take that sort of logic, it would be good if they applied the same principal to a person who has been repeatedly charged with low-range blood alcohol content and should be required to put an alcohol interlocking device in his or her car.
Ms LAWRIE: Yes. As I say, we looked at the data we had on recidivism and the types of people we wanted to capture - the recidivists. The recidivists are the high-range and the medium-range, by a long, long way; they are the recidivists. It is about getting those repeat drink-drivers off the road – the second and subsequent offence drink-drivers. I have explained that previously, which is why we are targeting the medium to high-range, which is where our policy settings are different. We are not capturing the low-range in this alcohol interlock approach. We have a fundamental disagreement on that, granted, but I have explained our approach to it.
I put up with some seriously rude things being said to me about that, but I have explained it. Whether they accept it or not, so be it; but I have explained our approach.
Mr WOOD: Minister, I understand what you are saying, and there is some logic in what you are saying. However, there are obviously some repeat offenders in the low alcohol content group. It is not really the end of the world to pick up those people. I presume you will have a company and we will get on to that a bit later - some company will be given the contract to supply these machines to those people who want to take up the option of driving with one. So it is up to them to go to the company to get one fitted.
A slight change to the legislation which said basically, whatever is in the high blood alcohol content and the medium blood alcohol content regulations will, with slight change, also apply to the low blood alcohol content. A person who has been charged has been told that they can continue to drive as long as they get one of these fitted. It is not really a big change for the bureaucracy, you might say, but it will pick up those odd people. Maybe they are small in number, but at least it will be good that they are covered.
Mr GILES: Madam Chair, I was going through some of the figures the minister gave before. I think she said that 6% of people were low-range re-offenders. Is that correct? Based on some numbers you mentioned earlier, if I do a quick calculation that would be 68 people. Sixty-eight people are low-range re-offenders in the Northern Territory. I am happy to take advice if I am wrong - I just checked and 68 is right. I note what the member for Nelson has said, and I know 68 is not a large number when you are talking about thousands of people who drink-drive. The similarity of the sixties: 68 people; 67% increase in the road deaths this year; 65 people have died this year. It is all in the sixties.
I would wonder: if you know there are around 68 people who are low-level re-offenders, why would you not want them off the road? Can you explain that? If someone was killed tomorrow by one of those 68 people, what would you say?
Ms LAWRIE: Actually we want them off the road, which is why we captured them in the Road Safety Task Force and the legislative amendments we have made. We captured them when the CLP previously had not. You are asking: why do you not want them being able to drive on the road with an alcohol interlock system in their car, capture them into this system. That is the difference between us. It is not whether we want them on the road or off the road.
Mr GILES: Let me rephrase it. Why would you not want to try to change the behaviour of those 68 people to stop them from drinking and driving in the future? If someone was killed or a family was killed or someone was maimed or someone was hurt because you did not act through the alcohol ignition lock program to try to rehabilitate those people, which would be quite unfortunate.
Ms LAWRIE: Why would we not want to change their behaviour? If that were the case, we would not have captured them in the demerit scheme and we would not have made it an offence in the first place, as we have. Your assertion is that we are somehow ignoring this catchment of people who previously got traffic infringement notices. Well we are not, okay? They are captured. They are not captured with the alcohol interlock system because we have structured the alcohol interlock system around medium-range and high-range alcoholic recidivists. That is the difference between our policy settings. We can debate this for as long as you like, because I am a very patient person. I do yoga.
Mr GILES: I note you have done a number of things in terms of transport. I do not agree with all of them. I know what you are saying about drink-drivers. I will put it to you, as I have to some of my other colleagues, that I believe things should change for those 68 people. I am wondering if you - and I cannot quite hear, Madam Chair …
Members interjecting.
Madam CHAIR: Order, please. The member for Braitling cannot hear.
Ms LAWRIE: It is actually 21. Someone has done the figures for us. It is 21.
Mr GILES: I am wondering if you have done enough in your policies so none of those 21 or 68 people will kill anyone on the road through drink-driving.
Ms LAWRIE: Your question is highly offensive.
Mr Elferink: We will take that as a no.
Mr GILES: Madam Chair, I did not mean to be offensive to the member for Karama. The intent of the question was: have you done enough? The proposed legislation in front of us provides an opportunity, through our amendments, to go further. The minister is clearly saying that it is not necessary to take those amendments on board. To me that sounds as if she is saying: ‘We have the right package. We have done enough’.
Ms LAWRIE: We have confiscated their licence. They cannot drive on the road because we changed the laws to confiscate their licence. Your party was handing out traffic infringement notices to them.
Mr GILES: Madam Chair, I am pretty sure today is October 2008 and we are looking at what is happening today. There are 65 people who have died on our roads this year, a 67% increase over the same time last year when there were 39. You talk about being a good debater, member for Karama. You mentioned earlier how you have reports which show alcohol ignition locks will change people’s behaviour so they will not re-offend in terms of drink-driving. I would like you to table those reports so I can see where you get your evidence to say that those people will not re-offend. You cannot? Does that mean it cannot be done?
Ms LAWRIE: I am happy to source reports for you and to pass reports through to you. No problem with that. We have all done our research. We have Canada, we have the US, and we know it is happening. Okay, so …
Mr GILES: Would you please, minister, provide me with some sort of quotations from those reports which say that this is the case? We are debating legislation. I would like to know where it says that AILs will change people’s behaviour. I have read other information, which I have already tabled.
Ms LAWRIE: I am saying - be very clear about this - demerits are where the experts say it changes behaviour. What I am saying is AILs in the car prevents you from driving the car if you have alcohol in your blood and on your breath. You are throwing words at me. You are ignoring what I am saying. That is fine; we can go round in circles here. That is fine.
Mr GILES: I take it you just said - and my ears could be wrong. It is a bit hard to hear over here. We need to get the sound system fixed. I am pretty sure you said that demerit points stopped people drink-driving. Is that right?
Ms LAWRIE: Demerit points change people’s behaviour. Yes, that is what I said.
Mr GILES: So would you be happy to say that if demerit points changed people’s behaviour - and we have seen the fatality rate go up last year and also go up by 67% at the same time this year, would you say that your argument is wrong? Clearly, it has not changed people’s behaviour. There are 65 people who have died on the roads this year.
Mr Tollner interjecting.
Mr GILES: It is 65; a 67% increase on last year, member for Fong Lim. I have asked for the reports because I do not believe there are reports of a significant nature which say that AILs will change behaviour.
Ms LAWRIE: I will write to you on demerit points quite happily but what I will also say is this: all the people say demerit points take a long time to change drivers’ behaviour. Road safety initiatives take a long time to change drivers’ behaviour.
Mr GILES: However, where you say that AILs do work, we accept that.
Ms LAWRIE: It does not happen overnight. There is no silver bullet.
Mr GILES: So the point of the argument is if you say AILs are this ‘you beaut’ thing, you know there are people out there who re-offend on low range alcohol drink-driving, but you are not prepared to put AILs onto those people. You have not sold your argument to say they work here but we are not going to use them, what we are going to do, we are going to let people continue to drink and drive at low-level range on our roads while the road toll is going up. This is an absolute joke.
Madam CHAIR: The question is that the proposed new clause 12A be inserted in the bill.
Motion negatived.
Madam CHAIR: Member for Braitling, if I could just clarify before …
Mr GILES: I can barely hear you sorry, Madam Chair.
Madam CHAIR: Before we put the next question about clause 13, can we clarify that we are taking clauses 13 and 14 together?
Mr GILES: Clauses 11, 13, 14, 14A, 16 and 17.
Madam CHAIR: No, we need to take clauses 13 and 14 together and then you can move to insert your new clause 14A and then we have to do clause 15.
Mr GILES: Okay.
Clauses 13 and 14, by leave, taken together.
Mr GILES: Madam Chair, I move amendments to clauses 13 and 14 standing in my name.
Amendments negatived.
Clauses 13 and 14, as printed, agreed to.
Mr GILES: Madam Chair, I move the amendment to insert new clause 14A into the bill.
New clause 14A negatived.
Mr WOOD: You said 14A was included in that.
Madam CHAIR: Yes.
Mr WOOD: Was 14A one of the amendments?
Madam CHAIR: Yes.
Mr WOOD: Has that just been passed then?
Madam CHAIR: Clauses 13, 14 and 14A have just been dealt with.
Ms LAWRIE: We agreed to deal with them in a block earlier in the debate but, Gerry; you were not necessarily part of the agreement.
Madam CHAIR: The question is that clause 15 stand as printed.
Motion agreed to.
Madam CHAIR: I am going to clarify: we will be taking clauses 16 and 17 together.
Mr GILES: Unless you want to talk about low range offences again.
Madam CHAIR: The question is that clauses 16 and 17 stand as printed.
Motion agreed to.
Madam CHAIR: The question is that clause 18 stand as printed.
Mr GILES: I seek leave, sorry, hang on a second, I am getting instructions here.
Ms LAWRIE: The member for Nelson has a question. Go for it, Gerry. Is this about the licence?
Mr WOOD: I am getting a bit confused now. Is this dealing with the amendment that the opposition was putting forward about the person who was not the driver? Clause 18 of the amendment is the same …
Ms LAWRIE: We dealt with that earlier.
Mr WOOD: I understand that but, unless you were a genius - I was not sure where that was going because we were dealing with a clause right at the beginning at the same time as we were dealing with the clause there.
Madam CHAIR: Member for Nelson, we will just seek clarification from the member for Braitling.
Mr GILES: We were dealing with clauses 6 and 18 concurrently but it could not be done because the paperwork had not been done. So, we dealt with it in terms of debate, we now just have to put it to the vote.
Mr WOOD: I asked that I could comment on clause 18. We really need to keep the clauses in some form of organisation.
I do not have a problem with this, either. I understand the minister is saying how many people would eventually get caught by it? It is like a lot of legislation; it sends a message, but it is not necessarily how many people get caught by it. I am sure if I sat down and worked out the number of laws we have in our society which probably rarely get used, but people know it is an offence to do it. It is the message it sends in this case that you are breaking the law if you blow into the AIL to enable someone else to drive the vehicle.
That is something, regardless of how many people get caught, the government - and I presume you will have an education campaign in relation to this - could include so it is clear to people that it is an offence to do this. Not just do not do it, but that it is an offence. I do not think this is something that is the end of the world, but it would be important. I believe it would actually help the act. I am not trying to be silly and argue for the sake of argument, but it would improve the bill we are trying to put through. I support that change.
Ms LAWRIE: We debated it earlier.
Clause 18, as printed, agreed to.
Mr GILES: Madam Chair, I seek leave to debate opposition clauses 18A to 18C and 20 together, and recognise that we will come back for individual votes based on the paperwork you have in front of you - same as the other items.
Mr WOOD: Could I just check there. We are now on Division 9 of the amendment bill. Could I ask some general questions before we get into specific questions? We are dealing with alcohol ignition locks. It is a different area to what we were discussing before. Madam Chair, could I ask some general questions in relation to this section?
Ms LAWRIE: I think it is good, Gerry. Go for it.
Mr WOOD: Thank you. The question I would like answered by the minister is partly what I spoke about before, and partly what the member for Katherine spoke about before. If the government is aiming purely at urban areas for the establishment of these locks, then the issue of whether people in Aboriginal communities out in remote areas being affected is irrelevant. However, that does not mean there are not going to be people in urban areas who have low incomes. I am looking at the practical side. Has the government come up with a plan to encourage people to be able to afford to put these locks on vehicles?
Ms LAWRIE: Yes, I went through this earlier and I am more than happy to go through it again. We have talked about the indicative cost of the program. I know you had a good briefing on the South Australian program - that initial fee of $400 and the monthly rental service admin fee of approximately $160 per month.
There are three jurisdictions with these programs in place which have subsidies; so what we are doing is working with stakeholders on what they could look like, including Centrelink, NT Department of Health and Families, and looking at the seniors’ card-type model. Where there are subsidy cards existing, we are looking at that in the Territory context and how the subsidy regime would work. Picking up on your point, and I made the point in the debate earlier, poverty is not discriminatory; it is right across our urban, regional and remote centres. So it is accepting that we have an impoverished cohort in the Territory, regardless of race, who, to have the same opportunity, would need a subsidy system operating. We are going through the details, trawling through, looking at how it would work, looking at the cards, etcetera.
Mr WOOD: In relation to maintenance of these instruments, will that be a great cost? How regularly would it be required? Who is going to do it in areas, for instance, which might not be that remote but, say, I live at Dundee, do I have to come into Darwin to get it checked? There are issues related to people who may not be regarded as remote, but who live a reasonable distance away, to get these locks maintained on a regular basis; there will be a cost factor.
Ms LAWRIE: I went through this earlier; I am happy to go through it again. The calibration is six monthly; the download is monthly. It requires a many auto-electricians for the calibration work. We have had a look at where they are available; for example all the major population centres - Darwin, Palmerston, Katherine, Nhulunbuy, Tennant Creek, and Alice Springs and, we also believe _ Batchelor, Jabiru, Alyangula, Borroloola and Yulara. For the six-monthly requirement to get to someone with the expertise, that is where you can go. Is that accessible in the remotes? We believe so, if you look at where those people, who have a car, travel within a six month period. Do we think it is workable in those areas? Yes, we do.
Downloads, for example, are very easy, very simple, and MVR, police, etcetera can be used. Again, it is a highly distributive network for downloads. That goes into the detail that is not in the legislation; that will be coming post-legislation and is being worked through with all the stakeholders, as well as other government departments and the people who provide the equipment, because they know what works.
Mr GILES: Madam Chair, I seek leave to debate the opposition’s new clauses 18A to 18C together.
Leave granted.
Mr GILES: Madam Speaker, I move the new clauses 18A to 18C be inserted in the bill.
Madam Chair, this is the third component of the amendments we have put forward, and it is probably the one that will get the most headlines. This is the one which shows the people of the Northern Territory that we are serious; this is the one which shows the people of the Northern Territory that you do not get change without a stick; this is the one that shows people you can give all the carrots you want, and you can try to wriggle these alcohol ignition locks, which have a certain role in changing drink-driving behaviour.
This is the amendment which says: when the Country Liberals want to make changes to stop our road toll increasing so much; when the Country Liberals say to people we do not accept high-range drink-driving on our streets - and we do not - and this is the signal we give the people of the Northern Territory when we say enough is enough and it is time for change. This is where we say: you get to that certain point; you get caught once at low, medium or high-range; you get caught a second time at low, medium or high-range and you are completely stuffed up; and then you get caught a third time.
When you get caught the first time, you could have made a mistake; you could have made a little mistake or a medium mistake or a big mistake, depending on your blood alcohol content. You get done the second time and you are really being a moron. If you get done a third time when you have already been convicted of high-range, or if your third time is high-range, that is over 0.15 - that is when the Country Liberals say we will take your car. You will be forfeiting your vehicle because you clearly have not learnt from this amazing road safety package the government has brought in with its demerit points, fines or with its wonderful new alcohol ignition locks which, of course, will make changes while people have them in their cars and they are driving.
This is the clause which says: Gee whiz, these people must be serious - if they are taking our car, they are serious. This is not about headline grabbing. This is not like the government saying: ‘Gee, the Country Liberals have a great policy - ignition locks. The road toll is going out of control and clearly we are not doing enough, as the government, about road transport. We had better copy the Country Liberals’ policy of ignition locks’. This is a policy which, if we were in government, we would put it in today because it would change the road toll and stop people dying on our roads.
This government is kidding itself. We have heard that the government looks down upon this amendment. The government does not think this amendment should be inserted. I am sure we will soon hear from the minister for Transport something about how confiscating cars will be hard, and all that sort of thing. We will hear that we are a bit mean and what about the people who have to drive to work, and what about the family, and what if you have to drive long distances?
Well, they should not drink-drive in the first place.
Mr Elferink: Or the second or the third.
Mr GILES: That is right. If you get done three times with a high-range level, you will forfeit your vehicle. That is a plain and simple policy and that policy would be in place tomorrow if we were in government. We would put that straight in place.
A member: You are not.
Mr GILES: We are not far behind. Great election result for you.
Members interjecting.
Madam CHAIR: Order!
Members interjecting.
Madam CHAIR: Order! Please cease interjecting, member for Port Darwin. Member for Braitling, you have the call.
Mr GILES: Thank you, Madam Chair. When we first started debating this bill, I think it was when we first spoke on the second reading, the member for Araluen spoke a about this amendment we are putting forward, the amendment to forfeit cars for idiots who drink-drive three times at a high-range. That is when the member for Araluen said: ‘What a great idea’. She has supported it for a while and said it was a great idea.
She said: ‘You know the best thing about this amendment, the best thing about forfeiting cars, about confiscating cars from people who drink-drive three times within a five year period and one of those at a high range. You know it is the best thing. You know why the government is going to support this - not just because it is going to get drink-drivers off the road - it is not just because we are going to have an opportunity to lower our fatality level on the roads; it is not just because the roads are going to be safer for the mums and dads and kids, and the aunties and uncles, and the grandmothers and grandpas. Not for any those reasons. Why should this government be accepting this, member for Araluen? Because it is based on the government’s legislation.
Remember when all the hoons were driving around and the government needed some political quick-fix? What did they say? ‘We will take your car.’ So we said all right, not a bad idea. If you get done three times drink-driving with one offence at high-range, whether it is the first second or third offence - you will lose your car, you will forfeit your car. It might sound tough, but if we are going to clean up our streets in terms of drink-driving, we have to be tough.
If there is a lack of action by this government to get tough, and someone I know repeatedly drink-drives at high range, I will not be happy. When the opportunity is here to be tough and to take cars - you might laugh …
Ms Lawrie: I am not laughing.
Madam CHAIR: Order!
Mr GILES: There were 65 people who died on our roads this year, a 67% increase in the road death rate. It is not a laughing matter.
Ms Lawrie: I am not laughing.
Mr GILES: I will remind my colleagues on this side of parliament - the people who are tough and want to see change - of something that happened in the debate in committee tonight. That is, the government does not support our motion to introduce aid and abet laws - which is where someone can blow into an alcohol ignition lock and allow people to start their cars and drive. The government has also said - and this is an important point; I hope my colleagues are listening - if you are a low-range drink-driver, we are not going to change the law for you because it is all right to drink and be just a little over the limit; it is all right to be between 0.05 and 0.08. You do not need to change. There are only 68 people who drink at that level. That will be all right; we just hope that they will not kill anybody on the road. They are not prepared to make change.
There are two important points: they are happy for people to aid and abet to get around an AIL; and they are happy for low-level drink-drivers to continue on our roads. The funny part - and this is the point of this amendment - they are happy to forfeit a car when someone has been doing a burn-outs in the street; if someone is hooning, doing burn-outs, driving pretty fast, they are very happy to take the car. But if someone is drink-driving at 0.30 for the third time - we cannot take the car. That is an absolute disgrace.
Come up to the Northern Territory - we are trying to attract new workers - come up here and get pissed and drive on our roads, but do not do burn-outs because we will take your car. Get blind and have a drive; you never, never know, if you never, never go. What a joke!
This is about a change in policy. This is about legislation. This is about fixing our road tolls. It is not about taking a car for burn-out. You get tough on your hoon laws and get your front page of the paper on all those things. This is about stopping people from dying through drink-driving. It is important to bring the focus back to that point. Sixty-five people have died. We have a total population of 218 000. We are catching up with South Australia; we might even have passed them. This is very important.
Ms Carney: You have 50 seconds left.
Mr GILES: I will stand here for 50 seconds. Fifty seconds is about as long as it takes to do a burn-out in a car; about as long as it takes to lose your vehicle under this government’s legislation, but it is not long enough to lose your car for killing someone in a drink-driving accident when you have been drink-driving three times.
More people have died on our roads than in South Australia this year. Here we have an opportunity to make changes, to confiscate the car of someone who drink-drives at a high level. And what does this government say? ‘No, those changes are poor. How can you dare insert that legislation?’
Members interjecting.
Mr GILES: This is your rule. We are just taking it from hooning and putting it into drink-driving – the thing that is killing people on our roads. Sixty-five people have died; half of them drink-driving - and you are not prepared to do anything about those people at the high-range. You read the numbers out for yourself. You need to support our legislation.
Madam CHAIR: Honourable members, I will suspend the committee for five minutes until the ringing of the bells.
______________
The committee suspended.
______________
______________
Madam CHAIR: Honourable members, we are resuming committee debate on proposed new clauses 18A to 18C.
Mr GILES: Thank you, Madam Chair. Minister for Transport, I am looking at a transcript of your second reading speech where you spoke about the legislation we are debating tonight. I quote: ‘This legislation is designed to assist in bringing about this change in culture.’ You were referring to alcohol ignition locks.
We are now debating the forfeiture of cars. I put to the minister for Transport a question which relates to the success of alcohol ignition locks in bringing about a change in culture. I looked at a report and I spoke about it earlier, but I did not table it properly; so I will table it properly now. The report is by the Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing, a 2008 report, released not that long ago, titled: The avoidable costs of alcohol abuse in Australia and the potential benefits of effective policies to reduce the social costs of alcohol. I quote from page 31, section 6.2, where it says:
- However, seven of the studies found that, once the interlock is removed, offenders have the same recidivism rate as suspended offenders.
I take the Australian government seriously. This is a Labor government. I note the Department of Health and Ageing did a vast study identifying that the interlock does not do exactly what you said, in my interpretation of your second reading speech, when you said this legislation is designed to assist in bringing about change in this culture. Clearly …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Chair. Could I ask the member to table that report and the extract of the report he is reading from. I would like to read it. It is obviously a very important part of his argument and members should have access to it. I ask the member to table it, please.
Madam CHAIR: Member for Braitling, are you prepared to table those documents?
Mr GILES: I am prepared to table that - I know the speaker system here does not work very well - I did say probably 30 seconds ago that I am prepared to table them. They are here to table.
Dr BURNS: No, the document you are reading from.
Mr GILES: Same document. It is a photocopy. I am happy to put that one down.
Dr BURNS: Good.
Madam CHAIR: Thank you, member for Braitling.
Mr GILES: This is highlighted as well; so yours is highlighted. Mine is not. But we are on the same page now.
Dr BURNS: Thank you for being so helpful, member for Braitling.
Mr GILES: Not a problem.
Ms Carney: In stark contrast to Question Time.
Mr GILES: Exactly right. I am prepared to answer the questions, Minister for Health.
I have a question for the minister for Transport. When the Australian government undertakes a study to look at the avoidable costs of alcohol abuse in Australia and the potential benefit of effective policies to reduce the social cost of alcohol, and that study says seven of the studies found that once the interlock is removed offenders have the same recidivism rate as suspended offenders, my question to the minister for Transport is: does she know more than the Department of Health and Ageing or the Australian government?
Ms LAWRIE: We had a discussion and debate about the forfeiture and confiscation earlier, and these are the clauses we are debating now. I am happy to go right to the heart of policy difference - and that is what it is. It is a policy difference between the opposition and the government. I will go right to the heart of it.
The offences currently targeted by Part 5A of the Traffic Act involve reducing antisocial driving behaviour, commonly referred to as the anti-hooning provisions. For these offenders, the vehicle impounding is for 48 hours, then up to three months, then forfeiture of the vehicle. If their driving is dangerous, they will be charged with dangerous driving, which carries mandatory disqualification.
The proposed amendments by the opposition, we believe, will cover a much broader section of our community; many are families living in rural and remote areas where there is little or no public transport. As a consequence, the effect of impounding of a vehicle or its forfeiture will be much greater on the offender and their immediate family in terms of independence, personal health and safety, economic standing and cultural wellbeing.
Confiscating vehicles is just one of many strategies available to change the pattern of drink-driver behaviour on our roads. We believe alcohol interlocks offer more value. Confiscating vehicles from all repeat drink-drivers could potentially create significant consequences for our police and court systems. We have looked at the issue; I am not dismissing your issue out-of-hand. We genuinely have had a look at it. We believe the focus should be on repeat offenders – the direction and structure of which we have brought before the Chamber - the second and subsequent medium and high-range offenders. The research shows the people who repeat will continue to repeat for many years and treatment, rather than short-term punitive action, is what is required. We believe alcohol ignition locks are part of a longer term solution for this group. That is where our policy settings are, and they are different to yours.
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Chair. The minister for Transport did not actually answer the question. The question was: does she know more than the Australian government, the Department of Health and Ageing?
Madam CHAIR: There is no point of order.
Ms LAWRIE: It is a ridiculous question. I am not going to get into ridiculous questions. I have clearly stated the government’s policy position. You clearly have a different policy position, and you have enunciated it. I have enunciated ours.
Mr GILES: Madam Chair, the point of making that policy position, as we call it - I would not call it a policy position; to me it is something much more obscure - when the Australian government says interlocks will not change the recidivism rate, but the Transport minister says the legislation will bring about a change in the culture …
Ms Lawrie: They are not saying that.
Mr GILES: … through her second reading speech - and I did not quote …
Ms Lawrie: It is quoting the report.
Mr GILES: Madam Chair, I wonder how alcohol ignition locks - for those people who are at the higher end of the scale, the people who are caught at high-range – are going to change the culture. If we have a soft approach on alcohol ignition locks - which I acknowledge work while they are on the car, I do acknowledge that - however, when people come off they go back to re-offending drink-driving. We need a tougher approach at the end.
Only the Country Liberals have the fortitude to bring about that tough approach. If we do not bring about the tough approach, it clearly shows that people who may get caught a third time for high-range drink-driving will simply go back to drink-driving. The Australian government reports show that, overseas reports show that, interstate reports show that. I am wondering why the government will not support forfeiture laws - a tough approach. A tough approach is needed to keep drink-drivers off the road …
Ms LAWRIE: If he wants to ask the question, I will repeat it, or is he just talking to himself?
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Chair!
Madam CHAIR: You have the call, member for Braitling.
Mr GILES: Thank you very much, minister for Transport, for trying to gag me …
Ms Lawrie: No, I am not. Do not be ridiculous.
Madam CHAIR: Order, please.
Mr GILES: The purpose of tabling this report was to point out the difference between what the Australian government is saying and what the intent of the government policy is doing. Clearly, that intent will not occur through this legislation; it needs to have a stronger intent at the end of it so people know there is a significant difference.
The argument of taking people’s cars and being tough on drink-drivers is just not fair, because people have to drive to work or they have to drive family around - I understand that, I appreciate that it is tough. We have included a hardship clause the same as the hooning legislation - the one where you lose your car if you do a burn-out. It is exactly the same legislation. However, if you are worried about not being able to get to work because you lost your car because you have been drink-driving – do not drink-drive. Is that a simple argument? I am not really sure.
If you get done a first time - I have said this before - you make a mistake. If you get done a second time, you are an idiot. However, if you get done a third time, you are a bloody idiot and you deserve to lose your car. To say: ‘How can you dare be so tough on someone who drinks and drives and puts the lives of other people on Northern Territory roads at risk? How dare you be hard on those people! How dare you!’ Well, Madam Chair, I dare. If you are going to put people’s lives at risk on Territory roads, especially when the road toll is 67% higher than it was last at the same time last year - 65 people have died on our roads - we are the worst in the nation; we are a disgrace. We have to get tough.
We can give people back their cars with an alcohol ignition lock that stops them from drink-driving while they have it - I get that. I understand that all the programs are not in place to make it work yet, and that concerns me, but we do need to get tough at the end of it.
I just remind people: we are the people who support stopping people from drink-driving; for being tough at the end. We start soft; we slowly get hard at the end point. We have our hardship provisions, but we get tough at the end point.
This is a government with policies that say ‘medium-range offenders’. If you are a medium-range drink-driver, and you have been done a couple of times, you can have an alcohol ignition lock. If you are a person who gets done a few times on low-range offences, that is, between 0.05% and 0.08%, she’ll be right – it is okay to be a little over. But if you get done at high-range - where we say you lose your car - the government says: ‘Geez, you are a bit bloody tough. How am I going to get to work? How am I going to get the kids to school, or how am I going to get to the pub next time?’ Imagine, if you did not have a car to get to the pub so you could drink-drive again.
That is the core difference in this point. We are the people who mean business about reducing the road toll. These are the people who are choosing a political stunt and copying our policies to try to get a headline about something you cannot even prove is going to work, and is not going to change recidivism rates according to many reports around the world, including the Australian government - your comrades in Canberra.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, I support the amendment because I believe that removing a person’s vehicle is the last resort, you might say, in punishing someone. I do except this can cause hardship, but that is already in our act. Under section 29AG(2) of the Traffic Act it says:
- However, the Court must not make an impounding order or forfeiture order if it is satisfied impounding or forfeiting the vehicle will cause severe financial or physical hardship to the
owner or usual driver of the vehicle.
Even if that is not law enough to cover the family, it does mean that you could not allow that to happen within the existing legislation to cover the cases you speak about. Even if not every car was taken off the road because of that matter of causing hardship to a family, you are sending the signal out. I support the idea of confiscating a vehicle because it is not the driver who is the killer in that sense; it is the vehicle that kills. If you can get that vehicle off the road, at least that is taking the implement that kills off the road.
It may not occur very often. It is a bit like the other issue we were talking about: saying to people it is an offence to blow into the bag to allow someone who should not be driving to drive. You will lose your vehicle if you continue to misbehave, to break the law. There will be exemptions, and laws still have to be reasonable and take each matter into account. By putting it into the law you are sending the message out: we are fed up with the number of people dying on our roads, the numbers of people who are drink-driving on our roads, and we are saying you will lose your vehicle.
We have the weakest hooning laws in Australia. I would be preempting debate, I suppose, if I said much more than that. Look at the legislation in other states - we are mild. Other states do have sections - I know the Queensland act, I have part of it here, has a section which says if the vehicle is being used by a child, for instance, and the parents do not know their child is actually doing burn-outs when they send him to the shops to get the bread and the milk, there is an allowance within legislation to allow the car not to be impounded.
Put it into legislation and let each impounding order be taken on its merits according to circumstances. I would rather do that than not have it in at all, because I think it sends out the message we are trying to put across.
Mr BOHLIN: Madam Chair, I support our shadow minister for Transport, who is doing a fantastic job of trying to value add to this significant change to legislation which, I grant, is there to make an attempt to reduce our ridiculous, unacceptable road toll which is claiming lives throughout our Territory. I know on many occasions, and again tonight, the minister for Transport has refused to accept that small amounts of legislation by our side would value add - make it better, stronger and tougher for the laws to stand on their own feet - so that the magistrates have some teeth, the police have some teeth to take some action to curb this road toll. That is what it is about.
We are not standing here for any other reason. We are not arguing against stuff. We are saying; let us help make this better. Let us help keep families alive and together, because they are dying on our roads. Let us stop the carnage and the trauma that is passed onto the police, emergency services, the fire and the ambulance crews who go to these traumatic events. Let us support what you have to say and let us add a few more things; come to some basic, common ground and some reality. You are all educated people; you should be able to see that simple modifications in common sense and united agreement will assist this legislation.
It is a big step to seize a vehicle but the hooning act is where we can seize vehicles and it is a hard thing to say to a kid: ‘You have just lost your car’; but it is there to deter him or her so that, we hope, police save their life. That is the point of it - to save their life. So we are not going to seize the car of a recidivist drink-driver because that could save their life, or my life, or your life, Madam Chair. That is very important to consider. What about the poor family driving down the road? It could save their lives by seizing that motor car.
If we go to the Liquor Act; if you have a bottle of rum in your car in parts of central and northern Australia we can seize your car. I support that legislation. It is brilliant legislation because a bottle of rum is like taking a couple of cases of alcohol in there. It is a powder keg; it is like putting dynamite into a dry community, and it can save lives in itself. There are many of us who have spoken here today, and I appreciate their expression and sharing of family events in their lives and who know and have seen the damage alcohol causes in our communities. That is why we are tough in seizing those cars. In most cases, they do not ever go back, but they do go through a court appeal. We are not suggesting that it should not go through a court appeal. That is the second time in current legislation we can seize a vehicle. Can it be hard on them as well? Of course it can be hard on them. Can it be hard on the victim when they are bashed after someone brought grog into the community? Of course that is hard on the victim; the poor victim. Think about the victim for once - the people of this Territory.
I do not have time to find the exact part of the Fisheries Act, but I can have too many barramundi in my boat, in the esky, in the trailer attached to my car, and we can take both the car and the boat and I am not going to get it back. I support that act too, because we need to protect the fish stock. We need to protect our land, our country, our environment.
But pity help if we want to seize a motor car that might save someone’s life, might save a family’s life. It is a shame you have not considered this. It is a shame that you do not have that extra bit of strength to join together as a team and do something great for the Territory. We stand in this great room because we can make a difference for Territory people. The death rate on our roads this year is disgusting - It is disgusting. The minister for Transport has several times used the name of a very experienced traffic officer, Superintendent Bob Rennie. Ask him. I would say that he would think seizing their car is quite reasonable too, because they are his men who have suffered this year because of the road deaths. They have suffered; they are never going to be better, those officers who go to these accidents, these traumatic events every week or so this year. Their entire lives have changed because of drink-drivers, because they have put on a uniform to protect this community.
Get the strength to get the community to give it up, and let us make something different. Let us go together as a complete parliament, both sides of parliament, to agree on something which will save lives. Do not mess around. It is not a football game. Think about it and be serious. You will be held to account if you do not pick up the football. This point is important.
Chief Minister, consider it; talk to your counterparts and show the leadership which is needed today. This is vitally important. This is not a monkey’s game. Let us save lives together and do something really strong that shows leadership in government.
Ms CARNEY: Madam Chair, I have some questions for the minister which arose partly from comments I made earlier, and partly from comments and issues raised by the member for Braitling this evening. I will try to do it in the most orderly fashion I can.
Minister, can you advise me of the policy rationale behind the decision in this bill not to provide for impounding or forfeiting vehicles compared to the policy rationale which forms the basis of the Traffic Act in 2003?
Ms LAWRIE: As I said in a previous answer, the anti-hooning legislation which brought in impounding, forfeiture, confiscation - whichever words you wanted to use to describe it - affects a far narrower catchment of our society than introducing it in the legislation as proposed by the opposition, and we believe that the broader impact on families is beyond what we want to do. We believe the alcohol interlock system has proven to be effective in the cars to which they are fitted. In other jurisdictions they have proven to be effective in preventing drink-driving. We have targeted those recidivist drink-drivers, the second and subsequent offences in the medium to high-range.
We are saying this is a new bill to introduce alcohol interlocks. It is not about introducing an additional penalty regime of confiscation, albeit a regime which exists for hooning. As I said, hoons are a smaller catchment of our society than the broader catchment of drink-drivers. I am not …
Mr Wood: Some of them do both.
Ms LAWRIE: I pick up on the interjection from the member for Nelson. He is quite right, some of them do both.
Ms Carney: Can you speak up, please.
Ms LAWRIE: I pick up on the interjection from the member for Nelson. Some of them do both, and if they fall within the confines of our AIL, that is from medium to high-range, and they are repeat offenders, then they will not be able to drive that vehicle without an alcohol interlock fitted. Or, they can have an extended disqualification period which is a penalty regime we are introducing in this legislation. So, in the future will you have a mandated licence disqualification period and you will have an additional period of licence disqualification unless you get an alcohol interlock system fitted to your vehicle. That is a tough new regime. Very clearly, that is what we are saying.
It is a significant change. It is will be a cost impost as an extra penalty because they will be paying for those alcohol interlocks going into the car. We understand that. I, for one, am very proud that when we have this system operating, we will have a new device available to get repeat drink-drivers off our roads. That is where the government is. I know the opposition wants confiscation. The government disagrees.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, minister. As I understood your answer, you said – and I will paraphrase you – that punitive provisions like those that exist in section 29AG of the Traffic Act can be used in relation to a smaller group of people, namely hoons …
Ms Lawrie: A targeted group and hoons; a targeted group.
Ms CARNEY: Yes, but those punitive provisions are not good in relation to a larger number of people. Have I understood you correctly?
Ms LAWRIE: No. Punitive provisions, obviously, are good for addressing drink-driving. That is why you have now, because of the changes the government has made, immediate suspension of your licence if you are caught drink-driving, second offences and the like. There is a whole raft of them. I could go through them and bore you. That is a punitive measure; hat is a relatively new punitive measure. So, punitive measures are good. It is what punitive measures you choose to pull in as a trigger. In this legislation, we are saying this punitive measure is alcohol interlocks, not confiscation.
Ms CARNEY: I asked you about the policy rationale which it is targeted at people who are problems on our roads - hoons and drink-drivers. Have I understood you correctly - and please tell me if I have not - your two answers so far to the questions I have asked appear to be that punitive measures such as those contained in section 29AG of the Traffic Act apply - and you are happy about that - to a relatively small group of people namely …
Ms Lawrie: Targeted, yes; targeted at hooning.
Ms CARNEY: Okay. Then, why does not a similar policy rationale or thinking apply to a group of people who can be just as difficult on the roads in endangering the lives of others? Why is it good for one group of morons, but not good for another group of morons?
Ms LAWRIE: I have answered it twice now, but I know that is probably not sufficient, so I will answer it again. With anti-hooning and confiscation, we are targeting the hoons with that provision within the Traffic Act. With this legislation, we are introducing alcohol ignition locks as another punitive measure to address the recidivist drink-drivers. Sadly, the recidivist drink-drivers on our roads are significant in number; tragically, the recidivist drink-drivers on our roads are significant in numbers - that is clearly one of the reasons why we have an absolutely unacceptable road toll. We have a driving culture in the Territory which needs to be addressed, particularly the drink-driving culture. This is targeted at drink-drivers and it is a big catchment - an unacceptable catchment - on our roads. That is the difference, as I have articulated a few times to you. Agree or not, that is the difference.
Ms CARNEY: Madam Chair, I am not sure that the minister’s answers, with respect, actually address what is the policy inconsistency. What you are saying is we are introducing anti-ignition locks. You keep coming back to that.
Ms Lawrie: Alcohol.
Ms CARNEY: Yes, alcohol ignition locks. That is not my point. My point is about policy, but you are unable or unwilling to answer that.
I will move to something else. In terms of changing the culture of drivers, were the punitive measures outlined in section 29AG of the Traffic Act and introduced in 2003 designed to change the culture of hoons?
Ms LAWRIE: It was designed as a punitive measure to get the hoons off the road.
Ms CARNEY: I will ask the question again. Were the punitive provisions outlined in section 29AG of the Traffic Act designed to – sorry, I will rephrase that. You said you just want to get hoons off the road. I take it from your answer that the changes to 29AG …
Ms LAWRIE: No, you asked me about the measures in the Traffic Act and what they were designed to do. I said they were designed to get hoons off the road, okay?
Ms Carney: Okay.
Ms LAWRIE: What I have also said is there is a range of punitive measures which can be taken. What we are dealing with here is alcohol ignition locks. This is what we are bringing in as a new punitive measure, and we are dealing with alcohol interlocks.
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Chair! I think the member for Araluen had the call.
Madam CHAIR: Indeed, member for Araluen.
Ms CARNEY: When you introduced the amendments in 2003 to the Traffic Act, was that intended to change the culture of hoons?
Ms LAWRIE: I have answered several times.
Ms CARNEY: I can assist - or just designed to get them off the roads? Which one or both? Minister, why do you refuse to answer that question?
Ms LAWRIE: I have answered several times. You do not like what you are hearing.
Ms CARNEY: No, you have not answered the question in relation to the intention of the 2003 amendments to the Traffic Act with respect to culture. Do you want me to ask it again, or do you want it recorded on Hansard that you refused to answer that question?
Madam CHAIR: Member for Araluen, the minister has said that she has answered this question. It has been answered.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Madam Chair. I disagree with the minister’s response, but we will move to other matters.
Minister for Transport; is it your view, or indeed the government’s view, that the amendments made in 2003 with respect to hoons have been successful?
Ms LAWRIE: We are not debating the anti-hooning amendments here, that is a matter for General Business Day next week. We will have the anti-hooning debate next week.
Ms CARNEY: I ask, minister, that you reconsider your position because, this evening you have been saying the AILs will work for drink-drivers. When asked about the inconsistency in relation to hoons, you said they were, apparently, enacted for quite different purposes. Is it not the case that, whether or not those punitive measures and the intentions behind the legislation in 2003 are very relevant to this bill because, even though you say the aims are slightly different, you are still targeting two key groups – hoons and repeat drink-drivers? Surely you assert that the 2003 amendments were successful, otherwise the implications are that they were not successful, and that would be an embarrassment, would it not, minister?
Ms LAWRIE: As I said, we are debating the anti-hooning amendments next week.
Ms CARNEY: We are debating the opposition’s amendments which relate to forfeiture or confiscation of vehicles. Therefore it is appropriate, minister, and I know you know it, for us to refer to impounding or forfeiture provisions in another piece of legislation. Nevertheless, you refuse to answer that. I ask, and as Transport minister I would assume that you know most of this, since the changes to the Traffic Act were enacted in 2003, how many vehicles have been impounded pursuant to section 29AG(1)(a) of the Traffic Act?
Ms LAWRIE: I repeat: we will debate the anti-hooning amendments next week. Feel free to ask me questions on those during Question Time next week.
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Chair! The member for Araluen has repeatedly asked the Transport minister questions relating to the hooning legislation, specifically because our amendments for forfeiture of vehicles of drink-drivers is based around that same legislation. There is a point of relevance where we are trying to identify the success rate of the hooning legislation so we can relate that to our current amendments. I would appreciate if you would direct …
Madam CHAIR: Member for Braitling, there is no point of order. Please resume your seat. Minister, you have the call.
Ms LAWRIE: I have repeatedly said I will debate anti-hooning next week on General Business Day, or if they bring it on as an MPI. But we are dealing with alcohol interlocks now.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Madam Chair. I am sorry you are stuck in the crossfire here. I am compelled to refer once again to the minister’s arrogance, or perhaps it is lack of knowledge, which in itself would be astonishing as Transport minister. I ask you another question, minister, which is relevant, and you know it: since the amendments to the Traffic Act were made in 2003, how many vehicles have been impounded pursuant section 29AG(1)(b) of the Traffic Act?
Ms LAWRIE: I disagree regarding its relevance. We have brought in alcohol interlock legislation and not a trigger for us on confiscation. We have a completely different policy setting on what we are doing. You guys want to confiscate vehicles. I have explained why the government is not accepting your amendment for repeat drink-drivers in terms of confiscating the vehicles, that is, it is a much broader catchment of our community. Again, I articulated the impact it would have on our community. I have said that a number of times during the debate and previously in debate and also in my summing up in second reading. You do not agree with me; that is fine. I have said it several times.
Ms CARNEY: I remind the minister that the member for Braitling moved a number of amendments; it is those amendments we are debating. I ask her to do her best to fulfil her obligations as a minister for the Crown and a parliamentarian, and answer the question. My question is: since the amendments to the Traffic Act were enacted in 2003, how many vehicles have been impounded; and how many vehicles have been forfeited pursuant section 29AG(1)(c)(i) and section 29AG(1)(c)(ii) respectively?
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Chair! Repetitive questions, Standing Order 114. I have answered several times.
Ms CARNEY: A point of order, Madam Chair! It is not a repetitive question. It is a different question, as can be seen from the act and, indeed, heard with the minister’s ears.
Madam CHAIR: I cannot control how the minister answers the question. She is answering the question and if she believes she has answered the question and has nothing further to say, I have no influence over the minister’s answering of those questions, member for Araluen.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Madam Chair. In summary, minister, you have refused to answer or give any information as to the impounding or forfeiture of any vehicles made under amendments to legislation which Labor introduced in 2003. My question is this: how can your government oppose an amendment brought by the opposition which pertains to confiscation of vehicles if you do not know whether it is going to be successful based on your own legislation of some years standing with respect to the confiscation or impounding or forfeiture of vehicles?
Ms LAWRIE: What we are clearly saying is that the provision under the Traffic Act is targeted at hoons - a very different group of people to the target group for the alcohol interlock legislation which we have before us. If we make the amendments the opposition want us to make to include the confiscation of vehicles as an additional penalty, this will be a different catchment of Territorians, and have a far broader impact on Territorians, as I have said.
It would have a much broader effect on the many families living in rural and remote areas where there is little or no public transport. We have had a look at the impacts of what is proposed by the opposition on confiscation. We disagree with bringing that in as an amendment. We are focused on the ability to ensure the penalty of the alcohol interlock system exists in the Territory.
Ms CARNEY: When the amendments to the Traffic Act were debated in parliament in 2003, the then Transport minister referred to:
- … community concerns and annoyance in relation to antisocial driving behaviour …
Towards the end of his contribution where changes to the bill were introduced he said, and I quote:
- This bill is about preserving the rights of Territorians to move safely and freely about the community, without being harassed or put at risk by the life-endangering actions of a small few …
Minister, if the punitive measures contained in that bill as it was at the time, were made to address the ‘life-endangering actions of a small few’, why will not you adopt similar punitive measures in respect the behaviour of people who embark on life-endangering actions, namely, repeat drink-drivers?
Ms LAWRIE: First of all, we are proposing to introduce an alcohol interlock system to deal with the life-endangering behaviour of those repeat drink-drivers. Second, as I have said before, we are aware of the consequences of the actions the government takes in a legislative sense in introducing new regimes and penalties. We are very aware of the impact a confiscation regime would have on people living in rural and remote areas of the Territory where there is little or, in some places, no opportunity of public transport. I can say that time and time again.
Ms CARNEY: Does it follow from your answer that hooning does not occur in rural and remote areas of the Northern Territory?
Ms LAWRIE: No, it does not follow from my answer.
Ms CARNEY: I look forward to reading the Hansard, minister, because as I understood it – well, it is very difficult to understand anything you say really. You remind me of the tennis ball that, as a kid with a tennis racket, I used to hit against the wall of the shop opposite our house. I used to bang it against the wall and it just kept coming back to me. I would do a forehand and it would come back to me; I would do a backhand and it would come back to me. I would like to keep serving, minister, but I am not sure that it is going to do much because like the tennis ball, you will just keep coming back at me.
There is a limit to how much patience I have. Your reluctance to answer questions in a forthright and honest manner is alarming in itself. I am concerned that you have not, as minister for Transport, explained in any meaningful or logical way the policy rationale between the measures you introduced in 2003 and the reason why you will not support the amendments which are similarly punitive in nature.
I am extremely concerned, and I am sure others will be too, as the Northern Territory minister for Transport, you have no idea whether your own legislation has been successful.
Ms Lawrie: Not true, not true.
Ms CARNEY: Could the minister advise how successful the amendments …
Ms Lawrie: I will debate that on General Business Day, or bring on an MPI …
Madam CHAIR: Order! Minister, cease interjecting, please. Member for Araluen, you have the call.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you. I will pick up on the minister for Transport’s interjection. Can the minister outline the success or otherwise, by providing details of the number of vehicles which have been impounded and/or forfeited pursuant to section 29AG(1) of the Traffic Act?
Ms LAWRIE: As I have repeatedly advised the member for Araluen, we are dealing with the alcohol interlock legislation here. It is not a debate about the hooning legislation and how many vehicles, as a consequence of that legislation, have been confiscated. Different debates.
Madam CHAIR: Member for Araluen, we appear to be going in a rather circuitous route.
Ms CARNEY: Well, it is the tennis ball, Madam Chair. However I ask the question, the ball keeps coming back. It is important for the sake of the Parliamentary Record to record my dissatisfaction, and I feel certain the dissatisfaction of my colleagues, about the policy inconsistency of the legislation and the bill, and the minister for Transport’s inability to advise the number of vehicles which have been impounded or forfeited since 2003. I guess we might be able to make it a freedom of information request in due course because, with respect, getting information from the minister is like getting blood from a stone.
In any event, they are both relevant points. We are debating the opposition’s amendments which are about confiscation of vehicles for repeat drink-drivers. The minister’s arguments, such as they are, are just unsustainable. There is the minister, laughing about the road death toll in the Northern Territory ...
Ms Lawrie: No, I am not laughing about the road death toll. Do not be ridiculous …
Ms CARNEY: I am stunned; I am appalled that the minister for Transport finds this issue so hilarious …
Ms Lawrie: No, I find your behaviour hilarious. There is a big difference.
Ms CARNEY: Sorry, can you repeat that?
Ms Lawrie: There is a big difference. I do not find this issue hilarious. I find your attitude and behaviour hilarious …
Madam CHAIR: Order! Member for Araluen, you have the call.
Ms CARNEY: Maybe the minister could stop laughing, Madam Chair, during this very serious issue.
One final question and I guess, in a sense, it is a policy question, but a slightly different policy question from the ones I started with. Today, when debating other legislation, namely the Sentencing bill, government members said, and I think media releases in the past have said, that changes to the Sentencing bill were meant to send a clear message to offenders. Presumably, when changes to the Traffic Act were made in 2003 it was intended, amongst other things, to send a clear message to hoons. My question is this: why, as a member of Cabinet, do you want to send a message to hoons and violent offenders, but not to repeat drink-drivers?
Ms LAWRIE: I welcome the question. The government is sending a very clear, tough message to repeat drink-drivers. With the passage of this legislation we will have a very tough, new penalty regime in place in the Territory. We will have the mandatory licence disqualification period, plus we will be adding the mandatory alcohol interlock disqualification period. If no alcohol interlock is installed, then they will have that extended disqualification. Also, under this legislation, if they are caught driving under disqualification licensing conditions - that is, driving without an alcohol interlock in their car, which is required as a condition on their licence - they go to gaol. That is a very clear message and tough message the government is sending to repeat drink-drivers. A new, tough penalty regime is coming their way.
Mr GILES: Madam Chair, we are going to wrap this up. We are getting nowhere. It is clear to those present that the government is soft on drink-drivers. They are soft on low-level drivers, they are soft on medium-level drink-drivers, and they are soft on high-level drink-drivers. That is clear. People in the community will know that. People across the Territory already know this government is non-performing in many fields: whether it is health, education, or power and water. Now they know the government is not serious about drink-drivers. They are prepared to let the road toll skyrocket. It will continue to skyrocket from 65, where it is today, and it will head further north, far exceeding last year’s unfortunate fatality rate.
I believe this sends a clear message that this government talks about listening to people, Madam Chair. It talks about listening, talks about getting a kick in the backside at the election. I am pretty sure that if you listen, people would say: ‘We do not want to be in an accident and get hit by people who are drink-driving’. I am pretty sure that people would say that. There could be some people who say: ‘Look, I would love to get run over by a drink-driver’, but I am pretty sure that there will be some people who say: ‘I do not want to get hit by a drink-driver. I do not want my kids getting hit by a drink-driver’. It is time for people to come down hard, it is time for government to come down hard. It is time for government to get tough on these drink-drivers.
Unfortunately, that is not going to happen. Why is that not going to happen? Because we have a soft government. That is why. Soft on crime, soft on power, soft on schools, soft on planning, soft on housing. This government is just a ‘soft on’ - soft on everything. Here is a perfect opportunity to work with a bipartisan approach. We offered amendments to try to support your legislation and get it straight through, that would have got more people off the roads, that would have sent a clear message that would have been tougher, and – nothing, absolutely nothing.
Madam Chair, I rest my case. This is a soft government.
Clauses 18A to 18C negatived.
Clauses 19 and 20, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Mr GILES: Madam Chair, I move my amendment to insert a New Part 4.
New Part 4 negatived.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Question – That the bill reported without amendment – put.
The committee divided:
Ayes 13 Noes 11
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 Ms Purick
Mr McCarthy Mr Styles
Ms McCarthy Mr Tollner
Ms Scrymgour Mr Westra van Holthe
Mr Vatskalis
Mr Wood
Motion agreed to.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Ms LAWRIE (Infrastructure and Transport): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Privileges Committee - Referral of Matter regarding Member for Arafura
Privileges Committee - Referral of Matter regarding Member for Arafura
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise that earlier this afternoon I received a letter from the member for Port Darwin, pursuant to Standing Order 83, in which he raised a matter of privilege and sought precedence of other business for the purpose of moving a motion to refer the matter to the Committee of Privileges.
I advise the Assembly that I have considered the request of the member for Port Darwin and have taken into account the guidelines provided for by the resolution of the Assembly dated 23 May 1996. I have determined that the motion should be given precedence of other business and that it be dealt with following the consideration of today’s routine business, that is, at the end of business of the day, the last item being discussion of a Matter of Public Importance pursuant to Standing Order 94, standing in the name of the member for Greatorex.
Accordingly, I call on the member for Port Darwin to give notice of his motion.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I give notice I will move today that this House refer the member for Arafura to the Committee of Privileges in relation to statements made by her in this House about her reasons for failing to meet with Territory teachers during recent industrial action and the contradictory statements contained in The Australian newspaper written by Natasha Robinson on 23 October 2008; and further, that the committee be empowered by this motion to examine the relevant witnesses and call for the production of relevant documents. I submit the signed motion.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Member for Nelson
Member for Nelson
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have given my leave to the member for Nelson to make a personal explanation. I remind honourable members that a personal explanation is not a debate and it is usually listened to in silence.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, today I asked a question in Question Time which was trying to highlight the fact that: the government is offering unrealistic salaries to attract engineers to the Territory; that these low salaries mean there are few applicants for the jobs, and the only way to find people to work for those pay rates is to go overseas and recruit people using 457 visas; and that the government should be offering pay rates comparable to other states so we do not have to go overseas to recruit engineers.
My comments, quoted on TopFM by the Chief Minister, regarding people from India coming to Australia was not said as opposition to people from India coming to Australia to work as engineers. I was concerned that recruiting people from India for senior jobs may create some difficulties in relation to working and fitting into a unique Territory environment. From memory - as I do not have a copy of the transcript - I went on further to say I felt if they were employed, it would be better if they were initially employed at lower levels so they had a chance to understand the unique Territory work environment.
If any person from India felt offended by those statements, I apologise. But I say categorically there was no offence intended by what I said on radio or by the question I asked in parliament.
MATTER OF PUBLIC IMPORTANCE
Alice Springs – Commitment of Resources to Resolve Social Issues
Alice Springs – Commitment of Resources to Resolve Social Issues
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received the following letter from the member for Greatorex.
- Madam Speaker
I propose for discussion this day the following definite Matter of Public Importance: the need for genuine consideration of and resources to be committed to the resolution of the many pressing social issues confronting Alice Springs.
Yours sincerely
Member for Greatorex
Is the proposed discussion supported? I call on the member for Greatorex.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, as you just read out this matter of public importance is the need for genuine consideration of and resources to be committed to the resolution of the many pressing social issues facing Alice Springs.
It is no secret there are many social issues facing the mighty town of Alice Springs. There have been many social issues facing that town for many years. We have seen a big decline in the town since 2001 which appears to be the time the foot was taken off the pedal, if you will, to respect, pay attention and provide resources to, not just Alice Springs, but across regional Northern Territory.
Alice Springs, particularly by virtue of its size, is the king of the Outback, the biggest outback town. The member for Stuart and I discussed this on the flight up for these sittings. There is not much within a 1500 km radius of Alice Springs in the interior of this country. Alice Springs is certainly the king of the Outback. It is the biggest town in this area, hence it tends to wear the brunt of those social issues. By virtue of its size, and the bright lights, it tends to attract people into the town. We are seeing a massive urban drift into Alice Springs.
It is everyone’s right to move into a town if they want to. That is the great part about this country and this Territory - people can wander wherever they like. However, with that come many social issues which need to be addressed. We have seen that this government has not addressed those issues. They have failed, in fact, to address those social issues facing Alice Springs.
We can start with crime. There has been an 83% rise in crime since this government came to office in 2001. The people of Alice Springs will tell you there are problems on the street, and there is no doubt about that. They will tell you this government went to an election ignoring Alice Springs. On 10 August 2008 this government woke up, and the Chief Minister woke up, and said: ‘Okay, I am going to start addressing Alice Springs’. In fact, when he became Chief Minister in November 2007, he said, and I paraphrase: ‘I have a soft spot for Alice Springs. My wife grew up in Alice Springs and went to school in Alice Springs. I have a particular fondness for Alice Springs. Therefore, I will be focusing my attention on Alice Springs’.
Well, he has not done that. In fact, he has completely ignored Alice Springs. The vote in Alice Springs …
Mr Henderson: Rubbish! Just because I do not visit you when I am there; you are the last person I would want to visit.
Mr CONLAN: … at the election will …
Mr Tollner: That is a bit harsh, Hand.
Mr CONLAN: I am not sure what he said, but I am sure it was just frivolous and, again, just an example of his attitude towards the people of Alice Springs.
Nevertheless, the Chief Minister has completely ignored Alice Springs. His government has completely ignored Alice Springs hence, we now have a multitude of social issues facing the mighty town of Alice. Youth crime and general crime across Central Australia is out of control – an 83% rise in crime in Alice Springs since this government came to office. It is a very ordinary and a very poor performance, indeed.
In the wake of the election result, you would have thought this government may address some of those issues. We thought, perhaps the first thing out of the mouth of this government when the new parliament, the Eleventh Assembly, sat in September, would have been a statement, a ministerial report, a ministerial statement on Central Australia - but we have heard nothing, despite the vote in Alice Springs. It would be great to claim all the credit for the vote, but it is clearly a vote against this government in Central Australia. It is a vote against the Henderson government’s lack of interest, lack of will to address issues facing Central Australia, and Alice Springs in particular. This government has said that they are going to do something about police numbers, police on the streets. They said they were going to introduce more police into Alice, but we are yet to see them. In fact, the latest is we will get them sometime in 2010 – or something.
A long-standing policy of the Country Liberals is a shopfront or the Police Beat, something this government said was not on their agenda in the previous couple of years. Now we see they are about to put something in Central Australia - a Police Beat or a police shopfront. We will wait and see. I am not sure when that is going to happen. Nevertheless, it is just another indication of the Chief Minister’s neglect of Central Australia, his lack of vision when it comes to the regional and remote development of the Northern Territory. His focus is clearly on the northern suburbs of Darwin, and the rest of the Northern Territory suffers as a result of that.
Housing problems: where do we start with housing in Central Australia, public housing particularly? In the electorate of Greatorex in Alice Springs, it causes all sorts of grief. In the electorates of Braitling and Araluen, I know the number of e-mails, the number of complaints, the concerns we get from families, mums and dads, about public housing tenants who are drinking, who are blatantly defying the ‘no grog’ signs on some of the fences of those homes. Some of these public housing properties have become urban town camps with rubbish, cans, parties all night, kids out the front, young kids – eight, nine, 10, 11 - who are out the front in the driveway throwing rocks across the street, throwing rocks into other people’s homes, while mum and dad are getting drunk inside or out the back.
The government has particularly dropped the ball on public housing, or at least maintaining public housing to a standard that is satisfactory for neighbouring properties. I quote from a letter, and I will not say the name of this person, but this is just one example. I am happy to table it, but I will black out the name to protect this person’s identity. This is just one example of the letters that all local members receive in Central Australia, particularly the urban seat members:
- In the last month, the tenants of two of the houses have had constant visitors at all times of the day and night. They have been doing wheelies in the cul de sac and revving up V8 vehicles at early hours of the morning. Last Saturday night, they had a number of people out the front, from about 9 pm till 2 pm, yelling and screaming profanities, arguing and breaking bottles in the street, extremely scary, as I live by myself …
… and I felt quite threatened. The police were called, but took over half-an-hour to respond.
All three houses that have recently been filled have rubbish building up in the front yard constantly, and they have large amounts of people gathering around.
She goes on:
- I spend a lot of time protecting my investment and it is heartbreaking to have these neighbours move in and devalue my house by rubbishing the area. It is also not fair when you feel threatened in your own house, scared to go outside as there are mobs of people standing at the end of your driveway. I have on one occasion thought about staying in a hotel overnight as I feel threatened.
Ms Carney: That is unbelievable.
Mr CONLAN: Well, it is unbelievable, but that is a feeling, a general feeling of a lot of people in Central Australia as a result of the depressing social issues facing Central Australia which have been allowed to spiral out of control as a result of the neglect by, not only the Labor government but, in particular, the Henderson Labor government since it came into office in November 2007. Despite all the rhetoric and the lip service he gives the people of Central Australia, nothing has changed.
That is just one example, Madam Speaker. I have a whole stack of those e-mails, and I know the member for Araluen and the member for Braitling have as well.
Housing is a big problem. It is a very big problem and, as a result, we are losing people. We want to grow this mighty town, this great outback town – but people are leaving. If we want to do this, how do we go about addressing this problem? That is a question the Henderson government needs to ask themselves, and it is also something the NT government needs to action very quickly. We are losing good people as a result of these pressing social issues facing the Centre.
Land release is another big problem. Perhaps they go hand in hand. Land release has all but stagnated. There are about 30 blocks over here, and another 30 over there - token gestures of land release in Central Australia. Central Australia needs 1000 blocks of land and it needs to be released probably over a 10-year period; 100 blocks a year over a period of 10 years to demonstrate confidence in Central Australia. There are many sites. I know the Arid Zone Research area is a perfect site for that. There are no native title issues there, and I think they can be turned off very quickly - they need to be turned off very quickly.
White Gums is another proposal. I know it is a little controversial in some people’s eyes, but for some political reason the previous Planning minister refused to entertain any idea of releasing land at White Gums. In fact, the lack of consultation they have had with the people at White Gums has been absolutely deplorable. It is a simple: no, you cannot do it. It is pretty easy to pick up the phone and ask: ‘What can we do?’ Or, ‘This is what you need to do to get our approval. How about you go ahead and do that?’ They completely stymied this proposal from the very beginning.
There is also Melanka’s, a prime site in the middle of the CBD, which is now a vacant block. It is a construction site, which is an absolute tragedy. We have lost 400 beds there as a result of Gilligan’s pulling out. Why cannot someone like Centrecorp, for example, buy it and staff it with Aboriginal staff? I do not know why they cannot, or will not, and I do not know why the Northern Territory government has not investigated the possibility of that.
We need a couple of new hotels. I do not know why we cannot get a couple of Aboriginal organisations to build a couple of hotels and staff them with Aboriginal people and get Aboriginal people into the workforce in Alice Springs in the hotels. We need hotels and we need land. There are plenty of opportunities in Central Australia for that, but this government has turned its back on land release and housing in central Australia.
This has been highlighted since 2001, but personified, you might say, since 2007 since the current Chief Minister became Chief Minister. Despite all his rhetoric and all his lip service about the Centre, nothing has changed. All you need to do is ask the member for Araluen or the member for Braitling - we are not making this up - or the member for Port Darwin, who used to be the member for Macdonnell; he would be very well aware of this situation and some of these social issues facing Central Australia. We are not making this up to fill 20 minutes and stay till 10.30 at night. This is a matter of public importance.
There is a need for genuine consideration of and resources committed to resolve the many pressing social issues confronting Central Australia. There were 500 people at the convention centre last year who protested on just that point. As we have said in this place many times, these were people who do not normally protest; these were people who are generally pretty quiet - in fact, it was organised by one of the quietest blokes I know in Central Australia. He drove that protest, and as a result we had 500 people out the front of the convention centre, aka Parliament House in 2007, a little over 18 months ago, to protest about exactly that: - the pressing social issues facing Central Australia and Alice Springs.
We had a lot of promises about meetings and forums and talkfests and the like, but we have really not seen any action. We have seen dry town legislation introduced, which has not worked. In fact, it has probably done exactly the opposite. We had an Operation City Safe program introduced which was all very good but that has now ceased to exist. We had a small contingent of mounted police for a while. This was all very good while the protest was fresh in people’s minds. It lasted for about six months or so and now it has gone by the wayside and as a result the issues have become worse. There is no doubt about it.
We call upon this government to seriously address these pressing social issues in Central Australia, and the issues in other parts of regional Northern Territory, not just the northern suburbs and not just Darwin. This is a government for the whole of the Northern Territory, but you would not think so by their actions. If their track record is anything to go by, you would think they are the government of Darwin as opposed to the government of the Northern Territory.
Health is another issue facing the people of Central Australia. The Patient Assisted Travel Scheme is a classic example; it is perhaps the best example of how the government neglects the health concerns of the people of Central Australia.
Despite all the letters, e-mails, concerns, protests, meetings and information nights over the last couple of years urging the Northern Territory government to allow those with cancer seeking oncology services to continue to use Adelaide as an option for treatment, even if Darwin’s oncology unit is completed – and, once again, I will give the government the benefit of the doubt that we will ever see it; but let us for a moment say it will be completed - those people in Central Australia who require oncology services want to continue to have that choice. That choice will be ripped from under them and they will be forced to utilise the Darwin Oncology Unit once it is completed, if it is completed. That is simply insensitive, rude and outrageous. It is another example of how out of touch this government, and this Chief Minister particularly, is.
Ms Carney: Just like his predecessor.
Mr CONLAN: I would suggest worse. I thought his predecessor was pretty good.
Ms Carney: She said on election night she was passionate about Alice Springs.
Mr CONLAN: She did. She was pretty good at pretending that she cared about Central Australia, whereas this current Chief Minister does not give two hoots about Central Australia.
Mr Henderson: Wrong.
Mr CONLAN: You can see it straight away.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order! Member for Araluen!
Ms Carney: Thanks, Madam Speaker. I am so sorry.
Mr CONLAN: I pick up the interjection. He has a big workload ahead of him, Madam Speaker, if your primary vote of 69% is anything to go by – 75% two party preferred; it is quite incredible. It just goes to show how people respect those who are passionate and care about Central Australia; it is pretty obvious those people who do not care about Central Australia are shown the door very quickly. This government was shown the door very quickly in the last election. As I have said, it was a vote against this government more than, perhaps, a vote for …
Ms Carney: Well, equally.
Mr CONLAN: You could say that. Wouldn’t it be great to claim 75% and say we are that popular there …?
Ms Carney interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Araluen!
Mr CONLAN: That is something when diehard Labor supporters come up to you and say: ‘I will vote for you’. Even I had a couple of those, member for Araluen.
Nevertheless, PATS is a very serious problem. Hospital waiting lists are a huge problem in Central Australia. This is part of health. The uranium mine, too, I believe is a big problem; I believe it will come back and really hurt this government. We suggested an Environmental Protection Authority, an independent EPA, one with teeth; not one that is answerable to government. I believe people in Central Australia …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex your time has expired.
Mr HAMPTON (Regional Development): Madam Speaker, I say to the member for Greatorex, well done on this matter of public importance. It is fantastic that we can spend two hours, or whatever it may be, on Alice Springs. I welcome it. However, your contribution was pretty disappointing, member for Greatorex. It is the same sort of thing we have been hearing for the last year since you have been a member of this Legislative Assembly; nothing positive. No positive things to say about Alice Springs.
Mr Conlan: Nothing has changed.
Mr HAMPTON: Well, I do not know. Get on the Alice News website, it has ‘2001, things went backwards in Alice because of the Labor government’. Blame the Labor government. Get on the Alice News website and have a look pre-2001. Have a look at the headlines ...
Mr Conlan: No, no. I said that there have been issues for a long time, mate. They just got worse under you.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr HAMPTON: Do you want to hear the headlines? Here is one here, 1 August 2001:
- Liquor restrictions in Alice Springs are unlikely to be introduced this year. Yet another working group on alcohol measures have been formed after an all-day meeting called by the Minister for Central Australia, Richard Lim.
Classic example. These issues have not come since Labor came into government; these issues have been here for a long time ...
Mr CONLAN: I said they got worse. A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Stuart is clearly misrepresenting what I had to say. I said the issues have been around for a long time, they have become worse since 2001 …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex …
Mr CONLAN: Maybe you need to check the Hansard, minister; we can get a rush copy so you do not embarrass yourself …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, resume your seat!
Mr CONLAN: … so you do not embarrass yourself anymore …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex! Resume your seat. You are on a warning.
Minister, please direct your comments through the Chair.
Mr HAMPTON: I am actually looking at the laptop I have, Madam Speaker. Thank you.
My point is that these issues have been around for a long time, before the Labor government came into power in the Northern Territory. They have not worsened because Labor is in. They have been bad for a long time. These are generational issues, and it is going to take generations to fix them. I can stand proudly and say, as a Labor Party member, as a member of the Henderson Labor government: we are working to our best ability to try to fix these problems.
I will just give a few examples of what we have been doing in Alice Springs in my portfolios. All you need to do is look at regional development. Since the election, we have made a commitment to relocate the Department of Regional Development, Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources to Alice Springs ...
Mr Giles: Three staff - that will make a big difference.
Mr Knight: You ripped jobs out of there.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr Giles: I beg your pardon? Ripped jobs out of there? You are weak, you are weak!
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Daly, cease interjecting. Member for Braitling!
Mr HAMPTON: As I said, my Department of Regional Development has been, and will continue to be closely involved in Indigenous business success stories in Alice Springs …
Mr Knight: You gutted the place.
Mr Giles: You are weak.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Daly, cease interjecting. Member for Braitling!
Mr HAMPTON: Madam Speaker I draw to the attention of members businesses like Jungala Enterprises, Oak Valley Aboriginal Corporation …
Mr Giles: You are absolutely weak; you can’t look after Power and Water.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Braitling!
Mr Giles: You are incompetent.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, cease interjecting!
Ms ANDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Can we have the debate on Alice Springs, please?
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I remind you of Standing Order 51:
- No Member may converse aloud or make any noise or disturbance which in the opinion of the Speaker is designed to interrupt or has the effect of interrupting a Member speaking.
The minister has the call. Please direct your comments through the Chair. Thank you.
Mr HAMPTON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. As I said, I am passionate about Alice Springs. I was born there; I grew up at The Gap and my kids have grown up there; they have gone to the public education system in Alice Springs, and I am proud of that. But, as I know, Alice Springs does have its challenges. As an Alice Springs resident and as a member of this government, I am aware of that.
This government is focused on trying to improve things. It is not doom and gloom; we are actually trying our best. I go back to the point about my portfolios. I am very proud to say that this government, through the last election, has made a decision to relocate my Department of Regional Development to Alice Springs. I also draw to the attention of members in this House that this department and this government will continue to work closely with many Indigenous businesses across Alice Springs - businesses such as Jungala Enterprises, Oak Valley Aboriginal Corporation, RT Tours, Centrefarm Aboriginal Horticulture Company, Blue Bush Free Range Eggs, Rainbow Valley Cultural Tours, Kopp Constructions, Red Centre Paint and Panel, Thorny Arts and Tjuilpa, just to name a few. All these are examples of Indigenous-owned and operated businesses in Central Australia which are creating jobs, employing local people, and making a significant contribution to the regional economy.
I worked in the employment and training area for 10 years before I came into parliament and I understand that getting a good job relies strongly on having a good start in life. That is why getting a good education is so important, not only for Central Australians but all Territorians. In Central Australia we are fortunate to have quality schools with outstanding programs, as I know firsthand. I visit many of the local schools in Alice Springs such as Sadadeen Primary School, Ross Park, Bradshaw, Braitling, the Acacia Hill Special School, Centralian College, and ANZAC Hill High School. The member for Greatorex mentioned none of these schools - because they do a fantastic job. Maybe you should visit them to have a look.
In early 2007, the Alice Springs Football Academy, a great success story in Alice Springs, kicked off - the local arm of the Clontarf Football Academy that started in Western Australia. I had the opportunity to meet Gerard Neesham and listen to his story of how Clontarf began; it is such an inspiring story. The Northern Territory government has committed to $1.9m over four years to support the Alice Springs Football Academy. Academies have started at ANZAC Hill High School, Alice Springs High School and Centralian College, with 120 students enrolled. This initiative has had outstanding success; enrolments have increased to 240 students this year, with the average attendance at 87%. It is a real success story.
In addition, the retention of students from Year 9 to Year 10 at Centralian College was 100%, where previously many students would drop out rather than make the move from high schools to senior school.
I urge members opposite, particularly those whose electorates are in Alice Springs, to talk to some of these young men who are involved in the Alice Springs Football Academy. They certainly make me feel proud, and I hope they do the same for you.
A program aimed at improving attendance, retention and academic outcomes for young women also started this year. The Smith Family Foundation is delivering the Girls at the Centre program at Alice Springs High School. Funding of more than $250 000 has been provided so far, and I understand currently there are around 25 girls in the program.
Another innovative and outstanding program in Alice Springs is the Alice Springs Partnerships for Success Program at Centralian College. The program was sponsored by the Alice Springs Indigenous Education and Employment Task Force and was launched last year, and I was pleased to be at the launch. The Partnerships for Success Program is funded by the Polly Farmer Foundation, the NT Department of Education and Training, Centrecorp, and the federal government.
It is an academic program for Indigenous students who have the capacity, interest and potential to complete their secondary education and make a successful transition to further education, training and employment. It provides practical assistance and support for the 33 students enrolled. Reports are that the students are highly motivated in their studies, and interested in broadening their options when it comes to future tertiary education courses and their careers.
Madam Speaker, I visit these schools regularly, and I urge all members in Alice Springs - I know the member for Macdonnell does - to get out and meet some of them; talk to them about their achievements and aspirations, and what they really feel about their chances. Once the students have completed their secondary studies, we are providing further education opportunities. Our $30m investment in the Desert Knowledge Precinct will see a first class facility developed for training Indigenous people. The construction of the first stage of the Desert Peoples Centre, at a cost of over $10m from the NT government, is well under way …
Mr CONLAN: A point of order, Madam Speaker! This MPI specifically says ‘… the many pressing social issues confronting Alice Springs’. All we are hearing from the minister is a bunch of propaganda from his government. He is not addressing or recognising any of the pressing social issues confronting Alice Springs. I would urge you to direct him to speak to the MPI.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, resume your seat. Minister, if you can keep as close as possible to the matter of public importance, thank you.
Mr Knight: You need to run it down like the member for Greatorex.
Mr Conlan: Whatever, mate.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Daly, cease interjecting.
Mr HAMPTON: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker, I have acknowledged in the beginning …
Madam SPEAKER: No, we are not speaking to the point of order. I have already ruled on the point of order. Please, just continue with your speech.
Mr HAMPTON: All right, I will continue with my statement.
Ms CARNEY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! You have ruled on the member for Greatorex’s point of order by asking the member for Stuart to keep his comments as close as possible, or words to that effect, to the MPI. The member for Stuart, when he got to his feet, said he will keep reading his statement. I am concerned, given that he is going to keep reading his statement, he is not going to abide by your ruling and may, in fact, be showing dissent from your ruling.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, there is no point of order. The minister has the call and is, in fact, continuing to speak. I am sure we will hear whether it is relevant. Minister, please continue.
Mr HAMPTON: Thank you, Madam Speaker. As I stated at the beginning my speech, there are problems in Alice Springs and I acknowledge that. I have lived there all my life. I have seen it. I have lived with it. What I am trying to get at is: education is a very important part of dealing with these issues.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr HAMPTON: This government is serious about dealing with these issues. I can demonstrate clearly what this government is doing in terms of education. I will continue, Madam Speaker, along those lines because I feel it is very relevant to this particular MPI.
Sports are a huge part of the Alice Springs lifestyle. The Northern Territory government has invested heavily in developing first class sporting infrastructure in this town. Once again, sport is very important in helping to deal with the matter before us in this House. We have just had a very successful Masters Games and everywhere I went in town last week, spectators and participants were full of praise for our facilities. We have invested more than $5.5m into Traeger Park and have been able to host top-line AFL, cricket and other sporting fixtures in Alice Springs, as well as providing excellent facilities for local sports. We have invested $600000 in soccer facilities at Ross Park, and it is great to see hosts of youngsters and adults out there on weekends playing the round ball games.
I am also looking forward to the opening, very soon, of Stage 1 of the Alice Springs Aquatic Centre. The Northern Territory government has committed $8.1m to the aquatic centre which includes a heated pool. Personally, I cannot wait to plunge into our heated pool on a cool winter’s day.
As I said yesterday on 8HA, I do not believe just because Darwin gets something, that Alice should get it too. It is a different place, with different needs and desires, as we hear in this MPI. That is why government supports the principle of having local people make the decisions which will have local effects. That is why my department of Regional Development will be headquartered in Alice Springs, making decisions about the regions, in the regions - being there. I am sure you can see, as you fly over Central Australia on your way to Darwin or Brisbane, that Alice Springs is a regional service centre for around 200 remote communities. This throws up some real challenges and they are challenges this government is facing head on. We are putting in real resources, real programs and are determined to make a real difference. It is why we are investing in Central Australia and the wider region and we are committed to our Closing the Gap action plan.
Alice Springs is growing and developing, despite what members opposite would have us believe. I have spoken about some of the major government investments in my home town which are having an impact socially and economically. We are dealing with the big issues such as land release. We have seen a very successful land release at Larapinta where the Northern Territory government has provided $1.95m in headworks. Next cab off the rank is the Mt John subdivision where $1.2m in headworks were recently completed.
We have invested over $3.6m in additional short-term accommodation. Over the past year there has been an additional 90-plus beds in the town. I am sure that is not enough; more are needed, but it is a start. We have also committed to redeveloping the police station at a cost of $6m. We are building a new Accident and Emergency Department at the Alice Springs Hospital – again, another commitment of $6m. This is on top of the millions of dollars we are spending to right the wrongs of the past, to rectify the shoddy work undertaken on the hospital redevelopment under the watch of the former CLP government.
We have committed to working in partnership with the Alice Springs Town Council to revitalise the CBD and we have emphasised this commitment with a $5m contribution to get this exciting project under way. The most recent construction snapshot shows $57.3m worth of NT government major projects under way in Central Australia. This Northern Territory government investment supports recent private sector and commercial developments in Alice Springs. I am sure if the member for Drysdale was down there last week, he would have seen companies like Target, Harvey Norman, Clark Rubber, and Quest have invested in the town and opened premises; hopefully he spent a few of his dollars there.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HAMPTON: In the tourism sector, we are supporting an industry with the recent $2.2m Get CeNTred Red Centre global tourist campaign following on the previously successful ‘Destinations Alice’ campaigns.
Tourism is a part of the Centre’s lifeblood. It is a major employer and offers hope and opportunity for Indigenous communities to participate in the economy. This government will continue to support it and will continue to invest in it because we believe in it.
I hope I have painted a more balanced picture of my home town than that put forward by the member opposite, the member for Greatorex, who claims to represent Alice Springs. As I said …
Mr CONLAN: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Can I seek some clarification on the ruling, your warning? Does it mean I have to sit here in silence, or am I allowed some interjection? It is very difficult to sit here and listen to a prepared propaganda speech which the minister is reading while he is taking quite pathetic swipes at the opposition. He is clearly out of line. I just want some clarification on that.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, quite frankly, it is unparliamentary to interject. However, in a robust parliament certain levels of interjections are to be expected. When you are on a warning, it would be in your best interest to keep them to a very small number and be extremely quiet. That would be my advice to you.
Mr CONLAN: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I can do that for the next five minutes. Come on Karl, bring it on, mate.
Mr HAMPTON: The Henderson Labor government is genuine about what it is delivering in Alice Springs. The Henderson Labor government is putting a lot of resources, not only into Alice Springs, but into the Central Australian region.
Finally, in terms of the communities and my portfolio of Regional Development, my priority is creating real jobs in the bush. I have worked in the employment and training area for 10 years prior to coming into politics, in the public, private and community sector. It is a challenge and it also impacts on what the member for Greatorex has brought forward here tonight.
Madam Speaker, I am proud to be a member of this government. I am going to do my best in my portfolios in Sport and Recreation and as Minister for Regional Development. I am looking forward to the challenge and I thank the member for bringing on this MPI.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I am also going to talk about Alice Springs and the matter of public importance which has been brought before us by my colleague, the member for Greatorex.
The member for Greatorex was right to raise some of the serious issues and concerns there are in Alice Springs and the greater Central Australian region. Whether the concerns and issues are small or large, by talking about them does not mean you are talking the town down. You have to talk about the issues to bring them to the forefront, to discover solutions, to improve things.
I recognise what the member for Stuart said: that the town is great and there are many things happening. I recognise that, and I support that. I love Alice Springs. Of all the places I have lived, and I have lived in four different states - I have been fortunate - Alice Springs is the best place I have ever lived. I absolutely love it and I am not talking it down.
I was aware of many issues before I was elected …
A member: It is not as good as Palmerston.
Mr GILES: It is a long way in front of Palmerston. Since being elected I have spent a lot of my time dealing with negative issues in Alice Springs, in my electorate. Let me put it this way: when I talk about issues or when I come upon issues, I like to try to identify all the issues within that cycle of what is going on. I like to try to come up with a comprehensive plan for what we can do to fix some of these things. I would like to think the speeches I have made in this parliament have talked about futuristic opportunities and how we can make improvements on some of the issues we have, whether they are negative issues or positive issues. The town is good, but how do we grow it? That is an issue, but it is a positive issue. There are positive steps to take. We always need to add value in that regard.
I am going to talk about issues and I am not staving the government off. My electorate covers Larapinta, the western part of Alice Springs, the industrial area, the CBD and the northern part, incorporating eight schools and eight town camps, the business area and lots of different things. Basically, I spend most of my time in Larapinta, the township, within the Braitling electorate.
More often than not, I am out at Larapinta dealing with housing issues. I am always dealing with public housing issues. I have worked in public housing for many years, managing some very big problems, such as all of western Sydney, for a period of time. I understand that a public housing issue and a bad public housing tenant is not just about the public housing tenant. There are many reasons which go into why that tenant is a bad public housing tenant. It might be through overcrowding, lack or education, substance abuse, any of those sorts of things. I appreciate all that.
I believe, though, we have to get tough on bad public housing tenants. Not all public housing tenants are bad. In getting tough on bad public housing tenants you have to understand why they might be bad public housing tenants. Some are bad because they are just bad; others are bad because of the circumstances or issues which put those people in those places in the first place.
We often hear the terminology ‘urban drift’ in Alice Springs. Urban drift is people coming to town. As the member for Greatorex said, people have a right to come to town. One of the best things we have done, as governments – Australian, John Howard’s government, and every government - and I listened intently to what is happening at Nhulunbuy with the roll-out of broadband. The roll-out of broadband and access and opportunities for people to get greater knowledge is very important as we grow the Territory. It is highly important. As we grow broadband, access information, mobile telephone services and things such as greater mail services, people in communities have a greater knowledge of what you might call ‘the outside world’ as a generalisation. More people want to come to services and experience all these different things, so more people are coming to town. They should be entitled to come to town, and that is positive.
I also believe we should be supporting the regions to grow, so the regions are places where people want to live, where there are proper opportunities and they become solid townships in themselves; just one, off the top of my head, in the member for Stuart’s electorate is Yuendumu. I ask the question: why is Yuendumu not a vibrant town? It should be. As a regional centre, we should ensure that. It is the same in the member for Macdonnell’s electorate around Ampilatwatja and the Alpara area in the Utopia region. There is an opportunity there to be a vibrant hub, and that is what we should work towards. We have an opportunity to do that across the Territory.
Members opposite might have heard today that I gave notice I want to talk about secondary schooling on General Business Day. I want to talk about secondary schooling – not everywhere because I know there already is secondary schooling out there - but in a couple of key locations where there is an opportunity to start developing strong regions.
You might think I have digressed, Madam Speaker, but what I have actually done is highlight the importance of growing those regions in the context of urban drift, of people coming into town, into my electorate, and into Larapinta specifically, but also the other areas. Let us look at Alice Springs. If Alice Springs was a motel there would be a great big sign out the front, one of those old-fashioned signs that says: ‘Vacancy/No Vacancy’, and there would be a slide across to say: ‘No Vacancy’, because it is full. There is nowhere for more people to live.
I said I support people coming to town, and I do support people coming into town. I support all access to services, but there has to be a specific social policy shift to increase the size of the town, or move people out. I support increasing the size of the town. There are simply not enough houses for people to live in, in Alice Springs. That is a huge issue.
I have been critical of government in regard to planning and release of land. I am critical because there is not enough release of land. There are people out there who want to build houses. The more houses we have and the quicker that process happens, the more places people have to live, which will lower overcrowding in certain areas. We will be able to get a better tenure mix through appropriate policy. What will happen through increased housing, although it is only one intervention, is there will be a significant die-off in the number of social issues we have, because people need room to live, and they do not have that now.
I do not want to be alarmist, but I will say this: the way things are at the moment, in certain pockets of Larapinta where the member for Macdonnell lives, in certain houses and the little community around that house, it might only be three or four houses, is at boiling point. There are parts of Alice Springs at boiling point. I have people come to me who want to flog people in a public housing house with a baseball bat. That is how serious it is, and it is serious because of housing. I put that as the core thing. I know there are other things; but I put that at the core.
The minister is right to talk about eduction. That is an answer to a lot of problems as well. But housing is the problem. There are people out there who want to belt people with baseball bats. Much of it comes back to bad public housing tenants. When I say it is at boiling point, it is not alarmist, but places in Alice Springs are at boiling point. People are pretty much fed up and are leaving town because of it. When people leave town it is bad because we lose skills, experience and dollars, all those sorts of things. If we are going to start addressing the boiling point in Alice Springs we need to start addressing the housing crisis.
Madam Speaker, the issues we see coming out because of bad public housing tenants - I am generalising a little, but I am sure my colleagues on both sides of the House who are based in Alice Springs will appreciate this - is that with overcrowding comes a lack of places for people to sleep, a lack of opportunity for kids to have a sleep. It makes it difficult: there is wear and tear on the house; people want to have a shower and the taps are broken; the oven does not work so it is hard to cook food; the fridge does not work, and all these sorts of things. It goes on and on and on, so we get spill-out.
I want to talk about Lyndavale Drive where there is spill-out into the park near the corner of Patterson Crescent - there is a bit of a problem there. Some people might know that area. There are problems there at night. I have problems with neighbours. I am not sick of dealing with these problems, I enjoy dealing with these problems because I understand them and I want to work for a solution. When everyone gets in that park at night, they drink, and we have social problems. They might not have a job, and I do not want to generalise, but there might be employment issues or education issues, and there are housing stress issues and housing affordability, and all that stuff, and people are drinking. When they drink, there are problems. Those problems go to the next person, and they go to the next person, and they go to the next person. We have been talking about drink-driving tonight. Well, I tell you, we never got to the point of what the drink-driving legislation is, and that is alcoholism. That is what the problem of drink-driving is. These people are alcoholics driving on the road.
There are people living in Alice Springs who are subject to those circumstances which bring them into a collective togetherness where those social issues, pumping together, are a hive of complexities that contribute to alcoholism, and that alcoholism is spreading throughout the place. We have dry town legislation which is not working. I will put it on the record now: dry town is not working. We have people living in the hills all over the place, in the bush all over the place, drinking themselves into a stupor every night.
I go to people’s houses and I talk to people who are making complaints about public housing issues. I will tell a story: come over to my place and have a look at my fridge. And what do you find in there, grog. When I tell that story, everyone says: ‘Hmm, you must be a drinker’. And I say: ‘Well, go into the other person’s house where the drinking problems are, where the social issues are, and have a look in their fridge, and what is in there?’ Nothing, and people say: ‘So they are not drinking and you are drinking’. And I say: ‘No, it is the reverse. I will have a beer - I know when to stop. They will have a beer and they will not know when to stop, and they will drink and drink and drink and drink’.
We do not just have housing issues. We have alcohol issues, and we are not dealing with alcoholism. I am a person who believes in free trade of alcohol. I do not support restrictions, but I support supporting those people who do have alcohol problems. One of the best policies released in the election for the Country Liberals was a policy that said we were going to build an alcohol rehabilitation facility in Katherine. That would do things for the people. That would change things.
While we sit on our hands as government, as an Assembly, and do nothing, the people who have the alcohol problems will continue to fester and have more alcohol problems and more social problems, and nothing will change - it will get worse. The boiling point which might be this big will get this big - and gets bigger. There are parts of Alice Springs that are thriving and are really good. But the boiling point issues are a massive problem. I do not see the day too far away, when possibly - I am not saying it is going to happen - but possibly there could be some big violence in terms of troubles in Alice Springs. There will be a tipping point.
A member: There already has been.
Mr GILES: No, there will be a tipping point. There has not been the tipping point I am talking about. I am talking about the tipping point between Indigenous and non-Indigenous relations. That might not be the whole town coming together, but it might start here and grow. That is a serious concern in Alice Springs because we are not dealing with the fundamentals of housing and alcoholism. We need to get those people who are alcoholics out of town. Not just out of Alice Springs and plonk them over there. We need to get them out of town and help them. We are not helping them by saying: ‘You cannot buy grog before 6 pm’. Well, they will go and see someone else to do it - aid and abet. Someone else will aid and abet these people. I go in to buy a six pack on the way home and you see people with carton, carton, and carton. It is happening all the time.
The alcohol laws are not working. I believe in freedom of alcohol laws, but the people who have an alcohol problem are causing issues in Alice Springs. I am a person who knows the historical elements of why these issues are there and why these people are alcoholics. I know that. I am not hard on those people, but I am hard on the issue. The issue is there are alcoholics with a problem, creating a boiling point, which could one day become a tipping point. If we do not intervene to help those alcoholics, the situation will continue to get worse until there is a tipping point. That is the purpose of this MPI: to talk about that.
It is not to talk the town down. It is to talk about the issues and to try to talk the town up and to solve the issues. Until we get more housing in Alice Springs, nothing is going to change.
I have 30 seconds left. Very quickly, let me kick the government: we did not get a waterfront, we do not have a good sports complex, we do not have good roads, land has not been released, and we do not have the infrastructure for our land release.
Today we spoke about Palmerston and Darwin. We spoke about INPEX; we talked about the economic growth of the Territory, and that is Darwin. I am not bashing Darwin or anywhere in the Northern Territory, but let us not forget we have Alice Springs. This government allowed Alice Springs to go from the second biggest town to the third biggest town and it is about time they got a kick in the arse for doing it.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, your time has expired.
Ms ANDERSON (Central Australia): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Greatorex for proposing this matter of public importance on the many pressing social issues confronting Alice Springs. I also thank my colleague, the member for Stuart, for his contribution to this House and the member for Braitling for his contribution.
There really is a serious issue in Alice Springs. As the Minister for Central Australia going to the markets and going to Hoppy’s, and living in Patterson Crescent, as the member for Braitling mentioned, it is at a boiling point. I have brought back certain e-mails from residents who are fed up with Territory Housing houses in Bokhara Street - they are just down the road from where I live - and I have handed them to the Minister for Housing.
Mr GILES: A point of order, Madam Speaker! On a personal note to the member for Macdonnell, I have to leave for a personal reason. I am not deliberately walking out of here. I apologise for that. I will be up in my room packing my stuff and watching you on television. It is not personal. I do have to go.
Ms ANDERSON: Thank you.
______________________
Statement by Speaker
Pairing Arrangement – Member for Arnhem and Member for Braitling
Pairing Arrangement – Member for Arnhem and Member for Braitling
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Macdonnell, before you go on, I have a procedural matter.
I have received a document on pairing. From 11 pm until adjournment, the pairs are the member for Arnhem and the member for Braitling. It is signed by the Government Whip and the Opposition Whip. It is just a procedural matter.
______________________
Ms ANDERSON: Madam Speaker, I live and breathe the social issues facing Alice Springs, and I have done so for my entire life. Before dealing with the problems and challenges facing Alice Springs, I would like to reflect on the beauty of our town.
Alice Springs was my home when I was a youth and it is a shining example of a multicultural society which began with the traditional owners and developed over time through the hard work and cooperation of great families from diverse backgrounds like the Trindalls; the Dianos; the Swans; the Hamptons; the Abbotts; the Kilgariffs; the Necks; the Lillis’s and many others. There were also families from surrounding pastoral stations who contributed much to the town, such as the Mortons, the Savages, the Lalleys, the Conways, the Chisholms, the Webbs and the Greens, just to name a few from outlying stations.
Then there were families such as mine. My mother and cousin were fringe dwellers, where that creek is running just near the Yipirinya School. My auntie and my mum and my cousins, Maureen and my Aunty Mary, and my mum and their siblings lived there as fringe dwellers before the town camps. Not in a $500 000 government-funded house, but in tents.
The beauty of that was how the Lutheran Church looked after these people. They had land in Gap Road at the back of the Lutheran Church. They took these people in who came in from communities like Haasts Bluff and Hermannsburg, which were ration depots, and put them on the old Mission Block. They had cottages out the back and they said to these people: ‘Why have you moved into town?’ And they said: ‘We have come into town, pastor, because we want to educate our children. We want to get away from the communities.’ They wanted to be away from communities because they could see antisocial behaviour beginning. The Lutheran Church helped these people live in the cottage and trained them to clean the houses. Then they applied to Territory Housing to have them put in on The Gap.
I lived with my Aunty for a certain number of years before I boarded at St Phillip’s College. My Aunty did some night work, ironing and looking after children for lawyers, and for the Kilgariffs. We went to the Mission Block church and they continued to look after the people in The Gap area. We had Greek people who owned their own houses right next door to us. Our house did not look like a Territory Housing house because we kept the yard clean and the houses clean. This is where the member for Greatorex and member for Braitling are coming from.
The attitude that we have had as a society, and I have to say this, is that we think there is a black way and white way to do things. There is one way to do things, and that is the right way to do things.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms ANDERSON: Society has taken the step to think there is a black way to educate children; that is maybe why we have so much failure in literacy and numeracy. There is no black way or white way to educate children, but the right way to educate children.
There is not a black way or a white way to live inside a house, but there is the right way to live inside a house. It is about amalgamating people to live and work and enjoy the vibrant town, deal with the issues as a society, not as an Indigenous person or a white person, but as people who live in Central Australia or people who live in Alice Springs.
I remember, and I said this to Mathew and he laughed, my Mathew that is – I hope you are listening, Mathew. One of the things we did every Sunday - it was a ritual. We lived down the Gap as the member for Stuart said, we were poor, but we did book at the Mission Block so we booked every fortnight and the money would be deducted out of my Auntie’s pension. It was a ritual every Sunday that we went to the Alice Springs rubbish dump to scrounge. One of the good things that happened with the non-Indigenous people when they brought their rubbish was that they would not throw it on the ground; they would give it to us in our hands. If there were bags of clothes they were throwing away, they would give them to us.
Where Ilparpa rural area is now, there used to be old people like Mr and Mrs Armstrong living there in the first town camp. We used to get the meat that the butchers used to - not throw away, but give to us - and we would walk across to Aunty Lorna and get Aunty Lorna to cook it. One of the things I said to Mathew was we would often have lots of non-Indigenous kids coming to our home at Gnoilya Street, but we were a little embarrassed that we did not have the flash stuff that these kids had. So we used to pick all the flash tins at the rubbish dump, clean then up and pretend that they were full and put them inside our cupboards at home so when our friends came over they could think we were rich because we had all these empty cans inside the cupboard. That was how we were.
We played sports with people like Lisa Diano and, of course, the wife of the member for Stuart, the Trindalls – it was a multicultural little town. We had a ‘walk-in’, and we walked to the walk-in, watched the movies and walked back to The Gap. We always had Uncle Milton Liddle or Mort Conway, who were taxi drivers, who got employment through the private enterprise of taxis and lifted the poverty of their own families. The Liddle family was a well recognised family who blended into the town of Alice Springs. We had the Hatzimihalis’s, the Dianos, the Lillis’s, and the Necks. Alice Springs was just a beautiful town and it was a safe little town.
However, with every growing town you get these problems. The issue we have with Alice Springs is that it is a hub town. We have Indigenous people moving in to access medical services like renal dialysis. What we have to do is to really start treating these people as people who are coming in to live in mainstream society, and not treat them differently to anyone else. As I said, my family did it and we were traditional Aboriginal people just like these people who come from a remote Aboriginal community. We lived on the fringes of town. We were moved in by the Lutherans to the Mission Block and then we were given a Territory Housing Commission house at The Gap, and we lived there.
The important thing was that we always went to school every day, five days a week. I remember I even went to my school in my PJs. I thought it was a beautiful outfit I had, and I did not believe that you could sleep in something so beautiful. When the kids teased me at school and said: ‘You have PJs on’, I said: ‘Who said they are pyjamas? They are beautiful. I am going to stay at school with these on because they are so beautiful’.
Alice Springs gave us so many opportunities, and that opportunity is still there. But, as the members for Greatorex and Braitling and my colleague, the member for Stuart, said, there is only so much that governments can do. Half of the problem is with the responsibility of my people, and the parents of these children who do not go to school - the parents of these children who hang around in our streets at 1 am and 2 am.
Alcoholism is a sickness, and these people are sick. We have a huge problem in Alice Springs. I drive around that roundabout and go inside my driveway to get to my office at 9 am, and there are people sitting in that alleyway already drinking at nine o’clock in the morning. They know now to save the alcohol because they know the takeaway shops do not open until a certain time the next morning. So, they are saving it and they are putting it inside cool drink cans so the police cannot get to them. The police are doing a wonderful job.
This is now a great opportunity for the members for Araluen, Greatorex, Braitling, Stuart and me, for all of us to get together and really do something magical for Alice Springs as five members. We can make Alice Springs grow better. The five of us, together with the town of Alice Springs, can bring the antisocial behaviour down.
There is a crisis in Territory Housing. I have spoken to many people in the 10 days I have spent in Alice Springs, people from youth services; from Tangentyere, from Lhere Aretepe, even Indigenous people, complaining about their rights as traditional owners of that country being abused by people who come in from the remote bush. Certainly, we need these people to come in and access services and enjoy our town, and we love them for coming in to use our town’s services. We respect them, but they should turn around and respect the traditional owners of that country, and respect the town as well.
As I said, Caterpillar Dreaming was the Dreamtime of the Yipirinya that formed Alice Springs, which made Lhere Aretepe the head of that Mbantua. But since then, Alice Springs bred so many people, the Murray Necks, the Lillis’s, the Hatzimihalis’s, the Dianos, the Hamptons, the Trindalls, the Abbotts, and the list goes on. That is the five of us can get together, along with our town, and try to put up some proposals, with all the stuff that the government is doing - you cannot just keep throwing money - it is about the responsibility of my people as well. If we can start working together, we can only turn things around for the better; not just for Alice Springs, but the whole Territory. We can lead by example.
I know there is real frustration among lots of people in Alice Springs, and I have certainly heard those frustrations. We cannot deny that problems exist in Alice Springs - here are huge problems. As the member for Braitling said, it is at boiling point. It really is at boiling point. All you have to do is come down my street, off Lyndavale into Patterson, into Saltwell, into Bokhara, in Larapinta, and really see what the member for Braitling is talking about. I am one of those people, on occasions, who will sit in the car in the car park opposite my office and watch these children aged from five to 12 roaming the streets of Alice Springs at one and two o’clock in the morning. I ask myself, where are these children’s parents? It is about us directing and saying to these people, you cannot abuse your children, you cannot abuse this town, but please, we welcome you to come in and access our services, but do not destroy our town.
Members: Hear, hear!
Discussion concluded.
MOTION
Proposed Referral of Matter to Committee of Privileges – Member for Arafura
Proposed Referral of Matter to Committee of Privileges – Member for Arafura
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I call the member for Port Darwin to move a motion in relation to a matter of privilege.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I move that this House refer the member for Arafura to the Privileges Committee in relation to statements made by her in this House about her reasons for failing to meet with Territory teachers during recent industrial action, and the contradictory statements contained in The Australian newspaper written by Natasha Robinson on 23 October 2008; and further, that the committee be empowered by this motion to examine relevant witnesses and call for the production of relevant documents.
Madam Speaker, I sign that motion and table it for the purposes of the Tabled Papers Office.
The matter I seek the House to refer the member for Arafura to the Committee of Privileges is a matter which all members who watched the news tonight would be familiar with. It is a matter of the utmost gravity. Amongst all the sins that can be committed in this place, there has to be one paramount sin, and that is the sin of lying to this House. That is what this motion is all about. We throw the word ‘lie’ around, and immediately pounce on it with such vehemence because of the nature of the allegation being so serious. Points of order are constructed around that single word; probably more passionately than any other form of point of order in this House.
The member for Arafura is now in the invidious situation by her words, on my estimation of it, that she now should face an investigation by the Privileges Committee which is a committee of this parliament. There is no greater contempt of this House possible than to mislead it.
I am mindful of a couple of issues which I wish to address at the outset before I go any further. It was touched upon by the minister herself in an answer today in parliament. I would like to quote the minister, and she said: ‘It is unclear to me why my personal appointments and my family and what is left of my private life are of such interest to members’. I am mindful of that. Those of us who are in public life lose so much of what is in our private life. Whilst I am at pains to try to respect the minister’s privacy, sadly it was the use of that privacy in the form of the defence offered in this House yesterday which draws us irrevocably to have to invade it. Further, I am mindful the minister’s daughter is unwell, or was unwell at that stage, and I hope and pray that she has recovered. If she has not recovered from that, I hope and pray she has a speedy recovery.
However, it is important that we bring the minister’s daughter into this particular debate because, sadly, it was the illness of the daughter which became the defence to the accusations levelled at the minister.
When I heard the minister yesterday speak during the Censure Motion about this defence, I was moved to sympathy as a result of the reasoning given by the minister. I thought to myself: my goodness, we have to be careful how we proceed because under such circumstances as the minister has described I feel very uncomfortable about proceeding down this path any further. I note from reading the daily Hansard about this particular debate, other members clearly felt the same way. They obviously felt the same way because references to the trip to the beauty salon started disappearing from the debate.
The problem we have is that during the debate the minister said, and I quote from several points and there were certain interjections when the Leader of the Opposition was on his feet and referred to, quote: ‘You were at the beauticians’. Ms Scrymgour; it says in the Hansard: ‘Wrong’. ‘The hairdresser’, said the Leader of the Opposition. The member for Arafura then replied: ‘Wrong, I will answer that’.
The member for Arafura did go on to answer that when she was on her feet in her contribution in the Censure Motion. The member for Arafura offered us this:
- On that day we had Cabinet and we left. My daughter had quite an urgent medical appointment, so I took her to that appointment. It was not a very good appointment because the
outcome was that she was quite ill. I took her to that appointment. After that she had a waxing appointment, so I took her to that waxing appointment. I was sitting in that beauty
salon while she went into her appointment, and I was spotted by a reporter who I think has had a personal vendetta against me.
It is clear from those words and those interjections that the minister was denying that she was getting any form of beauty treatment herself at that salon. The reason she was doing so is because she needed to demonstrate to the teachers who were protesting in front of this House that she was seriously involved in something else other than receiving a beauty treatment at a salon. The reason being, of course, is that it would have portrayed or painted the minister as being a most indifferent individual to the needs of the teachers who work for her, because she is the minister for Education, if she were seen to be doing the modern equivalent of a Marie Antoinette response of: ‘Let them eat cake’.
Clearly the minister is mindful of that. So it was at the top of her mind to be able to run a defence, and the defence offered to this House was that she was attempting to, I presume, cheer up her daughter, or support her daughter, after some bad medical news by a trip to the beauty salon. That, on the face of it, was a reasonable position to take.
However, that invited a response from The Australian this morning. In that article, the journalist says she did some homework and, as a consequence, the journalist points out that the minister not only attended the beauty salon - that much has been established - but there were two appointments made at that salon: one at 4.30 pm and the other at 5 pm for Ms Scrymgour and her daughter. The appointment book relating to Ms Scrymgour’s appointments at 5 pm reads: ‘Marion: EBW (eyebrow wax) lip, chin’.
It was clear the minister was not sitting and merely supporting her daughter at this point. She was engaged in what so many people had already accused her of being engaged in - that is getting a beauty treatment herself. This then goes to certain types of evidence which would be available to a Privileges Committee investigation. The first evidence available is direct evidence. Direct evidence is the form of evidence which is collected by the five senses: ‘I heard, I saw, I touched, I tasted, I smelled’. Clearly, the minister was seen to be in the salon at that time.
There is also a secondary form of evidence available to a Privileges Committee investigation and that is documentary evidence. There is clearly some sort of written record at the salon of the minister’s presence there. So we have direct evidence and we also have two possible identifiable witnesses who can place the minister at the salon at that point. We know that Natasha Robinson, the author of the article, has some form of direct evidence which can be offered to us. We also know there was a beautician who carried out Ms Scrymgour’s treatment and who told The Australian that she specifically remembered performing the eyebrow, lip and chin waxes on both Ms Scrymgour and her daughter. So we have direct evidence and documentary evidence.
There is also available to the committee another form of evidence and that is what you would call, in the legal system, ‘similar facts evidence’. Similar facts evidence is introduced in the legal system where there is a form of conduct which begins to appear as a pattern in a person’s behaviour. So if a person, for argument’s sake, is on trial for a particular offence then it is possible to admit evidence where the person has been convicted or it has been demonstrated at some point in history, that the person has done similar things.
To that end, I point members to particularly the ABC News which reported on this tonight. There were several references to previous conduct which reflected poorly on the minister.
Only a week ago, the minister was found to have ‘misspoke’ her words when it came to the departure of Margaret Banks from the CEO’s position at the Education department. The minister has in this House, if memory serves me correctly, actually corrected the word that she had ‘retired’ and then, she ‘offered to resign’, and she even used the word ‘sacked’ at one point during the censure motion. Retired, resigned and sacked are three completely different forms of departure from a professional position. Each one carries with it all sorts of connotations about what is attached to it. If somebody retires and somebody is sacked, two completely different things have occurred. She used one word to describe an action which is best described by another which, in itself, is misleading. To use it in the context which the minister has used it one would be mindful of it, and would say it was deliberately misleading.
Madam Speaker, to continue the investigation of similar fact evidence in this case, there is also the issue of the vote on the McArthur River Mine expansion in May 2007 …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The motion that is before the Chair at the moment is very specific in regard to allegations around the recent teachers’ industrial action and statements contained in The Australian newspaper written by Natasha Robinson on 23 October. I nearly jumped before when the member for Port Darwin was talking about the issue of the CEO but I thought I will let it go. The McArthur River Mine has absolutely nothing to do with the question before the Chair. I ask you to get the member back on to the point.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, may I speak to the point of order?
Madam SPEAKER: Yes.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, as I am attempting to have the matter referred to the Privileges Committee, I am examining the different forms of evidence which will be available to the committee to assist it in making up its mind. It is for that reason I have discussed direct evidence, documentary evidence and now I am going through the similar fact evidence that will also be available to the committee, thus making what I am talking about now not only relevant, but very relevant.
Madam SPEAKER: I will seek some advice on this.
Member for Port Darwin, I ask you to keep as close as possible to the motion which you have put before the Assembly, and to not anticipate or attempt to anticipate what a committee might or might not look at.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you, Madam Speaker. In that case, I urge the House to consider the issue in this way. Similar fact evidence, as a system of discovering a pattern of behaviour, is an extremely useful tool. Consequently, I argue that the admission of similar fact evidence into the committee in the future would be a useful tool to establish the minister’s pattern of behaviour, which has finally come to such a pointed end for us to consider here tonight, and all of those aspects in the past which relate to how the minister has conducted herself with information in the public arena. I urge members to understand that this is extremely relevant in the way that we consider whether or not a person has a pattern of behaviour, a habit if you like, of being a misleading individual.
Today, there was a much more directed statement than the one I quoted earlier. The one I quoted earlier had, for me, still the potential for a bit of wriggle room, if you like. There was actually no direct reference yesterday, although very close, but no actual direct reference to the minister not getting any treatment yesterday - certainly implied in what she said, but no actual direct reference. However, this morning, that particular observation changed.
I refer members to Question Time today, and if those who had seen the commercial channel, Channel 9, as well as the ABC, they both ran the same quote, and I found it in the Hansard rushes, so I use it, of course, advisedly, because it is an uncorrected proof. However, I think it is useful enough for our purposes here today. The minister said:
- I have not misled anyone over this issue. As I said yesterday, I took my daughter to the doctor, and then to a personal appointment at the beauty salon. I did not have any treatment that day.
I will repeat that last set of words, Madam Speaker:
I did not have any treatment that day.
Madam Speaker, we are presented with quite strong evidence to the contrary, and as these words were uttered in this parliament, then we must and cannot be otherwise but drawn to the fact that either the minister has lied to this House, for which she should be referred to the Privileges Committee, or Natasha Robinson of The Australian newspaper has lied about the minister. It cannot be otherwise. So the minister is what I would call on trial, or should be on trial for her reputation.
If she has nothing to fear, if she indeed is a person who is innocent and has been the subject, as she feels, of some personal vendetta carried out by a journalist, then not only would I expect her to seek every possible forum to correct the record, but she should welcome this motion, and she should passionately argue, as should her colleagues, that this motion should be brought forward, because this motion will provide the vehicle for her exoneration if she is to be exonerated, because the motion I am bringing forward is a motion which seeks to set up, essentially, a court of this House. And that court will listen to the evidence that it can collect.
Madam Speaker, whilst I am aware of the standing orders, the committee has the ability to call witnesses and to summon, if you like, documents, I have also said in this motion that the committee should be empowered to do so. The reason I have done so is that once this committee collects evidence from witnesses, from books, considers things like same fact evidence, collects the notes of the journalist who made the particular allegation, collects the book in which the appointment is recorded, seeks evidence from the beautician who claims in this story to have provided beauty therapy to the minister - and why wouldn’t she welcome this? Why wouldn’t she say: absolutely, let us go and do this; if indeed she is telling the truth? Because, through this system, the truth will out. Once you collect all this evidence it will become apparent to any reasonable person similarly circumstanced as the members of the committee, as to who is telling the truth and who is lying.
I have no reason to doubt Natasha Robinson. I have no reason to doubt the beautician who spoke to Natasha Robinson. I have no reason to doubt the appointment entry …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Port Darwin is on the Privileges Committee and it appears to me that he has already pre-empted a judgment on this matter. I ask you to rule on whether he is surmising evidence and reaching a conclusion even before this particular motion is brought before the House.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order, Attorney-General. I believe if the motion is carried perhaps we could consider whether the member for Port Darwin should be on the Privileges Committee. At this stage we will just let the member for Port Darwin continue.
Mr ELFERINK: I have, however, a real reason to doubt the motive of the minister for saying what she said, because to admit to the accusation which was levelled at her would have been an admission of callousness. However, if it gives comfort to the member for Johnston I am prepared to be convinced on the evidence.
What I have in front of me in some quarters would be called mere prima facie evidence. I do not have enough evidence to convict. There needs to be a proper investigation. If through the process of that investigation it turns out that Natasha Robinson is a liar and that the beautician is a liar and the entry into the manual is a falsehood, then I will gladly stand up and say the minister is utterly exonerated of the charges which have been levelled against her.
If, on the other hand, the evidence collected by the committee does support the case submitted in The Australian by Natasha Robinson, then I, in the same way, will stand up and condemn the minister for taking an approach to her ministry which is dishonest.
I do not want to run a kangaroo court. What I want to see is an opportunity for a committee of this House to take the time to carefully examine the evidence that is available before it determines whether the minister of the Crown has lied to this House. Is that an unreasonable thing to ask? I suspect not, Madam Speaker. However, by the mood of the members opposite, I have already started to gain an indication that my desire to find the truth through an investigative process will not be supported. If it is not supported, the question must be asked collectively: what do they have to hide?
If they do not support this motion, and if this minister does not support this motion, then a cloud will hang over her reputation from now until the day she resigns from this House.
Members interjecting.
Mr Mills: … see whether we find out the truth.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms Scrymgour: Be very careful.
Mr Mills: Why?
Ms Scrymgour: You bend the truth. You are a hypocrite.
Mr Mills: That is what this is about.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: If that is the will of this government …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I am listening intently to the member for Port Darwin. This is a very serious motion that he has brought forward against the minister for Education. The Leader of the Opposition is making interjections in a very bullying manner across the Chamber at the minister for Education. Just back off and let us deal with this, because you are getting a bit of form too, mate.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Leader of Government Business, resume your seat.
Mr MILLS: Madam Speaker, I made but a response to the Deputy Chief Minister who accused me of bending the truth. If the member, who is far closer to the Deputy Chief Minister than I am, I think we need to question her motives and her capacity to comprehend what the truth in fact is.
Madam SPEAKER: Attorney-General, resume your seat. There have been a number of interjections, none of which I was actually able to hear but there were clearly things happening across the Chamber. I would appreciate it if we could just keep the interjections to a minimum. This is a very serious motion, the most serious motion which has been before me as the Speaker. I ask the member for Port Darwin to continue, bearing in mind Standing Order 51.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I am mindful of the seriousness and the gravitas that surrounds this motion. It is for that reason that I am choosing my words very carefully as we proceed here tonight. As I was saying, if the evidence of such an investigation did find that the minister was guilty of misleading this House, it would lead to some very serious repercussions for the minister. If, however, the government chooses not to take this opportunity to comfort Territorians with a full and open investigation into this matter, then a cloud will not only hang over the integrity of the minister from now until the time she leaves this place, that cloud will grow into a thunderstorm that hangs over the head of the whole government and all those who vote against this motion.
This is not a call to condemn the minister at all. This is a call to have the matter investigated so we all, including yourself, Madam Speaker, and including all Territorians, may be comforted in that a proper process was held within the rules of the parliamentary system which led to all information in relation to this matter becoming available.
Surely, that is not too much to ask. Surely, if the minister and the member for Arafura has absolutely nothing to hide and stands by her denials today, then she would welcome this opportunity for exoneration with open arms.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms LAWRIE (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, the matter of referral of a member of the Assembly to the Privileges Committee is amongst the most serious actions a member of the Assembly can take in this House. Matters referred to the Privileges Committee are required to be of such importance that the very operation of the Assembly may be threatened unless the matter is dealt with immediately. That is why a referral to the Privileges Committee can take precedence in the business of the Assembly following appropriate consideration by the Speaker. Members must consider the matter to be so grave that all other business is put aside for that moment.
The referral proposed by the member for Port Darwin fails that most important test. The referral he makes is lightweight and, importantly, without substance. For someone who prides himself on being able to prosecute a case, he must be starting to feel now that perhaps he has failed.
Essentially, he proposes that the minister for Education has a different view of events to that of a journalist. That assertion does not make a case to refer a member to the Privileges Committee. We all have respect for the views and opinions of journalists. Indeed, as a former member of the fourth estate and now as a politician, I know well that we exchange vigorous opinions which are put forcefully and often disagreed with. Put simply, because a journalist writes something, even if it appears in published form, it does not count as evidence of misleading this House.
The journalist, in this case, has her facts wrong. In her article, she says the minister claims she accompanied her daughter to a medical appointment on the afternoon of 21 September. The minister made no such assertion. The 21st was a Sunday. There were no teachers on protest outside Parliament House that Sunday, and the minister did not visit the salon on a Sunday. The minister has categorically rejected what the journalist had said. She said so in parliament today.
The opposition has spent two Question Times and a want of confidence motion, trying to show the minister has a case to answer about going to a beauty salon. She has clearly shown there is no case to answer. As the minister herself says, the opposition is continuing to take a very high - bordering on unhealthy - level of interest in the personal life of the minister and her family.
The member for Port Darwin has also moved to refer the minister to the Privileges Committee for ‘… failing to meet with Territory teachers during recent industrial action …’ …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! That quote is not complete. The actual quote the minister should be using is about ‘… her reasons for failing to meet …’ with the teachers during recent industrial action. I do not mind having the debate and I do not mind my arguments being challenged, but to change the meaning of the motion by selective quoting is bordering on dishonesty.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Minister, please continue.
Ms LAWRIE: I am happy to include ‘about her reasons’ because I have been talking about that.
The member opposite would lead us to believe that going to the beauty salon is a heinous crime because the minister is not meeting with the teachers in the Education EBA. That is wrong, and wrong in fact. The minister has met with the teachers’ union during the EBA dispute - the long-running EBA dispute - even though it was not her portfolio responsibility to meet with the teachers; it is the Minister for Pubic Employment who deals with the EBA. I know that. I am the former Minister for Public Employment who met with teachers’ representatives during the EBA dispute just as the now Minister for Public Employment meets the teachers’ representatives of the union during the EBA dispute.
It is just another example of how the member for Port Darwin does not understand how government works.
The member for Port Darwin’s motion fails on all counts; it is inaccurate and without substance.
The person I believe should be condemned for this motion today in the Chamber is the Leader of the Opposition. Over the past two days, he has raked over personal matters relating to the Education minister. He has made accusations about her family that he has failed to substantiate. His behaviour has been of the lowest order. The level of personal attacks and abuse he has hurled at the minister for Education, I believe, has no place in this parliament. This is a place for robust debate on the issues that are of concern to Territorians. When we get into personal issues of members, I believe this brings the parliament into disrepute. Hopefully, next week the opposition will stick to the important issues rather than personal attacks.
I listened carefully to the quotes the member for Port Darwin attributed to the minister for Education. Yes – and I paraphrase - essentially he was accurate: she took her daughter to a doctor’s appointment, and then she took her daughter to a beauty salon, and she sat in that salon. Then, the minister clarified even further - which he seems to think is an issue - the next day and said: ‘I did not get a treatment’. The Natasha Robinson article had appeared in The Australian, so the minister quite clearly came in here and said: ‘No, I did not get a treatment’. She is not setting out to mislead the Housel; she has not misled the House. She is saying what she did. We have Natasha Robinson’s view, with no evidence, nothing.
The Minister for Education and Training is one of the most intelligent woman I have ever met, and I have met a lot of women over the years, and I am a very big fan of women, and do not worry, I like blokes too, they are all good. She is not foolish enough to walk in here and say something about a beauty salon treatment, for Christ’s sakes …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! There is a standing order in relation to using the name of Christ in a derogatory fashion.
Ms LAWRIE: I withdraw ‘for Christ’s sakes’, and I apologise if I have offended any member by using that reference.
Why on earth are we expected to entertain this kangaroo court, this waste, and delving into beauty salons, over something that very clearly is the minister’s word against Natasha Robinson’s?
I will tell you how, from the journalist’s perspective, this works. The minister is saying: ‘Well no, actually, that report is wrong. What has been reported did not occur like that’. Well, a journo worth her salt will follow up if they have even the slightest shred, and if they can stack that up, a journo worth her salt will follow it up. And as we all know, we are absolutely under the scrutiny of the media, as we should be, but we do not need the kangaroo court approach in this Assembly on a personal issue of going somewhere with your daughter.
Even if you try to delve within the layers of it, it does not materially or immaterially affect the teachers’ EBA. The teachers’ EBA is a matter for the Cabinet that we consult with our Caucus about, which involves key discussions between the Chief Minister, the Minister for Public Employment, the Treasurer and the Minister for Education and Training. It does not affect any substance of the teachers’ EBA, even if you take the ludicrous line of the importance of a beauty salon visit.
The minister has twice in this Chamber, in Question Time, on the public record, with the Internet, live, streaming out to the public, categorically explained she did not have a waxing treatment - twice. We had a want of confidence motion on this and, again, the minister has told the truth. Now, you choose to believe a journalist in the article in The Australian, who said that it all happened on a Sunday.
Madam Speaker, as parliamentarians, we put up with a lot, and there is a reason for that. We have an enormous privilege and opportunity to do great things for the people of the Territory, and for that, we put up with much. We put up with a lot of intrusion into our lives that people in other walks of life would never have to put up with. Quite frankly, I cannot imagine another workplace trawling over the beauty salon issue the way we have through two Question Times and a want of confidence motion and now a motion for the Privileges Committee. This is getting extreme in the response and overreaction of the opposition.
Well, enough is enough. I have worked alongside the minister for Education, the member for Arafura, from the day I was elected to this parliament. I knew her before that when we were both candidates. I know she is not a fool. She is highly intelligent and what she says she comes in here and says with full understanding of the importance of telling the truth in this House. I know that. I know the woman. I know the woman well.
I do not need some kangaroo court. If there was a matter of importance to the Territory that we had to deal with regarding a minister, that is when you look at Privileges. But beauty salon, waxings - where are we going here? What is this about? Should I start thinking about when I go to the hairdresser or not? What is this about? Is this some sort of strange voyeurism that we want to get into on who is getting waxings and who is going to beauticians?
This is bizarre. Can we stop with the bizarre and get back to the issues; back to the issues that affect the lives of Territorians. We are not standing here and saying that all is good in the Territory and we can just coast along through this term of government. We do expect and understand that there will be robust debate in this Chamber over the issues which affect Territorians’ lives, as we have had robust debate in the Chamber today and the days since the third term.
We do not have to muckrake people’s personal lives; that is not serving Territorians well. That is not changing one iota the living conditions or the opportunities for Territorians. It serves no good purpose. I do not live in a perfect world. I have probably gone to hairdressers when I should have been at work - but that is because I work all the time. When are you not working? That is what you do as a pollie.
I remember when I was first elected I asked the Clerk: ‘Where is the bit in the RTD about annual leave?’ He said: ‘You do not have annual leave; you just take your leave when you can’. I had a child and I did not have maternity leave; that is the job. You take that in the job; you work pretty well all the time. There are times in your working life as a politician that you have to stop; it does not matter what is going on. You have to stop and you have to tend to what is going on. The only time I think any one of us does that is when it is family. Sometimes you do not necessarily even get the chance to always be there for your family.
Madam Speaker, there has been no evidence. It is an article written by Natasha Robinson. That is it. Facts are wrong in the article, the date is wrong. That is it. If she is such a fine journalist she will follow up - as the media here have. This issue will not go away if we pass this motion tonight. None of us believes that. The media will chase it down until it is finally at its full stop, end point. That is what happens when you are in public life. We have no problem with that, we understand that. I do have an issue with how low a bar, and how flimsy an approach, and how ridiculous an approach the opposition want to take towards a Privileges Committee referral. We have an issue with that. There is no evidence to support that.
Madam Speaker, we are not supporting this motion. I move that the question be put.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, this is an outrage. What are you afraid of? You are hiding. This is a disgrace.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order! Honourable members, I remind you of Standing Order 71: no debate is permitted on the question being put.
The question is that the question be now put.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes: 12 Noes: 10
Ms Anderson Mr Bohlin
Dr Burns Ms Carney
Mr Gunner Mr Chandler
Mr Hampton Mr Conlan
Mr Henderson Mr Elferink
Mr Knight Mr Mills
Ms Lawrie Ms Purick
Mr McCarthy Mr Styles
Ms Scrymgour Mr Tollner
Mr Vatskalis Mr Westra van Holthe
Ms Walker
Mr Wood
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: The question now is that the motion be agreed to.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes: 10 Noes: 12
Mr Bohlin Ms Anderson
Ms Carney Dr Burns
Mr Chandler Mr Gunner
Mr Conlan Mr Hampton
Mr Elferink Mr Henderson
Mr Mills Mr Knight
Ms Purick Ms Lawrie
Mr Styles Mr McCarthy
Mr Tollner Ms Scrymgour
Mr Westra van Holthe Mr Vatskalis
Ms Walker
Mr Wood
Motion negatived accordingly.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, tonight I would like to talk in a little more detail about the storm that occurred in Alice Springs. There was a ministerial report on Tuesday about it, but the opposition only has two minutes to respond and that was not sufficient time, obviously, given the gravity of the storm and the effects of it.
The storm, only a few weeks ago, was extraordinary. In a very short period of time it created an amazing amount of damage throughout Alice Springs. It is remarkable there were no reports of admissions to the hospital. However, damage to property was extensive to say the least.
I remember having lunch in the mall on that day and seeing the storm come through and trees in the mall falling over. The mall was pretty much blocked. After the storm finished, I went walking around the CBD and saw firsthand the immediate aftermath of the storm. My office is in the CBD and that area had the power cut off for a significant period of time. I am aware of the businesses in the CBD which were affected. There was tree damage in the CBD, power outages and, throughout the suburbs of Alice Springs, there was significant damage to people’s homes.
For my own part, I travelled extensively around my electorate the following day thinking that I would, as I did, talk to constituents and offer any help I could. What was interesting about the storm was the immediate response by so many. I pay tribute to the Alice Springs Town Council, in particular, for the great work they did.
Before going to the efforts of the council, I would like to congratulate Alan Whyte from Power and Water; Bert Hofer, Commander of Police, and Rob Romaldi and his team at the Fire Service. They were the ones who were pretty much in the public eye and were coordinating what was, in essence, a mini-disaster that struck Alice Springs.
I also pay tribute to the ABC. I do not know whether the current tariff is 8 a day, but we do get great value from our ABC. Historically, in times of crisis in this country, the ABC always steps up and serves as a marvellous communicator and a communications system for Australians throughout the country and, in this particular case, everyone in Alice Springs who had a battery radio, as I did.
I also congratulate the Territory Insurance Office. I know that they had people working very long and very hard. I made an insurance claim because of storm damage at my house, but that was very minor when compared to trees crashing into homes, collapsing roofs and so on, that I saw around the town.
I also thank my colleague, the member for Braitling, for an action he undertook off his own bat, as it were. After a day-and-a-half, or perhaps a couple of days, when it became clear that there were certain parts of his electorate, and mine, where the power was not restored – and, of course, it was restored relatively quickly elsewhere – but when it became clear that some pockets of the town did not have power, the member for Braitling negotiated with Coles Supermarket and the Salvation Army to obtain $20 vouchers for people who had food damaged in their fridges, and those vouchers were made available. So, good on him for thinking of such an idea and publicising it as widely as he possibly could.
It is also important to comment on the way not only those I have mentioned, stepped up, but the way the town stepped up generally. I was actually locked out of my office because I have electronic access to my office, and I, probably like many others, was locked out. I really had no choice but to go home. When I drove home I saw civilians directing traffic – that was pretty amazing. I saw police officers directing traffic as well. In a very real sense, people stepped up.
I believe the people who really stepped up were those who work at the Alice Springs Town Council. This is certainly not by way of a criticism of any individual or organisation, but I am just not sure if the Alice Springs Town Council has received the thanks and praise that it, and everyone who works for the council, deserves. I take this opportunity to read from some information provided to me at my request from the CEO at the Alice Springs Town Council, Mr Rex Mooney. I contacted him on Monday or Tuesday of this week and asked him if he could assist me for the purposes of talking in this parliament tonight. I know that all members of the Legislative Assembly, regardless of where they live, join with me in congratulating the staff of the Alice Springs Town Council. I will read parts of the material Rex Mooney provided to me.
First, the depot team, Craig Pankhurst, Manager Works; Scott Allen, Supervisor of Parks and Gardens; and Trevor Packham, the Supervisor Works:
The depot team leaders and their staff sprang into action immediately, removing widespread debris, directing traffic, and helping residents, the police, and the NTES, all while fielding anxious phone calls from all over town.
Their clear heads and calm response to the widespread distress meant many roads were cleared of debris within hours of the storm, and most roads were cleared within 24 hours.
The entire depot workforce put in an enormous amount of extra effort and work hours to clear the town and assist residents, with clean up still going flat out some three weeks after the storm.
As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, and indeed other members of the Assembly know, the Masters Games was just a few short weeks away but the depot team leaders, namely those I mentioned, and their team worked tirelessly to restore Alice Springs to its former natural beauty whilst always prioritising public safety. Their hard work certainly made a difference, and I can vouch for that. When I was driving around my electorate and walking around the CBD the following day I saw council workers loading tree trunks and branches into trucks and I made a point of talking to them.
There were a number of compliments received from Masters Games participants who had come from all over the country, who marvelled not only at the amazing quality and range of sporting facilities Alice Springs boasts, but also of the total lack of telltale signs of the destruction they had seen on their televisions a few weeks previously.
Thank you to Craig Pankhurst, Scott Allen and Trevor Packham for their outstanding leadership and their hard work, and also to the many people who worked with them. I also thank all the directors at the council, in particular Mr Greg Buxton, the Director of Technical Services. He was the acting CEO at the time of the storm. All directors hit the ground running immediately following the storm, led by Greg, coordinating council’s response teams; helping nearby damaged businesses; braving the still-ending storm with their work crews; juggling the flood of incoming calls to customer service lines and making sure all council staff were able to contact friends and family and get home safety.
Many of us forget that those at the front line, whether they are Emergency Services or, in this case, council workers, have homes to go to as well. I know pretty much all over town people were very anxious to go home to see what sort of damage, if any, occurred at their place. Given the timing as well, I know that many parents were keen, particularly those with primary-aged schoolchildren, to get to their school and see how their school had fared in the storm and to check on their families, such was the ferocity of the storm.
The calmness and leadership during the immediate aftermath of the storm really does speak volumes about the personal attributes of Greg Buxton and his team, and also noting their personal concern about their homes, or their friends or family. Their capacity to get on with the job deserves thunderous applause.
It is important that I also refer to a very important initiative that the council undertook as a result of the storm. The council’s landfill site was naturally heavily utilised during the initial storm response period. The Alice Springs Town Council acted promptly to aid residents, waiving all landfill fees, both residential and commercial, for the entire weekend following the storm – that is Saturday, 27 September and Sunday, 28 September – to allow residents and business owners to dump all manner of green waste and storm debris as effectively as possible. Further, commercial green waste fees were waived for two weeks following the storm – that is Monday, 22 September to Sunday, 5 October. Residential green waste is always free.
Significantly, during this period, I am advised that 1000 tonnes of green waste and just over three tonnes of storm-damaged goods, that is not green waste, were dumped at the council’s landfill site. During a regular week the council receives approximately 50 tonnes of green waste, pointing to in excess of 900 tonnes of extra green waste produced by the storm. That represents, I am advised, an 1800% increase during the two week period immediately following the storm on 22 September. For a relatively small town, for a small landfill site, it was a significant increase in landfill.
I congratulate, as I am sure all members will with me, the council for taking this initiative. After all the damage, all the trees and tree trunks, branches and other items of damage had to be taken somewhere. To throw the gates open, as it were, I thought was a good initiative and one that I know was appreciated by residents.
I also thank the customer service staff on the front counter at the Civic Centre. I believe they were inundated with calls and, as did their colleagues in council, they would have had concerns about their own homes and their own friends and families, but the customer service staff took the calls.
It was coincidental that the Mayor of Alice Springs was here earlier in the week. Damien Ryan, as the mayor, deserves congratulations as well. I was listening to ABC radio and there were regular reports from Alan Whyte and reports and interviews with Damien Ryan. In a crisis they are the people the residents of Alice Springs were looking to, to be informed about what was happening, and everyone gave the information as best they could in the circumstances. Given that I am paying particular attention to the Alice Springs Town Council, it is appropriate that I recognise the leadership of the mayor.
The total estimated cost of the storm to the Alice Springs Town Council at this stage is approximately $600 000. That is clearly an unexpected cost and a significant one. I do not know how the council proposes to deal with this, but I would like to think, in the event that council needed an injection of funds from the government, that the government would do the decent thing and assist.
Madam Deputy Speaker, it is important as a local member from Alice Springs, whose electorate was damaged and whose town was damaged, to place my comments on the record.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Deputy Speaker, at the last sittings I mentioned two upcoming events which I was looking forward to.
The Millner Primary School celebrated its 40th birthday on 19 September with an international and Indigenous food fair. It was a fantastic night made all the more memorable by the fantastic turnout of people who thoroughly enjoyed themselves. The staff, the parents, and the students excelled in providing outstanding food and entertainment, and nostalgia via the memorabilia over the past 40 years of the school history.
Mr Levy Sumaguewas also honoured on the night as a dedicated teacher who has spent over 36 years at Millner Primary School having taught in excess of 720 Territory kids. What a remarkable achievement! I should mention that it was the night of the major power outages associated with the Casuarina Substation and the school was in darkness. The kids, particularly the preschoolers, wanted to give a presentation with some song and dance and, unfortunately, there was no power. I went home and got my generator - I do have a generator; I have had one for a couple of years - and I took it there. It was a bit hard navigating with no traffic lights, but the generator was started up and we had some fairly basic power from my very little generator which was greatly appreciated by the school and I received many thanks from the school council. It was a pleasure to do it. Even though the night was improvised, without full power, everyone had a great time and it was a great community get together.
Another great event I mentioned last sittings was the 2008 NT BMX titles which were held at the Jingili BMX Club with pre-titles on Wednesday, 1 October and the titles on Friday, 3 October and Saturday, 4 October. The committee did a fantastic job of ensuring the championships were a great success. I congratulate the president, Brooke Ellison; vice president, Jai Mertin; secretary and canteen manager, Jacqui Dobson; public officer, Jason Eecen; treasurer, Helen Pitts; race registrar, Lisa Coon; and riders’ rep, Vanessa King.
The 2008 Jingili winners were Gavan Ascoli, Open Mountain Bike; Samuel Ewing, Junior Boys Mountain Bike; Ryan York-Morris, first in the 8-year-old Boys; Shannan Stacey, 8-year-old Girls; Paige Barcroft, Junior Girl Cruiser and 12/13 Girls; Paull McLaughlin, 30+ Men’s Cruiser; Matt Ellison, 9-year-old Boys; Jake Tunney, 10-year-old Boys; Gavin Cubillo, 12-year-old Boys; Bradley Anthes, 13-year-old Boys; and Matthew Juster, Open Men. Congratulations to all the riders, especially the Jingili BMX Club for their great participation and success.
Two other newsworthy events which have come to my notice are fundraisers. I am always amazed at how our community gets together to find ways to help those in need. The Jingili Primary School continues to support and raise funds to help out the Lea Lau School in East Timor. The students of Jingili recently raised $200 to purchase books, etcetera, for the children at Lea Lau by holding a trash and treasure stall. The old saying ‘your trash, my treasure’ sure rings true for the young kids in East Timor.
The Relay for Life was a special event at which I was honoured to be able to start the teams on their way. The fundraiser was held at Gardens Oval on Friday, 26 September and over 43 teams comprising over 500 walkers helped celebrate those survivors who have beaten cancer and to remember those who have died. The teams raised – and it is an unbelievable figure – over $195 000 towards helping cancer support and services. All in this House take our hats off to the Relay for Life and their supporters.
Among the teams was one from Casuarina Senior College; they walked around the oval for many hours. Their contribution to the effort raised $1200 towards the final tally. I congratulate the students and staff members who did such a fantastic job. Well done to Lawrence Jong, Fabio Lee Serra, Laura Nutton, Louise Butcher, Neville Baluyot, Sarah Chau, Sam Cooper, Alice Cotton, Michaela Da Costa, Ella Deans, Catrin Ffoulkes, Sean Kennedy, Jennifer Lee, Helen Raikkonen, Amanda Riley, Shana Stringer, Stefan Tam and Rhys Thomas, together with staff Team Members: Shelley Worthington, Kylie Murphy, Cindy Implemans and Carleen Dreghorn. Your support for cancer suffers and survivors is admirable. I understand there is already keen support for next year’s relay.
I take great pride in the students in my electorate, so it is with pleasure that I mention the following students who have achieved exceptional results from the Australian Maths Trust Competition recently held at Casuarina Senior College. Paul Bandarian and Patrick McCann were awarded High Distinctions; Alice Cotton, Angus Fuller, Thompson Lam, Lachlan Prescott, Amanda Schmidt and Ali Khan received Distinctions; and Jesse Chow, Chantal La and Jasmine Tremblay, were all awarded a Credit. Also of note were Tiana Haste and Tim Farrell who participated in the competition run by the Mathematics Teachers Association of the NT. Tiana and Tim have been nominated as reserves for the NT’s representative to the National Summer School of Mathematics to be held in Canberra next January. Well done to these students.
As a local member, we are sometimes asked to help out with funding. It gave me great pleasure to assist the Jingili Primary School Beat Choir to hire a bus to get them to the Darwin Entertainment Centre for rehearsals. Amber Muir-McKay went to the trouble of personally writing to me on behalf of the Student Representative Council, and I was more than happy to assist. I was then fortunate to attend the school assembly recently, at the invitation of Claudia Lee on behalf of the Jingili Beat Choir, and heard the choir perform Eagle Rock. They were absolutely fantastic.
I turn to matters related to my portfolio areas: Mrs Janice McGovern retired from the Department of Health and Families after more than 21 years of service on 3 October 2008. Madam Deputy Speaker, as the member for Nhulunbuy I know you join with me, and I am sure you also speak about Janice in your adjournments.
Janice commenced at the Gove District Hospital as a Registered Nurse in March 1987 and moved to Patient Services in 2001. Initially, she worked as a Registered Nurse on Ward 1, and was highly regarded for her clinical skills and professionalism. Janice had two breaks in her nursing career to have children, and was welcomed back on her return. Janice then decided to have a change of career and applied for a position in Patient Services and Medical Records. Janice has been an invaluable and highly respected member of our staff, and her medical knowledge was a distinct advantage in her later role. Her colleagues will all miss Janice for her fairness, friendliness and corporate knowledge. We all wish her well in retirement.
As members of this place would know, Mr Geoff Hackett-Jones recently retired as the Northern Territory Parliamentary Counsel. While Parliamentary Counsel falls under the Chief Minister’s administrative responsibility, the Department of Justice probably has more contact with the Office of Parliamentary Counsel than any other agency. This reflects the sheer volume of legislation in the Attorney-General’s portfolio. Staff have reported to me that Geoff was extremely hard-working, but always maintained a very calm and courteous demeanour, even under extreme pressure - and we know that there is extreme pressure in the Parliamentary Counsel offices. There are deadlines to meet, and a lot of pressure. The quality of his work is reflected in the numerous bills presented to parliament over the past two years. I always enjoyed conversations with Geoff, and I thank him for his efforts and wish him well in his retirement.
I recently visited David Lisson and met some of his hard-working team at the office of the Solicitor for the Northern Territory. I was also pleased to thank Anita Kneebone, who runs the Aboriginal Land section, and other members of her team, who have done excellent work for the Northern Territory over the years in relation to native title claims and in other portfolio areas when I had been minister, such as Lands minister. Anita has really assisted me and briefed me very well. I was only able to wave hello in passing to Ingrid and Tom, as they were in what seemed to be a complex legal discussion; and I did not want to disturb them. Apparently there was some discussion before I arrived about whether staff should tidy their offices, which was overruled in favour of enabling me to see their real working life and the towering files that are part of their day-to-day work.
I especially thank the Proceeds of Crime Team for explaining their work. I was pleased to know how successful they are given the challenges they are presented with in contributing to ensuring that crime does not pay in the Northern Territory.
I congratulate all Royal Darwin Hospital staff who worked incredibly hard on their usual shifts during the recent power outages, and those staff who came in to assist. I particularly thank the engineering staff from Royal Darwin Hospital who, in association with local contractors in the Department of Planning and Infrastructure, have devised and implemented contingency plans for Royal Darwin Hospital’s electrical supply systems. Of course, Royal Darwin Hospital and Darwin Private Hospital are currently powered by the Casuarina Substation. They have both experienced, on a couple of recent occasions, prolonged interruptions for power, and needed to resort to the use of back-up generators. In every incidence staff members have worked tirelessly to ensure that patient safety was paramount.
When I visited Royal Darwin Hospital following the outages, I met with senior nursing, medical and maintenance and engineering staff, many of whom had been up all night. I conveyed the government’s appreciation of their hard work and dedication to maintaining high health care standards. I am sure all members join me in thanking those hard-working maintenance people at Royal Darwin Hospital and all staff at Royal Darwin Hospital for their hard work and commitment during the outages.
Members: Hear, hear!
Dr BURNS: On Wednesday, 22 October in Question Time, the Leader of the Opposition said that I had made the following comment in relation to Mr Peter Campos, and I quote from Hansard:
- Mr Campos was employed on a contract and sacking him would be too expensive.
That was the quote that was attributed to me by the Leader of the Opposition. It is seen in quotes in Hansard. However, at the time, I raised a point of order that the Leader of the Opposition had completely misrepresented what I had said on this matter. I have reviewed the Hansard record and recordings of interviews that I have done in relation to this matter, and I have never made the comment attributed to me by the Leader of the Opposition.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I ask that the Leader of the Opposition not represent me in such a fashion in future. There was debate in here tonight about standards of honesty and integrity, etcetera. Here is a blatant example of the Leader of the Opposition misrepresenting me and saying that I had said something which I have never said. He needs to clean up his act a little. If he is going to quote someone, or quote from Hansard, or directly from an interview where someone has been directly quoted, he should not attribute things to an individual that have never been said.
Mr STYLES: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! Can I ask the minister to table the document that he actually was referring to then?
Dr BURNS: My verbatim speech will be in the Hansard. I can table the Hansard record where, on page 1, of the Hansard Question Paper:
- Mr Mills to Minister for Education and Training
When the Health Minister was asked why he did not sack Mr Campos … he claimed: ‘Mr Campos was employed on a contract and sacking him would be too expensive’.
Here it is in the Hansard record. You can see it for yourself, member for Sanderson. I am simply quoting what the Leader of the Opposition said in here in Question Time on Wednesday. It is on the Hansard record. I have been through the Hansard records of that time. I have also been through the voice recordings I made during interviews with the media at that time. I have certainly never said what was attributed to me by the Leader of the Opposition.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Johnston. That document is tabled.
Mr TOLLNER (Fong Lim): Madam Deputy Speaker, tonight I speak about my recent trip to Alice Springs. I went to Alice Springs Friday week ago. I drove down and caught up with a number of people at the Masters Games. I was fortunate to get there to play my favourite sport - basketball. I played three or four games in the Masters competition. It was quite enjoyable and a big challenge. There were a number of teams from all over the country and a massive number of women’s teams.
I was also very fortunate to be picked up by one of the Alice Springs cricket teams, the Westies Mob. I played three games of cricket. They were a great bunch of people. I visited the club house with them and got to know some of the people in Alice Springs from the Westies Cricket Club.
As mentioned by the member for Stuart and the member for Nelson, I also managed to get out on the football field on Wednesday night. I cannot say I kicked the ball around, I cannot say I took a mark - I can say I touched the ball! I had a bit of trouble gathering it in - in fact; I could not gather it in. It was my first game of football and I found it an enjoyable event to be involved in, irrespective of my lack of ability in that particular sport. I was quite amazed; they had a crowd of over 500 people turn up to watch that football game. For a field full of ‘has-beens’, so to speak, I thought it quite remarkable that so many people would come and watch. I was very fortunate to get around to a range of the other sporting events as well. I checked out the netball, softball, touch football, hockey, and baseball, and I am sure there were other sports I got to see as well.
Primarily, the reason I went to Alice Springs was not to play sport or to watch sport, but to understand the contribution the Alice Springs Masters Games makes to tourism in Central Australia. In that regard I was absolutely blown away with the number of people who come to Alice Springs and the amount of money those people spend in Alice Springs. I am very familiar with the Arafura Games which occurs here in Darwin, but what sets the Masters Games apart from the Arafura Games are the competitors themselves.
The Arafura Games, whilst not wanting to lessen their impact on the Top End, they do tend to be younger people, people quite often with very little means who turn up in Darwin and they are billeted with families and the like. In contrast, the Masters Games is obviously people of a greater age group, people generally - I would say generally - who have succeeded in life in their working careers and arrive in Alice Springs with money in their pockets, prepared to pay quite large amounts for accommodation, are prepared to use the restaurants and to spend money in the town. The Masters Games provides a fantastic injection for the Central Australian business community and tourism industries.
I had the opportunity to speak to a range of Alice Springs businesses and spent some time discussing issues with business people. The overwhelming feedback from those businesses was the 10 days of the Masters Games really is boom time for those businesses and they very much look forward to the Masters Games every two years. As far as tourism businesses are concerned, Central Australia is a beautiful spot and a tourism mecca for those 10 days while the Masters is on. Businesses and tourism businesses do very well in that period.
I was fortunate to catch up with Peter Greig, the Executive Officer of the Central Australia Tourism Industry Association. Peter took me on a tour of Alice Springs, and outlined some of the concerns that he and the tourism industry have in relation to Alice Springs, the social issues that occur there. I will not expand on them now, but it was a very enlightening trip. I thank Peter for the time he took out of his schedule to show me around. Additionally, Peter took me to an executive meeting of CATIA on the Wednesday. I was fortunate to meet executive members of the Central Australia tourism body and briefly discuss with them some of their concerns and what they want to see developed in Alice Springs. I am very grateful for the time CATIA could give me.
Likewise, I also had the opportunity to catch up with several of my parliamentary colleagues. I spent some time with the members for Araluen, Braitling, and Greatorex. They also took the time to explain to me some of the concerns they have about Alice Springs, and some of the aspirations and hopes they have for the township as well.
It was an extraordinarily worthwhile trip in the way it opened my eyes to the potential of Alice Springs, the way it opened my eyes to some of the wonderful things that go on in Alice Springs. In speaking to business people in Alice Springs, one thing I did notice was the serious decline in social problems. Many of the businesses and people I spoke to put much of that down to the National Emergency Response. I was told, in the last 12 months, Alice Springs had become a far more liveable place. I was told that by local residents, and by people in the business community who said that it has really made a positive impact in Alice Springs, and they would encourage that intervention to continue. That is food for thought in our future discussions about the National Emergency Response, and how that should be dealt with in the future.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, it was a wonderful trip, and an enlightening trip. The briefings I received from all the people I mentioned were very worthwhile. I personally thank the people of Alice Springs, the many thousands of people who turned up to Alice Springs, who took their business to Alice Springs and gave Alice Springs their custom. They did a great service for the township of Alice Springs. I feel it is very worthwhile putting those thoughts on the record tonight.
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I take this opportunity to thank the organisers of the Masters Games and those many volunteers who helped bring the whole sporting event together. Without those volunteers, nothing happens. Thanks to all those people who came to our beautiful town to participate in the different activities that we had in Alice Springs.
I congratulate the Alice Springs Town Council, and especially the Mayor, Damien Ryan, and all the other businesses and the people of Alice Springs. I believe the behaviour was of a certain standard during the Masters Games; they really behaved for all our visitors who came from the south, west, east, and north. I saw many of those people from Darwin on the plane coming home, and they really enjoyed themselves.
Tonight, I also thank the Tiwi Island Land Council who generously invited me to visit the magnificent Tiwi Islands on 15 October this year. It was truly a privilege to experience the extraordinary determination of the Tiwi Island leadership to make a difference in the lives of their community. They are people committed to success in the modern economy, without compromising their law and culture. It was also an honour to experience such gracious and welcoming hosts.
The primary purpose of the visit was to examine the forestry operations on the islands. My first stop on Melville Island was to the new Tiwi College. An extraordinary and groundbreaking educational institute is being built in this patch of paradise. There is simply not enough time tonight to go through everything that has been achieved so far, and everything that will be achieved in the future years by the students, staff and Tiwi elders associated with this secondary college. I extend my absolute admiration for the Tiwi College and everything it stands for. It is a beacon for the path of Indigenous education in the Territory.
I toured a number of the forestry blocks, and met Tiwi Islanders working for Great Southern Plantation, pruning trees, inspecting for termites, doing wildlife surveys and training on the job. These were young people, 18, 19 and 20, and they were absolutely enjoying themselves. I do not want to pass comment on the breaches of the forestry on the buffer zones which have received a good deal of media in the last week. We need to talk about the Tiwi Islands in a positive way, to ensure that we encourage these people to continue on the path they are on, educating their children, and making sure that they are talking about economic growth.
I witnessed, firsthand, a very strong and respectful partnership between the Tiwi Island Land Council and Great Southern Plantation. I witnessed a company and landowners who share a commitment to break the bonds of welfare dependency and establish an economic base in the Tiwi Islands. I witnessed a strong commitment to reach a sustainable balance between economic development and protection of biodiversity.
We stopped for lunch at Snake Bay at the Melville Island Fishing Club and I was honoured to receive a gift of books on the Tiwi Islands from the land council. I was also treated to a tour of the various initiatives being undertaken in the township, particularly by the Sports and Social Club which has established new visitor accommodation and new restaurant facilities. I also visited the nursery, which is supplying native plants for rehabilitation, as well as fruit and vegetables for the local community. The community of Snake Bay was pretty as a picture, and I ended up buying some material and skirts from that little community.
I had the privilege of visiting Garden Point to inspect the facilities of Port Melville. I also paid a visit to Sister Barbara and had a cup of tea with her.
Time does not permit me to acknowledge all those I met on a jam-packed visit to the Tiwi Islands, but I would like to say a special thanks to Land Council Chairman, Robert Tipungwuti and Tiwi Island elder, Cyril Rioli, who were the senior hosts for my visit and are such passionate advocates for the future of their glorious community. It is wonderful to see elders of the past talking about the future and moving the next generation of Tiwi people forward with a really positive outlook and making sure that education is at the forefront of these children’s minds. We need our children to understand that education is the key to knowledge.
I want to inform the House about an event of the highest cultural significance that I attended last weekend in the remote community of Kintore, the capital of Pintupi people, a place very close to my heart. The occasion was the launch of a magnificent new book, a labour of love and a definitive work of reference - Lives of the Papunya Tula Artists, compiled and written Dr Vivien Johnson, and newly published by IAD Press of Alice Springs.
This book sets new standards in its biographies of the desert painters whose efforts paved the way for the Indigenous art movement that we see today. Old men who inspired me in my childhood years in Papunya are captured in its pages. They were artists, but before that they were men of the law, and they were figures who filled me with admiration, respect and even fear. I see them in the pages of Dr Johnson’s book. I am lifted by the sense of privilege that I knew them and that I can read about their paintings and their life experiences, and come to understand them from new perspectives. Mick Wallankari Tjakamarra, Paddy Carroll Tjungurrayi, Uta Uta Tjangala, and Old Tutuma Tjapangati - these people are all once more brought back before our eyes. These men were masters of their landscape and their art. They were the kings of the desert universe.
In the later sections of the book, brief accounts are also given of the lives of younger artists. It was Vivien Johnson’s aim to include all painters who had worked for Papunya Tula, and I myself am in there, with a picture from younger days when I was full of hope for the remote world and its progress. I am overjoyed to find myself included in such company.
On the drive out to Kintore on Saturday from Papunya, I had the company of my two beloved aunties, Topsy and Daisy Nakamarra, and all the way along the corrugated road we spoke of the old times and sang to the country as we went. When the twin mountains behind Kintore became visible at last ahead of us, we felt almost as if we were entering a purer world.
In the community, the artists had already begun gathering at the new painting studio opened there a year-and-a-half ago by the Papunya Tula Artists company. There were old people and children and, as usual, when you have food and people gathering, all the camp dogs were there too. There were also many men and women whose efforts over the years have been vital to the endurance of Pintupi society and the success of the desert painting movement. I name only a few: the linguist, Ken Hansen; the Papunya Tula field worker from earlier days, John Kean; and artists, Marina Strocchi, whose work was instrumental in encouraging Western Desert women to paint; Vivien Johnson herself; and above all others, Daphne Williams, who ran Papunya Tula for years with a wise and compassionate heart.
It was an occasion for smiles and for tears as well as so many of the great artists who painted for Papunya Tula have now passed on - too many. It is impossible for me, as a desert woman, to visit a community like Kintore today and not feel some sadness, some regret, for what might have been had government policies been better crafted to help ensure the viability of such remote embattled places.
My talks with my sisters and my brothers there leave me even more strongly convinced that a wholesale approach to remote Aboriginal society is now needed. There was a sense of crisis abroad in the community on several fronts. Education there is failing, health is poor, nutrition is poor, and far graver than all these things it is now plain that the culture of my people, our backbone, is itself in some jeopardy. The art of the desert is one aspect of that culture, and the time is also at hand for reconsideration of the so-called art industry in Indigenous communities. Whose end does it serve? What is it for?
When I launched Vivien’s book at the Kintore studio, my thoughts were mixed. It was a day of triumph for the men and women gathered there. They could see how glorious the art tradition is. They could at last place its evolution through the generations of what it had brought to them - fulfilment, prosperity. It was hard for me not to consider the difference between the fate of the art and the fate of the artist. Can desert society thrive and can the art of the desert continue to thrive?
The art in Vivien’s book is not just an art of beautiful images. It is the desert people, it is us, it is our being, an x-ray of our souls. It is based on countless years of tradition and song cycles, on generations of walking in the desert and loving and caring for our country.
All those years of traditional life built up the beauty of our culture. Our culture has been spread out to the world, and I often ask myself: ‘How much is left? What is there that we can pass on to our children? What have we kept back for ourselves? How are we going to keep our law and culture strong so the art can keep flowing?’ We need to stop and think hard about our future at this time where new policies to shape and direct desert society are being written down, and when we need to take control of the way our culture is sent out into the world. If there is a code of conduct for dealing in desert art, we will be the ones who write it. This is regulating people and undermining the people as if to say: ‘Well, you people do not understand, so we will make this code of conduct for you’, without consultation with the people on the ground.
I am not simply talking about money questions, although it is obvious to everyone that large sums of money have been made from Aboriginal art. The deeper issue is that our culture has become an industry for outsiders. Now we must become the ones who decide its future. That should have already happened over the last 40 years. It is a source of great concern to me that there are no young desert people at the helm of the Indigenous art world. Why have they not been trained and encouraged? It is hard for us to look at the art market; a market based on traffic in our traditions, and not be worried by what we see.
How will things be in 10 more years when old masters of the desert tradition are gone? How will things be when the last outstations have been closed from the lack of government funding, and all our people have been gathered into a few towns and core communities? You can see that from the desert point of view there is something sad and tragic about all the beauty collected in Vivien’s majestic book for mainstream Australians in the cities to admire.
Even as our life in the bush is under threat, I think back to the men and women who figure in Vivien’s pages as the subject of her ‘lives’. How can we keep their culture strong? How can we honour them and honour the law that gave birth to all this splendour?
I remember the old men who taught me. I loved them and I listened to them. I have tried to keep the law and culture they have passed on to me alive, and to live it. It teaches me, it shapes me. I hope that we, both desert Aboriginal people and our friends in the wider world, find a way to craft the right policies for the future, to preserve and respect our tradition, and to help our society grow in the right direction and become strong.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, these were some of the thoughts that came to me as I travelled through my country bound for the delights of a parliamentary fortnight here in Darwin.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, this evening I would like to talk about a few things which have happened in my electorate.
The Gove Peninsula Surf Lifesaving Club was established in 1974 and since then has consistently patrolled the town beach in Nhulunbuy every Sunday morning from May until October, providing a safe beach environment for the town and regular patrols of the surrounding beaches. The club has a large membership base and a number of volunteers who tirelessly provide an important service in such areas as Emergency Search and Rescue and medical services; delivery of surf safety information through community education programs; management of youth development programs; promotion of health lifestyle programs; and provision of preventative education to ensure beach visitors avoid the dangers associated with beach activities - generally speaking, a surf sports area for both young and older people.
The Northern Territory government was very pleased, through former member, Syd Stirling, to announce in June that a grant of $150 000 was forthcoming to assist with the upgrade of the Surf Club’s facility which is in need of much repair.
Gove Surf Lifesaving has also assisted Surf Lifesaving Northern Territory in providing training in lifesaving skills in an exciting venture in extending their services to the Yirrkala community and Laynhapuy homelands, in promoting surf lifesaving to Indigenous youth. In fact, Tony Snelling, the CEO of Surf Lifesaving Northern Territory, tells me that this is a pilot program for the NT and has been developed as a result of the high number of drowning of Indigenous people. The program kicked off in September and attracted many eager participants.
I attended the 2008 Gove Surf Lifesaving Presentations on Saturday, 11 October. It was held on the lawns of the Surf Club under a beautiful moonlit sky, in what is surely one of Nhulunbuy’s most picturesque locations. That evening we had a power outage as well. It certainly did not stop proceedings, slowed down maybe for a short while, but sitting out there under an almost full moon and with some car headlights switched on we managed to get through until the power came back on.
I congratulate the following recipients of the major awards which were presented that evening. The Female Surf Rescue Certificate to Emma Whelan; Male Surf Rescue Certificate to Will Pickett; the Female Bronze Medallion to Brinkley Dennerley; and the Male Bronze Medallion to Sam Putland. The Young Achiever of the Year was Emma Whelan; the Under 15 Award also went to Emma Whelan; and the Under 17 Award to Sam Putland; and the Under 19 Award to Monika O’Hanlon. The recipients I have just named are all students at Nhulunbuy High School.
The adult recipients were: Volunteer of the Year was Pat Mayer. Pat works tirelessly as the Volunteer Licensee at the Gove Peninsula Surf Lifesaving Club, and basically in all spare hours that is where you will find Pat Mayer. The Most Patrol Hours went to Bernie Whelan. Bernie works tirelessly for Surf Lifesaving. In the patrol season, she had tallied something like 96 hours in patrol hours, which is fantastic. Rookie of the Year went to Ange Morris, and Lifesaver of the Year also went to Bernie Whelan. Life Membership was awarded to Sheena Rudolph and Trevor Webb, and the President’s Awards were presented to Chris and Sally Putland, and Steve and Deanne Castelli in recognition of their hard work over the year; not to mention many years before that. Congratulations also to President Greg Whelan and his committee on a fantastic year serving our region in a very constructive and most important way. It is a club that I value, as does the rest of the community.
Continuing on with the theme of community service groups, on Monday 13 October in Nhulunbuy, I attended the annual inspection of St John Ambulance adult and cadet divisions. I was pleased to meet St John Commissioner, Mr Steve Peers; Mr Mike Mooney, Chairman of the Board; Mr Ross Coburn, CEO; and Ms Gywn Balch, the Volunteer Coordinator, who were all visiting from Darwin for this occasion. The evening’s program included a number of presentations including the presentation of Preliminary First Aid Certificates, as well as Family Care Certificates to the cadets.
I commend Mandy Paradise who has done an enormous amount of work in the last 18 months or so in restarting the cadet’s division with excellent support from Makaylia Bretag.
There were also some special awards presented amongst the cadets. Most Improved went to B’Naye Thackrah and Tiffany Christison. The Cadets Community Service award went to Kasey Baker; and Cadet of the Year went to Jonathon McBride. Amongst the adults, presentation of a Nine Year Bar for Service went to Makaylia Bretag; and presentation of a Three Year Bar for Service went to Reece Ravlich.
There was also a special presentation by a group of people who had participated in the Tour de Arnhem Land. By way of clarification, the Tour de Arnhem Land was a group of local mountain biking enthusiasts from Nhulunbuy. I recall there were probably about two dozen of them who planned and undertook a bike ride from Nhulunbuy to Jabiru along what is described as the Top Track. That is quite a long journey. I cannot remember exactly how far, but I would estimate it is probably at least 600 km; quite a considerable undertaking.
They did not do it just for the fun of it, although there was a lot of that, and a lot of beautiful scenery they passed through. They made it a fundraising exercise and the recipient of the funds raised was St John Ambulance. Remarkably, they raised $30 000. On this particular evening they took the opportunity to present that cheque to St John Ambulance volunteers. St John, in turn, announced that those funds, which were obviously most welcome, would be used to purchase a vehicle for use by St John Ambulance volunteers to enable them to get to and from functions where they are undertaking public duties; so that was fantastic.
The St John cadets attending that evening were Ashleigh Baker; Aubrey Hawthorne; B’Naye Thackrah; Caitlin Lobenwein; Emily McIntyre; Emily Liley; Emma Andrews; Jonathon McBride; Kasey Baker; Ky Baker; Rebecca Hill; Tiffany Christison; accompanied by their supervisors, Makaylia Bretag and Cadet Superintendent, Mandy Paradise.
The adult volunteers attending that evening were Reece Ravlich; Ray Roles; Anne Rolls; Rob Spivey; Julie Nicklin; Michelle Heard; Klayton Robb; Phil Sampson; Rhian Davies; Karl Visser; and the Superintendent, Wayne Bevan.
Recently, I had the pleasure of representing the Chief Minister at the NT Literary Awards, held in the Main Hall on Friday, 3 October. Specifically, I made the presentation of the Chief Minister’s History Book Award. This award is for a book which was published in 2007 and deals with our Northern Territory history. There were 12 entrants this year, with seven local authors and five interstate authors. I acknowledge their contribution to the written history of the Northern Territory.
The finalists were: Alone on the Soaks: the Life and Times of Alec Kruger, by Alec Kruger and Gerard Waterford; Australia’s Muslim Cameleers: Pioneers of the Inland 1860s-1930s, by Philip Jones and Anna Kenny; Australia’s Northern Secret: Tourism in the Northern Territory, 1920s to 1980s, by Baiba Berzins; In the Name of the Law: William Willshire and the Policing of the Australian Frontier, by Robert Foster and Amanda Nettlebeck; An Intruder’s Guide to East Arnhem Land by Andrew McMillan – a book about my electorate and one I have enjoyed reading; and The Murranji Track: Ghost Road of the Drovers, by Darrell Lewis. The winner of the History Book Award for 2008, the Chief Minister’s Award, was Ochre and Rust: Artefacts and Encounters on Australian Frontiers by Philip Jones.
Unfortunately, Philip Jones was overseas and unable to attend on the evening. One of the finalists able to attend was Baiba Berzins, who I was very pleased to meet. Baiba wrote to me after the event and kindly sent me a copy of her book which, when I finish reading, I will be donating to Nhulunbuy Community Library. In her letter, she noted her disappointment about the lack of media interest in the event. I must say that I was a little disappointed to see, on the following day, there was no media coverage other than an advertisement placed in the classifieds announcing who the winners were.
She is quite right: these writers should be acknowledged for their participation. I did commit to her that I would be more than pleased to place on the public record, through Hansard, those authors who were finalists in the 2008 Chief Minister’s History Book Award.
This time last week, there was news of a Mission Aviation Fellowship aircraft that had gone down en route between Galiwinku and Elcho Island to the community of Mata Mata. This aircraft had disappeared somewhere between those two places. A couple of days ago, debris from the aircraft were discovered in Buckingham Bay. It is a tragic event. The young pilot, a 23-year-old single fellow, Hadleigh Smith, a New Zealander, had been flying with MAF; I am not sure exactly for how long, but certainly in my region for around six months. There was no one else on board the aircraft with him. He was carrying fuel and some freight to the community of Mata Mata, but did not arrive. The search was called off on Tuesday afternoon.
It is an incredibly sad time for Hadleigh Smith’s family and friends, and his colleagues in MAF. Mission Aviation Fellowship has operated in the Nhulunbuy region for years. They are a very close-knit family of pilots who work together and provide an incredible service to people in East Arnhem Land, as pilots do who operate in remote areas. They are the lifeline between communities, getting people from place to place, and bringing them much needed goods. They also fly in some fairly challenging conditions in terms of climate. They are very skilful pilots in handling aircraft in the conditions where they land.
I have had firsthand experience of this, especially in the last few months since I have become the member for Nhulunbuy, as the electorate is so widespread. Whilst I try to drive where I can, I need to fly to places like Elcho Island. I have flown with a number of MAF pilots. I love flying. I certainly have no fear of flying, and I certainly have no fear of flying in small aircraft. I have always felt entirely safe in the hands of those pilots, who do an incredible job. This is a very sad time and a great loss to our community and to MAF.
To give a quick snapshot of Hadleigh from the Arafura Times, Nhulunbuy’s local newspaper – he had been in Arnhem Land since April 2008, with over 1000 hours of flying experience, including an Instructors Rating. He got himself through flight training by doing things like paper runs and he studied hard. After leaving high school, he studied at the Bible College of Victoria, and joined the Army Reserve. His desire was to serve remote areas and Indigenous communities with his skills as a MAF pilot. He was considering serving with MAF in Papua New Guinea. Hadleigh was a young man with a strong Christian faith. I pay tribute to Hadleigh and extend my sincere condolences to his family and friends.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016