2010-10-28
Madam Speaker Aagaard took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Year 10 History students from Darwin High School accompanied by Ms Teresa Tate. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General) (by leave): Madam Speaker, I table a draft bill titled Prevention of Alcohol-Related Crime and Substance Misuse Bill and a draft bill titled SMART Court Bill.
The tabling of these draft bills is to allow for public discussion on the proposals before government formally introduces the legislation next calendar year ...
Mr Tollner: Softly, softly.
Ms LAWRIE: I know it is hug Dave day, but behave yourself.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: On 1 September this year, I announced a proposed package of alcohol reforms, Enough is Enough, to tackle alcohol-related crime and antisocial behaviour. These reforms were detailed in my ministerial statement earlier this week. These reforms are comprehensive and targeted at the problem drinker. The measures turn the problem drinker off tap, mandate treatment, enforce bans on purchasing alcohol, and increase rehabilitation and treatment options.
The cost of alcohol misuse in our community is far too high. Research shows alcohol misuse costs the Territory $4197 per adult - more than four times the national average. Territorians consume alcohol at 1.5 times the national average, the highest alcohol per capita consumption of any state or territory. Alcohol misuse is causing crime - 60% of assaults, 67% of all domestic violence incidents and 59% of police work are alcohol-related.
These two bills are a substantial part of the proposed alcohol reforms. These reforms target the purchase and consumption of takeaway alcohol, which makes up 70% of all alcohol sold in the Territory. These reforms turn problem drinkers off tap to stop violence and antisocial behaviour. These reforms are targeted and go to the heart of what is costing our community socially and economically. The proposed Enough is Enough reforms turn problem drinkers off tap by banning them and enforcing this ban with a banned drinker register and ID system at the point of sale of takeaway alcohol.
The five-point action plan making up the Enough is Enough package is:
1. banned drinker and mandatory alcohol treatment orders;
These two draft bills support the proposed measures to tackle alcohol-related crime and harm in the community.
The first bill, the Prevention of Alcohol-Related Crime and Substance Misuse Bill, provides for a police-driven administrative banning system allowing police to issue banning alcohol and treatment (BAT) notices. This bill also establishes the Alcohol and Other Drugs Tribunal (the tribunal) which can make two types of orders: temporary orders designed to get people into clinical assessment called general alcohol prohibition (GAP) orders; and final orders called banning alcohol and other drugs and treatment (BAD) orders.
The second bill, the SMART Court bill, provides for the repeal of the Alcohol Court Act and the replacement of the Alcohol Court with the SMART Court, which stands for Substance Misuse Assessment and Referral for Treatment Court. This new court will have the power to make particular orders, including bans and treatment for eligible offenders who are seriously misusing alcohol or other drugs.
I now outline these draft bills in further detail.
The PACSM bill enables police to issue a BAT notice to certain people, including those who have not committed an offence but have come to the attention of police for alcohol-related incidences. Police can issue notices to persons who have been: taken in protective custody three times during a three-month period; issued with three alcohol-related infringement notices within a 12-month period; charged with an alcohol-related offence; or a defendant in a police-issued domestic violence order (DVO) if police believe the person is affected by alcohol at the time the order is made. Alcohol-related infringement notices include drinking in a public place which is a dry area. An alcohol-related offence includes drink-driving offences under the Traffic Act where a person is automatically suspended from driving.
This BAT notice prohibits the person from purchasing, consuming, or possessing alcohol for a three-month period. Once a BAT notice is issued the person is prevented from purchasing takeaway alcohol. A breach of the BAT notice can mean police issue a further BAT notice and, as noted below, this results in a longer ban. This ban can only work with the introduction of a banned drinker register to be rolled out across the Northern Territory. For a person charged with an alcohol-related offence or issued with a police DVO, the BAT notice remains in force for three months, or until the person is brought before a court. The court may make orders to continue the ban or may revoke or vary the ban.
For a person issued with a BAT notice following three alcohol-related infringement notices or on three protective custody incidents, a first BAT notice remains in force for three months. This means the ban from purchasing alcohol stays in place for three months the first time you are issued with a BAT notice. This ban can be reduced to one month if the person undertakes certain treatment.
Treatment in the bill is referred to as alcohol misuse intervention. Undertaking the treatment specified on the BAT notice is at the election of the banned drinker. The motivation is to undertake treatment so the ban can be reduced. A person issued with their first BAT notice is encouraged to undertake treatment such as a single brief intervention.
Under the PACSM bill, if a further BAT notice is received within 12 months of the first BAT notice it becomes the person’s second BAT notice. Under the second BAT notice, the ban is for six months, which can be reduced to a two-month ban if treatment is undertaken. The catch is once a second BAT notice is received, the type of treatment changes - it escalates. This time, for the ban to be reduced, the banned drinker would be required to undertake treatment such as a short program of brief interventions.
If a further BAT notice is received within 12 months of the second BAT notice, the next notice is considered to be the third BAT notice. What we see is a longer ban; this time for 12 months, which can be reduced to four months if certain treatment is completed. Again, we have more intensive treatment such as community-based counselling. If a third BAT notice is received and the banned drinker breaches that notice, or within 12 months is given an alcohol-related infringement notice, or is taken into protective custody for alcohol, police must refer the person to the tribunal. Police can also refer a person to the tribunal at an earlier stage if they have reasonable belief the person is at risk because of substance use.
Before we turn to the tribunal I need to explain the escalation of bans and the type of treatment needed to reduce the ban. This is not a knee-jerk reaction, not a lock-them-up approach, but a well-considered, thought-out approach.
The treatment strategy of brief interventions is medically recognised as being as effective for heavy drinkers as more intensive interventions, such as residential rehabilitation. This treatment can be achieved in a variety of healthcare settings, including primary care, general practice, and hospital.
Evidence available to government shows bans alone are beneficial, so turning off the tap for problem drinkers alone is of benefit - and there lies the vital importance of a banned drinker register. A breach of the BAT notice is not an offence but will mean a further BAT notice. This ensures alcoholism is not criminalised and non-offenders are not brought into the criminal justice system. This was of primary concern to stakeholders during earlier consultations regarding reform of the Alcohol Court.
I turn to the Alcohol and Other Drugs Tribunal. The PACSM bill also establishes this new tribunal. The tribunal is not a court and will not be comprised of judicial officers. The PACSM bill provides a mechanism for health providers, and others, to refer persons with alcohol or other drug problems (substances) to the tribunal for appropriate orders to be issued.
Police, health practitioners, and family members are referred to as ‘prescribed applicants’ who can refer a person for assessment if they have a reasonable belief a person is at risk because of the use of a substance.
A person may also voluntarily apply for an order to ban themselves from using a substance.
The tribunal is empowered to make orders in respect of persons who are misusing alcohol or other drugs, including prohibitions on access and consumption, and orders to undertake treatment or other interventions. It is at this stage treatment becomes mandatory and the person is required to undertake a clinical assessment.
Applications for an assessment report about a person believed to be misusing a substance can be made to an appointed ‘substance misuse clinician’ by those prescribed applicants. If a person does not attend the assessment, the tribunal can make what is called a GAP order. The GAP order is a ban on consuming and purchasing alcohol which operates for a three-month period, or until the person attends the assessment. After three months, if the person fails to attend for the assessment, a further GAP order can be made so the ban continues.
This government is not criminalising alcoholism; we are turning the tap off. We are saying you either come in for assessment and treatment or remain banned. The tap stays turned off.
If a person is assessed by a clinician as misusing a substance, the tribunal must make a banning alcohol and other drugs and treatment order, a BADT order. This order prohibits the person from purchasing, possessing or consuming a substance, and may also include other prohibitions, requirements, or conditions as considered appropriate for the person. The BADT order may include that the person undergo treatment.
What this order contains will depend on the clinical assessment. We are not taking a one-size-fits-all approach; we are tackling this issue of substance misuse in a serious, professional way. The tribunal can make orders which last for 12 months, but a person can end up back in front of the tribunal, and that ban can be extended.
I turn to the SMART Court bill. In October 2009, an Alcohol Court reform discussion paper was released for public consultation. Government has considered the comments received on the proposed reforms for the Alcohol Court and taken the comments and feedback into account during development of both the PACSM bill and the SMART Court bill.
The development of the PACSM bill responds to stakeholders’ concerns about criminalisation of alcoholism, and keeps non-offenders separate from the criminal justice system. The SMART Court bill maintains jurisdiction for criminal matters involving alcohol and, in response to stakeholder comments, extends the jurisdiction to other drugs.
Persons who have not committed criminal offences are not captured by the SMART Court.
Some issues raised in the Alcohol Court reform discussion paper may not appear in the bill. Tabling of this bill is intended to provide stakeholders the opportunity to further comment and input into the final legislation.
The SMART Court is to have the power to make orders for offenders who are seriously misusing alcohol and other drugs. The SMART Court has a defined jurisdiction in which the court can exercise power as a court of therapeutic justice. The SMART Court Bill provides jurisdiction of the SMART Court is exercised by a magistrate, with a chief magistrate to decide which magistrates exercise jurisdiction of the court.
Both adults and youths can be referred to the SMART Court. Therefore, all matters capable of finalisation in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction or in the Youth Justice Court can be referred to the SMART Court.
The SMART Court Bill provides for orders made as part of the sentencing process. Defendants must either admit guilt or indicate an intention to plead guilty. Participation in treatment forms a part of the sentence process. Drug courts across Australia require defendants to admit guilt, with treatment programs used as part of the sentencing process.
In matters where it is unlikely an offender will be sentenced to imprisonment, an order can be made to defer sentencing while treatment is undertaken. In serious matters where a defendant will be sentenced to imprisonment, treatment may be either as part of a sentence imposed or ordered on sentencing, with the execution of the sentence suspended while treatment is undertaken.
In order to be referred to the SMART Court a person must: be charged with a relevant offence; admit guilt or indicate an intention to plead guilty, or have been found guilty; and have not been sentenced for the offence.
The final sentence will set aside the initial sentence and impose a new sentence, or otherwise make an order confirming the initial sentence. This government understands alcohol policy affects most, if not all, in our community. As such, we feel it is necessary to allow time for the community as a whole to consider this approach to tackling the problem.
By making the draft bills public prior to their introduction, we are providing for maximum exposure of the proposed legislation. Our policy is clear: Enough is Enough. We are tackling alcohol misuse across the Territory. Tabling of these draft bills is a stage in the process of implementing the Enough is Enough: Alcohol Reform Action Plan.
It is now our intention to seek comment until mid-November and introduce legislation at the February 2011 sittings.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move the Assembly take note of the draft bills and I have leave to continue my remarks at a later hour.
Motion agreed to.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of the bill is to amend the Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading Act to apply, as the consumer law of the Northern Territory, the Australian Consumer Law. The Australian Consumer Law is set out in Schedule 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 of the Commonwealth, which is renamed Trade Practices Act, and regulations made under section 139G of that act.
The bill repeals the current provisions of the Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading Act which will be covered by the Australian Consumer Law, including:
fair trading provisions in Part 5;
The bill also repeals the provisions establishing the Consumer Affairs Council. The bill makes consequential amendments to other acts and regulations.
The development and implementation of the Australian Consumer Law represents the largest overhaul of consumer law in Australia for over 25 years, and is certainly the greatest step forward in consumer law in the Northern Territory since the current provisions of the Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading Act, known as CAFTA, were developed in the late 1980s.
The development of the Australian Consumer Law was agreed to by the Council of Australian Governments in October 2008, based on recommendations from the Ministerial Council on Consumer Affairs, in turn informed by a 2008 Productivity Commission report.
It was agreed the Australian Consumer Law would include:
a single national law for consumer protection and fair trading based on the existing consumer protection provisions of the Trade Practices Act;
national unfair contract terms law;
a national product safety regulatory system; and
further reforms designed to enhance the operation of the law which draws on best practice in existing state and territory consumer laws.
An intergovernmental agreement for the Australian Consumer Law, known as the ACL, governs the way the ACL is to be amended, administered and enforced. Changes to the ACL will be made only with the agreement of the Commonwealth plus four jurisdictions, three of which must be states. Parties to the agreement, including the Northern Territory, can disapply by regulation any changes to the ACL they do not wish applied in their jurisdiction. The agreement also sets out high-level commitments by Australia’s consumer agencies on the way they will work together to administer and enforce the ACL.
The ACL has been developed and implemented by the Commonwealth in two stages, and is, in accordance with the timetable agreed to by the Commonwealth, states and territories at a Council of Australian Governments meeting in November 2008, to commence on 1 January 2011.
In June 2009, the Australian government introduced a bill to: set up the ACL as a schedule to the Trade Practices Act which is to be applied by the Commonwealth and each state and territory; deal with unfair contract terms in consumer contracts; and enhance the range of enforcement measures available to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission in enforcing consumer laws.
In 2010, the Australian government introduced a second bill to: complete the implementation of the ACL based on the existing consumer and enforcement provisions of the Trade Practices Act; implement a new framework for product safety; and enhance the ACL based on best practice in existing state and territory laws.
An advantage of this approach is that the case law associated with the understanding and interpretation of the existing Commonwealth, state and territory fair trading laws will continue to be relevant to the interpretation and application of the Australian Consumer Law.
The Australian Consumer Law has now been enacted by the Commonwealth parliament as Schedule 2 to what will be the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. This is the new name of the Trade Practices Act. The Australian Consumer Law will also consist of regulations made under section 139G of that act.
Each state and territory will now enact legislation applying the ACL as a law of its jurisdiction, and repealing its own consumer laws of general application. Queensland and Victoria have already commenced this process.
The ACL will replace some 17 Commonwealth, state, and territory generic consumer laws, as well as other provisions scattered throughout many other laws. The ACL will make consumer rights clear and consistent and protect consumers equally wherever they live by introducing nationally consistent rules for business and trading practices, product safety obligations, and the conduct of business to consumer transactions, including consumer transactions. The rules will apply to all businesses and will apply throughout Australia.
This bill repeals existing Parts 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Consumer and Fair Trading Act (CAFTA), with the exception of section 68A which is concerned with tort law reform and is unrelated to the ACL. These parts deal with product safety, fair trading, enforcement, and door-to-door trading respectively.
The bill inserts a new Part 4 into CAFTA which will adopt the ACL as the consumer law of the Northern Territory. The ACL has five chapters. Chapter 1 sets out the relevant definitions, Chapters 2 and 3 contain general and specific consumer protections respectively, based for the main part on those contained in the current Commonwealth Trade Practices Act and CAFTA. Chapter 4 deals with offences, and Chapter 5 provides for enforcement penalties and remedies.
General prohibitions: general prohibitions in Chapter 2 are those relating to misleading or deceptive conduct and unconscionable conduct. Part 2 of Chapter 2 of the ACL also contains a general prohibition on unfair contract terms in consumer contracts which have been part of the TPA since 2009, and are similar to those provisions applying in Victoria since 2003. A term in a contract is ‘unfair’ when: it causes significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract; it is not reasonably necessary to protect the legitimate interests of the supplier; and it would cause financial or non-financial detriment to a party.
Specific consumer protections: specific consumer protections in Part 3.1 of Chapter 3 of the ACL cover unfair business practices including: false or misleading representations about goods or services or sale of land; misleading conduct relating to employment; failing to supply rebate, gifts and prizes or not supplying them as offered; bait advertising; accepting payment without intending to supply; unsolicited supply such as credit cards or goods or services; pyramid selling schemes; certain pricing practices such as multiple pricing; referral selling; and harassment or coercion.
Statutory consumer guarantees in Part 3.2 of the ACL replace the existing implied conditions and warranties of the Trade Practices Act and CAFTA. This is a change in form, not intent, of this aspect of the law. These guarantees include that: the supplier has the right to sell goods; the goods are of an acceptable quality; the goods match their description; the goods are fit for any purpose the consumer makes known to the supplier; repairs and spare parts are reasonably available; the services will be carried out with reasonable skill and care; and the services will be completed within a reasonable time.
Unsolicited selling: Division 2 of Part 3.2 of the ACL introduces a national law dealing with unsolicited consumer agreements, including not just door-to-door trading currently provided for in Part 7 of the CAFTA, but telephone sales and other forms of direct selling which do not take place in a traditional retail context. Similar to Part 7 of CAFTA, these provisions: limit calling hours; require a dealer to leave premises when requested; require a dealer to inform a consumer of their rights of termination and provide copies of contracts; provide for a cooling-off period and for rights of termination of the contract within the cooling-off period; and prohibit the supply of goods or services under an unsolicited consumer agreement for 10 business days after entering into the agreement.
Lay-by sales: Division 3 of Part 3.2 of the ACL has provisions relating to lay-by sales, replacing the existing provisions in New South Wales, Victoria, and the Australian Capital Territory. In the Northern Territory the provision will be new. They apply some basic rules to lay-by sales transactions, including basic consumer rights and business obligations. These provisions provide that: lay-by agreements must be in writing; limit lay-by termination charges to the supplier’s reasonable cost; and provide for a refund of monies paid by consumer, less any termination charge, upon termination of a lay-by.
Evidence of transactions: Division 4 of Part 3.2 provides that consumers will be entitled to receive written evidence of their transactions and, if requested, an itemised bill for services.
Product safety: Part 3.3 of Chapter 3 of the ACL also introduces a national law on safety of consumer goods and product-related services. This includes safety standards, safety bans, product recalls, and reporting and notification requirements. The ACL sets out the circumstances when manufacturers of goods are liable for a safety defect. Safety standards and information standards for consumer goods and product-related services can be made by the Commonwealth minister. Permanent safety bans can be made by the Commonwealth minister, and state and territory ministers may make interim safety bans.
Chapter 4 – Offences: chapter 4 of the ACL creates a criminal offence regime for breaches of chapter 3. Individuals convicted of an offence could face a fine of up to $220 000, with a corporation facing a fine of up to $1.1m.
Enforcement: chapter 5 includes the enforcement powers, penalties, and remedies that can apply for breaches or suspected breaches of the ACL. Enforcement powers include: the giving of enforceable undertakings; the issuing of substantiation notices; and the making of public warning notices.
If a person thinks they may have breached the ACL, they can offer the regulator - in the Northern Territory this will be the Commissioner of Consumer Affairs - an undertaking they will not do it again and take steps to improve compliance. Such an undertaking is enforceable by a court.
The Commissioner of Consumer Affairs will be able to issue a substantiation notice to a business seeking information about claims made in the marketplace. The Commissioner of Consumer Affairs will also be able to issue public warning notices about traders where the commissioner has reasonable grounds to suspect the trader may have breached the ACL or has failed to respond to a substantiation notice.
Remedies: remedies include: civil pecuniary penalties; disqualification orders; non-punitive orders; adverse publicity orders; declarations concerning unfair contract terms; injunctions; damages; compensation orders; and redress for non-parties.
The bill repeals provisions establishing the Consumer Affairs Council. The council is established under CAFTA, with broad functions including investigation of consumer-related issues, dissemination of information, and the calling of public submissions. In many respects, these functions duplicate those of the Commissioner of Consumer Affairs, a statutory position also created under CAFTA.
Government has put in place widespread consultation and community engagement processes, including consumer-related legislation, and these processes have superseded those that could have been undertaken by the Consumer Affairs Council. Nearly all other jurisdictions have abolished legislatively created bodies such as the Consumer Affairs Council.
The Consumer Affairs Council has had no membership since 2007. It is appropriate the legislative provisions establishing the Consumer Affairs Council be repealed.
The bill also repeals uncommenced amendment to the CAFTA made by the Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading Amendment Act of 2006. These uncommenced provisions expanded the door-to-door trading provisions of Part 7 of CAFTA to telemarketing. These matters are now dealt with in the ACL, and it is appropriate these uncommenced provisions be repealed along with the rest of Part 7 of CAFTA.
Other uncommenced amendments to CAFTA made by the 2006 amendment deal with changes to penalties in CAFTA. These changes will be redundant with the repeal of the relevant sections and the adoption of the ACL, and have been, or plan to be, made by subsequent general penalties amendment legislation.
Schedule 1 to the bill makes further changes to CAFTA consequential to the adoption of the ACL and the repeal of parts of CAFTA, including those relating to the Consumer Affairs Council. These amendments include inserting new definitions relating to the ACL, as well as correcting spelling and grammatical errors, and making statute law revision-type amendments in line with current drafting practices.
Schedule 2 makes consequential amendments to other acts, generally changing references from the Trade Practices Act 1974 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, or omitting references to the Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading Act and referring instead to the Australian Consumer Law.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members, and I table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 12 August 2010.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I speak to this bill which, to me, is a little surprising in its current shape bearing in mind the amendments to be proposed during the committee stage. Without entering into debate about the committee stage amendments at this point, one has to go back to the second reading speech to discover how this bill started its life, found its way through the judicial system, and to the Attorney-General’s Office to enable her to bring it into this House.
I am always a little cautious of any legislative instrument which comes into this House which does not have the associated media release saying what a great news story it is for the people of the Northern Territory. I do not recall seeing any of the associated media releases we usually see with one legislative instrument or another being brought before this House.
I took the bill away; I have looked at it and received a briefing on it. I will come back to the issues I have shortly.
One of the primary reasons given in the second reading speech for this bill was the complicated nature of the oath, and translation problems with Aboriginal people make the oath difficult to understand. My response to that, having lived and worked with Aboriginal people for many years, is balderdash. I do not accept that justification for this bill.
I will share an anecdote with honourable members where a few years ago - I am uncertain of the truth, it is third hand but, for the purposes of the exercise it will do. Many years ago an Aboriginal man was facing court in Alice Springs. His defence was proceeding badly, so his lawyer took the unusual and somewhat desperate step of placing his client in the witness box to examine him and allow the prosecution to cross-examine him.
An oath was sworn on the Bible and there was a dispute between the prosecutor and the defence as to whether he understood the solemn nature of the oath. It was agreed the prosecutor be allowed to ask several questions of this poor fellow about the oath he had taken. The first question was: ‘You have just taken an oath on the Bible’. ‘Yes, I have’, was the reply. The prosecutor said: ‘What do you think will happen if you tell a lie?’ The response from the gentleman in the box was: ‘I will go to hell’. The question was then put to the defendant: ‘What will happen if you tell the truth?’ The defendant replied: ‘I will go to gaol’. One could imagine, at least from that anecdote, the defendant understood there was a component of taking the oath which carried with it a duty with a consequence that flowed to another realm.
I submit there is a difference between an oath and a mere promise for numerous reasons. One of the questions I asked in my briefing was: ‘Have you consulted with churches?’ I received a blank look and the answer was: ‘No’.
I have confirmed that with Bishop Hurley, the Catholic Bishop, and Bishop Thompson, head of the Council of Churches. They have not been briefed or asked any questions. The first they heard of it was when I contacted them on this issue.
I also had the opportunity of speaking to several police officers about this and, surprisingly, many of them are angry. The comments by Superintendent Sean Parnell in the Association News show the Police Association was sufficiently moved by this amendment to pass negative comment against it.
These people work intimately in our community. I note the response from Bishop Hurley and Bishop Thompson that they will accept these changes if they occur, but they would have liked being consulted, as would the police officers.
I understand the philosophical differences between the atheist models of the world, championed by people such as Dawkins, a fine an intelligent man who constructs a reasoned and sensible argument. I also understand people consider matters of religiosity quite seriously. I note, at the last police graduation, the vast majority of new constables being sworn into the police force chose to lay their hand on a Bible and say: ‘I swear’. The vast majority of people who come into this House lay their hand on a Bible and say: ‘I swear’. The new member for Araluen did so recently.
I do not in any way pass negative judgment on people who do not carry faith as part of their philosophical construct. However, I want to impress upon members of this House, in the imagination of those police officers, those church officials, me included - we seem to take a more serious and sacred approach to placing our hand on a holy book or script and saying: ‘The promise I am about to make, the oath I am about to swear, thus endangering my immortal soul, is an oath I believe carries great weight’. I suggest at an emotional level at least, particularly for many of the police officers who have spoken to me, this is something they differentiate from a mere promise.
If a person lays their hand on a Bible they are attempting to impress upon the people around them there is something sacred about what they are doing. People who swear oaths of office choose to do so, by majority, on a Bible because they believe what they are doing is right and noble and carries with it a higher purpose than merely a job or function. That is why we expect those people to place great consequence, historically at least, on their immortal souls if they stuff it up or act badly out of malice or mala fides. Consequently, there seems to be in the public imagination, my imagination, and the imagination of many other people I have spoken to, there is something fundamentally different between swearing an oath and making a mere promise.
Whilst many lawyers will not appreciate this observation I will make it anyhow. The source of this amendment is the Chief Justice of the High Court in a letter from 2007. The issue dates back to 1983, so it has been a long-standing issue - it has been before the Law Reform Commission on several occasions. You have judges, who are lawyers, talking to Law Reform Commission participants, generally lawyers, discussing the matter with people inside the department, the decision-makers of which are generally lawyers, many agreeing with each other that the lawyers feel this should be the case.
When you compare the modern legal fraternity and the way it conducts itself with, let us say, the operation of the Catholic Church, I argue lawyers are in many ways more cloistered than the priests, nuns, and bishops of the church. They spend more time in the community, seeing the community for what it is, than many lawyers do. Lawyers, such as judges, will see people come before them in their worst state. Lawyers who have clients, either as defence lawyers, as prosecutors, or as litigation lawyers, will always see their clients in the worst state.
The process of giving evidence in a court is very arm’s length; the witness is kept outside until such time as they give their evidence then they are taken outside. It is like a bit of grist of the mill of the machine. I know the reason that occurs. However, the process of consulting about something like this does, and should, go beyond the realm of lawyers. This bill has not.
Lawyers have spoken to lawyers, who have spoken to more lawyers, and the lawyers agree. I am sure you could find any number of professional organisations, when they talk amongst themselves, they all agree on a topic. However, the fact remains when that professional organisation brings its services to people who rely on it, people may be offended, for some reason or another, about what that profession has decided. I will give you an example outside the law fraternity: bankers.
The issue this bill is purporting to deal with has been around for the last 27 years, and I hope would be something the government would consult the wider community on, particularly those people who swear oaths because, ultimately, they are the ones who may want to place their hands on a holy book or a holy writ, and who should be asked whether this should be changed. These oaths are something people take very seriously.
The Attorney-General herself professes Judaism, carries the Star of David around her neck - I make no negative comment about that. However, I observe the Attorney-General makes an affirmation in this House. Is it the case she is concerned about the nature or consequences which flow from taking an oath? Is it a matter she takes so seriously that she determines to make a mere promise, rather than take the risk of placing her own soul up as collateral for proper conduct? It is a question perhaps the Attorney-General would care to answer.
The government has become aware of some of the push back surrounding these changes, and is consequently in negotiations with the member for Nelson - and I am sure he will come to these issues shortly. We have seen the production of numerous amendments to the legislative instruments. Once again, it goes a long way to satisfying the issues I raise today and, I suspect, are similar to issues the member for Nelson has.
This presents this House, and me, with an issue. The original legislation brought before this House, essentially, went down a particular policy direction. I am aware, from time to time as bills come before this House, policy directions are not changed, what has changed is tweaking of minor amendments that need to be made as the bill is brought forward. You accept those amendments, negotiate them and say: ‘All right, we will give you a gentle slap about having to amend stuff on the floor of the House’. The mining bill we had before the House yesterday is a case in point. However, what is being proposed here is a shift in the policy suggested by the Attorney-General in the second reading speech. She is now saying we will make this act do something substantially different to what was originally intended.
Notification of these amendments was made late Friday afternoon, if memory serves me, and we all know how busy we are. Whilst I have read the amendments and am aware of their intent - and they go a long way to addressing the issues I believed were necessary - I would still like the opportunity to take these amendments away, consult with the people who will be affected by them, and come back into this House in November and debate the bill then.
I look to the Attorney-General casting a benevolent eye upon that suggestion because it would be consistent with the practice of good law making. However, I suspect the Attorney-General will be less than accommodating in relation to this suggestion for no other reason than she does not like to be wrong. As a consequence, I suspect her response - and I will be delighted if she sees the wisdom of holding this off for another month whilst consultations occur; I would be edified and delighted if she accepted the suggestion. I could seek leave to move a motion that debate be adjourned now. I will not; I will leave it in the hands of the Attorney-General to demonstrate that wisdom as well.
The former government has often, in this House, been accused of arrogance by pushing things through. If this problem has been around since 1983, there is no problem holding it over for another month. Because of the government’s haste in relation to the issue, because of the way they are pushing this through and amending it on the hop, and because there is no urgency whatsoever, I recommend the Attorney-General hold it over for another month, say it is not necessary to push through today, and consult with the people who are the subject of this bill.
Whilst I appreciate the niceties of lawyers, legal argument, and law reform being seen to be done, it is a duty we have to the people who, ultimately, lay their hands on these holy scripts and lay their immortal souls to bare in relation to the oaths they take. People who get the option to exercise an oath or an affirmation deserve the opportunity to be asked.
Madam Speaker, I urge the government to hold this bill over, rather than doing what they always do, and say: ‘Do not worry about it guys, we know what is good for you. We are not going to talk to you first, we are just going to romp this thing through. We know what is good for you’. Consultation is not difficult in these cases; it will not take long. You will find the churches, particularly, surprisingly accommodating. It is not too hard to involve the community in the law-making process.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, this is an interesting bill to debate because, as the member for Port Darwin said, what was originally put before this parliament is not quite the same as what is going to come out the other end.
Originally, there were some interesting changes proposed. In one case those changes were based on the NT Law Reform Committee report, which recommended there be changes to the oath used in courts, although it did not recommend changes to oaths or affirmations of loyalty or office. In this bill, the government decided to do that, regardless of what the NT Law Reform Committee said.
As the member for Port Darwin said, there was very little consultation in the broader community. To be honest, when I first heard this I thought I was not hearing correctly. Not only because I was disappointed the oath was being changed with no reference to God being at least part of that choice but, at that time, I believe the government had some belief the opposition supported it. Since that time, I discovered that was not quite the case. For some time I thought I was the only one who felt these changes were wrong.
I was reading that fairly current book, King Brown Country. In the back it refers to me as ‘that slightly conservative politician’. In light of this debate I hope I am not seen as supporting these amendments based on being ‘slightly conservative’.
When dealing with things like oaths, we are dealing with serious matters. The English language is a very important factor in everything we do. We can talk flippantly, we can talk with love and passion, we can talk seriously, and we can talk in a solemn manner. That is all reflected in the words we use. The words used in the oath reflect the seriousness of the situation. The definition of ‘I swear’, means ‘before God’. When you say ‘so help me God’, I understand that means God is my witness.
Words are important. Words should not be dumbed down for the sake of simplicity. That still occurs in this amendment. I could argue the point and look for different words. We could go on for a long time trying to find words which would suit me but may not suit others.
The other issue is to swear before God, whilst the norm and a little more difficult for people who do not believe in God to ask for an alternative, we turned it around to say the oath will say ‘I promise to tell the truth to the court’. If you did not know clause 10 of the act said you can have a choice of words which can include religious words, you would presume the only oath you could take was the one in front of you, ‘I promise to tell the truth’.
For me, ‘I promise to tell the truth’ is like ‘I promise not to write on the wall’, which you might have been asked to do 100 times at school. I realise the law reform people were trying to say sometimes people have difficulty understanding these words; however they have taken the solemnity out of the words. It has become like something in New Idea or Woman’s Day. It is plain English; that is all it is. We have a place to treat our language in accordance with the circumstances in which we use it.
In relation to the ability through these amendments to swear I saw, as a person who believes in God, I was being discriminated against. It could be argued in the previous manner oaths were accorded, people who did not believe in God were discriminated against. I am not asking for anyone to be discriminated against; people should be allowed to have a choice. I appreciate the government has come back with these amendments, which it has taken some time to argue over and put together. At least it is now recognised people should have a choice. People with a religious belief who would publicly like to tell people of that belief through the oath should be entitled to do so.
It seemed to me the reason for ‘dumbing down the oath’ was when reading the letter of the Chief Justice of the time he talked about:
The minister, in her second reading speech, said Aboriginal people with English as a second language - which is not quite what he said. He gave a blanket approach to Aboriginal people in general, and there is a big danger doing that. To some extent it is patronising. My wife is Aboriginal; she certainly understands what swearing in court means. Many people, regardless of whether they speak an Aboriginal language, also have a good understanding of English. We sometimes over-exaggerate Aboriginal people not understanding English - they sit in front of television, they read the newspaper. I listen to them being interviewed, and I am offended when SBS put subtexts – I can understand the person. If there was a Scottish person on television I would rather have subtext. I do not believe it is a good reason.
While I was at the Masters Games, some Aboriginal Community Police Officers came into my office and my research lady asked them several relevant questions. She said: ‘When you graduated what did you do?’ They said: ‘We swore on the Bible’. She said: ‘Did you understand what swearing meant?’ They said: ‘Of course - we know it does not mean bad language’. They are quite competent, and we should work on what most people think rather than a few who may have difficulty. For those few who have difficulty we have an interpreter service which we spend millions on. That service should be able to explain what telling the truth is.
One of the reasons government was looking to remove any religious mention in the oath was Christian beliefs were dropping off. I will quote words from the Law Reform Committee. It said, when referring to the dropping off in religious belief, and the 1983 report:
They were saying that is the case:
That is all very nice but misses the point: not all people who believe in God are Christian. More religions than Christianity believe in God. We have Muslims and Jewish people. Even Aboriginal people believe in God. They may not call it God, they may call it the Dreamtime Serpent; they may have other names for it. When we talk about swearing before God, it does not have to be a Christian God. Some people believe there is a greater force than ourselves somewhere, and we depend on that person or that force. We are saying when we make the oath that person/being is a witness before us before this court.
As for saying Christian beliefs are declining, I am not going to debate that. It is possibly true; not as many people go to church. However, it does not mean they are not Christian.
I, like the member for Port Darwin, go to many graduations for the police and at least 95% of police swear on the Bible - small number affirm. At the last graduation ceremony for ACPOs to become sworn police officers, every one swore on the Bible.
When people are given a choice – it is the same in parliament although our act is not affected by this - the majority of people swear on the Bible, which goes against the theory Christian beliefs are declining. Maybe Christian beliefs are declining; maybe God beliefs are increasing. With this legislation, when it came to the police, they would simply promise. I believe that is a bad thing to happen.
In fact, it is worth reading Sean Parnell’s letter in relation to the matter. He wrote this article to the Northern Territory Police News, October 2010, and he said:
They are his words:
Mr Parnell raised some good points; they are similar to points I have already stated. This was not given enough thought. I understand the member for Port Darwin has asked why there was not a media release or more discussion, and that is fair. I did not see it. Put it this way - and I should explain the minister said there was a media release. Fair enough, but I did not see it. Maybe it is a fault of the media; it might have been too boring for them. I do not think it made any media ...
Ms Lawrie: It got a run in the NT News.
Mr WOOD: Yes, but it was not much. From the point of view of general discussion, I do not believe there was much. The reason I am supporting the amendments today is because I have been out talking to people. Even though these reflect my own views, people were concerned when they went to court they would not have the option to swear. Quite a few people felt that was a bad move by the government. Of course, I have had contact with the police and they opposed those changes.
If the government had consulted Sean Parnell may not have written his letter. It is a bit of a proof of the pudding that consultation did not occur.
It has taken much work to get this to a sensible change to the Oaths Act. It is more than a change; it is a new act. I note the definition of an ‘oath’, ‘I promise’ and ‘I swear’. Now wherever you see the word ‘oath’ in legislation you have that choice built into it. Many of these amendments today recognise that as well.
The member for Port Darwin suggested we should not rush things. Some of these amendments are not so much amendments. Because of the issues we are talking about now, they are amendments because some people did not see several bills, one, the Northern Territory Rail Safety Act, was being repealed, while the Rail Safety Act is to be promulgated at the end of the month. From memory, another bill needed some adjustment as well. I will ask the minister during the committee stage.
I believe the other bill missed was the Transport of Dangerous Goods Bill. Were changes required to the Mining Act since it has been repealed and replaced with the Mineral Titles Act? I wonder whether that has been missed off the amendments for the same reason the Rail Safety Act had originally been missed.
We can discuss that more in committee stages; however, you would hope a bill like this would be thoroughly checked. I am not saying mistakes in this bill will have anywhere near the consequences of the $13 000 no fishing in the waterfront-type bill. However, you would hope, from a professional point of view, and also not clogging up parliament with bills coming back for adjustment all the time, all the required amendments have been thoroughly checked.
Madam Speaker, I have covered everything I want to say. I hope people understand this is not about forcing my beliefs on anyone else. However, my beliefs should be respected and not put to one side. One sometimes feels if you have religious beliefs you are not in step with the rest of society. It is important to tell people I have beliefs, otherwise I become a number in parliament rather than a person. What I am saying reflects the views of people who believe not only there is a greater power, the power we have as a government comes from a higher place as well. We should recognise that when we say a prayer in this parliament.
I hope we not only avoid dumbing down our language; we do our best to make it better and use it to reflect the passion and ideals we would like to express, especially in this parliament, and not be afraid to say some of us believe there is a greater power. When we go to court, or when we put our hand on the Bible to say we will serve the Northern Territory, we do it, not just for the Northern Territory, not just before the people of the Northern Territory, but before God.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, when this was first presented I thought it needed to be carefully considered. It seems, in the argument presented by government, to be quite straightforward and easily accepted if you do not think it through. I am pleased there has been the opportunity for discussion because that is what needs to occur. What seems like a logical and reasonable position has quite significant implications. Those implications cannot be properly understood if we do not observe a few things.
As the member for Nelson said, this is not about religious belief. If we could put religion aside I have to ask the question: why is it, whether people are acknowledged believers or not, the majority of people in this parliament have chosen to swear on the Bible or something higher? They may not be churchgoers or associated in any way; they may be uncertain or may be agnostic. However, the majority swear on a Bible. Why is that? Why, when you attend a citizenship ceremony, do the majority swear on the Bible, ‘so help me God’? Why is it the clear majority of police officers, for example, swear on the Bible?
It is not a question about whether God exists or not. What it refers to is, when people make very big, important decisions, they are faced with acknowledging their response is either a response relative to how they feel about it, or a response relative to something far greater than them. That could be a constitution, a community standard, a value, but it is greater than them, and they are making a declaration in the presence of something far greater than themselves. That makes it in response to something that is far more serious.
When you look at the dictionary, you see an oath has a greater weight and links in meaning to a vow; it is a vow which is being taken. A vow is taken in the presence of something far greater, like your community, your family, or certain standards - whatever they may be. It elevates it into a different place altogether. You are making a vow; you are making a declaration in the presence of something which you are answerable to - whether it is your belief, a community standard, or something far greater than you.
However, a promise is made relative to what you see, what you think. Inherent in that is a risk it could be relative. We can have those philosophical arguments however, without allowing these matters to be discussed we are playing with significant foundations without recognising what is at play.
The worst thing is there has not been recognition of this and, consequently, there has not been a broader engagement with our community. There has not been recognition the majority, even in this House, choose to swear on a Bible. It is the recognition of the importance of your declaration, not so much your belief - whether you are a believer or not. That is not in contention here.
We have not answered the question why, when an important decision is to be made such as ‘I swear to serve as a police officer’, people prefer to swear on the Bible. It gives some kind of comfort that you are elevating it to a different status. Those discussions should have been held.
That is why the member for Port Darwin, the shadow Attorney-General, is quite right - these important considerations need to be weighed carefully in the broader community; therefore, urging the minister to allow wider engagement. You may come to the position you are adopting - which I do not agree with - after adequately engaging members of the community in a genuine discussion and dialogue about these things because, after all, consultation is something we speak about, and in matters such as this is very important. I support the member for Port Darwin in ensuring we provide enough space for that consultation.
However, if the minister chooses to ignore the call in respect of arguments put, I concede providing equal status to the promise or oath is an adequate concession. However, we need to be careful about these matters. It is regretful we have not provided the opportunity to the wider community to answer some of those deeper questions of what is behind what seemed to be, on the surface, a sensible change. Underneath, it prompts deeper questions which need to be considered and are not addressed in the primary position adopted by government.
Madam Speaker, if we are going down the path of the amendments which provide equal recognition and opportunity for people to take either, I accept that would be an adequate concession.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I thank members for their contribution to this debate and acknowledge and take on the concerns members have raised in the change to the Oaths Act and the consequential changes which flow to the making of oaths. It has been a very useful process to go through.
The member for Port Darwin said there was no media release. On 12 August there was an article in the NT News. I believe the ABC ran an item as well.
The parliamentary process of having an introduction one sittings and the passage another is to allow people to look at what is being proposed, and is the hallmark of a good government which takes on board any comments, views, or concerns which come forward in debate with committee stage amendments, and captures those views and comments.
As to consultation, yes, this significantly flowed from a judicial process we are dealing with. The genesis was a court process, which is why it came from the legal fraternity. It has had a long history. I sought, as Attorney-General, to take on the views of the most senior and experienced members or our judiciary in how they believed the change would assist with the flow of the court and an understanding of people appearing before the court. I referred that to the Law Reform Committee, and fully adopted and implemented the recommendations of the Law Reform Committee. That is not an unusual process to follow.
The Cabinet submission relating to this was circulated to Police, Fire and Emergency Services. No problems were identified. Subsequent to the tabling of the bill in the House, the Police Association raised concerns, particularly an article by Sean Parnell. As soon as we saw that article, I had a member of my office contact Mr Parnell, reassure him the legislation had not been passed simply introduced, and explained the process to him. I explained the misconception occurring regarding the original bill not taking on the committee stage amendments.
Returning to the original bill as it appeared without committee stage amendments, there was always an intent and ability for people to have a choice. It was not as highlighted into the legislation as these committee stage amendments now provide for; however, there was recognition by our government some people would want to swear on the Bible or any other religious text. That was contained in the original bill. It was not as elevated or as strong a choice as we now have before us as a result of the committee stage amendments, but there was no intent whatsoever by this government to remove the ability for people to swear on a religious text, particularly the Bible, which the majority of people in our great nation do.
I want to assure people there was no intent at all. In discussions, particularly between the member for Nelson and my staff, that was expressed. We talked about administrative processes and ways in which people appearing before court would be advised of that. The member for Nelson quite reasonably said: ‘I do not think that goes far enough; would you consider a committee stage amendment to elevate the religious oath?’ I had no problem with that, because there was no intent or desire by this government to remove a religious oath if someone wanted to read the oath. It was one of those things where people wanted comfort. I understand people wanted comfort within the legislation, which is why we have embraced the committee stage amendments - no problem with that whatsoever.
We will be going into committee stage and debating it in more detail. The bill came out of recommendations of the Northern Territory Law Reform Committee. It was driven by court procedures, which is why it came to me as Attorney-General.
It was the view of the Northern Territory Law Reform Committee that a person about to give evidence shall first be asked: ‘Do you promise to tell the truth to this court?’ with the person then giving the affirmative answer. It was then decided, for consistency’s sake, to flow those changes through to a range of other consequential oaths which are taken throughout, and we have captured those in the amendments.
The committee stage amendments today will place the administrative process of people being advised they can still swear before their God with a religious text back into the body of the new bill. The result is a simpler form of oath, being either a promise to tell the truth, or swearing by Almighty God, or other deity, to tell the truth.
I understand people who do not swear on the Bible; I take affirmations. In debate people have devalued the sincerity of a promise or an affirmation. Those who undertake an affirmation do so with solemnity. I cannot guarantee it because I do not know the solemnity of the person taking an oath on a Bible. However, I can say people who take an affirmation do so with enormous solemnity; we recognise the promise is significant.
We now have a balance capturing the diversity of our community with people who choose a religious oath, or the religious deity by which they take their oath. I believe the Bible will continue to be commonplace as it reflects the strength of Christianity in our community. Also, people will have the choice of the simpler form of oath, and will make their choice depending on their personal views and circumstances. We are not imposing that choice on people; they will form their own view and make their own choice.
Once the bill is passed, the Department of Justice will advise the key stakeholders such as the judiciary, court staff, and tribunals operating within agencies, the Law Society, Justices of the Peace, the Commissioners for Oaths, and agencies with people who can witness documents by reason of their position, and all religious establishments as well. The general public will be advised by a media release and web postings. Information will be made available on the Department of Justice website, which will include fact sheets and new statutory declaration forms.
The Chief Minister met with the Council of Churches after the introduction of the bill and gave a commitment to take on board their views on making a religious oath. They are aware of our committee stage amendments and changes, and I have been advised they are happy with them. Equally, the Police Association, through Sean Parnell, is aware, and I am advised is happy with that. The stakeholders with genuine concerns are very aware of the committee stage amendments we have before us today, and are satisfied.
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for indicating he has recognised the committee stage amendments make this an adequate bill to pass.
I do not propose to take up the suggestion by the member for Port Darwin to hold this matter over until the November sittings. There will be significant and ample consultation post the passage of the bill.
I commend the bill to the House. It will make the functioning of the court somewhat simpler and improved - a good thing to do. Enshrining the choice in the original legislation and elevating it into the legislation was a good thing. It is a positive change. This has enhanced legislation we have before us today in the committee stage amendments. I thank all members who have taken the time to understand this and commit themselves to discussion.
I pick up on the query by the member for Nelson regarding the amendments we had to capture with the Rail Safety Act and the Transport of Dangerous Goods by Road and Rail to ensure uniformity of terminology. We also picked up the Serious Crime Control Act of 2009 in that. My advice is the Mineral Titles Bill has been checked and no consequential amendments were required.
I know members intend to take this into committee. I will be happy to take on board more detailed questions in committee.
Motion agreed to; bills read a second time.
In committee:
Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations Bill (Serial 118)
Clauses 1 to 4, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 5:
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I move amendment 48.1. I invite defeat of clause 5.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 negatived.
New clauses 5 and 5A:
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I move amendment 48.2 regarding new clause 5. I do not propose to read it if members are okay with the fact they have the committee stage amendment schedule before them, as it would appear in 1, 2, and 3. Is that okay with members?
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, that is fine. Madam Chair, I will keep my comments brief. There is no point labouring on about this, however I want to pick up on one point.
I have made my opinion regarding this legislative instrument clear, and how it should pass during the second reading debate even clearer. I am disappointed the minister has taken the obdurate path rather than the good policy path - such is her business. It will rain on her head if this turns out to be a problem.
However, I pick up on one thing she said in her reply: ‘Of course, we are going to consult after we pass the legislation’. That is the legislative equivalent of shoot first, ask questions later. I place on the record my objection to the ‘shoot first, ask questions later’ approach of this government towards Territorians.
These issues are important to Territorians. They have a right to input into the issues before they are legislated and passed into law. If you think that consultation is, ‘By the way, this is what we have done. Here you go, this is the information’, that is not consultation; that is merely informing people of something which has already occurred.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, I have no intent of diminishing anyone’s sincerity if they use the words ‘I promise’. However, I feel ‘I promise I must tell the truth’, has lost solemnity. Were other words looked at to give it a little more value, if I could put it that way?
Ms LAWRIE: Yes, the Law Reform Committee considered the words to be used. It looked at a variety of alternatives and recommended this set of words.
Mr WOOD: It surprises me, minister, coming from the law, which loves to use big words and long sentences, they decided we would have a small promise, with simple words - that is it. Simply, could we have given it greater seriousness or solemnity so people know they were not just telling the teacher something? I am not trying to diminish it, but even Sean Parnell said the same thing. There are differences in the way you say things and where you say them and language reflects that.
However, I am satisfied, minister, the Law Reform Committee looked at other words and maybe one day …
A member: Vouchsafe?
Mr WOOD: One word I would remove from parliament is vouchsafe. I used to think it sounded like nappy-rash - foul chafe.
I am not against the language being made contemporary, but that does not mean the English language should be demoted. Thank you for that, minister.
Amendment agreed to;
New clauses 5 and 5A agreed to.
Clause 6, by leave, agreed to.
Clause 7:
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I move amendment 48.3 regarding omitting and inserting words.
Mr ELFERINK: One question in relation to the oaths. Let us use one given in a Court of Summary Jurisdiction for swearing evidence in a matter. How is the choice to take an affirmation or oath given to the person about to give evidence?
Ms LAWRIE: I am advised when the court officer asks the person to administer the oath they will be advised of the oaths and asked which one they prefer.
Mr ELFERINK: What words will be used?
Ms LAWRIE: The choice is: ‘Do you swear by almighty God to tell the truth so help me God’ or ‘Do you promise to tell the truth’.
Mr ELFERINK: You miss my point slightly. At the moment, when a witness enters the witness box the court orderly - and I use that example because I am most familiar with it. I have sworn documents of the court as well, but for the sake of this argument. A question happens before the oath is taken and it is not delivered by anybody other than the court orderly who quietly says to the witness: ‘Do you swear on the Bible?’ Will that practice continue?
Ms LAWRIE: At that point the court orderly, I am advised, would tell them there is a choice of swearing on the Bible or a simple affirmation and then, obviously, the words.
Mr ELFERINK: The question naturally follows: what form of words is used? At the moment it is: ‘Do you swear on the Bible?’ If the answer is ‘Yes’, a Bible is proffered. If the answer to the question is, ‘No’, then: ‘Do you want a Koran? Do you want to make an affirmation?’ They sort it out. However, I am wondering what words will be used by the orderly in explaining this option.
Ms LAWRIE: We are not that prescriptive in this legislation. That is an administrative process and the words will be determined. However, the words, obviously, have to reflect and give effect to the legislation before us.
Mr ELFERINK: The reason I am being cautious about this is I want to ensure, whilst the legislation carries certain implications with it, those implications are carried through to the court and that a …
Ms LAWRIE: I can guarantee the court would meet the requirements of our legislation. We are talking about court officers.
Mr ELFERINK: I want to ensure the question put reflects the legislative instrument. At the moment it is very straightforward. By the way, ‘Do you swear on the Bible?’ would probably satisfy the needs of this legislation. Would you agree, Attorney-General?
Ms LAWRIE: The new clauses 5(2) and (3), for example, say:
(c) the person administering the oath is satisfied it is not reasonably practical for person A to take an oath in his or her chosen form.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you. Would the question ‘Do you swear on the Bible?’ qualify to meet the needs of this legislative instrument? If not, what other words would?
Ms LAWRIE: I do not see why not.
Mr ELFERINK: Why are we changing the law if we are not going to change the practice?
Ms LAWRIE: Because the law provides for a choice.
Mr ELFERINK: It does now. We are not changing anything. We are now told the practical application of this legislation will mean there is no change to what occurs when a witness enters the witness box. What are we doing? Why are we here?
Ms LAWRIE: It does change it. It does change it. The words are much more simplified. It goes to the genesis of the Law Reform Committee’s work, through the discussions, through the court process, through the judiciary for years. It does change it. The words now are very complex; old English language words. Judges have asked the words be simpler because they are seeing difficulties in the courts. The Law Reform Committee has looked at this issue, concurred, and has put recommendations forward.
You heard previous debate between the member for Nelson and me; the words are simplified. The member for Nelson queried the need to simplify them. I have gone back to the consideration of the Law Reform Committee. The Law Reform Committee, I have to say, is very capable of making assessments of the practice of our courts.
The Law Reform Committee’s President and Chair is Hon Austin Asche AC QC, the former Supreme Court Chief Justice, and members are the then Chief Magistrate, Ms Jenny Blokland, Matthew Storey, the Associate Professor of Law of Charles Darwin University, Mr Max Horton OAM, a legal practitioner from Central Australia, Mr Nikolai Christrup of the Northern Territory Bar Association, and Ms Tamika Williams, of the Department of Justice Executive Office. So, they went ..
Mr Tollner: Anyone apart from lawyers?
Madam CHAIR: Order, order! Member for Fong Lim, you do not have the call.
Ms LAWRIE: It went to the issue of simplification of language raised by the Chief Justice. So, I referred it to the Law Reform Committee. The words are changed. There is ...
Mr Elferink: Yes, but they did not talk about these amendments.
Madam CHAIR: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: There is a material difference, once this legislation is passed, in the simplification of the language. We will have, clearly and starkly in the legislation and the administrative practice enshrined in here, a very clear choice.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Chair, nice dodge. However, the point is the Attorney-General has told us nothing changes the practical application …
Ms Lawrie: No, I did not say that.
Mr ELFERINK: Nothing changes when the witness enters the witness box. The question the witness is asked, ‘Do you swear on the Bible?’ will probably be the same words that will satisfy the needs of these amendments.
By the way, what was Austin Asche’s response to these amendments? Did you run them by him? No, because Austin Asche’s input was in relation to the original bill.
Can you tell me what Brian Martin’s input to these amendments was? None, because you did not consult him. Your approach to legislative change is legislate first, consult later. That is what you said before ...
Ms Lawrie: We asked this question. Can I answer the question?
Mr ELFERINK: You can sit down; I am on my feet …
Ms Lawrie: A former …
Mr ELFERINK: Sit down. Sit down, I am on my feet; I have the call.
Madam CHAIR: Order! Order! Member for Port Darwin …
Mr ELFERINK: Sit down.
Ms Lawrie: The former Chief Justice, Brian Martin, had these run past him and said they were fine …
Madam CHAIR: Attorney-General, resume your seat, please!
Mr ELFERINK: Sit down!
Madam CHAIR: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: Good. Table his response; I would like to see it. Table Austin Asche’s response. The Law Reform Commission has not had any reference to these amendments. The Law Reform Commission was talking about the original bill.
To avoid difficulties with the original bill you have brought the law back to where it is now. So, we are having a debate in this parliament about the law effectively not being changed. Why? Because when a witness enters the witness box the question will be: ‘Do you swear on the Bible?’ What happens now? When the witness enters the witness box the question is: ‘Do you swear on the Bible?’
Ms Lawrie: You will be given an active choice.
Mr ELFERINK: You are always given an active choice. It has always been the case ...
Ms Lawrie: You are twisting everything like you do. You are twisting it like you always do.
Mr ELFERINK: This is the point. You are making this up as you go along ...
Ms Lawrie: That is insulting to the Department of Justice and the lawyers who work with me. That is insulting everyone who works on this.
Mr Mills: You will have your chance.
Madam CHAIR: Order! Order!
Mr ELFERINK: There we drag out this hoary chestnut. If I have the audacity to question her or her motives and intentions, I am insulting the department. Perhaps she should have done the homework properly in the first place. If you consulted with people initially you would not have been dealing with these amendments now.
It is the arrogance you have brought to the passage of this bill which has landed you in this trap ...
Ms Lawrie: Happy to deal with the amendments. I made that clear in my summing up - embracing them.
Mr ELFERINK: All you have to do is hold it over for a month and talk to the Law Reform Commission to see if they have comments on the amendments, because they do not agree. Their comments were: ‘Get rid of this sort of stuff’ ...
Ms Lawrie: You know they do not agree, do you?
Mr ELFERINK: Their comments were: ‘Get rid of this sort of stuff’, from your second reading speech. That is how I know - you said they told you: ‘Get rid of this stuff’. You are bringing it back in. What is the Commission’s opinion on the amendments? The opinion will be: ‘It is not what we told you to do’ ...
Ms Lawrie: Oh, you know their opinion, do you?
Mr ELFERINK: I believed your second reading speech. At least somebody from the department had the courtesy to write the truth, rather than what you normally do in this House when you speak freely.
Madam Chair, this is poorly considered legislation. It is the reason I become critical of this government and how it conducts business. This is legislation by compromise; it is ill-considered and not properly done by way of consultation with the people affected. You have side-stepped the Law Reform Commission, which was the justification for a different policy course to the one you are now taking. Now, you are intoning their membership - Austin Asche, all those people - saying they support this. Yet, when pressed, you can only find one who said: ‘Yes, I looked at it; it looks okay to me’ - that is Brian Martin. What about the rest of them?
Ms Lawrie: Is there a question in this, or is it just …
Mr ELFERINK: No, but I have another six minutes.
Ms Lawrie: … your self-aggrandisement thing you do.
Madam CHAIR: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: You are wasting the time of this House, and all you can do …
Ms Lawrie: You are wasting the time of this House, because you are not asking a question.
Mr ELFERINK: All you had to do was come into this House, withdraw the bill, and not much would have changed for all practical purposes.
Ms Lawrie: Is there any question in that?
Madam CHAIR: Please pause, member for Fong Lim. I acknowledge our visitors in the public gallery. I advise honourable members of the presence of the gallery of Years 5 and 6 Bakewell Primary School students, accompanied by Ms Brianna Schilg, Mrs Theresa Snijders, Ms Kate McGinty and Ms Julie Burgess. On behalf of honourable members, I extend a warm welcome to our visitors.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Chair, it is great to see the kids from Bakewell. They tell me it is one of the best schools in the Northern Territory. I do not know. We have the Education minister here, maybe he can confirm that. It is great to see them here.
Attorney-General, I have a very simple question for you. Can you give us the names of the Northern Territory’s religious leaders you consulted with, and their responses?
Ms LAWRIE: Yes, certainly. As I said in the summing up, post the introduction of the oaths bill we have before us the Chief Minister met with the Council of Churches. A significant number of religious leaders were at that meeting.
Mr TOLLNER: The second part of the question: what is their response? Have they provided a written response or something we can look at?
Ms LAWRIE: The legislation was discussed at the meeting. The Chief Minister gave a commitment to embrace their views in ensuring people had an active choice of a religious oath and access to a religious text, usually in the form of the Bible. The Chief Minister gave them a full commitment and we have the committee stage amendments before us. It was a combination of the engagement with the Council of Churches, as well as the engagement with the member for Nelson which has led to the committee stage amendments. I said that in my summing up, member for Fong Lim.
Mr TOLLNER: You mentioned the Bible. What other religious organisations have you spoken to?
Ms LAWRIE: I will have to get back to you on the breadth of who was present at that meeting, member for Fong Lim. I do not have the list on me.
Mr TOLLNER: Would you be able to get back to us with some written correspondence, or are we taking the Chief Minister at his word about the discussions held?
Ms LAWRIE: There is no written correspondence from that meeting. The view is people are satisfied with what we have done in embracing the desire for an active choice between a religious oath and text, and a simple promise.
You can do your own homework on that, member for Fong Lim. I am sure you are capable of asking people that. There are members who are comforted by the committee stage amendments before us and have, of their own volition prior to debate today, canvassed the views of religious bodies.
Mr TOLLNER: When you say they are ‘satisfied’, what does that mean? There is a ringing endorsement, or are they too scared to put up any objections in fear of what you may do? What does ‘satisfied’ mean?
Ms LAWRIE: Member for Fong Lim, you are getting into a fairly offensive area of insinuating I would make threats or intimidation …
Mr TOLLNER: I am just asking …
Ms LAWRIE: No, hang on. You have alleged, let me respond. You are insinuating I would make …
Mr Tollner: I have not alleged, I am asking …
Madam CHAIR: Member for Fong Lim, you have asked a question, the Attorney-General is trying to answer it.
Ms LAWRIE: … any threats or any intimidation of any religious leaders in our community. That is as offensive as it can be to someone who holds a religious belief deeply to their core, who attends - I am a member of this parliament and I represent the most diverse community in the Territory, based on the ABS demographic breakdown. You will find many churches in my electorate of Karama. I frequently attend a range of different faiths and participate in prayers with them; I have a strong and abiding respect for a variety of religions, and religious leaders in our community who do fine work, irrespective of their faith.
I have a faith I was born into. I also have a faith I practice, quite aside from my original faith. My children attend a Catholic school. I am on good speaking terms with Bishop Eugene Hurley. My local parish priest, Father Luis is an amazingly superb, fantastic man. For you to allege in some way as Attorney-General, I would have hostile view towards anyone of religious faith - a religious leader or a religious community - is highly offensive and very wrong.
Maybe you allege that because you perform in an aggressive manner towards people, but I certainly do not, nor would I.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Chair, I would like to respond to that. I was not making any allegations at all. I find it offensive the member for Karama has to bang on about what she thinks other people might think. The reality is I was asking what she means by ‘satisfied’; whether there is a ringing endorsement from religious groups or not. It is a simple question.
The Attorney-General might want to go off on some bizarre tangent and explain her ecumenical nature and how much she loves religious groups. I am sure we all do in this House; it goes without saying. I am curious as to what she means by ‘satisfied’. That is a question.
Madam CHAIR: If the Attorney-General does not answer that question it is because she probably feels she has already answered it, member for Fong Lim. She is under no obligation to respond.
Mr WOOD: I remind the member for Fong Lim he calls me a ‘cattle tick’.
This is more of a technical question, minister. We are going through clause by clause. Are there any explanatory notes? When a minister is introducing amendments some reason is given. That is included in Hansard so, if we look back to the reason why these amendments were introduced, we understand why.
Ms LAWRIE: No fulsome explanatory notes. I will undertake to provide detailed explanatory notes to you, member for Nelson. They are pretty standard amendments we are making; they are consistent. Of course, there are many consequential amendments so you will see a very repetitive explanation, but it will reflect what I am saying in this debate.
Mr WOOD: Is it possible for those explanatory notes to be incorporated in Hansard?
Ms LAWRIE: Absolutely, yes. I have some - fairly, ‘vanilla’ comments here I am more than happy to incorporate into Hansard.
Mr ELFERINK: A couple of questions in relation to the meeting between the Chief Minister and the Council of Churches. On what date did that occur? Who initiated the contact, government or the Council of Churches?
Ms LAWRIE: I do not have the date with me. I can advise it was between the sittings period, so between the August sittings and this October sittings. The Chief Minister meets on a regular basis with the Council of Churches.
Mr ELFERINK: After the sittings which introduced this bill he met with the Council of Churches and this topic was raised? Who raised the topic, the Council of Churches or the Chief Minister?
Ms LAWRIE: I was not at the meeting.
Mr ELFERINK: Well, I wrote to the Council of Churches almost immediately after the last sittings. I do not have it with me; it is on my computer in my office otherwise I would table it. I wrote to Bishop Hurley and to the Islamic community. I have had responses from both Bishop Hurley and the Council of Churches - verbally from the Council of Churches and in writing from Bishop Hurley.
You may have been surprised by their accommodation, but the concern expressed to me is they would have liked to have been in the loop.
Amendment agreed to.
Committee suspended.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the Speaker’s Gallery of His Worship the Mayor of Palmerston, Mr Robert Macleod JP. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Continued from earlier this day.
In committee:
Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations Bill (Serial 118):
Clause 7 continued:
Madam CHAIR: Honourable members, we will resume debate on the amendments to the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations Bill 2010 (Serial 118). Attorney-General, you are going to move your amendment 48.4.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I move amendment 48.4. This amendment inserts a new clause 7(2A). The reason for this amendment is to provide for a witness who, having chosen the religious oath in clause 5(1)(b), replies to the question as to whether they swear to tell the truth with the words ‘So help me God’. The words ‘So help me God’, or as appropriate, are taken to be an unconditional affirmative answer for the purposes of clause 7(2).
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8, by leave, agreed to.
Clause 9:
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I move amendment 48.5. This amendment makes a consequential amendment to clause 9(2) of the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations Bill 2010 as a consequence of the amendment to clause 5(1), and renumbers the reference to section 5(1) by substituting the words ‘section 5(1)(a)’.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10:
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I move amendment 48.6. This amendment amends clause 10 of the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations Bill 2010. The reason for this amendment is to ensure that, where for example the form of the oath is provided for in other legislation, a person can still take the oath in any form they want as provided for in clause 10, if the person administering the oath is satisfied they understand the consequences of taking an oath, and are taking the oath honestly and in good faith, intending to be bound by it.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
New clause 10A:
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I move amendment 48.7. The amendment inserts a new clause 10A into the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations Bill 2010. The reason for this amendment is to overcome some practical difficulties with religious oaths. Clause 10A(1) provides it is not necessary that a religious text be used in taking an oath. This is to ensure the religious oath can still be taken if chosen, even though the court or tribunal is unable to secure a particular religious text needed, and the oath cannot be challenged for that reason. Religious text such as the Bible will still be available should a person choose to swear on the Bible.
Clause 10A(2) preserves the validly of a religious oath if taken, even though the witness did not have a religious belief, or did not have a religious belief of a particular kind at the time of taking it.
Amendment agreed to.
New Clause 10A agreed to.
Clauses 11 to 32, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Schedule 1:
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I move amendment 48.8. This amendment makes a consequential amendment to Schedule 1 of the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations Bill 2010 as a consequence of renumbering clause 5(2) as clause 5A. It substitutes the reference to section 5A(b) for section 5(1)(b).
Amendment agreed to.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I move amendment 48.9. This amendment makes a consequential amendment to Schedule 1 of the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations Bill 2010 as a consequence of the addition of the alternative religious oath. It omits the words ‘I promise’ as the content of an oath provided in the schedule applies whichever form of oath is chosen.
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Remainder of bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill to be reported with amendments.
Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations (Consequential Amendments) Bill (Serial 119):
Madam CHAIR: Honourable members, we will now consider the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010 (Serial 119), together with the Schedule of Amendments No 49.
Clauses 1 to 18, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 19:
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I move amendment 49.1. This amendment invites defeat of the current clause 19 of the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010. The reason for this amendment is to allow a new clause 19 to be inserted to refer to the choice in the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010 when a person takes an oath.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 19 negatived.
New clause 19:
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I move amendment 49.2. This amendment inserts a new clause 19 into the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010. The reason for this amendment is consequential on the committee stage amendments to clause 5 of the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations Bill to provide for a choice when a person taken an oath.
Clause 19 amends Schedule 1 of the Coroner’s Act which provides for the content of the oath when a person takes an oath of office as Deputy Coroner. The amendment provides the oath of office can be taken in the form of either ‘I promise …’ etcetera, or ‘I swear …’ etcetera, as provided in clause 5 of the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations Bill 2010. The form of the affirmation of office is omitted.
Amendment agreed to.
New clause 19 agreed to.
Clauses 20 to 60, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 61:
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I move amendment 49.3 which invites defeat of the current clause 61 of the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010. The reason for this amendment is to allow for a new clause 61 to be inserted to refer to the choice in the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations Bill 2010 when a person takes an oath.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 61 negatived.
New clause 61:
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I move amendment 49.4. This amendment inserts a new clause 61 in the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010. The reason for this amendment is consequential on the committee stage amendments to clause 5 of the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations Bill to provide for a choice when a person takes an oath.
Clause 61 amends Schedule 6 of the Juries Act which provides for the content of the oath when a person takes an oath as a juror in a criminal or civil trial, or as an officer in charge of a jury. The amendment provides the oath can be taken in the form of either, ‘I promise …’ etcetera, or, ‘I swear …’ etcetera, as provided in clause 5 of the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations Bill 2010. Clause 61(3) makes the oath of office of the officer in charge of a jury consistent with the other oaths in that the person says the words. The content of the oath remains the same.
New clause 61 agreed to.
Clauses 62 to 108, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 109:
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I move amendment 49.5. I invite defeat of the current clause 109 of the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010. The reason for this amendment is to allow a new clause 109 to be inserted to refer to the choice in the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations Bill 2010 when a person takes an oath.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 109 negatived.
New clause 109:
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I move amendment 49.6. This amendment inserts a new clause 109 in the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010. The reason for this amendment is consequential on the committee stage amendments to clause 5 of the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations Bill to provide for a choice when a person takes an oath. Clause 109 amends Schedule 1 of the Public Notaries Act which provides for the content of the oath when a person takes an oath of office as a public notary. The amendment provides the oath of office can be taken in the form of either ‘I promise …’ etcetera, or ‘I swear …’ etcetera, as provided in clause 5 of the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations Bill 2010. The form of the affirmation of office is omitted.
New clause 109 agreed to.
Clauses 110 to 113, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 114:
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I move amendment 49.7. I invite defeat of the current clause 114 of the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010. The reason for this amendment is to allow a new clause 114 to be inserted to refer to the choice in the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations Bill 2010 when a person takes an oath.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 114 negatived.
New clause 114:
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I move amendment 49.8. This amendment inserts a new clause 114 in to the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010. The reason for this amendment is consequential on the committee stage amendments to clause 5 of the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations Bill to provide for a choice when a person takes an oath. Section 114 amends Schedule 1 of the Supreme Court Act, which provides for the content of the oath when a person takes an oath of office as a judge of the Supreme Court. The amendment provides the oath of office can be taken in the form of either ‘I promise …’ etcetera, or ‘I swear …’ etcetera, as provided in clause 5 of the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations Bill 2010. The form of the affirmation is omitted.
New clause 114 agreed to.
Clause 115:
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I move amendment 49.9. This amendment invites defeat of the current clause 115 of the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010. The reason for this amendment is to allow a new clause 115 be inserted to refer to the choice in the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations Bill 2010 when a person takes an oath.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 115 negatived.
New clause 115:
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I move amendment 49.10. The amendment inserts a new clause 115 into the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010. The reason for this amendment is consequential on the committee stage amendments to clause 5 of the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations Bill 2010 to provide for a choice when a person takes an oath. Clause 115 amends Schedule 2 of the Supreme Court Act which provides for the content of the oath when a person takes an oath of office as Master of the Supreme Court. The amendment provides the oath of office can be taken in the form of either ‘I promise …’ or ‘I swear …’ as provided in clause 5 of the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations Bill 2010, the form of the affirmation is omitted.
New clause 115 agreed to.
Clauses 116 to 202, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Schedule 1:
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I move amendment 49.11. This amendment amends the Schedule to the Director of Public Prosecutions Act and Schedule 1 of the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010. The reason for this amendment is consequential on the committee stage amendments to clause 5 of the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations Bill 2010 to provide for a choice when a person takes an oath. Schedule 1 amends the schedule to the Director of Public Prosecutions Act which provides for the content of the oath when a person takes an oath of office as the Director of Public Prosecutions. The amendment provides the oath of office can be taken in the form of either ‘I promise …’ or ‘I swear …’ as provided in clause 5 of the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations Bill 2010. The form of the affirmation of office is omitted.
Amendment agreed to.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I move amendment 49.12 which amends Schedule 2 of the Justice of the Peace Act on the Schedule 1 of the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010. The reason for this amendment is consequential on the committee stage amendments to clause 5 of the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations Bill 2010 to provide for a choice when a person takes an oath. Schedule 1 omits Schedule 2 of the Justice of the Peace Act which provides for the content of the oath when a person takes an oath of office as a Justice of the Peace. The amendment provides the oath of office can be taken in the form of ‘I promise …’ or ‘I swear …’ as provided in clause 5 of the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations Bill 2010. The form of the affirmation of office is omitted.
Amendment agreed to.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I move amendment 49.13. This amendment amends the schedule to the Magistrates Act in Schedule 1 of the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010. The reason for this amendment is consequential on the committee stage amendments to clause 5 of the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations Bill 2010 to provide for a choice when a person takes an oath. Schedule 1 amends the schedule to the Magistrates Act which provides for the content of the oath when a person takes an oath of office as a Magistrate, Chief Magistrate, Deputy Chief Magistrate, Stipendiary Magistrate, Acting Magistrate, Relieving Magistrate, or Special Magistrate. The amendment provides the oath of office can be taken in the form of either ‘I promise …’ or ‘I swear …’ as provided in clause 5 of the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations Bill 2010. The form of affirmation of office is omitted.
Amendment agreed to.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I move amendment 49.14 which amends Schedule 1 of the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010 by omitting the proposed amendments to the Northern Territory Rail Safety Act which will be repealed as of 31 October 2010.
Amendment agreed to.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I move amendment 49.15. This amendment amends Form 1 in the schedule to the Police Administration Act in Schedule 1 of the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010. The reason for this amendment is consequential on the committee stage amendments to clause 5 of the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations Bill 2010 to provide for a choice when a person takes an oath.
Schedule 1 amends Form 1 in the schedule to the Police Administration Act, which provides for the content of the oath when a person takes an oath of office as a member or special constable of the police force. The amendment provides the oath of office can be taken in the form of ‘I promise …’ or ‘I swear …’ as provided in clause 5 of the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations Bill 2010. The words: ‘administered by’ are substituted for the word ‘before’ for consistency of terminology.
Amendment agreed to.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I move amendment 49.16 which amends Form 1 in the schedule to the Police Administration Act in Schedule 1 of the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010. The reason for this amendment is consequential on the committee stage amendments to clause 5 of the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010 to provide for a choice when a person takes an oath. Schedule 1 amends Form 3 in the schedule to the Police Administration Act, which provides for the content of the oath when a person takes an oath of office as a member or a deputy member of the Police Arbitral Tribunal.
The amendment provides the oath of office can be taken in the form of either ‘I promise …’ or ‘I swear …’ as provided in clause 5 of the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010. The form of the affirmation of office is omitted.
Amendment agreed to.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I move amendment 49.17. This amendment amends Schedule 1 of the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010 by inserting after the Public Trustee Act, amendments to the Rail Safety Act 2010 which will commence on 31 October 2010.
The amendments substitute the words: ‘take an oath’ for ‘make and oath or affirmation’ in section 126(1)(c) of the Rail Safety Act, and omits the words ‘or affirmation’ in section 132(2) to ensure uniformity of terminology.
Amendment agreed to.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I move amendment 48.18 which amends Schedule 1 of the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010 by inserting after the Residential Tenancies Act amendments to the Serious Crime Control Act 2009 which was assented to on 11 November 2009.
Section 89 of the Serious Crime Control Act 2009 amends the Criminal Code, replacing section 103A, and the new section 103A(5)(b)(ii) refers to a person sworn as a juror.
The amendment substitute the words ‘has taken the oath’ for ‘has been sworn’ in the new section 103A(5)(b)(ii) to ensure uniformity of terminology.
Amendment agreed to.
Ms LAWRIE: I move amendment 49.19. This amends Schedule 1 of the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010 by inserting after the Traffic Act amendments to the Transport of Dangerous Goods by Road and Rail (National Uniform Legislation) Act 2010 which was assented to on 9 September 2010 and expected to commence in 2011.
The amendment substitutes the words ‘made and oath’ for ‘sworn’ in section 61(3((b) of the Transport of Dangerous Goods by Road and Rail (National Uniform Legislation) Act 2010; ‘the application was made, as mentioned, in subsection (3(b)’ for ‘the information mentioned in subsection (3) was not sworn’; and ‘duly made an oath’ for ‘duly sworn’ in section 61(6) to ensure uniformity of terminology.
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2:
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I move amendment 49.20. This amendment amends Schedule 1 of the Legal Profession Admission Rules in Schedule 2 of the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010. The reason for this amendment is consequential on the committee stage amendments to clause 5 of the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010 to provide for a choice when a person takes an oath.
Schedule 2 amends Schedule 1 of the Legal Profession Admission Rules which provides for the content of the oath when a person takes an oath as a lawyer of the Supreme Court before admission. The amendment provides the oath can be taken in the form of either ‘I promise …’ or ‘I swear …’ as provided in clause 5 of the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations Bill 2010. The form of the affirmation is omitted.
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill to be reported with amendments
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, information was sought prior to the lunch break regarding the date of the meeting between the Council of Churches and the Chief Minister. It was Thursday, 16 September 2010. Present were Bishop Eugene Hurley of the Catholic Church; Bishop Greg Thompson, Anglican; Reverend Mark Dickens, Anglican; Reverend Wendell Flentje, Uniting Church; and Reverend Paul Turley, Uniting Church.
Also, there was a question regarding the difference between the current court process and the future court process. It has quite a significant amount of text, so I will table it for perusal by the member opposite at his leisure.
Bills reported; report adopted.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move the bills be now read a third time.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I thank the Attorney-General for, at the death knell, passing me these vitally different arrangements which exist as a result of the exertions of this House. I note, whilst there are differences in language, essentially there are no effective differences in substance. I do, with some amusement, note what is currently used in the court:
Under the new arrangement it will be:
We have achieved much today - a glorious victory for changing the laws of the Northern Territory! A great ship of state has been wheeled around and turned 360. Hang on, we are going in the same direction. Well done.
Madam Speaker, I congratulate the government and the Attorney-General - a victory for common sense!
Motion agreed to; bills read a third time.
Continued from 19 August 2010.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I am able to inform the House we will not have the same problem with this bill. Members on this side of the House will not be objecting to this bill.
The effect of this bill is to do what so many legislative instruments before this House previously have done - and I expect more will do in the future - which is turning dollar amount units into penalty units, thus saving this House passing rafts of minor amendments and omnibus bills to deal with the constant updating of dollar amounts.
I make some observations. A penalty ascribed by this House is punitive in nature and a fairly arbitrary figure. One could pull the penalty out of the ether and apply it - quite an anomaly in this House - without reaching any real touchstone as to what that punitive direction is. For example, there have been some recent examples in this House where the ‘non-linked with the real world nature of penalties’ have been $13 300 or 100 penalty units for children walking into toilets reserved for people of the opposite gender. That is the arbitrary nature of setting a penalty unit and the nature of these things.
However, as a consequence, there are some 20 pieces of legislation - as I glance at my notes - which need updating and brought into the penalty units framework.
The Attorney-General has kindly explained the rationale for this change, and has determined to work into that rationale a CPI increase and some rounding calculations. It is an arbitrary change. I imagine very few of these penalties have ever been brought to bear against any individual. It is possible, but I suspect some of these have never had a complaint or information laid either in the lower or Supreme Court against these section numbers. One could be inclined to think government is seeking to rake in some extra dough by whacking the extra 15% on top but, in reality, those numbers would be insignificant in relation to the overall budget of the Northern Territory.
This has been an arbitrary decision to take the penalty unit and make it reflect the value of the penalty as it was at the time the penalty units legislation was introduced. Fair enough, I suppose. I am not going to lose sleep over that, and I do not believe this House should either.
The fact is these are arbitrary figures. It is not damages for civil claims or breach of contract. There is always a loss to determine what the damages paid should be. In various actions under tort there are penalty-type provisions for damages being sought and granted by a court that usually requires mala fides on the part of the party who is having the decision turned against them. Once again, courts also struggle with those penalty-type settlements in providing a value to them.
To cut a long story short, we are satisfied. I have run a tertiary calculation over about half, run the same formula described by the Attorney-General, and have come up with figures very similar to the second column of this legislative instrument.
Consequently, we do not oppose this bill. We will allow it to pass into law. I imagine it has caused so much excitement that any number of members will be leaping to their feet to contribute to this debate.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I am delighted to respond, thanking the opposition for their support. It is what I committed to doing. We are progressively working through legislative provisions to ensure we convert penalties into penalty units. This follows on from the Justice Legislation Amendment Penalties Bill, enacted in April this year and commenced on 1 July 2010. I am proud my agencies, the Department of Justice and the Northern Territory Treasury, are working proactively on the government’s intent to convert penalties to penalty units so they can be automatically indexed to the Consumer Price Index, commonly known as the CPI, in accordance with a formula in the Penalty Units Act.
If, as Treasurer, I handed out gold stars to departments busy implementing the conditions Cabinet has laid down, I hand out gold stars today to the Department of Justice and the Northern Territory Treasury. Officers of those departments have worked together to bring this rationalisation of all penalties before the House into modern standards, increasing the penalties covered by the bill by about 50%. My Department of Justice has undertaken to inform stakeholders of the most recent changes and I thank them for that. Information about these changes will be placed on the Department of Justice website, and an advertisement about this bill and its effect will be placed in the Northern Territory News. Congratulations to officers of the Department of Justice and the Northern Territory Treasury.
It does not amend some bills because the penalties are being dealt with in other proposed bills; namely, the Territory Insurance Office. A number of acts are being repealed and therefore have not been updated: the port tax act, the Energy Resource Consumption Levy Act, the Energy Resource Consumption Levy (Waiver of Levy) Act and the Financial Institutions Duty Act. The Liquor Act is under review so we have not touched those penalties.
Other than that, comprehensive, thorough work has been done by officers at both Northern Territory Treasury and Department of Justice and I sincerely thank them - gold stars handed out today.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General) (by leave): Madam Speaker, I move the bill be now read a third time.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, it is very unusual for a member when reading a bill to give a third reading speech. My understanding is there is a delay in trying to get someone back here ...
Ms Lawrie: No, there is not.
Mr ELFERINK: In that case, I will not filibuster; I will sit down.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 26 October 2010.
Mr HAMPTON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I support the statement on alcohol reforms. As the Minister for Alcohol Policy said, the negative impact of alcohol on communities, families, and individual Territorians cannot be underestimated.
I reflect on previous speakers to this statement, and the commonality of what is being said about the level of responsibility individuals must take in alcohol addiction and alcohol issues.
In my experience, growing up in Alice Springs in The Gap in the 1960s and 1970s was a tough time, and alcohol was a problem for many families. A very important part of my life experience has been how alcohol can have an impact on families and the structures of family networks.
I agree with many speakers. The member for Nelson spoke of the personal responsibility people must take, the member for Port Darwin gave his own experience of dealing with alcohol addiction, and the member for Barkly spoke about the importance of self-responsibility.
In my home town of Alice Springs, I sadly see the ravages of alcohol abuse nearly every day. In my time growing up in The Gap in the 1960s 1970s it was an issue then and, sadly, is still an issue today. Whether it is people sleeping rough because they would rather be drinking than live a safe and healthy life, or whether they are neglecting their children because they are on the grog; it is really sad to see.
I acknowledge there are young people who feel safer on the streets at night than at home because everyone is drinking. That is a real situation in Alice Springs, as it is across Australia. It is something we all see and something we need to act on. In many cases, it is how you respond to those social challenges.
In Alice Springs, the community has taken the lead in alcohol reform over many years. It is not a new problem. In 1975, an evaluation of the alcohol situation in Alice Springs was conducted and it recommended government and non-government agencies take a holistic approach. Does that not sound familiar today! The evaluation in 1975 recommended government agencies take a holistic approach and work together to tackle the social and community problems caused by alcohol abuse.
As we all know, and the Minister for Alcohol Policy has said many times in this House, the consumption of alcohol in Alice Springs per person is significantly higher than the national average. Many theories have been put forward as to why this is the case, and I will leave it to more learned people than myself to debate. However, the fact is in Central Australia we drink too much.
In 2002, takeaway hours were reduced, and the Alcohol Management Plan was introduced in 2006 with the aim of reducing supply, reducing harm and reducing demand. The plan included restrictions on the sale of alcohol in Alice Springs, changes to takeaway liquor sales, and limits on fortified and cask wine. This was followed by the declaration of public restricted areas, also known as dry town laws, in 2007, and the introduction of identification requirements for the purchase of takeaway alcohol in 2008.
The electronic ID system has proved an effective tool in enforcing court-ordered bans and restrictions. Of course, measures introduced under the Commonwealth intervention have also impacted on Alice Springs, with income quarantining arguably having an effect.
Restrictions and other measures have been, and continue to be, a matter of some debate. However, the Alice Springs Alcohol Management Plan is making a difference.
I go back to what the Minister for Alcohol Policy stated in the House, in the reforms we have seen in Alice Springs, through a range of actions put in place by the Henderson Labor government - and there is more to be done, it is not perfect - serious assaults dropped by 21% and sales of pure alcohol reduced by 18%.
In Alice Springs we drink too much and alcohol continues to be consumed at twice the level of Darwin and Palmerston. Alcohol is involved in two-thirds of all violent crimes and contributes to 70% of policing costs in Alice Springs. Alice Springs has also three times the rate of protective custody incidents than Darwin and Palmerston. That is why the Henderson government says Enough is Enough.
Moving on from the alcohol management plan, which is making a difference, is the announcement, in conjunction with the federal minister for Families and Children, of the proposal to buy back three liquor licences in Alice Springs. The minister has said the licences held by BP Gap, Hoppy’s Cash Store, and Heavitree Gap Store would not have been granted under current licensing practices. Negotiations are ongoing with the proprietors. This buy-back was a key recommendation of the Alice Springs Alcohol Management Plan, and something I have raised with my government in my four years as a member of this parliament on a regular basis.
The alcohol management plan is making a difference to Alice Springs, and I will go through those figures again: 18% reduction and fewer alcohol sales – a significant achievement and one I believe is recognised by the community. Of course, tackling supply is one side of the coin, there is also the need to reduce harm as well as demand.
I have also spoken a number of times in this House about the Alice Springs Transformation Plan and the positive impact this is having, and will continue to have, in the Centre. Going back to the report and evaluation of 1975 about taking a holistic approach to these types of issues; this is something the transformation plan is aiming to do. The transformation plan is comprised of three strategies: the first is transforming the town camps; the second is reducing homelessness; and the third is dealing with social issues. Funding of $50m has been committed to deal with the social issues in the Alice Springs community, and a major target is alcohol abuse.
Under the Alice Springs Transformation Plan, the federal and Northern Territory governments have committed $5.4m to the Safe and Sober Program. I believe the member for Nelson, in his contribution, wanted more detail on that. The program has only recently been announced. I have taken the opportunity to meet the staff at Congress involved in the Safe and Sober Program. It is fairly new, but I am sure they will be able to demonstrate to the community some of the outcomes: how many people they are working with; and how many are still safe and sober. The member for Nelson raised very important points.
One of the challenges I put to the people at Congress working with the Safe and Sober Program was how they connect the dots. How do they connect people they are helping to other aspects of the transformation plan? How do they connect people who may be living rough in the creek or in the hills to the accommodation park, Percy Court, or any of the other accommodation facilities we are putting together? How do they connect people who are living rough in the creek or the hills to a program such as Safe and Sober? How do they connect them to Centrelink to receive regular payments? How do they get people away from that lifestyle? They are very important questions.
They are the soldiers on the front line when it comes to tackling issues such as alcohol abuse, of connecting the dots - connecting people to services. People at Congress who work on the front line have a very important role to play. It was really refreshing, during our meeting with minister Macklin and the workers, to see how many local Indigenous people are involved in the program. It is a very important step to have Indigenous local people with language skills, the knowledge of culture and of who those people are, to have a real, genuine connection to the people living rough in the creek or the hills.
I believe it is refreshing because with those people on board at Congress, and with the very good management they have, there is a real chance of success. They probably have the most difficult job in Alice Springs, dealing with some of the most disadvantaged people and getting people to help themselves. That was the theme many the previous speakers in this House had- helping yourself. It is people in the Safe and Sober Program, people working in Congress on the front line - the frontline soldiers - who have the difficult task.
It is easy for us to debate and play politics with, but I take my hat off to the front line at Congress in the Safe and Sober Program for the sheer commitment they put into their job; it would not be easy.
Under the model of the Safe and Sober Program, service providers refer clients to the Safe and Sober Program, which assigns a therapeutic team to work with clients. Safe and Sober builds on the work of current service providers to deliver multidisciplinary services, and includes all service providers in the Alcohol and Other Drug sector in Alice Springs. My colleague, the member for Barkly, talked about the prison reforms he is bringing in, in the new era of Corrections, with things such as stronger reintegration support programs, the elders visiting programs, halfway houses and post-release support - some of the new initiatives under this new era in Corrections. Also, more rehabilitation and targeted programs, which I fully support, are a very important part in addressing such a big social issue.
A prison in-reach component has also been developed under the Safe and Sober Program. Since the program was announced in January this year it has worked with more than 300 clients, supporting them and their families to be safe and sober.
I recently accompanied the minister for Indigenous Affairs, Jenny Macklin, on a visit to Congress. I reiterate, staff are doing a great job in very difficult circumstances. People at Congress congratulated both levels of government for the reforms. It is great to get grassroots endorsement of what we are doing.
The Alice Springs Transformation Plan has also supported the vital work done by the Drug and Alcohol Services Association, known as DASA, in Alice Springs. The Alice Springs Transformation Plan has provided $80 000 towards the transitional after-care alcohol rehabilitation unit fit-out at the Aranda House facility in Kempe Street. I recently visited this facility with DASA Director, Paul Finlay, and his staff, who outlined the programs and support services run from the site. The 20-bed residential facility supports people involved in their personal recovery, and is very much a clinical approach.
I am pleased this government is taking further strong action to turn off the tap to problem drinkers. The five-point plan announced by the Minister for Alcohol Policy will strengthen the measures the Alice Springs community has already taken to tackle alcohol-related harm.
Contrast all this government has done, and continues to do, with comments from the opposition. Since the Araluen by-election - and it is a shame; the ‘fall down by sundown’ policy of the new member for Araluen is disgraceful. I encourage the member for Araluen to learn more about the Alice Springs Transformation Plan and the Alice Springs Youth Action Plan. I know she has lived in Alice Springs a long time - she has worked in the social services area - but I believe there are always things to learn. In a different career path, it is important you do not come out with the spin of the opposition and be continually negative about these types of programs.
As mentioned during Question Time, I am happy to provide a briefing for the member for Araluen on the youth action plan. There has been much success to it. There is still work to do, and we still have issues in Alice Springs with youth and alcohol, but it is programs like the youth action plan and the Alice Springs Transformation Plan that will make a real difference. I urge the member for Araluen not to get caught up in that negative spin; to do things her own way and find out more about these strategies. I am quite happy to work with her in a bipartisan way, and to address the serious issues we have in Alice Springs. I hope she takes up the offer and we can work together to make Alice Springs a better place.
Ms LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I address the motion put forward to the parliament: Enough is Enough, the proposed alcohol reforms. I thank the Minister for Central Australia for his invitation to join him in combating the problem of alcohol in Alice Springs.
As the Minister for Central Australia alluded to, Alice Springs has been subjected to a raft of reforms implemented by this government over the last 10 years. Some have been more successful than others. In 2002, the government brought in reduced takeaway hours for liquor outlets, opening at 2 pm and closing at 9 pm. In 2004, it brought in the Northern Territory Alcohol Framework. The final report was presented to the government. In 2005, it introduced the Alcohol Courts, which will now be replaced by SMART Courts. In 2006, it introduced the broader alcohol management plan, with a moratorium on new takeaway licences for 12 months. In 2007, we brought in our public restricted area legislation, and saw income quarantining by the federal government. Many of the town camps were declared dry in 2007. In 2008, identification cards were implemented in Alice Springs.
When it comes to alcohol reforms, the people of Central Australia are used to being a social experiment by this government, being treated as guinea pigs in their plight to work out exactly what works and what does not. In some ways, the people of Central Australia are experts in this area and are well accustomed to being pushed and prodded by this government.
We have had an identification system operating in Alice Springs since 2008 and I have never heard of anyone being declined the sale of alcohol. It has not targeted habitual drunks. It has cost taxpayers a great deal of money for the technology required to run the identification system, and train liquor outlets how to manage and use it. Collation of this important data has also cost the taxpayer money. To what end?
The Alcohol Court has been ineffectual. The identification system was tied to the Alcohol Court, with only a few people being put through the Alcohol Court. The experience of the identification system in Alice Springs over the last couple of years has been a flop. It has been an exercise in futility because this government thought a couple of computers placed in liquor outlets around town would be the answer to stemming the flow of grog. That was an interesting social experiment. We are now told it is going to be rolled out across the Northern Territory with, not the Alcohol Court, the SMART Court. We can only assume the Alcohol Court was the not-so-smart court and now is re-branded as the SMART Court.
You will have to excuse my cynicism, but when you have lived in Alice Springs as long as I have, and when you have been subjected to reforms in the past, you tend to take it all with a grain of salt.
A drive around the bottle shops and takeaway outlets of Alice Springs will give you a clear indication of the problem in Alice Springs, and the target group, as the government refers to it. You need not go far. You need to hang around bottle shops at 2 pm when they open, and see the assortment of people gathering, including the habitual drunks we are all very familiar with in Alice Springs. You can ask the emergency department staff of the Alice Springs Hospital. They are familiar with the target group, the habitual drunks who end up there in different states at different times of the day with all sorts of alcohol-related health problems and afflictions. You can ask the police who have to deal with the antisocial behaviour every day of the week as a result of intoxication. You can also ask members of the judicial system - Legal Aid solicitors for example - who have to represent these people in court after they have offended.
In order to target reforms you do not need to go far. You can go to our health system, our police service, and our judicial system to find out who they are. You do not need to implement an identification system which, in the experience of Central Australia and Alice Springs, has been a farce.
We have dry town status in Alice Springs. We have had that for over three years and, for a short period, it worked quite well. Police were happy to enforce our dry town status, and the drunks seemed to disappear off the streets. The purpose of the legislation was to stop people drinking in public.
We now see habitual drinkers - people who drink heavily regardless of what time of day or night it is as long as they can access alcohol - hide away in Alice Springs. They have their little hidey-holes. As time goes on, most of us are aware where the drunks are hiding, and the police seem to have almost given up on the battle of keeping these drinkers out of the town area.
Both the ID system and the dry town legislation have been what most people in Central Australia would consider a big flop. These alcohol restrictions have only served to lower the rate of alcohol consumption of people who did not have a drinking problem to begin with. The government maintains a decrease in alcohol consumption in Alice Springs. Indeed, there has been a significant decrease in alcohol consumption if you are to believe the statistics provided. They have not cared to ask the critical question: who exactly is drinking less? Look at me, I am drinking less because I could not be bothered battling crowds heading into the bottle shop at 2 pm and fighting over a place in the very long queues. I have not bought a bottle of port - which I used to enjoy drinking from time to time - for many years because it is all too hard. If you like to enjoy a small glass of port occasionally, you have to wait until 6 pm in Alice Springs.
People like me have reduced their alcohol intake. I cannot say it has done me any harm. However, why has the government not, if they are hell-bent on targeting these reforms, asked the question: who in Alice Springs is drinking less? They will find it is not the habitual drunks in Alice Springs - the people who are causing the problem, cluttering up the Corrections system, queuing at the emergency department of the Alice Springs Hospital - it is people like me, people who drink in moderation, who drink responsibly, who could not be bothered trying to purchase alcohol in Alice Springs.
The other development in our society is the use of online purchasing of alcohol. Many people I know choose to buy alcohol online because it is easier. When you look at the bigger picture, at reforms, do not get too excited by what has happened in Alice Springs because it is quite deceiving. The people who are drinking less are the people who do not have the problem. The people who have the problem the government claims it wants to target are drinking exactly the same amount as they did 10 years ago when these reforms started to roll into our privileged town of Alice Springs. We have been subjected to these broad-brush reforms for many years.
The other reason I know alcohol restrictions in the town have not worked is because serious crime has increased by 85% in Alice Springs since 2004. This figure was quite vigorously refuted by the government in recent times, but is the case: an 85% increase in serious crime since 2004. One of the main platforms on which they introduced these alcohol restrictions in Alice Springs was because of the strong connection between alcohol consumption and violent crime.
If that is an indicator, alcohol reforms in Alice Springs have not done well. The numbers of habitual drunks on the streets of Alice Springs from 2 pm, when the liquor outlets open, are very visible. It has not changed over the 10 years the government has been imposing liquor restrictions. In fact, some would argue it has become worse.
I extend an invitation to our Chief Minister. When you come to Alice Springs in March 2011 for parliament we should all go on a bus tour. I know the Chief Minister holds me in high regard - he refers to me constantly. I feel quite privileged because I am a newcomer and it is important to make newcomers feel welcome. When he refers to me affectionately it is because he likes me - I can feel the love.
When we go on this bus trip, I would like to sit next to the Chief Minister. We should ensure the bus trip commences just before 2 pm, and we do a trip around all the takeaway liquor outlets in Alice Springs. The Chief Minister and I can share the experience of that moment when the doors open to all the takeaway liquor outlets. He can observe for himself, whilst he sits next to me, the intense moment and the passion in which the habitual drinkers in Alice Springs forge their way through the doors of the liquor outlets to buy their alcohol.
I say this, of course, tongue in cheek, because it is really quite sad. However, it is important the Chief Minister experiences what happens from 2 pm. From 2 pm in Alice Springs - Monday to Friday that is; of course Saturday they open at 10 o’clock. Do not ask me why that happens, it is a total inconsistency in the reforms the government has implemented. For some reason, the alcohol takeaway liquor outlets open at 10 am on Saturday. From 2 pm onwards, after the habitual drunks commence their drinking, the state of the streets of Alice Springs changes quite dramatically. We see people in various stages of intoxication, exhibiting antisocial behaviour which intensifies as the day goes on.
I will quote a piece out of the Moving Beyond the Restrictions: The Evaluation of the Alice Springs Alcohol Management Plan released by the Menzies School of Health this year. It says:
This quote is suggesting the problems of antisocial behaviour have been moved to later in the day, causing problems for police who are in the unenviable position of managing antisocial behaviour and, quite often, crime associated with alcohol.
I have made the point on radio - the Chief Minister will remember; he likes to refer to it - and is a view held by most people in the Alice Springs community – that these habitual drunks be allowed to drink earlier so they do not cause a problem for the police into the night, because at night time you cannot see. You cannot see what these people are up to, you cannot see the crimes they are committing and, with the grace of God, if they are allowed to drink earlier may fall asleep before the sun goes down. You like to quote that, do you not, Chief Minister?
Alcohol reform has not worked in Alice Springs, and the reforms have been generally felt as pain by our community. They have not been accepted by the community at all. The Minister for Alcohol Policy told us yesterday these new reforms have enormous acceptance in the community, and she quoted a number of Alice Springs groups that have expressed their support for them.
Having lived and worked in Alice Springs in different sectors of the community, I can assure you the people she quoted do not represent too many people; probably around 50 people would be my estimation. For the most part, people of Alice Springs find these restrictions on them - this broad-brush approach applied to Alice Springs and Tennant Creek - have gone down like a lead balloon. People do not appreciate having restrictions in an effort to restrict the drinking habits of a very small number of people.
The government is quite deluded and misled when it comes to support of these reforms by the people of Alice Springs. What the people of Alice Springs want is for the government to target the reforms towards those who have a problem. This is what they have not been doing for the last eight, nine, 10 years in Alice Springs. Alice Springs people are sick and tired of being the guinea pigs of the government’s failure in alcohol management.
Deaths from alcohol-related conditions in Alice Springs: between 2004 and 2006, there were 32 deaths of Indigenous people due to alcohol-related conditions in Central Australia. There were only four deaths of non-Indigenous people. We know Indigenous people are dying from alcohol-related illness at an alarming rate: seven times the rate of non-Indigenous people in Central Australia.
Once again, we are loathe to talk about race when it comes to problems in the Northern Territory but, clearly in Central Australia, it is first and foremost a problem within the Aboriginal community. We have to acknowledge that. If you are trying to target reforms, you have to be honest about who has the problem. We are talking about Aboriginal people and non-Aboriginal people, but the emphasis must be on targeting Aboriginal people who are dying because of alcohol-related conditions at a rate seven times that of their non-Indigenous counterparts.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I conclude today by saying it is not good enough to re-brand old ideas. We are not silly and people realise …
Mr CONLAN: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! I seek an extension of time for the member for Araluen, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Re-branding does not fool anyone, and this is what we are seeing today. This alcohol reform, Enough is Enough, is a re-branding for the government. They have gone full circle. They started off with this broad-brush approach in Alice Springs, targeting everyone in the community, implying we all have an alcohol problem. Now, we have gone full circle and the government has come up with this reform policy, Enough is Enough, with a few of the old die-hard, tried and true reforms which in our experience have not worked, including the use of identification cards, trying to rename it, change the emphasis and say: ‘Oh, we are now targeting our reforms’ when that is not the case.
Renaming is a popular thing for the government to do; ‘Give it a fancy name and you will fool them’. I am sorry, it will not work. We have heard another re-branding today; the failed Alcohol Court from 2005 is now going to be called the SMART Court, replacing the not-so-smart court. The youth action plan - the Minister for Central Australia has tried so hard to convince us in Alice Springs this is a fantastic plan. I acknowledge some very good programs for youth are happening as part of the Alice Springs community. To bunch all these things together - a school, a school building, the ANZAC oval, which has been seriously deprived of adequate funding for years because it represents the less popular football code of Rugby League as opposed to AFL - lumping these things together and calling it the youth action plan is not fooling anyone.
Minister for Central Australia, I would love to work with you. I would like to share some understanding of how things can work better in Alice Springs and move forward. However, I am not going to be deceived. If that is going to happen, we need to come to some arrangement about trialling a curfew for children in Alice Springs, which would solve many of the antisocial and violence problems.
Enough is Enough is what we like to say when we are referring to the contempt this government shows towards Alice Springs. Reform is not about reinventing the wheel or about giving something old, ineffectual and antiquated a new name. Reform is not about asking a group of people whose pay packets you have some influence over: ‘What do you think of our great new plan?’ Of course, they will say yes. Reform is about working with the whole community and listening to their concerns.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, it was good listening to the passion of the last two speakers, both from Central Australia, who agree on the problems we are facing with alcohol but, clearly, disagree on the solutions the government is looking at.
I was born in Alice. I do not live in Alice anymore. As the member for Fannie Bay, I live in Darwin. I was in Alice Springs recently on my way to my uncle’s place, Sammy’s, which is BYO. I bought some alcohol. I showed my ID; it took about 15 seconds. I did not go at 2 pm, maybe that was the problem. I bought my alcohol, I showed my licence, and it was too easy. I went to Sammy’s, had a lovely pizza, and it was all good. I do not live in Alice Springs, I am not going to pretend I do, but the one experience I had was pretty good.
Both speakers from Central Australia spoke with passion about the problems there. We, clearly, have different ideas on how to solve them. We disagree with opening up the rivers of grog again; extending the trading hours for takeaway outlets. We also disagree on drinking until you drop. There are clear differences between both sides. We believe in saying Enough is Enough, the statement we are talking to today. We have plans we want to roll out to enforce that. We disagree on enforcement. We believe if you have a banned drinker register you have to enforce it, which involves the ID system. We are taking the current ID system and giving it more teeth to make it more effective, making it Territory-wide. That is a possible solution to the problems we are facing.
The opposition disagrees. There are other things we disagree on; we have had various speakers on both sides cover that, and there will be more today. The member for Greatorex has not spoken yet. I am sure he will go into detail about the problems he sees in Alice Springs.
I support the government initiative to tackle alcohol. Many people in the Territory love a drink - there is nothing wrong with that. A beer after work, a glass of wine over dinner, heading out to town with some of your mates, a couple of cold beers in the Esky when you go fishing – alcohol is part of the Territory lifestyle; part of the lifestyle of people around the world.
We are at a point of reflection in the Territory. We are saying we drink too much. Figures in the minister’s statement show we drink 1.5 times the rest of Australia, and Australians, as a whole, have a reputation around the world of being heavy drinkers. In the Territory we have celebrated how much we drink. I have read NT News articles celebrating whether we drink more or less than Germany. The member for Barkly spoke about the Territory competing with other parts of the world and who can drink the most.
We are now coming to a point in the Territory of how much is too much - when is enough enough. A large part of that has to do with the very effective campaign this year by the NT News of Just Think.
There has been a growing public awareness of the link between alcohol and problems in the Territory. In recent months, the debate has matured. The Just Think campaign of the NT News has been very effective. Drinking will always remain part of the Territory lifestyle. The issue we need to deal with is when is enough, enough. I love to head to the clubs in my electorate. I am very lucky; I have the Ski Club, the Sailing Club, the Trailer Boat Club, the Railway Club, and the Turf Club. I have some fantastic community clubs in my electorate. I love to head to the ones along the foreshore and have a sunset beer. They are popular spots to take friends and relatives. You sit back, the sun sets, you say: ‘How good is this?’ The Territory is always going to have alcohol as part of the lifestyle – we have to live with that. It is something we can enjoy; however, we need to know when enough is enough. That is what our policy is about: Enough is Enough.
There are strong links between alcohol abuse and crime: 60% of all assaults and 67% of domestic violence incidents in the Territory are alcohol-related. Sometimes, drinking and violence is hidden behind a suburban door or at a campsite around town you cannot see from the road. Sometimes, it is right in your face. Not every camper is a drinker, not every drinker is a problem drinker. Not everyone who goes out for a night in Mitchell Street is a problem drinker. However, there is no doubt the visible disturbance of people camping and drinking, or hanging out in Mitchell Street drunk is not good. It is a clear face to the problem we have in the Territory of alcohol and the problems that stem from it.
Across the Territory last year there were 54 000 incidents of people taken into police protective custody due to alcohol misuse. Some of those 54 000 incidents would have been in my electorate. There would not be a member present in the Chamber who does not have a problem with alcohol in their electorate. There is not a person in the Territory who is not affected in some way by alcohol and the misuse of alcohol - from the interruption to the quality of your life in a public place where people are misusing alcohol, to being involved in one of those 54 000 incidents of protective custody, to being one of the people who forms a statistic of 67% of domestic violence incidents involving alcohol.
Alcohol is a significant contributor to many of the problems we deal with in the Territory. Much of it is a long-term cost which can be measured in many ways. It can be measured in dollars. It is estimated alcohol-related crime and alcohol-related illness costs the Territory community more than $640m a year. However, it has an effect we have to acknowledge runs beyond measure in the way it shortens and harms lives. We know people are our greatest resource, and alcohol is a constant, significant contributor to people being harmed. Domestic violence, child abuse, property damage, antisocial behaviour, illegal camping, early mortality, preventable health issues - much of it can be traced to alcohol abuse. That is why tackling alcohol is so important; why we must say Enough is Enough.
It is the No 1 policy challenge in the Territory. It is an issue every Territory government from both sides has wrestled with. There is no silver bullet, no one neat solution, and no simple answers. However, there are things we can do. That is the topic of the statement; what we are looking at. There is a range of measures we must put in place. They are not always going to be easy steps to take. This is a community problem - all our lifestyles are affected. Our lives are affected by the scourge of alcohol. There is a personal cost and a financial burden on us already.
Community problems require community solutions. The steps we will take, as a government, are only part of the solution. Governments, parliamentarians, must lead. We have a responsibility to the communities we serve. That is why we must make tough decisions. We must say enough is enough. We have to turn off the tap to problem drinkers. We have already taken a number of measures to deal with alcohol, but we need to do more. Much of what we have done has been around specific places. We have 10 alcohol management plans in place in various parts of the Territory, developed to respond to specific alcohol issues in each place.
There are two outstanding things we must do: (1) we must put in a formal alcohol management plan for Darwin and Palmerston drafted with the Darwin City Council and the Palmerston City Council; and (2) we need to take stock of what we are doing around the Territory to tackle alcohol and pull it together with a consistent approach. That is, essentially, what the proposed five-point plan sets out to do: provide a consistent response on how we target problem drinkers across the Territory - to target problem drinkers who cause alcohol-related crime and antisocial behaviour in our community. The five points are in the statement:
We are improving the police response when confronted by people who have an alcohol problem. Police are the ones who so often have to clean up the problems caused by excessive alcohol consumption; of people who, after too many drinks, become violent and break the law. Police are the ones who have to respond, and we want police to have the ability, in response to a problem drunk, to apply a ban getting them off the grog and encouraging them to access treatment.
There are rules. You have to be in police custody three times in three months, or be given a police domestic violence order when suspected of being drunk at the time, and so on. The more times you get a police notice, the longer the ban and more intense the treatment. If a problem drinker comes to the attention of police three times, they will be off to the tribunal with longer bans and mandatory treatment.
There is an appeals mechanism. It is there to keep an eye on the bans, but it can also increase the length of the treatment order. This approach removes the court process and the criminalisation. It puts in place a swifter response and, hopefully, serves to prevent further abuse.
There has to be a way of enforcing a ban. For a banned drinker register to be effective, you need access in every takeaway outlet across the Territory to support the takeaway bans. It is not good enough for someone to be banned from drinking alcohol in one part of the Territory - and this happens around Fannie Bay and I am sure in other parts of Darwin and Palmerston - and then move into Darwin, camp illegally, drink until their ban is over then return to their community. A ban is a ban, and enough is enough.
A banned drinker register is to be effective, enforced, and everywhere …
Mr Conlan: A ban is different in Alice than it is in Darwin. There are different laws, different bans for two different cities.
Mr GUNNER: Member for Greatorex, I did not quite catch what you said, but I think you were talking about Alice Springs. I mentioned earlier how I accessed the ID system in Alice Springs, and I believe, once we make it Territory-wide, it is going to be more effective that way. It is going to make it much more worthwhile. Obviously, Alice Springs had it before the people of Darwin but, once you make it Territory-wide, it will become a much more effective system. It will mean when you go on the banned drinker register, you are banned.
We need this system in Darwin and Palmerston. The system does not record information for people who have privacy concerns; it compares your licence against the register. It is quick, easy, and means a ban is a ban.
There will be issues around secondary supply, but that is not enough reason to not tackle the issue of primary supply. Fear about enforcement relating to secondary supply of alcohol is not a reason to abandon reforms to tackle the primary supply of alcohol. That is, obviously, another area where we have a clear disagreement with the opposition.
There will be more than one way for someone to be placed on the banned drinker register. They can volunteer, and family and friends can nominate them, with safeguards and appeal processes in place to ensure the system is not abused. In addition to police having the ability to issue banning notices, there are reforms to the SMART Court - the Alcohol Court is to be renamed the SMART Court, the Substance, Misuse Assessment and Referral for Treatment Court. Reforms to the Alcohol Courts are where, as part of bail or sentencing, they can order people who are charged with a criminal offence related to alcohol or drug abuse, into treatment or counselling, and ban the person from purchasing and consuming alcohol.
Improving the efficacy of the system, making it easier for people to be banned, for people to be ordered into treatment, has to be matched with additional services. We have to increase the treatment options available. At the moment there are over 300 treatment and sobering-up shelters across the Territory. We will, with the Australian government on board, increase the number of rehabilitation and treatment options available - additional treatment beds, and counselling and outreach treatment options based in the communities.
Punitive measures must be matched with rehabilitation services to ensure we reach an outcome with a long-term impact. We will have statistical information on our measures to tackle alcohol - the five points - but the best outcome of reducing alcohol-related harm will be the people whose lives are saved, whose lives are not harmed where once they might have been, who will live longer, healthier and more productive lives. That is something, as members, we all want, and is one of the reasons there is so much passion behind the alcohol debate.
We know the effect of chronic alcohol abuse on families is devastation and dysfunction. It damages children. It is the community - you, me, the family at the park, the bloke on the bus, the neighbour - who suffer when alcohol is abused. The communal nature of this problem is where the work of government is, not just in our law or officers, but how we lead and shape public debate. That is where the importance of the awareness campaign cannot be overestimated. This problem will not be fixed by government intervention alone. Government has to do what it can, but it will take more. We can lead; help tackle the culture that encourages alcohol misuse. One way of doing that is through an awareness campaign. This is not new territory; there have been a number of awareness campaigns. The need has not lessened.
Recently, these have included the Championship Moves campaign, which is a Territory government campaign. There have also been a number of Australian government advertising campaigns - there often are - addressing the national issue of binge drinking. The best awareness campaign in recent times, which I mentioned at the start of my comments, is the NT News’ Just Think campaign – an excellent community campaign; an excellent demonstration of how community leadership can be effective. For a community problem like alcohol abuse, community leadership is critical, with informed debate and many different opinions, different thoughts, different perspectives, which encourage readers to think about what they can do, what they want us as a government to do, and what they want other people in the community to do.
There have been many really good outcomes from the Just Think campaign. The Australian Hotels Association has responded with an accord which will ensure beer and spirits will be served in shatter glasses after 11 pm, and crowd controllers will work more closely with police to improve safety. The Hotels Association has also welcomed our precinct legislation. The alcohol industry has provided additional security for the safe taxi rank. These initiatives show licensees can work with government to address alcohol-related harm, which is a partnership the community believes is important. Obviously, the Hotels Association serves beer, and the community has issues with the treatment of alcohol. Forming that partnership with government shows the maturity of licensees.
The Just Think campaign has created a positive environment for people to discuss and contribute to the alcohol management plan proposed for Darwin and Palmerston. I have had many people approach me on the street, markets, in the office, by e-mail and phone, wanting to contribute to the debate on how we tackle problems in Mitchell Street, problem campers in our hotspot areas – I have a few in my electorate at the old Waratah Oval, the bike path along the Stuart Highway, Vesteys Beach, parts of East Point, and others. A number of things have happened in Parap, Stuart Park, and Fannie Bay already, and the alcohol reforms and the alcohol management plans are complementary to those initiatives.
We are reforming public housing, creating a better model for tenants and neighbours, getting rid of the failed 100% density model where everyone is a tenant of the government, and putting in place a salt-and-pepper model we know works better. We have a Police Beat based out of Parap shops which services the Fannie Bay and Stuart Park shops, and sees police on foot or bikes through our shops, along the foreshore, improving the police intelligence on problems in the area, how to deal with them, and how to bring in other agencies.
The solution to problems in our area such as camping out of control at Vesteys Beach is hard work - rolling up the sleeves and using tools at the disposal of agencies. There are no silver bullets; it is hard work. It is often through the good work of police as the lead agency bringing in other agencies such as health, Centrelink or NGOs to deal with the problem campers which results in camps broken up, people going to hospital, booking into accommodation, or returning to their communities. Hard work solves these problems, and that hard work will be made easier with the alcohol reforms and the alcohol management plan.
I have received overwhelmingly positive feedback to the reforms. We have had letters, flyers and surveys over the past year. Obviously, the government is doing the work. I thank the minister for bringing this statement to the House, for the work that has gone into the policy, development of the reforms, and the good partnership which has been formed with the Darwin and Palmerston councils.
Madam Speaker, I commend the statement to the House.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I, like the member for Araluen, am very flattered the Chief Minister constantly refers to us, although it is not a reference of endearment. In social worker terms, it is a deflection or reflection. I am unsure what it is called; it is deferring his issues onto other people. You can read the Chief Minister like a book; he would be a terrible card player or chess player. The guy is twice my size but, even on the footy field, I would still have his measure. You can read him like a book.
He needs to be honest with the people of the Northern Territory. If he is going to convince us these alcohol reforms are the right path forward, he needs to be honest, especially with the test cases in Katherine, Alice Springs, and Tennant Creek.
As the member for Fannie Bay pointed out, it is not such an inconvenience to show your ID. If it is not such an inconvenience, why is the member for Fannie Bay not advocating introducing such legislation in Darwin, particularly in his electorate in Parap? At the Parap Hotel and the park opposite, there are constant problems on his own doorstep. If he is so convinced it works and is not a problem or inconvenience, why is he not advocating the government introduce these measures in the Top End?
The reason is it is politically inconvenient for the Chief Minister to introduce such measures in Darwin, particularly throughout the northern suburbs. The lengths the Chief Minister will go to justify why we do not have these measures in Darwin, as opposed to having them across the regions, are quite staggering. He is being very poorly advised, or the term ‘empty vessel’ has taken on a whole new meaning.
When asked on radio why the restrictions are in Alice Springs and not Darwin he said:
He knows, rather:
That is what he said on radio in the first week of October - Alice Springs people drink three more than people in Darwin.
I am not sure where he gets his facts and figures from. Clearly, he makes it up. He will clutch at anything because he does not have a plausible reason to put forward, apart from the fact it is politically convenient for him to not introduce these measures in the Top End. It would, potentially, be political suicide to impose these restrictions on the people of the northern suburbs.
The facts are 16.03 L per person is drunk in Darwin as opposed to 15.66 L per person in Alice Springs. That is per capita when you work it out. So, people in Darwin drink more than people in Alice Springs. Anyone could have told you that considering the population, however the Chief Minister came up with this stretched logic …
Mrs Lambley: Rubbish.
Mr CONLAN: Nonsense – absolutely! … and suggested to the people listening to the radio in Alice Springs we drink three times more than the people of Darwin. That was one excuse because his other one did not work. The lengths he will go to justifying why restrictions are not in place in Darwin are quite staggering.
When asked on ABC radio in September whether his government would ban alcohol sales before 2 pm in Darwin as well as Alice Springs, the Chief Minister peddled a ridiculous line. This is what he said:
Mr Chandler: You employ for the hundreds of tourists.
Mr CONLAN: Exactly. … who are making a living out of the hundreds of tourists there.
Mr Westra van Holthe: Perhaps we can tell the Chief Minister that Katherine receives 250 000 a year.
Mr CONLAN: Well, there you go. Here we have some figures for the Chief Minister, or for that poor advisor - that little whiz kid on the fifth floor who is poorly advising the Chief Minister. I would think the whiz kids are smart enough not to peddle such a line. Maybe this conjured up in the Chief Minister’s brain.
Fact one: 386 000 tourists visited Alice Springs in 2009. Tourism is worth $300m to the Alice Springs economy each year. That is nothing to shy from - $300m each year tourism injects into the Alice Springs economy.
Fact two: in 2009, visitors to Alice Springs spent $1225 per visit compared to only $1149 - not only, but you can see the disparity in the figure - $1149 per person in Darwin. People visiting Alice Springs are spending more per visit than in Darwin. That is 386 000 tourists visit Alice Springs each year, and it is worth $300m to the Alice Springs economy.
We have demonstrated in the last five weeks the Chief Minister will say and do anything at all to justify why these restrictions are not rolled out across the Northern Territory.
The member for Fannie Bay said we are going to have the same regulations across the Northern Territory – wrong. We are not! There is no move by the Northern Territory government, or the Chief Minister, to introduce restricted trading hours on the people of the northern suburbs of Darwin. There is no move afoot at all. In fact, word is the only move afoot is to further reduce alcohol trading in Central Australia and Alice Springs by not allowing heavy beer to be sold before 2.30 pm. You can only buy light beer between 11.30 am and 2.30 pm. The technicality is unless you intend to have a meal. We will see where that goes. That is probably the next move. Word is that is coming.
Looking through some of the trading hours for the Northern Territory: Darwin, 10 am to 10 pm Monday to Friday; Saturday 9 am to 10 pm; Sunday 10 am to 10 pm. Alice Springs: 2 pm to 9 pm Monday to Friday and, as the member for Araluen pointed out; on Saturday it is 10 am to 9 pm. What is that anomaly about? Why, all of a sudden, can we start trading at 10 am on Saturday? It does not make sense. These restrictions do not make sense.
The opposition would be more than happy to support anything which helped reduce the enormous amount of alcohol-related harm in our community – absolutely anything. In fact, the opposition, when in government in the early 1990s, introduced the highly revered Living with Alcohol Policy. We are no strangers to this. It was regarded around the country, and indeed, around the world, as a benchmark in alcohol management - the Living with Alcohol Policy.
We need to reintroduce such a policy. Restrictions are not working across the Northern Territory and, clearly, not working in Alice Springs. Any anecdotal evidence will show you that. The member for Araluen is quite correct; a trip around Alice Springs at those times will demonstrate that clearly.
Anything which goes towards reducing alcohol-related harm and the damage it does to our community, and the enormous cost to the taxpayer - $642m a year it is costing the Territory taxpayer through police and hospitalisations. The whole issue is costing an enormous amount of money - $642m. Imagine if we had that amount, and saved the Territory taxpayer not only $300m-odd a year, but reduced the amount of harm across the Territory to the victims and perpetrators themselves.
We are not doing that. It is as if the $642m is worn like a badge of honour: ‘This is a huge problem and we are the only ones capable of tackling it. We are the only ones, with our regime of restrictions, our alcohol management plans, who can possibly tackle this because, on that day in August 2001, when the dark clouds dispersed and the sun shone on the Territory for the very first time, and the Labor Party was elected, after 27 years in the darkness when we were all swinging from trees - it was all ooga booga, ooga booga from the trees; we were all monkeys and we had not evolved at all - the Northern Territory was saved from those dark, dark days’.
It is arrogance in the extreme and delusional because it is not right. We have taken nearly 10 years to come this far. How long will it take to get a grip on it? How long will it take until you take control of the situation? You hang your argument on the Moving Beyond Restrictions report by the Menzies School of Research. This is what the Northern Territory government points to at every turn. It is a good read, as the member for Araluen pointed out, and I will reiterate here:
That is a no-brainer. Of course, it is going to shift the problem into a time of day when it is very difficult to police. Also, the report points out, measuring the impact of the Alice Springs Alcohol Management Plan:
Again, there are discrepancies in the data and the figures being pedalled out by the government. This report the government hangs off says:
It is not conclusive and is not completely in favour of the government’s management plans; it does not vindicate everything the government is doing. The report highlights a couple of issues, but that is what the government hang their head on. Maybe they think we have not read it; we have read it.
If the government could convince us the reforms will make a difference, and it is seriously addressing the problems we face with alcohol, we would come on board because we are all here for the betterment of the Northern Territory. No one likes to see enormous amounts of taxpayers’ money - millions and millions and millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money - going into addressing alcohol-related harm for starters, but also the amount of harm and damage and destruction it causes across the Northern Territory community. That is not just physical destruction, emotional destruction as well - the destruction of families, of children’s lives, and so forth.
The government says there has been a huge reduction in takeaway sales in Alice Springs as a result of the wonderful new plans they introduced since the new world order of 2001. Of course there will be a reduction of takeaway sales if you shut the bottle shops. However, grog purchased through the bottle shop is being replaced by grog purchased over the bar. Instead of going through the Bottle-O people are grogging up at the bar. People are still consuming at enormous rates. We are not targeting the person.
It is typical of this Labor government to dumb everything down to the lowest common denominator. It is like the kid in the class who gets in trouble. The teacher says: ‘Who did that? If you do not own up you are all in trouble, you will all be kept back’. This is how this government works. It is a collective response; it is all about the collective and not about the individual.
We have to start targeting the people with the problem. It is not the broader Territory community’s problem. In other words, the broader Territory community does not have an issue with it. Those people do not have problems with alcohol and alcohol abuse. There is a small minority and, as the member for Araluen alluded to, quite plainly and obviously these measures are targeted at problem Aboriginal drinkers. It is plain to see. It is very sad we cannot get a grip on this; we are seeing Aboriginal communities suffer so much as a result of alcohol.
However, why should the broader community as a whole be penalised? That is the hard-working people - Aboriginal or non-Aboriginal, it does not matter - in our communities or in our towns. Why should we be penalised? Why should all those laws be dumbed down for a minority of people who have serious problems with alcohol and alcohol abuse? It is not right. I believe it is not right; we need to target the problem.
Government members say they are targeting the problem; we have not seen any evidence of that. Once again, we see motherhood statements in this House, and the announcement of the media release by the minister. I have it here somewhere. Nevertheless, we have seen it before - here we are, tackling alcohol-related crime and antisocial behaviour. This is, basically, the policy. A two-and-a-bit page media release is the government’s policy – ‘We are going to get tough’.
Under the proposed new laws police ‘may’ issue banning notices. You talk tough when the cameras are on and the media is watching - you are going to get tough and going to do it. However, when the devil is in the detail, the police ‘may’ issue. So, you ‘may’ get tough. The tribunal ‘can’ issue drinking bans and mandatory treatment. That is a pretty important point to make. The tribunal ‘can’ issue drinking bans and make mandatory treatment orders for problem drinkers. That is ‘can’, that is not ‘will’. That, to me, is not getting tough, and is not tackling those people with the issue. It is not targeting the problem, as you say you are going to do.
In keeping with the argument this government will say or do anything to appeal to the masses and stay in power, if we go back to 2006, the then Minister for Family and Community Services said:
I repeat what she said:
Motion agreed to.
Mr CONLAN: Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Araluen.
This goes to the heart of the credibility of the government. Yesterday we had an 800-page report tabled in parliament highlighting the enormous deficiencies in the department of family and community services, led by a series of incompetent ministers, which demonstrates not every case of suspected child abuse has been investigated. By no stretch has every case of suspected child abuse been investigated. As of June 2010, over 800 cases were left unchecked. My information is, as of October, today, it is close to 1000, regardless of whether that is Category 1, 2 or 3, or severe, urgent, non-urgent - whatever it might be. Every single case of suspected child abuse, regardless of what the abuse is, should be pressing.
Again, we point to the credibility of the then Minister for Family and Community Services. It is even more relevant because she was the Minister for Family and Community Services and is now the Minister for Alcohol Policy. She said:
Wrong, minister. You have misled the people of the Northern Territory. She also said on 7 June 2006:
I said yesterday in my response to the Bringing Them Home report I hope the government will focus on these Category 1 recommendations, and they will be implemented within six months. It is imperative; it is to the heart of human decency that this happens. It demonstrates the credibility of the former Minister for Family and Community Services who is now the Alcohol Policy Minister, and the credibility of the Chief Minister who will say and do anything - Johnny on the spot he is, he will conjure up anything. He thinks ‘I will run that line at the moment; that should get me through. I will get through this interview and then I can get on the next flight out of Alice Springs, because no one likes me here and I need to get out of here. I cannot stand this place’.
You accuse us of talking it down. Well, the Chief Minister is running the place down; he is running the Northern Territory into the ground. It is a bit rich to tell those of us who live in Central Australia - including the member for Barkly - in the mighty town of Alice Springs, that we are talking the town down. None of us would have lived in Alice Springs for as long as we have if we did not like the place and thought it had potential. The Chief Minister, while he may accuse us of talking the place down, is running the place down. He is running the place into the ground.
People ask: ‘Why did you get into politics, Conlan? What was it that drove you?’ I can safely say my motivation for getting into politics was to see the back of this Labor government. I knew I had to do everything I possibly could, even if that meant holding a seat in Central Australia, to stop the Labor Party from getting a seat which would allow it a little extra room to embark on this wave of neglect as it has been doing for the last nine-and-a-bit years. It is an absolute disgrace. If they want any support from the Territory opposition they needs to start being honest, start spelling out some of the facts, and stop sitting in their comfort zone of arrogance with their ‘we know best’ attitude. They need to be up-front with the people of Central Australia, particularly the regions, and tell them why there are no alcohol restrictions in Darwin.
If they are so good and so effective, why are they not in the Top End? You are not exempt from these problems. Member for Brennan, surely the issues affecting other parts of the Northern Territory are not exclusive. I assume you are seeing issues in Palmerston as well - quite serious issues too.
For the member for Blain and the member for Port Darwin, a simple walk down the street will indicate the same problems and, in some cases, worse. Recently in Question Time the member for Port Darwin raced over to Bennett Park, came back and indicated: ‘Yes, there are half a dozen guys over there drinking’. Some were drinking from a lemonade bottle, but it was red. Another guy had something like a nice cold Coopers in his hand - having a great old time. This is in our park, right on the doorstep, right in the CBD, and a quick walk down The Esplanade is much the same. These problems are alive and well in the Top End, make no mistake.
I reiterate the Territory opposition would support wholeheartedly measures which demonstrate they are making a difference. It has taken you this long to recognise your Alcohol Court has not worked. We have opposed the ID system because it was tied to the Alcohol Court. The Alcohol Court was not working so the ID system was completely irrelevant. It took two years to work this out.
It was another ‘oops’ bill from the member for Karama; she is very good at that. The laziness or incompetence of the member for Karama, when it comes to legislation as the Attorney-General, is quite astounding. It is staggering and quite shameful, and we should all be very worried about it.
Nevertheless, if the Territory government wants the support of the opposition and the community it needs to be honest. Unfortunately, it is not being honest; it is being deceptive and wrong and will say anything to stay in power. It is a shameful state of affairs and government members should hang their heads in shame.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I thank the Minister for Alcohol Policy for bringing this important statement before the House. Members will find my address to the House slightly different to what we have heard from the opposition. I will endeavour to be a little more positive. Much of that is based on my experience as a local member, and some of the good things that have happened over the years regarding alcohol management.
This statement is important because alcohol, and the negative affects of alcohol, have impacted so severely on the lives of Territorians that it is time to say enough is enough. It is time to act and have measures in place to address these very negative effects which impact on people’s lives on a daily basis.
The government’s five-point plan to tackle alcohol abuse, deal with and reduce antisocial behaviour and alcohol-fuelled violence and crime on our streets and in our towns, is significant because no such plan has previously been devised and no such commitment undertaken to see this tackled head-on.
The cost, as the minister has highlighted, is staggering. The recent study she referred to puts the cost associated with alcohol misuse at $642m per year, a figure which is more than four times the national average. That study attempted to calculate the cost as a dollar value to our health system, our law enforcement system, justice and Corrections, as well as the impact upon our workforce.
Less tangible in measurement is the cost to children and families; the cost of human misery. It comes as no surprise, with the release of the report last week into the care and protection of children Growing them strong, together, alcohol has been identified as a critical factor and contributor to the abuse and neglect of children.
Since the minister’s announcement of the reforms on 1 September, there has been robust debate in the media. Most of what we have heard and read is supportive of the government’s reforms and the five-point plan. In her statement, the minister highlighted the number of organisations which have come out strongly in support of the reforms, including the Aboriginal Medical Services Alliance of the Northern Territory, or AMSANT, as well as the People’s Alcohol Action Coalition in Alice Springs, led by Dr John Boffa; and also Amity, NT Council of Social Services, and FORWAARD Aboriginal corporation, to name a few. The support of these organisations is critical; they are the ones at the pointy end dealing day in and day out with the very negative impacts of alcohol abuse. Each of these organisations has applauded the fact these reforms recognise, for problem or chronic drinkers, it is a health issue, not a criminal issue.
One place there was not a great deal of public discussion about the recently announced alcohol reforms - and that is not to say people were not talking about it, because I know they were - was in my electorate. This is, no doubt, because Nhulunbuy introduced its own reforms and alcohol management plans some time ago. I have spoken in this Chamber before about the takeaway liquor permit system in place in Nhulunbuy, but I would like to talk about it more today because it is an important story and has provided, along with Groote Eylandt, a workable model; an alcohol management plan which puts in place a robust system around takeaway liquor sales in order to deal with problem drinkers.
I go back to the start and recognise the grassroots level at which the liquor reforms in Nhulunbuy, and the wider Gove Peninsula, came into being. It is well documented that, when bauxite was discovered on the Gove Peninsula and the Gove joint venture partners commenced mining, the traditional landowners launched a legal challenge to stop mining. It was a challenge they lost. Perhaps what is lesser known is the traditional owners also launched a legal challenge not to see liquor sold through takeaway outlets. They lost that challenge as well, and today there are five licensed takeaway liquor outlets in Nhulunbuy.
This background provides some context to an important letter, dated 14 November 2004, which was written to the former member for Nhulunbuy, Syd Stirling, and copied to key leaders in the community. The letter, authored by three strong Yirrkala women, the late Dr Marika, Djerrkngu Marika, and Djuwandayngu Marika, is a plea for community support to see liquor outlets in Nhulunbuy closed.
Madam Speaker, I read that letter in order to place its important message on the public record. They wrote:
That letter was a statement that effectively said: enough is enough in Yirrkala and northeast Arnhem Land. This letter generated much community debate about how alcohol might be managed to reduce the very negative impacts outlined in the letter. If we are honest here, liquor consumption was not, and is not, just an issue for the Indigenous community; it is, after all, a mining town employing a high number of males. At the time Dr Marika wrote her letter, the Alcan Gove G3 expansion had just been announced and the company was preparing to ramp up a construction workforce and mobilise more than 1500 people to site.
What ensued from that important letter in November 2004 was the formation of the Harmony Group, and a good deal of work went into drawing up what a proposal might look for to manage liquor. A formal application was lodged by Mr Banambi Wunungmurra, then Chairperson of the local Harmony Group. That proposal outlined the Gove Peninsula be a restricted area. From there, the Liquor Commission conducted public hearings and received numerous submissions, the majority in support of the introduction of restrictions.
The support was overwhelming from all sectors of the community, including residents of Nhulunbuy and the Mala leaders of Yirrkala and Gunyangara and surrounding homelands. In fact, the board and members and residents of the Laynhupuy Homelands, which services some 26 homelands in the East Arnhem region, made the decision that takeaway permits were not to be issued to homeland residents at all, who have always maintained they live healthy lives on their homelands and are people …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Honourable members, order! Too much hugging over there.
Ms WALKER: … of strong culture and law, because they do not tolerate alcohol on their traditional homelands.
Nhulunbuy Corporation was also extremely supportive and actively involved in establishing public restricted areas and organising the necessary signage. Alcan, the mining company, as the major employer in the region, also offered strong support, obviously with a vested interest in promoting workplace health and safety. They have recently introduced random testing in the workplace for alcohol and other drugs.
Though the licensees had concerns about what they saw as some of the shortcomings of the initial proposal, and that included the reliability of data systems and the difficulty of obtaining permits for visitors and tourists outside normal office hours, the licensees recognised, in broad terms, the benefits this system would have. On that note, I acknowledge they put the broader community interests above their own business interests.
On 1 March 2008, the takeaway liquor permit system came into being, after an enormous body of work to set up the system to support it had been undertaken. This included the software developed and installed at the point of sale at the takeaway liquor outlets. In the four weeks leading up to the date permits came into effect, hundreds of individuals applied for permits. There was also a huge amount of communication work. It was a new system, and there were some glitches in that system, but there was overwhelming support for it.
Like the ID system this government is implementing across the Territory, the ID system for takeaway liquor in Nhulunbuy and its surrounds is aimed at targeting problem drinkers. In Nhulunbuy, if you are not a problem drinker but a responsible drinker, life goes on as normal, beyond the initial process of applying for a permit, for which the only cost was perhaps 10 minutes of my time. It is a small price to pay, especially when the benefits in Nhulunbuy are very plain to see.
For visitors, admittedly - and the member for Katherine raised this - it is a minor inconvenience. For those visiting Nhulunbuy, Qantas and Airnorth have been extremely cooperative in that they provide information about the permit system prior to landing. Let us remember as well, anyone seeking a drink can always visit licensed premises.
I am not exaggerating when I say once the permit system came into effect in Nhulunbuy on Saturday, 1 March, the changes were dramatic and visible almost overnight. With problem drinkers put off tap, Nhulunbuy police saw a dramatic reduction in the number of people affected by alcohol taken into police custody. Gove District Hospital saw a dramatic reduction of people presenting to accident and emergency and, similarly, St John Ambulance was also called to deal with fewer incidents related to people suffering the ill effects of alcohol. Around the township of Nhulunbuy, streets were noticeably cleaner with less rubbish lying around, and antisocial behaviour around the town reduced dramatically.
With the takeaway liquor permits in place in Nhulunbuy, there needed to be additional resources in place to support the system. This included having a stronger presence of licensing inspectors rotating continuously through licensed premises because it was obvious, if people were off tap from takeaway outlets, we might expect to see an increase in those patronising on-licence premises.
Where people were purchasing takeaway alcohol and consuming it in unsupervised conditions, in contrast to consuming in on-licensed premises, licensees continued to be bound by the responsible service of alcohol.
Another important service in Nhulunbuy, supporting the alcohol management plan, is a Night Patrol service which continues to operate very effectively and efficiently under the East Arnhem Shire Council. Its aim is to assist people get home safely, but it will not take intoxicated people back to community. Rather, it will encourage, because it cannot force, those under the influence to go to the sobering-up shelter at the Nhulunbuy Special Care Centre, which also houses a 16-bed rehabilitation centre.
The Special Care Centre was built by the Northern Territory government and opened in 2008 as part of the wider strategy to address harm minimisation by specifically treating the problems caused by the abuse of alcohol and other drugs. This service in Nhulunbuy is a key part of the five-point plan which commits to increased rehabilitations services.
The minister told the House in her statement that takeaway sales make up 70% of all alcohol consumed in the Territory. Because takeaway alcohol sales are consumed in an unsupervised environment, there is no doubt this consumption is contributing to unacceptable violence and crime. Since takeaway liquor permits in Nhulunbuy were introduced on 1 March 2008, we have seen significant positive outcomes. Wholesale supply data shows the consumption of pure alcohol in Nhulunbuy has dropped by a staggering 22%.
The Attorney-General, in a media release on 31 March this year, released the December 2009 quarter crime statistics. According to this release, assaults in Nhulunbuy dropped 38% in 2009 and the decrease was 40% for the December quarter - quite staggering statistics and, no doubt, directly related to the reduction in the availability of alcohol.
It is not a perfect system, but in the two-and-a-half years it has been in operation, it has been closely monitored by stakeholders including the police, the Department of Justice Alcohol Strategy, Licensing Commission, the Department of Health, Alcohol and Other Drugs, Night Patrol, and other interested stakeholders, including traditional owners.
The member for Sanderson is right, you can ban things but people will always find a way around it. However, that does not mean we do not do it. One of the key things identified in Nhulunbuy and Groote Eylandt which seeks to undermine the takeaway liquor permit system is secondary supply where permit holders supply non-permit holders. While a certain amount of education may work, clearly, it is not enough. I welcome the minister’s announcement that these reforms will see the amendment of the Liquor Act to ensure those who supply people who are banned from purchasing and consuming takeaway alcohol lose their permits.
Awareness and education campaigns are critical. The member for Sanderson was sceptical about how we would get the message out there. Believe me, member for Sanderson, a targeted campaign and good old-fashioned word of mouth can be very effective. It has worked out my way. People are very clear about the system.
I see there are advertised community-wide forums to be held around the Northern Territory. I recently attended one in Nhulunbuy chaired by, I think, Mr Michael Brodie from the Licensing Commission. That presentation was most welcome. One of the comments made by one of the stakeholders there was:
I will do everything I can to ensure I am at the public forum at Nhulunbuy Town Hall on 8 November.
Given there has been quite a bit of talk in this Chamber about the opening hours of takeaway liquor outlets in Alice Springs and, specifically, the CLP proposal which would see earlier opening of bottle shops from 2 pm to 10 am, I have to make comment on this. I cannot remember exactly when, but many years ago in Nhulunbuy - 16 or 17 years ago - takeaway sales at the bottle shops were reduced from 2 pm to 8 pm, with Saturdays being the only opening time of 10 am. It is an accepted system in Nhulunbuy. We recognise it works. I have never heard a call for, nor been formally approached as the local member, to change or extend those opening hours.
Why is that? I suspect it is because people recognise those opening hours are sensible, it is definitely preferable to what we had previously, and there is a direct correlation that the longer the opening hours you have the more alcohol-related problems you are going to have - the more alcohol that is out there. We have a reduction in takeaway bottle shop hour sales which has been in place for many years and very effective.
I refute the proposition from the CLP the banned drinker register penalises the wider community. That was the essence of a motion put forward on their General Business Day yesterday by the member for Sanderson. Far from it, member for Sanderson, because what these reforms will do, including the banned drinker register, is make life better for the wider community because we will not be seeing the same level of antisocial behaviour and cost to the community and taxpayer in dealing with them.
A permit system which delivers benefits for the wider community as well as problem drinkers is not an impost. There is the initial set-up of a permit and, then, each time an individual makes a purchase, as the minister said yesterday, it takes about 15 seconds at the point of sale to have a driver’s licence scanned and checked.
This government works with evidence-based policy, and I am proud to see the evidence of the success of the alcohol management plans in the East Arnhem region has contributed to the current five-point plan and the Enough is Enough strategy. In East Arnhem Land we eagerly await the commencement of the Menzies School of Health study which will be undertaken …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move the member be granted an extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Ms WALKER: Thank you, member for Johnston; I have nearly finished. In East Arnhem Land we eagerly await the commencement of the Menzies School of Health study which will be undertaken to evaluate the impacts this takeaway liquor permit system is having in the East Arnhem region, as the results will no doubt further contribute to making and evaluating sound policy.
Madam Speaker, I commend the minister for her commitment to this important issue and for taking a strong stand on alcohol abuse. Those of us on this side of the House are right there behind her. I thank the minister for bringing this statement before the House.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Madam Speaker, I support the alcohol reforms the minister has brought forward and the Enough is Enough package. Since 2001, there have been many debates and reports in relation to alcohol in this House.
I was listening to the speeches of the members for Araluen and Greatorex. I listen to many speeches when it comes to alcohol because, as any member on this side of the House would tell members on that side, there is always a wowser when it comes to alcohol - a non-drinker. Alcohol reform is something I have advocated since 2001. I have been fortunate; I have had many ministers from successive Labor governments willing to look at alcohol reforms.
The member for Araluen said: ‘You tried this, it did not work, therefore, just scrap it and walk away’. I thought the Minister for Central Australia was being quite genuine in his approach to the member for Araluen by saying: ‘Let us work together. Let us try to deal with this issue in Alice Springs together’. We have issues of youth. The youth action plan is working and, like any plan, you have a suite of programs within that plan. Now that has rolled out, it takes time to see outcomes across some areas, but we are seeing them.
When you go to Alice Springs - and many of us on this side go to Alice Springs - if you believed the members from Central Australia, the sky is falling down and it is all dire. The member for Sanderson is like Eeyore from Winnie the Pooh. It is like: ‘I wake up every morning’. It is like: ‘hey, this is really’ …
Mr Hampton: They all need a hug.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: That is right; they all need a hug like we need to hug Dave because it is ‘hug Dave day’ today. I have not forgotten it; I did hug Dave today because it is really important to show the loneliest politician in the smallest Australian parliament we do think of him. He is taking it in good spirits, and I take my hat off …
Mr Tollner: I much appreciate it, Marion.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: However, I digress. The member for Fong Lim is deliberately trying to get me to digress.
Back to the members from Alice Springs. Alice Springs has its problems, like many regional towns and communities, and we have those problems in Darwin. However, it does not mean Alice Springs is a basket case and nothing works - otherwise, let us all give up and walk away.
When I was listening to the member for Araluen’s speech - it has been interesting to look at former debates. I recall one debate I had with the former member for Araluen about Alice Springs - about alcohol. It was on 1 May 2003, when this Labor government opened parliament - not just here in Darwin, we took parliament to Central Australia. It was the first time Central Australia, or anyone in Central Australia had seen democracy. This parliament went to the good people of Central Australia, and what a great time it was.
On 1 May 2003, I had a robust debate with the former member for Araluen, because she was throwing court documents around. My colleague, the member for Johnston, remembers when she came in throwing court documents around saying: ‘This town is lawless. It is the stinking drunks down the street who are causing all this’ …
Dr Burns: Dirty drunks.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: ‘The stinking, dirty drunks from the riverbeds who are causing this problem. Those stinking, dirty drunks ought to be run out of town’.
The new member for Araluen did not use the words ‘stinking, dirty drunks’, but the same tone is present. She was saying: ‘Why should I, a good citizen of Alice Springs, have to be inconvenienced because there are problems with a few?’ It is disappointing because you get the sense the new member for Araluen is no different in the view: ‘Why should I be inconvenienced because these few play up?’
I find it a disgrace; the member for Araluen’s background is as a social worker. That is the hypocrisy and the joke, but I suppose not all social workers are lefties, and maybe they are all ...
Mr Tollner: Are all social workers socialists?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: No, they are not all socialists, member for Fong Lim. There is a prerequisite.
When I stood in the 2001 election the CLP said: ‘Do not vote for her, she is only a social worker’. The CLP upset the …
Mr Tollner: Rubbish. They said: ‘Do not vote for Marion, she is a socialist’.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: The CLP upset the National Social Workers Association, because it did not like the CLP putting a slight on social workers. Social workers are at the front line of many of these issues and work very hard. I am not saying they should all be socialists, member for Fong Lim.
However, the member for Araluen contradicts herself. She is a bit of a joke. She says: ‘Oh well, Chief Minister, all these problems are happening’. In the next breath she says: ‘Oh, whilst everyone is being inconvenienced I have to order online, and many people in Alice Springs are ordering online, and that seems to be working’. That is also code for: ‘Therefore, we do not have to bump into the stinking, dirty drunks at 2 pm’.
Let us fast forward; let us look at some of the reforms. I applaud this government, this minister, and all ministers who have ever tried to deal with the issue. I applaud this minister for the suite of changes coming. Part of the Enough is Enough alcohol reform is the proposed ID. It is common knowledge if you live in the Top End, particularly in and around Darwin, I hold the seat of Arafura and one of the communities encompassed in that seat is the Tiwi Islands - my own people.
You have to be blind Freddy to walk down the street and not see the long-grassers, or people doing damage to themselves in the long grass and drinking, are Tiwi people - my countrymen. I welcome the ID system. The reason I welcome the ID system is the majority of Tiwi people in Darwin, in the long grass, drinking themselves to death, have left the island because they have been banned from the social club. If they are banned on the island, that ban should follow them into Darwin.
When the former member for Araluen and I were having this debate about alcohol on 1 May 2001, the issue of mandatory treatment was raised. I said one of the measures the government had to look at, and one of the areas the select committee I was chairing put in a report, was mandatory rehabilitation.
There have been many commentators. I have worked in health for 10 years delivering health services in many remote and regional communities. I have talked to institutions like Menzies School of Health, AMSANT, many doctors, nurses, and Alcohol and Other Drugs specialists - people working and researching in the field. Ten years ago, there was much scepticism about mandatory rehabilitation and people felt you could not force someone into treatment. Since that time, a great deal of research has been done which says you can. Programs have been enforced or mandated, and those programs have been shown to achieve the outcomes you want. Anyone who is suffering from an addiction - I do not drink but I smoke so I know what it is like to have an addiction. For drinkers you can get that support, mandate it, and help people become worthwhile citizens.
When people run the rights argument; it is ‘my right to drink’ or ‘my right to be left alone’ and ‘I drink and I vote’, they need to bear in mind when people are destroying themselves and causing that much harm to themselves, it is not only themselves they are harming. Usually, behind these people are families. I have spoken in this House before about what it was like as one of 11 children who grew up in a house with a chronic alcoholic father. Every single day of your life was involved in the constant cycle of drinking and the violence which came from that drinking.
When I participate in debates about alcohol, it is interesting when people say: ‘Oh, well, I am representing a group of people and you are not listening to the business community’, or ‘You are not listening to this industry’. How about listening to the kids? Does anyone? That is what makes the member for Araluen’s contribution such a joke. She is the shadow representative for child protection or community services. She talks about this issue on one hand and, then, talks about child protection, child safety, and child welfare. The biggest risk our children face every day in Darwin, Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs - is with grog. Alcohol is the biggest cause of the family and social breakdown we see in our communities.
The member for Araluen needs to stop contradicting herself and get her story straight. It is one thing to represent your constituents, but not all your constituents are businesses and industries. There are people with families whose lives are affected by grog, and we all have that responsibility.
I wish, when I was a little kid and we were locked in our house and every night I watched my father bash the hell out of my mother when he was drunk, that someone had taken some responsibility and mandated my father stop doing that. People need to sit up and, instead of thinking about their own agendas - if we are going to be serious about tackling child safety and welfare, alcohol is a major issue.
I applaud the minister, I applaud the government; it is a bold move. People are going to be critical of this and say we have infringed on their rights. However, think, when we have this debate, and when people come up to you, what about the rights of those children? That is the one area many people lose in this debate. As adults we have a right, but nobody speaks for that silent voice, those children who do not get an opportunity to say: ‘I do not want my mum or dad to be drinking tonight. I do not want my money to be spent on grog’. Who represents those children? That is where the member for Araluen needs to pull her head in and think about what she says.
She also mentioned youth curfews. During the Araluen by-election she carried on about youth curfews. The member for Araluen, instead of being lazy like most members in the opposition, should talk to her Liberal colleagues in Western Australia and look at some of their programs in, I believe, Port Lincoln in South Australia, or Port Hedland - Northridge - in Western Australia. Through most of those areas in Western Australia the government had trialled youth curfews for nearly a year in an effort to combat youth crime and antisocial behaviour. The curfews and programs put in place were removed by the Western Australian Liberal government because, whilst they worked in the short term, in the longer term they did not have the effect the government, police, and other people dealing with this issue wanted; they did not work.
Member for Araluen, stop being so lazy! Get out and look where extensive research has been done and programs put in place in other areas in Australia looking at youth curfews ...
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! I move an extension of time for the member pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I thank my colleague; I am nearly finished.
It was interesting listening to the members for Araluen and Greatorex, and many members on the other side - absolutely no solutions. Every time we debate different things - no contributions. There are never any contributions about solutions, or providing some guidance as to these programs. No, that does not happen. It is just whingeing, whining, carping - the usual rhetoric of oppositions.
We know Enough is Enough is timely. The drinking problem is not just an Aboriginal problem; we have a problem with alcohol across our communities and we need to deal with it.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I will not go further than to say I look forward to the exposure draft and these reforms rolling out, particularly the ID system. Within my own electorate, that is a program which will work.
Dr BURNS (Education and Training): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I support the statement by the Minister for Alcohol Policy. I believe it is a comprehensive statement which dovetails with the exposure draft of proposed changes the minister tabled and spoke to this morning. There will be much public debate of this issue. There has already been quite a bit of debate in this House.
I listened carefully to what various members of the opposition had to say on this statement. In most cases, the opposition has said fairly predictable things about the proposals. In essence, they are asking why the majority should be penalised for the actions of the minority, asserting the government’s measures are unlikely to work. That is it in a nutshell.
Of all the offerings from the opposition, the one which particularly interested me was the offering from the member for Port Darwin, which was very thoughtful. It was very revealing and personal and it raised some very deep issues. To some degree, it went to the very heart of the alcohol problem we are facing in the Northern Territory. What I heard the member for Port Darwin talk about was his own experience with alcoholism and how he had to come to the very depths, I suppose - I am not sure if those were the words he used - but more or less the end of his tether. He was fortunate he had someone who could give him a bit of a shake up. He then set about turning his life around and setting on the right path and, basically, walking away from the problem he had. All credit to the member for Port Darwin.
As I listened to the member for Port Darwin, I thought about the deep themes of redemption and salvation. I know they are Christian themes. There are many religions and each of them will have similarities in their approaches to this. However, the Christian theme, the story of redemption and salvation, is one I am familiar with. It starts with someone acknowledging they have a problem, that they are doing the wrong thing, they are in the wrong spot - acknowledging they have a problem and wanting to turn their life around. I am sure there are many different religions and philosophies across the world with the same theme, albeit with different ways of talking and thinking about it.
There are a few elements there. The first one is that someone acknowledges they have a problem. That is also the key theme of Alcoholics Anonymous. You have to say: ‘I have a problem, I am an alcoholic, I want to do something about it, and I want to seek help’. This is a common theme. That is exactly what the member for Port Darwin did. He also reflected, very profoundly, on the help he received and the fact that - I think the exact words he used were people need to take control of their lives, people need to take responsibility. To a large degree, I agree with that.
The member for Port Darwin also said it is no good saying this person is disadvantaged socioeconomically, or have come from a background of poverty and despair. The basic message he had is it not an excuse and no one should be offering that as an excuse, because it lets that person off the hook by saying: ‘I have a problem’.
I agree with that to some degree too. However, in this place, we have to acknowledge there are many factors which come to bear when someone becomes an alcoholic or an addict of some kind. Certainly, in our very nature as human beings, we all exhibit, in some ways, addictive behaviours - whether it is to Tim Tams, tobacco, coffee, or tea. There is a range of behaviours. Whether we have a routine where we like to watch the football at a certain time every Saturday afternoon, or we go shopping at a certain time, or there is a certain cereal we buy. To some degree, these are elements and reflections of addictive behaviour in various forms. Of course, what we are talking about here is the most serious form: physical addiction to a substance such as alcohol.
My parents always had a saying I remember, and I am sure other peoples’ parents had the same saying. If I saw an alcoholic and I said something, my parents would say: ‘You be thankful, because there, but for the grace of God, go you or I’. That is a profound saying because it acknowledges that person might have had to bear all sorts of grief, problems, and pain. None of us in this life know what the future is.
I am thankful I have had a pretty easy run in life. I have had much privilege in my life, but there are many people in this world who have not, who have been dealt pretty serious cards. I think of my mother’s uncle, who came back from World War I, with all he had seen and experienced there. When he came back from that war, he hit the bottle. What did that man see? What did he experience there? Could I, or any person in this House, say if we were exposed to what those Diggers were exposed to in Gallipoli and France - because that is where he served - that we would not have become alcoholics as well; that we would have tried to bury our sorrows and terrible memories of that conflict and everything we had seen - the pain and suffering - in the bottle? So, let none of us here get too self-righteous about being able to make decisions and being strong about things, because we all need help and support.
If you look at history, even recent history, not just in Australia, but in European countries and the Soviet Union, after conflicts like world wars, economic hardship, and depression, often you find people - a whole wedge of the population - who become alcoholics or have problems with alcohol. That was certainly the problem in Russia before and after the collapse of the Soviet Republic. It was true of Europe post-war.
During the Industrial Revolution in England, as people moved into town, there was starvation or malnutrition, poverty, and disease. That is when people started drinking gin. Gin was the favoured drink of the very lowest classes - if you want to think in terms of a class system - in England during the Industrial Revolution. The famous lithograph by Hogarth called Gin Lane shows this depravity, disadvantage, poverty and disease. Alcoholism was rampant at that time in European history.
It does not come as a surprise to me that many Indigenous people in the Northern Territory are trying to bury their sorrows and troubles in alcohol, having been through such profound change - social, economic, cultural and spiritual – over the last 100 or 150 years. As the member for Arafura said, it is not just a problem in the Indigenous population, but it is more visible. It is very visible in many ways because people live in the long-grass; people are visible in public places around the Territory.
The member for Port Darwin said people need to take responsibility for themselves and their families. I agree with that. We have to support people to do that. We have to get the message through to people. We have just debated child protection and talked about the importance of people looking after their children and the responsibilities of people looking after their children. I will be saying to people as I see them, and I see and know quite a few people: ‘Where is your family? Do your kids not need you back home? Why are you here having a drink? You owe it to yourself and your family to be at home’. Maybe that is taking a bit too much on myself and I should not be saying such things, but I feel compelled to. I believe we all have to say it. At that human level, that is what people understand. They understand about their own family. I believe they understand their responsibilities, but we have to show support for those people who are unable to control their addictive behaviour.
I fundamentally disagree with the position of the opposition which is to criminalise drunkenness. That is, essentially, what the opposition wants to do and that is a fundamental difference I have with the opposition. I agree with John Boffa and others; we need to understand the health and medical implications of this and not criminalise it.
Yes we need to be tough, and the government’s proposal to declare people habitual drunks is tough. It is tough to direct them into compulsory treatment, say they are on the banned drinker register and we will not allow them drink. There may be some in Australia who say that is paternalistic; I believe it is the right step for this government to take because it is such a large problem and has accelerated since the intervention. It is a counterproductive effect of the intervention.
I am not saying it was not occurring and there was not a flow of people into town drinking before the intervention, but it has been a counterproductive effect of the intervention. I said as much to Mal Brough and I have said it many times. I said it at a public meeting the former member for Solomon convened at the Nightcliff Sports Club with the then Justice minister, David Johnston - a very nice person. I said to both of them and those gathered at this public meeting that a fear of mine was we would have an accelerated movement of people into the towns, more drinking in the towns, and more social problems within the larger urban centres in the Northern Territory.
As a government, we are moving to address this issue and it is targeted at the problem drinkers. Others have painted the stark picture, as the minister said, of the problems around alcohol, domestic violence and other issues in our community. That is why this statement given by the minister, and the exposure draft she laid on the Table today, fits square and centre with the report by the committee which Howard Bath chaired.
Much has been said about alcohol harm in the Northern Territory. There is nothing more certain than the amount of harm is directly proportional to the amount of alcohol people drink. The restraints and strategies we have had in Alice Springs, although members opposite have not liked them, have had a positive effect. It is not going to be a silver bullet by itself. We need to engage with people. The supply side is very important, but we also need to engage with people and their families on this very deep issue of alcohol abuse in the Northern Territory.
The minister outlined the five-point plan of government. There will be mandatory alcohol treatment orders, the banned drinker register - of which there has been much debate - and Alcohol Court reforms. We took the step with Alcohol Courts, but we have always acknowledged we need to do more. We are a government which has taken steps in alcohol reforms and are prepared to take further steps to address this issue. We want increased rehabilitation services and awareness campaigns. That is crucial because you cannot only address this issue through the supply side; you have to address it through the demand side.
A problem drinker is defined as someone who:
has been taken into protective custody three times in three months; or
The problem with criminalising this behaviour is sometimes people who are a problem are not transgressing the law as such. They might be a nuisance, a pest, a worry for themselves and the rest of the community, but many of these people are not criminals. They have a health problem, a medical problem; they are alcoholics. I do not believe the right way to go is to criminalise this behaviour.
Police will have power to issue bans of up to 12 months to prevent problem drinkers from purchasing and consuming takeaway alcohol. We have talked about the first ban being three months, the second ban being six months and the third being 12 months, with a referral made to the new Alcohol and Other Drugs Tribunal. That is something I was keen to do when I was minister and I am glad the current minister has taken this up. In consultation with magistrates, lawyers, and others it became clear to me what I have been saying all along is correct: the justice system does not want to pull people through the courts who have committed no criminal offence. They do not want to criminalise drunkenness, they want a tribunal system similar to what we have in the mental health system where we can deal with these people and safeguard their interests and safety, as well as safeguard the interests and safety of the community. That is why this tribunal is a very good model, rather than criminalising this behaviour.
The tribunal will have the power to issue a range of orders such as alcohol bans and mandatory treatment. Once a person comes before the tribunal, they will have to undertake clinical assessment. These assessments will be done by professionals.
The opposition’s scheme says if you have been in protective custody at a similar frequency to what is being proposed by government, bang, you go straight to gaol. These people have medical needs. The member for Port Darwin said: ‘We are not going to put them in gaol, we are going to erect a cyclone fence and put them in there because they are not as much of a risk to security as prisoners’.
Member for Port Darwin, going through alcohol withdrawal is potentially fatal. I am not over-dramatising. You need specialised treatment; you need doctors present, a range of medical personnel, and other support. If you are going to take someone into withdrawal they cannot just go cold turkey because they could die or have severe reactions and their health could be adversely affected. This needs to be done in a very professional way ...
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move an extension of time for the minister.
Motion agreed to.
Dr BURNS: I thank colleagues for the extension of time.
Whilst I appreciate what the member for Port Darwin is saying about it being a fairly simple thing, in his view, to pull people through the courts, put them somewhere for three months, and let them out again, it is a bit more complicated than that. Having professional assessments and the right sort of support is the way to go for a range of reasons.
One of the other differences is the government’s proposal has a banned drinker register. Currently, people can have prohibition orders taken out against them under the law. Historically, that has always been an avenue for courts to proclaim someone as a prohibited drinker. However, the problem has always been enforcement. How do you know Joe Bloggs who walks into your hotel is not a banned drinker from Katherine or even the hotel down the road? That has always been a problem. With the ID register – something I initially introduced in Alice Springs, Katherine and elsewhere - the technologies are now available. It is developing further, as the minister said, and there is capacity now for a larger roll-out of this technology.
It is not going to solve the problem entirely because, as the opposition pointed out, there is always the potential for secondary supply. We have addressed that through legislation. Of course it will not be a perfect system, but there will be penalties for secondary supply. It does not take much of an operation to see the sober ones go into licensed premises and start supplying to those outside. It is all about cutting down the pool of people who can drink and are abusing the system. This is a step in the right direction. I am not pretending, and neither is the government, that this is a silver bullet either, but it is a step in the right direction. The rest of the government’s initiatives are trying to address the problem.
Regarding Alcohol Court reforms, the Alcohol Court was brought in when Peter Toyne was Attorney-General. There have been further developments of the Alcohol Court; this is a further development again. As we have gone through these processes, we have listened very carefully to the magistrates, police, those who bring these matters through the court, and other agencies. This is a process of development. It is probably leading the way in Australia in Alcohol Courts. This government is proposing further steps to further improve this process.
Once again, we are not pretending any part of this is a silver bullet. As a government, we need to put comprehensive policies in place. As the member for Port Darwin pointed out, and as I alluded to, it comes down to individuals wanting to turn their lives around with the support of their families and others. It is about individual choice, but there are many other factors we need to take into account. As the member for Port Darwin said, where we want to get to cannot be achieved by government, agencies, or anyone; it has to be a whole-of-community approach, as does child protection. The Alcohol Court reforms have been very important.
The member for Nelson has always been very keen on awareness campaigns making people aware of the effects of alcohol. I heard the members for Nelson and Port Darwin, and others, say maybe it is time for a new ad on the television. I got that message as well. Sometimes, you really have to emphasise something time and time again. Government should always be looking at its communications. That was a worthwhile suggestion.
We have gone out to public consultation on this. No doubt there will be much public debate and people will say: ‘Why should I be penalised? Why should the majority be penalised for the behaviour of the minority?’ Those who have lived in a house with an alcoholic know sometimes you have to hide the grog. Sometimes you have to make sure there is no alcohol around they can get hold of so it can wreak its havoc. Putting that on a larger scale, as a community maybe we have to look at the issue of alcohol and people who should not have access to it.
There are other measures such as a wine cask ban. I understand what people say; that there will be displacement to other products. That is what alcoholics do; they will drink anything. However, the wine cask is a very convenient form of alcohol. The unit price is quite low which is why people prefer wine casks to other forms of alcohol. We need to keep shifting and changing. We also need to try every measure we can to reduce the impact of this problem.
The minister mentioned the Darwin and Palmerston Alcohol Management Plan. I really must compliment the minister on the way she has engaged with both Palmerston and Darwin City Councils. I believe she found that those councillors stepped up to the plate and are keen to go further. They are keen to implement a range of measures around this. It is good to see local government engaged. We have to attack this as a whole-of-community. I commend the councils of Palmerston and Darwin and the council of Alice Springs.
What we lose sight of here is that the alcohol measures which were introduced into Alice Springs, particularly the dry town, were done at the request of the Alice Springs Town Council. Also, in Katherine, I had discussions with the mayor and other councillors, and they were keen for government to take action. It is very important that local government takes a stand on this.
There are many other things I could talk about, but I will close where I started, with what the member for Port Darwin had to say. I will say it again; I know he is listening. I found what he said about his own personal journey and experience very moving. It was very courageous of him to do that. It opened many questions in my mind about redemption, salvation, the bottom line of AA where you have to say: ‘I have a problem. I am an alcoholic and I want to change’. You are right, member for Port Darwin; that is what each and every one of those alcoholics has to do. However, they need the right support, the right direction and, sometimes, they need to be protected from themselves.
This government has the right approach by not criminalising drunkenness but looking upon it as a health problem, a medical problem, and a social problem, and acting in a way to solve it which is compassionate but also tough and firm. People will understand. As the member for Arafura said, there are many families and children who will thank us, as a community and a parliament, for taking action and debating this. It is useful for us to have debate. We may disagree on it, but one thing we fundamentally agree on now - which is a big change from when I came to this House in 2001 - is we have a big alcohol problem in the Northern Territory. We may have different ways of trying to address it and reduce it, but at least this parliament, as a whole, is focused on one of the major challenges to the Northern Territory, alcohol abuse.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend this statement to the House.
Debate adjourned.
Ms McCARTHY (Arnhem): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mrs AAGAARD (Nightcliff): A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I believe the Leader of Government Business needed to move a motion in relation to the next sitting day prior to adjourning the Assembly.
___________________
Next Sitting Day
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Deputy Speaker, I do apologise.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly at its rising adjourn until Tuesday, 23 November 2010 at 10 am in Parliament House or such other time and/or date as may be advised by the Speaker pursuant to sessional order.
Motion agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, so I can get it on the record, the arrangement was - and I appreciate what I have just been told - it is my understanding the Ombudsman’s Annual Report was to be tabled today, along with another report. I have not heard hide nor hair of that and now we are adjourning the House. I ask the government, do I need to be concerned about the failure of this report to appear?
Dr BURNS: Madam Deputy Speaker, I will respond to that.
Member for Port Darwin, yes, the concern was raised with me earlier and I made inquiries of the Tabled Papers Office. The report has not arrived. I understand inquiries were made with Cabinet Office and it is my understanding - I have not had a chance to check - the Ombudsman’s Annual Report had not arrived at Cabinet Office.
Mr ELFERINK: My understanding is also the Mataranka Report, which is quite critical of government, has not appeared. This is why I am becoming concerned, my understanding is that an Ombudsman’s report which deals with the Mataranka Cattle Station …
Dr BURNS: Well, that is certainly a matter that …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, the Assembly has been adjourned.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to move a suspension of standing orders to discuss this matter now.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: No.
Dr BURNS: It has been deemed.
Mr ELFERINK: I am seeking leave. All she has to do is put the question.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is leave granted?
Leave denied.
Mr ELFERINK: That is outrageous. There is something really amiss here. If you blokes promise to deliver reports, you should deliver them.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Nightcliff, you have the call.
Mrs AAGAARD (Nightcliff): Madam Deputy Speaker, tonight I wish to speak on the 2010 Portrait of a Senior Territorian Art Award and Exhibition.
Honourable members, I hope you have taken the opportunity to view the high standard of entries in the award this year and have shown your support by voting in the People’s Choice Award. There were 42 entries on display in the Main Reception Hall and it is encouraging that the entrants range in age from 12-years old to 81-years old. These portraits help to tell us a story of senior Territorians and are an opportunity to celebrate their experiences and valuable contribution to the community.
On Friday, 15 October, it was my pleasure to host a reception in Parliament House which was attended by hundreds of seniors, artists, portrait subjects and members of the arts community who came together to celebrate artistic excellence and the people who have helped shaped the rich tapestry of the Northern Territory.
The celebration was enjoyed by all who attended and I thank the Grey Panthers for their fantastic rendition of Pink Panther and I Go To Rio, and Reggae Dave for his engaging performance of Blue Moon and Blue Suede Shoes. I also extend my sincere thanks to the members who participated in the entertainment: the members for Arafura, Port Darwin and Sanderson. I also thank former Chief Minister, the Honourable Professor Clare Martin and the Honourable Grant Tambling for lending their vocal chords to the festivities.
Guests were asked to dress in pink and blue to help increase awareness of breast and prostate cancer. October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month, and ‘Movember’ assists in raising awareness of men’s health, specifically prostrate cancer and depression. Guests were also given either a pink National Breast Cancer Foundation wristband or a blue Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia lapel pin, and were provided with information on how to detect these cancers.
The fashion parade was the highlight and I extend my thanks to the judges, the Honourable Sally Thomas AM and Mr Daniel Bourchier of the NT News, for their discerning taste and, in Daniel’s case, providing inspiration to all on how to really sashay down a catwalk.
Alice Springs artist, Dr Al Strangeways was announced as the winner of the $5000 Government House Acquisition Award for her work titled Mona. It is the second time Dr Strangeways has won the award with a portrait featuring Mona Hunter. Unfortunately, Dr Strangeways was unable to attend in person, but via phone accepted her award with excitement, and spoke with compassionate respect for her subject.
Although Dr Strangeways always drew as a child, she did not study the subject and only began painting in 1998 after emigrating from the UK. She mainly works in oils and is fascinated by the identity of things and how things express this, or aspects of this in different ways and at different times. Al’s paintings attempt to represent a moment of glimpsing or catching the internal landscape of the thing - be it a cloud, place, or person.
Mona Hunter was born in 1931 in Mintabie to a Luritja mother and an Irish father, and was brought up on Wintanna Station and then on Welbourn Hill Station, spending much of her life on station properties in South and Central Australia. Mona moved to Alice Springs in 1992 after the death of her husband. She has 10 children, 23 grandchildren and seven great-grandchildren.
Highly commended were Mrs Jessica Cook for her portrait of Reverend Yulki Nunggumajbarr; Ms Lucy Keeler, for her portrait of Mr Stan Kennon; and Ms Cait Wait for her portrait of Ms Linda Munhawala Bidingal. Mrs Shirley Downing received the Speaker’s Award for her self-portrait titled Self-Portrait Another Page.
I also extend my congratulations to Ms Lucy Keeler for winning the $1000 People’s Choice Prize for her portrait of Mr Stan Kennon.
I convey my thanks to the Government House Foundation for their generous sponsorship of the Acquisition Award, and to the judges Dr Andrea Ash and Dr Carole Wilson of the School of Creative Arts and Humanities at Charles Darwin University, and Mr Chips Mackinolty, a celebrated Northern Territory artist and personality, for lending their expertise and time. They told me it was a very hard choice to make but were thrilled by the quality of entries this year and the story-telling and relationships between artists and their subjects.
I thank Exhibition Coordinator, Madge Fletcher, who worked hard for five weeks to produce an exhibition which would do justice to the artists and their subjects. She has done exceptional work and should be proud of the quality of the exhibition; I know she has enjoyed being part of a project which allowed artists to capture the unique stories of senior Territorians.
I also thank the Master of Ceremonies, the Clerk of the Parliament, Mr Ian McNeill. He was one of our singers - I failed to mention him before. I also thank my staff, Vishal Mohan-Ram and Amy Robinson, for their efforts.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will say a few words about Australia’s first saint, Mary MacKillop, and her connection to the Northern Territory.
I am an admirer of Mary MacKillop. This may be because I went to a primary school in Melbourne which was run by the Sisters of St Joseph, or the Joeys as I knew them. It may be because my father would drive a group of nuns from their convent in Hawthorn, Melbourne, to their little school in working class Richmond, when he was working in the city in the 1950s and 1960s. Or it may be because my mum’s sister was a Sister of St Joseph for nearly 80 years; her religious name was Sister Philomena. She spent hours when she retired from teaching researching the life of Mother Mary MacKillop.
I probably admire her most, and the real reason I believe she is a saint is, because she was a tough nut who spent her life fighting against the odds, whether it was sickness, the harshness of the bush, the vast distances, the church hierarchy, managing the order of nuns, or just hanging onto her great faith, which is reflected in her great desire to help the less fortunate, especially through education.
She was tough, yes, but she loved the poor, the children without education, prostitutes, and people in need. You can argue the toss about whether you believe in miracles; but, having read her biography I know she was a good woman who believed in God and helping others. A few more like that today and our mad, mad world might not be a bad thing.
How was she connected to the Territory? Indirectly, through her brother, Donald, who was one of the first Australian-born Jesuits. If you are an NT history buff, you would know the Jesuits came to Darwin in 1882 - more to the point, Rapid Creek. The Jesuits started three small missions on or near the Daly River, which is where Donald was sent. The missions were eventually closed because of flood and financial reasons and the Jesuits left the Territory in 1889.
One article I read said Mary was very supportive of Donald, and even planned to send Josephite Sisters to help look after the Aboriginal women on the mission. The plan never eventuated; the principle reasons being the fear of Jesuit superiors for the safety of the Sisters in isolation, and the precarious future of the mission.
Whether you are religious or not, whether you believe in saints or miracles, Mary MacKillop is someone we can look to and use as a role model, especially for young people; as an example of doing good and helping others; of putting others first and oneself second; and having the courage, determination, and faith to conquer adversity and pain; being a down-to-earth woman, a great Australian, and an honorary Territorian.
I will also say a few words about the RAAF Base which the member for Fong Lim spoke about last night. II did say something last night, but I only had a few seconds.
The RAAF Base suburb of Eaton is a really important issue for the whole of parliament, especially those members of parliament who live in the Darwin area. The shortage of houses and the high rents have been stated many times. To have 400 or so houses likely to be bulldozed simply because they do not come up to RAAF standards is something which should concern us all.
This is a suburb with infrastructure, and houses that, for most ordinary folk, would be quite sufficient, maybe with a coat of paint and some repairs. Just because the pantry does not come up to the RAAF standards is not a good reason for saying the house is not suitable. If there is a bit of asbestos - well, since when is asbestos a problem if you paint the building? It is nearly immoral to allow, without making any effort, the Department of Defence to knock these houses down.
The RAAF Base is a pretty big chunk of land, and the word I have heard is the so-called ‘strategic need’ for warehouses. Surely, there is room either on the RAAF Base, or at the port, for warehouses. We really need to make an effort.
I am pleading with the government to appoint a member of the government - either the Minister for Defence Support or the Minister for Public and Affordable Housing - and I spoke to the member for Fong Lim last night and he would be happy to join this gang, as I would be - to go to Canberra as a united group and lobby the Minister for Defence to retain these houses.
The Labor Party believes in social justice; this is a social justice issue. We are short of accommodation; we are short on putting roofs over people’s heads. We are not talking about itinerants or long-grassers; we are talking about people who cannot afford a mortgage. We are talking about people who are struggling to pay the rent and, probably, if they are paying rent, have very little money for anything else.
I ask the government to consider a member from each side of parliament. I say the member for Fong Lim, not just because he sits here and he does not have a portfolio, but …
Mr Chandler: Oh, he has won you over already.
Mr WOOD: No. He was a member of federal government, and he has had something to do with this situation. He also would have the contacts, which make this a sensible proposal.
Once again, I say to the government, this is a proposal worth supporting. If we all go together we can put a good case to the Department of Defence to save these houses.
I also think the member for Fong Lim would make a great new member of the Council of Territory Cooperation.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Madam Deputy Speaker, I start my adjournment by congratulating Evan and Julia Tyrrell on the birth of their first baby this morning. Mother and baby are doing well. I do not know about Evan; he has not come down from seventh heaven.
This Friday, we celebrate World Teachers’ Day and I take the opportunity to thank the teachers and educators in my electorate for the wonderful job they do in educating our children. I know how hard they work, and I appreciate the dedication and commitment to education and learning they provide for the future of our children. This Friday, we pay extra tribute to you all, and I thank you again for your continued hard work. I look forward to catching up with you in the schools in my electorate with either a morning tea or some afternoon drinks.
Dripstone Middle School has enjoyed a great Semester 2, with many great moments. The science lab is now finished, and children are learning in a high-tech lab with new resources and interactive whiteboards. I also congratulate Dripstone Middle School for the Dripstone Day fundraiser which raised almost $25 000 towards the purchase of a new state-of-the-art wheelchair for one of their students. The students’ determination and heartfelt compassion shone through in their generous donations and the time and effort they put in.
My congratulations go to Alawa Primary School and the very excited Alawa school community which has worked so hard to build strong partnerships, resulting in the Alawa Farm and the Stephanie Alexander Kitchen Garden programs. Alawa Primary School was originally announced the winning school for the Smart School Awards category, Excellence in Community and Industry Partnerships; with West Arnhem College receiving a highly commended in this category at the inaugural Small Schools Award gala event evening. Thanks to Cisco, the sponsor of this award, Alawa Primary School received $20 000 in cash and other prizes. It is fantastic to have Alawa Primary’s achievements acknowledged by DEET and the educational community.
Nakara Primary has had another successful year. Student attendance has been very good, and they have welcomed a number of new families to the community over the past six months. Numbers have continued to rise, with a need for another 0.5 teacher in the preschool.
Congratulations to Ajay Emmanuel, Thimithri Kulutunga, Izaak Fernando and Ashleigh Holland who received my Student Achievement Award this term for their outstanding effort at school. The upgrades and building projects have now finished. They have caused some disruption at school, but they all managed very well during that period.
The end of 2010 also sees the end of an era for Nakara Primary School with the retirement of a great friend and long-serving Principal, Barry Griffin. Barry will be remembered for his dedication and commitment to education, his ability to see projects through to completion, creating one of the best after school hours care facilities in Darwin, committing to a music program second to none, and introducing and participating in a morning fitness program for upper primary students which is the talk of the town - just to name a few. There will not only be a Year 6 farewell, sadly, there will be other farewell functions too. However, they will be celebrating and, no doubt, Nakara will celebrate in style. I look forward to catching up with Barry to celebrate his retirement and have a drink with him.
I give my sincere thanks to all the volunteers from the Casuarina Landcare Group for cleaning and visiting the beautiful Casuarina Coastal Reserve. Recently they undertook a huge cleanup along the beach area starting from the Lyons end; the Casuarina Landcare Group will continue its regular working bees throughout the year. I am always happy to help out with cold drinks for the workers, or with resources such as photocopying flyers in my electoral office.
I now turn to some of the issues raised this afternoon in Question Time, especially the issue raised by the member for Katherine about the hospital. The member for Katherine alleged, or was advised, that the maternity ward lost beds, there was no pharmacist, and there was disruption in the wards.
I advise the member for Katherine to check his informer thoroughly.
The maternity ward had 14 beds; the maximum ever used was six beds, so the manager of the hospital allocated some extra beds to the general ward. Yes, the pharmacist has resigned; however, recruitment commenced immediately and the new pharmacist will start probably before the current pharmacist leaves.
Previously, I heard the member for Nelson talking about the RAAF Base. I had the privilege to serve in the Royal Australian Air Force from 1994 to 1999 as a Flying Officer and a Flight Lieutenant in Environment Health. The RAAF Base was never maintained properly. I well recall numerous Air Force members’ wives and partners complaining to me bitterly about the condition of the houses. I issued numerous orders for the upgrades of either plumbing or painting, removing walls, or removing humidity from the houses. Some of the houses were in such a state of disrepair that whole rooms had to be demolished and reconstructed.
In addition to that, the predictions of the noise corridors of the new aircraft which will come to the RAAF Base extend so much that most of the RAAF Base will be affected, which means the RAAF Base cannot be used for human habitation.
I recall when I was the Minister for Essential Services there was an inquiry by the then federal government about normalising the base, which meant excising the land where the houses were from Defence and giving it to the Northern Territory government. The only request we made was investigation of the provision of services, the condition of the services, and to bring them up to the Territory standards of that time. A review conducted of the electricity, power and water, and sewerage services at the base, because they were constructed in the 1960s under the Commonwealth standard, indicated that to upgrade the base to the current Power and Water standards would cost $150m to $200m. After that the Commonwealth went very quiet because if it had to upgrade the services to the value of $200m, God knows how much it would have cost to upgrade some of the houses.
It is a very interesting situation. Many of those houses are very old and not to the RAAF standards. At the same time, the RAAF Base would be affected by the noise emitted by the new aircraft which, apparently, are quite noisy and there would not be much option for people to live in a residential area under those conditions.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to talk briefly on the report from the Ombudsman’s Office which has been put into the Table Office. Its title is Report of Investigation into the Treatment of Cattle and Horses at Charles Darwin University’s Mataranka Station.
This has just come into the parliament and I have only had a very cursory read of the executive summary and some of the recommendations. What I want to place on the record is the concern I know is out there in regard to how the Northern Territory government is going about the management and supervisory work of pastoral properties.
Last week, the Pastoral Lands Board document was tabled. It said the Pastoral Lands Board is grossly understaffed and is six years behind in investigating and reviewing some pastoral properties, and four years behind in reviewing other pastoral properties.
This is a very important document; it is exceptionally comprehensive. It is nearly 300 pages with some very graphic photographs and a CD. In my preliminary look at this document I am concerned there is no mention of the supervisory and regulatory role of the Northern Territory government in regard to pastoral properties and the components of a cattle station; that is, the livestock and the quality of the land.
It is the job of the Pastoral Lands Board to inspect or review the condition of pastoral properties. Given there were some issues with this cattle station, if the board had been resourced adequately to do the job it had been charged to do, then perhaps some of the issues raised in this report would have been caught up with well before they reached a point of no return.
I know there are only two animal welfare officers for all the Northern Territory. Two, to do all cattle station work, pet management work, or any other kind of work they have to do. I do not know who these people are, but they must have a huge burden and must be very stretched in their work.
That is a failing of this government. Two animal welfare officers for all of the Northern Territory, and they come under the Local Government department. When they need extra assistance, or any assistance, they go to the department of Primary Industry and call upon the assistance of stock inspectors. There are not enough of those either. I will be talking about this report in greater detail at the next sittings after going through all 300 pages, talking with industry, and the people involved with this station.
I place on the record my concern - not of the fact it is being investigated or reviewed by the Ombudsman, that is right and proper - the fact there are deficiencies in the resourcing of the department to look at these kinds of issues in the key area of Primary Industry, which is appalling. I reserve further comments for the November sittings.
Mr HAMPTON (Stuart): Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to discuss again an issue I raised last night during adjournment about mail services from Australia Post in my electorate.
Last night I raised the issue in relation to constituents on the Sturt Plateau, which is southwest of Katherine and comprises around 14 pastoral properties. The district fought hard for mail services to be started in the late 1990s and the area has been serviced once a week out of Katherine by a private courier company.
I wish to raise another issue in relation to mail services, this time at the community of Willowra in my electorate. It is the same as Sturt plateau, the people at Willowra, and many other remote communities, rely heavily on mail services. Communities similar to Willowra, as well as people living on vast pastoral properties in the Sturt plateau, do not have access to mobile phones. They have very limited access to landline phones, and often rely on the public phones in their communities. Therefore, mail becomes the most important form of communication for people there.
The issue was brought to my attention some time ago, and again yesterday, through the Willowra store. I saw the sheer frustration of the store manager at Willowra at the lack of responsibility by anyone for mail services to Willowra, and the sheer frustration that often responsibility falls to the store. There are different parts of responsibility and at the moment no one is taking it on; often it is put onto the store, sometimes it is put onto the shire, and on occasions the responsibility to deliver mail is put onto the GBM or people who happen to be visiting Willowra from Alice Springs.
The store manager has given me a few examples of the frustrations he has had. There have been about four occasions when either he, as shire manager, the GBM or someone coming from Alice Springs, has had to deliver mail. The plane service, Chartair, does a mail drop on a weekly basis and arrives at Willowra each Thursday; it has six communities on its run. However, the store has been advised if Chartair cannot get to a majority of community airstrips they will not deliver to the others. If one airstrip is out of commission - for example, there has been too much rain - the other five communities do not get the mail service.
The other major issue impacting on that is cost. As I said last night, Australia Post has recently announced a $103m profit, but in remote regions of Australia, particularly in my electorate, they are cutting back on these types of services to the bush as the board of Australia Post goes through its strategic planning to cut costs – part of that is reducing overheads such as these services.
There needs to be discussion between the store, the shire and the GBM, and also between the federal government and Australia Post. I would like to see more commitment from them in continuing this really important service to people in the bush. There needs to be some simple solution, such as Australia Post entering into a contract arrangement with the shires in the Northern Territory which includes arrangements if airstrips are closed and the mail plane cannot get into communities such as Willowra. People have to drive 143 km to the Stuart Highway to collect their mail; that is ridiculous. I would like Australia Post to have discussions with local government, or the shires, and enter into some arrangement which would see this service to places like Willowra and the Sturt Plateau continue.
The other impact the store manager raised with me is if the plane does not arrive on a Thursday it could be one or two weeks, sometimes longer, before people at Willowra receive mail. If the shire manager or store manager cannot get to Ti Tree to pick it up, or no one from Alice Springs is driving in, and the mail plane has not arrived, it could be up to three weeks before people get their mail at Willowra.
That has significant implications for the community. Many people at Willowra do not have bank accounts; many people are still getting cheques from Centrelink delivered by the mail planes and, if they are not getting a cheque in two or three weeks, then there are people going without food. People cannot do shopping at the store if the mail plane has not turned up, and they have to wait for their mail for another two or three weeks.
We talk about closing the gap in some of these communities, and people having money to buy food at the store is a significant issue – and that comes down to the mail service.
There are also things like bank cards, Centrelink forms, meeting forms for other organisations, health appointments are missed, particularly for specialist appointments in Alice Springs, due to the non-arrival of the mail plane.
I will again be writing to Australia Post, as I have on behalf of my constituents on Sturt Plateau, for the people of Willowra, and identifying this issue with the federal minister for Regional Services, Mr Simon Crean, as well as Australia Post.
I will continue on from my adjournment last night on my visit to Timber Creek recently. While at Timber Creek, I caught up with Greg Kimpton at the Northern Land Council, and met a local Indigenous fellow, Daniel Jones. Daniel runs his own contracting business and it is proving to be a model of success in Aboriginal communities. Daniel founded the Bradshaw and Timber Creek Contracting and Resources Company Pty Ltd with the support of the Northern Land Council in 2008. The Australian Defence Force conducts regular training exercises at Bradshaw Station which presented an opportunity for a local contractor to provide services under the negotiated Indigenous Land Use Agreement.
Bradshaw and Timber Creek Contracting and Resources Company has since expanded its operation to include verge slashing, erosion works, landscaping, road and fence maintenance; and hopes to expand in the near future. This year, Daniel Jones was recognised for all his hard work by becoming a recipient of a special NAIDOC award for his work and business.
While at Timber Creek, I also noticed how good the local sporting facilities looked. The Max Duncan Oval was the venue for the annual cricket carnival the other weekend, the Dingo Cup. This year’s winners were the Katherine-based Bad Company team which contested the final with the Timber Creek Bush Turkeys. Six teams travelled from all over the region to take part in this hallmark event, now in its eighth year. Congratulations to all involved in making the Dingo Cup another great community event.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Deputy Speaker, this is the first sittings I have had the honour of participating in as a member of parliament and it has been no less than an amazing experience. What I have learnt from the last two weeks is that each and every one of us in this Chamber cares deeply about the people we serve.
An example of this relates to a very dear and close friend of mine. Her name is Kathleen McDermott - sorry, her married name is Kathleen Byrnes - and she lives in Wulagi. Kathleen and I met in my first year in Alice Springs; we played netball together and won the E Grade premiership for netball. I still hold that trophy in very high esteem. I showed my daughter this trophy a few years ago when she started netball. Yes, mum was a very good netball player –E Grade. However, I digress.
Kathleen and I hung out together as single women. She went off and married her now husband, Jason Byrnes, and I went off and married my husband. We both have two children. Kathleen has a beautiful daughter called Molly, and a son called Andy - Andrew. Both her children, unfortunately, have disabilities. Molly has a mild to moderate intellectual disability, and Andy has a profound disability requiring 24-hour care and attention.
I talk to you about this tonight because her local member, the Chief Minister, has been wonderful to Kathleen and her family. He has visited her at home on several occasions and has gone out of his way to provide Kathleen and her family with support and information. I take my hat off to the Chief Minister for providing my good friend with such great support. I also thank the Minister for Health, who has also helped Kathleen.
This is what we are all about in this Chamber - helping people with problems. I really respect the Chief Minister and the Minister for Health for helping Kathleen and her family.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Madam Deputy Speaker, and member for Araluen, you are so right; as members, we do have a responsibility, and it does not matter whether we are Liberal or Labor, we all have a responsibility, not only to the people we represent, but to people throughout the Northern Territory.
I wish, hopefully without any interruption, to continue my adjournment from the other night. I know that adjournment raised much passion from the other side, and people became quite upset. The important issue I raised was domestic violence, which I do not think should be treated lightly. This is not about Leo Abbott, and I want to make that really clear. At the end of the day, whoever the Country Liberals choose to pre-select as their candidate is a matter for them.
The focus of my attention is what I regard as hypocrisy in the Leader of the Opposition’s tactical change of position, and his questionable credibility in relation to domestic violence.
I wish to finish my adjournment from the other night, where I got to the part where the Leader of the Opposition, in the Northern Territory News of 14 October, said:
Let us decode those words into plain English, taking into account the sad reality that the standard modus operandi of a serious domestic violence perpetrator is to do whatever it takes to ensure the other party does not publicly reveal the full extent of his behaviour, regardless of whether a formal DVO has already been issued. I go back to the quote:
Those words mean the Leader of the Opposition knew there was a domestic violence problem. At the very least, it was incumbent on his party, and ultimately on him as its leader, to find out what that something was. It is obvious the Leader of the Opposition knew what that something was, and he knowingly used an obviously flawed individual for his own political means.
That brings us to the second part of the Leader of the Opposition’s quote, which referred to constant reassurances it had been sorted out. In other words, it did not matter to the Country Liberals whether violent behaviour had taken place, all that mattered to the Leader of the Opposition was whether the woman in question was going to make a fuss. The Leader of the Opposition, after the horse had bolted, calling for Leo Abbott to be disendorsed is, in its phoniness, worse than the straightforward chauvinism of Senator Scullion and what he said.
The message to countless Aboriginal women who have never had the independence or courage to make perpetrators accountable through the courts, is a troubling one.
The hypocrisy of the Leader of the Opposition, and others on his side - but particularly the Leader of the Opposition who has been in the media saying he does not have any involvement in preselections and he did not know about any of that stuff. When I saw that quote in the media, I thought, well, the media is being a bit sloppy because if anyone looked at that part of his quote - knowing there had been something in the past - the Leader of the Opposition knew there was something there, and then to say he wanted Leo Abbott to be disendorsed because he had breached a DVO, and that was the first he knew. The Leader of the Opposition needs to do the only honourable thing, which is to resign.
His credibility on this issue needs to be questioned. He seriously misled Territorians because throughout that campaign it was obvious Leo Abbott was going to be used as political capital. The Leader of the Opposition has shown Territorians he would use whatever means and anything at his disposal to win a seat, even if it means telling porky pies.
When you look at the Leader of the Opposition’s media coverage through that episode, when he was outraged and calling for Leo Abbott to be disendorsed, he was getting quite sloppy. When you go through and decode those words it is obvious to anyone the Leader of the Opposition did know about these issues but deliberately tried to paint himself in glory so he could push his own barrow.
I think the Leader of the Opposition is finding it hard, and it has been interesting to sit here and look at the body language and the dynamics on that side. It has also been interesting to talk to certain members of the Central Council of the CLP to find out how that vote went and just what happened. I know there has been a journalist from Crikey hanging around, and others, and if people think this issue is going to go away, it is not. It is only going to get bigger, and the Leader of the Opposition should come clean and admit he knew about it.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Deputy Speaker, I find that an extraordinary statement to make and it needs to be responded to. To enter into this attempt to wreak mischief of a political nature is a barely coherent construct. To start by premising the whole position on a statement in the media and say it is to be decoded - to decode means you can read whatever you wish to read into it. So for the honourable member to decode and read what she wishes into that, is on her head in that ...
Ms Scrymgour: I know how the vote went. It is on your head, because you lied.
Mr MILLS: Madam Deputy Speaker ...
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I withdraw.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Arafura.
Mr MILLS: To decode means you look at something and read whatever you wants into it. I have said a number of times there was knowledge of some matter in the past; however, there were very clear assurances they were vexatious in nature and had all been dealt with.
One thing the member, in her decoding, failed to assess and understand is how the Country Liberals operate regarding preselection; the party itself jealously guards preselection and explicitly prohibits any involvement, it jealously guards any involvement of any kind …
Ms Scrymgour: That is not what members of Central Council have said.
Mr MILLS: Do not bother listening; just do your decoding - any involvement of any kind - any member on this side would confirm that. To encroach in that space, which is wholly the party’s business, is something you would not do in my position, or as any member of the Country Liberals, which includes the leader. That is something I have requested, and I stand my ground; it needs to be improved and the party has acknowledged that.
For the decoding attempt to be coherent and logical it would be able to explain how it is that those who backed the decision made by the party found my stance offended their decision and I was effectively at war with my own party. To say I would bring that on myself as some kind of political stunt is sheer misreading of the situation, and it is quite dishonest to overlook that. You could read whatever you want into it, but you need to have your eyes open and be very honest and clear in your vision.
It has been a very challenging time for the party; I do not like to bring myself into it, but it has been challenging for me personally, because I have been consistent in what I have described. It may suit whatever attitude the honourable member has to try to extract something, to vent some kind of problem she may have with me personally, and read something into it to suit some kind of political agenda. But, as I have urged members who have been involved and interested in this very difficult period, there are those who take a position in these matters and seek to find whatever they can to advance a point of view.
There are others, by contrast, who take the position of doing whatever they can to find out what the truth of the matter is; that is the position I have endeavoured to take.
I find it surprising that tonight I have received support from the community for the position I took. I am not one who tells lies or plays games with these things. I have received significant opposition from sectors even within the party. I find it most surprising tonight that the member opposite finds it so difficult to accept what has been consistently stated by me in this matter, and ignored in her attempt to decode. I find myself now attacked by the member for Arafura. It can only lead me to wonder what has got in the system to allow such a faulty decoding of something quite plain for anyone to see.
Mr KNIGHT (Daly): Madam Speaker, I, like the member for Arafura, sat through the grubbiest parliament in the five years I have been a member. The antics of the Leader of the Opposition were some of the grubbiest tactics I have ever seen. To do this directly before a federal election; to attack someone over a marriage break-up which involved children - children who read newspapers, watch the news at night, and see their mother’s and father’s lives dragged before the public - was disgusting.
The Leader of the Opposition claims to be a Christian - he is a Pharisee - he is a lukewarm Christian; he is a Sunday Christian. He did not act honourably.
We have some rough-and-tumble with members in this parliament, but we all know we do not step over the line; we do not involve family. We have respected that with members on the opposite side; I am not going to name who they are, but we know they have personal problems in their lives which involve their families. We will not go near that because we respect that. We know this is a very tough game, and your family suffers the most in this game.
It was the grubbiest act I have seen in the five years of my political life in this parliament, to come from a so-called Christian man, an honourable man. He is a hypocrite, and that is percolating through the party. Party members across the region – and I have been around some of the regions of late in Alice Springs and Katherine - and party members I know socially are telling me the Leader of the Opposition did know. He knew a long time ago about Leo Abbott’s history because Leo Abbott revealed it; he revealed it to the party, he did not hide anything.
The Leader of the Opposition knew this had been going on for quite some time. Leo Abbott had been pre-selected for quite some time but, lo and behold, at the sittings of parliament directly before a federal election the life of the federal member is dragged through the parliament. This is in response to the Leader of the Opposition’s denial tonight.
I turn my comments to my electorate. As the member for Daly, which incorporates the Cox Peninsula, I would like to talk about the Kenbi Land Claim. This has been going on for some 30 years; the longest running land claim in the history of Australia. The Land Commissioner handed down his report to the federal minister 10 years ago, and it has been sitting on the desk since that time. This government came out two years ago with an agreement with the land council on behalf of all the identified traditional owners involved in the land claim determination from the Land Commissioner.
The traditional owners were in unison with the Labor government of the Northern Territory - and I believe the opposition as well - with a position where a large proportion of land would be handed back as freehold to be developed for the economic prosperity of not just the direct traditional owners, but the affiliated members of the Larrakia people, and would benefit all the Larrakia families across the Top End. It was an excellent proposal, something which can be learnt from by a number of different Aboriginal groups across Australia.
This has been sitting with the federal minister for two years, and it is grinding along. I am imploring the relevant federal ministers - and I will name them because I would like their cooperation and assistance in pushing the bureaucracy along, because it is taking forever. We have people who are ready to go; people who want development to happen on that peninsula. We have the economic prosperity of the Larrakia people to look after. The community of Belyuen has very few jobs, and this is going to sustain that community into the future.
I am urging the federal Communication minister, Stephen Conroy to talk to his department about the Australian Communications and Media Authority which holds a section of the land there - I think it is section 32 - to speed up the negotiations for the definition of what land it requires. Section 32 is a large section of land and they are working out how much of that land it requires. I know it has been progressed, but it seems like snail’s pace. I urge the minister to talk to his department to get things moving as a priority, to get this sorted out.
I would like Mr Stephen Smith, the new Defence minister, to talk to his department as Defence have bits and pieces of land there; some of the islands have unexploded ordnance, but that should not hold up the process, the land can be handed back and then leased back to the Defence department to clean up that ordnance. We do not need to spend years cleaning it before the land can be handed back. I know the traditional owners and the land council are quite willing to lease back that land so that remedial work can be done. It is vital that happens.
One of the biggest stumbling blocks is with the Department of Finance, and I urge the minister, Penny Wong, to exert some pressure on her department to have this resolved. My understanding is the Department of Defence wants to rehabilitate the land before it is handed back. It is a huge area of land encompassed in the Cox Peninsula area, and the area could be handed back as NT freehold. It is quite foreseeable that the areas it has identified which need some remediation can be identified in a hand back to be leased back in small sections for that work to continue; the remediation work could be part of the project work in the beginning stages of the development of the Cox Peninsula.
I am urging the Minister for Finance, Penny Wong, to push things along and get her department to look at the guidelines. The Department of Defence is hanging off these guidelines that it cannot hand it back unless it is in perfect condition; I believe some pragmatism could be applied: that land is handed back to the traditional owners, and then small sections which require work can be leased back to that department to finish those works.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I plan to talk on progress of this every week we are in parliament because there are many groups who are waiting for this to happen. I will be forwarding this Hansard to the ministers responsible to get this moving along, because it has been an incredible length of time we have been waiting; and we have development ready to happen. Darwin needs, not only the land release happening now in Palmerston and in the new city of Weddell, but the Cox Peninsula. It will be historic for Australia to have this land handed back and developed by the Aboriginal traditional owners for their financial independence, and massive job creation in the future.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Deputy Speaker, if members opposite think they can get away with such a disgraceful smearing of the Leader of the Opposition - think again. For such a duplicitous member of parliament - one of the most irrelevant members of parliament, a former Deputy Chief Minister who dealt herself out of the game, duplicitous to her eyeballs, treacherous, a traitor to the Labor Party, crossed the floor, and is now the most irrelevant member of any parliament in this country - to make such allegations is culpable.
The member for Daly’s accusations towards the Leader of the Opposition are beyond belief. There is no basis for any of those allegations. The story regarding the candidate for Lingiari has been discussed ad nauseum. The truth of the whole situation is there; there is no need to trawl over this again. Why it has been brought up on the last day of parliamentary sittings, I have no idea.
What the member for Arafura has to gain by making such allegations towards the Leader of the Opposition and members of the Country Liberals, I have no idea. Perhaps she is part of some broader agenda; I do not know. Yes, there are quarters concerned with the steps taken by the Leader of the Opposition during that period, no doubt about it; that was played out very publicly as well. But anyone who knows the Leader of the Opposition knows he is an honourable man. He is a man of his word, and a man you can trust. I trust the Leader of the Opposition and I believe what he has said, as do the majority of the members of the broader Country Liberals.
The allegations made this evening are astounding. I have no idea where they are coming from, but obviously it is part of a broader agenda. People in the community trust Terry Mills and believe Terry Mills. It would seem the reason the Australian Labor Party is so desperate to smear Terry Mills is because he is gaining traction. There is no doubt about it; he is gaining traction in the community and he is seen as an alternative Chief Minister. We are ever increasingly being seen as an alternative government for the Northern Territory.
This no doubt does shake and rattle the cage of the Australian Labor Party in the Northern Territory. There are no depths members of the ALP in this Chamber will not stoop to in order to smear the good name of the Leader of the Opposition. It is duplicitous and treacherous and, once again, you have proven to the people of the Northern Territory you are unfit to govern, you cannot be trusted, and you should all be ashamed of yourselves.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I too cannot sit idly by while a good man, a decent and upright man is besmirched. I have been sitting here thinking for the last couple of days what would have …
A member: You did not care about Damian Hale did you?
Mr ELFERINK: I am going to pick up on that point. The only thing I asked in relation to Damian Hale was he explain his conduct to the voting public. He did so. Good on him. The point here is the member for Arafura has engaged in unpacking circumstances which required the ‘decoding’ of language. There are a number of ways you can decode language. I am more interested in underlying motivations, and the member for Greatorex was talking in part about the motivations of the Australian Labor Party.
I remember seeing a poll in the newspaper not long ago about the preferred leader of the Northern Territory. That poll said Terry Mills was substantially ahead of Paul Henderson as the preferred Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. Moreover, he was ahead of everyone else. That is an important issue for the Labor Party for a single reason: that preferred leader status needs to be conferred on the premier, prime minister or chief minister, as the case may be, when you are preparing to head towards an election. I will give you an example.
The preferred leadership status of the Prime Minister was, I think, 52 to 26 or thereabouts, prior to the last federal election. Yet, when the final washout came in the election results federally, it was clear that despite people not having as much support for Tony Abbott as they did for Julia Gillard, Tony Abbott was able to make up enormous ground because people were sick of a Labor administration.
The people on the fifth floor are not stupid. They think about these things all the time. We think about them on this side of the House. To find yourself with a Chief Minister who is behind on the preferred leader status would be of grave concern. The almost complete disappearance of the Chief Minister’s face from all the glossy brochures shoved into letterboxes, the complete disappearance of the Chief Minister’s face in so many of the government ads, indicates to me that some polling was done, perhaps around the time of the last federal election, which demonstrated he probably had a high recognition rate but an approval rating under zero, which means the government is stuck with a problem.
It is very hard to change someone with a low approval but high recognition rate. If someone has a low recognition rate, that can be fixed. But if someone has a high recognition rate, then their reputation is more difficult to tarnish. If they are very popular, you have to drag them down. If they are very unpopular, you have to find a way to drag them up.
I suspect the polling Labor would have done would have included another question: what is the recognition rate of the Leader of the Opposition, and what is the perception of him? I would argue that, unlike the Chief Minister, they would have found that the Leader of the Opposition was in positive territory and, moreover, has high recognition rate. So, the government says: ‘We have to talk about him. We are not going to make him any more popular, he is not going to be more well-known by talking about him, so the only thing we can do is tear him down’.
What is the Leader of the Opposition known for: his decency, uprightness, courtesy and, dare I say, even his mild manners. The most regular thing I hear people say about Terry Mills is that he is a great bloke, but he is probably a bit soft. That is what I hear pretty regularly. If there is a criticism, it is he is a great bloke, nice bloke, lovely bloke and ‘too good to be a politician’, is the other comment I often hear.
So the government is stuck with a situation where they have to find a vehicle by which, rather than elevating their own man, who has a high recognition rating but, I suspect, a lower approval rating, they can tear down the Leader of the Opposition. The only way they can do it is to attack the fundamental and core components of Terry’s popularity. Their choice of vehicle to do that is the member for Arafura. The member for Arafura started the slander, followed capably by the member for Daly.
Now, why is it that two bush members are running this? Because the bush members are not going to be affected by running a negative campaign. Why am I not hearing the Chief Minister running this campaign? Why do I not see the member for Johnston on his feet talking about this, or the member for Karama? It is because they know it would have a negative impact on them in their seats if they run a smear campaign. So they trot in the bush members and they start the slander, and they start the approach.
We heard today the attack from the Chief Minister because we pulled out of the CTC. The language is all new and they work on language and message all the time. What is the new slogan word for the government this week? Bold. How often have I heard the word ‘bold’ in the last few days? But now it is going to be weakness in terms of Terry Mills; they will be talking about softness, vulnerability to attack, all those sorts of things. They are going to try to stir the pot.
My major problem with this issue is, what about the rest of the people of the Northern Territory? What about the drunks? What about the kids we have been talking about in this House? What about focusing on them rather than attempting to tear down a good man? What about the law and order issues, the health issues, and the shocking rates of school attendance in the bush? No. The focus is going to be on attacking someone else so we can make them look worse than we are. That is the great disappointment of this process.
I understand politics; I get how all this stuff works. The tragedy is that whilst we play in the stratosphere, the mortals down in the troposphere look up at us and despise us, and frankly, I cannot say I blame them.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Deputy Speaker, I have an adjournment speech about an event I attended a number of weeks ago, but the member for Port Darwin has asked a few questions I will try to answer as best I can. There are questions about many things.
I have been reading the book King Brown Country recently. As you can see, it is a fairly well-marked copy. I am not going to speak about it tonight, but it raised a range of questions for me. Much of it has already been on the public record. It is very interesting - more than interesting - it is very important to read it in a range of contexts and levels.
On one level, it is about the policies of Indigenous affairs over the last 40 to 50 years, and the failures of successive governments in Indigenous affairs. Historically and politically, that is its primary importance. As we know, it is a story about a particular place and people, some of whom have been in this Assembly, and are not present tonight. So, I am not going into this except to say I am reading it and thinking about it. As most members would be aware, there are some very important questions touched on and, I understand because of legal issues, are not pursued in this book, but there are pointers in there to questions which need to be asked.
Similarly, we have heard tonight from the member for Arafura, the Leader of the Opposition, and the member for Daly about Leo Abbott’s preselection. I have to say I have questions. I know the Territory is a big place geographically, but it is actually a small place and nothing here operates in a vacuum. You always know someone who knows someone who is on the inside of this organisation or that organisation. Socially, in business, and in all sorts of ways, we mix with people.
The question I put on the table tonight is about the Leo Abbott pre-selection, but I will put it a little differently to the way the member for Arafura put it. Alice Springs is such a small place that what has happened in Leo Abbott’s family life regarding domestic violence would have been well-known in the community. I would be very surprised if the Alice Springs members, including the former member for Araluen, would not have known about that.
The Leader of the Opposition says it is the rule of the Country Liberal Party that leaders do not get involved in preselection. That may well be, but I would expect, in any political party, the leaders have a bit to say about who gets preselected for seats. There would have been a bit of canvassing going on; it may not be directly sitting on the committee that preselects, but there would be a fair bit of osmosis going on. At that level, I believe there would have been communications, understandings and knowledge about some of the history. I find it utterly incredible to think the Leader of the Opposition did not know some of this history, as did some of the members of the Country Liberal Party in Alice Springs.
It has been made plain that Leo Abbott was very truthful with the preselection board or committee or whatever it was, and probably told them everything to do with his family and whatever. We all go through political preselection, and we all know one of the questions we are asked is, what skeletons do you have in your closet?’ It does not matter what party you are in, that is a question which is asked, and people do a bit of research on you. I will leave it at that because I have something else to speak about. There are questions in my mind which continue to be unanswered which are in the political realm of the Northern Territory.
I will speak about the Northern Territory Timor-Chinese Association’s Moon Festival function which was held on 18 September, and which I had the pleasure of attending at their community hall in Marrara. The Moon Festival, also known as the Mid-Autumn Festival, is one of the most important events in the Chinese calendar - a time for family, reunions, and celebrations. The fullness and brightness of the moon signals the completeness and abundance of life, and the end of the traditional summer harvesting season in China.
The Moon Festival is a great celebration, not only for the Territory’s Timor-Chinese community, but for all Territorians who join in and share the traditions and celebrations of the Moon Festival. People who are new to the Territory fall in love with the Territory’s unique lifestyle, and we are truly fortunate to have a community made up of over 100 different nationalities. We have such a rich cultural mix. Wherever you are in the Territory you see people of so many different backgrounds living side by side, integrated and supporting each other; and I encourage those new to the Territory to get along to our many cultural events of the year, including the Moon Festival next year.
I take the opportunity to thank the children who performed the wonderful cultural dances. There are names here which I may have trouble pronouncing, so I hope members will bear with me: Jun Tao Lin, Kae Jenn Tchia, Paige Lay, Misha Lay, Isabelle Lay, Jacinta Mu, Christina Mu, Chelsea Lay, Meng Ting Qi, Ying Ying Au, Shaskia Lay and Annie Logan. I was very impressed with the colour and enthusiasm and the cultural importance.
Thank you also to your parents, Maria Tchia, Leonie Lay, Thomas Qi, Candice Lin, Julia Cai, Yu Mei a, and Angela Mu, who no doubt helped you with your costumes and rehearsals.
The costumes were absolutely beautiful. The children took so much joy in performing, they had obviously been practising for quite a long time and the audience really appreciated those cultural performances. It was a wonderful night seeing the preservation of culture in such young people, the appreciation by the audience, and the trouble the children, the parents, and the costumers had gone to.
I particularly wish to congratulate and acknowledge the President of the Timor-Chinese Association, Mr Rui Mu, and the committee members and volunteers who put their time and effort into putting the Moon Festival event together; and I really thank them for their hospitality also.
Thank you for the kind invitation, and I hope I will be able to come along next year.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish briefly to touch base on the Leo Abbott issue. It was raised here on Tuesday night by the member for Arafura. Leo is not present in this Chamber, and did not have an opportunity to give his side of the story.
What I learnt through the whole situation in the federal campaign for the seat of Lingiari was that the situation of domestic violence orders in the Northern Territory is a complex issue. There are far too many in the Northern Territory. One is too many, but the number in the Northern Territory is far too many; I understand there were around 3000 in the last financial year in the Northern Territory, and for a small population that is many domestic violence orders.
There are a number of domestic violence orders in the Northern Territory, as I understand it, related to heinous crimes, assaults against women, against men, and there are other domestic violence orders in the Northern Territory which are not assault-based and are utilised for the purposes of legal technicalities. It is hard to differentiate between the two. I have learnt that the Northern Territory has a different system of operating domestic violence orders than other jurisdictions in the country.
I thought after the federal election it would be a good opportunity to debate domestic violence orders in this Chamber, and how they work and how the system could be improved. I am not the person to lead that debate, but I am more than happy to participate in such a debate.
Whenever there is a fight or an argument, it is always good to have two people on hand so each person has a chance to defend themselves. We saw the member for Arafura tonight, and the member for Daly, attacking the member for Blain, the Leader of the Opposition. And we saw the member for Blain defend himself, along with support from the member for Greatorex and the member for Port Darwin; that is how it should be.
The approach taken by the member for Arafura on Tuesday night was a terrible way to conduct business in this Chamber. We know there is the sanctity of parliamentary privilege and we stand here and talk about anything we like. I think at times it is used as a bit of a coward’s call, to stand here and belittle someone who does not have the chance to respond, particularly in the private domain where issues around defamation are at large.
I listened to what the member for Arafura said. I too know the two women in question in relation to Leo Abbott. One of those women helped me in my 2007 election campaign, and the other woman I quite often had a cup of tea with when she and Leo Abbott were a couple. I know both of those women.
I make it clear - at no point in time did I know of any situation of domestic violence. My knowledge of Leo Abbott is that he is a proud, strong Aboriginal man from Central Australia. He is a bloke who is attracted to women. I have never known him to be violent towards women. Leo is a friend of mine and a constituent. I stand here representing both of those positions.
If I was aware of Leo ever participating or being part of any violent assault against women, he would no longer be my friend. He would no longer be someone I would speak on behalf of.
The situation with domestic violence orders is difficult. I have sat through all the court tapes in relation to Leo’s domestic violence orders and the breaches. I looked at every bit of evidence I could to find out whether there is any truth in the argument. I have not been able to find anything to prove he is a guilty man, and I have looked long and hard.
I know there have been statements, or reports of statements made in places such as Crikey. I read that, and I have scrutinised Leo in person on a number of occasions about the accuracy of such matters, which he denies. I find I am unable to convict a person of guilt and must see them as innocent until such evidence prevails. For that reason I stood behind Leo.
I am not going to get into the internal machinations of how it has affected our party, but I can tell you our party is strong. The majority of our party stood behind Leo, and Leo will go on and continue. I understand there are court proceedings imminent in relation to those matters, and we will see what comes of that. I understand those matters are of a defamatory nature, and we may find a measure of guilt or otherwise through that process. We will wait and see.
I am a person who believes in innocent until proven guilty. For many women in the Territory, and across Australia, who have been unable to report heinous crimes - and there may be guilt in some crimes, and we know there is guilt in many crimes which are unreported - it is difficult to cast our views in that manner; but in this case I have no evidence to convict Leo.
I was present throughout much of Leo’s preselection process and was aware of his time at Central Council and other areas, but I will not get into the machinations of the party. The Leader of the Opposition was right; preselection is a party matter and the leader does not get involved in preselection, as the member for Johnston said.
Leo made a statement to the ABC in Alice Springs on 6 September 2010. I want to read part of that statement, I will not read all of it because it will become even more topical. I will be reading his statement word for word, and will not be adding any extra comments. So if some things are misunderstood, that is the way it is written. This is what was said, and I will stop at the point where it would create further divisions in the CLP:
I will leave the rest of the statement. I wanted to place that on the record because Leo is not here to defend himself; which is not fair. We all know how hard public life is, and we have all done things in the past we may or may not be proud of; however, we grow, change and learn and we stand here as we are today, hopefully we are better people.
The comments made by the member for Fong Lim about Bob Collins are a different situation; but, the same time, he is not here to defend himself. The member for Arafura can make observations about other members in here, but be careful about people like Leo Abbott; he cannot defend himself - it is hard for him to defend himself to the public.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Year 10 History students from Darwin High School accompanied by Ms Teresa Tate. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
TABLED PAPERS
Prevention of Alcohol-Related Crime and Substance Misuse Draft Bill and SMART Court Draft Bill
Prevention of Alcohol-Related Crime and Substance Misuse Draft Bill and SMART Court Draft Bill
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General) (by leave): Madam Speaker, I table a draft bill titled Prevention of Alcohol-Related Crime and Substance Misuse Bill and a draft bill titled SMART Court Bill.
The tabling of these draft bills is to allow for public discussion on the proposals before government formally introduces the legislation next calendar year ...
Mr Tollner: Softly, softly.
Ms LAWRIE: I know it is hug Dave day, but behave yourself.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: On 1 September this year, I announced a proposed package of alcohol reforms, Enough is Enough, to tackle alcohol-related crime and antisocial behaviour. These reforms were detailed in my ministerial statement earlier this week. These reforms are comprehensive and targeted at the problem drinker. The measures turn the problem drinker off tap, mandate treatment, enforce bans on purchasing alcohol, and increase rehabilitation and treatment options.
The cost of alcohol misuse in our community is far too high. Research shows alcohol misuse costs the Territory $4197 per adult - more than four times the national average. Territorians consume alcohol at 1.5 times the national average, the highest alcohol per capita consumption of any state or territory. Alcohol misuse is causing crime - 60% of assaults, 67% of all domestic violence incidents and 59% of police work are alcohol-related.
These two bills are a substantial part of the proposed alcohol reforms. These reforms target the purchase and consumption of takeaway alcohol, which makes up 70% of all alcohol sold in the Territory. These reforms turn problem drinkers off tap to stop violence and antisocial behaviour. These reforms are targeted and go to the heart of what is costing our community socially and economically. The proposed Enough is Enough reforms turn problem drinkers off tap by banning them and enforcing this ban with a banned drinker register and ID system at the point of sale of takeaway alcohol.
The five-point action plan making up the Enough is Enough package is:
1. banned drinker and mandatory alcohol treatment orders;
These two draft bills support the proposed measures to tackle alcohol-related crime and harm in the community.
The first bill, the Prevention of Alcohol-Related Crime and Substance Misuse Bill, provides for a police-driven administrative banning system allowing police to issue banning alcohol and treatment (BAT) notices. This bill also establishes the Alcohol and Other Drugs Tribunal (the tribunal) which can make two types of orders: temporary orders designed to get people into clinical assessment called general alcohol prohibition (GAP) orders; and final orders called banning alcohol and other drugs and treatment (BAD) orders.
The second bill, the SMART Court bill, provides for the repeal of the Alcohol Court Act and the replacement of the Alcohol Court with the SMART Court, which stands for Substance Misuse Assessment and Referral for Treatment Court. This new court will have the power to make particular orders, including bans and treatment for eligible offenders who are seriously misusing alcohol or other drugs.
I now outline these draft bills in further detail.
The PACSM bill enables police to issue a BAT notice to certain people, including those who have not committed an offence but have come to the attention of police for alcohol-related incidences. Police can issue notices to persons who have been: taken in protective custody three times during a three-month period; issued with three alcohol-related infringement notices within a 12-month period; charged with an alcohol-related offence; or a defendant in a police-issued domestic violence order (DVO) if police believe the person is affected by alcohol at the time the order is made. Alcohol-related infringement notices include drinking in a public place which is a dry area. An alcohol-related offence includes drink-driving offences under the Traffic Act where a person is automatically suspended from driving.
This BAT notice prohibits the person from purchasing, consuming, or possessing alcohol for a three-month period. Once a BAT notice is issued the person is prevented from purchasing takeaway alcohol. A breach of the BAT notice can mean police issue a further BAT notice and, as noted below, this results in a longer ban. This ban can only work with the introduction of a banned drinker register to be rolled out across the Northern Territory. For a person charged with an alcohol-related offence or issued with a police DVO, the BAT notice remains in force for three months, or until the person is brought before a court. The court may make orders to continue the ban or may revoke or vary the ban.
For a person issued with a BAT notice following three alcohol-related infringement notices or on three protective custody incidents, a first BAT notice remains in force for three months. This means the ban from purchasing alcohol stays in place for three months the first time you are issued with a BAT notice. This ban can be reduced to one month if the person undertakes certain treatment.
Treatment in the bill is referred to as alcohol misuse intervention. Undertaking the treatment specified on the BAT notice is at the election of the banned drinker. The motivation is to undertake treatment so the ban can be reduced. A person issued with their first BAT notice is encouraged to undertake treatment such as a single brief intervention.
Under the PACSM bill, if a further BAT notice is received within 12 months of the first BAT notice it becomes the person’s second BAT notice. Under the second BAT notice, the ban is for six months, which can be reduced to a two-month ban if treatment is undertaken. The catch is once a second BAT notice is received, the type of treatment changes - it escalates. This time, for the ban to be reduced, the banned drinker would be required to undertake treatment such as a short program of brief interventions.
If a further BAT notice is received within 12 months of the second BAT notice, the next notice is considered to be the third BAT notice. What we see is a longer ban; this time for 12 months, which can be reduced to four months if certain treatment is completed. Again, we have more intensive treatment such as community-based counselling. If a third BAT notice is received and the banned drinker breaches that notice, or within 12 months is given an alcohol-related infringement notice, or is taken into protective custody for alcohol, police must refer the person to the tribunal. Police can also refer a person to the tribunal at an earlier stage if they have reasonable belief the person is at risk because of substance use.
Before we turn to the tribunal I need to explain the escalation of bans and the type of treatment needed to reduce the ban. This is not a knee-jerk reaction, not a lock-them-up approach, but a well-considered, thought-out approach.
The treatment strategy of brief interventions is medically recognised as being as effective for heavy drinkers as more intensive interventions, such as residential rehabilitation. This treatment can be achieved in a variety of healthcare settings, including primary care, general practice, and hospital.
Evidence available to government shows bans alone are beneficial, so turning off the tap for problem drinkers alone is of benefit - and there lies the vital importance of a banned drinker register. A breach of the BAT notice is not an offence but will mean a further BAT notice. This ensures alcoholism is not criminalised and non-offenders are not brought into the criminal justice system. This was of primary concern to stakeholders during earlier consultations regarding reform of the Alcohol Court.
I turn to the Alcohol and Other Drugs Tribunal. The PACSM bill also establishes this new tribunal. The tribunal is not a court and will not be comprised of judicial officers. The PACSM bill provides a mechanism for health providers, and others, to refer persons with alcohol or other drug problems (substances) to the tribunal for appropriate orders to be issued.
Police, health practitioners, and family members are referred to as ‘prescribed applicants’ who can refer a person for assessment if they have a reasonable belief a person is at risk because of the use of a substance.
A person may also voluntarily apply for an order to ban themselves from using a substance.
The tribunal is empowered to make orders in respect of persons who are misusing alcohol or other drugs, including prohibitions on access and consumption, and orders to undertake treatment or other interventions. It is at this stage treatment becomes mandatory and the person is required to undertake a clinical assessment.
Applications for an assessment report about a person believed to be misusing a substance can be made to an appointed ‘substance misuse clinician’ by those prescribed applicants. If a person does not attend the assessment, the tribunal can make what is called a GAP order. The GAP order is a ban on consuming and purchasing alcohol which operates for a three-month period, or until the person attends the assessment. After three months, if the person fails to attend for the assessment, a further GAP order can be made so the ban continues.
This government is not criminalising alcoholism; we are turning the tap off. We are saying you either come in for assessment and treatment or remain banned. The tap stays turned off.
If a person is assessed by a clinician as misusing a substance, the tribunal must make a banning alcohol and other drugs and treatment order, a BADT order. This order prohibits the person from purchasing, possessing or consuming a substance, and may also include other prohibitions, requirements, or conditions as considered appropriate for the person. The BADT order may include that the person undergo treatment.
What this order contains will depend on the clinical assessment. We are not taking a one-size-fits-all approach; we are tackling this issue of substance misuse in a serious, professional way. The tribunal can make orders which last for 12 months, but a person can end up back in front of the tribunal, and that ban can be extended.
I turn to the SMART Court bill. In October 2009, an Alcohol Court reform discussion paper was released for public consultation. Government has considered the comments received on the proposed reforms for the Alcohol Court and taken the comments and feedback into account during development of both the PACSM bill and the SMART Court bill.
The development of the PACSM bill responds to stakeholders’ concerns about criminalisation of alcoholism, and keeps non-offenders separate from the criminal justice system. The SMART Court bill maintains jurisdiction for criminal matters involving alcohol and, in response to stakeholder comments, extends the jurisdiction to other drugs.
Persons who have not committed criminal offences are not captured by the SMART Court.
Some issues raised in the Alcohol Court reform discussion paper may not appear in the bill. Tabling of this bill is intended to provide stakeholders the opportunity to further comment and input into the final legislation.
The SMART Court is to have the power to make orders for offenders who are seriously misusing alcohol and other drugs. The SMART Court has a defined jurisdiction in which the court can exercise power as a court of therapeutic justice. The SMART Court Bill provides jurisdiction of the SMART Court is exercised by a magistrate, with a chief magistrate to decide which magistrates exercise jurisdiction of the court.
Both adults and youths can be referred to the SMART Court. Therefore, all matters capable of finalisation in the Court of Summary Jurisdiction or in the Youth Justice Court can be referred to the SMART Court.
The SMART Court Bill provides for orders made as part of the sentencing process. Defendants must either admit guilt or indicate an intention to plead guilty. Participation in treatment forms a part of the sentence process. Drug courts across Australia require defendants to admit guilt, with treatment programs used as part of the sentencing process.
In matters where it is unlikely an offender will be sentenced to imprisonment, an order can be made to defer sentencing while treatment is undertaken. In serious matters where a defendant will be sentenced to imprisonment, treatment may be either as part of a sentence imposed or ordered on sentencing, with the execution of the sentence suspended while treatment is undertaken.
In order to be referred to the SMART Court a person must: be charged with a relevant offence; admit guilt or indicate an intention to plead guilty, or have been found guilty; and have not been sentenced for the offence.
The final sentence will set aside the initial sentence and impose a new sentence, or otherwise make an order confirming the initial sentence. This government understands alcohol policy affects most, if not all, in our community. As such, we feel it is necessary to allow time for the community as a whole to consider this approach to tackling the problem.
By making the draft bills public prior to their introduction, we are providing for maximum exposure of the proposed legislation. Our policy is clear: Enough is Enough. We are tackling alcohol misuse across the Territory. Tabling of these draft bills is a stage in the process of implementing the Enough is Enough: Alcohol Reform Action Plan.
It is now our intention to seek comment until mid-November and introduce legislation at the February 2011 sittings.
MOTION
Note Papers – Prevention of Alcohol-Related Crime and Substance Misuse Draft Bill and SMART Court Draft Bill
Note Papers – Prevention of Alcohol-Related Crime and Substance Misuse Draft Bill and SMART Court Draft Bill
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move the Assembly take note of the draft bills and I have leave to continue my remarks at a later hour.
Motion agreed to.
Debate adjourned.
CONSUMER AFFAIRS AND FAIR TRAIDING AMENDMENT (NATIONAL UNIFORM LEGISLATION) BILL
(Serial 132)
(Serial 132)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move the bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of the bill is to amend the Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading Act to apply, as the consumer law of the Northern Territory, the Australian Consumer Law. The Australian Consumer Law is set out in Schedule 2 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 of the Commonwealth, which is renamed Trade Practices Act, and regulations made under section 139G of that act.
The bill repeals the current provisions of the Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading Act which will be covered by the Australian Consumer Law, including:
fair trading provisions in Part 5;
The bill also repeals the provisions establishing the Consumer Affairs Council. The bill makes consequential amendments to other acts and regulations.
The development and implementation of the Australian Consumer Law represents the largest overhaul of consumer law in Australia for over 25 years, and is certainly the greatest step forward in consumer law in the Northern Territory since the current provisions of the Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading Act, known as CAFTA, were developed in the late 1980s.
The development of the Australian Consumer Law was agreed to by the Council of Australian Governments in October 2008, based on recommendations from the Ministerial Council on Consumer Affairs, in turn informed by a 2008 Productivity Commission report.
It was agreed the Australian Consumer Law would include:
a single national law for consumer protection and fair trading based on the existing consumer protection provisions of the Trade Practices Act;
national unfair contract terms law;
a national product safety regulatory system; and
further reforms designed to enhance the operation of the law which draws on best practice in existing state and territory consumer laws.
An intergovernmental agreement for the Australian Consumer Law, known as the ACL, governs the way the ACL is to be amended, administered and enforced. Changes to the ACL will be made only with the agreement of the Commonwealth plus four jurisdictions, three of which must be states. Parties to the agreement, including the Northern Territory, can disapply by regulation any changes to the ACL they do not wish applied in their jurisdiction. The agreement also sets out high-level commitments by Australia’s consumer agencies on the way they will work together to administer and enforce the ACL.
The ACL has been developed and implemented by the Commonwealth in two stages, and is, in accordance with the timetable agreed to by the Commonwealth, states and territories at a Council of Australian Governments meeting in November 2008, to commence on 1 January 2011.
In June 2009, the Australian government introduced a bill to: set up the ACL as a schedule to the Trade Practices Act which is to be applied by the Commonwealth and each state and territory; deal with unfair contract terms in consumer contracts; and enhance the range of enforcement measures available to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission in enforcing consumer laws.
In 2010, the Australian government introduced a second bill to: complete the implementation of the ACL based on the existing consumer and enforcement provisions of the Trade Practices Act; implement a new framework for product safety; and enhance the ACL based on best practice in existing state and territory laws.
An advantage of this approach is that the case law associated with the understanding and interpretation of the existing Commonwealth, state and territory fair trading laws will continue to be relevant to the interpretation and application of the Australian Consumer Law.
The Australian Consumer Law has now been enacted by the Commonwealth parliament as Schedule 2 to what will be the Competition and Consumer Act 2010. This is the new name of the Trade Practices Act. The Australian Consumer Law will also consist of regulations made under section 139G of that act.
Each state and territory will now enact legislation applying the ACL as a law of its jurisdiction, and repealing its own consumer laws of general application. Queensland and Victoria have already commenced this process.
The ACL will replace some 17 Commonwealth, state, and territory generic consumer laws, as well as other provisions scattered throughout many other laws. The ACL will make consumer rights clear and consistent and protect consumers equally wherever they live by introducing nationally consistent rules for business and trading practices, product safety obligations, and the conduct of business to consumer transactions, including consumer transactions. The rules will apply to all businesses and will apply throughout Australia.
This bill repeals existing Parts 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the Consumer and Fair Trading Act (CAFTA), with the exception of section 68A which is concerned with tort law reform and is unrelated to the ACL. These parts deal with product safety, fair trading, enforcement, and door-to-door trading respectively.
The bill inserts a new Part 4 into CAFTA which will adopt the ACL as the consumer law of the Northern Territory. The ACL has five chapters. Chapter 1 sets out the relevant definitions, Chapters 2 and 3 contain general and specific consumer protections respectively, based for the main part on those contained in the current Commonwealth Trade Practices Act and CAFTA. Chapter 4 deals with offences, and Chapter 5 provides for enforcement penalties and remedies.
General prohibitions: general prohibitions in Chapter 2 are those relating to misleading or deceptive conduct and unconscionable conduct. Part 2 of Chapter 2 of the ACL also contains a general prohibition on unfair contract terms in consumer contracts which have been part of the TPA since 2009, and are similar to those provisions applying in Victoria since 2003. A term in a contract is ‘unfair’ when: it causes significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations arising under the contract; it is not reasonably necessary to protect the legitimate interests of the supplier; and it would cause financial or non-financial detriment to a party.
Specific consumer protections: specific consumer protections in Part 3.1 of Chapter 3 of the ACL cover unfair business practices including: false or misleading representations about goods or services or sale of land; misleading conduct relating to employment; failing to supply rebate, gifts and prizes or not supplying them as offered; bait advertising; accepting payment without intending to supply; unsolicited supply such as credit cards or goods or services; pyramid selling schemes; certain pricing practices such as multiple pricing; referral selling; and harassment or coercion.
Statutory consumer guarantees in Part 3.2 of the ACL replace the existing implied conditions and warranties of the Trade Practices Act and CAFTA. This is a change in form, not intent, of this aspect of the law. These guarantees include that: the supplier has the right to sell goods; the goods are of an acceptable quality; the goods match their description; the goods are fit for any purpose the consumer makes known to the supplier; repairs and spare parts are reasonably available; the services will be carried out with reasonable skill and care; and the services will be completed within a reasonable time.
Unsolicited selling: Division 2 of Part 3.2 of the ACL introduces a national law dealing with unsolicited consumer agreements, including not just door-to-door trading currently provided for in Part 7 of the CAFTA, but telephone sales and other forms of direct selling which do not take place in a traditional retail context. Similar to Part 7 of CAFTA, these provisions: limit calling hours; require a dealer to leave premises when requested; require a dealer to inform a consumer of their rights of termination and provide copies of contracts; provide for a cooling-off period and for rights of termination of the contract within the cooling-off period; and prohibit the supply of goods or services under an unsolicited consumer agreement for 10 business days after entering into the agreement.
Lay-by sales: Division 3 of Part 3.2 of the ACL has provisions relating to lay-by sales, replacing the existing provisions in New South Wales, Victoria, and the Australian Capital Territory. In the Northern Territory the provision will be new. They apply some basic rules to lay-by sales transactions, including basic consumer rights and business obligations. These provisions provide that: lay-by agreements must be in writing; limit lay-by termination charges to the supplier’s reasonable cost; and provide for a refund of monies paid by consumer, less any termination charge, upon termination of a lay-by.
Evidence of transactions: Division 4 of Part 3.2 provides that consumers will be entitled to receive written evidence of their transactions and, if requested, an itemised bill for services.
Product safety: Part 3.3 of Chapter 3 of the ACL also introduces a national law on safety of consumer goods and product-related services. This includes safety standards, safety bans, product recalls, and reporting and notification requirements. The ACL sets out the circumstances when manufacturers of goods are liable for a safety defect. Safety standards and information standards for consumer goods and product-related services can be made by the Commonwealth minister. Permanent safety bans can be made by the Commonwealth minister, and state and territory ministers may make interim safety bans.
Chapter 4 – Offences: chapter 4 of the ACL creates a criminal offence regime for breaches of chapter 3. Individuals convicted of an offence could face a fine of up to $220 000, with a corporation facing a fine of up to $1.1m.
Enforcement: chapter 5 includes the enforcement powers, penalties, and remedies that can apply for breaches or suspected breaches of the ACL. Enforcement powers include: the giving of enforceable undertakings; the issuing of substantiation notices; and the making of public warning notices.
If a person thinks they may have breached the ACL, they can offer the regulator - in the Northern Territory this will be the Commissioner of Consumer Affairs - an undertaking they will not do it again and take steps to improve compliance. Such an undertaking is enforceable by a court.
The Commissioner of Consumer Affairs will be able to issue a substantiation notice to a business seeking information about claims made in the marketplace. The Commissioner of Consumer Affairs will also be able to issue public warning notices about traders where the commissioner has reasonable grounds to suspect the trader may have breached the ACL or has failed to respond to a substantiation notice.
Remedies: remedies include: civil pecuniary penalties; disqualification orders; non-punitive orders; adverse publicity orders; declarations concerning unfair contract terms; injunctions; damages; compensation orders; and redress for non-parties.
The bill repeals provisions establishing the Consumer Affairs Council. The council is established under CAFTA, with broad functions including investigation of consumer-related issues, dissemination of information, and the calling of public submissions. In many respects, these functions duplicate those of the Commissioner of Consumer Affairs, a statutory position also created under CAFTA.
Government has put in place widespread consultation and community engagement processes, including consumer-related legislation, and these processes have superseded those that could have been undertaken by the Consumer Affairs Council. Nearly all other jurisdictions have abolished legislatively created bodies such as the Consumer Affairs Council.
The Consumer Affairs Council has had no membership since 2007. It is appropriate the legislative provisions establishing the Consumer Affairs Council be repealed.
The bill also repeals uncommenced amendment to the CAFTA made by the Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading Amendment Act of 2006. These uncommenced provisions expanded the door-to-door trading provisions of Part 7 of CAFTA to telemarketing. These matters are now dealt with in the ACL, and it is appropriate these uncommenced provisions be repealed along with the rest of Part 7 of CAFTA.
Other uncommenced amendments to CAFTA made by the 2006 amendment deal with changes to penalties in CAFTA. These changes will be redundant with the repeal of the relevant sections and the adoption of the ACL, and have been, or plan to be, made by subsequent general penalties amendment legislation.
Schedule 1 to the bill makes further changes to CAFTA consequential to the adoption of the ACL and the repeal of parts of CAFTA, including those relating to the Consumer Affairs Council. These amendments include inserting new definitions relating to the ACL, as well as correcting spelling and grammatical errors, and making statute law revision-type amendments in line with current drafting practices.
Schedule 2 makes consequential amendments to other acts, generally changing references from the Trade Practices Act 1974 to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010, or omitting references to the Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading Act and referring instead to the Australian Consumer Law.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members, and I table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
OATHS, AFFIDAVITS AND DECLARATIONS BILL
(Serial 118)
OATHS, AFFIDAVITS AND DECLARATIONS (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL
(Serial 119)
(Serial 118)
OATHS, AFFIDAVITS AND DECLARATIONS (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL
(Serial 119)
Continued from 12 August 2010.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I speak to this bill which, to me, is a little surprising in its current shape bearing in mind the amendments to be proposed during the committee stage. Without entering into debate about the committee stage amendments at this point, one has to go back to the second reading speech to discover how this bill started its life, found its way through the judicial system, and to the Attorney-General’s Office to enable her to bring it into this House.
I am always a little cautious of any legislative instrument which comes into this House which does not have the associated media release saying what a great news story it is for the people of the Northern Territory. I do not recall seeing any of the associated media releases we usually see with one legislative instrument or another being brought before this House.
I took the bill away; I have looked at it and received a briefing on it. I will come back to the issues I have shortly.
One of the primary reasons given in the second reading speech for this bill was the complicated nature of the oath, and translation problems with Aboriginal people make the oath difficult to understand. My response to that, having lived and worked with Aboriginal people for many years, is balderdash. I do not accept that justification for this bill.
I will share an anecdote with honourable members where a few years ago - I am uncertain of the truth, it is third hand but, for the purposes of the exercise it will do. Many years ago an Aboriginal man was facing court in Alice Springs. His defence was proceeding badly, so his lawyer took the unusual and somewhat desperate step of placing his client in the witness box to examine him and allow the prosecution to cross-examine him.
An oath was sworn on the Bible and there was a dispute between the prosecutor and the defence as to whether he understood the solemn nature of the oath. It was agreed the prosecutor be allowed to ask several questions of this poor fellow about the oath he had taken. The first question was: ‘You have just taken an oath on the Bible’. ‘Yes, I have’, was the reply. The prosecutor said: ‘What do you think will happen if you tell a lie?’ The response from the gentleman in the box was: ‘I will go to hell’. The question was then put to the defendant: ‘What will happen if you tell the truth?’ The defendant replied: ‘I will go to gaol’. One could imagine, at least from that anecdote, the defendant understood there was a component of taking the oath which carried with it a duty with a consequence that flowed to another realm.
I submit there is a difference between an oath and a mere promise for numerous reasons. One of the questions I asked in my briefing was: ‘Have you consulted with churches?’ I received a blank look and the answer was: ‘No’.
I have confirmed that with Bishop Hurley, the Catholic Bishop, and Bishop Thompson, head of the Council of Churches. They have not been briefed or asked any questions. The first they heard of it was when I contacted them on this issue.
I also had the opportunity of speaking to several police officers about this and, surprisingly, many of them are angry. The comments by Superintendent Sean Parnell in the Association News show the Police Association was sufficiently moved by this amendment to pass negative comment against it.
These people work intimately in our community. I note the response from Bishop Hurley and Bishop Thompson that they will accept these changes if they occur, but they would have liked being consulted, as would the police officers.
I understand the philosophical differences between the atheist models of the world, championed by people such as Dawkins, a fine an intelligent man who constructs a reasoned and sensible argument. I also understand people consider matters of religiosity quite seriously. I note, at the last police graduation, the vast majority of new constables being sworn into the police force chose to lay their hand on a Bible and say: ‘I swear’. The vast majority of people who come into this House lay their hand on a Bible and say: ‘I swear’. The new member for Araluen did so recently.
I do not in any way pass negative judgment on people who do not carry faith as part of their philosophical construct. However, I want to impress upon members of this House, in the imagination of those police officers, those church officials, me included - we seem to take a more serious and sacred approach to placing our hand on a holy book or script and saying: ‘The promise I am about to make, the oath I am about to swear, thus endangering my immortal soul, is an oath I believe carries great weight’. I suggest at an emotional level at least, particularly for many of the police officers who have spoken to me, this is something they differentiate from a mere promise.
If a person lays their hand on a Bible they are attempting to impress upon the people around them there is something sacred about what they are doing. People who swear oaths of office choose to do so, by majority, on a Bible because they believe what they are doing is right and noble and carries with it a higher purpose than merely a job or function. That is why we expect those people to place great consequence, historically at least, on their immortal souls if they stuff it up or act badly out of malice or mala fides. Consequently, there seems to be in the public imagination, my imagination, and the imagination of many other people I have spoken to, there is something fundamentally different between swearing an oath and making a mere promise.
Whilst many lawyers will not appreciate this observation I will make it anyhow. The source of this amendment is the Chief Justice of the High Court in a letter from 2007. The issue dates back to 1983, so it has been a long-standing issue - it has been before the Law Reform Commission on several occasions. You have judges, who are lawyers, talking to Law Reform Commission participants, generally lawyers, discussing the matter with people inside the department, the decision-makers of which are generally lawyers, many agreeing with each other that the lawyers feel this should be the case.
When you compare the modern legal fraternity and the way it conducts itself with, let us say, the operation of the Catholic Church, I argue lawyers are in many ways more cloistered than the priests, nuns, and bishops of the church. They spend more time in the community, seeing the community for what it is, than many lawyers do. Lawyers, such as judges, will see people come before them in their worst state. Lawyers who have clients, either as defence lawyers, as prosecutors, or as litigation lawyers, will always see their clients in the worst state.
The process of giving evidence in a court is very arm’s length; the witness is kept outside until such time as they give their evidence then they are taken outside. It is like a bit of grist of the mill of the machine. I know the reason that occurs. However, the process of consulting about something like this does, and should, go beyond the realm of lawyers. This bill has not.
Lawyers have spoken to lawyers, who have spoken to more lawyers, and the lawyers agree. I am sure you could find any number of professional organisations, when they talk amongst themselves, they all agree on a topic. However, the fact remains when that professional organisation brings its services to people who rely on it, people may be offended, for some reason or another, about what that profession has decided. I will give you an example outside the law fraternity: bankers.
The issue this bill is purporting to deal with has been around for the last 27 years, and I hope would be something the government would consult the wider community on, particularly those people who swear oaths because, ultimately, they are the ones who may want to place their hands on a holy book or a holy writ, and who should be asked whether this should be changed. These oaths are something people take very seriously.
The Attorney-General herself professes Judaism, carries the Star of David around her neck - I make no negative comment about that. However, I observe the Attorney-General makes an affirmation in this House. Is it the case she is concerned about the nature or consequences which flow from taking an oath? Is it a matter she takes so seriously that she determines to make a mere promise, rather than take the risk of placing her own soul up as collateral for proper conduct? It is a question perhaps the Attorney-General would care to answer.
The government has become aware of some of the push back surrounding these changes, and is consequently in negotiations with the member for Nelson - and I am sure he will come to these issues shortly. We have seen the production of numerous amendments to the legislative instruments. Once again, it goes a long way to satisfying the issues I raise today and, I suspect, are similar to issues the member for Nelson has.
This presents this House, and me, with an issue. The original legislation brought before this House, essentially, went down a particular policy direction. I am aware, from time to time as bills come before this House, policy directions are not changed, what has changed is tweaking of minor amendments that need to be made as the bill is brought forward. You accept those amendments, negotiate them and say: ‘All right, we will give you a gentle slap about having to amend stuff on the floor of the House’. The mining bill we had before the House yesterday is a case in point. However, what is being proposed here is a shift in the policy suggested by the Attorney-General in the second reading speech. She is now saying we will make this act do something substantially different to what was originally intended.
Notification of these amendments was made late Friday afternoon, if memory serves me, and we all know how busy we are. Whilst I have read the amendments and am aware of their intent - and they go a long way to addressing the issues I believed were necessary - I would still like the opportunity to take these amendments away, consult with the people who will be affected by them, and come back into this House in November and debate the bill then.
I look to the Attorney-General casting a benevolent eye upon that suggestion because it would be consistent with the practice of good law making. However, I suspect the Attorney-General will be less than accommodating in relation to this suggestion for no other reason than she does not like to be wrong. As a consequence, I suspect her response - and I will be delighted if she sees the wisdom of holding this off for another month whilst consultations occur; I would be edified and delighted if she accepted the suggestion. I could seek leave to move a motion that debate be adjourned now. I will not; I will leave it in the hands of the Attorney-General to demonstrate that wisdom as well.
The former government has often, in this House, been accused of arrogance by pushing things through. If this problem has been around since 1983, there is no problem holding it over for another month. Because of the government’s haste in relation to the issue, because of the way they are pushing this through and amending it on the hop, and because there is no urgency whatsoever, I recommend the Attorney-General hold it over for another month, say it is not necessary to push through today, and consult with the people who are the subject of this bill.
Whilst I appreciate the niceties of lawyers, legal argument, and law reform being seen to be done, it is a duty we have to the people who, ultimately, lay their hands on these holy scripts and lay their immortal souls to bare in relation to the oaths they take. People who get the option to exercise an oath or an affirmation deserve the opportunity to be asked.
Madam Speaker, I urge the government to hold this bill over, rather than doing what they always do, and say: ‘Do not worry about it guys, we know what is good for you. We are not going to talk to you first, we are just going to romp this thing through. We know what is good for you’. Consultation is not difficult in these cases; it will not take long. You will find the churches, particularly, surprisingly accommodating. It is not too hard to involve the community in the law-making process.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, this is an interesting bill to debate because, as the member for Port Darwin said, what was originally put before this parliament is not quite the same as what is going to come out the other end.
Originally, there were some interesting changes proposed. In one case those changes were based on the NT Law Reform Committee report, which recommended there be changes to the oath used in courts, although it did not recommend changes to oaths or affirmations of loyalty or office. In this bill, the government decided to do that, regardless of what the NT Law Reform Committee said.
As the member for Port Darwin said, there was very little consultation in the broader community. To be honest, when I first heard this I thought I was not hearing correctly. Not only because I was disappointed the oath was being changed with no reference to God being at least part of that choice but, at that time, I believe the government had some belief the opposition supported it. Since that time, I discovered that was not quite the case. For some time I thought I was the only one who felt these changes were wrong.
I was reading that fairly current book, King Brown Country. In the back it refers to me as ‘that slightly conservative politician’. In light of this debate I hope I am not seen as supporting these amendments based on being ‘slightly conservative’.
When dealing with things like oaths, we are dealing with serious matters. The English language is a very important factor in everything we do. We can talk flippantly, we can talk with love and passion, we can talk seriously, and we can talk in a solemn manner. That is all reflected in the words we use. The words used in the oath reflect the seriousness of the situation. The definition of ‘I swear’, means ‘before God’. When you say ‘so help me God’, I understand that means God is my witness.
Words are important. Words should not be dumbed down for the sake of simplicity. That still occurs in this amendment. I could argue the point and look for different words. We could go on for a long time trying to find words which would suit me but may not suit others.
The other issue is to swear before God, whilst the norm and a little more difficult for people who do not believe in God to ask for an alternative, we turned it around to say the oath will say ‘I promise to tell the truth to the court’. If you did not know clause 10 of the act said you can have a choice of words which can include religious words, you would presume the only oath you could take was the one in front of you, ‘I promise to tell the truth’.
For me, ‘I promise to tell the truth’ is like ‘I promise not to write on the wall’, which you might have been asked to do 100 times at school. I realise the law reform people were trying to say sometimes people have difficulty understanding these words; however they have taken the solemnity out of the words. It has become like something in New Idea or Woman’s Day. It is plain English; that is all it is. We have a place to treat our language in accordance with the circumstances in which we use it.
In relation to the ability through these amendments to swear I saw, as a person who believes in God, I was being discriminated against. It could be argued in the previous manner oaths were accorded, people who did not believe in God were discriminated against. I am not asking for anyone to be discriminated against; people should be allowed to have a choice. I appreciate the government has come back with these amendments, which it has taken some time to argue over and put together. At least it is now recognised people should have a choice. People with a religious belief who would publicly like to tell people of that belief through the oath should be entitled to do so.
It seemed to me the reason for ‘dumbing down the oath’ was when reading the letter of the Chief Justice of the time he talked about:
- … difficulties in converting the language into appropriate Aboriginal languages and many Aboriginal witnesses have difficulty in understanding the concepts … in this type of language.
The minister, in her second reading speech, said Aboriginal people with English as a second language - which is not quite what he said. He gave a blanket approach to Aboriginal people in general, and there is a big danger doing that. To some extent it is patronising. My wife is Aboriginal; she certainly understands what swearing in court means. Many people, regardless of whether they speak an Aboriginal language, also have a good understanding of English. We sometimes over-exaggerate Aboriginal people not understanding English - they sit in front of television, they read the newspaper. I listen to them being interviewed, and I am offended when SBS put subtexts – I can understand the person. If there was a Scottish person on television I would rather have subtext. I do not believe it is a good reason.
While I was at the Masters Games, some Aboriginal Community Police Officers came into my office and my research lady asked them several relevant questions. She said: ‘When you graduated what did you do?’ They said: ‘We swore on the Bible’. She said: ‘Did you understand what swearing meant?’ They said: ‘Of course - we know it does not mean bad language’. They are quite competent, and we should work on what most people think rather than a few who may have difficulty. For those few who have difficulty we have an interpreter service which we spend millions on. That service should be able to explain what telling the truth is.
One of the reasons government was looking to remove any religious mention in the oath was Christian beliefs were dropping off. I will quote words from the Law Reform Committee. It said, when referring to the dropping off in religious belief, and the 1983 report:
- These factors are even more evident now ...
They were saying that is the case:
… though, rather than suggesting that Christian religious belief has ‘declined’, it may be more accurate to say that belief in divine sanction, or at least the more fearsome of them, such as eternal damnation and eternal punishment, has declined.
That is all very nice but misses the point: not all people who believe in God are Christian. More religions than Christianity believe in God. We have Muslims and Jewish people. Even Aboriginal people believe in God. They may not call it God, they may call it the Dreamtime Serpent; they may have other names for it. When we talk about swearing before God, it does not have to be a Christian God. Some people believe there is a greater force than ourselves somewhere, and we depend on that person or that force. We are saying when we make the oath that person/being is a witness before us before this court.
As for saying Christian beliefs are declining, I am not going to debate that. It is possibly true; not as many people go to church. However, it does not mean they are not Christian.
I, like the member for Port Darwin, go to many graduations for the police and at least 95% of police swear on the Bible - small number affirm. At the last graduation ceremony for ACPOs to become sworn police officers, every one swore on the Bible.
When people are given a choice – it is the same in parliament although our act is not affected by this - the majority of people swear on the Bible, which goes against the theory Christian beliefs are declining. Maybe Christian beliefs are declining; maybe God beliefs are increasing. With this legislation, when it came to the police, they would simply promise. I believe that is a bad thing to happen.
In fact, it is worth reading Sean Parnell’s letter in relation to the matter. He wrote this article to the Northern Territory Police News, October 2010, and he said:
- Politicians in the NT parliament recently passed legislation …
… repealing the Oaths Act and substituting it for the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations Act. One of the effects of this new act was it removed the oath of office for police when embarking on their solemn profession of policing.
Instead of the old gravitas of the old oath of office, the NT government has replaced it with a simple promise to ‘do the right thing’ …
They are his words:
… whatever that may be. The solemn oath … ‘do swear …’ now becomes ‘promise’ and ‘so help me God’ is omitted altogether for believers and unbelievers unlike.
By doing so they have caused the profession of policing to take a backward step and reduced the solemn oath to a promise, no different from a promise to take the garbage out before going to bed or a child’s promise to do his homework. Government of all persuasions will be the first to tell you that promises are easy to make.
But when a member takes that oath of office he makes a solemn oath before a higher power to uphold the law not just a promise to whatever may be relative at the time and place.
It would appear from the reading speech that one of the reasons for the change is that a small minority of people no longer identify themselves with a belief in God and so the majority of NT people must follow their lead.
Bibles are out the window and blank bits of paper are in. Now not everyone previously swore on the Bible but the Oaths Act allowed for that and allowed those members to make a declaration instead. Indeed even Prime Minister Gillard failed to take an oath when taking office but instead declared to ‘do the right thing’, so those members were previously taken into account and not discriminated against for their non-belief.
Notwithstanding this I believe that the act has dumbed down policing and belittled its important status by making it like any other job and not a profession whose members are sworn to uphold the law.
Mr Parnell raised some good points; they are similar to points I have already stated. This was not given enough thought. I understand the member for Port Darwin has asked why there was not a media release or more discussion, and that is fair. I did not see it. Put it this way - and I should explain the minister said there was a media release. Fair enough, but I did not see it. Maybe it is a fault of the media; it might have been too boring for them. I do not think it made any media ...
Ms Lawrie: It got a run in the NT News.
Mr WOOD: Yes, but it was not much. From the point of view of general discussion, I do not believe there was much. The reason I am supporting the amendments today is because I have been out talking to people. Even though these reflect my own views, people were concerned when they went to court they would not have the option to swear. Quite a few people felt that was a bad move by the government. Of course, I have had contact with the police and they opposed those changes.
If the government had consulted Sean Parnell may not have written his letter. It is a bit of a proof of the pudding that consultation did not occur.
It has taken much work to get this to a sensible change to the Oaths Act. It is more than a change; it is a new act. I note the definition of an ‘oath’, ‘I promise’ and ‘I swear’. Now wherever you see the word ‘oath’ in legislation you have that choice built into it. Many of these amendments today recognise that as well.
The member for Port Darwin suggested we should not rush things. Some of these amendments are not so much amendments. Because of the issues we are talking about now, they are amendments because some people did not see several bills, one, the Northern Territory Rail Safety Act, was being repealed, while the Rail Safety Act is to be promulgated at the end of the month. From memory, another bill needed some adjustment as well. I will ask the minister during the committee stage.
I believe the other bill missed was the Transport of Dangerous Goods Bill. Were changes required to the Mining Act since it has been repealed and replaced with the Mineral Titles Act? I wonder whether that has been missed off the amendments for the same reason the Rail Safety Act had originally been missed.
We can discuss that more in committee stages; however, you would hope a bill like this would be thoroughly checked. I am not saying mistakes in this bill will have anywhere near the consequences of the $13 000 no fishing in the waterfront-type bill. However, you would hope, from a professional point of view, and also not clogging up parliament with bills coming back for adjustment all the time, all the required amendments have been thoroughly checked.
Madam Speaker, I have covered everything I want to say. I hope people understand this is not about forcing my beliefs on anyone else. However, my beliefs should be respected and not put to one side. One sometimes feels if you have religious beliefs you are not in step with the rest of society. It is important to tell people I have beliefs, otherwise I become a number in parliament rather than a person. What I am saying reflects the views of people who believe not only there is a greater power, the power we have as a government comes from a higher place as well. We should recognise that when we say a prayer in this parliament.
I hope we not only avoid dumbing down our language; we do our best to make it better and use it to reflect the passion and ideals we would like to express, especially in this parliament, and not be afraid to say some of us believe there is a greater power. When we go to court, or when we put our hand on the Bible to say we will serve the Northern Territory, we do it, not just for the Northern Territory, not just before the people of the Northern Territory, but before God.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, when this was first presented I thought it needed to be carefully considered. It seems, in the argument presented by government, to be quite straightforward and easily accepted if you do not think it through. I am pleased there has been the opportunity for discussion because that is what needs to occur. What seems like a logical and reasonable position has quite significant implications. Those implications cannot be properly understood if we do not observe a few things.
As the member for Nelson said, this is not about religious belief. If we could put religion aside I have to ask the question: why is it, whether people are acknowledged believers or not, the majority of people in this parliament have chosen to swear on the Bible or something higher? They may not be churchgoers or associated in any way; they may be uncertain or may be agnostic. However, the majority swear on a Bible. Why is that? Why, when you attend a citizenship ceremony, do the majority swear on the Bible, ‘so help me God’? Why is it the clear majority of police officers, for example, swear on the Bible?
It is not a question about whether God exists or not. What it refers to is, when people make very big, important decisions, they are faced with acknowledging their response is either a response relative to how they feel about it, or a response relative to something far greater than them. That could be a constitution, a community standard, a value, but it is greater than them, and they are making a declaration in the presence of something far greater than themselves. That makes it in response to something that is far more serious.
When you look at the dictionary, you see an oath has a greater weight and links in meaning to a vow; it is a vow which is being taken. A vow is taken in the presence of something far greater, like your community, your family, or certain standards - whatever they may be. It elevates it into a different place altogether. You are making a vow; you are making a declaration in the presence of something which you are answerable to - whether it is your belief, a community standard, or something far greater than you.
However, a promise is made relative to what you see, what you think. Inherent in that is a risk it could be relative. We can have those philosophical arguments however, without allowing these matters to be discussed we are playing with significant foundations without recognising what is at play.
The worst thing is there has not been recognition of this and, consequently, there has not been a broader engagement with our community. There has not been recognition the majority, even in this House, choose to swear on a Bible. It is the recognition of the importance of your declaration, not so much your belief - whether you are a believer or not. That is not in contention here.
We have not answered the question why, when an important decision is to be made such as ‘I swear to serve as a police officer’, people prefer to swear on the Bible. It gives some kind of comfort that you are elevating it to a different status. Those discussions should have been held.
That is why the member for Port Darwin, the shadow Attorney-General, is quite right - these important considerations need to be weighed carefully in the broader community; therefore, urging the minister to allow wider engagement. You may come to the position you are adopting - which I do not agree with - after adequately engaging members of the community in a genuine discussion and dialogue about these things because, after all, consultation is something we speak about, and in matters such as this is very important. I support the member for Port Darwin in ensuring we provide enough space for that consultation.
However, if the minister chooses to ignore the call in respect of arguments put, I concede providing equal status to the promise or oath is an adequate concession. However, we need to be careful about these matters. It is regretful we have not provided the opportunity to the wider community to answer some of those deeper questions of what is behind what seemed to be, on the surface, a sensible change. Underneath, it prompts deeper questions which need to be considered and are not addressed in the primary position adopted by government.
Madam Speaker, if we are going down the path of the amendments which provide equal recognition and opportunity for people to take either, I accept that would be an adequate concession.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I thank members for their contribution to this debate and acknowledge and take on the concerns members have raised in the change to the Oaths Act and the consequential changes which flow to the making of oaths. It has been a very useful process to go through.
The member for Port Darwin said there was no media release. On 12 August there was an article in the NT News. I believe the ABC ran an item as well.
The parliamentary process of having an introduction one sittings and the passage another is to allow people to look at what is being proposed, and is the hallmark of a good government which takes on board any comments, views, or concerns which come forward in debate with committee stage amendments, and captures those views and comments.
As to consultation, yes, this significantly flowed from a judicial process we are dealing with. The genesis was a court process, which is why it came from the legal fraternity. It has had a long history. I sought, as Attorney-General, to take on the views of the most senior and experienced members or our judiciary in how they believed the change would assist with the flow of the court and an understanding of people appearing before the court. I referred that to the Law Reform Committee, and fully adopted and implemented the recommendations of the Law Reform Committee. That is not an unusual process to follow.
The Cabinet submission relating to this was circulated to Police, Fire and Emergency Services. No problems were identified. Subsequent to the tabling of the bill in the House, the Police Association raised concerns, particularly an article by Sean Parnell. As soon as we saw that article, I had a member of my office contact Mr Parnell, reassure him the legislation had not been passed simply introduced, and explained the process to him. I explained the misconception occurring regarding the original bill not taking on the committee stage amendments.
Returning to the original bill as it appeared without committee stage amendments, there was always an intent and ability for people to have a choice. It was not as highlighted into the legislation as these committee stage amendments now provide for; however, there was recognition by our government some people would want to swear on the Bible or any other religious text. That was contained in the original bill. It was not as elevated or as strong a choice as we now have before us as a result of the committee stage amendments, but there was no intent whatsoever by this government to remove the ability for people to swear on a religious text, particularly the Bible, which the majority of people in our great nation do.
I want to assure people there was no intent at all. In discussions, particularly between the member for Nelson and my staff, that was expressed. We talked about administrative processes and ways in which people appearing before court would be advised of that. The member for Nelson quite reasonably said: ‘I do not think that goes far enough; would you consider a committee stage amendment to elevate the religious oath?’ I had no problem with that, because there was no intent or desire by this government to remove a religious oath if someone wanted to read the oath. It was one of those things where people wanted comfort. I understand people wanted comfort within the legislation, which is why we have embraced the committee stage amendments - no problem with that whatsoever.
We will be going into committee stage and debating it in more detail. The bill came out of recommendations of the Northern Territory Law Reform Committee. It was driven by court procedures, which is why it came to me as Attorney-General.
It was the view of the Northern Territory Law Reform Committee that a person about to give evidence shall first be asked: ‘Do you promise to tell the truth to this court?’ with the person then giving the affirmative answer. It was then decided, for consistency’s sake, to flow those changes through to a range of other consequential oaths which are taken throughout, and we have captured those in the amendments.
The committee stage amendments today will place the administrative process of people being advised they can still swear before their God with a religious text back into the body of the new bill. The result is a simpler form of oath, being either a promise to tell the truth, or swearing by Almighty God, or other deity, to tell the truth.
I understand people who do not swear on the Bible; I take affirmations. In debate people have devalued the sincerity of a promise or an affirmation. Those who undertake an affirmation do so with solemnity. I cannot guarantee it because I do not know the solemnity of the person taking an oath on a Bible. However, I can say people who take an affirmation do so with enormous solemnity; we recognise the promise is significant.
We now have a balance capturing the diversity of our community with people who choose a religious oath, or the religious deity by which they take their oath. I believe the Bible will continue to be commonplace as it reflects the strength of Christianity in our community. Also, people will have the choice of the simpler form of oath, and will make their choice depending on their personal views and circumstances. We are not imposing that choice on people; they will form their own view and make their own choice.
Once the bill is passed, the Department of Justice will advise the key stakeholders such as the judiciary, court staff, and tribunals operating within agencies, the Law Society, Justices of the Peace, the Commissioners for Oaths, and agencies with people who can witness documents by reason of their position, and all religious establishments as well. The general public will be advised by a media release and web postings. Information will be made available on the Department of Justice website, which will include fact sheets and new statutory declaration forms.
The Chief Minister met with the Council of Churches after the introduction of the bill and gave a commitment to take on board their views on making a religious oath. They are aware of our committee stage amendments and changes, and I have been advised they are happy with them. Equally, the Police Association, through Sean Parnell, is aware, and I am advised is happy with that. The stakeholders with genuine concerns are very aware of the committee stage amendments we have before us today, and are satisfied.
I thank the Leader of the Opposition for indicating he has recognised the committee stage amendments make this an adequate bill to pass.
I do not propose to take up the suggestion by the member for Port Darwin to hold this matter over until the November sittings. There will be significant and ample consultation post the passage of the bill.
I commend the bill to the House. It will make the functioning of the court somewhat simpler and improved - a good thing to do. Enshrining the choice in the original legislation and elevating it into the legislation was a good thing. It is a positive change. This has enhanced legislation we have before us today in the committee stage amendments. I thank all members who have taken the time to understand this and commit themselves to discussion.
I pick up on the query by the member for Nelson regarding the amendments we had to capture with the Rail Safety Act and the Transport of Dangerous Goods by Road and Rail to ensure uniformity of terminology. We also picked up the Serious Crime Control Act of 2009 in that. My advice is the Mineral Titles Bill has been checked and no consequential amendments were required.
I know members intend to take this into committee. I will be happy to take on board more detailed questions in committee.
Motion agreed to; bills read a second time.
In committee:
Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations Bill (Serial 118)
Clauses 1 to 4, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 5:
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I move amendment 48.1. I invite defeat of clause 5.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 negatived.
New clauses 5 and 5A:
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I move amendment 48.2 regarding new clause 5. I do not propose to read it if members are okay with the fact they have the committee stage amendment schedule before them, as it would appear in 1, 2, and 3. Is that okay with members?
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, that is fine. Madam Chair, I will keep my comments brief. There is no point labouring on about this, however I want to pick up on one point.
I have made my opinion regarding this legislative instrument clear, and how it should pass during the second reading debate even clearer. I am disappointed the minister has taken the obdurate path rather than the good policy path - such is her business. It will rain on her head if this turns out to be a problem.
However, I pick up on one thing she said in her reply: ‘Of course, we are going to consult after we pass the legislation’. That is the legislative equivalent of shoot first, ask questions later. I place on the record my objection to the ‘shoot first, ask questions later’ approach of this government towards Territorians.
These issues are important to Territorians. They have a right to input into the issues before they are legislated and passed into law. If you think that consultation is, ‘By the way, this is what we have done. Here you go, this is the information’, that is not consultation; that is merely informing people of something which has already occurred.
Mr WOOD: Madam Chair, I have no intent of diminishing anyone’s sincerity if they use the words ‘I promise’. However, I feel ‘I promise I must tell the truth’, has lost solemnity. Were other words looked at to give it a little more value, if I could put it that way?
Ms LAWRIE: Yes, the Law Reform Committee considered the words to be used. It looked at a variety of alternatives and recommended this set of words.
Mr WOOD: It surprises me, minister, coming from the law, which loves to use big words and long sentences, they decided we would have a small promise, with simple words - that is it. Simply, could we have given it greater seriousness or solemnity so people know they were not just telling the teacher something? I am not trying to diminish it, but even Sean Parnell said the same thing. There are differences in the way you say things and where you say them and language reflects that.
However, I am satisfied, minister, the Law Reform Committee looked at other words and maybe one day …
A member: Vouchsafe?
Mr WOOD: One word I would remove from parliament is vouchsafe. I used to think it sounded like nappy-rash - foul chafe.
I am not against the language being made contemporary, but that does not mean the English language should be demoted. Thank you for that, minister.
Amendment agreed to;
New clauses 5 and 5A agreed to.
Clause 6, by leave, agreed to.
Clause 7:
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I move amendment 48.3 regarding omitting and inserting words.
Mr ELFERINK: One question in relation to the oaths. Let us use one given in a Court of Summary Jurisdiction for swearing evidence in a matter. How is the choice to take an affirmation or oath given to the person about to give evidence?
Ms LAWRIE: I am advised when the court officer asks the person to administer the oath they will be advised of the oaths and asked which one they prefer.
Mr ELFERINK: What words will be used?
Ms LAWRIE: The choice is: ‘Do you swear by almighty God to tell the truth so help me God’ or ‘Do you promise to tell the truth’.
Mr ELFERINK: You miss my point slightly. At the moment, when a witness enters the witness box the court orderly - and I use that example because I am most familiar with it. I have sworn documents of the court as well, but for the sake of this argument. A question happens before the oath is taken and it is not delivered by anybody other than the court orderly who quietly says to the witness: ‘Do you swear on the Bible?’ Will that practice continue?
Ms LAWRIE: At that point the court orderly, I am advised, would tell them there is a choice of swearing on the Bible or a simple affirmation and then, obviously, the words.
Mr ELFERINK: The question naturally follows: what form of words is used? At the moment it is: ‘Do you swear on the Bible?’ If the answer is ‘Yes’, a Bible is proffered. If the answer to the question is, ‘No’, then: ‘Do you want a Koran? Do you want to make an affirmation?’ They sort it out. However, I am wondering what words will be used by the orderly in explaining this option.
Ms LAWRIE: We are not that prescriptive in this legislation. That is an administrative process and the words will be determined. However, the words, obviously, have to reflect and give effect to the legislation before us.
Mr ELFERINK: The reason I am being cautious about this is I want to ensure, whilst the legislation carries certain implications with it, those implications are carried through to the court and that a …
Ms LAWRIE: I can guarantee the court would meet the requirements of our legislation. We are talking about court officers.
Mr ELFERINK: I want to ensure the question put reflects the legislative instrument. At the moment it is very straightforward. By the way, ‘Do you swear on the Bible?’ would probably satisfy the needs of this legislation. Would you agree, Attorney-General?
Ms LAWRIE: The new clauses 5(2) and (3), for example, say:
- 2. If an oath is to be taken by a person, (person A), the person administering the oath must:
(c) the person administering the oath is satisfied it is not reasonably practical for person A to take an oath in his or her chosen form.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you. Would the question ‘Do you swear on the Bible?’ qualify to meet the needs of this legislative instrument? If not, what other words would?
Ms LAWRIE: I do not see why not.
Mr ELFERINK: Why are we changing the law if we are not going to change the practice?
Ms LAWRIE: Because the law provides for a choice.
Mr ELFERINK: It does now. We are not changing anything. We are now told the practical application of this legislation will mean there is no change to what occurs when a witness enters the witness box. What are we doing? Why are we here?
Ms LAWRIE: It does change it. It does change it. The words are much more simplified. It goes to the genesis of the Law Reform Committee’s work, through the discussions, through the court process, through the judiciary for years. It does change it. The words now are very complex; old English language words. Judges have asked the words be simpler because they are seeing difficulties in the courts. The Law Reform Committee has looked at this issue, concurred, and has put recommendations forward.
You heard previous debate between the member for Nelson and me; the words are simplified. The member for Nelson queried the need to simplify them. I have gone back to the consideration of the Law Reform Committee. The Law Reform Committee, I have to say, is very capable of making assessments of the practice of our courts.
The Law Reform Committee’s President and Chair is Hon Austin Asche AC QC, the former Supreme Court Chief Justice, and members are the then Chief Magistrate, Ms Jenny Blokland, Matthew Storey, the Associate Professor of Law of Charles Darwin University, Mr Max Horton OAM, a legal practitioner from Central Australia, Mr Nikolai Christrup of the Northern Territory Bar Association, and Ms Tamika Williams, of the Department of Justice Executive Office. So, they went ..
Mr Tollner: Anyone apart from lawyers?
Madam CHAIR: Order, order! Member for Fong Lim, you do not have the call.
Ms LAWRIE: It went to the issue of simplification of language raised by the Chief Justice. So, I referred it to the Law Reform Committee. The words are changed. There is ...
Mr Elferink: Yes, but they did not talk about these amendments.
Madam CHAIR: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: There is a material difference, once this legislation is passed, in the simplification of the language. We will have, clearly and starkly in the legislation and the administrative practice enshrined in here, a very clear choice.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Chair, nice dodge. However, the point is the Attorney-General has told us nothing changes the practical application …
Ms Lawrie: No, I did not say that.
Mr ELFERINK: Nothing changes when the witness enters the witness box. The question the witness is asked, ‘Do you swear on the Bible?’ will probably be the same words that will satisfy the needs of these amendments.
By the way, what was Austin Asche’s response to these amendments? Did you run them by him? No, because Austin Asche’s input was in relation to the original bill.
Can you tell me what Brian Martin’s input to these amendments was? None, because you did not consult him. Your approach to legislative change is legislate first, consult later. That is what you said before ...
Ms Lawrie: We asked this question. Can I answer the question?
Mr ELFERINK: You can sit down; I am on my feet …
Ms Lawrie: A former …
Mr ELFERINK: Sit down. Sit down, I am on my feet; I have the call.
Madam CHAIR: Order! Order! Member for Port Darwin …
Mr ELFERINK: Sit down.
Ms Lawrie: The former Chief Justice, Brian Martin, had these run past him and said they were fine …
Madam CHAIR: Attorney-General, resume your seat, please!
Mr ELFERINK: Sit down!
Madam CHAIR: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: Good. Table his response; I would like to see it. Table Austin Asche’s response. The Law Reform Commission has not had any reference to these amendments. The Law Reform Commission was talking about the original bill.
To avoid difficulties with the original bill you have brought the law back to where it is now. So, we are having a debate in this parliament about the law effectively not being changed. Why? Because when a witness enters the witness box the question will be: ‘Do you swear on the Bible?’ What happens now? When the witness enters the witness box the question is: ‘Do you swear on the Bible?’
Ms Lawrie: You will be given an active choice.
Mr ELFERINK: You are always given an active choice. It has always been the case ...
Ms Lawrie: You are twisting everything like you do. You are twisting it like you always do.
Mr ELFERINK: This is the point. You are making this up as you go along ...
Ms Lawrie: That is insulting to the Department of Justice and the lawyers who work with me. That is insulting everyone who works on this.
Mr Mills: You will have your chance.
Madam CHAIR: Order! Order!
Mr ELFERINK: There we drag out this hoary chestnut. If I have the audacity to question her or her motives and intentions, I am insulting the department. Perhaps she should have done the homework properly in the first place. If you consulted with people initially you would not have been dealing with these amendments now.
It is the arrogance you have brought to the passage of this bill which has landed you in this trap ...
Ms Lawrie: Happy to deal with the amendments. I made that clear in my summing up - embracing them.
Mr ELFERINK: All you have to do is hold it over for a month and talk to the Law Reform Commission to see if they have comments on the amendments, because they do not agree. Their comments were: ‘Get rid of this sort of stuff’ ...
Ms Lawrie: You know they do not agree, do you?
Mr ELFERINK: Their comments were: ‘Get rid of this sort of stuff’, from your second reading speech. That is how I know - you said they told you: ‘Get rid of this stuff’. You are bringing it back in. What is the Commission’s opinion on the amendments? The opinion will be: ‘It is not what we told you to do’ ...
Ms Lawrie: Oh, you know their opinion, do you?
Mr ELFERINK: I believed your second reading speech. At least somebody from the department had the courtesy to write the truth, rather than what you normally do in this House when you speak freely.
Madam Chair, this is poorly considered legislation. It is the reason I become critical of this government and how it conducts business. This is legislation by compromise; it is ill-considered and not properly done by way of consultation with the people affected. You have side-stepped the Law Reform Commission, which was the justification for a different policy course to the one you are now taking. Now, you are intoning their membership - Austin Asche, all those people - saying they support this. Yet, when pressed, you can only find one who said: ‘Yes, I looked at it; it looks okay to me’ - that is Brian Martin. What about the rest of them?
Ms Lawrie: Is there a question in this, or is it just …
Mr ELFERINK: No, but I have another six minutes.
Ms Lawrie: … your self-aggrandisement thing you do.
Madam CHAIR: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: You are wasting the time of this House, and all you can do …
Ms Lawrie: You are wasting the time of this House, because you are not asking a question.
Mr ELFERINK: All you had to do was come into this House, withdraw the bill, and not much would have changed for all practical purposes.
Ms Lawrie: Is there any question in that?
____________________
Visitors
Visitors
Madam CHAIR: Please pause, member for Fong Lim. I acknowledge our visitors in the public gallery. I advise honourable members of the presence of the gallery of Years 5 and 6 Bakewell Primary School students, accompanied by Ms Brianna Schilg, Mrs Theresa Snijders, Ms Kate McGinty and Ms Julie Burgess. On behalf of honourable members, I extend a warm welcome to our visitors.
Members: Hear, hear!
____________________
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Chair, it is great to see the kids from Bakewell. They tell me it is one of the best schools in the Northern Territory. I do not know. We have the Education minister here, maybe he can confirm that. It is great to see them here.
Attorney-General, I have a very simple question for you. Can you give us the names of the Northern Territory’s religious leaders you consulted with, and their responses?
Ms LAWRIE: Yes, certainly. As I said in the summing up, post the introduction of the oaths bill we have before us the Chief Minister met with the Council of Churches. A significant number of religious leaders were at that meeting.
Mr TOLLNER: The second part of the question: what is their response? Have they provided a written response or something we can look at?
Ms LAWRIE: The legislation was discussed at the meeting. The Chief Minister gave a commitment to embrace their views in ensuring people had an active choice of a religious oath and access to a religious text, usually in the form of the Bible. The Chief Minister gave them a full commitment and we have the committee stage amendments before us. It was a combination of the engagement with the Council of Churches, as well as the engagement with the member for Nelson which has led to the committee stage amendments. I said that in my summing up, member for Fong Lim.
Mr TOLLNER: You mentioned the Bible. What other religious organisations have you spoken to?
Ms LAWRIE: I will have to get back to you on the breadth of who was present at that meeting, member for Fong Lim. I do not have the list on me.
Mr TOLLNER: Would you be able to get back to us with some written correspondence, or are we taking the Chief Minister at his word about the discussions held?
Ms LAWRIE: There is no written correspondence from that meeting. The view is people are satisfied with what we have done in embracing the desire for an active choice between a religious oath and text, and a simple promise.
You can do your own homework on that, member for Fong Lim. I am sure you are capable of asking people that. There are members who are comforted by the committee stage amendments before us and have, of their own volition prior to debate today, canvassed the views of religious bodies.
Mr TOLLNER: When you say they are ‘satisfied’, what does that mean? There is a ringing endorsement, or are they too scared to put up any objections in fear of what you may do? What does ‘satisfied’ mean?
Ms LAWRIE: Member for Fong Lim, you are getting into a fairly offensive area of insinuating I would make threats or intimidation …
Mr TOLLNER: I am just asking …
Ms LAWRIE: No, hang on. You have alleged, let me respond. You are insinuating I would make …
Mr Tollner: I have not alleged, I am asking …
Madam CHAIR: Member for Fong Lim, you have asked a question, the Attorney-General is trying to answer it.
Ms LAWRIE: … any threats or any intimidation of any religious leaders in our community. That is as offensive as it can be to someone who holds a religious belief deeply to their core, who attends - I am a member of this parliament and I represent the most diverse community in the Territory, based on the ABS demographic breakdown. You will find many churches in my electorate of Karama. I frequently attend a range of different faiths and participate in prayers with them; I have a strong and abiding respect for a variety of religions, and religious leaders in our community who do fine work, irrespective of their faith.
I have a faith I was born into. I also have a faith I practice, quite aside from my original faith. My children attend a Catholic school. I am on good speaking terms with Bishop Eugene Hurley. My local parish priest, Father Luis is an amazingly superb, fantastic man. For you to allege in some way as Attorney-General, I would have hostile view towards anyone of religious faith - a religious leader or a religious community - is highly offensive and very wrong.
Maybe you allege that because you perform in an aggressive manner towards people, but I certainly do not, nor would I.
Mr TOLLNER: Madam Chair, I would like to respond to that. I was not making any allegations at all. I find it offensive the member for Karama has to bang on about what she thinks other people might think. The reality is I was asking what she means by ‘satisfied’; whether there is a ringing endorsement from religious groups or not. It is a simple question.
The Attorney-General might want to go off on some bizarre tangent and explain her ecumenical nature and how much she loves religious groups. I am sure we all do in this House; it goes without saying. I am curious as to what she means by ‘satisfied’. That is a question.
Madam CHAIR: If the Attorney-General does not answer that question it is because she probably feels she has already answered it, member for Fong Lim. She is under no obligation to respond.
Mr WOOD: I remind the member for Fong Lim he calls me a ‘cattle tick’.
This is more of a technical question, minister. We are going through clause by clause. Are there any explanatory notes? When a minister is introducing amendments some reason is given. That is included in Hansard so, if we look back to the reason why these amendments were introduced, we understand why.
Ms LAWRIE: No fulsome explanatory notes. I will undertake to provide detailed explanatory notes to you, member for Nelson. They are pretty standard amendments we are making; they are consistent. Of course, there are many consequential amendments so you will see a very repetitive explanation, but it will reflect what I am saying in this debate.
Mr WOOD: Is it possible for those explanatory notes to be incorporated in Hansard?
Ms LAWRIE: Absolutely, yes. I have some - fairly, ‘vanilla’ comments here I am more than happy to incorporate into Hansard.
Mr ELFERINK: A couple of questions in relation to the meeting between the Chief Minister and the Council of Churches. On what date did that occur? Who initiated the contact, government or the Council of Churches?
Ms LAWRIE: I do not have the date with me. I can advise it was between the sittings period, so between the August sittings and this October sittings. The Chief Minister meets on a regular basis with the Council of Churches.
Mr ELFERINK: After the sittings which introduced this bill he met with the Council of Churches and this topic was raised? Who raised the topic, the Council of Churches or the Chief Minister?
Ms LAWRIE: I was not at the meeting.
Mr ELFERINK: Well, I wrote to the Council of Churches almost immediately after the last sittings. I do not have it with me; it is on my computer in my office otherwise I would table it. I wrote to Bishop Hurley and to the Islamic community. I have had responses from both Bishop Hurley and the Council of Churches - verbally from the Council of Churches and in writing from Bishop Hurley.
You may have been surprised by their accommodation, but the concern expressed to me is they would have liked to have been in the loop.
Amendment agreed to.
Committee suspended.
DISTINGUISHED VISITOR
Mr Robert Macleod JP
Mr Robert Macleod JP
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the Speaker’s Gallery of His Worship the Mayor of Palmerston, Mr Robert Macleod JP. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
OATHS, AFFIDAVITS AND DECLARATIONS BILL
(Serial 118)
OATHS, AFFIDAVITS AND DECLARATIONS (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL
(Serial 119)
(Serial 118)
OATHS, AFFIDAVITS AND DECLARATIONS (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL
(Serial 119)
Continued from earlier this day.
In committee:
Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations Bill (Serial 118):
Clause 7 continued:
Madam CHAIR: Honourable members, we will resume debate on the amendments to the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations Bill 2010 (Serial 118). Attorney-General, you are going to move your amendment 48.4.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I move amendment 48.4. This amendment inserts a new clause 7(2A). The reason for this amendment is to provide for a witness who, having chosen the religious oath in clause 5(1)(b), replies to the question as to whether they swear to tell the truth with the words ‘So help me God’. The words ‘So help me God’, or as appropriate, are taken to be an unconditional affirmative answer for the purposes of clause 7(2).
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8, by leave, agreed to.
Clause 9:
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I move amendment 48.5. This amendment makes a consequential amendment to clause 9(2) of the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations Bill 2010 as a consequence of the amendment to clause 5(1), and renumbers the reference to section 5(1) by substituting the words ‘section 5(1)(a)’.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10:
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I move amendment 48.6. This amendment amends clause 10 of the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations Bill 2010. The reason for this amendment is to ensure that, where for example the form of the oath is provided for in other legislation, a person can still take the oath in any form they want as provided for in clause 10, if the person administering the oath is satisfied they understand the consequences of taking an oath, and are taking the oath honestly and in good faith, intending to be bound by it.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
New clause 10A:
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I move amendment 48.7. The amendment inserts a new clause 10A into the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations Bill 2010. The reason for this amendment is to overcome some practical difficulties with religious oaths. Clause 10A(1) provides it is not necessary that a religious text be used in taking an oath. This is to ensure the religious oath can still be taken if chosen, even though the court or tribunal is unable to secure a particular religious text needed, and the oath cannot be challenged for that reason. Religious text such as the Bible will still be available should a person choose to swear on the Bible.
Clause 10A(2) preserves the validly of a religious oath if taken, even though the witness did not have a religious belief, or did not have a religious belief of a particular kind at the time of taking it.
Amendment agreed to.
New Clause 10A agreed to.
Clauses 11 to 32, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Schedule 1:
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I move amendment 48.8. This amendment makes a consequential amendment to Schedule 1 of the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations Bill 2010 as a consequence of renumbering clause 5(2) as clause 5A. It substitutes the reference to section 5A(b) for section 5(1)(b).
Amendment agreed to.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I move amendment 48.9. This amendment makes a consequential amendment to Schedule 1 of the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations Bill 2010 as a consequence of the addition of the alternative religious oath. It omits the words ‘I promise’ as the content of an oath provided in the schedule applies whichever form of oath is chosen.
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Remainder of bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill to be reported with amendments.
Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations (Consequential Amendments) Bill (Serial 119):
Madam CHAIR: Honourable members, we will now consider the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010 (Serial 119), together with the Schedule of Amendments No 49.
Clauses 1 to 18, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 19:
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I move amendment 49.1. This amendment invites defeat of the current clause 19 of the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010. The reason for this amendment is to allow a new clause 19 to be inserted to refer to the choice in the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010 when a person takes an oath.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 19 negatived.
New clause 19:
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I move amendment 49.2. This amendment inserts a new clause 19 into the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010. The reason for this amendment is consequential on the committee stage amendments to clause 5 of the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations Bill to provide for a choice when a person taken an oath.
Clause 19 amends Schedule 1 of the Coroner’s Act which provides for the content of the oath when a person takes an oath of office as Deputy Coroner. The amendment provides the oath of office can be taken in the form of either ‘I promise …’ etcetera, or ‘I swear …’ etcetera, as provided in clause 5 of the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations Bill 2010. The form of the affirmation of office is omitted.
Amendment agreed to.
New clause 19 agreed to.
Clauses 20 to 60, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 61:
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I move amendment 49.3 which invites defeat of the current clause 61 of the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010. The reason for this amendment is to allow for a new clause 61 to be inserted to refer to the choice in the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations Bill 2010 when a person takes an oath.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 61 negatived.
New clause 61:
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I move amendment 49.4. This amendment inserts a new clause 61 in the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010. The reason for this amendment is consequential on the committee stage amendments to clause 5 of the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations Bill to provide for a choice when a person takes an oath.
Clause 61 amends Schedule 6 of the Juries Act which provides for the content of the oath when a person takes an oath as a juror in a criminal or civil trial, or as an officer in charge of a jury. The amendment provides the oath can be taken in the form of either, ‘I promise …’ etcetera, or, ‘I swear …’ etcetera, as provided in clause 5 of the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations Bill 2010. Clause 61(3) makes the oath of office of the officer in charge of a jury consistent with the other oaths in that the person says the words. The content of the oath remains the same.
New clause 61 agreed to.
Clauses 62 to 108, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 109:
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I move amendment 49.5. I invite defeat of the current clause 109 of the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010. The reason for this amendment is to allow a new clause 109 to be inserted to refer to the choice in the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations Bill 2010 when a person takes an oath.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 109 negatived.
New clause 109:
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I move amendment 49.6. This amendment inserts a new clause 109 in the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010. The reason for this amendment is consequential on the committee stage amendments to clause 5 of the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations Bill to provide for a choice when a person takes an oath. Clause 109 amends Schedule 1 of the Public Notaries Act which provides for the content of the oath when a person takes an oath of office as a public notary. The amendment provides the oath of office can be taken in the form of either ‘I promise …’ etcetera, or ‘I swear …’ etcetera, as provided in clause 5 of the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations Bill 2010. The form of the affirmation of office is omitted.
New clause 109 agreed to.
Clauses 110 to 113, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 114:
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I move amendment 49.7. I invite defeat of the current clause 114 of the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010. The reason for this amendment is to allow a new clause 114 to be inserted to refer to the choice in the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations Bill 2010 when a person takes an oath.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 114 negatived.
New clause 114:
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I move amendment 49.8. This amendment inserts a new clause 114 in to the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010. The reason for this amendment is consequential on the committee stage amendments to clause 5 of the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations Bill to provide for a choice when a person takes an oath. Section 114 amends Schedule 1 of the Supreme Court Act, which provides for the content of the oath when a person takes an oath of office as a judge of the Supreme Court. The amendment provides the oath of office can be taken in the form of either ‘I promise …’ etcetera, or ‘I swear …’ etcetera, as provided in clause 5 of the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations Bill 2010. The form of the affirmation is omitted.
New clause 114 agreed to.
Clause 115:
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I move amendment 49.9. This amendment invites defeat of the current clause 115 of the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010. The reason for this amendment is to allow a new clause 115 be inserted to refer to the choice in the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations Bill 2010 when a person takes an oath.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 115 negatived.
New clause 115:
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I move amendment 49.10. The amendment inserts a new clause 115 into the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010. The reason for this amendment is consequential on the committee stage amendments to clause 5 of the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations Bill 2010 to provide for a choice when a person takes an oath. Clause 115 amends Schedule 2 of the Supreme Court Act which provides for the content of the oath when a person takes an oath of office as Master of the Supreme Court. The amendment provides the oath of office can be taken in the form of either ‘I promise …’ or ‘I swear …’ as provided in clause 5 of the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations Bill 2010, the form of the affirmation is omitted.
New clause 115 agreed to.
Clauses 116 to 202, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Schedule 1:
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I move amendment 49.11. This amendment amends the Schedule to the Director of Public Prosecutions Act and Schedule 1 of the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010. The reason for this amendment is consequential on the committee stage amendments to clause 5 of the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations Bill 2010 to provide for a choice when a person takes an oath. Schedule 1 amends the schedule to the Director of Public Prosecutions Act which provides for the content of the oath when a person takes an oath of office as the Director of Public Prosecutions. The amendment provides the oath of office can be taken in the form of either ‘I promise …’ or ‘I swear …’ as provided in clause 5 of the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations Bill 2010. The form of the affirmation of office is omitted.
Amendment agreed to.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I move amendment 49.12 which amends Schedule 2 of the Justice of the Peace Act on the Schedule 1 of the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010. The reason for this amendment is consequential on the committee stage amendments to clause 5 of the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations Bill 2010 to provide for a choice when a person takes an oath. Schedule 1 omits Schedule 2 of the Justice of the Peace Act which provides for the content of the oath when a person takes an oath of office as a Justice of the Peace. The amendment provides the oath of office can be taken in the form of ‘I promise …’ or ‘I swear …’ as provided in clause 5 of the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations Bill 2010. The form of the affirmation of office is omitted.
Amendment agreed to.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I move amendment 49.13. This amendment amends the schedule to the Magistrates Act in Schedule 1 of the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010. The reason for this amendment is consequential on the committee stage amendments to clause 5 of the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations Bill 2010 to provide for a choice when a person takes an oath. Schedule 1 amends the schedule to the Magistrates Act which provides for the content of the oath when a person takes an oath of office as a Magistrate, Chief Magistrate, Deputy Chief Magistrate, Stipendiary Magistrate, Acting Magistrate, Relieving Magistrate, or Special Magistrate. The amendment provides the oath of office can be taken in the form of either ‘I promise …’ or ‘I swear …’ as provided in clause 5 of the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations Bill 2010. The form of affirmation of office is omitted.
Amendment agreed to.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I move amendment 49.14 which amends Schedule 1 of the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010 by omitting the proposed amendments to the Northern Territory Rail Safety Act which will be repealed as of 31 October 2010.
Amendment agreed to.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I move amendment 49.15. This amendment amends Form 1 in the schedule to the Police Administration Act in Schedule 1 of the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010. The reason for this amendment is consequential on the committee stage amendments to clause 5 of the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations Bill 2010 to provide for a choice when a person takes an oath.
Schedule 1 amends Form 1 in the schedule to the Police Administration Act, which provides for the content of the oath when a person takes an oath of office as a member or special constable of the police force. The amendment provides the oath of office can be taken in the form of ‘I promise …’ or ‘I swear …’ as provided in clause 5 of the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations Bill 2010. The words: ‘administered by’ are substituted for the word ‘before’ for consistency of terminology.
Amendment agreed to.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I move amendment 49.16 which amends Form 1 in the schedule to the Police Administration Act in Schedule 1 of the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010. The reason for this amendment is consequential on the committee stage amendments to clause 5 of the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010 to provide for a choice when a person takes an oath. Schedule 1 amends Form 3 in the schedule to the Police Administration Act, which provides for the content of the oath when a person takes an oath of office as a member or a deputy member of the Police Arbitral Tribunal.
The amendment provides the oath of office can be taken in the form of either ‘I promise …’ or ‘I swear …’ as provided in clause 5 of the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010. The form of the affirmation of office is omitted.
Amendment agreed to.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I move amendment 49.17. This amendment amends Schedule 1 of the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010 by inserting after the Public Trustee Act, amendments to the Rail Safety Act 2010 which will commence on 31 October 2010.
The amendments substitute the words: ‘take an oath’ for ‘make and oath or affirmation’ in section 126(1)(c) of the Rail Safety Act, and omits the words ‘or affirmation’ in section 132(2) to ensure uniformity of terminology.
Amendment agreed to.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I move amendment 48.18 which amends Schedule 1 of the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010 by inserting after the Residential Tenancies Act amendments to the Serious Crime Control Act 2009 which was assented to on 11 November 2009.
Section 89 of the Serious Crime Control Act 2009 amends the Criminal Code, replacing section 103A, and the new section 103A(5)(b)(ii) refers to a person sworn as a juror.
The amendment substitute the words ‘has taken the oath’ for ‘has been sworn’ in the new section 103A(5)(b)(ii) to ensure uniformity of terminology.
Amendment agreed to.
Ms LAWRIE: I move amendment 49.19. This amends Schedule 1 of the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010 by inserting after the Traffic Act amendments to the Transport of Dangerous Goods by Road and Rail (National Uniform Legislation) Act 2010 which was assented to on 9 September 2010 and expected to commence in 2011.
The amendment substitutes the words ‘made and oath’ for ‘sworn’ in section 61(3((b) of the Transport of Dangerous Goods by Road and Rail (National Uniform Legislation) Act 2010; ‘the application was made, as mentioned, in subsection (3(b)’ for ‘the information mentioned in subsection (3) was not sworn’; and ‘duly made an oath’ for ‘duly sworn’ in section 61(6) to ensure uniformity of terminology.
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 2:
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, I move amendment 49.20. This amendment amends Schedule 1 of the Legal Profession Admission Rules in Schedule 2 of the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010. The reason for this amendment is consequential on the committee stage amendments to clause 5 of the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010 to provide for a choice when a person takes an oath.
Schedule 2 amends Schedule 1 of the Legal Profession Admission Rules which provides for the content of the oath when a person takes an oath as a lawyer of the Supreme Court before admission. The amendment provides the oath can be taken in the form of either ‘I promise …’ or ‘I swear …’ as provided in clause 5 of the Oaths, Affidavits and Declarations Bill 2010. The form of the affirmation is omitted.
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill to be reported with amendments
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Chair, information was sought prior to the lunch break regarding the date of the meeting between the Council of Churches and the Chief Minister. It was Thursday, 16 September 2010. Present were Bishop Eugene Hurley of the Catholic Church; Bishop Greg Thompson, Anglican; Reverend Mark Dickens, Anglican; Reverend Wendell Flentje, Uniting Church; and Reverend Paul Turley, Uniting Church.
Also, there was a question regarding the difference between the current court process and the future court process. It has quite a significant amount of text, so I will table it for perusal by the member opposite at his leisure.
Bills reported; report adopted.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move the bills be now read a third time.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I thank the Attorney-General for, at the death knell, passing me these vitally different arrangements which exist as a result of the exertions of this House. I note, whilst there are differences in language, essentially there are no effective differences in substance. I do, with some amusement, note what is currently used in the court:
- If they choose a religious oath they are handed the Bible or appropriate religious text, if available.
Under the new arrangement it will be:
- If they choose a religious oath they are handed the Bible or appropriate religious text, if available.
We have achieved much today - a glorious victory for changing the laws of the Northern Territory! A great ship of state has been wheeled around and turned 360. Hang on, we are going in the same direction. Well done.
Madam Speaker, I congratulate the government and the Attorney-General - a victory for common sense!
Motion agreed to; bills read a third time.
PENALTIES AMENDMENT (JUSTICE AND TREASURY LEGISLATION) BILL
(Serial 124)
(Serial 124)
Continued from 19 August 2010.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I am able to inform the House we will not have the same problem with this bill. Members on this side of the House will not be objecting to this bill.
The effect of this bill is to do what so many legislative instruments before this House previously have done - and I expect more will do in the future - which is turning dollar amount units into penalty units, thus saving this House passing rafts of minor amendments and omnibus bills to deal with the constant updating of dollar amounts.
I make some observations. A penalty ascribed by this House is punitive in nature and a fairly arbitrary figure. One could pull the penalty out of the ether and apply it - quite an anomaly in this House - without reaching any real touchstone as to what that punitive direction is. For example, there have been some recent examples in this House where the ‘non-linked with the real world nature of penalties’ have been $13 300 or 100 penalty units for children walking into toilets reserved for people of the opposite gender. That is the arbitrary nature of setting a penalty unit and the nature of these things.
However, as a consequence, there are some 20 pieces of legislation - as I glance at my notes - which need updating and brought into the penalty units framework.
The Attorney-General has kindly explained the rationale for this change, and has determined to work into that rationale a CPI increase and some rounding calculations. It is an arbitrary change. I imagine very few of these penalties have ever been brought to bear against any individual. It is possible, but I suspect some of these have never had a complaint or information laid either in the lower or Supreme Court against these section numbers. One could be inclined to think government is seeking to rake in some extra dough by whacking the extra 15% on top but, in reality, those numbers would be insignificant in relation to the overall budget of the Northern Territory.
This has been an arbitrary decision to take the penalty unit and make it reflect the value of the penalty as it was at the time the penalty units legislation was introduced. Fair enough, I suppose. I am not going to lose sleep over that, and I do not believe this House should either.
The fact is these are arbitrary figures. It is not damages for civil claims or breach of contract. There is always a loss to determine what the damages paid should be. In various actions under tort there are penalty-type provisions for damages being sought and granted by a court that usually requires mala fides on the part of the party who is having the decision turned against them. Once again, courts also struggle with those penalty-type settlements in providing a value to them.
To cut a long story short, we are satisfied. I have run a tertiary calculation over about half, run the same formula described by the Attorney-General, and have come up with figures very similar to the second column of this legislative instrument.
Consequently, we do not oppose this bill. We will allow it to pass into law. I imagine it has caused so much excitement that any number of members will be leaping to their feet to contribute to this debate.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I am delighted to respond, thanking the opposition for their support. It is what I committed to doing. We are progressively working through legislative provisions to ensure we convert penalties into penalty units. This follows on from the Justice Legislation Amendment Penalties Bill, enacted in April this year and commenced on 1 July 2010. I am proud my agencies, the Department of Justice and the Northern Territory Treasury, are working proactively on the government’s intent to convert penalties to penalty units so they can be automatically indexed to the Consumer Price Index, commonly known as the CPI, in accordance with a formula in the Penalty Units Act.
If, as Treasurer, I handed out gold stars to departments busy implementing the conditions Cabinet has laid down, I hand out gold stars today to the Department of Justice and the Northern Territory Treasury. Officers of those departments have worked together to bring this rationalisation of all penalties before the House into modern standards, increasing the penalties covered by the bill by about 50%. My Department of Justice has undertaken to inform stakeholders of the most recent changes and I thank them for that. Information about these changes will be placed on the Department of Justice website, and an advertisement about this bill and its effect will be placed in the Northern Territory News. Congratulations to officers of the Department of Justice and the Northern Territory Treasury.
It does not amend some bills because the penalties are being dealt with in other proposed bills; namely, the Territory Insurance Office. A number of acts are being repealed and therefore have not been updated: the port tax act, the Energy Resource Consumption Levy Act, the Energy Resource Consumption Levy (Waiver of Levy) Act and the Financial Institutions Duty Act. The Liquor Act is under review so we have not touched those penalties.
Other than that, comprehensive, thorough work has been done by officers at both Northern Territory Treasury and Department of Justice and I sincerely thank them - gold stars handed out today.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General) (by leave): Madam Speaker, I move the bill be now read a third time.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, it is very unusual for a member when reading a bill to give a third reading speech. My understanding is there is a delay in trying to get someone back here ...
Ms Lawrie: No, there is not.
Mr ELFERINK: In that case, I will not filibuster; I will sit down.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
MOTION
Note Statement - Enough is Enough – Proposed Alcohol Reforms
Note Statement - Enough is Enough – Proposed Alcohol Reforms
Continued from 26 October 2010.
Mr HAMPTON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I support the statement on alcohol reforms. As the Minister for Alcohol Policy said, the negative impact of alcohol on communities, families, and individual Territorians cannot be underestimated.
I reflect on previous speakers to this statement, and the commonality of what is being said about the level of responsibility individuals must take in alcohol addiction and alcohol issues.
In my experience, growing up in Alice Springs in The Gap in the 1960s and 1970s was a tough time, and alcohol was a problem for many families. A very important part of my life experience has been how alcohol can have an impact on families and the structures of family networks.
I agree with many speakers. The member for Nelson spoke of the personal responsibility people must take, the member for Port Darwin gave his own experience of dealing with alcohol addiction, and the member for Barkly spoke about the importance of self-responsibility.
In my home town of Alice Springs, I sadly see the ravages of alcohol abuse nearly every day. In my time growing up in The Gap in the 1960s 1970s it was an issue then and, sadly, is still an issue today. Whether it is people sleeping rough because they would rather be drinking than live a safe and healthy life, or whether they are neglecting their children because they are on the grog; it is really sad to see.
I acknowledge there are young people who feel safer on the streets at night than at home because everyone is drinking. That is a real situation in Alice Springs, as it is across Australia. It is something we all see and something we need to act on. In many cases, it is how you respond to those social challenges.
In Alice Springs, the community has taken the lead in alcohol reform over many years. It is not a new problem. In 1975, an evaluation of the alcohol situation in Alice Springs was conducted and it recommended government and non-government agencies take a holistic approach. Does that not sound familiar today! The evaluation in 1975 recommended government agencies take a holistic approach and work together to tackle the social and community problems caused by alcohol abuse.
As we all know, and the Minister for Alcohol Policy has said many times in this House, the consumption of alcohol in Alice Springs per person is significantly higher than the national average. Many theories have been put forward as to why this is the case, and I will leave it to more learned people than myself to debate. However, the fact is in Central Australia we drink too much.
In 2002, takeaway hours were reduced, and the Alcohol Management Plan was introduced in 2006 with the aim of reducing supply, reducing harm and reducing demand. The plan included restrictions on the sale of alcohol in Alice Springs, changes to takeaway liquor sales, and limits on fortified and cask wine. This was followed by the declaration of public restricted areas, also known as dry town laws, in 2007, and the introduction of identification requirements for the purchase of takeaway alcohol in 2008.
The electronic ID system has proved an effective tool in enforcing court-ordered bans and restrictions. Of course, measures introduced under the Commonwealth intervention have also impacted on Alice Springs, with income quarantining arguably having an effect.
Restrictions and other measures have been, and continue to be, a matter of some debate. However, the Alice Springs Alcohol Management Plan is making a difference.
I go back to what the Minister for Alcohol Policy stated in the House, in the reforms we have seen in Alice Springs, through a range of actions put in place by the Henderson Labor government - and there is more to be done, it is not perfect - serious assaults dropped by 21% and sales of pure alcohol reduced by 18%.
In Alice Springs we drink too much and alcohol continues to be consumed at twice the level of Darwin and Palmerston. Alcohol is involved in two-thirds of all violent crimes and contributes to 70% of policing costs in Alice Springs. Alice Springs has also three times the rate of protective custody incidents than Darwin and Palmerston. That is why the Henderson government says Enough is Enough.
Moving on from the alcohol management plan, which is making a difference, is the announcement, in conjunction with the federal minister for Families and Children, of the proposal to buy back three liquor licences in Alice Springs. The minister has said the licences held by BP Gap, Hoppy’s Cash Store, and Heavitree Gap Store would not have been granted under current licensing practices. Negotiations are ongoing with the proprietors. This buy-back was a key recommendation of the Alice Springs Alcohol Management Plan, and something I have raised with my government in my four years as a member of this parliament on a regular basis.
The alcohol management plan is making a difference to Alice Springs, and I will go through those figures again: 18% reduction and fewer alcohol sales – a significant achievement and one I believe is recognised by the community. Of course, tackling supply is one side of the coin, there is also the need to reduce harm as well as demand.
I have also spoken a number of times in this House about the Alice Springs Transformation Plan and the positive impact this is having, and will continue to have, in the Centre. Going back to the report and evaluation of 1975 about taking a holistic approach to these types of issues; this is something the transformation plan is aiming to do. The transformation plan is comprised of three strategies: the first is transforming the town camps; the second is reducing homelessness; and the third is dealing with social issues. Funding of $50m has been committed to deal with the social issues in the Alice Springs community, and a major target is alcohol abuse.
Under the Alice Springs Transformation Plan, the federal and Northern Territory governments have committed $5.4m to the Safe and Sober Program. I believe the member for Nelson, in his contribution, wanted more detail on that. The program has only recently been announced. I have taken the opportunity to meet the staff at Congress involved in the Safe and Sober Program. It is fairly new, but I am sure they will be able to demonstrate to the community some of the outcomes: how many people they are working with; and how many are still safe and sober. The member for Nelson raised very important points.
One of the challenges I put to the people at Congress working with the Safe and Sober Program was how they connect the dots. How do they connect people they are helping to other aspects of the transformation plan? How do they connect people who may be living rough in the creek or in the hills to the accommodation park, Percy Court, or any of the other accommodation facilities we are putting together? How do they connect people who are living rough in the creek or the hills to a program such as Safe and Sober? How do they connect them to Centrelink to receive regular payments? How do they get people away from that lifestyle? They are very important questions.
They are the soldiers on the front line when it comes to tackling issues such as alcohol abuse, of connecting the dots - connecting people to services. People at Congress who work on the front line have a very important role to play. It was really refreshing, during our meeting with minister Macklin and the workers, to see how many local Indigenous people are involved in the program. It is a very important step to have Indigenous local people with language skills, the knowledge of culture and of who those people are, to have a real, genuine connection to the people living rough in the creek or the hills.
I believe it is refreshing because with those people on board at Congress, and with the very good management they have, there is a real chance of success. They probably have the most difficult job in Alice Springs, dealing with some of the most disadvantaged people and getting people to help themselves. That was the theme many the previous speakers in this House had- helping yourself. It is people in the Safe and Sober Program, people working in Congress on the front line - the frontline soldiers - who have the difficult task.
It is easy for us to debate and play politics with, but I take my hat off to the front line at Congress in the Safe and Sober Program for the sheer commitment they put into their job; it would not be easy.
Under the model of the Safe and Sober Program, service providers refer clients to the Safe and Sober Program, which assigns a therapeutic team to work with clients. Safe and Sober builds on the work of current service providers to deliver multidisciplinary services, and includes all service providers in the Alcohol and Other Drug sector in Alice Springs. My colleague, the member for Barkly, talked about the prison reforms he is bringing in, in the new era of Corrections, with things such as stronger reintegration support programs, the elders visiting programs, halfway houses and post-release support - some of the new initiatives under this new era in Corrections. Also, more rehabilitation and targeted programs, which I fully support, are a very important part in addressing such a big social issue.
A prison in-reach component has also been developed under the Safe and Sober Program. Since the program was announced in January this year it has worked with more than 300 clients, supporting them and their families to be safe and sober.
I recently accompanied the minister for Indigenous Affairs, Jenny Macklin, on a visit to Congress. I reiterate, staff are doing a great job in very difficult circumstances. People at Congress congratulated both levels of government for the reforms. It is great to get grassroots endorsement of what we are doing.
The Alice Springs Transformation Plan has also supported the vital work done by the Drug and Alcohol Services Association, known as DASA, in Alice Springs. The Alice Springs Transformation Plan has provided $80 000 towards the transitional after-care alcohol rehabilitation unit fit-out at the Aranda House facility in Kempe Street. I recently visited this facility with DASA Director, Paul Finlay, and his staff, who outlined the programs and support services run from the site. The 20-bed residential facility supports people involved in their personal recovery, and is very much a clinical approach.
I am pleased this government is taking further strong action to turn off the tap to problem drinkers. The five-point plan announced by the Minister for Alcohol Policy will strengthen the measures the Alice Springs community has already taken to tackle alcohol-related harm.
Contrast all this government has done, and continues to do, with comments from the opposition. Since the Araluen by-election - and it is a shame; the ‘fall down by sundown’ policy of the new member for Araluen is disgraceful. I encourage the member for Araluen to learn more about the Alice Springs Transformation Plan and the Alice Springs Youth Action Plan. I know she has lived in Alice Springs a long time - she has worked in the social services area - but I believe there are always things to learn. In a different career path, it is important you do not come out with the spin of the opposition and be continually negative about these types of programs.
As mentioned during Question Time, I am happy to provide a briefing for the member for Araluen on the youth action plan. There has been much success to it. There is still work to do, and we still have issues in Alice Springs with youth and alcohol, but it is programs like the youth action plan and the Alice Springs Transformation Plan that will make a real difference. I urge the member for Araluen not to get caught up in that negative spin; to do things her own way and find out more about these strategies. I am quite happy to work with her in a bipartisan way, and to address the serious issues we have in Alice Springs. I hope she takes up the offer and we can work together to make Alice Springs a better place.
Ms LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I address the motion put forward to the parliament: Enough is Enough, the proposed alcohol reforms. I thank the Minister for Central Australia for his invitation to join him in combating the problem of alcohol in Alice Springs.
As the Minister for Central Australia alluded to, Alice Springs has been subjected to a raft of reforms implemented by this government over the last 10 years. Some have been more successful than others. In 2002, the government brought in reduced takeaway hours for liquor outlets, opening at 2 pm and closing at 9 pm. In 2004, it brought in the Northern Territory Alcohol Framework. The final report was presented to the government. In 2005, it introduced the Alcohol Courts, which will now be replaced by SMART Courts. In 2006, it introduced the broader alcohol management plan, with a moratorium on new takeaway licences for 12 months. In 2007, we brought in our public restricted area legislation, and saw income quarantining by the federal government. Many of the town camps were declared dry in 2007. In 2008, identification cards were implemented in Alice Springs.
When it comes to alcohol reforms, the people of Central Australia are used to being a social experiment by this government, being treated as guinea pigs in their plight to work out exactly what works and what does not. In some ways, the people of Central Australia are experts in this area and are well accustomed to being pushed and prodded by this government.
We have had an identification system operating in Alice Springs since 2008 and I have never heard of anyone being declined the sale of alcohol. It has not targeted habitual drunks. It has cost taxpayers a great deal of money for the technology required to run the identification system, and train liquor outlets how to manage and use it. Collation of this important data has also cost the taxpayer money. To what end?
The Alcohol Court has been ineffectual. The identification system was tied to the Alcohol Court, with only a few people being put through the Alcohol Court. The experience of the identification system in Alice Springs over the last couple of years has been a flop. It has been an exercise in futility because this government thought a couple of computers placed in liquor outlets around town would be the answer to stemming the flow of grog. That was an interesting social experiment. We are now told it is going to be rolled out across the Northern Territory with, not the Alcohol Court, the SMART Court. We can only assume the Alcohol Court was the not-so-smart court and now is re-branded as the SMART Court.
You will have to excuse my cynicism, but when you have lived in Alice Springs as long as I have, and when you have been subjected to reforms in the past, you tend to take it all with a grain of salt.
A drive around the bottle shops and takeaway outlets of Alice Springs will give you a clear indication of the problem in Alice Springs, and the target group, as the government refers to it. You need not go far. You need to hang around bottle shops at 2 pm when they open, and see the assortment of people gathering, including the habitual drunks we are all very familiar with in Alice Springs. You can ask the emergency department staff of the Alice Springs Hospital. They are familiar with the target group, the habitual drunks who end up there in different states at different times of the day with all sorts of alcohol-related health problems and afflictions. You can ask the police who have to deal with the antisocial behaviour every day of the week as a result of intoxication. You can also ask members of the judicial system - Legal Aid solicitors for example - who have to represent these people in court after they have offended.
In order to target reforms you do not need to go far. You can go to our health system, our police service, and our judicial system to find out who they are. You do not need to implement an identification system which, in the experience of Central Australia and Alice Springs, has been a farce.
We have dry town status in Alice Springs. We have had that for over three years and, for a short period, it worked quite well. Police were happy to enforce our dry town status, and the drunks seemed to disappear off the streets. The purpose of the legislation was to stop people drinking in public.
We now see habitual drinkers - people who drink heavily regardless of what time of day or night it is as long as they can access alcohol - hide away in Alice Springs. They have their little hidey-holes. As time goes on, most of us are aware where the drunks are hiding, and the police seem to have almost given up on the battle of keeping these drinkers out of the town area.
Both the ID system and the dry town legislation have been what most people in Central Australia would consider a big flop. These alcohol restrictions have only served to lower the rate of alcohol consumption of people who did not have a drinking problem to begin with. The government maintains a decrease in alcohol consumption in Alice Springs. Indeed, there has been a significant decrease in alcohol consumption if you are to believe the statistics provided. They have not cared to ask the critical question: who exactly is drinking less? Look at me, I am drinking less because I could not be bothered battling crowds heading into the bottle shop at 2 pm and fighting over a place in the very long queues. I have not bought a bottle of port - which I used to enjoy drinking from time to time - for many years because it is all too hard. If you like to enjoy a small glass of port occasionally, you have to wait until 6 pm in Alice Springs.
People like me have reduced their alcohol intake. I cannot say it has done me any harm. However, why has the government not, if they are hell-bent on targeting these reforms, asked the question: who in Alice Springs is drinking less? They will find it is not the habitual drunks in Alice Springs - the people who are causing the problem, cluttering up the Corrections system, queuing at the emergency department of the Alice Springs Hospital - it is people like me, people who drink in moderation, who drink responsibly, who could not be bothered trying to purchase alcohol in Alice Springs.
The other development in our society is the use of online purchasing of alcohol. Many people I know choose to buy alcohol online because it is easier. When you look at the bigger picture, at reforms, do not get too excited by what has happened in Alice Springs because it is quite deceiving. The people who are drinking less are the people who do not have the problem. The people who have the problem the government claims it wants to target are drinking exactly the same amount as they did 10 years ago when these reforms started to roll into our privileged town of Alice Springs. We have been subjected to these broad-brush reforms for many years.
The other reason I know alcohol restrictions in the town have not worked is because serious crime has increased by 85% in Alice Springs since 2004. This figure was quite vigorously refuted by the government in recent times, but is the case: an 85% increase in serious crime since 2004. One of the main platforms on which they introduced these alcohol restrictions in Alice Springs was because of the strong connection between alcohol consumption and violent crime.
If that is an indicator, alcohol reforms in Alice Springs have not done well. The numbers of habitual drunks on the streets of Alice Springs from 2 pm, when the liquor outlets open, are very visible. It has not changed over the 10 years the government has been imposing liquor restrictions. In fact, some would argue it has become worse.
I extend an invitation to our Chief Minister. When you come to Alice Springs in March 2011 for parliament we should all go on a bus tour. I know the Chief Minister holds me in high regard - he refers to me constantly. I feel quite privileged because I am a newcomer and it is important to make newcomers feel welcome. When he refers to me affectionately it is because he likes me - I can feel the love.
When we go on this bus trip, I would like to sit next to the Chief Minister. We should ensure the bus trip commences just before 2 pm, and we do a trip around all the takeaway liquor outlets in Alice Springs. The Chief Minister and I can share the experience of that moment when the doors open to all the takeaway liquor outlets. He can observe for himself, whilst he sits next to me, the intense moment and the passion in which the habitual drinkers in Alice Springs forge their way through the doors of the liquor outlets to buy their alcohol.
I say this, of course, tongue in cheek, because it is really quite sad. However, it is important the Chief Minister experiences what happens from 2 pm. From 2 pm in Alice Springs - Monday to Friday that is; of course Saturday they open at 10 o’clock. Do not ask me why that happens, it is a total inconsistency in the reforms the government has implemented. For some reason, the alcohol takeaway liquor outlets open at 10 am on Saturday. From 2 pm onwards, after the habitual drunks commence their drinking, the state of the streets of Alice Springs changes quite dramatically. We see people in various stages of intoxication, exhibiting antisocial behaviour which intensifies as the day goes on.
I will quote a piece out of the Moving Beyond the Restrictions: The Evaluation of the Alice Springs Alcohol Management Plan released by the Menzies School of Health this year. It says:
- … later takeaway trading hours had shifted the problem to later at night, a point also made about increased activity on Town Camps to later in the evening.
This quote is suggesting the problems of antisocial behaviour have been moved to later in the day, causing problems for police who are in the unenviable position of managing antisocial behaviour and, quite often, crime associated with alcohol.
I have made the point on radio - the Chief Minister will remember; he likes to refer to it - and is a view held by most people in the Alice Springs community – that these habitual drunks be allowed to drink earlier so they do not cause a problem for the police into the night, because at night time you cannot see. You cannot see what these people are up to, you cannot see the crimes they are committing and, with the grace of God, if they are allowed to drink earlier may fall asleep before the sun goes down. You like to quote that, do you not, Chief Minister?
Alcohol reform has not worked in Alice Springs, and the reforms have been generally felt as pain by our community. They have not been accepted by the community at all. The Minister for Alcohol Policy told us yesterday these new reforms have enormous acceptance in the community, and she quoted a number of Alice Springs groups that have expressed their support for them.
Having lived and worked in Alice Springs in different sectors of the community, I can assure you the people she quoted do not represent too many people; probably around 50 people would be my estimation. For the most part, people of Alice Springs find these restrictions on them - this broad-brush approach applied to Alice Springs and Tennant Creek - have gone down like a lead balloon. People do not appreciate having restrictions in an effort to restrict the drinking habits of a very small number of people.
The government is quite deluded and misled when it comes to support of these reforms by the people of Alice Springs. What the people of Alice Springs want is for the government to target the reforms towards those who have a problem. This is what they have not been doing for the last eight, nine, 10 years in Alice Springs. Alice Springs people are sick and tired of being the guinea pigs of the government’s failure in alcohol management.
Deaths from alcohol-related conditions in Alice Springs: between 2004 and 2006, there were 32 deaths of Indigenous people due to alcohol-related conditions in Central Australia. There were only four deaths of non-Indigenous people. We know Indigenous people are dying from alcohol-related illness at an alarming rate: seven times the rate of non-Indigenous people in Central Australia.
Once again, we are loathe to talk about race when it comes to problems in the Northern Territory but, clearly in Central Australia, it is first and foremost a problem within the Aboriginal community. We have to acknowledge that. If you are trying to target reforms, you have to be honest about who has the problem. We are talking about Aboriginal people and non-Aboriginal people, but the emphasis must be on targeting Aboriginal people who are dying because of alcohol-related conditions at a rate seven times that of their non-Indigenous counterparts.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I conclude today by saying it is not good enough to re-brand old ideas. We are not silly and people realise …
Mr CONLAN: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! I seek an extension of time for the member for Araluen, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Re-branding does not fool anyone, and this is what we are seeing today. This alcohol reform, Enough is Enough, is a re-branding for the government. They have gone full circle. They started off with this broad-brush approach in Alice Springs, targeting everyone in the community, implying we all have an alcohol problem. Now, we have gone full circle and the government has come up with this reform policy, Enough is Enough, with a few of the old die-hard, tried and true reforms which in our experience have not worked, including the use of identification cards, trying to rename it, change the emphasis and say: ‘Oh, we are now targeting our reforms’ when that is not the case.
Renaming is a popular thing for the government to do; ‘Give it a fancy name and you will fool them’. I am sorry, it will not work. We have heard another re-branding today; the failed Alcohol Court from 2005 is now going to be called the SMART Court, replacing the not-so-smart court. The youth action plan - the Minister for Central Australia has tried so hard to convince us in Alice Springs this is a fantastic plan. I acknowledge some very good programs for youth are happening as part of the Alice Springs community. To bunch all these things together - a school, a school building, the ANZAC oval, which has been seriously deprived of adequate funding for years because it represents the less popular football code of Rugby League as opposed to AFL - lumping these things together and calling it the youth action plan is not fooling anyone.
Minister for Central Australia, I would love to work with you. I would like to share some understanding of how things can work better in Alice Springs and move forward. However, I am not going to be deceived. If that is going to happen, we need to come to some arrangement about trialling a curfew for children in Alice Springs, which would solve many of the antisocial and violence problems.
Enough is Enough is what we like to say when we are referring to the contempt this government shows towards Alice Springs. Reform is not about reinventing the wheel or about giving something old, ineffectual and antiquated a new name. Reform is not about asking a group of people whose pay packets you have some influence over: ‘What do you think of our great new plan?’ Of course, they will say yes. Reform is about working with the whole community and listening to their concerns.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, it was good listening to the passion of the last two speakers, both from Central Australia, who agree on the problems we are facing with alcohol but, clearly, disagree on the solutions the government is looking at.
I was born in Alice. I do not live in Alice anymore. As the member for Fannie Bay, I live in Darwin. I was in Alice Springs recently on my way to my uncle’s place, Sammy’s, which is BYO. I bought some alcohol. I showed my ID; it took about 15 seconds. I did not go at 2 pm, maybe that was the problem. I bought my alcohol, I showed my licence, and it was too easy. I went to Sammy’s, had a lovely pizza, and it was all good. I do not live in Alice Springs, I am not going to pretend I do, but the one experience I had was pretty good.
Both speakers from Central Australia spoke with passion about the problems there. We, clearly, have different ideas on how to solve them. We disagree with opening up the rivers of grog again; extending the trading hours for takeaway outlets. We also disagree on drinking until you drop. There are clear differences between both sides. We believe in saying Enough is Enough, the statement we are talking to today. We have plans we want to roll out to enforce that. We disagree on enforcement. We believe if you have a banned drinker register you have to enforce it, which involves the ID system. We are taking the current ID system and giving it more teeth to make it more effective, making it Territory-wide. That is a possible solution to the problems we are facing.
The opposition disagrees. There are other things we disagree on; we have had various speakers on both sides cover that, and there will be more today. The member for Greatorex has not spoken yet. I am sure he will go into detail about the problems he sees in Alice Springs.
I support the government initiative to tackle alcohol. Many people in the Territory love a drink - there is nothing wrong with that. A beer after work, a glass of wine over dinner, heading out to town with some of your mates, a couple of cold beers in the Esky when you go fishing – alcohol is part of the Territory lifestyle; part of the lifestyle of people around the world.
We are at a point of reflection in the Territory. We are saying we drink too much. Figures in the minister’s statement show we drink 1.5 times the rest of Australia, and Australians, as a whole, have a reputation around the world of being heavy drinkers. In the Territory we have celebrated how much we drink. I have read NT News articles celebrating whether we drink more or less than Germany. The member for Barkly spoke about the Territory competing with other parts of the world and who can drink the most.
We are now coming to a point in the Territory of how much is too much - when is enough enough. A large part of that has to do with the very effective campaign this year by the NT News of Just Think.
There has been a growing public awareness of the link between alcohol and problems in the Territory. In recent months, the debate has matured. The Just Think campaign of the NT News has been very effective. Drinking will always remain part of the Territory lifestyle. The issue we need to deal with is when is enough, enough. I love to head to the clubs in my electorate. I am very lucky; I have the Ski Club, the Sailing Club, the Trailer Boat Club, the Railway Club, and the Turf Club. I have some fantastic community clubs in my electorate. I love to head to the ones along the foreshore and have a sunset beer. They are popular spots to take friends and relatives. You sit back, the sun sets, you say: ‘How good is this?’ The Territory is always going to have alcohol as part of the lifestyle – we have to live with that. It is something we can enjoy; however, we need to know when enough is enough. That is what our policy is about: Enough is Enough.
There are strong links between alcohol abuse and crime: 60% of all assaults and 67% of domestic violence incidents in the Territory are alcohol-related. Sometimes, drinking and violence is hidden behind a suburban door or at a campsite around town you cannot see from the road. Sometimes, it is right in your face. Not every camper is a drinker, not every drinker is a problem drinker. Not everyone who goes out for a night in Mitchell Street is a problem drinker. However, there is no doubt the visible disturbance of people camping and drinking, or hanging out in Mitchell Street drunk is not good. It is a clear face to the problem we have in the Territory of alcohol and the problems that stem from it.
Across the Territory last year there were 54 000 incidents of people taken into police protective custody due to alcohol misuse. Some of those 54 000 incidents would have been in my electorate. There would not be a member present in the Chamber who does not have a problem with alcohol in their electorate. There is not a person in the Territory who is not affected in some way by alcohol and the misuse of alcohol - from the interruption to the quality of your life in a public place where people are misusing alcohol, to being involved in one of those 54 000 incidents of protective custody, to being one of the people who forms a statistic of 67% of domestic violence incidents involving alcohol.
Alcohol is a significant contributor to many of the problems we deal with in the Territory. Much of it is a long-term cost which can be measured in many ways. It can be measured in dollars. It is estimated alcohol-related crime and alcohol-related illness costs the Territory community more than $640m a year. However, it has an effect we have to acknowledge runs beyond measure in the way it shortens and harms lives. We know people are our greatest resource, and alcohol is a constant, significant contributor to people being harmed. Domestic violence, child abuse, property damage, antisocial behaviour, illegal camping, early mortality, preventable health issues - much of it can be traced to alcohol abuse. That is why tackling alcohol is so important; why we must say Enough is Enough.
It is the No 1 policy challenge in the Territory. It is an issue every Territory government from both sides has wrestled with. There is no silver bullet, no one neat solution, and no simple answers. However, there are things we can do. That is the topic of the statement; what we are looking at. There is a range of measures we must put in place. They are not always going to be easy steps to take. This is a community problem - all our lifestyles are affected. Our lives are affected by the scourge of alcohol. There is a personal cost and a financial burden on us already.
Community problems require community solutions. The steps we will take, as a government, are only part of the solution. Governments, parliamentarians, must lead. We have a responsibility to the communities we serve. That is why we must make tough decisions. We must say enough is enough. We have to turn off the tap to problem drinkers. We have already taken a number of measures to deal with alcohol, but we need to do more. Much of what we have done has been around specific places. We have 10 alcohol management plans in place in various parts of the Territory, developed to respond to specific alcohol issues in each place.
There are two outstanding things we must do: (1) we must put in a formal alcohol management plan for Darwin and Palmerston drafted with the Darwin City Council and the Palmerston City Council; and (2) we need to take stock of what we are doing around the Territory to tackle alcohol and pull it together with a consistent approach. That is, essentially, what the proposed five-point plan sets out to do: provide a consistent response on how we target problem drinkers across the Territory - to target problem drinkers who cause alcohol-related crime and antisocial behaviour in our community. The five points are in the statement:
We are improving the police response when confronted by people who have an alcohol problem. Police are the ones who so often have to clean up the problems caused by excessive alcohol consumption; of people who, after too many drinks, become violent and break the law. Police are the ones who have to respond, and we want police to have the ability, in response to a problem drunk, to apply a ban getting them off the grog and encouraging them to access treatment.
There are rules. You have to be in police custody three times in three months, or be given a police domestic violence order when suspected of being drunk at the time, and so on. The more times you get a police notice, the longer the ban and more intense the treatment. If a problem drinker comes to the attention of police three times, they will be off to the tribunal with longer bans and mandatory treatment.
There is an appeals mechanism. It is there to keep an eye on the bans, but it can also increase the length of the treatment order. This approach removes the court process and the criminalisation. It puts in place a swifter response and, hopefully, serves to prevent further abuse.
There has to be a way of enforcing a ban. For a banned drinker register to be effective, you need access in every takeaway outlet across the Territory to support the takeaway bans. It is not good enough for someone to be banned from drinking alcohol in one part of the Territory - and this happens around Fannie Bay and I am sure in other parts of Darwin and Palmerston - and then move into Darwin, camp illegally, drink until their ban is over then return to their community. A ban is a ban, and enough is enough.
A banned drinker register is to be effective, enforced, and everywhere …
Mr Conlan: A ban is different in Alice than it is in Darwin. There are different laws, different bans for two different cities.
Mr GUNNER: Member for Greatorex, I did not quite catch what you said, but I think you were talking about Alice Springs. I mentioned earlier how I accessed the ID system in Alice Springs, and I believe, once we make it Territory-wide, it is going to be more effective that way. It is going to make it much more worthwhile. Obviously, Alice Springs had it before the people of Darwin but, once you make it Territory-wide, it will become a much more effective system. It will mean when you go on the banned drinker register, you are banned.
We need this system in Darwin and Palmerston. The system does not record information for people who have privacy concerns; it compares your licence against the register. It is quick, easy, and means a ban is a ban.
There will be issues around secondary supply, but that is not enough reason to not tackle the issue of primary supply. Fear about enforcement relating to secondary supply of alcohol is not a reason to abandon reforms to tackle the primary supply of alcohol. That is, obviously, another area where we have a clear disagreement with the opposition.
There will be more than one way for someone to be placed on the banned drinker register. They can volunteer, and family and friends can nominate them, with safeguards and appeal processes in place to ensure the system is not abused. In addition to police having the ability to issue banning notices, there are reforms to the SMART Court - the Alcohol Court is to be renamed the SMART Court, the Substance, Misuse Assessment and Referral for Treatment Court. Reforms to the Alcohol Courts are where, as part of bail or sentencing, they can order people who are charged with a criminal offence related to alcohol or drug abuse, into treatment or counselling, and ban the person from purchasing and consuming alcohol.
Improving the efficacy of the system, making it easier for people to be banned, for people to be ordered into treatment, has to be matched with additional services. We have to increase the treatment options available. At the moment there are over 300 treatment and sobering-up shelters across the Territory. We will, with the Australian government on board, increase the number of rehabilitation and treatment options available - additional treatment beds, and counselling and outreach treatment options based in the communities.
Punitive measures must be matched with rehabilitation services to ensure we reach an outcome with a long-term impact. We will have statistical information on our measures to tackle alcohol - the five points - but the best outcome of reducing alcohol-related harm will be the people whose lives are saved, whose lives are not harmed where once they might have been, who will live longer, healthier and more productive lives. That is something, as members, we all want, and is one of the reasons there is so much passion behind the alcohol debate.
We know the effect of chronic alcohol abuse on families is devastation and dysfunction. It damages children. It is the community - you, me, the family at the park, the bloke on the bus, the neighbour - who suffer when alcohol is abused. The communal nature of this problem is where the work of government is, not just in our law or officers, but how we lead and shape public debate. That is where the importance of the awareness campaign cannot be overestimated. This problem will not be fixed by government intervention alone. Government has to do what it can, but it will take more. We can lead; help tackle the culture that encourages alcohol misuse. One way of doing that is through an awareness campaign. This is not new territory; there have been a number of awareness campaigns. The need has not lessened.
Recently, these have included the Championship Moves campaign, which is a Territory government campaign. There have also been a number of Australian government advertising campaigns - there often are - addressing the national issue of binge drinking. The best awareness campaign in recent times, which I mentioned at the start of my comments, is the NT News’ Just Think campaign – an excellent community campaign; an excellent demonstration of how community leadership can be effective. For a community problem like alcohol abuse, community leadership is critical, with informed debate and many different opinions, different thoughts, different perspectives, which encourage readers to think about what they can do, what they want us as a government to do, and what they want other people in the community to do.
There have been many really good outcomes from the Just Think campaign. The Australian Hotels Association has responded with an accord which will ensure beer and spirits will be served in shatter glasses after 11 pm, and crowd controllers will work more closely with police to improve safety. The Hotels Association has also welcomed our precinct legislation. The alcohol industry has provided additional security for the safe taxi rank. These initiatives show licensees can work with government to address alcohol-related harm, which is a partnership the community believes is important. Obviously, the Hotels Association serves beer, and the community has issues with the treatment of alcohol. Forming that partnership with government shows the maturity of licensees.
The Just Think campaign has created a positive environment for people to discuss and contribute to the alcohol management plan proposed for Darwin and Palmerston. I have had many people approach me on the street, markets, in the office, by e-mail and phone, wanting to contribute to the debate on how we tackle problems in Mitchell Street, problem campers in our hotspot areas – I have a few in my electorate at the old Waratah Oval, the bike path along the Stuart Highway, Vesteys Beach, parts of East Point, and others. A number of things have happened in Parap, Stuart Park, and Fannie Bay already, and the alcohol reforms and the alcohol management plans are complementary to those initiatives.
We are reforming public housing, creating a better model for tenants and neighbours, getting rid of the failed 100% density model where everyone is a tenant of the government, and putting in place a salt-and-pepper model we know works better. We have a Police Beat based out of Parap shops which services the Fannie Bay and Stuart Park shops, and sees police on foot or bikes through our shops, along the foreshore, improving the police intelligence on problems in the area, how to deal with them, and how to bring in other agencies.
The solution to problems in our area such as camping out of control at Vesteys Beach is hard work - rolling up the sleeves and using tools at the disposal of agencies. There are no silver bullets; it is hard work. It is often through the good work of police as the lead agency bringing in other agencies such as health, Centrelink or NGOs to deal with the problem campers which results in camps broken up, people going to hospital, booking into accommodation, or returning to their communities. Hard work solves these problems, and that hard work will be made easier with the alcohol reforms and the alcohol management plan.
I have received overwhelmingly positive feedback to the reforms. We have had letters, flyers and surveys over the past year. Obviously, the government is doing the work. I thank the minister for bringing this statement to the House, for the work that has gone into the policy, development of the reforms, and the good partnership which has been formed with the Darwin and Palmerston councils.
Madam Speaker, I commend the statement to the House.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I, like the member for Araluen, am very flattered the Chief Minister constantly refers to us, although it is not a reference of endearment. In social worker terms, it is a deflection or reflection. I am unsure what it is called; it is deferring his issues onto other people. You can read the Chief Minister like a book; he would be a terrible card player or chess player. The guy is twice my size but, even on the footy field, I would still have his measure. You can read him like a book.
He needs to be honest with the people of the Northern Territory. If he is going to convince us these alcohol reforms are the right path forward, he needs to be honest, especially with the test cases in Katherine, Alice Springs, and Tennant Creek.
As the member for Fannie Bay pointed out, it is not such an inconvenience to show your ID. If it is not such an inconvenience, why is the member for Fannie Bay not advocating introducing such legislation in Darwin, particularly in his electorate in Parap? At the Parap Hotel and the park opposite, there are constant problems on his own doorstep. If he is so convinced it works and is not a problem or inconvenience, why is he not advocating the government introduce these measures in the Top End?
The reason is it is politically inconvenient for the Chief Minister to introduce such measures in Darwin, particularly throughout the northern suburbs. The lengths the Chief Minister will go to justify why we do not have these measures in Darwin, as opposed to having them across the regions, are quite staggering. He is being very poorly advised, or the term ‘empty vessel’ has taken on a whole new meaning.
When asked on radio why the restrictions are in Alice Springs and not Darwin he said:
- The bottle shops are open in Darwin, I think …
He knows, rather:
- … I think from 10 am, but the alcohol consumption rates here in Alice Springs, per capita, are three times - three times - what they are in Darwin, so we are moving towards a Territory-wide banned drinkers register.
That is what he said on radio in the first week of October - Alice Springs people drink three more than people in Darwin.
I am not sure where he gets his facts and figures from. Clearly, he makes it up. He will clutch at anything because he does not have a plausible reason to put forward, apart from the fact it is politically convenient for him to not introduce these measures in the Top End. It would, potentially, be political suicide to impose these restrictions on the people of the northern suburbs.
The facts are 16.03 L per person is drunk in Darwin as opposed to 15.66 L per person in Alice Springs. That is per capita when you work it out. So, people in Darwin drink more than people in Alice Springs. Anyone could have told you that considering the population, however the Chief Minister came up with this stretched logic …
Mrs Lambley: Rubbish.
Mr CONLAN: Nonsense – absolutely! … and suggested to the people listening to the radio in Alice Springs we drink three times more than the people of Darwin. That was one excuse because his other one did not work. The lengths he will go to justifying why restrictions are not in place in Darwin are quite staggering.
When asked on ABC radio in September whether his government would ban alcohol sales before 2 pm in Darwin as well as Alice Springs, the Chief Minister peddled a ridiculous line. This is what he said:
- I think Darwin is a bit different in as much as we are a capital city, and a capital city that caters for thousands of tourists here, not hundreds of tourists.
Mr Chandler: You employ for the hundreds of tourists.
Mr CONLAN: Exactly. … who are making a living out of the hundreds of tourists there.
Mr Westra van Holthe: Perhaps we can tell the Chief Minister that Katherine receives 250 000 a year.
Mr CONLAN: Well, there you go. Here we have some figures for the Chief Minister, or for that poor advisor - that little whiz kid on the fifth floor who is poorly advising the Chief Minister. I would think the whiz kids are smart enough not to peddle such a line. Maybe this conjured up in the Chief Minister’s brain.
Fact one: 386 000 tourists visited Alice Springs in 2009. Tourism is worth $300m to the Alice Springs economy each year. That is nothing to shy from - $300m each year tourism injects into the Alice Springs economy.
Fact two: in 2009, visitors to Alice Springs spent $1225 per visit compared to only $1149 - not only, but you can see the disparity in the figure - $1149 per person in Darwin. People visiting Alice Springs are spending more per visit than in Darwin. That is 386 000 tourists visit Alice Springs each year, and it is worth $300m to the Alice Springs economy.
We have demonstrated in the last five weeks the Chief Minister will say and do anything at all to justify why these restrictions are not rolled out across the Northern Territory.
The member for Fannie Bay said we are going to have the same regulations across the Northern Territory – wrong. We are not! There is no move by the Northern Territory government, or the Chief Minister, to introduce restricted trading hours on the people of the northern suburbs of Darwin. There is no move afoot at all. In fact, word is the only move afoot is to further reduce alcohol trading in Central Australia and Alice Springs by not allowing heavy beer to be sold before 2.30 pm. You can only buy light beer between 11.30 am and 2.30 pm. The technicality is unless you intend to have a meal. We will see where that goes. That is probably the next move. Word is that is coming.
Looking through some of the trading hours for the Northern Territory: Darwin, 10 am to 10 pm Monday to Friday; Saturday 9 am to 10 pm; Sunday 10 am to 10 pm. Alice Springs: 2 pm to 9 pm Monday to Friday and, as the member for Araluen pointed out; on Saturday it is 10 am to 9 pm. What is that anomaly about? Why, all of a sudden, can we start trading at 10 am on Saturday? It does not make sense. These restrictions do not make sense.
The opposition would be more than happy to support anything which helped reduce the enormous amount of alcohol-related harm in our community – absolutely anything. In fact, the opposition, when in government in the early 1990s, introduced the highly revered Living with Alcohol Policy. We are no strangers to this. It was regarded around the country, and indeed, around the world, as a benchmark in alcohol management - the Living with Alcohol Policy.
We need to reintroduce such a policy. Restrictions are not working across the Northern Territory and, clearly, not working in Alice Springs. Any anecdotal evidence will show you that. The member for Araluen is quite correct; a trip around Alice Springs at those times will demonstrate that clearly.
Anything which goes towards reducing alcohol-related harm and the damage it does to our community, and the enormous cost to the taxpayer - $642m a year it is costing the Territory taxpayer through police and hospitalisations. The whole issue is costing an enormous amount of money - $642m. Imagine if we had that amount, and saved the Territory taxpayer not only $300m-odd a year, but reduced the amount of harm across the Territory to the victims and perpetrators themselves.
We are not doing that. It is as if the $642m is worn like a badge of honour: ‘This is a huge problem and we are the only ones capable of tackling it. We are the only ones, with our regime of restrictions, our alcohol management plans, who can possibly tackle this because, on that day in August 2001, when the dark clouds dispersed and the sun shone on the Territory for the very first time, and the Labor Party was elected, after 27 years in the darkness when we were all swinging from trees - it was all ooga booga, ooga booga from the trees; we were all monkeys and we had not evolved at all - the Northern Territory was saved from those dark, dark days’.
It is arrogance in the extreme and delusional because it is not right. We have taken nearly 10 years to come this far. How long will it take to get a grip on it? How long will it take until you take control of the situation? You hang your argument on the Moving Beyond Restrictions report by the Menzies School of Research. This is what the Northern Territory government points to at every turn. It is a good read, as the member for Araluen pointed out, and I will reiterate here:
- While responses indicated that the community believed that the town was quieter during the day, they indicated the trial had had little effect on alcohol consumption. Furthermore, the later takeaway trading hours had shifted the problem to later at night, a point also made about increased activity on Town Camps to later in the evening.
That is a no-brainer. Of course, it is going to shift the problem into a time of day when it is very difficult to police. Also, the report points out, measuring the impact of the Alice Springs Alcohol Management Plan:
- The conversion to litres of pure alcohol for wine sold in bottles is based on there being 10 bottles per crate. However, from 2002 the packaging was changed so that there are now 16 bottles of wine per crate. This means that total alcohol sales data represent an underestimate of the true volume of alcohol sales sold.
Again, there are discrepancies in the data and the figures being pedalled out by the government. This report the government hangs off says:
Other justice data are more difficult to interpret, but the AMP may have contributed to rises in commercial break-ins and property damage ...
It is not conclusive and is not completely in favour of the government’s management plans; it does not vindicate everything the government is doing. The report highlights a couple of issues, but that is what the government hang their head on. Maybe they think we have not read it; we have read it.
If the government could convince us the reforms will make a difference, and it is seriously addressing the problems we face with alcohol, we would come on board because we are all here for the betterment of the Northern Territory. No one likes to see enormous amounts of taxpayers’ money - millions and millions and millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money - going into addressing alcohol-related harm for starters, but also the amount of harm and damage and destruction it causes across the Northern Territory community. That is not just physical destruction, emotional destruction as well - the destruction of families, of children’s lives, and so forth.
The government says there has been a huge reduction in takeaway sales in Alice Springs as a result of the wonderful new plans they introduced since the new world order of 2001. Of course there will be a reduction of takeaway sales if you shut the bottle shops. However, grog purchased through the bottle shop is being replaced by grog purchased over the bar. Instead of going through the Bottle-O people are grogging up at the bar. People are still consuming at enormous rates. We are not targeting the person.
It is typical of this Labor government to dumb everything down to the lowest common denominator. It is like the kid in the class who gets in trouble. The teacher says: ‘Who did that? If you do not own up you are all in trouble, you will all be kept back’. This is how this government works. It is a collective response; it is all about the collective and not about the individual.
We have to start targeting the people with the problem. It is not the broader Territory community’s problem. In other words, the broader Territory community does not have an issue with it. Those people do not have problems with alcohol and alcohol abuse. There is a small minority and, as the member for Araluen alluded to, quite plainly and obviously these measures are targeted at problem Aboriginal drinkers. It is plain to see. It is very sad we cannot get a grip on this; we are seeing Aboriginal communities suffer so much as a result of alcohol.
However, why should the broader community as a whole be penalised? That is the hard-working people - Aboriginal or non-Aboriginal, it does not matter - in our communities or in our towns. Why should we be penalised? Why should all those laws be dumbed down for a minority of people who have serious problems with alcohol and alcohol abuse? It is not right. I believe it is not right; we need to target the problem.
Government members say they are targeting the problem; we have not seen any evidence of that. Once again, we see motherhood statements in this House, and the announcement of the media release by the minister. I have it here somewhere. Nevertheless, we have seen it before - here we are, tackling alcohol-related crime and antisocial behaviour. This is, basically, the policy. A two-and-a-bit page media release is the government’s policy – ‘We are going to get tough’.
Under the proposed new laws police ‘may’ issue banning notices. You talk tough when the cameras are on and the media is watching - you are going to get tough and going to do it. However, when the devil is in the detail, the police ‘may’ issue. So, you ‘may’ get tough. The tribunal ‘can’ issue drinking bans and mandatory treatment. That is a pretty important point to make. The tribunal ‘can’ issue drinking bans and make mandatory treatment orders for problem drinkers. That is ‘can’, that is not ‘will’. That, to me, is not getting tough, and is not tackling those people with the issue. It is not targeting the problem, as you say you are going to do.
In keeping with the argument this government will say or do anything to appeal to the masses and stay in power, if we go back to 2006, the then Minister for Family and Community Services said:
- Dedicated and hard-working child protection staff investigate every single reported case of child abuse.
I repeat what she said:
- Dedicated and hard-working child protection staff investigate every single reported case of child abuse.
This includes all reported cases of potential physical abuse, sexual abuse and neglect ...
Motion agreed to.
Mr CONLAN: Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Araluen.
This goes to the heart of the credibility of the government. Yesterday we had an 800-page report tabled in parliament highlighting the enormous deficiencies in the department of family and community services, led by a series of incompetent ministers, which demonstrates not every case of suspected child abuse has been investigated. By no stretch has every case of suspected child abuse been investigated. As of June 2010, over 800 cases were left unchecked. My information is, as of October, today, it is close to 1000, regardless of whether that is Category 1, 2 or 3, or severe, urgent, non-urgent - whatever it might be. Every single case of suspected child abuse, regardless of what the abuse is, should be pressing.
Again, we point to the credibility of the then Minister for Family and Community Services. It is even more relevant because she was the Minister for Family and Community Services and is now the Minister for Alcohol Policy. She said:
- Dedicated and hard-working child protection staff investigate every single reported case of child abuse.
This includes all reported cases of potential physical abuse, sexual abuse and neglect.
Wrong, minister. You have misled the people of the Northern Territory. She also said on 7 June 2006:
- When a report of child abuse or neglect is received, we investigate immediately. Some cases go onto full investigations, while others are simply not substantiated.
I said yesterday in my response to the Bringing Them Home report I hope the government will focus on these Category 1 recommendations, and they will be implemented within six months. It is imperative; it is to the heart of human decency that this happens. It demonstrates the credibility of the former Minister for Family and Community Services who is now the Alcohol Policy Minister, and the credibility of the Chief Minister who will say and do anything - Johnny on the spot he is, he will conjure up anything. He thinks ‘I will run that line at the moment; that should get me through. I will get through this interview and then I can get on the next flight out of Alice Springs, because no one likes me here and I need to get out of here. I cannot stand this place’.
You accuse us of talking it down. Well, the Chief Minister is running the place down; he is running the Northern Territory into the ground. It is a bit rich to tell those of us who live in Central Australia - including the member for Barkly - in the mighty town of Alice Springs, that we are talking the town down. None of us would have lived in Alice Springs for as long as we have if we did not like the place and thought it had potential. The Chief Minister, while he may accuse us of talking the place down, is running the place down. He is running the place into the ground.
People ask: ‘Why did you get into politics, Conlan? What was it that drove you?’ I can safely say my motivation for getting into politics was to see the back of this Labor government. I knew I had to do everything I possibly could, even if that meant holding a seat in Central Australia, to stop the Labor Party from getting a seat which would allow it a little extra room to embark on this wave of neglect as it has been doing for the last nine-and-a-bit years. It is an absolute disgrace. If they want any support from the Territory opposition they needs to start being honest, start spelling out some of the facts, and stop sitting in their comfort zone of arrogance with their ‘we know best’ attitude. They need to be up-front with the people of Central Australia, particularly the regions, and tell them why there are no alcohol restrictions in Darwin.
If they are so good and so effective, why are they not in the Top End? You are not exempt from these problems. Member for Brennan, surely the issues affecting other parts of the Northern Territory are not exclusive. I assume you are seeing issues in Palmerston as well - quite serious issues too.
For the member for Blain and the member for Port Darwin, a simple walk down the street will indicate the same problems and, in some cases, worse. Recently in Question Time the member for Port Darwin raced over to Bennett Park, came back and indicated: ‘Yes, there are half a dozen guys over there drinking’. Some were drinking from a lemonade bottle, but it was red. Another guy had something like a nice cold Coopers in his hand - having a great old time. This is in our park, right on the doorstep, right in the CBD, and a quick walk down The Esplanade is much the same. These problems are alive and well in the Top End, make no mistake.
I reiterate the Territory opposition would support wholeheartedly measures which demonstrate they are making a difference. It has taken you this long to recognise your Alcohol Court has not worked. We have opposed the ID system because it was tied to the Alcohol Court. The Alcohol Court was not working so the ID system was completely irrelevant. It took two years to work this out.
It was another ‘oops’ bill from the member for Karama; she is very good at that. The laziness or incompetence of the member for Karama, when it comes to legislation as the Attorney-General, is quite astounding. It is staggering and quite shameful, and we should all be very worried about it.
Nevertheless, if the Territory government wants the support of the opposition and the community it needs to be honest. Unfortunately, it is not being honest; it is being deceptive and wrong and will say anything to stay in power. It is a shameful state of affairs and government members should hang their heads in shame.
Ms WALKER (Nhulunbuy): Madam Speaker, I thank the Minister for Alcohol Policy for bringing this important statement before the House. Members will find my address to the House slightly different to what we have heard from the opposition. I will endeavour to be a little more positive. Much of that is based on my experience as a local member, and some of the good things that have happened over the years regarding alcohol management.
This statement is important because alcohol, and the negative affects of alcohol, have impacted so severely on the lives of Territorians that it is time to say enough is enough. It is time to act and have measures in place to address these very negative effects which impact on people’s lives on a daily basis.
The government’s five-point plan to tackle alcohol abuse, deal with and reduce antisocial behaviour and alcohol-fuelled violence and crime on our streets and in our towns, is significant because no such plan has previously been devised and no such commitment undertaken to see this tackled head-on.
The cost, as the minister has highlighted, is staggering. The recent study she referred to puts the cost associated with alcohol misuse at $642m per year, a figure which is more than four times the national average. That study attempted to calculate the cost as a dollar value to our health system, our law enforcement system, justice and Corrections, as well as the impact upon our workforce.
Less tangible in measurement is the cost to children and families; the cost of human misery. It comes as no surprise, with the release of the report last week into the care and protection of children Growing them strong, together, alcohol has been identified as a critical factor and contributor to the abuse and neglect of children.
Since the minister’s announcement of the reforms on 1 September, there has been robust debate in the media. Most of what we have heard and read is supportive of the government’s reforms and the five-point plan. In her statement, the minister highlighted the number of organisations which have come out strongly in support of the reforms, including the Aboriginal Medical Services Alliance of the Northern Territory, or AMSANT, as well as the People’s Alcohol Action Coalition in Alice Springs, led by Dr John Boffa; and also Amity, NT Council of Social Services, and FORWAARD Aboriginal corporation, to name a few. The support of these organisations is critical; they are the ones at the pointy end dealing day in and day out with the very negative impacts of alcohol abuse. Each of these organisations has applauded the fact these reforms recognise, for problem or chronic drinkers, it is a health issue, not a criminal issue.
One place there was not a great deal of public discussion about the recently announced alcohol reforms - and that is not to say people were not talking about it, because I know they were - was in my electorate. This is, no doubt, because Nhulunbuy introduced its own reforms and alcohol management plans some time ago. I have spoken in this Chamber before about the takeaway liquor permit system in place in Nhulunbuy, but I would like to talk about it more today because it is an important story and has provided, along with Groote Eylandt, a workable model; an alcohol management plan which puts in place a robust system around takeaway liquor sales in order to deal with problem drinkers.
I go back to the start and recognise the grassroots level at which the liquor reforms in Nhulunbuy, and the wider Gove Peninsula, came into being. It is well documented that, when bauxite was discovered on the Gove Peninsula and the Gove joint venture partners commenced mining, the traditional landowners launched a legal challenge to stop mining. It was a challenge they lost. Perhaps what is lesser known is the traditional owners also launched a legal challenge not to see liquor sold through takeaway outlets. They lost that challenge as well, and today there are five licensed takeaway liquor outlets in Nhulunbuy.
This background provides some context to an important letter, dated 14 November 2004, which was written to the former member for Nhulunbuy, Syd Stirling, and copied to key leaders in the community. The letter, authored by three strong Yirrkala women, the late Dr Marika, Djerrkngu Marika, and Djuwandayngu Marika, is a plea for community support to see liquor outlets in Nhulunbuy closed.
Madam Speaker, I read that letter in order to place its important message on the public record. They wrote:
- We are sick and tired of being harassed and traumatised by the continuous irresponsibility of the drinkers in our families. We do not have a good night’s sleep and our children are not helping us by helping themselves because they are stuck in the problems of addiction to alcohol and other drugs. They do not know how to help themselves. People who are ill and the elderly cannot sleep at night. They are constantly disturbed and upset. The drinkers don’t look after the country or respect their elders and carers. There is no peaceful sleep because they make a lot of noise and they have no respect for families and their houses. Their thinking is blocked by alcohol. They can’t see any direction properly. They can’t set directions properly. They can’t think properly. They can’t see properly. They can’t feel and they don’t care.
We can see that the young people are coming out of school and going straight into drinking and this is a very bad habit. They do not listen to their elders and they have no respect for them. We can see that children are being neglected and that they have no one to look after them, to care for them and feed them. We can see that the young people are overtaking us and dying before us. It is devastating for us to bury our young people. They should by burying us, but the tide has turned. We the elders are singing and crying for our young ones.
We want you to help us by putting in place a strong law so that our people are supported and can change and again become clean, responsible, motivated, and strong, not social outcasts. Besides, not all Yolngu are like the drinkers and we don’t want to be stereotyped as though we are all like them. We want to clean our places, our homes, our environment, and our country so that people can live happily. All the women and men who do not accept the antisocial behaviour of the drinkers want to live in harmony with each other and in a peaceful environment. We want to see peace in our lives, not be constantly frustrated, angry, bitter and crying.
Because this white man’s water is a curse, we implore you who are leaders and policy makers in government, in corporations in the public sector, and in community organisations to hear our plea to close the takeaway liquor outlets in order to eradicate this curse that is killing us physically, mentally, emotionally and spiritually, leaving us in a desperate situation. Act quickly to make necessary changes in policy and legislation. Now, we are yet again asking you to act because the situation has become even worse. Let us stand together and help each other to smooth the road to the future.
That letter was a statement that effectively said: enough is enough in Yirrkala and northeast Arnhem Land. This letter generated much community debate about how alcohol might be managed to reduce the very negative impacts outlined in the letter. If we are honest here, liquor consumption was not, and is not, just an issue for the Indigenous community; it is, after all, a mining town employing a high number of males. At the time Dr Marika wrote her letter, the Alcan Gove G3 expansion had just been announced and the company was preparing to ramp up a construction workforce and mobilise more than 1500 people to site.
What ensued from that important letter in November 2004 was the formation of the Harmony Group, and a good deal of work went into drawing up what a proposal might look for to manage liquor. A formal application was lodged by Mr Banambi Wunungmurra, then Chairperson of the local Harmony Group. That proposal outlined the Gove Peninsula be a restricted area. From there, the Liquor Commission conducted public hearings and received numerous submissions, the majority in support of the introduction of restrictions.
The support was overwhelming from all sectors of the community, including residents of Nhulunbuy and the Mala leaders of Yirrkala and Gunyangara and surrounding homelands. In fact, the board and members and residents of the Laynhupuy Homelands, which services some 26 homelands in the East Arnhem region, made the decision that takeaway permits were not to be issued to homeland residents at all, who have always maintained they live healthy lives on their homelands and are people …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Honourable members, order! Too much hugging over there.
Ms WALKER: … of strong culture and law, because they do not tolerate alcohol on their traditional homelands.
Nhulunbuy Corporation was also extremely supportive and actively involved in establishing public restricted areas and organising the necessary signage. Alcan, the mining company, as the major employer in the region, also offered strong support, obviously with a vested interest in promoting workplace health and safety. They have recently introduced random testing in the workplace for alcohol and other drugs.
Though the licensees had concerns about what they saw as some of the shortcomings of the initial proposal, and that included the reliability of data systems and the difficulty of obtaining permits for visitors and tourists outside normal office hours, the licensees recognised, in broad terms, the benefits this system would have. On that note, I acknowledge they put the broader community interests above their own business interests.
On 1 March 2008, the takeaway liquor permit system came into being, after an enormous body of work to set up the system to support it had been undertaken. This included the software developed and installed at the point of sale at the takeaway liquor outlets. In the four weeks leading up to the date permits came into effect, hundreds of individuals applied for permits. There was also a huge amount of communication work. It was a new system, and there were some glitches in that system, but there was overwhelming support for it.
Like the ID system this government is implementing across the Territory, the ID system for takeaway liquor in Nhulunbuy and its surrounds is aimed at targeting problem drinkers. In Nhulunbuy, if you are not a problem drinker but a responsible drinker, life goes on as normal, beyond the initial process of applying for a permit, for which the only cost was perhaps 10 minutes of my time. It is a small price to pay, especially when the benefits in Nhulunbuy are very plain to see.
For visitors, admittedly - and the member for Katherine raised this - it is a minor inconvenience. For those visiting Nhulunbuy, Qantas and Airnorth have been extremely cooperative in that they provide information about the permit system prior to landing. Let us remember as well, anyone seeking a drink can always visit licensed premises.
I am not exaggerating when I say once the permit system came into effect in Nhulunbuy on Saturday, 1 March, the changes were dramatic and visible almost overnight. With problem drinkers put off tap, Nhulunbuy police saw a dramatic reduction in the number of people affected by alcohol taken into police custody. Gove District Hospital saw a dramatic reduction of people presenting to accident and emergency and, similarly, St John Ambulance was also called to deal with fewer incidents related to people suffering the ill effects of alcohol. Around the township of Nhulunbuy, streets were noticeably cleaner with less rubbish lying around, and antisocial behaviour around the town reduced dramatically.
With the takeaway liquor permits in place in Nhulunbuy, there needed to be additional resources in place to support the system. This included having a stronger presence of licensing inspectors rotating continuously through licensed premises because it was obvious, if people were off tap from takeaway outlets, we might expect to see an increase in those patronising on-licence premises.
Where people were purchasing takeaway alcohol and consuming it in unsupervised conditions, in contrast to consuming in on-licensed premises, licensees continued to be bound by the responsible service of alcohol.
Another important service in Nhulunbuy, supporting the alcohol management plan, is a Night Patrol service which continues to operate very effectively and efficiently under the East Arnhem Shire Council. Its aim is to assist people get home safely, but it will not take intoxicated people back to community. Rather, it will encourage, because it cannot force, those under the influence to go to the sobering-up shelter at the Nhulunbuy Special Care Centre, which also houses a 16-bed rehabilitation centre.
The Special Care Centre was built by the Northern Territory government and opened in 2008 as part of the wider strategy to address harm minimisation by specifically treating the problems caused by the abuse of alcohol and other drugs. This service in Nhulunbuy is a key part of the five-point plan which commits to increased rehabilitations services.
The minister told the House in her statement that takeaway sales make up 70% of all alcohol consumed in the Territory. Because takeaway alcohol sales are consumed in an unsupervised environment, there is no doubt this consumption is contributing to unacceptable violence and crime. Since takeaway liquor permits in Nhulunbuy were introduced on 1 March 2008, we have seen significant positive outcomes. Wholesale supply data shows the consumption of pure alcohol in Nhulunbuy has dropped by a staggering 22%.
The Attorney-General, in a media release on 31 March this year, released the December 2009 quarter crime statistics. According to this release, assaults in Nhulunbuy dropped 38% in 2009 and the decrease was 40% for the December quarter - quite staggering statistics and, no doubt, directly related to the reduction in the availability of alcohol.
It is not a perfect system, but in the two-and-a-half years it has been in operation, it has been closely monitored by stakeholders including the police, the Department of Justice Alcohol Strategy, Licensing Commission, the Department of Health, Alcohol and Other Drugs, Night Patrol, and other interested stakeholders, including traditional owners.
The member for Sanderson is right, you can ban things but people will always find a way around it. However, that does not mean we do not do it. One of the key things identified in Nhulunbuy and Groote Eylandt which seeks to undermine the takeaway liquor permit system is secondary supply where permit holders supply non-permit holders. While a certain amount of education may work, clearly, it is not enough. I welcome the minister’s announcement that these reforms will see the amendment of the Liquor Act to ensure those who supply people who are banned from purchasing and consuming takeaway alcohol lose their permits.
Awareness and education campaigns are critical. The member for Sanderson was sceptical about how we would get the message out there. Believe me, member for Sanderson, a targeted campaign and good old-fashioned word of mouth can be very effective. It has worked out my way. People are very clear about the system.
I see there are advertised community-wide forums to be held around the Northern Territory. I recently attended one in Nhulunbuy chaired by, I think, Mr Michael Brodie from the Licensing Commission. That presentation was most welcome. One of the comments made by one of the stakeholders there was:
- We’re ready for it. Bring it on because Nhulunbuy is actually one step ahead of you. We have a system in place that works effectively and we want to see what the next raft of reforms are going to be so that we can make things even better.
I will do everything I can to ensure I am at the public forum at Nhulunbuy Town Hall on 8 November.
Given there has been quite a bit of talk in this Chamber about the opening hours of takeaway liquor outlets in Alice Springs and, specifically, the CLP proposal which would see earlier opening of bottle shops from 2 pm to 10 am, I have to make comment on this. I cannot remember exactly when, but many years ago in Nhulunbuy - 16 or 17 years ago - takeaway sales at the bottle shops were reduced from 2 pm to 8 pm, with Saturdays being the only opening time of 10 am. It is an accepted system in Nhulunbuy. We recognise it works. I have never heard a call for, nor been formally approached as the local member, to change or extend those opening hours.
Why is that? I suspect it is because people recognise those opening hours are sensible, it is definitely preferable to what we had previously, and there is a direct correlation that the longer the opening hours you have the more alcohol-related problems you are going to have - the more alcohol that is out there. We have a reduction in takeaway bottle shop hour sales which has been in place for many years and very effective.
I refute the proposition from the CLP the banned drinker register penalises the wider community. That was the essence of a motion put forward on their General Business Day yesterday by the member for Sanderson. Far from it, member for Sanderson, because what these reforms will do, including the banned drinker register, is make life better for the wider community because we will not be seeing the same level of antisocial behaviour and cost to the community and taxpayer in dealing with them.
A permit system which delivers benefits for the wider community as well as problem drinkers is not an impost. There is the initial set-up of a permit and, then, each time an individual makes a purchase, as the minister said yesterday, it takes about 15 seconds at the point of sale to have a driver’s licence scanned and checked.
This government works with evidence-based policy, and I am proud to see the evidence of the success of the alcohol management plans in the East Arnhem region has contributed to the current five-point plan and the Enough is Enough strategy. In East Arnhem Land we eagerly await the commencement of the Menzies School of Health study which will be undertaken …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I move the member be granted an extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Ms WALKER: Thank you, member for Johnston; I have nearly finished. In East Arnhem Land we eagerly await the commencement of the Menzies School of Health study which will be undertaken to evaluate the impacts this takeaway liquor permit system is having in the East Arnhem region, as the results will no doubt further contribute to making and evaluating sound policy.
Madam Speaker, I commend the minister for her commitment to this important issue and for taking a strong stand on alcohol abuse. Those of us on this side of the House are right there behind her. I thank the minister for bringing this statement before the House.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Madam Speaker, I support the alcohol reforms the minister has brought forward and the Enough is Enough package. Since 2001, there have been many debates and reports in relation to alcohol in this House.
I was listening to the speeches of the members for Araluen and Greatorex. I listen to many speeches when it comes to alcohol because, as any member on this side of the House would tell members on that side, there is always a wowser when it comes to alcohol - a non-drinker. Alcohol reform is something I have advocated since 2001. I have been fortunate; I have had many ministers from successive Labor governments willing to look at alcohol reforms.
The member for Araluen said: ‘You tried this, it did not work, therefore, just scrap it and walk away’. I thought the Minister for Central Australia was being quite genuine in his approach to the member for Araluen by saying: ‘Let us work together. Let us try to deal with this issue in Alice Springs together’. We have issues of youth. The youth action plan is working and, like any plan, you have a suite of programs within that plan. Now that has rolled out, it takes time to see outcomes across some areas, but we are seeing them.
When you go to Alice Springs - and many of us on this side go to Alice Springs - if you believed the members from Central Australia, the sky is falling down and it is all dire. The member for Sanderson is like Eeyore from Winnie the Pooh. It is like: ‘I wake up every morning’. It is like: ‘hey, this is really’ …
Mr Hampton: They all need a hug.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: That is right; they all need a hug like we need to hug Dave because it is ‘hug Dave day’ today. I have not forgotten it; I did hug Dave today because it is really important to show the loneliest politician in the smallest Australian parliament we do think of him. He is taking it in good spirits, and I take my hat off …
Mr Tollner: I much appreciate it, Marion.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: However, I digress. The member for Fong Lim is deliberately trying to get me to digress.
Back to the members from Alice Springs. Alice Springs has its problems, like many regional towns and communities, and we have those problems in Darwin. However, it does not mean Alice Springs is a basket case and nothing works - otherwise, let us all give up and walk away.
When I was listening to the member for Araluen’s speech - it has been interesting to look at former debates. I recall one debate I had with the former member for Araluen about Alice Springs - about alcohol. It was on 1 May 2003, when this Labor government opened parliament - not just here in Darwin, we took parliament to Central Australia. It was the first time Central Australia, or anyone in Central Australia had seen democracy. This parliament went to the good people of Central Australia, and what a great time it was.
On 1 May 2003, I had a robust debate with the former member for Araluen, because she was throwing court documents around. My colleague, the member for Johnston, remembers when she came in throwing court documents around saying: ‘This town is lawless. It is the stinking drunks down the street who are causing all this’ …
Dr Burns: Dirty drunks.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: ‘The stinking, dirty drunks from the riverbeds who are causing this problem. Those stinking, dirty drunks ought to be run out of town’.
The new member for Araluen did not use the words ‘stinking, dirty drunks’, but the same tone is present. She was saying: ‘Why should I, a good citizen of Alice Springs, have to be inconvenienced because there are problems with a few?’ It is disappointing because you get the sense the new member for Araluen is no different in the view: ‘Why should I be inconvenienced because these few play up?’
I find it a disgrace; the member for Araluen’s background is as a social worker. That is the hypocrisy and the joke, but I suppose not all social workers are lefties, and maybe they are all ...
Mr Tollner: Are all social workers socialists?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: No, they are not all socialists, member for Fong Lim. There is a prerequisite.
When I stood in the 2001 election the CLP said: ‘Do not vote for her, she is only a social worker’. The CLP upset the …
Mr Tollner: Rubbish. They said: ‘Do not vote for Marion, she is a socialist’.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: The CLP upset the National Social Workers Association, because it did not like the CLP putting a slight on social workers. Social workers are at the front line of many of these issues and work very hard. I am not saying they should all be socialists, member for Fong Lim.
However, the member for Araluen contradicts herself. She is a bit of a joke. She says: ‘Oh well, Chief Minister, all these problems are happening’. In the next breath she says: ‘Oh, whilst everyone is being inconvenienced I have to order online, and many people in Alice Springs are ordering online, and that seems to be working’. That is also code for: ‘Therefore, we do not have to bump into the stinking, dirty drunks at 2 pm’.
Let us fast forward; let us look at some of the reforms. I applaud this government, this minister, and all ministers who have ever tried to deal with the issue. I applaud this minister for the suite of changes coming. Part of the Enough is Enough alcohol reform is the proposed ID. It is common knowledge if you live in the Top End, particularly in and around Darwin, I hold the seat of Arafura and one of the communities encompassed in that seat is the Tiwi Islands - my own people.
You have to be blind Freddy to walk down the street and not see the long-grassers, or people doing damage to themselves in the long grass and drinking, are Tiwi people - my countrymen. I welcome the ID system. The reason I welcome the ID system is the majority of Tiwi people in Darwin, in the long grass, drinking themselves to death, have left the island because they have been banned from the social club. If they are banned on the island, that ban should follow them into Darwin.
When the former member for Araluen and I were having this debate about alcohol on 1 May 2001, the issue of mandatory treatment was raised. I said one of the measures the government had to look at, and one of the areas the select committee I was chairing put in a report, was mandatory rehabilitation.
There have been many commentators. I have worked in health for 10 years delivering health services in many remote and regional communities. I have talked to institutions like Menzies School of Health, AMSANT, many doctors, nurses, and Alcohol and Other Drugs specialists - people working and researching in the field. Ten years ago, there was much scepticism about mandatory rehabilitation and people felt you could not force someone into treatment. Since that time, a great deal of research has been done which says you can. Programs have been enforced or mandated, and those programs have been shown to achieve the outcomes you want. Anyone who is suffering from an addiction - I do not drink but I smoke so I know what it is like to have an addiction. For drinkers you can get that support, mandate it, and help people become worthwhile citizens.
When people run the rights argument; it is ‘my right to drink’ or ‘my right to be left alone’ and ‘I drink and I vote’, they need to bear in mind when people are destroying themselves and causing that much harm to themselves, it is not only themselves they are harming. Usually, behind these people are families. I have spoken in this House before about what it was like as one of 11 children who grew up in a house with a chronic alcoholic father. Every single day of your life was involved in the constant cycle of drinking and the violence which came from that drinking.
When I participate in debates about alcohol, it is interesting when people say: ‘Oh, well, I am representing a group of people and you are not listening to the business community’, or ‘You are not listening to this industry’. How about listening to the kids? Does anyone? That is what makes the member for Araluen’s contribution such a joke. She is the shadow representative for child protection or community services. She talks about this issue on one hand and, then, talks about child protection, child safety, and child welfare. The biggest risk our children face every day in Darwin, Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs - is with grog. Alcohol is the biggest cause of the family and social breakdown we see in our communities.
The member for Araluen needs to stop contradicting herself and get her story straight. It is one thing to represent your constituents, but not all your constituents are businesses and industries. There are people with families whose lives are affected by grog, and we all have that responsibility.
I wish, when I was a little kid and we were locked in our house and every night I watched my father bash the hell out of my mother when he was drunk, that someone had taken some responsibility and mandated my father stop doing that. People need to sit up and, instead of thinking about their own agendas - if we are going to be serious about tackling child safety and welfare, alcohol is a major issue.
I applaud the minister, I applaud the government; it is a bold move. People are going to be critical of this and say we have infringed on their rights. However, think, when we have this debate, and when people come up to you, what about the rights of those children? That is the one area many people lose in this debate. As adults we have a right, but nobody speaks for that silent voice, those children who do not get an opportunity to say: ‘I do not want my mum or dad to be drinking tonight. I do not want my money to be spent on grog’. Who represents those children? That is where the member for Araluen needs to pull her head in and think about what she says.
She also mentioned youth curfews. During the Araluen by-election she carried on about youth curfews. The member for Araluen, instead of being lazy like most members in the opposition, should talk to her Liberal colleagues in Western Australia and look at some of their programs in, I believe, Port Lincoln in South Australia, or Port Hedland - Northridge - in Western Australia. Through most of those areas in Western Australia the government had trialled youth curfews for nearly a year in an effort to combat youth crime and antisocial behaviour. The curfews and programs put in place were removed by the Western Australian Liberal government because, whilst they worked in the short term, in the longer term they did not have the effect the government, police, and other people dealing with this issue wanted; they did not work.
Member for Araluen, stop being so lazy! Get out and look where extensive research has been done and programs put in place in other areas in Australia looking at youth curfews ...
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! I move an extension of time for the member pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I thank my colleague; I am nearly finished.
It was interesting listening to the members for Araluen and Greatorex, and many members on the other side - absolutely no solutions. Every time we debate different things - no contributions. There are never any contributions about solutions, or providing some guidance as to these programs. No, that does not happen. It is just whingeing, whining, carping - the usual rhetoric of oppositions.
We know Enough is Enough is timely. The drinking problem is not just an Aboriginal problem; we have a problem with alcohol across our communities and we need to deal with it.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I will not go further than to say I look forward to the exposure draft and these reforms rolling out, particularly the ID system. Within my own electorate, that is a program which will work.
Dr BURNS (Education and Training): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I support the statement by the Minister for Alcohol Policy. I believe it is a comprehensive statement which dovetails with the exposure draft of proposed changes the minister tabled and spoke to this morning. There will be much public debate of this issue. There has already been quite a bit of debate in this House.
I listened carefully to what various members of the opposition had to say on this statement. In most cases, the opposition has said fairly predictable things about the proposals. In essence, they are asking why the majority should be penalised for the actions of the minority, asserting the government’s measures are unlikely to work. That is it in a nutshell.
Of all the offerings from the opposition, the one which particularly interested me was the offering from the member for Port Darwin, which was very thoughtful. It was very revealing and personal and it raised some very deep issues. To some degree, it went to the very heart of the alcohol problem we are facing in the Northern Territory. What I heard the member for Port Darwin talk about was his own experience with alcoholism and how he had to come to the very depths, I suppose - I am not sure if those were the words he used - but more or less the end of his tether. He was fortunate he had someone who could give him a bit of a shake up. He then set about turning his life around and setting on the right path and, basically, walking away from the problem he had. All credit to the member for Port Darwin.
As I listened to the member for Port Darwin, I thought about the deep themes of redemption and salvation. I know they are Christian themes. There are many religions and each of them will have similarities in their approaches to this. However, the Christian theme, the story of redemption and salvation, is one I am familiar with. It starts with someone acknowledging they have a problem, that they are doing the wrong thing, they are in the wrong spot - acknowledging they have a problem and wanting to turn their life around. I am sure there are many different religions and philosophies across the world with the same theme, albeit with different ways of talking and thinking about it.
There are a few elements there. The first one is that someone acknowledges they have a problem. That is also the key theme of Alcoholics Anonymous. You have to say: ‘I have a problem, I am an alcoholic, I want to do something about it, and I want to seek help’. This is a common theme. That is exactly what the member for Port Darwin did. He also reflected, very profoundly, on the help he received and the fact that - I think the exact words he used were people need to take control of their lives, people need to take responsibility. To a large degree, I agree with that.
The member for Port Darwin also said it is no good saying this person is disadvantaged socioeconomically, or have come from a background of poverty and despair. The basic message he had is it not an excuse and no one should be offering that as an excuse, because it lets that person off the hook by saying: ‘I have a problem’.
I agree with that to some degree too. However, in this place, we have to acknowledge there are many factors which come to bear when someone becomes an alcoholic or an addict of some kind. Certainly, in our very nature as human beings, we all exhibit, in some ways, addictive behaviours - whether it is to Tim Tams, tobacco, coffee, or tea. There is a range of behaviours. Whether we have a routine where we like to watch the football at a certain time every Saturday afternoon, or we go shopping at a certain time, or there is a certain cereal we buy. To some degree, these are elements and reflections of addictive behaviour in various forms. Of course, what we are talking about here is the most serious form: physical addiction to a substance such as alcohol.
My parents always had a saying I remember, and I am sure other peoples’ parents had the same saying. If I saw an alcoholic and I said something, my parents would say: ‘You be thankful, because there, but for the grace of God, go you or I’. That is a profound saying because it acknowledges that person might have had to bear all sorts of grief, problems, and pain. None of us in this life know what the future is.
I am thankful I have had a pretty easy run in life. I have had much privilege in my life, but there are many people in this world who have not, who have been dealt pretty serious cards. I think of my mother’s uncle, who came back from World War I, with all he had seen and experienced there. When he came back from that war, he hit the bottle. What did that man see? What did he experience there? Could I, or any person in this House, say if we were exposed to what those Diggers were exposed to in Gallipoli and France - because that is where he served - that we would not have become alcoholics as well; that we would have tried to bury our sorrows and terrible memories of that conflict and everything we had seen - the pain and suffering - in the bottle? So, let none of us here get too self-righteous about being able to make decisions and being strong about things, because we all need help and support.
If you look at history, even recent history, not just in Australia, but in European countries and the Soviet Union, after conflicts like world wars, economic hardship, and depression, often you find people - a whole wedge of the population - who become alcoholics or have problems with alcohol. That was certainly the problem in Russia before and after the collapse of the Soviet Republic. It was true of Europe post-war.
During the Industrial Revolution in England, as people moved into town, there was starvation or malnutrition, poverty, and disease. That is when people started drinking gin. Gin was the favoured drink of the very lowest classes - if you want to think in terms of a class system - in England during the Industrial Revolution. The famous lithograph by Hogarth called Gin Lane shows this depravity, disadvantage, poverty and disease. Alcoholism was rampant at that time in European history.
It does not come as a surprise to me that many Indigenous people in the Northern Territory are trying to bury their sorrows and troubles in alcohol, having been through such profound change - social, economic, cultural and spiritual – over the last 100 or 150 years. As the member for Arafura said, it is not just a problem in the Indigenous population, but it is more visible. It is very visible in many ways because people live in the long-grass; people are visible in public places around the Territory.
The member for Port Darwin said people need to take responsibility for themselves and their families. I agree with that. We have to support people to do that. We have to get the message through to people. We have just debated child protection and talked about the importance of people looking after their children and the responsibilities of people looking after their children. I will be saying to people as I see them, and I see and know quite a few people: ‘Where is your family? Do your kids not need you back home? Why are you here having a drink? You owe it to yourself and your family to be at home’. Maybe that is taking a bit too much on myself and I should not be saying such things, but I feel compelled to. I believe we all have to say it. At that human level, that is what people understand. They understand about their own family. I believe they understand their responsibilities, but we have to show support for those people who are unable to control their addictive behaviour.
I fundamentally disagree with the position of the opposition which is to criminalise drunkenness. That is, essentially, what the opposition wants to do and that is a fundamental difference I have with the opposition. I agree with John Boffa and others; we need to understand the health and medical implications of this and not criminalise it.
Yes we need to be tough, and the government’s proposal to declare people habitual drunks is tough. It is tough to direct them into compulsory treatment, say they are on the banned drinker register and we will not allow them drink. There may be some in Australia who say that is paternalistic; I believe it is the right step for this government to take because it is such a large problem and has accelerated since the intervention. It is a counterproductive effect of the intervention.
I am not saying it was not occurring and there was not a flow of people into town drinking before the intervention, but it has been a counterproductive effect of the intervention. I said as much to Mal Brough and I have said it many times. I said it at a public meeting the former member for Solomon convened at the Nightcliff Sports Club with the then Justice minister, David Johnston - a very nice person. I said to both of them and those gathered at this public meeting that a fear of mine was we would have an accelerated movement of people into the towns, more drinking in the towns, and more social problems within the larger urban centres in the Northern Territory.
As a government, we are moving to address this issue and it is targeted at the problem drinkers. Others have painted the stark picture, as the minister said, of the problems around alcohol, domestic violence and other issues in our community. That is why this statement given by the minister, and the exposure draft she laid on the Table today, fits square and centre with the report by the committee which Howard Bath chaired.
Much has been said about alcohol harm in the Northern Territory. There is nothing more certain than the amount of harm is directly proportional to the amount of alcohol people drink. The restraints and strategies we have had in Alice Springs, although members opposite have not liked them, have had a positive effect. It is not going to be a silver bullet by itself. We need to engage with people. The supply side is very important, but we also need to engage with people and their families on this very deep issue of alcohol abuse in the Northern Territory.
The minister outlined the five-point plan of government. There will be mandatory alcohol treatment orders, the banned drinker register - of which there has been much debate - and Alcohol Court reforms. We took the step with Alcohol Courts, but we have always acknowledged we need to do more. We are a government which has taken steps in alcohol reforms and are prepared to take further steps to address this issue. We want increased rehabilitation services and awareness campaigns. That is crucial because you cannot only address this issue through the supply side; you have to address it through the demand side.
A problem drinker is defined as someone who:
has been taken into protective custody three times in three months; or
The problem with criminalising this behaviour is sometimes people who are a problem are not transgressing the law as such. They might be a nuisance, a pest, a worry for themselves and the rest of the community, but many of these people are not criminals. They have a health problem, a medical problem; they are alcoholics. I do not believe the right way to go is to criminalise this behaviour.
Police will have power to issue bans of up to 12 months to prevent problem drinkers from purchasing and consuming takeaway alcohol. We have talked about the first ban being three months, the second ban being six months and the third being 12 months, with a referral made to the new Alcohol and Other Drugs Tribunal. That is something I was keen to do when I was minister and I am glad the current minister has taken this up. In consultation with magistrates, lawyers, and others it became clear to me what I have been saying all along is correct: the justice system does not want to pull people through the courts who have committed no criminal offence. They do not want to criminalise drunkenness, they want a tribunal system similar to what we have in the mental health system where we can deal with these people and safeguard their interests and safety, as well as safeguard the interests and safety of the community. That is why this tribunal is a very good model, rather than criminalising this behaviour.
The tribunal will have the power to issue a range of orders such as alcohol bans and mandatory treatment. Once a person comes before the tribunal, they will have to undertake clinical assessment. These assessments will be done by professionals.
The opposition’s scheme says if you have been in protective custody at a similar frequency to what is being proposed by government, bang, you go straight to gaol. These people have medical needs. The member for Port Darwin said: ‘We are not going to put them in gaol, we are going to erect a cyclone fence and put them in there because they are not as much of a risk to security as prisoners’.
Member for Port Darwin, going through alcohol withdrawal is potentially fatal. I am not over-dramatising. You need specialised treatment; you need doctors present, a range of medical personnel, and other support. If you are going to take someone into withdrawal they cannot just go cold turkey because they could die or have severe reactions and their health could be adversely affected. This needs to be done in a very professional way ...
Mr McCARTHY: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! Pursuant to Standing Order 77, I move an extension of time for the minister.
Motion agreed to.
Dr BURNS: I thank colleagues for the extension of time.
Whilst I appreciate what the member for Port Darwin is saying about it being a fairly simple thing, in his view, to pull people through the courts, put them somewhere for three months, and let them out again, it is a bit more complicated than that. Having professional assessments and the right sort of support is the way to go for a range of reasons.
One of the other differences is the government’s proposal has a banned drinker register. Currently, people can have prohibition orders taken out against them under the law. Historically, that has always been an avenue for courts to proclaim someone as a prohibited drinker. However, the problem has always been enforcement. How do you know Joe Bloggs who walks into your hotel is not a banned drinker from Katherine or even the hotel down the road? That has always been a problem. With the ID register – something I initially introduced in Alice Springs, Katherine and elsewhere - the technologies are now available. It is developing further, as the minister said, and there is capacity now for a larger roll-out of this technology.
It is not going to solve the problem entirely because, as the opposition pointed out, there is always the potential for secondary supply. We have addressed that through legislation. Of course it will not be a perfect system, but there will be penalties for secondary supply. It does not take much of an operation to see the sober ones go into licensed premises and start supplying to those outside. It is all about cutting down the pool of people who can drink and are abusing the system. This is a step in the right direction. I am not pretending, and neither is the government, that this is a silver bullet either, but it is a step in the right direction. The rest of the government’s initiatives are trying to address the problem.
Regarding Alcohol Court reforms, the Alcohol Court was brought in when Peter Toyne was Attorney-General. There have been further developments of the Alcohol Court; this is a further development again. As we have gone through these processes, we have listened very carefully to the magistrates, police, those who bring these matters through the court, and other agencies. This is a process of development. It is probably leading the way in Australia in Alcohol Courts. This government is proposing further steps to further improve this process.
Once again, we are not pretending any part of this is a silver bullet. As a government, we need to put comprehensive policies in place. As the member for Port Darwin pointed out, and as I alluded to, it comes down to individuals wanting to turn their lives around with the support of their families and others. It is about individual choice, but there are many other factors we need to take into account. As the member for Port Darwin said, where we want to get to cannot be achieved by government, agencies, or anyone; it has to be a whole-of-community approach, as does child protection. The Alcohol Court reforms have been very important.
The member for Nelson has always been very keen on awareness campaigns making people aware of the effects of alcohol. I heard the members for Nelson and Port Darwin, and others, say maybe it is time for a new ad on the television. I got that message as well. Sometimes, you really have to emphasise something time and time again. Government should always be looking at its communications. That was a worthwhile suggestion.
We have gone out to public consultation on this. No doubt there will be much public debate and people will say: ‘Why should I be penalised? Why should the majority be penalised for the behaviour of the minority?’ Those who have lived in a house with an alcoholic know sometimes you have to hide the grog. Sometimes you have to make sure there is no alcohol around they can get hold of so it can wreak its havoc. Putting that on a larger scale, as a community maybe we have to look at the issue of alcohol and people who should not have access to it.
There are other measures such as a wine cask ban. I understand what people say; that there will be displacement to other products. That is what alcoholics do; they will drink anything. However, the wine cask is a very convenient form of alcohol. The unit price is quite low which is why people prefer wine casks to other forms of alcohol. We need to keep shifting and changing. We also need to try every measure we can to reduce the impact of this problem.
The minister mentioned the Darwin and Palmerston Alcohol Management Plan. I really must compliment the minister on the way she has engaged with both Palmerston and Darwin City Councils. I believe she found that those councillors stepped up to the plate and are keen to go further. They are keen to implement a range of measures around this. It is good to see local government engaged. We have to attack this as a whole-of-community. I commend the councils of Palmerston and Darwin and the council of Alice Springs.
What we lose sight of here is that the alcohol measures which were introduced into Alice Springs, particularly the dry town, were done at the request of the Alice Springs Town Council. Also, in Katherine, I had discussions with the mayor and other councillors, and they were keen for government to take action. It is very important that local government takes a stand on this.
There are many other things I could talk about, but I will close where I started, with what the member for Port Darwin had to say. I will say it again; I know he is listening. I found what he said about his own personal journey and experience very moving. It was very courageous of him to do that. It opened many questions in my mind about redemption, salvation, the bottom line of AA where you have to say: ‘I have a problem. I am an alcoholic and I want to change’. You are right, member for Port Darwin; that is what each and every one of those alcoholics has to do. However, they need the right support, the right direction and, sometimes, they need to be protected from themselves.
This government has the right approach by not criminalising drunkenness but looking upon it as a health problem, a medical problem, and a social problem, and acting in a way to solve it which is compassionate but also tough and firm. People will understand. As the member for Arafura said, there are many families and children who will thank us, as a community and a parliament, for taking action and debating this. It is useful for us to have debate. We may disagree on it, but one thing we fundamentally agree on now - which is a big change from when I came to this House in 2001 - is we have a big alcohol problem in the Northern Territory. We may have different ways of trying to address it and reduce it, but at least this parliament, as a whole, is focused on one of the major challenges to the Northern Territory, alcohol abuse.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend this statement to the House.
Debate adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT
Ms McCARTHY (Arnhem): Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mrs AAGAARD (Nightcliff): A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! I believe the Leader of Government Business needed to move a motion in relation to the next sitting day prior to adjourning the Assembly.
___________________
Next Sitting Day
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Deputy Speaker, I do apologise.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly at its rising adjourn until Tuesday, 23 November 2010 at 10 am in Parliament House or such other time and/or date as may be advised by the Speaker pursuant to sessional order.
Motion agreed to.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, so I can get it on the record, the arrangement was - and I appreciate what I have just been told - it is my understanding the Ombudsman’s Annual Report was to be tabled today, along with another report. I have not heard hide nor hair of that and now we are adjourning the House. I ask the government, do I need to be concerned about the failure of this report to appear?
Dr BURNS: Madam Deputy Speaker, I will respond to that.
Member for Port Darwin, yes, the concern was raised with me earlier and I made inquiries of the Tabled Papers Office. The report has not arrived. I understand inquiries were made with Cabinet Office and it is my understanding - I have not had a chance to check - the Ombudsman’s Annual Report had not arrived at Cabinet Office.
Mr ELFERINK: My understanding is also the Mataranka Report, which is quite critical of government, has not appeared. This is why I am becoming concerned, my understanding is that an Ombudsman’s report which deals with the Mataranka Cattle Station …
Dr BURNS: Well, that is certainly a matter that …
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Honourable members, the Assembly has been adjourned.
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to move a suspension of standing orders to discuss this matter now.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: No.
Dr BURNS: It has been deemed.
Mr ELFERINK: I am seeking leave. All she has to do is put the question.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is leave granted?
Leave denied.
Mr ELFERINK: That is outrageous. There is something really amiss here. If you blokes promise to deliver reports, you should deliver them.
______________________
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Nightcliff, you have the call.
Mrs AAGAARD (Nightcliff): Madam Deputy Speaker, tonight I wish to speak on the 2010 Portrait of a Senior Territorian Art Award and Exhibition.
Honourable members, I hope you have taken the opportunity to view the high standard of entries in the award this year and have shown your support by voting in the People’s Choice Award. There were 42 entries on display in the Main Reception Hall and it is encouraging that the entrants range in age from 12-years old to 81-years old. These portraits help to tell us a story of senior Territorians and are an opportunity to celebrate their experiences and valuable contribution to the community.
On Friday, 15 October, it was my pleasure to host a reception in Parliament House which was attended by hundreds of seniors, artists, portrait subjects and members of the arts community who came together to celebrate artistic excellence and the people who have helped shaped the rich tapestry of the Northern Territory.
The celebration was enjoyed by all who attended and I thank the Grey Panthers for their fantastic rendition of Pink Panther and I Go To Rio, and Reggae Dave for his engaging performance of Blue Moon and Blue Suede Shoes. I also extend my sincere thanks to the members who participated in the entertainment: the members for Arafura, Port Darwin and Sanderson. I also thank former Chief Minister, the Honourable Professor Clare Martin and the Honourable Grant Tambling for lending their vocal chords to the festivities.
Guests were asked to dress in pink and blue to help increase awareness of breast and prostate cancer. October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month, and ‘Movember’ assists in raising awareness of men’s health, specifically prostrate cancer and depression. Guests were also given either a pink National Breast Cancer Foundation wristband or a blue Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia lapel pin, and were provided with information on how to detect these cancers.
The fashion parade was the highlight and I extend my thanks to the judges, the Honourable Sally Thomas AM and Mr Daniel Bourchier of the NT News, for their discerning taste and, in Daniel’s case, providing inspiration to all on how to really sashay down a catwalk.
Alice Springs artist, Dr Al Strangeways was announced as the winner of the $5000 Government House Acquisition Award for her work titled Mona. It is the second time Dr Strangeways has won the award with a portrait featuring Mona Hunter. Unfortunately, Dr Strangeways was unable to attend in person, but via phone accepted her award with excitement, and spoke with compassionate respect for her subject.
Although Dr Strangeways always drew as a child, she did not study the subject and only began painting in 1998 after emigrating from the UK. She mainly works in oils and is fascinated by the identity of things and how things express this, or aspects of this in different ways and at different times. Al’s paintings attempt to represent a moment of glimpsing or catching the internal landscape of the thing - be it a cloud, place, or person.
Mona Hunter was born in 1931 in Mintabie to a Luritja mother and an Irish father, and was brought up on Wintanna Station and then on Welbourn Hill Station, spending much of her life on station properties in South and Central Australia. Mona moved to Alice Springs in 1992 after the death of her husband. She has 10 children, 23 grandchildren and seven great-grandchildren.
Highly commended were Mrs Jessica Cook for her portrait of Reverend Yulki Nunggumajbarr; Ms Lucy Keeler, for her portrait of Mr Stan Kennon; and Ms Cait Wait for her portrait of Ms Linda Munhawala Bidingal. Mrs Shirley Downing received the Speaker’s Award for her self-portrait titled Self-Portrait Another Page.
I also extend my congratulations to Ms Lucy Keeler for winning the $1000 People’s Choice Prize for her portrait of Mr Stan Kennon.
I convey my thanks to the Government House Foundation for their generous sponsorship of the Acquisition Award, and to the judges Dr Andrea Ash and Dr Carole Wilson of the School of Creative Arts and Humanities at Charles Darwin University, and Mr Chips Mackinolty, a celebrated Northern Territory artist and personality, for lending their expertise and time. They told me it was a very hard choice to make but were thrilled by the quality of entries this year and the story-telling and relationships between artists and their subjects.
I thank Exhibition Coordinator, Madge Fletcher, who worked hard for five weeks to produce an exhibition which would do justice to the artists and their subjects. She has done exceptional work and should be proud of the quality of the exhibition; I know she has enjoyed being part of a project which allowed artists to capture the unique stories of senior Territorians.
I also thank the Master of Ceremonies, the Clerk of the Parliament, Mr Ian McNeill. He was one of our singers - I failed to mention him before. I also thank my staff, Vishal Mohan-Ram and Amy Robinson, for their efforts.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will say a few words about Australia’s first saint, Mary MacKillop, and her connection to the Northern Territory.
I am an admirer of Mary MacKillop. This may be because I went to a primary school in Melbourne which was run by the Sisters of St Joseph, or the Joeys as I knew them. It may be because my father would drive a group of nuns from their convent in Hawthorn, Melbourne, to their little school in working class Richmond, when he was working in the city in the 1950s and 1960s. Or it may be because my mum’s sister was a Sister of St Joseph for nearly 80 years; her religious name was Sister Philomena. She spent hours when she retired from teaching researching the life of Mother Mary MacKillop.
I probably admire her most, and the real reason I believe she is a saint is, because she was a tough nut who spent her life fighting against the odds, whether it was sickness, the harshness of the bush, the vast distances, the church hierarchy, managing the order of nuns, or just hanging onto her great faith, which is reflected in her great desire to help the less fortunate, especially through education.
She was tough, yes, but she loved the poor, the children without education, prostitutes, and people in need. You can argue the toss about whether you believe in miracles; but, having read her biography I know she was a good woman who believed in God and helping others. A few more like that today and our mad, mad world might not be a bad thing.
How was she connected to the Territory? Indirectly, through her brother, Donald, who was one of the first Australian-born Jesuits. If you are an NT history buff, you would know the Jesuits came to Darwin in 1882 - more to the point, Rapid Creek. The Jesuits started three small missions on or near the Daly River, which is where Donald was sent. The missions were eventually closed because of flood and financial reasons and the Jesuits left the Territory in 1889.
One article I read said Mary was very supportive of Donald, and even planned to send Josephite Sisters to help look after the Aboriginal women on the mission. The plan never eventuated; the principle reasons being the fear of Jesuit superiors for the safety of the Sisters in isolation, and the precarious future of the mission.
Whether you are religious or not, whether you believe in saints or miracles, Mary MacKillop is someone we can look to and use as a role model, especially for young people; as an example of doing good and helping others; of putting others first and oneself second; and having the courage, determination, and faith to conquer adversity and pain; being a down-to-earth woman, a great Australian, and an honorary Territorian.
I will also say a few words about the RAAF Base which the member for Fong Lim spoke about last night. II did say something last night, but I only had a few seconds.
The RAAF Base suburb of Eaton is a really important issue for the whole of parliament, especially those members of parliament who live in the Darwin area. The shortage of houses and the high rents have been stated many times. To have 400 or so houses likely to be bulldozed simply because they do not come up to RAAF standards is something which should concern us all.
This is a suburb with infrastructure, and houses that, for most ordinary folk, would be quite sufficient, maybe with a coat of paint and some repairs. Just because the pantry does not come up to the RAAF standards is not a good reason for saying the house is not suitable. If there is a bit of asbestos - well, since when is asbestos a problem if you paint the building? It is nearly immoral to allow, without making any effort, the Department of Defence to knock these houses down.
The RAAF Base is a pretty big chunk of land, and the word I have heard is the so-called ‘strategic need’ for warehouses. Surely, there is room either on the RAAF Base, or at the port, for warehouses. We really need to make an effort.
I am pleading with the government to appoint a member of the government - either the Minister for Defence Support or the Minister for Public and Affordable Housing - and I spoke to the member for Fong Lim last night and he would be happy to join this gang, as I would be - to go to Canberra as a united group and lobby the Minister for Defence to retain these houses.
The Labor Party believes in social justice; this is a social justice issue. We are short of accommodation; we are short on putting roofs over people’s heads. We are not talking about itinerants or long-grassers; we are talking about people who cannot afford a mortgage. We are talking about people who are struggling to pay the rent and, probably, if they are paying rent, have very little money for anything else.
I ask the government to consider a member from each side of parliament. I say the member for Fong Lim, not just because he sits here and he does not have a portfolio, but …
Mr Chandler: Oh, he has won you over already.
Mr WOOD: No. He was a member of federal government, and he has had something to do with this situation. He also would have the contacts, which make this a sensible proposal.
Once again, I say to the government, this is a proposal worth supporting. If we all go together we can put a good case to the Department of Defence to save these houses.
I also think the member for Fong Lim would make a great new member of the Council of Territory Cooperation.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Madam Deputy Speaker, I start my adjournment by congratulating Evan and Julia Tyrrell on the birth of their first baby this morning. Mother and baby are doing well. I do not know about Evan; he has not come down from seventh heaven.
This Friday, we celebrate World Teachers’ Day and I take the opportunity to thank the teachers and educators in my electorate for the wonderful job they do in educating our children. I know how hard they work, and I appreciate the dedication and commitment to education and learning they provide for the future of our children. This Friday, we pay extra tribute to you all, and I thank you again for your continued hard work. I look forward to catching up with you in the schools in my electorate with either a morning tea or some afternoon drinks.
Dripstone Middle School has enjoyed a great Semester 2, with many great moments. The science lab is now finished, and children are learning in a high-tech lab with new resources and interactive whiteboards. I also congratulate Dripstone Middle School for the Dripstone Day fundraiser which raised almost $25 000 towards the purchase of a new state-of-the-art wheelchair for one of their students. The students’ determination and heartfelt compassion shone through in their generous donations and the time and effort they put in.
My congratulations go to Alawa Primary School and the very excited Alawa school community which has worked so hard to build strong partnerships, resulting in the Alawa Farm and the Stephanie Alexander Kitchen Garden programs. Alawa Primary School was originally announced the winning school for the Smart School Awards category, Excellence in Community and Industry Partnerships; with West Arnhem College receiving a highly commended in this category at the inaugural Small Schools Award gala event evening. Thanks to Cisco, the sponsor of this award, Alawa Primary School received $20 000 in cash and other prizes. It is fantastic to have Alawa Primary’s achievements acknowledged by DEET and the educational community.
Nakara Primary has had another successful year. Student attendance has been very good, and they have welcomed a number of new families to the community over the past six months. Numbers have continued to rise, with a need for another 0.5 teacher in the preschool.
Congratulations to Ajay Emmanuel, Thimithri Kulutunga, Izaak Fernando and Ashleigh Holland who received my Student Achievement Award this term for their outstanding effort at school. The upgrades and building projects have now finished. They have caused some disruption at school, but they all managed very well during that period.
The end of 2010 also sees the end of an era for Nakara Primary School with the retirement of a great friend and long-serving Principal, Barry Griffin. Barry will be remembered for his dedication and commitment to education, his ability to see projects through to completion, creating one of the best after school hours care facilities in Darwin, committing to a music program second to none, and introducing and participating in a morning fitness program for upper primary students which is the talk of the town - just to name a few. There will not only be a Year 6 farewell, sadly, there will be other farewell functions too. However, they will be celebrating and, no doubt, Nakara will celebrate in style. I look forward to catching up with Barry to celebrate his retirement and have a drink with him.
I give my sincere thanks to all the volunteers from the Casuarina Landcare Group for cleaning and visiting the beautiful Casuarina Coastal Reserve. Recently they undertook a huge cleanup along the beach area starting from the Lyons end; the Casuarina Landcare Group will continue its regular working bees throughout the year. I am always happy to help out with cold drinks for the workers, or with resources such as photocopying flyers in my electoral office.
I now turn to some of the issues raised this afternoon in Question Time, especially the issue raised by the member for Katherine about the hospital. The member for Katherine alleged, or was advised, that the maternity ward lost beds, there was no pharmacist, and there was disruption in the wards.
I advise the member for Katherine to check his informer thoroughly.
The maternity ward had 14 beds; the maximum ever used was six beds, so the manager of the hospital allocated some extra beds to the general ward. Yes, the pharmacist has resigned; however, recruitment commenced immediately and the new pharmacist will start probably before the current pharmacist leaves.
Previously, I heard the member for Nelson talking about the RAAF Base. I had the privilege to serve in the Royal Australian Air Force from 1994 to 1999 as a Flying Officer and a Flight Lieutenant in Environment Health. The RAAF Base was never maintained properly. I well recall numerous Air Force members’ wives and partners complaining to me bitterly about the condition of the houses. I issued numerous orders for the upgrades of either plumbing or painting, removing walls, or removing humidity from the houses. Some of the houses were in such a state of disrepair that whole rooms had to be demolished and reconstructed.
In addition to that, the predictions of the noise corridors of the new aircraft which will come to the RAAF Base extend so much that most of the RAAF Base will be affected, which means the RAAF Base cannot be used for human habitation.
I recall when I was the Minister for Essential Services there was an inquiry by the then federal government about normalising the base, which meant excising the land where the houses were from Defence and giving it to the Northern Territory government. The only request we made was investigation of the provision of services, the condition of the services, and to bring them up to the Territory standards of that time. A review conducted of the electricity, power and water, and sewerage services at the base, because they were constructed in the 1960s under the Commonwealth standard, indicated that to upgrade the base to the current Power and Water standards would cost $150m to $200m. After that the Commonwealth went very quiet because if it had to upgrade the services to the value of $200m, God knows how much it would have cost to upgrade some of the houses.
It is a very interesting situation. Many of those houses are very old and not to the RAAF standards. At the same time, the RAAF Base would be affected by the noise emitted by the new aircraft which, apparently, are quite noisy and there would not be much option for people to live in a residential area under those conditions.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to talk briefly on the report from the Ombudsman’s Office which has been put into the Table Office. Its title is Report of Investigation into the Treatment of Cattle and Horses at Charles Darwin University’s Mataranka Station.
This has just come into the parliament and I have only had a very cursory read of the executive summary and some of the recommendations. What I want to place on the record is the concern I know is out there in regard to how the Northern Territory government is going about the management and supervisory work of pastoral properties.
Last week, the Pastoral Lands Board document was tabled. It said the Pastoral Lands Board is grossly understaffed and is six years behind in investigating and reviewing some pastoral properties, and four years behind in reviewing other pastoral properties.
This is a very important document; it is exceptionally comprehensive. It is nearly 300 pages with some very graphic photographs and a CD. In my preliminary look at this document I am concerned there is no mention of the supervisory and regulatory role of the Northern Territory government in regard to pastoral properties and the components of a cattle station; that is, the livestock and the quality of the land.
It is the job of the Pastoral Lands Board to inspect or review the condition of pastoral properties. Given there were some issues with this cattle station, if the board had been resourced adequately to do the job it had been charged to do, then perhaps some of the issues raised in this report would have been caught up with well before they reached a point of no return.
I know there are only two animal welfare officers for all the Northern Territory. Two, to do all cattle station work, pet management work, or any other kind of work they have to do. I do not know who these people are, but they must have a huge burden and must be very stretched in their work.
That is a failing of this government. Two animal welfare officers for all of the Northern Territory, and they come under the Local Government department. When they need extra assistance, or any assistance, they go to the department of Primary Industry and call upon the assistance of stock inspectors. There are not enough of those either. I will be talking about this report in greater detail at the next sittings after going through all 300 pages, talking with industry, and the people involved with this station.
I place on the record my concern - not of the fact it is being investigated or reviewed by the Ombudsman, that is right and proper - the fact there are deficiencies in the resourcing of the department to look at these kinds of issues in the key area of Primary Industry, which is appalling. I reserve further comments for the November sittings.
Mr HAMPTON (Stuart): Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to discuss again an issue I raised last night during adjournment about mail services from Australia Post in my electorate.
Last night I raised the issue in relation to constituents on the Sturt Plateau, which is southwest of Katherine and comprises around 14 pastoral properties. The district fought hard for mail services to be started in the late 1990s and the area has been serviced once a week out of Katherine by a private courier company.
I wish to raise another issue in relation to mail services, this time at the community of Willowra in my electorate. It is the same as Sturt plateau, the people at Willowra, and many other remote communities, rely heavily on mail services. Communities similar to Willowra, as well as people living on vast pastoral properties in the Sturt plateau, do not have access to mobile phones. They have very limited access to landline phones, and often rely on the public phones in their communities. Therefore, mail becomes the most important form of communication for people there.
The issue was brought to my attention some time ago, and again yesterday, through the Willowra store. I saw the sheer frustration of the store manager at Willowra at the lack of responsibility by anyone for mail services to Willowra, and the sheer frustration that often responsibility falls to the store. There are different parts of responsibility and at the moment no one is taking it on; often it is put onto the store, sometimes it is put onto the shire, and on occasions the responsibility to deliver mail is put onto the GBM or people who happen to be visiting Willowra from Alice Springs.
The store manager has given me a few examples of the frustrations he has had. There have been about four occasions when either he, as shire manager, the GBM or someone coming from Alice Springs, has had to deliver mail. The plane service, Chartair, does a mail drop on a weekly basis and arrives at Willowra each Thursday; it has six communities on its run. However, the store has been advised if Chartair cannot get to a majority of community airstrips they will not deliver to the others. If one airstrip is out of commission - for example, there has been too much rain - the other five communities do not get the mail service.
The other major issue impacting on that is cost. As I said last night, Australia Post has recently announced a $103m profit, but in remote regions of Australia, particularly in my electorate, they are cutting back on these types of services to the bush as the board of Australia Post goes through its strategic planning to cut costs – part of that is reducing overheads such as these services.
There needs to be discussion between the store, the shire and the GBM, and also between the federal government and Australia Post. I would like to see more commitment from them in continuing this really important service to people in the bush. There needs to be some simple solution, such as Australia Post entering into a contract arrangement with the shires in the Northern Territory which includes arrangements if airstrips are closed and the mail plane cannot get into communities such as Willowra. People have to drive 143 km to the Stuart Highway to collect their mail; that is ridiculous. I would like Australia Post to have discussions with local government, or the shires, and enter into some arrangement which would see this service to places like Willowra and the Sturt Plateau continue.
The other impact the store manager raised with me is if the plane does not arrive on a Thursday it could be one or two weeks, sometimes longer, before people at Willowra receive mail. If the shire manager or store manager cannot get to Ti Tree to pick it up, or no one from Alice Springs is driving in, and the mail plane has not arrived, it could be up to three weeks before people get their mail at Willowra.
That has significant implications for the community. Many people at Willowra do not have bank accounts; many people are still getting cheques from Centrelink delivered by the mail planes and, if they are not getting a cheque in two or three weeks, then there are people going without food. People cannot do shopping at the store if the mail plane has not turned up, and they have to wait for their mail for another two or three weeks.
We talk about closing the gap in some of these communities, and people having money to buy food at the store is a significant issue – and that comes down to the mail service.
There are also things like bank cards, Centrelink forms, meeting forms for other organisations, health appointments are missed, particularly for specialist appointments in Alice Springs, due to the non-arrival of the mail plane.
I will again be writing to Australia Post, as I have on behalf of my constituents on Sturt Plateau, for the people of Willowra, and identifying this issue with the federal minister for Regional Services, Mr Simon Crean, as well as Australia Post.
I will continue on from my adjournment last night on my visit to Timber Creek recently. While at Timber Creek, I caught up with Greg Kimpton at the Northern Land Council, and met a local Indigenous fellow, Daniel Jones. Daniel runs his own contracting business and it is proving to be a model of success in Aboriginal communities. Daniel founded the Bradshaw and Timber Creek Contracting and Resources Company Pty Ltd with the support of the Northern Land Council in 2008. The Australian Defence Force conducts regular training exercises at Bradshaw Station which presented an opportunity for a local contractor to provide services under the negotiated Indigenous Land Use Agreement.
Bradshaw and Timber Creek Contracting and Resources Company has since expanded its operation to include verge slashing, erosion works, landscaping, road and fence maintenance; and hopes to expand in the near future. This year, Daniel Jones was recognised for all his hard work by becoming a recipient of a special NAIDOC award for his work and business.
While at Timber Creek, I also noticed how good the local sporting facilities looked. The Max Duncan Oval was the venue for the annual cricket carnival the other weekend, the Dingo Cup. This year’s winners were the Katherine-based Bad Company team which contested the final with the Timber Creek Bush Turkeys. Six teams travelled from all over the region to take part in this hallmark event, now in its eighth year. Congratulations to all involved in making the Dingo Cup another great community event.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Deputy Speaker, this is the first sittings I have had the honour of participating in as a member of parliament and it has been no less than an amazing experience. What I have learnt from the last two weeks is that each and every one of us in this Chamber cares deeply about the people we serve.
An example of this relates to a very dear and close friend of mine. Her name is Kathleen McDermott - sorry, her married name is Kathleen Byrnes - and she lives in Wulagi. Kathleen and I met in my first year in Alice Springs; we played netball together and won the E Grade premiership for netball. I still hold that trophy in very high esteem. I showed my daughter this trophy a few years ago when she started netball. Yes, mum was a very good netball player –E Grade. However, I digress.
Kathleen and I hung out together as single women. She went off and married her now husband, Jason Byrnes, and I went off and married my husband. We both have two children. Kathleen has a beautiful daughter called Molly, and a son called Andy - Andrew. Both her children, unfortunately, have disabilities. Molly has a mild to moderate intellectual disability, and Andy has a profound disability requiring 24-hour care and attention.
I talk to you about this tonight because her local member, the Chief Minister, has been wonderful to Kathleen and her family. He has visited her at home on several occasions and has gone out of his way to provide Kathleen and her family with support and information. I take my hat off to the Chief Minister for providing my good friend with such great support. I also thank the Minister for Health, who has also helped Kathleen.
This is what we are all about in this Chamber - helping people with problems. I really respect the Chief Minister and the Minister for Health for helping Kathleen and her family.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Madam Deputy Speaker, and member for Araluen, you are so right; as members, we do have a responsibility, and it does not matter whether we are Liberal or Labor, we all have a responsibility, not only to the people we represent, but to people throughout the Northern Territory.
I wish, hopefully without any interruption, to continue my adjournment from the other night. I know that adjournment raised much passion from the other side, and people became quite upset. The important issue I raised was domestic violence, which I do not think should be treated lightly. This is not about Leo Abbott, and I want to make that really clear. At the end of the day, whoever the Country Liberals choose to pre-select as their candidate is a matter for them.
The focus of my attention is what I regard as hypocrisy in the Leader of the Opposition’s tactical change of position, and his questionable credibility in relation to domestic violence.
I wish to finish my adjournment from the other night, where I got to the part where the Leader of the Opposition, in the Northern Territory News of 14 October, said:
- There has been a number of conversations knowing there has been something there in the past, but constant reassurance that it had all been sorted out.
Let us decode those words into plain English, taking into account the sad reality that the standard modus operandi of a serious domestic violence perpetrator is to do whatever it takes to ensure the other party does not publicly reveal the full extent of his behaviour, regardless of whether a formal DVO has already been issued. I go back to the quote:
- There has been a number of conversations knowing there has been something there in the past …
Those words mean the Leader of the Opposition knew there was a domestic violence problem. At the very least, it was incumbent on his party, and ultimately on him as its leader, to find out what that something was. It is obvious the Leader of the Opposition knew what that something was, and he knowingly used an obviously flawed individual for his own political means.
That brings us to the second part of the Leader of the Opposition’s quote, which referred to constant reassurances it had been sorted out. In other words, it did not matter to the Country Liberals whether violent behaviour had taken place, all that mattered to the Leader of the Opposition was whether the woman in question was going to make a fuss. The Leader of the Opposition, after the horse had bolted, calling for Leo Abbott to be disendorsed is, in its phoniness, worse than the straightforward chauvinism of Senator Scullion and what he said.
The message to countless Aboriginal women who have never had the independence or courage to make perpetrators accountable through the courts, is a troubling one.
The hypocrisy of the Leader of the Opposition, and others on his side - but particularly the Leader of the Opposition who has been in the media saying he does not have any involvement in preselections and he did not know about any of that stuff. When I saw that quote in the media, I thought, well, the media is being a bit sloppy because if anyone looked at that part of his quote - knowing there had been something in the past - the Leader of the Opposition knew there was something there, and then to say he wanted Leo Abbott to be disendorsed because he had breached a DVO, and that was the first he knew. The Leader of the Opposition needs to do the only honourable thing, which is to resign.
His credibility on this issue needs to be questioned. He seriously misled Territorians because throughout that campaign it was obvious Leo Abbott was going to be used as political capital. The Leader of the Opposition has shown Territorians he would use whatever means and anything at his disposal to win a seat, even if it means telling porky pies.
When you look at the Leader of the Opposition’s media coverage through that episode, when he was outraged and calling for Leo Abbott to be disendorsed, he was getting quite sloppy. When you go through and decode those words it is obvious to anyone the Leader of the Opposition did know about these issues but deliberately tried to paint himself in glory so he could push his own barrow.
I think the Leader of the Opposition is finding it hard, and it has been interesting to sit here and look at the body language and the dynamics on that side. It has also been interesting to talk to certain members of the Central Council of the CLP to find out how that vote went and just what happened. I know there has been a journalist from Crikey hanging around, and others, and if people think this issue is going to go away, it is not. It is only going to get bigger, and the Leader of the Opposition should come clean and admit he knew about it.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Deputy Speaker, I find that an extraordinary statement to make and it needs to be responded to. To enter into this attempt to wreak mischief of a political nature is a barely coherent construct. To start by premising the whole position on a statement in the media and say it is to be decoded - to decode means you can read whatever you wish to read into it. So for the honourable member to decode and read what she wishes into that, is on her head in that ...
Ms Scrymgour: I know how the vote went. It is on your head, because you lied.
Mr MILLS: Madam Deputy Speaker ...
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I withdraw.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Arafura.
Mr MILLS: To decode means you look at something and read whatever you wants into it. I have said a number of times there was knowledge of some matter in the past; however, there were very clear assurances they were vexatious in nature and had all been dealt with.
One thing the member, in her decoding, failed to assess and understand is how the Country Liberals operate regarding preselection; the party itself jealously guards preselection and explicitly prohibits any involvement, it jealously guards any involvement of any kind …
Ms Scrymgour: That is not what members of Central Council have said.
Mr MILLS: Do not bother listening; just do your decoding - any involvement of any kind - any member on this side would confirm that. To encroach in that space, which is wholly the party’s business, is something you would not do in my position, or as any member of the Country Liberals, which includes the leader. That is something I have requested, and I stand my ground; it needs to be improved and the party has acknowledged that.
For the decoding attempt to be coherent and logical it would be able to explain how it is that those who backed the decision made by the party found my stance offended their decision and I was effectively at war with my own party. To say I would bring that on myself as some kind of political stunt is sheer misreading of the situation, and it is quite dishonest to overlook that. You could read whatever you want into it, but you need to have your eyes open and be very honest and clear in your vision.
It has been a very challenging time for the party; I do not like to bring myself into it, but it has been challenging for me personally, because I have been consistent in what I have described. It may suit whatever attitude the honourable member has to try to extract something, to vent some kind of problem she may have with me personally, and read something into it to suit some kind of political agenda. But, as I have urged members who have been involved and interested in this very difficult period, there are those who take a position in these matters and seek to find whatever they can to advance a point of view.
There are others, by contrast, who take the position of doing whatever they can to find out what the truth of the matter is; that is the position I have endeavoured to take.
I find it surprising that tonight I have received support from the community for the position I took. I am not one who tells lies or plays games with these things. I have received significant opposition from sectors even within the party. I find it most surprising tonight that the member opposite finds it so difficult to accept what has been consistently stated by me in this matter, and ignored in her attempt to decode. I find myself now attacked by the member for Arafura. It can only lead me to wonder what has got in the system to allow such a faulty decoding of something quite plain for anyone to see.
Mr KNIGHT (Daly): Madam Speaker, I, like the member for Arafura, sat through the grubbiest parliament in the five years I have been a member. The antics of the Leader of the Opposition were some of the grubbiest tactics I have ever seen. To do this directly before a federal election; to attack someone over a marriage break-up which involved children - children who read newspapers, watch the news at night, and see their mother’s and father’s lives dragged before the public - was disgusting.
The Leader of the Opposition claims to be a Christian - he is a Pharisee - he is a lukewarm Christian; he is a Sunday Christian. He did not act honourably.
We have some rough-and-tumble with members in this parliament, but we all know we do not step over the line; we do not involve family. We have respected that with members on the opposite side; I am not going to name who they are, but we know they have personal problems in their lives which involve their families. We will not go near that because we respect that. We know this is a very tough game, and your family suffers the most in this game.
It was the grubbiest act I have seen in the five years of my political life in this parliament, to come from a so-called Christian man, an honourable man. He is a hypocrite, and that is percolating through the party. Party members across the region – and I have been around some of the regions of late in Alice Springs and Katherine - and party members I know socially are telling me the Leader of the Opposition did know. He knew a long time ago about Leo Abbott’s history because Leo Abbott revealed it; he revealed it to the party, he did not hide anything.
The Leader of the Opposition knew this had been going on for quite some time. Leo Abbott had been pre-selected for quite some time but, lo and behold, at the sittings of parliament directly before a federal election the life of the federal member is dragged through the parliament. This is in response to the Leader of the Opposition’s denial tonight.
I turn my comments to my electorate. As the member for Daly, which incorporates the Cox Peninsula, I would like to talk about the Kenbi Land Claim. This has been going on for some 30 years; the longest running land claim in the history of Australia. The Land Commissioner handed down his report to the federal minister 10 years ago, and it has been sitting on the desk since that time. This government came out two years ago with an agreement with the land council on behalf of all the identified traditional owners involved in the land claim determination from the Land Commissioner.
The traditional owners were in unison with the Labor government of the Northern Territory - and I believe the opposition as well - with a position where a large proportion of land would be handed back as freehold to be developed for the economic prosperity of not just the direct traditional owners, but the affiliated members of the Larrakia people, and would benefit all the Larrakia families across the Top End. It was an excellent proposal, something which can be learnt from by a number of different Aboriginal groups across Australia.
This has been sitting with the federal minister for two years, and it is grinding along. I am imploring the relevant federal ministers - and I will name them because I would like their cooperation and assistance in pushing the bureaucracy along, because it is taking forever. We have people who are ready to go; people who want development to happen on that peninsula. We have the economic prosperity of the Larrakia people to look after. The community of Belyuen has very few jobs, and this is going to sustain that community into the future.
I am urging the federal Communication minister, Stephen Conroy to talk to his department about the Australian Communications and Media Authority which holds a section of the land there - I think it is section 32 - to speed up the negotiations for the definition of what land it requires. Section 32 is a large section of land and they are working out how much of that land it requires. I know it has been progressed, but it seems like snail’s pace. I urge the minister to talk to his department to get things moving as a priority, to get this sorted out.
I would like Mr Stephen Smith, the new Defence minister, to talk to his department as Defence have bits and pieces of land there; some of the islands have unexploded ordnance, but that should not hold up the process, the land can be handed back and then leased back to the Defence department to clean up that ordnance. We do not need to spend years cleaning it before the land can be handed back. I know the traditional owners and the land council are quite willing to lease back that land so that remedial work can be done. It is vital that happens.
One of the biggest stumbling blocks is with the Department of Finance, and I urge the minister, Penny Wong, to exert some pressure on her department to have this resolved. My understanding is the Department of Defence wants to rehabilitate the land before it is handed back. It is a huge area of land encompassed in the Cox Peninsula area, and the area could be handed back as NT freehold. It is quite foreseeable that the areas it has identified which need some remediation can be identified in a hand back to be leased back in small sections for that work to continue; the remediation work could be part of the project work in the beginning stages of the development of the Cox Peninsula.
I am urging the Minister for Finance, Penny Wong, to push things along and get her department to look at the guidelines. The Department of Defence is hanging off these guidelines that it cannot hand it back unless it is in perfect condition; I believe some pragmatism could be applied: that land is handed back to the traditional owners, and then small sections which require work can be leased back to that department to finish those works.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I plan to talk on progress of this every week we are in parliament because there are many groups who are waiting for this to happen. I will be forwarding this Hansard to the ministers responsible to get this moving along, because it has been an incredible length of time we have been waiting; and we have development ready to happen. Darwin needs, not only the land release happening now in Palmerston and in the new city of Weddell, but the Cox Peninsula. It will be historic for Australia to have this land handed back and developed by the Aboriginal traditional owners for their financial independence, and massive job creation in the future.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Deputy Speaker, if members opposite think they can get away with such a disgraceful smearing of the Leader of the Opposition - think again. For such a duplicitous member of parliament - one of the most irrelevant members of parliament, a former Deputy Chief Minister who dealt herself out of the game, duplicitous to her eyeballs, treacherous, a traitor to the Labor Party, crossed the floor, and is now the most irrelevant member of any parliament in this country - to make such allegations is culpable.
The member for Daly’s accusations towards the Leader of the Opposition are beyond belief. There is no basis for any of those allegations. The story regarding the candidate for Lingiari has been discussed ad nauseum. The truth of the whole situation is there; there is no need to trawl over this again. Why it has been brought up on the last day of parliamentary sittings, I have no idea.
What the member for Arafura has to gain by making such allegations towards the Leader of the Opposition and members of the Country Liberals, I have no idea. Perhaps she is part of some broader agenda; I do not know. Yes, there are quarters concerned with the steps taken by the Leader of the Opposition during that period, no doubt about it; that was played out very publicly as well. But anyone who knows the Leader of the Opposition knows he is an honourable man. He is a man of his word, and a man you can trust. I trust the Leader of the Opposition and I believe what he has said, as do the majority of the members of the broader Country Liberals.
The allegations made this evening are astounding. I have no idea where they are coming from, but obviously it is part of a broader agenda. People in the community trust Terry Mills and believe Terry Mills. It would seem the reason the Australian Labor Party is so desperate to smear Terry Mills is because he is gaining traction. There is no doubt about it; he is gaining traction in the community and he is seen as an alternative Chief Minister. We are ever increasingly being seen as an alternative government for the Northern Territory.
This no doubt does shake and rattle the cage of the Australian Labor Party in the Northern Territory. There are no depths members of the ALP in this Chamber will not stoop to in order to smear the good name of the Leader of the Opposition. It is duplicitous and treacherous and, once again, you have proven to the people of the Northern Territory you are unfit to govern, you cannot be trusted, and you should all be ashamed of yourselves.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I too cannot sit idly by while a good man, a decent and upright man is besmirched. I have been sitting here thinking for the last couple of days what would have …
A member: You did not care about Damian Hale did you?
Mr ELFERINK: I am going to pick up on that point. The only thing I asked in relation to Damian Hale was he explain his conduct to the voting public. He did so. Good on him. The point here is the member for Arafura has engaged in unpacking circumstances which required the ‘decoding’ of language. There are a number of ways you can decode language. I am more interested in underlying motivations, and the member for Greatorex was talking in part about the motivations of the Australian Labor Party.
I remember seeing a poll in the newspaper not long ago about the preferred leader of the Northern Territory. That poll said Terry Mills was substantially ahead of Paul Henderson as the preferred Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. Moreover, he was ahead of everyone else. That is an important issue for the Labor Party for a single reason: that preferred leader status needs to be conferred on the premier, prime minister or chief minister, as the case may be, when you are preparing to head towards an election. I will give you an example.
The preferred leadership status of the Prime Minister was, I think, 52 to 26 or thereabouts, prior to the last federal election. Yet, when the final washout came in the election results federally, it was clear that despite people not having as much support for Tony Abbott as they did for Julia Gillard, Tony Abbott was able to make up enormous ground because people were sick of a Labor administration.
The people on the fifth floor are not stupid. They think about these things all the time. We think about them on this side of the House. To find yourself with a Chief Minister who is behind on the preferred leader status would be of grave concern. The almost complete disappearance of the Chief Minister’s face from all the glossy brochures shoved into letterboxes, the complete disappearance of the Chief Minister’s face in so many of the government ads, indicates to me that some polling was done, perhaps around the time of the last federal election, which demonstrated he probably had a high recognition rate but an approval rating under zero, which means the government is stuck with a problem.
It is very hard to change someone with a low approval but high recognition rate. If someone has a low recognition rate, that can be fixed. But if someone has a high recognition rate, then their reputation is more difficult to tarnish. If they are very popular, you have to drag them down. If they are very unpopular, you have to find a way to drag them up.
I suspect the polling Labor would have done would have included another question: what is the recognition rate of the Leader of the Opposition, and what is the perception of him? I would argue that, unlike the Chief Minister, they would have found that the Leader of the Opposition was in positive territory and, moreover, has high recognition rate. So, the government says: ‘We have to talk about him. We are not going to make him any more popular, he is not going to be more well-known by talking about him, so the only thing we can do is tear him down’.
What is the Leader of the Opposition known for: his decency, uprightness, courtesy and, dare I say, even his mild manners. The most regular thing I hear people say about Terry Mills is that he is a great bloke, but he is probably a bit soft. That is what I hear pretty regularly. If there is a criticism, it is he is a great bloke, nice bloke, lovely bloke and ‘too good to be a politician’, is the other comment I often hear.
So the government is stuck with a situation where they have to find a vehicle by which, rather than elevating their own man, who has a high recognition rating but, I suspect, a lower approval rating, they can tear down the Leader of the Opposition. The only way they can do it is to attack the fundamental and core components of Terry’s popularity. Their choice of vehicle to do that is the member for Arafura. The member for Arafura started the slander, followed capably by the member for Daly.
Now, why is it that two bush members are running this? Because the bush members are not going to be affected by running a negative campaign. Why am I not hearing the Chief Minister running this campaign? Why do I not see the member for Johnston on his feet talking about this, or the member for Karama? It is because they know it would have a negative impact on them in their seats if they run a smear campaign. So they trot in the bush members and they start the slander, and they start the approach.
We heard today the attack from the Chief Minister because we pulled out of the CTC. The language is all new and they work on language and message all the time. What is the new slogan word for the government this week? Bold. How often have I heard the word ‘bold’ in the last few days? But now it is going to be weakness in terms of Terry Mills; they will be talking about softness, vulnerability to attack, all those sorts of things. They are going to try to stir the pot.
My major problem with this issue is, what about the rest of the people of the Northern Territory? What about the drunks? What about the kids we have been talking about in this House? What about focusing on them rather than attempting to tear down a good man? What about the law and order issues, the health issues, and the shocking rates of school attendance in the bush? No. The focus is going to be on attacking someone else so we can make them look worse than we are. That is the great disappointment of this process.
I understand politics; I get how all this stuff works. The tragedy is that whilst we play in the stratosphere, the mortals down in the troposphere look up at us and despise us, and frankly, I cannot say I blame them.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Deputy Speaker, I have an adjournment speech about an event I attended a number of weeks ago, but the member for Port Darwin has asked a few questions I will try to answer as best I can. There are questions about many things.
I have been reading the book King Brown Country recently. As you can see, it is a fairly well-marked copy. I am not going to speak about it tonight, but it raised a range of questions for me. Much of it has already been on the public record. It is very interesting - more than interesting - it is very important to read it in a range of contexts and levels.
On one level, it is about the policies of Indigenous affairs over the last 40 to 50 years, and the failures of successive governments in Indigenous affairs. Historically and politically, that is its primary importance. As we know, it is a story about a particular place and people, some of whom have been in this Assembly, and are not present tonight. So, I am not going into this except to say I am reading it and thinking about it. As most members would be aware, there are some very important questions touched on and, I understand because of legal issues, are not pursued in this book, but there are pointers in there to questions which need to be asked.
Similarly, we have heard tonight from the member for Arafura, the Leader of the Opposition, and the member for Daly about Leo Abbott’s preselection. I have to say I have questions. I know the Territory is a big place geographically, but it is actually a small place and nothing here operates in a vacuum. You always know someone who knows someone who is on the inside of this organisation or that organisation. Socially, in business, and in all sorts of ways, we mix with people.
The question I put on the table tonight is about the Leo Abbott pre-selection, but I will put it a little differently to the way the member for Arafura put it. Alice Springs is such a small place that what has happened in Leo Abbott’s family life regarding domestic violence would have been well-known in the community. I would be very surprised if the Alice Springs members, including the former member for Araluen, would not have known about that.
The Leader of the Opposition says it is the rule of the Country Liberal Party that leaders do not get involved in preselection. That may well be, but I would expect, in any political party, the leaders have a bit to say about who gets preselected for seats. There would have been a bit of canvassing going on; it may not be directly sitting on the committee that preselects, but there would be a fair bit of osmosis going on. At that level, I believe there would have been communications, understandings and knowledge about some of the history. I find it utterly incredible to think the Leader of the Opposition did not know some of this history, as did some of the members of the Country Liberal Party in Alice Springs.
It has been made plain that Leo Abbott was very truthful with the preselection board or committee or whatever it was, and probably told them everything to do with his family and whatever. We all go through political preselection, and we all know one of the questions we are asked is, what skeletons do you have in your closet?’ It does not matter what party you are in, that is a question which is asked, and people do a bit of research on you. I will leave it at that because I have something else to speak about. There are questions in my mind which continue to be unanswered which are in the political realm of the Northern Territory.
I will speak about the Northern Territory Timor-Chinese Association’s Moon Festival function which was held on 18 September, and which I had the pleasure of attending at their community hall in Marrara. The Moon Festival, also known as the Mid-Autumn Festival, is one of the most important events in the Chinese calendar - a time for family, reunions, and celebrations. The fullness and brightness of the moon signals the completeness and abundance of life, and the end of the traditional summer harvesting season in China.
The Moon Festival is a great celebration, not only for the Territory’s Timor-Chinese community, but for all Territorians who join in and share the traditions and celebrations of the Moon Festival. People who are new to the Territory fall in love with the Territory’s unique lifestyle, and we are truly fortunate to have a community made up of over 100 different nationalities. We have such a rich cultural mix. Wherever you are in the Territory you see people of so many different backgrounds living side by side, integrated and supporting each other; and I encourage those new to the Territory to get along to our many cultural events of the year, including the Moon Festival next year.
I take the opportunity to thank the children who performed the wonderful cultural dances. There are names here which I may have trouble pronouncing, so I hope members will bear with me: Jun Tao Lin, Kae Jenn Tchia, Paige Lay, Misha Lay, Isabelle Lay, Jacinta Mu, Christina Mu, Chelsea Lay, Meng Ting Qi, Ying Ying Au, Shaskia Lay and Annie Logan. I was very impressed with the colour and enthusiasm and the cultural importance.
Thank you also to your parents, Maria Tchia, Leonie Lay, Thomas Qi, Candice Lin, Julia Cai, Yu Mei a, and Angela Mu, who no doubt helped you with your costumes and rehearsals.
The costumes were absolutely beautiful. The children took so much joy in performing, they had obviously been practising for quite a long time and the audience really appreciated those cultural performances. It was a wonderful night seeing the preservation of culture in such young people, the appreciation by the audience, and the trouble the children, the parents, and the costumers had gone to.
I particularly wish to congratulate and acknowledge the President of the Timor-Chinese Association, Mr Rui Mu, and the committee members and volunteers who put their time and effort into putting the Moon Festival event together; and I really thank them for their hospitality also.
Thank you for the kind invitation, and I hope I will be able to come along next year.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish briefly to touch base on the Leo Abbott issue. It was raised here on Tuesday night by the member for Arafura. Leo is not present in this Chamber, and did not have an opportunity to give his side of the story.
What I learnt through the whole situation in the federal campaign for the seat of Lingiari was that the situation of domestic violence orders in the Northern Territory is a complex issue. There are far too many in the Northern Territory. One is too many, but the number in the Northern Territory is far too many; I understand there were around 3000 in the last financial year in the Northern Territory, and for a small population that is many domestic violence orders.
There are a number of domestic violence orders in the Northern Territory, as I understand it, related to heinous crimes, assaults against women, against men, and there are other domestic violence orders in the Northern Territory which are not assault-based and are utilised for the purposes of legal technicalities. It is hard to differentiate between the two. I have learnt that the Northern Territory has a different system of operating domestic violence orders than other jurisdictions in the country.
I thought after the federal election it would be a good opportunity to debate domestic violence orders in this Chamber, and how they work and how the system could be improved. I am not the person to lead that debate, but I am more than happy to participate in such a debate.
Whenever there is a fight or an argument, it is always good to have two people on hand so each person has a chance to defend themselves. We saw the member for Arafura tonight, and the member for Daly, attacking the member for Blain, the Leader of the Opposition. And we saw the member for Blain defend himself, along with support from the member for Greatorex and the member for Port Darwin; that is how it should be.
The approach taken by the member for Arafura on Tuesday night was a terrible way to conduct business in this Chamber. We know there is the sanctity of parliamentary privilege and we stand here and talk about anything we like. I think at times it is used as a bit of a coward’s call, to stand here and belittle someone who does not have the chance to respond, particularly in the private domain where issues around defamation are at large.
I listened to what the member for Arafura said. I too know the two women in question in relation to Leo Abbott. One of those women helped me in my 2007 election campaign, and the other woman I quite often had a cup of tea with when she and Leo Abbott were a couple. I know both of those women.
I make it clear - at no point in time did I know of any situation of domestic violence. My knowledge of Leo Abbott is that he is a proud, strong Aboriginal man from Central Australia. He is a bloke who is attracted to women. I have never known him to be violent towards women. Leo is a friend of mine and a constituent. I stand here representing both of those positions.
If I was aware of Leo ever participating or being part of any violent assault against women, he would no longer be my friend. He would no longer be someone I would speak on behalf of.
The situation with domestic violence orders is difficult. I have sat through all the court tapes in relation to Leo’s domestic violence orders and the breaches. I looked at every bit of evidence I could to find out whether there is any truth in the argument. I have not been able to find anything to prove he is a guilty man, and I have looked long and hard.
I know there have been statements, or reports of statements made in places such as Crikey. I read that, and I have scrutinised Leo in person on a number of occasions about the accuracy of such matters, which he denies. I find I am unable to convict a person of guilt and must see them as innocent until such evidence prevails. For that reason I stood behind Leo.
I am not going to get into the internal machinations of how it has affected our party, but I can tell you our party is strong. The majority of our party stood behind Leo, and Leo will go on and continue. I understand there are court proceedings imminent in relation to those matters, and we will see what comes of that. I understand those matters are of a defamatory nature, and we may find a measure of guilt or otherwise through that process. We will wait and see.
I am a person who believes in innocent until proven guilty. For many women in the Territory, and across Australia, who have been unable to report heinous crimes - and there may be guilt in some crimes, and we know there is guilt in many crimes which are unreported - it is difficult to cast our views in that manner; but in this case I have no evidence to convict Leo.
I was present throughout much of Leo’s preselection process and was aware of his time at Central Council and other areas, but I will not get into the machinations of the party. The Leader of the Opposition was right; preselection is a party matter and the leader does not get involved in preselection, as the member for Johnston said.
Leo made a statement to the ABC in Alice Springs on 6 September 2010. I want to read part of that statement, I will not read all of it because it will become even more topical. I will be reading his statement word for word, and will not be adding any extra comments. So if some things are misunderstood, that is the way it is written. This is what was said, and I will stop at the point where it would create further divisions in the CLP:
- I want to make it perfectly and plainly clear that despite hearsay created by commentary from others I have never and would never hit a woman in my life. Let it be known that neither do I drink alcohol or take drugs; there were a number of errors reported in the media at the time including a reports of violent incidents that were not about me. I have never been convicted of assault, I have never been charged with assault, and I have been never been questioned by police regarding assault.
Domestic violence orders are made by magistrates on receipt of a written complaint by individual or police, just because the word domestic violence is used does not mean there was domestic violence. Let me be clear, a DVO does not mean that you have conducted violence to people or individuals; it is simply an order not to go near someone and does not imply you have conducted an act of assault.
People should know that in case of my technical breach the magistrate heard I was reaching out to her, my ex partner, after the loss of a child and that I was not known to police. The Magistrate said ‘I emphasis that the text and e-mails were no threats, no abuse, no demonizing of the protected person’. The Magistrate went through that declaring that I am of good character saying that I am not going to record a conviction that is despite what the NT News reported on 13 August 2010, I was handed a $500 good behaviour bond for nine months payable only if I broke the bond.
This was clearly different to Terry Mills’ statement that I had been fined. People should know that when I first was interested in being a candidate for the Country Liberals I sat down with President Rick Setter and Michael Jones, then Chair of the Alice Springs branch, I informed them both of my DVO and a recent court case relating to the technical breach for sending my ex-partner text messages and e-mails. They asked many questions and the opportunity to ask many more.
Rick Setter took the recommendation to the Management Committee and on his recommendation I was pre-selected as a joint candidate with Wayne Connop. When it became known only one could run I presented to Central Council and spoke to questions regarding myself. I openly discussed my DVO with anyone who was interested.
I will leave the rest of the statement. I wanted to place that on the record because Leo is not here to defend himself; which is not fair. We all know how hard public life is, and we have all done things in the past we may or may not be proud of; however, we grow, change and learn and we stand here as we are today, hopefully we are better people.
The comments made by the member for Fong Lim about Bob Collins are a different situation; but, the same time, he is not here to defend himself. The member for Arafura can make observations about other members in here, but be careful about people like Leo Abbott; he cannot defend himself - it is hard for him to defend himself to the public.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016