2010-11-30
Madam Speaker Aagaard took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Daly and member for Fong Lim, I remind you that signs are not acceptable in the Chamber. Please remove the signs from your laptops, thank you.
Ms Lawrie: Would that be the members for Drysdale and Braitling as well?
Madam SPEAKER: We can leave those ones for the moment.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received from His Honour the Administrator, Message No 22 notifying assent to bills passed in the October sittings of the Assembly.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move that leave of absence be granted this day to the member for Macdonnell, Ms Anderson.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD (Nelson)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move - That the member for Macdonnell, Ms Anderson, be discharged from service on the Sessional Committee of the Council of Territory Cooperation.
Motion agreed to.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
This bill seeks to implement the Occupational Licensing National Law - or the National Law - as set out in the schedule to the Occupational Licensing Law Act 2010 of Victoria as a law of the Northern Territory. The National Law sets out the regulatory framework for the National Occupational Licensing System - or the National Licensing System. This is one of the key reforms under the National Partnership Agreement to Deliver a Seamless National Economy signed by the Council of Australian Governments in December 2008. The proposed reform aims to replace the current multiple licensing regimes across jurisdictions with a single national system, thereby reducing red tape for businesses and individuals, and potentially improving labour mobility and productivity.
The Ministerial Council for Federal Financial Relations has primary responsibility for implementing the National Licensing System. It is intended that an appropriate ministerial council would, in the future, be charged with the responsibility of administering the system.
The National Law establishes the National Occupational Licensing Authority - or the Licensing Authority - to administer the National Licensing System and make policy recommendations to the ministerial council. The Licensing Authority will be governed by the National Occupational Licensing Board, and be supported in its policy role by Occupational Licensing Advisory Committees. The National Licensing System will operate on a ‘national delegated agency model’ whereby the ministerial council and the Licensing Authority determines the development, maintenance and performance of licensing policy, while state and territory regulators continue to provide administrative functions relating to licensing and enforcement.
Policy functions that may remain with jurisdictions cover: conduct requirements concerning how work in regulated occupations is to be performed; consumer protection and public safety laws; consumer complaints and remedies; and appeals mechanisms.
The National Licensing System will initially cover seven economically important occupational areas. These are: air-conditioning and refrigeration; building and building-related occupations; electrical; land transport, passenger vehicle drivers and dangerous goods only; maritime; property-related occupations; and plumbing and gas fitting. All of these categories, with the exception of air-conditioning and refrigeration, are currently licensed in the Territory and will be part of the national approach. A future policy decision is to be taken on whether or not air-conditioning and refrigeration licences should be part of the national scheme.
There are currently 800 licence types, including endorsements, in these seven initial occupational areas across the eight states and territories. This COAG reform will make it easier for occupational licensees to operate across state and territory borders without the burden of applying for additional licences. This will benefit the Territory in attracting skilled labour in the future.
Implementation for the seven initial occupational areas will occur in two phases with the first tranche of occupations commencing in July 2012 and the second tranche joining the scheme from 1 July 2013. This staggered introduction is necessary to provide adequate time for the development of appropriate licensing policies for each occupational area. Provision is also made for further occupational areas to be included in the national scheme over time where jurisdictions agree to do so. The National Law provides for national consistency in licensing policy and the approach to disciplinary arrangements for licensees whilst still providing a sufficient degree of flexibility to deal with issues specific to particular jurisdictions or occupations.
The model bill provides the high-level framework for the National Licensing System. Operational aspects, industry, and occupation-specific issues will be covered in national regulations which will be made by the responsible ministerial council. However, there is a small risk that the unique circumstances which can exist in jurisdictions such as the Territory may not always be fully appreciated and may require a level of flexibility, or for regard to be had to distributional impacts of national proposals which might be otherwise subsumed in the national interest.
Although the risk is small, the Occupational Licensing (National Uniform Legislation) Bill 2010 will preserve the ability of the Territory’s Legislative Assembly to effectively disallow future regulations made pursuant to the National Law which are deemed inappropriate to the Territory’s circumstances. In addition, the model adoption bill which was drafted for those non-host jurisdictions choosing to apply the National Law by referencing the Schedule to the Victorian enactment as host jurisdiction provides for amendments to the National Law passed by the Victorian Parliament to apply automatically in each jurisdiction. In some cases, agreement to amend the National Law may only require the agreement of a bare majority of the ministerial council.
This is not the Territory’s preferred legislative arrangement. Accordingly, the Territory bill re-enacts the model National Law as an appendix to the Territory act so nationally-agreed amendments to the act will not automatically apply in the Northern Territory, as they will in those jurisdictions which have referenced the Victorian act ‘as in force from time to time’. Instead, the Territory bill provides for the Administrator to make regulations to amend the appendix to the Territory act to apply nationally-agreed amendments. This ensures amendments are able to be applied easily and in a timely fashion but, nevertheless, subject to appropriate parliamentary scrutiny and disallowance powers. The Northern Territory approach to apply the National Law as an appendix to the Territory act also has the advantage of ensuring the Northern Territory legislation database reflects the current state of the law as it applies in the Northern Territory at any future point of time. It provides for transparency, efficiency and convenience for Territorians, while retaining our commitment to the implementation and operation of the National Law and the proposed National Licensing Scheme in the Territory.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 28 October 2010.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, the opposition will not be opposing this bill. It is a product of a national agreement; COAG rules supreme. Essentially, it is a melding of consumer protection laws throughout all jurisdictions of this nation.
In the dark ages of the Whitlam government, a few things occurred which were small, dim flickers of light in an otherwise dark time. One of those dim flickers of light was the Trade Practices Act, which went a long way to addressing the issues of trade practices in this country. The common law provided some comfort, but as responsibilities and liabilities became increasingly complex and difficult with the passage of time and the operation of laws of negligence and such things, as well as the inequitable relationship between some businesses, it was determined by the Parliament of Australia that the trade practices of firms be restrained by a legislative instrument rather than mere reliance on the principles of the common law. Consequently, the Trade Practices Act was born.
In 1994, I came into possession of my first Miller’s Trade Practices Act, which was the standard text for matters of trade practice in this country, and it was a surprisingly thin volume. I have brought my last two copies of Miller’s to demonstrate how things have changed. This one is hardly what you would call a thin volume; it is 800 pages long and is the 1997 version of Miller’s Annotated Trade Practices Act. I now have the 2008 version which is 2080 pages from cover to cover. The Trade Practices Act, as an organ of corporate governance in this country, has been growing, some would argue, malignantly, for some time. The Trade Practices Act, and I imagine my next copy of Miller’s, is going to get thicker. It may even come in two volumes, by virtue of the fact that its expansion has now resulted in this arrangement at a COAG level. The expansion of the Trade Practices Act has taken it in all sorts of directions never anticipated by its original and some of the areas it has infiltrated include matters relating to consumer law.
Primarily and historically, the Trade Practices Act was an organ which restricted itself to the relationship between businesses and did not offer any form of effective consumer protection. Each of the state jurisdictions produced their own consumer legislation. In the Northern Territory it is known as the CAFTA, or the Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading Act.
The inevitable has occurred, and that is that the Trade Practices Act’s growth has finally penetrated so deeply into the area of consumer law that the concept of unconscionableness, which is central to the Trade Practices Act, has found its way into the consumer law. It is a necessary part of the organic growth of this country’s trade and consumer practices that there is a meeting of the minds between the two spheres of influence.
Consequently, this government has seen fit to go to COAG and sign an agreement which does little more than reflect many of the principles which exist in our current Trade Practices Act. The nature of commerce nowadays is that companies operate in different jurisdictions and it makes perfect sense that larger companies be afforded a single reliable point of reference for their trade practices and their consumer protections.
The ups and downs of these types of arrangements are that you win a few and lose a few. I am critical that the federal legislation will not have carriage of sanctions which can see imprisonment as one of the penalties available for courts to impose; they are restricted to fines. I acknowledge that fines are substantially larger under the Trade Practices Act, or the Schedule to the Trade Practices Act, which this will ultimately represent. Nevertheless, I am disappointed there are no penalties by which a court may choose to imprison under the federal regime. I am not aware of any stage where anyone has been sent to prison as a result of a breach of the CAFTA; I could stand corrected, but I suspect I am right. As a consequence, the sanction is there as a threat but is yet to manifest itself in reality.
To cut a long story short, we have more than enough business before this House to keep us occupied; there is nothing in this which I find particularly concerning. I make my usual observation that every time we sign up to national legislation, a little of our federation erodes away, and I am an ardent federalist. I hope in all of these arrangements, when we enter into them, there is still a capacity written into the arrangements which will enable us, in the interests of people living in the Northern Territory, to step away from uniform arrangements if they do not suit the outcomes needed for the people of the Northern Territory. If we give away powers absolutely - I believe it was McClelland, I could stand corrected on the name, who made a comment in a case not so long ago about the High Court’s exercise of its jurisdiction, that the states’ parliaments could be rendered little more than debating societies. This is also potentially part of that process. However, I also acknowledge the reality of the world we live in and the necessity to provide a uniform approach for commercial environments.
Madam Speaker, it is not in the instinct of the CLP to do anything which would substantially undermine the integrity of the commercial environment which this House is duty bound to protect.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, I also support the bill. It was good to hear the member for Port Darwin indicate that the opposition is supporting the legislation, although I understand there are some questions regarding penalties and other things which the Attorney-General will cover.
We are amending the Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading Act so the Australian consumer law which the federal government has passed will become the consumer law of the Northern Territory. The member for Port Darwin touched on some of the federal and state issues and the historical context of the legislation. What we are doing is also being done by the other states and territories which means there will be one consumer law for Australia; it means certainty for the consumer, the wholesaler and the retailer – one law applying equally. It is a big change. As flagged by the Attorney-General, it is the largest overhaul of consumer law in Australia for over 25 years. It is a big step forward, and a timely one considering the changes to technology and the changes to people's attitudes about what they buy, when they buy it, how they buy it, and how people sell it to them.
The Australian consumer law we will be adopting was negotiated through COAG, I understand, and it was agreed it will cover a number of issues: a single, national law for consumer protection and fair trading based on 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 draw upon best practice in the existing state and territory consumer laws.
While we have all signed up for the new agreement, there is a process of change to be made to the laws: Four jurisdictions, three of them states, need to agree the changes can be made so there is some flexibility built into the system in such a way as it provides certainty over the long term about what people are doing and how they are doing it. It sounds reasonable, and we will see how it works in practice. As I said, there will be greater certainty, consistency and clarity for consumers as a result of all states and territories adopting the changes.
It is also a result of modern drafting. There has been a significant period of time since consumer affairs was last addressed nationally –25 years - and there will be consistent rules of business making the conduct of business across state and territory borders easier - less red tape, to an extent but, more importantly, less need for different practices allowing for easier training -employees will only need one set of rules, and with trading your business partners will know with certainty that your product and services are fine if practised in one state to then practice in another. To adopt that report into another jurisdiction creates a greater certainty for both businesses and consumers, means safer products, one clear and constant set of safety obligations - consumer transactions will have one set of rules. It is a win for people who worry when making purchases.
There are greater protections for misleading or deceptive conduct and unconscionable conduct. Greater protections against, to quote the Attorney-General:
Those are things many people worry about and for which they need protections.
Perhaps the reforms of most interest to the basic consumer are those around unsolicited selling. Door-to-door salesmen have moved on; I have not been doorknocked by anyone selling a vacuum cleaner or the Encyclopaedia Britannica. I remember the encyclopaedia salesman knocking on our door when I was growing up in Alice Springs. He would proudly hold the encyclopaedia up by one page to show how tough it was. I have never been doorknocked by a salesman; I am not sure if Mormons or politicians count. Perhaps I need to be careful on my weekly doorknock. If you are doorknocked at the moment the products most often sold are security systems. There is a certain irony in that; unsolicited salesmen are selling something to keep away the unsolicited.
However, door-to-door is not as prevalent as it was. Telephone salespeople have become more common, and we need to provide consumers with greater protection. Technology has changed, people’s attitudes have changed, and with those reforms and modern drafting of legislation those changes are now embraced. We need greater protections for people around the unsolicited telephone call and there are a number of protections which, to quote the Attorney-General:
More rights for people in dealing with an unsolicited salesperson. You do not always make the right decision at the time; protections are needed, they are important, people can make mistakes. Sometimes out of politeness, when someone is at the door, you say yes to something you should not have. So you need a cooling-off period. People do not like being rude and get caught up in a situation they should not have and, after a moment of reflection, after the person has left, you wonder why you did it. So we need protections; we need an opportunity to cool-off after being caught on the spot.
These reforms capture the changes in how things are sold to people which have occurred over the last 25 years and bring much needed new protection for consumers in the Territory. It is timely for these reforms to update our legislation. They afford Territorians the same rights as every other Australian when it comes to buying and selling, and that goes for businesses as much as households - business buyers too. In fact, businesses probably receive more unsolicited calls than households. These are much needed protections which recognise changes in technology, changes in how people buy and sell. It is sensible legislation.
Madam Speaker, I commend the Attorney-General for bringing the bill forward and I commend it to the House.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I support the bill and endorse the comments of my colleague. As it is about consumer affairs matters, I thought it appropriate to take the opportunity to comment generally. When the opposition was discussing this bill, the member for Port Darwin commented that the Consumer Affairs Council folded because there were no members and there was no interest. That is incorrect. The Consumer Affairs Council was fully operational at the time support was withdrawn by the previous Attorney-General, Mr Stirling. Graeme Bevis was supporting the motor trade industry, there were obviously many issues there; Barbara Vos and Michael Uibo were on the Council, Cheryl Kuhn, the financial counsellor with Anglicare, was also on the Council and a Chair for a period of time, the late Peter Brown was very much involved with the Consumer Affairs Council for 10 years. There was a representative …
Madam SPEAKER: Excuse me, member for Goyder, can I ask you to pause. I have been advised that the televisions which report Hansard and the proceedings here have gone off in members’ offices, and the lights have clearly gone off in the Sub Table Office. I would like to find out whether we are still recording before we ask you to continue. Please stop the clock for the member for Goyder while we get some advice.
Mr Gadd, can you tell me what is going on?
I have been advised that Hansard is still working. The Sub Table Office cannot hear us, so it is a bit of a problem, but we will see if we get further advice. We may have to suspend for a short period. Member for Goyder, thank you.
Ms PURICK: Thank you, Madam Speaker. To continue, the Consumer Affairs Council had a representative from the Tangentyere Council representing the views, wishes, and issues in Central Australia, a representative from the Arnhem Land Program Association, ALPA, and another person by the name of Jackie Nichols. For a period of time I was on this council and the council did a great deal of good work which was supported by industry and community. Marilyn McDonnell worked within the Office of Consumer Affairs – she was and is a sterling person - and provided the secretariat services to the Consumer Affairs Council. So, to say the Consumer Affairs Council did not have people or interest is incorrect.
It was a great disappointment to many of the people who worked on the council when it lost support of the minister - from talking with some of them, departmental people at senior level did not like the council because the council reported directly to the minister on not only their work but consumer issues, particularly in remote communities. They did a great deal of work with the Arnhem Land Progress Association and community stores to ensure the pricing was on products. In many stores people in those communities had no idea what they were paying for items - whether they were luxury items or essential items - when it was the law to have all items marked. They also did a lot of work visiting the communities to ensure they could get the best possible fresh produce.
Much work was done with Michael Long to raise awareness of consumer issues in the community. They also did a great deal of work with the office and the council in regard to financial planning for people in communities and urban areas. The Office of Consumer Affairs does a lot of work to highlight scams and things of that nature, but the council was very active and strong until it started to lose the support of the minister. Why, I do not know.
Madam Speaker, I am interested to know if the current Attorney-General has any thoughts about resurrecting the Consumer Affairs Council because I believe, at this point of time, we have a need for such a council and the work it did.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I support the bill. It is important that we have national standards for consumer affairs. My only concern is that we do have a Consumer Affairs department and it has many regulations and laws. However, the impression I get from people who have tried to use Consumer Affairs as a means of getting some justice is that sometimes it seems to fail. Whether the department does not have enough people or resources to do some of the things the people ask it to do I am never sure.
For instance, I was contacted earlier this year by a constituent who had some major issues with a patio being built on his premises. The issue is still outstanding; it is nearly 12 months old. He has been through the Building Advisory Services and Consumer Affairs. He has quite a number of outstanding problems with the patio. It has not been finished according to what was expected and yet we do not seem to have a government department which is able to sort that out. To my understanding he contacted Consumer Affairs, he was given some good information and they tried to mediate on this matter but that was about as much as it could do. There are times when people think that is all Consumer Affairs does.
I remember writing to Consumer Affairs and asking why a certain poultry farmer was selling free range-eggs when all his birds were in cages. I asked them if they would inspect his premises, because they had the right to do that, but they said I would have to do that. It gave me the impression that there are times there when Consumer Affairs is hamstrung by lack of staff or finances, or that it simply does not have the power to do some of the things people may expect it to do.
I feel concerned for this constituent. It is taking so long for this matter to be sorted out, yet he has a patio that, for instance, has been screwed down in the valleys in the roofing iron, which is not normally where you put the screws because it means they leak. Also, the poles which were put into the concrete were not protected from corrosion. The minister may say some of that is the Building Board side of things. You would hope it is but it appears to have stagnated in that area as well. He has used the government departments, hoping some benefit would come from having those departments investigate and act on the complaints. Instead, a letter may be written or comments made but it does not go much further than that.
We have all of these changes in the legislation and it mentions there are specific consumer protections. It says:
I would have thought if someone has said they will build a patio it would come up to the building code, it would be constructed properly, and it would not leak or corrode. For some reason, this constituent is left with a patio which has not come up to the requirements he was expected to pay for, yet there does not seem to be any way that anyone can help him unless he takes the person to court. I would have thought taking the person to court is throwing the onus back on the owner of the patio rather than on the departments which are meant to carry out the intent of the law.
I ask the minister to advise whether our department has the wherewithal to carry out actions against people or businesses which produce false or misleading representations of goods or services. I know Consumer Affairs does act occasionally when it comes to fireworks, or they may put out a recall notice. That is all fine, but I wonder whether they have the ability to take on an issue like this patio which has not been completed in a proper fashion. Do they have the power to force the person to complete the job? Do they have the power to talk to the Building Advisory Services and ask if the building meets the standards? Is there a way the consumer can feel the department is acting in a serious manner on matters which can cost the consumer a great deal of money and leave them with a facility which is not up to standard.
Madam Speaker, I welcome the legislation before us. It is good that we have this uniform legislation. I hope we do not have legislation without having the teeth. I hope where there are infringements on the legislation the department can act so consumers are not just protected in theory by legislation on paper but are protected on the ground when the time comes for these laws to be used.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I thank all members for their contribution to the debate and I will touch on each of the matters raised by the members in my summing up. I sincerely thank members for their support because from 1 January 2011 Australia will have a single national consumer law, the Australian Consumer Law, referred to as the ACL. That arose from a 2008 COAG agreement to develop a new consumer policy framework comprising a single national consumer law based on the Trade Practices Act of 1974, drawing on the recommendations of the Productivity Commission and best practice in state and territory consumer laws, including a provision regulating unfair contract terms.
The ACL will include: a new national unfair contract terms law, covering standard form contracts; a new national law guaranteeing consumer rights when buying goods and services, which replaces existing laws on conditions and warranties; a new national product safety law and enforcement system; a new national law for unsolicited consumer agreements, which replaces existing state and territory laws on door-to-door sales and other direct marketing; simple national rules for lay-by agreements; and new penalties enforcement powers and consumer redress options.
I note that the shadow Attorney-General issued a press release on 16 November and said he did not believe the Territory had done the right thing in signing up for this. I recognise his support today. He said that because elements of being able to be gaoled have been removed we have not stood up for the rights of Territorians. Nothing could be further from the truth. This new law gives enhanced protection to consumers through all those mechanisms I have stated and only two provisions in the previous law attracted a potential gaol penalty, which has never been used. That was an absurd line for the member for Port Darwin to run. He glossed over that this stemmed from a Productivity Commission report and there was a very strong case to go to a seamless national economy with a uniform and higher level of protection - I emphasise higher level of protection - for Australian consumers while at the same time addressing the weaknesses in existing laws.
The new policy framework will improve consumer law enforcement powers, reduce compliance costs for businesses and increase access to information regarding dispute resolution - which relates to an issue the member for Nelson raised - and consumer issues. The Productivity Commission has estimated that the economic benefits of the framework will be between $1.5bn and $4.5bn a year. I am of the view that the adoption of the ACL will benefit Territorians by providing a modern and nationally consistent approach to consumer issues and fair trading generally. It will provide enhanced consumer protection, such as provisions relating to unfair contract terms and lay-by, and it will enhance enforcement options.
The member for Fannie Bay identified increased protections for consumers in cooling-off periods and the ability to capture the changes in technology in the way consumers are approached by merchants. I understand that the member for Port Darwin questioned the need for any law at all in a briefing. Why not rely on the common law? I did note that today he seems to have changed his position on that and is now an advocate of law in this area; I welcome that change. Given that was raised, I want to go into some of history of the consumer protections and how they have been developed. It is important to highlight that in this debate.
From the 13th century to the 19th century, most issues in the English legal system were dealt with under the common law. Statutes were only enacted in relation to matters of constitutional structure or changes to the law considered essential for policy reasons, or where the action could only be undertaken in the exercise of legislative power. Examples in the first category include statutes such as the Act of Settlement to settle the succession to the English throne, and the Acts of Union to join the kingdoms of England and Scotland. Examples in the second category include bills of rights, enumerating the rights to which subjects were entitled, and the statute of frauds, stipulating that certain classes of contract had to be in writing and signed. Examples in the third category include taxing and appropriation statutes.
Commencing in the 19th century, statutes were used more frequently. There were two principal reasons for this development. First, society was becoming more complex, requiring responses to issues not comprehensively dealt with under the common law. In any event, the common law at that stage was not uniform, was applied differently by different courts, and was difficult to identify with any precision. Second, the publication of the Napoleonic Code had led most European countries to adopt statute as a sole basis of their legal systems for its greater certainty.
While the English legal system maintained the common law tradition, statutes were increasingly adopted in areas thought to require a clear statement of rules of general application or some more immediate response than was possible under the evolutionary development of the common law. Towards the end of the 19th century, statutes had come to overshadow the common law as the primary source of English law. This was particularly so in the area of public law, which may broadly be defined as the field of the law regulating the structure and administration of government, the conduct of government in its relations with its citizens, and the responsibilities of government employees. The enactment of statutes in that field was essential because modern social services could only be provided by creating new public authorities with powers far more extensive than the prerogative powers allowed to the government by the common law.
Statutes also came to predominate in the sphere of private law, which may broadly be defined as that part of the law dealing with aspects of relationships between individuals that are not of direct concern to the state such as property, trusts, family law, contract, commercial law, and tort.
Statutes regulating the field of private law fell into three broad categories. The first was where the law was developed in a long series of decisions and massive cases from which it was difficult to identify the central principles. For example, the Partnership Act and the Sale of Goods Act which remain in force in every Australian jurisdiction codify the fundamental principles in a few relatively simple provisions. The second category was where the practice of common law had evolved to require enormously lengthy documents and/or cumbersome procedures. For example, any conveyance under the old common law system of titles required an exhaustive and expensive inquiry into the chain of ownership going back many decades. It was replaced by the Torrens legislation for simplicity and certainty. Third, statutes were used to deal with isolated points of private law where a rule had been established by the common law which was recognised to work in justice. For example, the Limitation Act was passed to ensure people and businesses were not exposed to the risk of litigation long after the events said to give rise to the legal liability had arisen.
No one would doubt the enactment of legislation in those fields was in the public interest. The general approach of modern governments, including the Territory government, is legislation is introduced only for those matters which are essential to the government’s objectives and which cannot be achieved in other ways, bearing in mind legal requirements and parliamentary obligations and conventions. In general, legislation is only enacted to redefine or extend existing rights or obligations, to circumscribe or extend powers if there is a constitutional requirement to raise revenue and appropriate monies, or if it is justified for important policy reasons.
To say legislation is always unnecessary where the field of activity is covered by the common law is at odds with history and experience. There are many examples which illustrate the proposition. The criminal law was previously covered largely by the common law, supplemented by isolated statutes dealing with particular issues. In 1899, Queensland enacted a criminal code which had been formulated by Samuel Griffith who was the then Chief Justice of Queensland and later became the Chief Justice of the High Court. The code afforded a greater degree of simplicity and certainty to the enforcement of the criminal law. Codes were also adopted by Western Australia, Tasmania and, in 1983, by the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory. Even in states which do not have a code, much of the criminal law has been consolidated into statute. In short, no jurisdiction has adopted the position that legislation in relation to criminal law is unnecessary, because the matter was covered by the common law.
In consumer affairs and fair trading laws, prior to the introduction of the Trade Practices Act and the Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading Act, the common law and equity provided a number of remedies which might fall under the general description of a consumer protection, such as fraudulent misrepresentation, unconscionable dealings, passing off, breach of contract, etcetera. There was no doubt, however, as corporations and businesses became more powerful and more sophisticated with an attendant disparity between the positions as sellers of goods and services and the position of consumers as buyers, these common law and equitable protections were inadequate. For example, there were many types of misleading and deceptive conduct which did not give rise to any remedy at common law and practices were adopted by sellers to exclude any contractual liability. It was for this reason the consumer protection provisions of the acts strengthened the position of consumers relative to sellers and implied into consumer contracts non-excludable conditions as to quality, fitness, and title.
So far as public safety was concerned, it is generally accepted that the common law remedies in contract and negligence were entirely inadequate to give a consumer any meaningful recourse in relation to matters such as product performance, composition, contents, design, and construction. The common law had nothing to say about price fixing and anti-competitive practices. Overall, it is a nonsense to suggest legislation is never desirable or necessary where the field of activity is covered by common law. The question whether legislation is desirable or necessary in any case can only be answered by examining the operation of the common law and the policy reasons for the legislative intervention. In this case, there are very good reasons for ensuring Australian consumers are protected by specific legislation with appropriate remedies and compliance tools which can be effectively used by the relevant authorities.
The member for Port Darwin said in debate today that the Trade Practices Act did not have consumer provisions. That is wrong. I am advised that Part 5 of the Trade Practices Act was always about consumer law. Part 5 is now repealed and the ACL will replace it. As I said previously, the member for Port Darwin raised the issue of removing gaol offences in a media release. Under the legislation which is being repealed only two offences carry the potential of imprisonment and there has been no case in the Territory where anyone was imprisoned. This new law has a broad range of more appropriate penalties or remedies, such as prosecutions, civil penalties, injunctions, damages, compensation orders, redress orders, adverse publicity orders, and disqualification orders. It certainly strengthens the arm, if you like, against unfair practices.
Regarding the concerns of the member for Goyder, there are no plans to resurrect the Council of Consumer Affairs. The roles of consultation and education which the council had previously undertaken are now undertaken by Consumer Affairs. I will talk about some of the roles it currently undertakes to give you examples because we do support activities which raise awareness to ensure consumers are advised of their rights and which ensure that any unconscionable practices are given the short shrift and stopped. That also addresses the question from the member for Nelson about Consumer Affairs having the wherewithal to carry out its activities. The answer to that is ‘absolutely’, and these new national laws will give them greater wherewithal.
____________________
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, would you mind if I acknowledge these young people in the gallery. Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Year 5/6 Millner Primary School students, accompanied by Ms Sheeree Arratta and Ms Deb Stevens. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms LAWRIE: I welcome the students. I attended Millner Primary School in 1975 after Cyclone Tracy when it was called Nimira, which was the merging of Nightcliff Primary, Millner Primary and Rapid Creek Primary for a year while we reconstructed the Nightcliff and Rapid Creek schools. So I have been to that school. It is a great school and you are doing a great amount of work for the environment. Congratulations and welcome to the Assembly.
I digress from debate on consumer law, Madam Speaker.
In regard to enforcement activities, a range of tools are used to ensure Territorian consumers are protected from rogue traders. These include naming and shaming powers, enforceable undertakings, and contact with traders to change trading practices. In the past year, a number of successful actions have been undertaken on behalf of consumers. To name a few, these include: cancellation of 248 door-to-door contracts, totalling $721 000, from a rental company selling whitegoods to Indigenous consumers; obtaining an enforceable undertaking from an international company not to promote an alleged pyramid scheme in the Northern Territory; cancellation of a number of contracts by a local rental company breaching door-to-door trading provisions; and, warning consumers about itinerant traders offering cheap bitumen driveways.
Consumer Affairs also undertakes compliance action, which includes ensuring traders do not breach legislation and do follow up on complaints. That addresses the questions from the members for Goyder and Nelson about the activity of the department of Consumer Affairs. I cannot comment on the specific matter raised by the member for Nelson. However, I am more than happy for the member for Nelson to contact my office should he want follow up on individual matters. The role of Consumer Affairs is to provide advice and advocacy for consumers. Consumer Affairs cannot make orders about consumer matters. The court is the forum for determining these contractual matters if the matter cannot be resolved. The ACL, the new law, will give the commissioner greater powers and more options to deal with consumer problems. I hope that addresses the concerns of the member for Nelson.
I thank the members for Port Darwin, Fannie Bay, Goyder and Nelson for contributing to the debate. We have a law which will be passed in this Chamber, with bipartisan support and support of the Independent present, which puts in place stronger protections for consumers, broadens the powers of Consumer Affairs in addressing protections for consumer, provides consistency in consumer protections across our great nation; and - fond as I am as Treasurer for any reduction in red tape and bureaucracy imposed on business - reduces the burden of consumer laws on business. The Productivity Commission has estimated the economic benefits of this framework to be between $1.5bn and $4.5bn a year.
What we have before the Chamber today is what I describe as a win/win - improved protection for consumers, strengthened powers for the consumer watchdog, a reduction in red tape and burden on business, and an economic benefit to our great nation. That is a very fine win/win.
I thank Robert Chamberlain from my department, who has put in a great deal of work in bringing this legislation to the House. I know he has worked tirelessly on other legislation for us. I do not normally single out individuals, but I know Robert is kicking into a career phase and has been a great member of our Department of Justice. I thank him for his tireless work on the Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading Amendment (National Uniform Legislation) Bill 2010 (Serial 132).
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 19 October 2010.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Speaker, the Northern Territory Auditor-General conducted a general compliance and four specific audits on the Department of Health and Families, testing compliance with government and departmental policies and procedures and assessing governance in our systems. The department has accepted all recommendations and is taking the necessary action to implement action to improve processes. The department’s external Audit Committee, chaired by Mr Iain Summers, a former Northern Territory Auditor-General, will monitor implementation of the recommendations.
With the overall agency compliance audit, the Auditor-General made findings about the department’s procurement processes. For example: instances where documented procurement procedures were not adhered to; some public tendering processes were not fully compliant; some goods and services were procured without adequate approval; and requisitions were raised subsequent to the receipt of goods or services. The department is addressing these issues and providing mandatory training for all officers responsible for procurement.
The Accountable Officer’s Trust Account is used to hold rental bonds for staff accommodation. The Auditor-General identified a breakdown in internal controls and made findings about: instances of double payments; overpayments; and revenue being recorded through the Accountable Officer’s Trust Account. The department is addressing these issues with centralised reconciliation of the Accountable Officer’s Trust Account which are now being carried out based on current tenant data provided by the hospitals. Key bonds are no longer being collected at Alice Springs Hospital which has reduced the administrative burden. These measures can reduce the instances identified in the audit.
The Auditor-General considered the stock control process at the Royal Darwin Hospital pharmacy and found adequate internal control over acquisition, storage and dispensing of pharmacy stock. Some issues were identified with record keeping, security, and disposal of Schedule 8 drugs. The department has taken the following actions to rectify the issues: developing or updating procedures and policies; and requiring documents, for example purchase orders for prescriptions, to be retained in an appropriate secure storage facility for the requisite time.
The Auditor-General found the department has conscientiously made much effort, since 2004, to improve processes for managing relationships and service delivery by non-government organisations, but further work is still required for a robust performance system.
The department has commenced reforms in grants administration and management of grant-funded service provision. The key reforms include:
Certain issues need attention, such as the use of delegations, outdated patient travel guidelines and procedures, records management, documents relating to patient responsibilities, and travel acquittals. The department is taking action including:
The Department of Health and Families is also addressing how best to ensure approvals are properly completed and that only authorised delegates grant an approval. All outstanding travel acquittals will be processed.
The Pensioner and Carer Concession Scheme was also subject to an audit. The Auditor-General found reasonable assurance that the internal controls are ensuring compliance. Some weaknesses in procedures were identified with financial delegations; retention of supporting documentation; and outdated procedures. The department has taken the following actions:
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I acknowledge the Auditor-General and his office and thank them for the hard work they have put in throughout the year to provide the Legislative Assembly with a number of reports, this being one of them. Difficult tasks I am sure; not the sort of thing I could get my teeth into with any great interest; however, it is a necessary part of the auditing system of the functions of government and departments to see how they are performing on a number of levels. Thank you to Mr McGuiness.
This is a snapshot of a number of departments conducted by way of audit by the Audit-General’s department from January 2010 to June 2010. The auditing includes not only financial statements but also looks at some of the agencies internal controls, compliance and governance arrangements and a snapshot of how those governance arrangements and other areas of the departments’ performance are going. Reading this report has raised some concerns about governance arrangements under the helm of a number of ministers on the other side of the House. It is not to say this report is entirely bad, it is certainly not, and it is not to say this is just an opportunity to criticise, it is not. The most important thing arising from audit reports such as this is departments can begin to identify where they need to tidy up their act. It is incumbent on the minister concerned to lead the charge in respect to how departments move forward in achieving the recommendations arising out of findings the Auditor-General makes.
It was quite heartening to listen to the first response from government from the Minister for Health. I notice the comments in the Auditor-General’s report from the departments indicate that, pretty much across the board, the departments have adopted the findings of the Auditor-General. It is nice to see the minister stand in the House and acknowledge that the departments have recognised - or his department has recognised - what needs to be fixed, particularly when it comes to governance arrangements.
The report covers a number of departments. It was not an audit of the entire range of government departments we have in the Northern Territory, but of some of them. There are some highlights in here, and I am happy to point those out. I am always happy to give credit where credit is due. I commend the staff of the Department of Education and Training. The audit opinion for that department is very positive. The Attorney-General said:
To those who are responsible for having those governance arrangements in place, I say well done, and to the minister I say well done.
That is about as good as it gets. The report goes on to talk about the Department of Health and Families and covers a number of areas of operation within the Department of Health and Families. I will start with the Patient Assistance Travel Scheme. What will become apparent as I go through a few of these departments are some consistencies across the departments which are not good consistencies. There are areas here which seem to be problem areas that are common to a number of departments. I am referring to, in the first instance – and this is one of the key findings under PATS – insufficient and incomplete supporting documentation. The report went on to say:
What you have there is staff not following the rules, guidelines and delegations they have. It goes on to say:
That gave rise to a situation where:
Without looking at the directives with respect to how long those documents need to be retained so they can be audited, I suspect that period of time is much longer than the six months which is referred to in this report. I know that to be the case because when I was in the police force, working in administrative roles, there were some very stringent guidelines about how long documents needed to be retained for audit reasons and so records could be referred to for some time into the future.
I would have to go back and dig out the Coronial finding and report on a gentleman who died at Kalkarindji some time ago when he was dropped off at the Kalkarindji airstrip after a PATS repatriation. I suspect if I went to that Coronial report I would find some reference to the fact that some were no longer available. I stand corrected if I am wrong; however, I suspect that to be the case. That is an example of one of the very good reasons that departments must comply with requirements and delegations about how long documents are kept. In a practical way, you can see how not keeping records can affect future events, therefore, it is imperative that documents are kept as per requirements.
Moving on to the NT Pensioner and Carer Concession Scheme (NTPCCS), the findings say:
A common thread is the insufficient supporting documentation which I referred to before.
The same deal again. It makes me wonder what sort of department the minister is running. He said he has taken all this on board, but it really is not good enough. These are very basic functions of departments, to get the paperwork right.
The report talks about pharmacy stock control, including drugs and poisons. The finding is rather concerning:
That is a clear breach of legislation. Not only do we have shoddy practices with respect to paperwork, which appears to be endemic in the Department of Health and Families, but the minister has allowed these types of breaches to occur. Breaches of legislation have also occurred. I believe that is an abrogation by the minister, leaving his department hanging out to dry and putting the staff in a position where they could face prosecution and could become the subject of investigation. The minister should take this on board. It is a very serious issue, where you have departmental staff, doing their job - I am not critical of departmental staff, because they are working very hard under difficult circumstances. Often they are poorly resourced and, most of the time, having worked in a government department, namely the police, for 21 years, the people who work in these departments are good people.
They just want to get in there and get their jobs done to the best of their ability. What constrains them is that ‘best of their ability’. If they are not trained, not told, not advised, not given the opportunity to understand the implications and ramifications of the guidelines particularly - and now we are seeing it here - with respect to the legal implications. In the Department of Health and Families they have breached the Poisons and Dangerous Drugs Act. The minister should be ashamed of himself for letting the governance arrangements in his department fall to this level. If I were working in that area of pharmacy stock control I would be screaming from the rafters in whatever way I could and demanding that I, as an employee, be fully trained and made fully conversant with everything required of me as an employee with responsibilities, particularly legal responsibilities, under the Poisons and Dangerous Drugs Act.
The report goes on to talk about the role of NGOs and then moves on to the Department of Housing, Local Government and Regional Services. The audit of this department is not as scathing as that of the Department of Health and Families. I note in the audit opinion that:
As I move through the report, I find that is a common thread also. If I move to the Department of Justice:
In this day and age, government is under more and more scrutiny for its performance, particularly its financial performance and how it spends its money in relation to the outcomes it achieves at the end of the day. Without a performance management system there is no way of identifying how well you are going against benchmarks. You can have management meetings, and you can put a few people in the room, have supervisors’ meetings, pat each other on the back and say: ‘Yes, we seem to be going pretty well’, but at the end of the day there is no way you can have an objective assessment of how your section or department is performing unless you have a performance management system.
I move on to the Department of Natural Resources, Environment, the Arts and Sport. It says here that that department:
I hope the minister will speak about this later today and tell us his department now has a performance management system in place. I will be listening carefully to what you have to say, minister, because we need to know, and Territorians need to know they are getting value for money through the departments. Otherwise you end up with a bunch of public servants with no real direction, no real way of assessing how they are going in their departments, bumbling along from one day to the next.
Several other departments are touched on, such as NT Fleet, and Police, Fire and Emergency Services. The report then moves on to the administration of grants. I have used the word ‘shoddy’ before, and use the word again to describe what I read about in here. I am not suggesting any impropriety, but very poorly managed and governed administration of grants through a number of departments which were audited.
On page 49 of the report the Auditor-General states that, in his opinion:
As I thumbed through the report and looked across the different agencies which were audited, there are quite a few departments where there were inadequate policies. Perhaps the policies are there, they are just not being adhered to.
Page 51 of the report talks about specific grants which raised concerns with the Auditor-General. It is useful to quickly run through a few of these because it creates a context:
Again, evidence of acquittal of the grant could not be provided.
It is apparent the processes around the administration of grants in the Department of the Chief Minister - there are other agencies as well. This is appalling. If I was audited by the Australian Taxation Office on my personal taxation return and could not produce the kind of documents referred to in this Auditor-General’s report, I would find myself in a world of hurt. We are standing in the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory talking about this. The NT government is not going to get into trouble as such, is it? I would be.
We have a situation where, in so many cases, the departments or agencies are not complying with the most basic paperwork requirements in administering grants. How on earth are you supposed to run a system like that? Surely there is a process in place? And it would not be that hard to follow, would it? A grant application comes in – ta da! There it is, a piece of paper sitting in a folder. Then, upon the grant application goes another document, another document, and another document until it finally reaches the person who is going to approve that grant. It is going to have all sorts of recommendations and reports on it. Yet, it would seem there are people in the Northern Territory government - ministers on that side of the House - writing cheques, perhaps on a whim.
If there is a case of expediency, if there is some urgency around the grant of money, the reality might be that you do not have all the paperwork in front of you. Urgent - I cannot really imagine a circumstance which would require it, but it may happen. You would think, during the course of an audit on the approval of grants, those documents could be located and presented. It makes me wonder what is happening in some of these departments. I am concerned about it.
The situation with the Department of the Chief Minister was so bad the Auditor-General made some specific comments at the end of the section on that agency. He said:
Fair enough, if you did not have them when you signed the cheque, okay, dig them up for the audit. Cannot find them for the audit, but we know where they might be so we will go and get them for you. I find it quite disturbing that the Auditor-General has concluded some of these grant applications do not even exist. It makes me consider this should have some further investigation. I note the Auditor-General makes the point that there was:
My understanding of the grant process is you cannot be given a grant for a similar purpose if you have not acquitted a previous grant. Perhaps there are two sets of rules this government is running. I know of a number of specific cases where organisations have sought grants from this government and were told unequivocally there is no way on God’s earth they were going to get a grant until they acquitted the previous year’s grant. Yet, we find here cases where that has occurred.
I move on to the Department of Housing, Local Government and Regional Services. There were 19 grants which the Auditor-General looked at. He speaks at some length about a grant to Thamarrurr Incorporated on 30 June 2009. It was a special purpose grant of $250 000. He says:
Again, this is a case of, if nothing else, really shoddy paperwork. He goes on to say the payment of funds occurred on 30 June 2009, so it seems it was granted on the same day it was applied for and it was several months before the grant agreement was signed. The formal agreement referred to in the department’s letter was not signed by the department until 6 October. Interestingly, a copy of the agreement provided to the Auditor-General during the course of that audit had not been signed by a representative of Thamarrurr. I thought all parties needed to put their signature on a document such as that.
Ms PURICK: Madam Speaker, I move an extension of time for the member for Katherine, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
The Auditor-General also notes with respect to that grant that:
What we have here is a grant of $250 000 to Thamarrurr Incorporated as a Special Purpose Grant to:
The other purposes outlined in the grant application were:
It cost the Northern Territory $250 000 to come up with some recommendations for the allocation of 50 new houses by 31 December 2009. Those are expensive recommendations. As the Auditor-General points out, the grant was applied for, it was paid on the same day, yet it did not have the paperwork attached to it until some months later, and then not signed by a representative of Thamarrurr. Quite extraordinary. It surprises me to read this, and it prompts me to dig up some of the previous reports to the Legislative Assembly by the Auditor-General to see whether this is the norm. How long has this shoddy accounting being going on? I suspect for quite some time, I will have to have a look.
Going on to some more of these grants, it talks about Natural Resources, Environment and the Arts grants. Here is a classic - how can you get a grant from this government when you do not even have Development Consent Authority approval to construct what you want the grant for?
The report goes on to say the money was paid:
Dr Burns: Yes, CLP stooges blocking it …
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE:
Dr Burns: … that is what has been going on.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Who has been blocking it?
Dr Burns: CLP stooges.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I will pick up on the interjection from the minister for Housing. So if so-called CLP stooges are blocking the development process, this government is going to walk in and give them the grant anyway?
Ms Lawrie: Not true.
Mr WESTERA van HOLTHE: Well, that is what it says.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Here is another one: 26 June 2009, $418 000 to the Darwin Golf Club. Nine months went by, the approval went through on the same day, the funds were released on the same day, yet the funding agreement was not signed until 5 March 2010, some nine months later. Funding for Darwin City Council for Bagot Oval - three months before they got the funding agreement through – and the list goes on. The Auditor-General points out that:
We see that the operational sides of some of these departments are badly run and now we see they are badly run administratively as well. To come across so many instances of grants which are shoddily done, and the governance arrangements, the paperwork around that - I would not like to be holding this up as my tax return and having the ATO audit me.
I look forward to hearing what other ministers have to say about their departments and what they have done to remedy the issues which have been raised by the Auditor-General in this report. I also look forward to hearing from ministers what their future plans are. If they have not ensured all the areas the Auditor-General has raised in this report are fixed, when are they going to do it and within what time frames? Not only for my edification, for the departmental staff who work in these areas.
It is incumbent upon ministers to ensure they lead and guide their departments, and ensure those departments operate well, including administratively. I hope the ministers, in their responses, can convince their public servants they have a handle on this and have the means to effect some changes in the way these departments are run.
Madam Speaker, this is not just an opportunity to criticise; we hope to see an improvement in the way the departments are managed from an administrative point of view, especially given the content of this report.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I thank the Auditor-General for the October 2010 report to the Legislative Assembly we are debating, as usual, in the November sittings. Territorians are well served by a very professional Auditor-General, and I believe he is highly regarded nationally. I have heard very positive feedback about our Auditor-General wherever I travel, to whomever I talk. Being a former member of the Public Accounts Committee, I know how much effort he puts into supporting and advising that committee, and I thank him for that. As Treasurer I pay due and robust attention to any matters the Auditor-General raises. Under the Labor government we have a very different way of dealing with Auditor-General’s reports; we take them seriously and ensure our departments take note of matters the Auditor-General raises and we expect, as ministers, they respond fulsomely to matters raised by the Auditor-General.
The Auditor-General undertook an audit of the Fines Recovery Unit within the Department of Justice. I am pleased to advise all matters have since been addressed to the satisfaction of the Auditor-General. The Auditor-General found performance management systems within the Fines Recovery Unit could be enhanced to measure whether the objectives of the Fines Recovery Unit were being achieved effectively, and with regard to efficiency and economy. The Department of Justice has stated while there are performance management systems in place to assess the effective achievement of the objectives of the FRU, it accepted the Auditor-General’s advice and is taking steps to improve the timeliness, documentation and effectiveness of the processes.
I was advised by the Auditor-General that this response from the Department of Justice was accepted as satisfactory. There were six audit issues identified relating to the FRU:
I now turn to agency compliance audit. The report also deals with compliance audits for a number of agencies, including the Department of Justice. In response to the issues raised, the Department of Justice is reviewing internal processes and practices and will be providing training in relation to the issues raised. This response, I am advised, has been viewed as satisfactory by the Auditor-General. There are five audit issues which were identified in relation to the agency compliance audit.
The Department of Justice acknowledges the implementation of the prisoner money management system, PMMS, which was intended to improve management and reporting of prisoner funds, has had the unintentional impact of increasing the difficulty in undertaking timely reconciliations of the Accountable Officer’s Trust Account. The Department of Justice is currently reviewing the PMMS with a view to improving the system support in the timeliness and accuracy of the reconciliations. Department of Justice is reviewing internal processes and practices, and will be providing training on reconciliations to all accountable officers to address issues raised in the audit.
The Department of Justice has responded that, in this case, hospitality expense approval was requested in advance. However, circumstances prevented formal written approval occurring at the time. The approval was obtained on the approver’s return to office.
The Department of Justice has noted that all procurement staff are required to undertake procurement training and be made aware of the processes and procedures. Controls in relation to internal requisitions have been reviewed and corrected, and the requirement for the Northern Territory Industry Capability Network approval has been addressed.
I now turn to criminal property forfeiture. The report identified that, generally, there are satisfactory processes and internal controls in place at the Office of the Public Trustee in relation to the seizure and forfeiture of property under the Criminal Property Forfeiture Act. They are adequate and capable of ensuring compliance with the act. One audit issue was identified relating to criminal property forfeiture involving occasional delays in the disposal of property due to delay in notification of a forfeiture order to the Public Trustee. New procedures have been implemented to address this issue.
Madam Speaker, I commend the Auditor-General again for the significant efforts he undertakes in going through the accounts of government departments and checking their procedures and processes are robust. I commend the Auditor-General for the very fine, fair, frank, and fearless work he undertakes on behalf of Territorians.
Ms McCARTHY (Local Government): Madam Speaker, I speak to those parts of the Auditor-General’s report which relate to the agency compliance audit for the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority and the audit of the administration of grants by the Department of Housing, Local Government and Regional Services. As honourable members know, the purpose of the agency compliance audits is to ascertain the extent to which agencies are implementing and maintaining procedures to ensure they are meeting legislative requirements, including subordinate and delegated legislation.
The Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority is a small agency, but one which plays an important role in the social, economic and cultural development of the Northern Territory. In recent years, this has included significant effort ensuring site clearances for work in our growth towns, including the SIHIP program and other infrastructure work linked with A Working Future. It has also continued to work closely with industry, particularly the mining, pastoral and seafood industries, to assist these industries in managing their responsibilities in protecting sacred sites. I congratulate board Chair, Bernard Abbott, and AAPA CEO, Dr Ben Scambary and his staff for their important work.
In reviewing the authority’s procedures and compliance with legislative requirements, the Auditor-General found the control over fixed assets could be enhanced. The Auditor-General’s report noted that, as a small agency, the AAPA has relied on the Department of Business and Employment for control of the authority’s fixed assets. AAPA only purchases a small amount of fixed assets from its capital budget. Items include IT hardware, software, licences and video conferencing equipment. There was a period last year when the authority was without an experienced finance officer and the procurement of capital items was not properly entered into the fixed asset system. When the error was first identified, the Department of Business and Employment was immediately contacted and the problem was fixed.
I am pleased that the chief executive of AAPA has responded by acknowledging that AAPA has responsibility for ensuring appropriate controls, and he has committed to ensuring appropriate training in this area, enhancing amongst his key staff an understanding of requirements and the ability to implement and maintain control measures.
I also note that AAPA has now employed a suitably qualified finance officer who ensures appropriate advice from DBE fixed asset section is obtained and followed when procuring capital items. The Auditor-General also noted there were weaknesses in internal audit procedures, and the chief executive has taken action to ensure his executive management group understands the need for internal audit processes and, in particular, tasks the Director of Policy and Planning to coordinate regular audits of key financial transactions. The agency response to this finding also includes the development of an enhanced internal audit program.
Lastly, for this agency, the Auditor-General found there was a need for the agency’s accounting and property manual to be updated to provide more explanation of the Treasurer’s Directions as they apply in this audit area. The AAPA is in the process of ensuring that additional reference to the Treasurer’s Directions is included in the accounting and property manual.
I turn now to the audit comments about the administration of grants by the Department of Housing, Local Government and Regional Services. It is important to note that the Auditor-General found that:
The Department of Housing, Local Government and Regional Services is, by the nature of its work, an agency which disperses a large number of grants, whether they are for work relating to housing, outstation services, animal welfare, water safety, or supporting our local government sector.
A large proportion of the agency’s payments to shire councils are linked to provision of remote housing property and tenancy services. The Auditor-General noted for the 2008-09 financial year that there appeared a marked increase in the value of grants paid immediately prior to 30 June 2009, ‘Near end of year grants’, as he calls them. The Auditor-General also commented that almost all of the grants in the last week of June 2009 were grants to local government shires.
Part of the increase in the value of grants in June 2009 is linked to advance payments to our local government bodies as first quarter Commonwealth local roads and financial assistance grant entitlements for the 2009-10 financial year. This action was a direct response to a request to do so from the Commonwealth Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development as a measure to assist local governments to ensure job security, particularly in rural and remote areas, as part of the Commonwealth response to the global financial crisis. The independent chair of the Northern Territory Local Government Grants Commission also supported this measure. These advance payments were made to all municipal and shire councils, as well as to the Local Government Association of the Northern Territory for the component of the Commonwealth road grant which is paid to LGANT.
In reporting on the administration of grants, the Auditor-General also commented on a grant to Thamarrurr Incorporated:
The Auditor-General’s concern focused on: payment of the grant and delay in finalising formal agreement in relation to the grant; a lack of project milestones, time frames or deliverables whereby the department can assess the appropriateness of any grant acquittal; no specified due date for the acquittal, although the time period of the agreement was set for 1 July 2008 to 31 December 2009 and the funding agreement noted the grant was to be acquitted on completion of the project. At the time of providing this grant, the Wadeye community was concerned about their mixed experience with a COAG Indigenous coordination trial. In particular, the community had low levels of confidence in another set of new working arrangements to deliver on major housing reform and investment and the development of a local implementation plan under the Remote Service Delivery National Partnership. This grant was made to assist Thamarrurr Incorporated, a strong and community-based leadership group, engage with government on the design and on-ground implementation of these major reforms.
Earlier this month, I visited Wadeye with other government ministers as part of our commitment to take Cabinet to the bush. While we were there we saw the improvements which are progressing at Wadeye and how the work of Thamarrurr Incorporated and the Thamarrurr Development Corporation were connecting local people to government and maximising local involvement in planning and implementation of improvements under A Working Future. While conclusion of this funding agreement should have been more timely, it should be noted that the grant agreement did clearly specify the purpose of the grants: meetings and administrative tasks associated with establishment of communications and networking systems to facilitate the A Working Future policy and processes to enable all spheres of government to engage effectively with people. The department’s advice is that the grant has been acquitted in line with the funding agreement.
The Auditor-General, in his comments in relation to the administration of grants within the Department of the Chief Minister noted, in relation to a grant to the Marngarr Aboriginal Corporation, that:
The administration of this grant transferred to the Department of Housing, Local Government and Regional Services in December 2009, at the time of the transfer of the Service Delivery Coordination Unit to my department. This agreement has been part acquitted and in June 2010 I agreed to extend the grant and final acquittal into the 2010-11 financial year. As with the grant to Thamarrurr Incorporated, the purpose of the grant is clearly set out in the funding agreement with the Marngarr Aboriginal Corporation.
The Auditor-General’s comments regarding the administration of grants have been noted and responded to by the department. Current arrangements are that the majority of departmental grants are managed under a signed funding agreement containing stringent guidelines relating to use of funds and with formal reporting and acquittal requirements. Other grant programs, where outcomes are clear and identifiable, are managed under service level agreements.
Madam Speaker, the government has a significant reform and development agenda to deliver, including ongoing support for the local government sector and through A Working Future. It is important that grant funds are well directed and are being spent and managed appropriately. I thank the Auditor-General and his team for their ongoing work in ensuring appropriate administrative arrangements are in place and being implemented within Northern Territory government agencies.
Debate suspended.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I seek to remove from the agenda the matter of public importance which was delivered to your office this morning.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.
Motion agreed to.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise you of the presence in the Speaker’s Gallery of members of the Palmerston Rural U3A. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
MOTION
Proposed Censure of Government – Allegations Against the Leader of the Opposition
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I move – That this Assembly censure the government in its entirety for its dishonest attack on the Leader of the Opposition, using unfounded allegations of crime, and recklessly peddling third-party slander to that end.
Absolutely, you should accept the censure. Never in the history of this House has such a tawdry, grubby and awful approach been used by this government to embarrass an innocent man!
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr Bohlin: Whilst oil is spilling into our seas, you sit here and slander.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale! Member for Port Darwin, why are you still on your feet?
Mr ELFERINK: Because I am angry, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: That is not an explanation. I remind honourable members that while this is a censure motion the rules of debate remain the same and words which are used in the censure motion may be used in debate. Words which are not in the censure motion, which are disorderly, cannot be used. I remind you of that because I think members frequently forget the rules of this House.
Member for Port Darwin, you have the call.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Two of the words which appear in that motion are ‘dishonest’ and ‘slander’. They are a disgrace and well would the Chief Minister leave this Chamber right now …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member knows he cannot refer to the presence or absence of any member.
Mr ELFERINK: I withdraw that, Madam Speaker. But well would we expect the Chief Minister to be terrified of this debate and embarrassed by this debate, because as we have had demonstrated by the head of the AEC who wrote to the Attorney-General, she made this tawdry, nasty and disgraceful allegation based on nothing. Yet, she is prepared, as the first law officer of this jurisdiction, to allege, and I quote the Chief Legal Officer of the AEC:
An offence which was not made out in any way by the letter she sent and the issues she brought into this place.
An innocent man has had his good name besmirched by this grubby and tawdry government. They deserve to stand censured for their shortcomings as a government. This is the hallmark of their government: question, ask, challenge and you will have your name dragged through the mud. If your name is Susan Mansfield you will be berated for speaking openly. If you are a journalist asking a simple question, your telephone records will be there for examination. If you are a member of this House, and the Attorney-General does not like you, your personal financial details will be dragged through this House so they can make their points.
Do they choose to better themselves? Do they choose to lift themselves out of the mire of their own maladministration? No, they do not. As they walk out, one by one, we see how embarrassing this issue is for them. We stay here and challenge them to make good on their allegations of villainy, or apologise. We know they will not apologise to this House. We know there is no dignity or grace amongst them. The first law officer of the Northern Territory was prepared to use an e-mail - of which she has not made the author’s identity available to anyone - to besmirch the good name of Terry Mills. That is an embarrassment and a disgrace.
As I look at the backs of their chairs I know how embarrassed they are. They do not have the courage to stay in this place and face their accuser. This is a disgraceful performance which I see before me; I cannot believe they would simply stand up and walk out of this Chamber.
Mr GUNNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! You cannot reflect on the presence or absence of members in the House.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, you have already been directed on this.
Mr ELFERINK: I withdraw, Madam Speaker, but their presence or otherwise is a reflection on themselves and who they are.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I was getting something from the government lobby printer for this debate.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order, minister. Resume your seat!
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The first law officer would rather turn to an anonymous e-mail to besmirch an innocent man than seek legal advice. The first law officer of this jurisdiction’s only view, the only approach she has when she receives some information, is to send it to a spin doctor to see how they can hurt, offend and crush people. That is the shame of this, because it is the hallmark of their government. Let us not be better people; let us do a simple thing and accuse innocent people of criminal offences. They will stop at nothing; they have stopped at nothing and should be censured for their evil.
It is worth quoting at length this letter from the Chief Legal Officer of the Australian Electoral Commission:
Yes, it is. The offence of bribery is a serious charge to make and what does she base her charge upon?
Ms Lawrie: She was named.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, she was named. I did her the courtesy of not embarrassing her and tying her good name with your tawdry exercise.
A YouTube video by Young Labor NT was offered as evidence of a crime against an innocent man. That is the quality of leadership the first law officer of this jurisdiction provides to the people of the Northern Territory. It is so excruciatingly embarrassing to read I can barely bring myself to utter it.
Madam Speaker, I quote:
Whenever a lawyer considering a prosecution looks at any evidence which comes before them, the first thing they will ask is: is the offence made out? That is what this lawyer did, and guess what? The answer was no. Apparently the Chief Legal Officer of the Australian Electoral Commission is not convinced Labor YouTube videos are anything like prima facie evidence, let alone evidence enough to convict, which is what the first law officer would have us believe.
The disgraceful attack, the awful attack, by the Leader of Government Business in this House last week – he said the Leader of the Opposition should not even have been in this Chamber. I can tell you, the first law officer of this House and this jurisdiction should definitely not be in this Chamber.
Dr Burns: No, there is more.
Mr ELFERINK: So produce it! Let us see the evidence! Let us see the evidence upon which you accuse people. Where is the evidence? In a civilised society we produce evidence when we make accusations, and so far we have a YouTube video and an unidentified e-mail as the full evidence ramped up against an innocent man. The lawyer of the Australian Electoral Commission said he could not have committed the offence; it is impossible for him to have committed the offence, and these guys say it is a technicality.
It is not a technicality, it is the law. If this Attorney-General had bothered to check, had taken one minute to ask a lawyer, she would have been told this. Whilst I am a lawyer, I am not a lawyer of any experience you could speak of, yet I spent a little time over the last few days doing some legal homework on some of the allegations made against the Leader of the Opposition.
It was very interesting because one of the allegations made was that the Leader of the Opposition was in the same position as the former Premier of New South Wales, Nick Greiner. What was not made clear to this House was that the New South Wales Supreme Court, headed by one of the finest jurists in this country, Chief Justice Gleeson as he was at the time, head of the Supreme Court - the only reason he left that job was because he went to the High Court – found Nick Greiner to be an innocent man who had done nothing wrong and committed no crime. Yet they compared Nick Greiner with the Leader of the Opposition. Guess what? It is a good comparison. They are both innocent men. That is part of this tawdry exercise; they will try to rewrite the history and decisions of the New South Wales Supreme Court to support their dishonesty and slanders.
We hear stuff about these people all the time from their own party sources. We hear rumours about marital issues and all sorts of things. Do we write letters to the editor about it? No! Do we get on Facebook and put postings on it about these people? No! Do we get the Young Country Liberals to make YouTube videos about it? No! We respect people’s privacy and try to act honourably when it comes to dealing with these sorts of issues. What did they do? They got a disaffected CLP member’s e-mail - so they allege - and put a bit of black texta on it - it could have come from bloggyblogs@hotmail.com for all we know – then they allege a criminal offence. They have the audacity to allege crimes for which people can go to gaol. I am dismayed that they have done this thing. They are dishonourable, disreputable, and I find their actions utterly and completely revolting. Any fair-minded person in this place, and beyond this place, would come to the same conclusion.
It is astonishing that they still try to fight this issue and continue to make these allegations. Listen carefully, Madam Speaker! They have stopped using the words ‘crime’ and ‘bribery’. What was their real intention? I suspect someone, possibly, would have told them how folly-ridden this exercise was going to be. They would have pursued it anyhow. I suspect they anticipated that the Australian Electoral Commission would send it on to the DPP which would then investigate it and the whole thing would go on for months and months, leaving an innocent man in legal limbo whilst those investigations ran. That was the plan: to continue to allow the smear to run and, just occasionally, poke it along. They did not calculate on the integrity of a man I have never met, a man called Paul Pirani, the Chief Legal Officer of the Australian Electoral Commission.
The condemning evidence the Attorney-General was going to bring to the prosecution of this matter was presented to Mr Pirani of the AEC, and he did the legal equivalent of going – ‘Whatever! I am not going to pay any attention to this. I know what this is. This is a tawdry little smear campaign backed up with YouTube videos, and I will not put the credibility and the integrity of the Australian Electoral Commission’s legal department against what is, obviously, a political hatchet job’. Thank God for the honest, decent, and upright legal advice of the Australian Electoral Commission. Their tawdry little plan did not work because they did not get the desired effect - months and months of ongoing pain for the Leader of the Opposition.
The Leader of the Opposition is, in every sense, a gentleman. I know these things do bite deep from time to time, and these things hurt. I know the Leader of the Opposition has been hurt by the dishonest and slanderous acts of this government. I am glad this has been put out of its misery so quickly. I am glad he has been relinquished from this attack because it would have preyed on his mind, as the government expected it to. They are bullies and they are thugs and they would have sat around smiling about it.
Last week the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory sat in this place, rocking back in his chair, smugly laughing that they had all this material on the Leader of the Opposition. What they had was an unidentified e-mail and a YouTube video, and for that they decided it was good enough to try to keep this man in legal limbo for the next few months. That is an absolute disgrace and they are absolutely disgraceful. If they had done a moment of research they would have run into the same things that the Australian Electoral Commission had run into, and the same thing the Senate ran into.
Chapter 8 of the Senate report in relation to the allegations by Tony Windsor against John Anderson, through an intermediary, Mr Maguire, clearly demonstrated that, even if a job had been offered, in that case, an ambassadorial role, it was insufficient to make out the offence alleged by this Attorney-General, and it is clearly listed at 8.55 in that document:
Why do those words strike you as being familiar? Oh, my goodness, gracious me, are they somewhere in the letter from the AEC? If you go to that media release it says the CDPP concluded that:
The first point they make is that even if the job had been offered, it was some sort of ambassadorial role, it did not make out the offence; it stumbled at the first hurdle. If the Attorney-General had taken a moment to realise that and ask a couple of questions, the legal advice she received would have come to the same conclusion. Yet she persisted with the use of the word ‘bribery’ for all of its ugly imputations and suggestions.
I return to the decisions by the New South Wales Supreme Court, and let us go for a hypothetical session and say this offer was made, bearing …
Dr Burns: Oh, hypothetical now.
Mr ELFERINK: You see, he is prepared to jump up and get all twitchy. I am saying ‘hypothetical’ because I do not know what that conversation was about. Do you know why? Because the conversations I have had have been very general. I do not know what that was about, but if your legal advice had done any homework on what the Leader of Government Business held up as being a corrupt act, he would have heard this from the legal advice in terms of the Greiner decision, and this is Justice Gleeson:
Even if the offer was made they would have known, if they had read the case they referred to, that it was not a corrupt act.
Dr Burns: Just a ‘smart political move’.
Mr ELFERINK: I pick up on that interjection ‘a smart political move’. That is an interesting thing to say. If you believe that then that is what you allege of him, you do not say he is a criminal, allege bribery and make the attack on those grounds. That is what Justice Gleeson suggested you do. If you had taken the time to read the case, you would have discovered that and would not have alleged criminal offences against this innocent man.
Ms Lawrie: Not innocent.
Mr ELFERINK: Go outside and say that.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I invite the Attorney-General to go outside and make that allegation.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: Go outside, because the Attorney-General would run the Northern Territory in the same way Stalin ran his empire.
Ms Lawrie: Not true. You are ridiculous.
Mr ELFERINK: It is true. If you read books like The Gulag Archipelago by Solzhenitsyn, I refer you to chapter 1, the only thing you had to do to do to get a person convicted and sent to a Gulag was to rely on the accusation of a third party. That is what the Soviet Union used to do in determining guilt or innocence, not rely on the processes of justice. She has no interest in justice because politics comes before justice. Spin comes before decency and villainy comes before that which is right.
I saw them laughing and giggling and saying what great dirt they have on the Leader of the Opposition and it is about the good people of the CLP trying to expose this evil and villainous Leader of the Opposition. Well, he is not evil and villainous; he is an innocent man and this first law officer of the Northern Territory insults this House with her presence. If she was honest and had a shred of integrity she would resign. She would resign, walk away from this job, hang her head in shame, move to Antarctica, live with the penguins, and never sully the Northern Territory with her cast shadow ever again.
This censure motion could only be resisted by the most cynical of Labor supporters. To allege criminality as a normal process of spin without any substance whatsoever, to use the word ‘bribe’, to try to embarrass and harass this man of good fame and good repute only so you can run his name down, shows exactly the sort of government we have. This government has been asked on repeated occasions to govern well for the people of the Northern Territory. This government has failed. It has engaged in maladministration on so many levels.
The issue with the Mataranka cows which we heard before, the SIHIP debacle, the Montara oil spill dodge and weave by the minister for Mines and Energy, the ‘I am not guilty for this, I am not guilty for that’ approach, the dodging and weaving on that horrendous situation in our child protection arena - those are the things we should be talking about but all they are interested in is throwing the body of a good man to the media pack so they can feast on him rather than focus on the things that matter like 90 000 barrels of oil leaking into the sea, Deborah Melville and the cattle station with 800 dead cows.
These are the things which matter to the people of the Northern Territory. We should be making our very best and most valiant attempts to be governing the Northern Territory in that fashion. We see a government which is more interested in hurting and destroying than it is in creating and building up because it is easier to break with a baseball bat than it is to create with a stonemason’s tool. They are tearers, wreckers, thugs and bullies; they are villainous and they do anything at all to hurt, destroy, maim, cripple, bully and embarrass. They do nothing for the people of the Northern Territory other than haunt them with their presence.
The public service has become a torrid, scared place because of the way these people have taken their …
Mr Henderson: Rubbish.
Mr ELFERINK: Well, if it is rubbish, why is Sue Mansfield’s name being dragged through the mud? Why is she being bullied in the workplace? Why is it that a journalist asks a question about the proposed boat registration and we find the journalist’s phone records have been gone through? We are living increasingly in a police state where the act of declaring a person a criminal is sufficient to secure a conviction.
The Territory deserves better than this evil, villainy and ghastliness. I see the Chief Minister laugh. What has happened to an innocent man in the last three days is an act of evil and you have no right to smile whatsoever because this Chief Minister is a man who has lost control of the thugs who surround him and as a consequence he is no better than those thugs.
Madam Speaker, this government deserves to be condemned; this government deserves to be censured by this House, and if this House does not censure this government then it demonstrates its tentacles have reached into this House and the thoughts and acts of common decency have withered on the vine in this House.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I advise the House the ABC reported on the 3 pm news:
Those minutes obtained by the ABC very clearly state that Terry Mills made an offer of a job. The Leader of the Opposition now has no choice – he must resign.
For seven days he refused to come clean with Territorians and tell the truth. He has avoided the truth for seven days. He has hidden from the media, even bunkering down in a Darwin restaurant. For seven days he has been hiding from the truth. Today, he can no longer hide from the truth; he must resign. This is disgraceful. He has pretended he did not offer the job. He hid, ducked, weaved and pretended, by attacking the CLP sources, that he was Mr Squeaky Clean. He is not. He has no credibility; he has shown he is dishonest. He sunk to whatever level it took, including what would have been bribery but for the timing of the offer. He sunk to whatever level he could to get Leo Abbott to do his political bidding; to do what he wanted in a sleazy, little tactic he used to attack the then member for Solomon in the federal election campaign.
He has probably even told his colleagues there was nothing to it, he is an innocent man. He has probably also lied to his parliamentary colleagues …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! This censure motion does not use the word ‘lie’ and she has no right to make that allegation without any proof. Please get her to withdraw it.
Madam SPEAKER: Attorney-General, can you reword, please?
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, I withdraw the word ‘lied’. He probably said something like: ‘There is nothing to this; I am innocent; I will tough it out. This is simply a smear campaign’. Well, what ran on the ABC News at 3 pm today showed clearly that the Leader of the Opposition is guilty of offering an inducement to a candidate in a federal election campaign to step down from his candidacy. The minutes of two members of the CLP management committee …
Mrs Lambley: You have blood on your hands - children’s blood.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, I ask that that offensive remark be withdrawn.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, I ask you to withdraw that remark, please.
Mrs LAMBLEY: I withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, when you speak to me you must rise in your seat. Thank you very much.
Mrs LAMBLEY: I withdraw my comments, Madam Speaker.
Ms LAWRIE: That shows the level of …
Mr Chandler: They do not like the focus on themselves, do they?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Brennan!
Ms LAWRIE: You would truly support that interjection, member for Brennan?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: I thought better of you, member for Brennan. Maybe I should not have thought better of you – unbelievable!
The ABC says it has the minutes of two members of the CLP management committee which show the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Blain, Terry Mills, offered Leo Abbot a job to step down as the candidate for Lingiari ...
Mr Mills: Wrong.
Ms LAWRIE: I will pick up on the interjection where he said: ‘Wrong’. He maintains that two members of the CLP management committee who took minutes of the meeting are wrong, and that he did not offer Leo Abbot a job. Interesting and curious, given that the Leader of the Opposition has had seven days to categorically deny it …
Mr Mills: I was defending a charge of a serious criminal offence, Attorney-General.
Ms LAWRIE: To categorically deny it, and he has chosen instead …
Mr Mills: A serious criminal offence is what you charged me with.
Ms Scrymgour: Why did you not come out and say you were getting legal advice?
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Ms LAWRIE: He has had seven days to come clean with Territorians - it does not take legal advice to tell the truth …
Mr Mills: This is a serious allegation.
Ms LAWRIE: If the member for Blain – yes, this is a serious allegation.
Mr Mills: Absolutely.
Ms LAWRIE: If the Leader of the Opposition had not offered a job to Leo Abbott at that meeting, he could have denied it. He could have come on the record straightaway, like Tony Abbot did, and deny it. But, he chose not to deny it. He chose instead to hide from the media for seven days.
Anyone who has any understanding of Australian political history would know that is unprecedented. That is extraordinary behaviour. All of us, from time to time, have allegations made against us: allegations which vary in degrees of seriousness and which we quickly and vehemently deny if there is no basis to them. Tony Abbot immediately denied the allegations; he did not offer a job. The Leader of the Opposition hid for seven days and, when he did come out, he did not tell the truth. He did not directly answer the question: ‘Did you offer Leo Abbot a job’? He did not answer that question, reasonably being put by the media. Instead, he obfuscated. To this moment, in a censure debate in the parliament through a Question Time, he has not answered the question: did he offer a job to Leo Abbot?
Legitimately, the media has been interested in this because this goes to the heart of honesty. Did he try to induce a candidate to step down during the election campaign? But for an issue of timing - and I will still have a look at those legalities, that is not finished yet - did he try to induce a candidate to not run in an election, in breach of the law?
Then, he hid for seven days. The question is still out there. The ABC 3 pm News has run that it has seen documents which show the Opposition Leader, Terry Mills, offered a government job to the Country Liberals’ candidate for Lingiari in the run-up to the last federal election. Mr Mills has denied he offered a bribe to Leo Abbot, and the Australian Electoral Commission today said it had found no evidence of wrongdoing. Well, maybe there is some evidence now. Maybe the ABC has uncovered evidence, in having seen the minutes of two members of the CLP management committee, that there was an inducement for a candidate to step down. That attracts a significant fine or a gaol term.
We have a highly discredited and shameful member in this Chamber today. The Leader of the Opposition, if he had any shred of integrity left, would resign. Has he misled Territorians? Has he misled his own colleagues? In the circle of trust we all know we need in our party wings, has he misled them? Did you at any stage in the last seven days pretend to your colleagues that you did not make the offer, there is nothing to this, we are making it up as some kind of a smear campaign, and tell them to stick by you because you have done nothing wrong?
Today we find out, through the media, that you have done something wrong. Today, we find out through the media that there is evidence you have done something wrong.
Mr Mills: I have not done anything wrong.
Ms LAWRIE: You can sit there, shake your head and bury your head in the sand about this, member for Blain. You can be in the most bizarre denial I have seen in this Chamber. The reality is, if this ABC report is right, where they have seen two members of the CLP management committee’s minutes which show you did offer a job to Leo Abbott, you have done something wrong. You have done something very wrong, something which led to the resignation of Nick Greiner as Premier in New South Wales.
If there is this evidence, our government would surely like to see it, and we are calling on the Leader of the Opposition to come clean. It is as simple as that. You still have not given a simple yes or no answer to the question: did you offer Leo Abbott a job to get him to step down from his candidacy in the seat of Lingiari during the federal election campaign? That question remains unanswered. Your credibility is shot, it is gone. There is no recovery from here, member for Blain. You have hidden for seven days. You then tried to obfuscate, and still not directly answer the question: did you or did you not offer Leo Abbott a job? Today you continue to pretend that it is just a smear from the ALP because we like to smear. Well, that is wrong.
I listened to the member for Port Darwin dig that big hole in this Chamber during the censure debate. I listened to him refer to us as evil and villainous. We are not evil, we are not villainous. We want the truth. Very simple: tell the truth! We have to tell the truth in this Chamber, otherwise we breach our privilege. We have to tell the truth to our electorate otherwise we do not deserve to be members. The Leader of the Opposition is hiding. He has been refusing to come clean and tell the truth. This is the most disgraceful political episode I have seen in many a year, and he is left with no option but to resign. You cannot offer a candidate a job to step down from your candidacy without having undertaken a significant wrongdoing. It is the wrong thing to do.
Stand here, member for Blain, and tell this Chamber whether or not you offered Leo Abbott a job! If you did, stand here and say you know it was wrong. It is wrong to induce someone to step down from their candidacy. Read the Australian Electoral Commission! Read the act! It is wrong. You are off the hook on a technicality, but if new evidence has come to light and I, on informal advice, question whether there is further evidence to be investigated there. My advice to you, member for Blain, is that you are not off the hook.
The ABC reported on the 3 pm news that it has seen documents which show the Opposition Leader, Terry Mills, offered a government job to the Country Liberals candidate for Lingiari in the run-up to the last federal election. The minutes say the position would be provided if the Coalition won the election in August. The ABC has tried without success to talk to Mr Abbott and Mr Mills’ office is considering a response. No wonder Leo was a little hesitant at taking the job offer. There is no lay down misre about the outcome of a federal election. It was too close to call - all political pundits were saying that - and as we saw, there were 17 days without a federal election result and we have a minority Labor government running the country. Thank God, I say.
Mr Abbott probably wisely weighed the chances of whether he would have the job on offer by the Leader of the Opposition. You cannot hide from the truth forever, Terry Mills. You need to go on the public record; you have the chance in this censure debate brought on by your own side.
To be very clear, did you or did you not offer Leo Abbott a job to set down his candidacy? Yes or no? That, in anyone’s terms, is a bribe. If you did that you were inducing someone not to run in an election campaign. That is counter to the pillars of democracy to which we all sign. Absolutely counter to democracy. You do not do that in the Australian version of democracy; you do not induce people in regard to their candidacy in the Australian version of democracy.
These are serious allegations and we as a government have taken them seriously every step of the way. You pretended in Question Time today that I had categorically alleged you had committed bribery. No, I asked the AEC to investigate. Read my original letter! I did not categorically say it; I asked them to investigate the allegations. I have continued to ask: ‘Did you or did you not?’ In every part of this debate I have said they were allegations in the media which needed to be investigated or needed to be responded to by the person who is the subject of those allegations.
As I have said, in public life, from time to time allegations are led against members. But every time they are the member steps out the front door, answers those allegations head-on and denies them if they did not do what they were alleged to do. In this case, the Leader of the Opposition ran and hid for seven days. You do not need legal advice to tell the truth. You do not need legal advice to step out the front door and say: ‘No, I did not do that’. You need legal advice if you did do it. There is still a big question mark hanging over you …
Mr Mills: It is a very serious allegation that you make.
Ms LAWRIE: A very serious allegation I make, is the interjection from the Leader of the Opposition - if it is right, if you did offer a job, you must resign because it is a very serious allegation.
Come clean today in this Chamber, Leader of the Opposition. For seven days you refused to tell Territorians the simple truth, yes or no, did you offer Leo Abbott a job to step down from his candidacy in the seat of Lingiari in the federal election campaign? For seven days you have avoided the truth. You have hid from the media, bunkering down in a restaurant. For seven days you have been hiding from the truth, Terry Mills.
Today, he can no longer hide from the truth; he must resign. There is evidence that the ABC has seen minutes by two different members of the CLP Committee of Management of that now infamous meeting on 14 and 15 August. That he made an inducement to a candidate is enough for him to resign. What is also disgraceful is if at any stage he told his colleagues in their party wing that there was nothing to it, it was a concocted ALP smear and that it is all right, it will wash over, then he misled his colleagues. If that is what he has been saying to you he has misled his own party.
One thing we know on this side, and have learnt through bitter experience, is to be effective you have to trust each other. You have to work as a united team. Through bitter experience, because we were all burnt by the fires of the member for Macdonnell; it is on the public record. She walked out the door and said what she wanted to say after a period where we had trusted her. That trust was irrevocably broken. We learnt it the toughest possible way. You need trust, and the most important place for trust in any political party rests with the leader. The leader has to be the most trustworthy of your team. They lead your team. They bind you when it is tough; when things in life get tough they lead you through that and you need to trust them. We all have enormous trust for our leader, the Chief Minister. A great leader! He leads us through the process.
Madam Speaker, I suspect trust does not exist on the other side. We have seen a party deeply divided. The CLP is deeply divided and if the Leader of the Opposition had any shred of integrity left, if what the ABC says is true and it has seen the minutes of the meeting from two different members of the CLP management committee, he has hidden the truth from Territorians, his party members and from this parliament. He has no shred of credibility left and must resign.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I do not usually speak on censure motions and I will not be voting on this one; however, I would like to have my comments on record.
Politics, from the public’s point of view, is sometimes not worthy of being called a decent occupation because sometimes what we see in this Chamber and hear in the media does nothing to encourage people to take part in the very important role we are asked to perform for society. There are times when we have to make decisions not based on whether we have a party allegiance, or whether the media makes connotations on who you are and what you do, but on what you think of the person you are asked to speak about.
I remind members that the member for Arafura was accused by the CLP of lying about her visit to a certain hairdresser, which was based on an article in The Australian. I had to make a decision as to whether I believed the journalist or the member for Arafura. Whilst there was much pressure on the member for Arafura for various reasons, I trusted she was an honest person, that her version of events was correct, and I supported her. That is the way it should be.
There is a great deal of politics in this debate. I do not owe anything to the CLP. I stood in this parliament just over 12 months ago and there were not many kind words said about me in having an agreement with the government. However, I am not - nor have I been brought up as - one who holds grudges or continues to harbour hate or disagreement with people forever and a day. It is not the way I have been brought up. I understand the politics of this place, and there will be times when even the best of your friends will say something about you which you may not agree with. I am not beholden to the CLP one bit. However, I do not take that into account. That is not the way I believe I should look at these things.
Obviously, the CLP has some internal troubles. You would have noticed I had a column in the paper recently and anyone who reads between the lines knows that is how I see it from an outsider’s point of view. Again, that is not an issue for me; that is an issue for the CLP. I am not a member of the party and I do not think I should get into that debate at this time. That is an internal matter; this issue is about the integrity of a person.
The ALP sees this as an advantage. It has been having a pretty hard time this year with child protection, SIHIP, Mataranka Station, issues about oil spills, and even a bit of Tiger Brennan Drive. It has not had the easiest last couple of months. That is not to say it will not be able to fix some of those issues. Time will tell.
However, it can be convenient, when you look at the way politics is played out, one way you can distract people from bad press is to move the bad press over to someone else. In politics, as they say, all is fair in love and war. One can accept that is probably a fair thing. However, I am not saying I support that either. That is the politics of this place and is sometimes the reason people are turned off being politicians.
My belief is that, regardless of these allegations, anonymous or otherwise, regardless of the tactics one can use to fight those party-political, point-scoring battles which is a common practice in the Westminster system, you have to make a judgment of the person. My belief is the person is a good person. The Leader of the Opposition, not from a party political point of view - maybe I should put it more personally; I have known the member for Blain for a long period of time. Obviously, we have differences of opinion on certain matters but that is irrelevant. I think the member for Blain is a good person. He has told me he has done nothing wrong and I believe it. If you do not take people on trust, you will look people in the eye all the time and think: ‘I cannot accept what you say. I am going to be suspicious every time someone says something to me’.
There are times when you have to be trustful of people. That, at times, has burnt me. When I was on the Litchfield Council a lady came to me asking for help to pay a debt to the council. I went to the council meeting and pleaded her case. I found out six months later she had not paid any of the money. I looked a fool in front of the council because I had stuck up for a person I trusted. If I was to say, therefore, from now on I will never trust anyone else, that would be a bad step in life. I trust people on face value. If they tell me something that is not true, well, that is for them to worry about, not me. I know Terry Mills is a good person. I have not always agreed with him when he has been debating certain issues, but that is me as an Independent. I did not like what I saw in the last sittings of parliament with the issues of Damian Hale and co, but unfortunately, I see that is the way party politics sometimes plays itself out.
If Terry Mills tells me he has done nothing wrong then I will accept that. I am here to say, whilst I am not accepting the material which has been put in front of me, I need to put on record that I believe Terry Mills is a good, honest person. Madam Speaker, I accept his word that he has done nothing wrong.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, it is important to distil from this very sordid few days in the Northern Territory parliament just what this is and what this is not. This is a disgusting, sleazy, lowbrow, politically-spun attempt to discredit the Leader of the Opposition. That is what it is and nothing more. I am dismayed and extremely disappointed in this Northern Territory government, as I expect most Territorians are.
I heard the Attorney-General speak about the Australian way of democracy and criticising the Leader of the Opposition for what she alleges is a breach of the Australian way of democracy. Well, we also have an Australian way when it comes to going the man. That is extremely un-Australian and that is what has happened over the course of the last few days here. Going the man might be all right if there were some really honest and genuine undercurrents. However, this is nothing more than a tactic to divert attention away from the many, the multiple, the staggeringly huge failures which beset the Northern Territory government. We have seen these issues come out in this parliament over the course of the two years or so since the 2008 election.
In talking about going the man, the member for Nelson mentioned the acrimony between the County Liberals and him over the arrangement between him and the Chief Minister to keep him in power. When we criticised the member for Nelson we were accused of going the man and we were castigated. Fair call, the media picked it. Some elements of the public were unhappy with it. But, when that happened it was not just for the sake of politics. It was with a genuine belief that we wanted better government in the Northern Territory, and the way to achieve that was to have the member for Nelson change his mind, quite contrary to what is going on now. This is not about better government, this is simply distilling what it is from what it is not, and what this is, is a grubby attack on a good man for the sake of politics
The Labor government must have thought this was a godsend. They must wake up every morning thinking: ‘What is going to happen next? What else can we use? What will others provide us by way of ammunition to besmirch the good name of Terry Mills?’ Sadly, they get the ammunition from time to time and we are seeing that come out now.
Instead, the focus in this room, across the media and across the Northern Territory, should be the continuing failings of this government. That is what all this is about. This is about diverting attention from the failings of this government. It has been said before and I will say it again: it is the worst government the Northern Territory has ever had. The only thing it can hang its hat on is a smear campaign against the Leader of the Opposition, not a very well put together one either.
I sit in this House and I tend to watch what goes on, relatively quietly …
Madam SPEAKER: Relatively, I would like to make that comment member for Katherine.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Madam Speaker, I stand corrected. I watch what happens on the other side of the House. I watch the faces, the body language and how they play their games. At no time has it been more evident what game is being played on that side of the House than through this sordid affair.
If the Attorney-General stands there - and I see her quite often; she feigns indignation and sincerity – she wants to stand there looking out for the best interests of the Territory, yet whenever there is something going on there is an unmistakable smirk on the Attorney-General’s face. That is true of the Chief Minister as well. I see the minister for Housing smirk too but I think that is often because he is genuinely amused by what is going on in the House. You cannot mistake the insincerity which is emanating from and pouring out of members on the other side of the House. For the Attorney-General to feign sincerity and try to convince people she is genuine does not bear any sort of scrutiny whatsoever.
That leads me to how this has played out. I have a copy of the letter from the AEC, which we have all been provided; thank you to the Attorney-General for tabling that today. She stood in this House and made criminal allegations against the Leader of the Opposition.
A member: Shame.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: It is shameful that she would stand here on a wisp of air in terms of evidence. She stood here and accused the Leader of the Opposition of a very serious offence. She stood on nothing and nothing is what is contained here – actually what is contained here is something but it outlines what the nothing is. The Attorney-General said earlier today that the Leader of the Opposition was off the hook by virtue of timing. I will go back to this letter and talk about the so-called evidence. There is some evidence, apparently, which has been provided to the AEC which it also used in coming to the determination that there was no case for the Leader of the Opposition to answer.
Let us look at the so-called evidence. Page 1:
We have a newspaper article; I am flabbergasted. In the scheme of things, the Attorney-General works in a position much higher than when I worked within the realms of law enforcement; I was a police officer. When I was a police officer - and even now - I knew what evidence was. I would like to inform the Attorney-General, through the Chair, a newspaper article is not evidence. It is some diatribe written by a journalist - their interpretation, perhaps a few quotes, but not evidence. The letter goes on to talk about the two videos published on YouTube by Young Labor NT. I am not even going to read the rest of that. I would like to inform the Attorney-General, through the Chair, that two videos made by Young Labor are also not evidence. I have not seen the video; I do not know if anyone on this side of the House has, I suspect all those guys have. Do they have some young Labor person sitting in a chair talking about some alleged incident? That is not evidence. For goodness sake, I suggest the Attorney-General go back to the law books, pick up the Criminal Code and the Evidence Act and learn what evidence is.
I mentioned the word before, I said I was disappointed. What I am really disappointed about is that our Attorney-General, the chief law person in the Northern Territory, does not know what evidence is; she puts a newspaper article and a couple of videos up as evidence. We are in very sorry hands in the Northern Territory if the Attorney-General does not know what evidence is. I suspect it is probably more the case she had nothing to send to the AEC other than this newspaper article and a couple of YouTube videos.
For the Attorney-General, based on that so-called evidence, to stand here under parliamentary privilege and accuse the Leader of the Opposition of bribery is scurrilous. I cannot believe we have someone in this House who would stoop to such a lowbrow act which could damage the reputation of a good man, under parliamentary privilege, on a wisp of air. It is reprehensible behaviour!
The Attorney-General called for the Leader of the Opposition to resign. The Attorney-General should go because she is incompetent. She presents something like that to the AEC and says: ‘This is all we have’. Unbelievable!
Mr Conlan: That is your Attorney-General? That is an embarrassment.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Apparently, it is an embarrassment. No wonder I said the other day we are not mature enough to have statehood in the Northern Territory because we are run by these clowns.
On top of that we have to draw some inferences from Question Time today. The Attorney-General was asked whether she had sought any legal advice before she sent this so-called evidence to the AEC. We can infer from the dodging and weaving displayed by the Attorney-General around that question that she did not seek any legal advice. It almost makes me lose my words, it is so ridiculous. She has a piece of paper which is a photocopy of a newspaper article, a couple of YouTube videos which the Attorney-General purports to be evidence of an offence, and you would think the Attorney-General might get some legal advice, and ask: ‘Does this really stack up? Is it worth sending off?’ But no, we can infer today from what was not said during Question Time that the Attorney-General did not seek legal advice.
Now we have the latest revelation today that the ABC has, apparently, seen the notes or minutes taken by some members of the CLP management committee. I am advised that what is detailed in those alleged notes is not true - the Leader of the Opposition did not walk back into a CLP management committee meeting and utter anything like that. I guess you can make all the claims you like from that side of the House around all this stuff. What I could do, if I wanted to take some minutes of what occurs in this parliament, I could write down in my diary that today the Attorney-General is wearing a red dress. I could collude. I could talk to my colleague, the member for Goyder, and say: ‘Hey, can you just put in there that the Attorney-General is wearing a red dress today?’ That is how simple it could be.
If there are these minutes of that meeting they will need to stand up to legal scrutiny. If there is a further investigation they will have to be further examined to determine whether they are credible, meet the test of evidence, and are admissible in court.
Without that, the Attorney-General is flying on a wisp of air. There is no substance to this. It is as simple as that and …
Mr Mills: It is on the radio; it must be true.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: That is right, trial by media, because it suits the Labor government’s agenda. That is how simple it can be. It is not difficult to see the lay of the land. We have a Labor government which is performing so badly in virtually every aspect of government. For goodness sake, they cannot even get a road right. They cannot get Tiger Brennan Drive right. They cannot handle child protection. They cannot regulate offshore oil. My goodness me, look at the scathing report. I warned the Resources minister some months ago how scathing that report would be and, sure enough, it is. They cannot even monitor the health and welfare of animals – look at Mataranka Station.
Madam Speaker, this government has a litany of failures under its belt. All it can do is talk about politics and discredit people on this side of the House because it is the only weapon it has.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, it is timely to return to the Electoral Act, as mentioned in the letter to my colleague, the Attorney-General. Section 326 talks about bribery. It says:
Section 326(b), says:
For the opposition to assert it is unreasonable for my colleague to ask the question and refer the matter to the Australian Electoral Commission, on the basis of what you read there and the reports in the media of two transcripts on this issue - for anyone to say she is doing the wrong thing must have rocks in their head. The question is: did the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Blain, Terry Mills, offer Leo Abbott a position in return for him relinquishing his candidature and endorsement for the seat of Lingiari during the last federal election? That is a simple question. That is the question the Leader of the Opposition has failed to answer over the past seven days.
However, there is a deeper question. There is the question of legality. Politics is not only the confluence of legality; it is also a test of personality, character and honesty. As ministers and individuals in this parliament I often say we all have our turn here, we all come under the torch and under the spotlight, some more than others. I have had my share of controversy in this parliament, both in my portfolios and some incidents which have happened off the ball in this parliament. I have always endeavoured to tell the truth about those matters often to my own cost. I have endeavoured to tell the truth when I have been asked questions by the media. I believe the Leader of the Opposition has failed on a crucial test.
He is putting himself forward as the alternative Chief Minister for the Northern Territory, and he has failed. It was actually a cowardly way that he - I do not use that word lightly, it was used against me and I copped it on the chin - but the way in which he holed up like he was under siege in the Hot Rocks restaurant - or whatever it is called, Lewinsky’s - was disgraceful. As a man, he should have met with the media and said: ‘Yes, I did do it. I was misunderstood. I was not offering him a bribe. I was trying to provide a way forward for him in his career after the election’, whatever he had to say. Avoiding the media has only stoked the fire. There is an old saying by Oscar Wilde:
It is trial by media in many cases; we have all faced it. I am very disappointed that the Leader of the Opposition did not face up, did not front up and still has not fronted up. It is a disappointment. There have been comparisons made with my colleague, the member for Arafura, and Wax-gate, as it was called. I do not think there is much of a comparison. She fronted the media and this parliament and answered the accusations which were made in The Australian. The member for Blain has done none of those things.
Politics is a tough game, as the member for Nelson said. It tests us, but I am wondering about the Leader of the Opposition. I know he wants the job; I know he has been very altruistic over the years with the good he believes he could bring to the Northern Territory as Chief Minister. But he has failed a major test. All of the comments I have made in the past week have been in my own language - my own thoughts about the problems the Leader of the Opposition has with this matter and the longer he holds out the worse it is becoming for him.
I am reminded of Watergate and the incident with Bill Clinton. These things start in a very small way but they build up - as Richard Nixon denied being involved, and the people around him denied the conspiracy in relation to Watergate, it built up and in the end Richard Nixon left the White House to avoid impeachment. We all remember as he took off in that helicopter he said: ‘You are not going to have Dick Nixon to pick on anymore’, meaning the press. We all know with the former President of the United States Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky - he was in denial and my colleague, the member for Karama, really hit it on the head that the member for Blain is in serious denial over this matter. He thinks he can tough it out. I do not think he can tough it out because the information which has come to hand today will fuel the fire even more.
Moving back to the legalities of whether it has been illegal or not – that is a question in my mind but there is more of a question about the way in which the Leader of the Opposition operates by offering people under-the-counter deals. When we came to government last year, the arrangement which was made between the Chief Minister and the member for Nelson was published. That was a published agreement and it stated what it would deliver. There has been no such transparency with the Leader of the Opposition and his offer to Leo Abbott. I suggest there is a bit of a story in whatever dealings the Leader of the Opposition had with the member for Macdonnell as well. We read about some of it in King Brown Country but I heard on the grapevine that he spoke with her and certain arrangements and deals were made but he did not bother speaking to his party wing about it.
There is a document floating around, as I understand, a bit like this transcript …
Mr Elferink: We have seen the quality of your documents. They are lies.
Dr BURNS: It will surface sooner or later, member for Port Darwin. The document says somewhere, so I am told: ‘Do not discuss it with anyone and I will not be telling my party wing about it either’. That is a big disappointment. We know we have two Gerrys in this Chamber but I think we have two Terrys. We have the good Terry, whom we have always known, and then suddenly the cover is coming off and we are seeing this other Terry; the Terry who makes deals, who cannot stand up and fess up, the Terry who cannot look them in the eye and say: ‘Yes, I did offer him a job’. This is a big worry and the people of the Northern Territory are starting to understand there are two Terrys. I think people will take that on board. There is an old saying which comes from the Scriptures:
This is happening with the Leader of the Opposition.
The member for Katherine was talking about going the man. I have never seen anything more disgraceful than what happened during the August sittings with Damian Hale. That was absolutely disgraceful, and we hear the bleating of some members of the CLP saying: ‘We knew it was not true he bashed his missus, but we did it anyway’. The member for Blain was square and centre behind that strategy, and the Leo Abbott thing was all part of it. I am talking in a moral sense here, not a legal sense. It is all coming home to roost with the Leader of the Opposition; as you sow, so shall you reap. That is a Scripture the Leader of the Opposition should remember. The CLP is leaking like a sieve. We have at least two who attended that meeting; we have leaks coming in all over the place, information all over the place. You are a party which is deeply divided and you are divided over your Opposition Leader.
It was such a silly thing for the opposition to go to this in Question Time today and bring on a censure motion, because the Leader of the Opposition is vulnerable. Whoever thought out this strategy needs to have their head read. I am sure the person who thought out this strategy was thinking: offence is the best defence. Well, not in this case because he is vulnerable. You can see the pressure on his face. The best thing he could do is resign. I know everyone thinks he is their best and only chance, and up to a point that was right. However, it is all starting to come apart now.
You need to look at another strategy because the Leader of the Opposition is damaged beyond repair. There is a great big fracture on that side of the equation. Not only has he shown a complete lack of judgment in handling this matter, particularly the media, on reflection, there would be people on the other side saying he showed a complete lack of judgment some 12 months ago with the way he handled the strategy with the member for Macdonnell, and what happened in this parliament last year. He has missed his chance and should move on with life. He probably has plans after politics; however, it is, to a large extent, all over for the member for Blain.
I have been around this parliament for about 10 years and have seen crucial moments in parliament. This censure debate has been crucial. Although members opposite may be in denial over this, those with eyes which can see on the other side - hopefully you have a few cool heads in your party behind the scenes, although quite a few have been coming to me and complaining about the member for Blain. One even said to me he is dangerous and should not be in charge of the Northern Territory.
Mr Elferink: Name them! Tell me who these faceless people are! You are a liar!
Dr BURNS: I am not going to name them. I am not going to name them.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order! Member for Port Darwin! I ask you to withdraw, member for Port Darwin!
Mr ELFERINK: I withdraw liar, Madam Speaker.
Dr BURNS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The member for Port Darwin talked about smart political moves, and coming back to the Damian Hale saga, it was seen as a very smart political move to have Natasha Griggs win the seat of Solomon, which she did. However, it has come at an enormous cost because what was happening underneath, the plotting, the scheming, the e-mails and information which has come forward, have cost the member for Blain quite heavily. Who knows, he might not have had to indulge in all this for the same result. That is the irony of all of this, because there was a swing around the country.
I commend Damian Hale; he was a pretty honest sort of bloke. He stood up about Muckaty; he stood up about a range of issues. He fronted about Eaton. I am sure we will hear about this later in the week, but at least he said: ‘This is the situation’. He did not say: ‘Yes, I will fix it up after the election’. He did not lie; he told the truth. He stood up and told the truth. The other thing I admire Damian Hale for was when Kevin Rudd went through his anguished walk, Damian Hale was right beside him. Damian Hale had loyalty, and he was an honest man.
Natasha Griggs is the federal member now, and I hope she does her best for the Territory. I am sad that Damian Hale lost his seat, not just because he is in the Labor Party or a Labor candidate. I honestly believe the things I just said about Damian Hale. The issues that were run against him - the member for Brennan calling him a nasty drunk. How nasty is that? I say to the member for Brennan: karma; what goes around comes around, mate. You told me when you first came into this place: ‘I do not like all this personal stuff’, and there he was, engaging in it on this floor. It was probably one of the most disgraceful episodes. Those members of the opposition who did not join in like a pack of dogs against Damian Hale have credit. I know who you are. I saw you sitting there and I saw the looks on your faces - those people on the opposition who have integrity and did not want to join in this cowardly attack on Damian Hale. I say shame to those who did. So, what goes around, comes around.
Just to reflect …
Mr Elferink: Is that a threat? Is that a threat?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, cease interjecting.
Dr BURNS: About what?
Mr Elferink: Sounds like a threat to me.
Dr BURNS: I am talking about karma. I am talking about what goes around comes around, if you want to indulge in that sort of politics here. We have seen the Leader of the Opposition orchestrate it. It is all coming back on him. His dishonesty, his deceit, the fact he cannot stand up in this parliament, he cannot stand up in front of the media and he holes out in a restaurant for five hours. For goodness sake! What sort of a leader cannot go outside and front Katrina Bolton, who is about this tall, asking a question? He cannot do that. This is a test of character and he has failed.
You have talked about the legalities of it, the Attorney-General has talked about that, but there are huge questions about Terry Mills’ integrity and character. There is an old saying that …
Mr Elferink: Based on nothing.
Dr BURNS: Well, there was one that came out at the last election. I know the Leader of the Opposition has the poster up in his office, because he has told me so: ‘Terry Mills not up to it’. He gloated and said people obviously did not think that way. I believe people will be thinking that now. There is another old political saying that comes from none other than Paul Keating: ‘Fish stinks from the head down’. This whole thing has had a smell about it from the start. The smell continues.
We know why the backers of Terry Mills back him: you think he is your best and only hope. Well, you are in dreamland because he is seriously damaged. He is damaged beyond repair by this matter.
I reiterate the call, as we have all day, for the Leader of the Opposition to come into this House and make a personal explanation and say whether he did or did not offer Leo Abbott a job in return for him relinquishing his candidature in the last election. It is as simple as that. You do not need legal advice to tell the truth. While we are on the subject of legal advice, are you going to table yours from Mr Maley?
Mr Elferink: He is his lawyer, so what?
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Dr BURNS: You are always asking us to table legal advice. I am challenging you to table your legal advice on this matter.
Mr Elferink: We had a conversation with Mr Maley and I read to you some of the work I did. Go and have a look at it.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Dr BURNS: Well, a culture of cover-up again. This is what this is all about. You have accused us of having a culture of cover-up. This is your mantra, this is your line. This whole thing has been a cover-up - a pretty badly orchestrated cover-up because you are leaking like a sieve; it is out in the public domain.
The Leader of the Opposition is completely damaged and, if anything, this parliament should be running a censure against the Leader of the Opposition for the way in which he has not been forthright, forthcoming and truthful with Territorians.
This is probably one of the silliest censure motions I have ever seen. Talk about leading with your chin. Do not talk about the war. This was an ill-conceived move. Whoever conceived this is probably the same person who has been advising the Leader of the Opposition to hole up in a restaurant for five hours. It is a very silly strategy. You have to front the media and the public. If you want to be the next Chief Minister of the Northern Territory that is what you have to do, that is what people expect. He has not done it, he is not worthy.
Madam Speaker, I believe the only thing for him to do is resign.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 11 Noes 12
Mr Bohlin Mrs Aagaard
Mr Chandler Dr Burns
Mr Conlan Mr Gunner
Mr Elferink Mr Hampton
Mr Giles Mr Henderson
Mrs Lambley Mr Knight
Mr Mills Ms Lawrie
Ms Purick Mr McCarthy
Mr Styles Ms McCarthy
Mr Tollner Ms Scrymgour
Mr Westra van Holthe Mr Vatskalis
Ms Walker
Motion negatived.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received a document relating to pairs for the time period 6.30 pm to 9 pm today for the members for Daly and Goyder. It is signed by the two Whips. I table that document.
Continued from earlier today.
Dr BURNS (Education and Training): Madam Speaker, the Auditor-General’s October 2010 report discussed results of audits conducted over the period January to June 2010, including matters pertaining to poor audits conducted in the Department of Housing, Local Government and Regional Services. I will go through a few of the issues raised by the Auditor-General in relation to that department and will then move on to the Education department.
First, Performance Management System Audit, which is contained on pages 27 and 28: the results of this audit indicated that the department had not implemented an adequate system to assess the extent to which output deliverables for public housing were being delivered and outcomes achieved as at June 2009. Since the audit, the department has developed a new strategic framework 2010-13, which largely addresses matters raised by the Auditor-General. The department is also developing a quarterly performance reporting program to monitor the effect of efficient and economical delivery of agency outcomes.
The Agency Compliance Unit, on pages 43 to 47: the results of this audit raised a range of compliance issues which the department has acknowledged. The department is reviewing internal processes to ensure it has an appropriate and sustainable government structure to improve compliance with government’s policies and procedures.
Administration of Grants Audit, on pages 49 to 61: the results of this audit indicated the department had adequate policies and processes in place. The department enforces the requirements for grants paid by the department to be bound by a signed funding agreement which contains stringent guidelines relating to the use of funds, formal reporting, and acquittal requirements.
As my colleague said, the grant paid to Thamarrurr Incorporated was a one-off sum paid in accordance with the formal approval of the Treasurer and the then minister. This grant was acquitted by 30 June in line with the agreement.
I will talk briefly about the department of Housing and that part for which I have responsibility. I have been working with Mr Ken Davies, the CEO, to move the department forward with its systems and processes. I commend Ken Davies and the team, and all the people who work within the Housing department for recognising the challenges we have and moving forward. It will take some time; however, I have every confidence in Ken Davies and the team to bring about positive change within that department. There are many processes and proposals coming forward to rejuvenate that department and enable it to move forward and efficiently do the myriad of tasks for which it is responsible.
I turn to the Department of Education and Training, or DET. The report raised concerns in relation to the following: the objectives of Northern Territory current grants should be clarified in relation to corporate governance plans and communicated to stakeholders; grant funding agreements need to be streamlined across all divisions; information systems supporting grants should be reviewed and enhanced; more transparent reporting, including public disclosure for Northern Territory government grants.
The DET response is as follows: the DET Strategic Plan 2009-12 is currently being rolled out across the department. The department is paying particular attention to the links between business plans and the strategic plan. These links include regular and standard reporting mechanisms through a web-based reporting environment.
Also, this department has commenced development of a web-based environment to inform school planning and target setting. The department is also committed to upgrading information systems in relation to grants, and is committed to ensuring public disclosure through the DET annual report as well as individual school annual reports for education grants. The department has also reported on training outcomes through national data collections published in the national annual report. DET is also leading a comprehensive, cross-sectoral review of recurrent grants to non-government schools and improved outputs and outcomes reporting.
The report highlighted the need to ensure the accounting and property manual is updated, and I assure the House this review is under way.
The Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education or BIITE: this report draws attention to concern about the institute’s ability to continue to operate without ongoing financial support. DET, BIITE, CDU, and DEWR are working closely to finalise a partnership between CDU and BIITE. The focus will be on collaboration in education, shared corporate services, and coordination of infrastructure and capital development. DET is involved in the partnership negotiation and will continue to monitor BIITE’s performance and financial situation.
As a government we see the Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education as a crucial part of education for Indigenous people across the Territory. It has a long and very important history in delivering that education; however, over the past two years or so, BIITE has encountered quite a number of difficulties. There needed to be intervention, and the federal government intervened. The Northern Territory government supported that intervention and provided some funding for BIITE to continue delivering services, because the last thing we want to see is those services ceased. We wanted to see a renewal and rejuvenation of BIITE and for it to move on from the problems which had beset it over the last couple of years.
There is a new principal at BIITE, someone with much experience in Western Australia and someone I have much confidence in. I commend the work of the Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education. The partnership being put forward between the federal government, the Northern Territory government and Charles Darwin University is important. Everyone recognises we need to maintain the autonomy and character of BIITE because it has a great deal of history and, through that autonomy, it can have many positive outcomes. It is very well known across the length and breadth of the Territory. It has a long history and is well recognised by Indigenous people across the Territory.
It will be a model similar, in some respects, to the Menzies School of Health Research, where there is a large degree of autonomy for the institution but there are very important links with Charles Darwin University. That is probably the best model; it has been shown to work with the Menzies School of Health Research and Charles Darwin University. Whilst not replicating that model completely, there are elements of it which can be applied in the case of the Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education.
Charles Darwin University: no matters of significance or material weaknesses in controls were identified. It has increased revenue of $13.82m, mainly Australian government and Northern Territory government financial assistance. I am sure members are aware that Charles Darwin University operates under its own act and has autonomy under that act. Nonetheless, as minister, I interact very closely with Charles Darwin University. I commend Professor Barney Glover, the council of the university, and all who work in the university for the fine work they are doing. Barney Glover is taking the university to the next step of its development.
We are always mindful we have a relatively small population base in the Northern Territory. It is important for the Charles Darwin University to have partnership with other tertiary institutions around Australia. It is developing partnerships in a number of faculties and professions. I commend them for the establishment of a medical school in Darwin, where students will go through from go to whoa and we will have homegrown doctors. That is a very important partnership with the Commonwealth. These are tremendous steps forward for the university and for the Northern Territory.
I have always believed Charles Darwin University is a pivotal institution for the Northern Territory and the advancement of the Northern Territory. Both sides of parliament recognise that, and we work in a bipartisan way in our support for Charles Darwin University. I am glad that support is there across the Chamber. I believe it will continue to the benefit, not only of Charles Darwin University, but of the Northern Territory community.
I have a bit of a conflict of interest here. Menzies School of Health Research - no matters of significance or material weaknesses in controls were identified. As people would know, I spent quite a number of years at the Menzies School of Health Research with John Mathews as the Director. Jonathan Carapetis was my roommate at Menzies. We shared an office. I commend Jonathan Carapetis for the fantastic work he is doing with the Menzies School of Health Research. He too is lifting it to the next level. There has been incredible growth under his directorship. He has a great deal of experience clinically as a specialist paediatrician and as a researcher. He has much to offer the Menzies School of Health Research generally in the Northern Territory, but particularly in Indigenous research. I know the number and value of grants under his directorship have been growing substantially. Menzies has many building plans on foot, which is good for the Northern Territory. It is, like Charles Darwin University, a pivotal institution within the Northern Territory. I commend it for its work.
I commend the Auditor-General for his work. In my mind he is a great statutory officer and servant of this parliament. I do not use the word ‘servant’ in a demeaning way, I mean it in the most profound way. The Auditor-General identifies problems fearlessly. He points to them but he works constructively with the agencies and with government to try to resolve those issues. That is a more positive, engaging way to do things than sending atomic bombs to agencies. Maybe we could argue in this place that agencies deserve atomic bombs sometimes, but the best way in life is to try to engage, be constructive and indicate a way forward. The agencies appreciate that they can work constructively with the Auditor-General. He is a hard task master; he is not a soft touch. He knows when things are happening and when they are not. I think the agencies understand that and they fall over themselves, for the want of a better expression, to work constructively with our Auditor-General.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend Frank McGuiness and his work, not only reporting to this parliament but also to the Public Accounts Committee. He is a fantastic statutory officer and a fantastic Auditor-General. He has had vast experience in the Territory. From memory, he also knows a great deal about roads and the formula for the wear and tear on roads. I spoke to him once about that. He understands the conditions of the Northern Territory and the challenges we face as a government and within the departments. However, he wants everything to be run in the most effective and transparent way. As a parliament we can take much confidence from the work of Frank McGuiness as the Auditor-General. I commend the Auditor-General’s report to the House.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, it is nice to be back to a normal volume of speaking voice. There are couple of issues in the Auditor-General’s report which leapt out at me, and while they are not specifically in my shadow portfolios, I think they suffer mentioning. I note the Auditor-General’s caution in relation to the Department of Health and Families in a couple of areas, specifically the role of NGOs in delivering their outcomes. Government gives away substantial amounts of money to various NGOs to provide outcomes, but there seems to be very little auditing of what happens in terms of bang for buck. He has expressed some concern about mini-bureaucracies, if you like, starting to form in these NGOs off the public nipple.
I am glad the Auditor-General picks up on these things as they are important issues. It is interesting that he takes his audits to the level he does. I have always been an admirer of the approach of a mile deep, an inch wide; rather than a mile wide, an inch deep, because by probing in that fashion you get closer to the heart of matters.
I notice there is a legislative breach, not a serious one, dealing with Schedule 8 drugs, or the control of drugs in hospitals. It appears the auditing process and pharmacy stock control is not up to speed. Some of these drugs are used for painkilling. Drugs like morphine, MS Contin, those sorts of things, are serious drugs and have to be properly managed. The stock control system is basically a series of stocktakes - the signing out on the use of drugs and an oversight, double checking – and, unless people collude, it would be very hard to get around that system. I am sure there are ways to do it. What is of concern is the requirement to keep records in a prescribed register for two years. The system which has been used up until now in the hospitals has been to use a series of sheets of paper in a binder. When the binder is full, apparently the sheets of paper are thrown away. It takes about six months to get to that point. That is not a particularly useful result.
I also note some comments about the Department of Housing, Local Government and Regional Services. The response from the department was:
I love the language, but what is the substance behind it? I am not entirely sure what comes back. The Auditor-General found there was no effective system in place for that department and I commend the current minister for kicking a few backsides around. The minister for Housing was on his feet a few moments ago. Things are finally happening in that department.
I made the observation the other day that, for two years since the last election, I have been complaining about the conditions of Tomaris Court. The minister, to his credit, agreed to visit Tomaris Court with me. He made an appointment a month or so out and, amazingly, in that month the institution of Tomaris Court started being cleaned up substantially: lawns were mowed; graffiti was painted out; faeces which were rubbed on the walls had been steam cleaned away; all the rubbish in the laundry blocks had been cleaned away and several problem tenants were evicted. So I doorknocked a couple of my regulars there and one of my regulars said: ‘Yes, we have seen a bit of an improvement over recent days, particularly in the last couple of days. That has been really good’.
That is good news. The only problem is that I thought the minister had told the department he was coming. The minister assured me he had made no such comments. Then he made the comment that his diary was available to the department to be checked. So the department would have been aware of the ministerial visit to Tomaris Court at 8.30 pm on a Friday two weeks ago. It appears the strategic framework 2010-13 and the three-year priority which focuses on implementing and monitoring high standards of governance is largely governed by the minister’s diary. So the strategic framework should actually read: ‘We will check the minister’s diary, find out where he is going and then we had better clean it up because we know this guy is going to give us a bit of a toe’.
Good on the minister for being that frightening, but it concerns me that delivering the service at a public service level is more about the minister’s diary than actually delivering the service. I sit there and bleat, whinge, write letters and come into this place and complain about Tomaris Court and not much occurs. The minister announces he is going to visit Tomaris Court and all of a sudden it is cleaned up. That tells you that one of the fundamental problems with this government is that it is still so responsive to ministerial whimsy that it is not about service delivery any more, it is about finding out how to avoid conflict with the minister, then housetraining the minister, in many cases, and making sure the minister does what he or she is told. If the minister is going to do something we should be well ahead of the minister and be able to cover off on that.
That component of the Auditor-General’s report is the part I particularly wanted to comment on. I am glad Tomaris Court is being cleaned up. I hope the minister will come there with me every six months to see how it is going so the faeces does get cleaned off the wall on a regular basis, the lawns are mowed, the drunks are chased out, evictions occur, and the graffiti is painted over. Good on the minister for being frightening. I hope he continues the work. I will be double checking to make sure the things I have asked him to attend to have been attended to at Tomaris Court.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am grateful the minister has given his time at 8.30 on an evening. We all know as politicians how busy we can be and the demands even on our evenings. I acknowledge the minister’s visit. I acknowledge the effect it has had on Tomaris Court and let us hope the standards remain.
Mr McCARTHY (Lands and Planning): Madam Deputy Speaker, I welcome the Auditor-General’s report and appreciate the role he and his office play in checking records and driving government agencies to continue to deliver improved reporting and accounting practices.
The October report confirms that the role of the auditor to improve government auditing and accounting processes is working well. For the departments which I have carriage, I am pleased to note the auditor found only minor improvements could be made. All of his recommendations are being implemented by the relevant agencies. With the regard to the then Department of Planning and Infrastructure, the Auditor-General undertook an extensive review and the department has responded to the report. I will read from their response:
I also want to touch on the Auditor-General’s investigations into the administration of grants. I spoke last week about this government’s track record in delivering increased Arts funding across the Territory. It is a record we are proud of. No doubt my comments were a surprise to the opposition which has been making uninformed public comments on the Arts. The department, through Arts NT and the Film Office, administers a range of grants programs to provide for a growing and sustainable arts industry in the Territory and it is important that grants are fairly distributed. Most of the grants are recommended by independent review panels which ensures a broad range of views are considered during funding and assessment rounds.
The audit noted that the Department of Natural Resources, Environment, the Arts and Sport had adequate policies and processes in place to ensure grants and subsidies paid are correctly identified, accounted for and acquitted. This is a welcome finding.
Madam Deputy Speaker, in closing, I thank Frank McGuiness and his team for providing a thorough and important report.
Mr HAMPTON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Deputy Speaker, I also welcome the Auditor-General’s report. The Northern Territory Auditor-General’s Office conducted two audits of NRETAS, my agency: an agency compliance audit for the year ending 30 June 2010, and a grants expenditure audit for the year ending 30 June 2009. A performance management systems audit was also conducted for the Territory Wildlife Park for the financial year 2008-09.
NRETAS was previously selected for an agency compliance audit in 2007. The primary objective of this audit was to assess and test the adequacy of the systems developed by accountable officers to achieve compliance with their accountability and control requirements. The final report opinion of the Auditor-General stated that the accounting and control procedures examined for NRETAS provided reasonable assurances that the responsibilities of the accountable officer, as set out in the Treasurer’s Directions and Procurement Regulations and Guidelines, would be met if those systems continued to operate in the manner identified during the audit.
The Auditor-General’s report evidences the substantial improvements made over the last three years in identifying risks and strengthening and developing better control practices. Two audit issues were raised in the final report. The first audit issue identified that the agency’s formal procedures to monitor the conditions of the assets could be enhanced. NRETAS has recently risk-assessed its asset management and identified and implemented an internal control process to formally review the asset register on an annual basis. The second audit issue identified that hospitality expenses had been approved after they had been incurred. NRETAS will continue to reinforce the requirements to follow the agency’s hospitality policy and procedures.
The primary objective of the grants expenditure audit is to assess whether the agency’s internal controls provide reasonable assurances that grants and subsidies made comply with the Treasurer’s Directions. Some opportunities for improvement were identified during the course of the audit and relate to four audit issues. The first audit issue noted that some grants appeared to have been paid in haste and before the project relating to the grant funding was expected to commence, particularly in two peaks, August 2008 and June 2009. These related to operational grants made to various libraries in August, and triennial grants made to various peak sporting bodies in June. The agency noted it will continue to ensure that, as a minimum, a memorandum of understanding is in place for all grant payments, and it will endeavour to minimise the time between moving from an MOU to a formal grant agreement.
The second audit issue noted the agency has no overarching grants policy database. The agency is in the process of finalising procurement of a whole-of-agency grants management database. Implementation of the databases will include the development of an agency-wide policy and procedures for grants management.
The third audit issue noted there was no signed agreement between one recipient and the Northern Territory government. The West Arnhem Fire Management Agreement was signed on 24 August 2006, between the Northern Territory government and Darwin LNG Pty Ltd for the purposes of offsetting some of the greenhouse gas emissions from the plant at Wickham Point. The agreement provides that a formal review can be initiated from 1 January 2011. Initial planning has started to commence negotiations with ConocoPhillips on 1 January 2011.
The fourth audit issue noted one acquittal was not received on a timely basis. The agency noted that grant acquittals are generally closely monitored and assessed, and future grant payments to this recipient will be withheld if non-compliance with conditions set out in the grant agreement is evident.
Overall, the final report option of the Auditor-General states the agency has adequate policies and processes in place to ensure grants and subsidies paid are correctly identified, accounted for, and acquitted.
The performance management systems audit of the Territory Wildlife Park was commissioned by the Auditor-General and conducted by Deloitte Tohmatsu on behalf of the Auditor-General’s Office. The audit opinion was:
NRETAS has taken considerable action to address the audit issues. There were quite a few audit issues raised for the Territory Wildlife Park. The agency has responded and I will list a couple of those for Hansard.
The first one is that a performance management system did not exist for the Territory Wildlife Park for the year ended 30 June 2009. The agency has responded by developing, formally endorsing and implementing a strategic plan, a business plan, and unit action plans at the Territory Wildlife Park for the period May 2010 to June 2011. Each plan includes key performance measures. Reports on the outcomes, linked to the key performance measures, are reviewed fortnightly at the Territory Wildlife Park leadership group meetings, and monthly at the GBD managers’ meeting.
Another audit issue which was highlighted for the Territory Wildlife Park was that a strategic, business risk-assessment was performed for the Bio-division and the Government Business Division Parks, however, it was not formally finalised. The agency responded by completing and formally endorsing a risk assessment for the Government Business Division Parks in April 2010. Risk management is now a standing agenda item for the Government Business Division leadership group and the Territory Wildlife Park leadership group.
Another audit issue raised in the report of the Auditor-General for the Territory Wildlife Park was that business plans for the Territory Wildlife Park, the GBD Parks, or the Bio-division were not formally endorsed for the year ended 30 June 2009. The agency’s response to this was to formally endorse the GBD Parks’ charter and the Territory Wildlife Park’s strategic, business and action plans clearly meet the GBD Parks’ charter and agency priorities.
There were also some issues raised with specific grants to which I will respond. The specific issues were that a number of grants were paid in the last week of June which appear to have been rushed and it took too long to progress from a memorandum of understanding to the grant agreement and, in some cases, it then took too long to complete projects. Some of those issues have been dealt with, particularly with some of the grants, such as the Nakara lights. There were also grants to: NT Cricket to construct and upgrade facilities at Marrara Cricket Ground; the Darwin Golf Club to upgrade the irrigation system; the Darwin City Council to assist with upgrades to Bagot Oval; the Alice Springs Town Council for the viewing area of the basketball stadium; and Alice Springs Town Council for a glass crusher. I am sure the Treasurer has responded to some of those issues. Many of those grants cover complex projects and have taken longer than expected to progress from the memorandum of understanding to the formal grant agreement. In most of those cases the projects have been completed.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the Auditor-General for his report, and his staff for their work. In my agency we are always looking at ways we can improve our systems and the findings are most welcome.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the Auditor-General for his report to the Legislative Assembly on matters arising from audits conducted in the period 1 January 2010 to 30 June 2010. My ministerial colleagues and I value the work of the Auditor-General in assisting the process of transparency and accountability through independent analysis and drawing our attention to matters of interest.
The majority of the report deals with the results of performance management system audits, which assess the extent to which effective systems have been established and that performance is consistent with desired outcomes. I commend the Auditor-General for inquiring into such matters as they go to the heart of the NT government’s Working for Outcomes framework adopted some years ago.
Whilst there are a number of positive findings, several audits of performance management systems across agencies noted adverse findings with a lack of effective and efficient systems, including: NT Police, Fire and Emergency Services’ Road Safety Strategy; the Department of Business and Employment’s Green Fleet Strategy; the Department of Health and Families’ Non-government Organisation Services; the Department of Housing, Local Government and Regional Services’ Public Housing Services; the Department of Justice’s Fines Recovery Unit; and the Department of Natural Resources, Environment, The Arts and Sport’s Territory Wildlife Park.
The Auditor-General noted that the development of effective and efficient performance management systems is not a simple task and requires a significant investment of time and resources. All agencies subject to adverse findings committed to implementing measures to improve their performance management systems.
The audits of the administration of grants in three agencies found that two of the three agencies audited had satisfactory policies and processes in place. There were areas of improvement identified for the administration of grants in the Department of the Chief Minister which are being addressed by the agency with the assistance of the Auditor-General and the Department of Justice. The Department of the Chief Minister has commenced work in developing an overarching grants policy and framework, ensuring appropriate agreements are in place for all grants and that processing of acquittals is timely.
The audits of financial statements conducted during the reporting period all resulted in unqualified audit opinions and confirmed them as being compliant with relevant accounting standards. This is a commendable achievement.
While unqualified, the audit of financial statements of Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education again raised a question of BIITE’s viability as an ongoing concern. This is to be addressed through a collaborative partnership planned with CDU in 2012.
The audits of general compliance with prescribed policies and procedures across nine agencies identified no major matters but highlighted the ongoing need for agencies to comply with Treasurer’s Directions and maintain strong frameworks of internal controls throughout the financial year.
The Auditor-General’s report also included the first contravention of the new Public Information Act which resulted from a letter that included statements which sought to promote the interests of a political party and influence electors’ voting intentions before the Commonwealth election. The letter also included comments which could be construed as statements of opinion rather than statements of fact. The potential misuse of public monies was avoided by the settlement of the liability during the course of the Auditor-General’s review.
That was the issue where, under the Leader of the Opposition’s letterhead in the lead-up to the federal election, the CLP was forced to pay back - I may have this wrong - around $18 000 to the public purse. The Leader of the Opposition, when he spoke in support of the introduction of this act, berated me and the government for the inappropriate use of public funding for political purposes but the first casualty under the new legislation was the Country Liberal Party. A letter which the Leader of the Opposition signed and was on his letterhead, which he had the temerity to try to blame an administrative assistant in his office for sending out in the lead-up to the election campaign, was pinged by the Auditor-General. The CLP was forced to pay back the cost and the Leader of the Opposition blamed some poor girl in his office for acting in contravention of the legislation which he spoke so highly about. I suppose it shows the system is working.
The Auditor-General’s October 2010 report provides over 100 pages of information and analysis on audit activity conducted over the reporting period and provides an assurance to parliament and all Territorians that government agencies are transparent and accountable for managing resources under their control and have been subjected to the highest levels of scrutiny.
This has been a very thorough audit. I will talk about a couple of the findings in the audit of Police, Fire and Emergency Services. The objective of the audit of the Road Safety Strategy was to determine whether performance management systems of Northern Territory Police, Fire and Emergency Services, NTPFES, enable the agency to assess whether its objectives in relation to the Road Safety Strategy are being achieved effectively. The Auditor-General’s report concluded there was a decline in the relative motor vehicle accident rate over the period 1990 to 2008. However, the agency had no formal process or system which permitted it to analyse and report on the success of the strategy initiatives. Therefore, it was not possible to form a view on whether individual initiatives were effective or efficient.
A traffic and specialist services command is now established and will operate from the Nightcliff Police Station. The command will be headed by a commander and will provide an enhanced strategic focus for road policing and will improve service delivery across the Territory. A revised roads policing strategy will also form part of the work for the new traffic command.
Madam Deputy Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues, I thank the Auditor-General for his report. I take this opportunity to express my full support for the Auditor-General for his continued independent analysis of governance and accountability on behalf of the Assembly, the government and the Territory community, and for continuing to draw our attention to matters of importance. The role of the Auditor-General and the ongoing program of audits of financial statements, internal controls and compliance is a vital component in maintaining accountable government.
Motion agreed to; paper noted.
Continued from 12 August 2010.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, this annual report deals with the Council of Territory Cooperation from its establishment to 30 June this year. The report gives an outline of the purpose of the CTC, the inquiry process, the CTC reporting requirements, the government response requirements and the Secretariat. The report details the work program of the CTC, including an overview of its functions, its ability to self-reference a number of public hearings and meetings, and a number of reports delivered by the close of this report.
As well as the table showing the CTC expenditure from its establishment to 30 June 2010, the key aspects of the report show a total of $295 038 was spent which included $165 170 for salaries which included some casual Hansard transcription staff, $93 661 for operational expenses and $36 207 for travel.
The report also has three appendices which highlight the terms of the agreement from which the CTC was established, the terms of reference of the CTC, and a full list of all meetings, including all participants at those meetings. One area which was not included was an attendance record of members at meetings during this period, which is normal in annual reports, but this may be attended to in the future.
There are a number of issues arising from the report on which I would like to comment. The first is that the CTC is probably a first in Australia and is an attempt to bring all sides of politics together to inquire into government policies. This has enabled it to question the public service about what the government is doing in a range of policies such as SIHIP, local government reform, and A Working Future. The lack of ability to force ministers to be questioned at CTC meetings has been a matter the CLP members disagreed with and was recently given as the reason they have resigned from the CTC.
As Chair of the CTC, I am aware the government has been asked to look at the possibility of ministers attending hearings under certain guidelines; the government is still considering this proposal. The CTC, also uniquely, is able to self-refer and has done so on a number of occasions in regard to a major electricity failure last year and a perceived inconsistency of domestic violence figures between two government departments. The CTC, I hope, has opened up government policy to more public scrutiny with the majority of its hearings being open to the media and the public, again, something which does not occur at most parliamentary committees.
Anyone reading this report can see the amount of work the CTC has been able to achieve over the length of the report and it has tabled 35 recommendations from those reports. The government has to respond to those reports within three months, which it has done. Like any other committee, the recommendations do not have to be agreed to by the government, but for those it has agreed to, the next task for the CTC is to see if those changes have taken place.
Since this report, as mentioned before, the two CLP members have resigned and the Independent member for Macdonnell has also formally resigned, although it is fair to say she only attended a very small number of meetings so this had little practical effect on the makeup of the CTC.
The CTC will continue although it has a smaller number and hopes the CLP will reconsider and come back to the CTC. In the meantime, the CTC intends to take stock of where it is going, what its future priorities and workload will be considering both Labor members have other commitments which take a considerable amount of their time. As Chair, I believe the CTC has a future and I will work towards the goal of all sides of parliament coming together on issues which should be beyond the restrictions of party politics. As an example, at our next public hearings in Darwin, the CTC should be hearing from various bodies and people which have been set up to oversee the recommendations of the Growing them strong, together report. This is something all sides of politics should be interested in.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank all members of the CTC, both past and present. That includes the member for Arafura, you, as member for Nhulunbuy, the member for Katherine, the member for Macdonnell, and the member for Fong Lim - although he was a member for such a short period; we might have had one meeting during that time but he was not able to attend. Two of our previous members were the member for Fannie Bay, and the member for Port Darwin who stepped down for a period of time but came back later.
I thank the Secretariat, Ms Helen Campbell, Ms Jan Whitehead, Mr Simon Flavel, Ms Karen Turner, Ms Kim Cowcher, and also previous staff, Ms Pat Hancock and Mrs Kay Parsons. They have all done a tremendous job and have put a great deal of hard work into developing the CTC which is an important part of the parliamentary process. I thank my personal advisor, Michelle Nuske for all the hard work she has done in helping me as Chair of the CTC.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will talk about the CTC as an institution. On day 1 when the idea was proposed during that all-too-infamous debate as to whether or not we were going to allow this government to continue, I spoke to the member for Nelson after he had made his statement; I was one of the first people to collar him. I said: ‘What exactly is this new council of cooperation going to do? Is it a parliamentary committee? Is it another Chamber? What is it?’ The member for Nelson was unable to describe what he thought, other than that he thought it was a good idea.
The problem I was concerned about became manifest very quickly, because this thing could have been only one of two things. It could only have been an upper House in this Chamber, in which case we would have had to clear out the library and have a Legislative Council and two Chambers. I am not sure if that would have been possible under the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act, I would have to check that. Or it would have to be a parliamentary committee. We like to call it the Council of Territory Cooperation, but it is a parliamentary committee.
We already have a parliamentary committee which holds the public account to scrutiny. Much of what the CTC does is little more than a Public Accounts Committee held in public. I maintained that from the outset. I continue to maintain that today. What this committee achieves could be easily achieved by simple amendments to the standing orders or the reference to the Public Accounts Committee, and this would be a resolved issue. But no, there was no Public Accounts Committee; we had to dress this thing up to be the Council of Territory Cooperation.
There was a long and hard discussion between my colleagues and me as to whether we should bother because it was just an extension of the Labor government. The deal had been struck.
The inherent problems of the deal, which were obvious to me at the time, have become obvious to the member for Nelson as time has passed, which has forced him to say things like he will not vote against government. He started to realise the implications of those sorts of actions.
The member for Nelson has also repeatedly run the defence that this is the government which was properly elected. Well, actually, no. It was the members of this House who were elected. It is the members of this House who determine who forms government. The member for Nelson has quickly side-stepped that issue and said government is elected by the people. It is not. Government is elected by this House. Whoever can form the majority of support in this House forms government. You can ask Ted Baillieu, or Colin Barnett, or Julia Gillard how that works. The people did not vote for Julia Gillard as Prime Minister; she was the leader of the Labor Party in a parliament where, with the support of a couple of Independents and by the grace of those Independents, could form a government. The same applies here. I have always taken the view - and these are the comments which resonated with me for the member for Nelson, as well as Rob Oakeshott, Tony Windsor and Bob Katter - that it was a close-run thing. It was so close; it was so hard to separate the two, which is what the member for Nelson argued.
If an Independent is in that situation, then there is a very simple thing to do. You check the records of the Australian Electoral Commission, or you ring them and ask them: where did the number two votes go when I was elected? If the member for Nelson, or the member for New England, or Oakeshott, wherever he is the member for, rang the Electoral Commission because they could not separate the two parties, they would have had a response from the Electoral Commission saying: ‘Well, the number two votes flowed in this percentage to that person, that side or that side’. I argue that, in New England and Mr Oakeshott’s electorate, certainly in Mr Katter’s electorate, and in the member for Nelson’s electorate, the number two votes would have been flowing in the direction of conservative politics.
If you want to run the argument that it is the people’s choice, then run the argument that it is the people’s choice legitimately, not in the fashion the member for Nelson has chosen to run it - that it is the people who elected the government. They elected a majority of members, some of which became disenfranchised and disappointed with the government of the day and did what is their exclusive right to do: take their value of vote away from the government and reduce the government to a minority government. The only thing which keeps that minority government alive is the support of the member for Nelson.
The member for Nelson promised Territorians he would hold this government to account, and yet, as time has passed, we have seen examples time and time again of maladministration. Maladministration surrounding child protection, SIHIP – and the member for Nelson is now intimately aware and involved in this. He knows the second intervention on the Northern Territory was based around SIHIP because the government had completely stuffed it up and it is going to cost Territory taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars to fix. He fails to find that maladministration and continues to call this government a competent government.
Then we see examples of other forms of maladministration, and the astonishing, breathtaking failures of the minister for Resources to even try to take any responsibility for the Montara oil field, which he collects millions of dollars worth of fees to manage, and spends less than a million dollars every year on oversight. The argument from the government is that it costs so much to get these professionals. Well, spend on those professionals what you earn from the mining industry. When you read the report - it is around page 218 - of the wash-up of the Montara oil spill, in one particular year $15m was taken in by government as revenue through the Territory Treasury’s books while expenditure on oversight, policing and regulation was $980 000. That was an abnormal year, most years it is a little over $2m; the average is well over $2m and every year the expenditure on regulation is less than $1m. The failure to see maladministration when we have 90 000 barrels of oil floating around in the Arafura Sea is surprising.
We have the child protection thing, the Deborah Melville thing, which still leaves me shaking my head in disbelief. Anyone who watched the Four Corners program on this, it brought home in sharp relief what a decayed and decrepit child protection system we have. Yet the member for Nelson still cannot see there is maladministration in spades on the other side of the House.
Now we have the added component that, rather than doing something and fixing their maladministration on this side of the House, we see the ghastly approach the government has chosen to use – because their own polling is telling them that the Leader of the Opposition is a popular, well regarded, well thought of man …
Ms SCRYMGOUR: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! Standing Order 67, relevance. We are debating the CTC annual report. I cannot see anywhere in the annual report of the CTC anything to do with Labor Party polling, let alone Montara. I seek your ruling on a point of relevance. The member for Port Darwin should get back to debating the annual report.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order, member for Arafura. Member for Port Darwin, it is an annual report. There is the opportunity for the third report …
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I appreciate your guidance. The argument I am trying to construct is that the CTC is an organ of an arrangement based on the assumption that the Northern Territory government will be held to account. To demonstrate how the member for Nelson has failed to hold the Northern Territory government to account and that the maladministration continues, I have to demonstrate to this House all of the evidence of maladministration. That is what I am talking about.
The maladministration which goes on now includes, not incompetence, but it has turned to active vitriol and accusations of crimes which have never been committed. That is maladministration. In fact it is more than maladministration; it is mala fide - bad faith. It is not incompetence we are talking about now. Now we are talking about acts of malice and yet, sadly, we are still ticking along.
I read in the last Sunday Territorian that the member for Nelson said: ‘You’ll just have to wait your turn, boys’. So it is no longer an issue of maladministration. It is now straight forward, straight up and down, an issue of: ‘The Labor Party is in government. I do not really care what they do because they are the ones who were chosen by the people’. It is not correct. The CTC has come to represent a vehicle by which government has been able to give the member for Nelson, who is still a mere Independent member of this House, extra staff and extra cash to do all sorts of things. I wish I had the staff and extra cash so I could do my job better, but I do not.
The CTC has in many respects failed to achieve the goals it has been set simply because we spend a great deal of money, we come into this place, drop a bit of paper on the Table which the government says, in most instances, is noted. There is no active administration involved and there is no capacity to do this House’s job of questioning ministers. If you ask these bureaucrats we get to talk to - and they are hard-working, decent people - they will provide what information they can. Some of them have become very forthcoming as they have become used to the process, but ultimately you ask why a decision was made. ‘That decision was made by the minister’. You know you cannot ask the next question because the answer will be: ‘You will have to ask the minister’.
I finally, as a member of the CTC, convinced not only the member for Nelson but the Labor members that the committee could only effectively work if there were ministers coming in and explaining what they were doing and the decisions they were making. So all of us, as a group, the Labor members, the two Independents and the two Country Liberal members on the committee, said ministers must come to the committee because it is government which is held to account through this process, not public servants. Whilst the public servants have been very informative, that is all we have gotten out of it.
The government has refused to avail ministers to that organ of this House and consequently the organ has failed on its own merits. It is for that reason the Leader of the Opposition finally determined, in consultation with his parliamentary colleagues, that continued participation would not achieve anything other than keeping the Labor government in power. It is a fact finding mission; that is all it is. It has a grand title. It has a fairly large budget and some staff but its achievements have been nominal, noted, and a couple of the simpler things have been applied, but my goodness, gracious me, it is not what Territorians were promised.
I genuinely participated, and continued to participate for a year, in the operation of the Council of Territory Cooperation in an effort to make it work. Even before the Growing them strong, together inquiry was launched I was asking questions about child protection, and the reply from the CTC at the time, I think it was about November of last year, was: ‘No, we cannot do it. We have too much else on our plate. It is too big’.
It turns out that child protection is one of the most fundamentally important issues the CTC could have looked at and we would have been there well before Dr Bath and the government. I found that disappointing because we could have been well in advance of the Growing them strong, together report, yet we delayed. The consequences of that delay are not paid by John Elferink or Gerry Wood or whoever else. The consequences of that delay are not heard. They are in the homes where children are neglected and abused. I regret I was not firmer than I was on that issue at that time. I have a few regrets in this place and that is one of them.
The CTC is, in intent, noble; in practice, weak, and fundamentally weak because we cannot get ministers to explain themselves and their decision-making processes. For that reason, I am not satisfied the CTC is worth its money. It could just be a PAC and, at least, the ministers can come to the PAC. It has not stacked up and is not what it promised to be.
Ultimately, I cannot change the member for Nelson’s mind. He can only change that but I appeal to the sense of reason I know he has and I appeal to him to look at what is happening in this jurisdiction and what is happening on those government benches. If he cannot bring himself to support forming a Country Liberal government until the next Territory election then, at least, make a determination that the people can be asked to judge because I believe this government is now mired deeply in maladministration.
The member for Nelson made a promise to check on this government and that promise is on the verge of being broken. I hope the member for Nelson does see the reasonable case which is being put forward by the members on this side of the House, that this government is quickly becoming unfit to govern. The events of the last week demonstrate it is now interested more in destroying rather then creating. Once the government has decayed to that point it is time that people get to pass judgement on it, and because it has to happen through a process, it would require the member for Nelson to pass a resolution of no confidence.
Madam Deputy Speaker, one of the downsides of fixed four-year terms - and New South Wales is going through this at the moment - is that governments, no matter how bad, stick it out. I think the time has come, and it is within the member for Nelson’s power, to cut the thread of the sword of Damocles and let it come plunging down on the heads of this government so the people can decide. At the moment, the people are being sorely cheated.
Motion agreed to; paper noted.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
A New Era in Corrections - Update
Mr McCARTHY (Correctional Services): Madam Deputy Speaker, it is with pride that I update the House on the government’s significant investment in the new era in Corrections. This government is focused on building a safer Territory. We have delivered almost 400 extra police since coming into office. We have delivered significant legislative reform in areas including child protection, alcohol reform, domestic violence, volatile substances, and proceeds of crime. With more police than before and strong legislation, people who commit crime are being caught and going to gaol.
In 2000-01, the rate of incarceration per 100 000 adults in the Territory was 483. By 2008-09, that had grown to 647. This government does not step back from its stance against crime. If you commit an offence you will face the full strength of the law.
In the Northern Territory, 47% of offenders are back in gaol within two years. That is compared to a national average of 39%. About 82% of prisoners are Indigenous; many with low literacy and numeracy skills and with few job prospects. I am saddened each time I visit the correctional centres in Alice Springs and Darwin because I see those statistics reflected in real people with lives which have gone off the track. I see Territorians who are on a cycle of offending, who all too often head back to gaol within two years of leaving. That is the personal side of these statistics and this debate. We cannot continue doing things in the same way and expect to turn those statistics around; the system must be changed.
Over the last year I have travelled Australia inspecting correctional centres and systems. In partnership with Correctional Services’ experts, and sometimes with the member for Nelson, I have looked at what works to reduce reoffending, what does not, and what could be applied to the Territory’s conditions. Across the board, it was clear that rehabilitation, education and training is essential if we are to make changes in people’s lives.
That is at the heart of the new era in Corrections which I was pleased to join with the Chief Minister in announcing in September. The $68m package delivers new prison facilities, tougher sentencing options for our courts, investment in alcohol and drug rehabilitation, electronic surveillance of offenders, and improved reintegration and post-release support. Government and NT Correctional Services have set an ambitious target of reducing prisoner numbers off the top by 20%, or 220 prisoners. We want to reduce the rate of reoffending to, at most, the national average of 39%. These targets will not be easy to achieve but we are focused on achieving change.
Members will be aware that work is under way in a review of the juvenile justice system. That work will complement the new era in Corrections. We need to ensure our treatment of young offenders provides them with the support and discipline necessary to succeed. Access to more education, training and rehabilitation is essential if we are to give prisoners a reason and a purpose to move away from the offending which led them to gaol in the first place.
Having the right tools and facilities at your disposal is central to being able to perform your job effectively. Access to modern facilities is needed if we are to achieve the targets of a new era in Corrections.
Since being appointed Minister for Correctional Services, I have been to Berrimah on a number of occasions. I must admit on my first visit I was taken aback. When members on the other side of this House are quick to say things like: ‘It is easy being inside; it is a holiday’, I wonder if they have been inside B Block in Berrimah. Others say: ‘I was a police officer a decade ago. That makes me suitable to work as a prison officer’. That is an insult to our hard-working prison staff. On a daily basis, prison officers are challenged by the job of moving prisoners safely from secure area to secure area so they can access programs and activities. We should never forget that prisons are not just about prisoners; they are about the staff who work there too and their right to a safe workplace.
Prison is not, and should not, be some kind of retreat. If we are serious about breaking the cycle of reoffending, prison needs to be a place where training and programs can be delivered with dedicated education and rehabilitation spaces. That is not possible at Berrimah gaol, and it is not just me or this government saying that. Before committing to building a new prison, government wanted to be sure we could not extend or rebuild the Berrimah gaol. A team of experts was put together, including a prison architect, engineers, a planner, correctional services’ experts from the Territory and nationally, and costs analysts. They went over Berrimah with a fine-toothed comb and told us there was not enough space, it was not cost effective, and it was not safe for staff to rebuild on that site. Their findings in a nutshell: Berrimah prison is outdated and cannot be rebuilt. We need a new prison.
The new Darwin prison precinct is a key plank of the government’s new era in Corrections. It will be built on Section 4225 in Holtze, about 4 km north of Howard Springs Road along the old boat ramp track. The site was chosen in consultation with the member for Nelson under the Parliamentary Agreement. I thank the member for Nelson for his input and his broader discussions of and interest in the new era for Corrections. I also acknowledge the member for Goyder, who has taken the time to visit the site, talk with the appropriate staff and understand the final decision on the prison location.
The project will include an 800-bed prison and a 36-bed secure mental health facility. The mental health facility will be managed by the Department of Health and Families. It will provide a more appropriate and effective means of accommodating prisoners with mental illness.
The 800-bed prison, named the Doug Owston Correctional Centre, will adopt best practice in design and construction, including security. It will deliver what Berrimah cannot: dedicated space for education, training, industries and rehabilitation programs. These programs are central to breaking the cycle of reoffending. The Doug Owston Correctional Centre will also deliver program space and accommodation for elders and respected persons working with prisoners, and a horticultural area for food production.
On the day the package of measures for the new era in Corrections was announced, I had the pleasure of heading to Berrimah to talk to prison officers and other staff about the plans. They were very interested in the new prison precinct and its new facilities. Not one officer said they would be sad to leave the Berrimah gaol behind; they are looking forward to a safer, more efficient place to work.
A short list of three consortia has been announced to form a public/private partnership with the Territory government to design, construct, finance and maintain the prison precinct. Axiom Corrections, SeNTinel and Assure Partners all have local, national and international links, and a public/private partnership will deliver the best value for money for Territorians. Each consortium has been asked to submit a request for proposal, including detailed costings and measurable local industry and Indigenous participation plans to achieve between 75% to 90% local content. More than 1000 direct and indirect jobs are expected to be created from the project, generating significant opportunities for local businesses. Construction is planned to commence in late 2011, with the prison to be operational in 2014.
The government is also establishing a work camp in the Barkly and is working towards the development of a prison farm and work camp in Katherine. Both will be focused on low-security offenders. The primary goal of work camps is community reparation and rehabilitation, linking prisoners to education and vocational training. It is about getting prisoners job ready, getting them into work and repaying the community, and reducing the risk of reoffending. The 50-bed Barkly work camp is rapidly becoming a reality. Territory business, J Hutchinson, has been awarded a $6.45m contract to construct the camp. Facilities will include a multipurpose classroom for education and training programs, including literacy and numeracy, and a training workshop. Training, community projects and work programs at the camp will be targeted at skills shortages in the Barkly region. That focus has been welcomed by local business in Tennant Creek, presenting opportunities for prisoners to transition into real jobs at the end of their sentence.
The camp will be operational next year and its first officer-in-charge has been appointed. Eight of the 15 trainee prison officers who graduated in Alice Springs earlier this month will be heading to the work camp and a recruitment drive is continuing to fill the 14 officer spots. A community liaison committee has been established to be a conduit between the work camp and Barkly region communities. This is an exciting project which will deliver job opportunities for Tennant Creek and the region, and life changing opportunities for offenders.
To Katherine - the government is in talks with Charles Darwin University about access to land for the construction of a 170-bed prison farm and work camp for low-security prisoners. Talks are also focused on establishing training and education links with Charles Darwin University in Katherine and Mataranka, including the potential for a rural operations course. The prison farm and work camps programs will be centered on literacy and numeracy, horticulture, agriculture and community maintenance and reparation programs. Training will be geared towards skills shortages in the Katherine region. Government plans to construct the facility in stages, using a combination of traditional contract delivery and prisoners enrolled in an accredited vocational training program. The prison farm and work camp proposal would provide direct opportunities for the region with an expected 54 jobs on site once fully operational.
The new prison facilities being delivered through the new era are built on a $23.6m infrastructure program already rolled out in Darwin in Alice Springs Correctional Centres. The works included 100 extra beds in Alice Springs, comprised of 52 low-security beds and 24 medium-security beds for male prisoners and a 24-bed multi-classification accommodation unit for female prisoners. An additional 148 beds were delivered in Darwin as well as upgrades and additions to medical, education and prisoner administration support services.
As members may be aware, prisoners engaged in the Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education vocational training constructed 24 of the 148 beds. The BIITE program is going from strength to strength and is doing great work in training our prisoners for future careers in the construction industry.
Sentencing options - to further support the central aim of more education, training and rehabilitation for offenders, the government will introduce tougher sentencing options for the courts. Community custody orders and community-based orders will give courts the power to order non-violent offenders into education, training, rehabilitation and work programs. It is not good enough for non-violent offenders to simply cool their heels and wait out their sentence in prison. These offenders need to pay back the community, get into rehabilitation and work.
Community custody orders will be a sentencing option for the courts for non-violent offenders facing imprisonment periods of less than 12 months. The courts will be able to order offenders to serve their custodial sentence outside prison, requiring them to attend rehabilitation and training programs, and participate in employment and community work. These sentences will be served under strict supervision by Corrections and offenders who breach their orders will face spending the remainder of their sentence in prison. The community-based orders will be available to courts dealing with low-level, non-violent offenders who are not facing an imprisonment period. The community-based orders will allow courts to mandate offenders’ participation in education, training and treatment programs.
Government will introduce legislation to support the new community custody orders and community-based orders next year. We understand this legislation needs supporting resources to deliver the programs on the ground. We will recruit an additional 31 Community Corrections Officers who will be stationed across the Territory in each of the regional centres - in the growth towns of Wadeye, Yuendumu and Lajamanu, and in Nhulunbuy and on Groote Eylandt.
Community work crews will be set up to deliver work programs linked to the orders in both urban and remote areas. The crews will be staffed by Community Corrections Officers trained in adult education and qualified to deliver and assess vocational training units. They will be based in Alice Springs and Darwin and will travel as required to centres such as Katherine, Tennant Creek, Oenpelli, Wadeye and Hermannsburg to deliver training and work programs. The community work crews will deliver projects focused on conservation and land management, small equipment operations and occupational health and safety.
We will not stop there; partnerships will also be established with registered training organisations, non-government organisations and shire councils to deliver education and training programs in support of new court orders. I am particularly excited about the opportunities which could grow from partnerships with the shire councils. A training partnership would allow shire councils to identify their skills shortage area to Corrections and allow Corrections to tailor their job training programs to meet these skills gaps. This will hopefully lead to offenders being able to transition into work on their release and break the cycle of re-offending. For the shire councils it will be the opportunity to grow their workforce with people who live in that community.
As a former educator, I cannot say enough about the importance of access to education and training in changing someone’s life. I am proud to say this government has boosted funding for prisoner education by $1m in 2009-10 to $1.93m. The boost in funding has allowed the expansion of education services, particularly for prisoners on remand and those serving a sentence of less than six months. I pay tribute to the hard-working teaching and support staff working in our correctional centres. NT Corrections has signed a memorandum of understanding with the Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education for a partnership on prisoner education and training and also purchases training from the Charles Darwin University.
There is a range of programs on offer in our gaols, including literacy and numeracy, life skills, white card for the construction industry, Certificates 1, 2 and 3 in construction and Certificate 1 in metal fabrication. We are focused on delivering programs which are value for money and provide real outcomes. We are focused on delivering programs which will make prisoners job ready when their sentence is up and will see that offenders are able to transition into employment and away from re-offending.
With regard to rehabilitation, there has been much debate in this House recently about this government’s significant package of reform to tackle alcohol abuse and related crime. With 72% of prisoners reporting their offence was committed under the influence of alcohol, rehabilitation is an important part of breaking the cycle of reoffending. Members will be aware that NT Corrections delivers a range of treatment and rehabilitation programs in our facilities including programs addressing alcohol and illicit drugs, Indigenous family violence, sex offender treatment and victim awareness.
The new era in Corrections delivers a significant investment in rehabilitation and targeted programs. A major component is an investment in infrastructure – an additional 45 supported accommodation and rehabilitation beds. We will build a new 20-bed supported accommodation and treatment centre in the Alice Springs Correctional Centre precinct. The centre will be operated by a non-government organisation with around-the-clock supervision of offenders. Driving offenders make up 25% of our prison population and serve an average of 75 days in gaol. That time frame makes it difficult to have prisoners undertake meaningful rehabilitation and training programs. Government wants to see these drivers in treatment and driver education.
Courts will be given the power to order driving offenders facing imprisonment of 12 months or less into an intensive driver offender program to be delivered at the supported accommodation and treatment centre. The program will deliver alcohol and other drug treatment, drink-driving education, driver licensing training and some mechanical training. Upon completion of the program offenders will be able to obtain their learner’s licence or have their disqualification period lifted under strict conditions such as the installation of an alcohol interlock device. The supported accommodation and treatment centre will also provide accommodation, alcohol and other drug treatment and links to jobs, health and other services.
About a quarter of the Territory’s prison population are remandees, that is, offenders refused bail and awaiting their court case. The supported accommodation and treatment centre will be used to divert remandees into treatment as appropriate. This will mean that offenders who need alcohol treatment rehabilitation will be able to start immediately instead of having to wait for their trial. Diverting remandees into alcohol treatment will also reduce the demand on prison beds. Construction of the centre and the start of its operation is flagged for the 2012-13 financial year. Supporting legislation will be amended next year so that time spent in the supported accommodation is equivalent to time on remand.
In support of the government’s alcohol reforms and the new community custody orders I outlined, we will work with the non-government sector to deliver an additional 25 alcohol and drug treatment beds. We will also build and provide ongoing funding for five beds in Alice Springs and in Darwin. We will build and fund 10 beds and fund an extra five beds to deliver a total of 15 beds in Katherine. These extra beds will greatly enhance the capacity of the sector to deliver residential and outreach programs. Construction of these beds will commence next financial year.
Ensuring community confidence and safety is an important facet of the new era in Corrections. The community and the courts rightly need to know that Corrections has the necessary tools to monitor the location and behaviour of offenders on home detention, community-based orders, and parole. Starting next year, two new electronic surveillance systems will be rolled out across the Territory. One element will be the ability to order offenders to wear electronic transmitters, most easily visualised as ankle bracelets, which will link to monitoring devices in the home, workplace, or other court-specified locations. Any breaches of orders in the offender’s behaviour or location will be registered through an alarm system to supervising Correctional officers. The monitoring system will be linked through the 24-hour control centre at the Alice Springs Correctional Centre. The system will be piloted in Darwin with 30 transmitters rolled out in 2011-12. It will be followed by the roll-out of a further 20 transmitters in Alice Springs in 2012-13. After the first two years, the program will be extensively assessed and will be rolled out further if it proves to suit Territory conditions.
The second electronic surveillance system will be the introduction of a voice recognition system for next year. Under the system, offenders can be required to report via a secure phone line in a predetermined location with electronic recognition of their voice. Voice recognition can operate through designated landlines or satellite phones, and can include additional elements such as a web camera. Voice recognition will be particularly beneficial in the monitoring of offenders in remote locations where it can be difficult to deliver face-to-face checks. NT Correctional Services is currently assessing the operation of voice recognition systems in other jurisdictions and will determine which elements are most suitable for the Territory’s conditions.
As with the electronic transmitters, the voice recognition system will be comprehensively assessed in the first two years of operation. The introduction of the new systems will be supported with a $3.8m injection into Community Corrections, including the recruitment of 10 extra staff. Legislation to support both new systems will be introduced in 2011.
It is widely recognised that the period immediately after release is one of the most crucial in breaking the cycle of reoffending. Links with housing, jobs, and support networks and services all play a role in helping an offender get their life back together. NT Corrections currently delivers a range of prisoner support programs as diverse as work-release placements, job find activities, family wellbeing, Centrelink and Medicare support, driver education, and reintegration and repatriation support.
To complement and enhance these programs, the new era in Corrections delivers stronger reintegration and post-release support measures. We will expand the Elders Visiting Program which supports prisoners to maintain links with their community and culture. There are now more than 20 elders working with prisoners in Alice Springs and Darwin Correctional Centres. Through the new era in Corrections, government will formalise the emerging role of the program in providing support for prisoners to help them reintegrate into their community.
Additional funding of $350 000 in 2011-12, $614 000 in 2012-13, and $845 000 in 2013-14 will help elders provide support such as mediation, liaison with probation officers and police, and the development of post-release plans. The expanded services will be focused on the Barkly, Katherine, and East Arnhem. They will be supported by Aboriginal Liaison Officers in the Katherine and Barkly region who will link in with the new work camps.
Commencing next financial year, we will also fund a program to provide post-release support and accommodation for prisoners. The program will be operated by a non-government organisation which will work with the Corrections staff to develop reintegration plans, including job and training opportunities and accommodation options. The program will also deliver funding support for halfway houses as needed.
The Territory’s high rate off reoffending makes it clear we cannot continue in the same way. The new era in Corrections is a period of real opportunity to turn that story around. I am confident that the new era in Corrections, with its focus on education, rehabilitation, and training will reduce prison numbers and break the cycle of reoffending.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, I say at the outset, and this will surprise the minister, not bad. I read this statement last night and I thought to myself, okay, this is a workable set of proposals. It picks up on many things this side of the House has been advocating for some time. It would be difficult for us to be critical of many of the programs outlined in this, when the inspiration for them perhaps came from the policy announcements we made in the last election. Consequently, I am glad this is a government which listens.
I am starting to think I am showing my age, because I still think of Berrimah as the new prison; I remember when Fannie Bay was operating. My goodness, have we not come a long way since Fannie Bay was operating because gosh, it was the mid-1970s, if memory serves me, or even early 1980s, when finally the Berrimah prison was opened and it was state-of-the-art for the time. Philosophies change and approaches change, but the Berrimah prison was a prison which did its job.
Further, I presume the reference to B Block is a reference to the maximum security block and I appreciate what the minister is saying; B Block is an unpleasant place and it is full of unpleasant people. People who spend time in B Block, especially if they have been imprisoned for a while, are not there because they have to be but because they need to be for other reasons. Even murderers can finally, although it takes them a few years, work their way out of maximum security and into other places in the gaol. I remember seeing Mr Crabbe about 15 years ago when I visited the Berrimah prison. He was convicted of the murder of five people when he drove his truck into the pub at Ayers Rock. He was working on a truck as a trustee of some sort. I am advised he has been a model prisoner since the day he went into prison; so, even people who have those sorts of things against them can work their way out of maximum security, given enough time.
The reality of what is happening at the moment will probably make the new prison inevitable, in spite of the policies of this side of the House prior to the last Territory election. The truth is that, should the government go full term, this thing will be under construction during the next election. I will not be flagging that we would stop construction on a building which is half built should there be a change of government. We have to be realistic that the new prison is inevitable, so it is now necessary to talk about what this new building does.
What I am disappointed not to hear from the minister about and would like to hear more about, perhaps from other members, is how the classification system which will be used in the prison is going to affect its design. I have spoken to Ken Middlebrook on a couple of occasions and I thank him for the advice he has given to me. Mr Middlebrook is a competent man and he is quite dedicated to the cause he has set himself. I am also grateful that the minister does what Mr Middlebrook tells him to do, and I will return to that issue shortly. I do not agree with everything in Mr Middlebrook’s philosophy but not all people will agree on everything. I am told he has had the shackling hook points removed from various points around the prison. He has said handcuffs will no longer be available for prison officers to wear on their belts and I have been advised by other people that the D-shackles have been removed from some of the restraint beds. The advice I have received in relation to other forms of restraint being introduced into the prison I do not have a major problem with, but I believe things like shackling points and the D-shackles on restraint beds can stay there and if prison officers believe they get greater security out of handcuffs then so be it. The prison officers should be at the top of mind when it comes to work safety and work practices in these places. If they feel they would be safer with handcuffs then we can trust their judgement.
However, those are minor points of difference with Mr Middlebrook and this government. I would not declare my relationship with him as being poor as a consequence of that. I appreciated his forthrightness and his comments to me. We will differ over those minor points and I will continue to look forward to a productive working relationship with him should I become the Attorney-General and minister for prisons in the Northern Territory government.
I did raise the issue of the classification system with Mr Middlebrook, specifically because I think it affects the design of prisons. I am reassured to hear it is an issue to which Mr Middlebrook has turned his attention. You can see that philosophy working its way through the rest of these programs.
I pause briefly to digress on one issue, the concept of therapeutic jurisprudence which is working its way into government policies. As I have said in the past, I am not intrinsically against therapeutic jurisprudence; I just hope that its approach, when applied, is applied in consistence with its philosophy. What I have seen on other occasions in other places, particularly in the courts and in the pre-gaoling environment, is that whilst there is a strong desire to adhere its principles, in practice it is done quite differently. I visited the Credit Courts and watched them in action, and the SMART courts will be a variant form of the Credit Courts and the Alcohol Courts and they will have this therapeutic component.
I do not essentially subscribe to the philosophy of therapeutic jurisprudence that the contact with authority figures should necessarily be a non-negative experience for the people who have those contacts. I have no problem if people have a negative experience with police officers, courts or prisons. I hope, however, that the prison is not so onerous that it would make the experience necessarily negative.
There is still room in our system of law for the concept of punishment. Therapeutic jurisprudence does not necessarily embrace that idea. The law should be dealing with people firmly, but I agree with this component of the minister’s speech: in managing prisoners to punish and do nothing else would be a shortcoming. It is something I will keep my eye on, particularly in relation to how the prison operates. I hope people come out of it better people than when they go into it. That is exactly what the minister is trying to achieve.
These programs are necessary programs. We hope there is education but I hope that minister over there convinces the Chief Minister that other things need to happen, particularly with the Land Rights Act. This is my hoary, old chestnut which I keep going back to: it would be so much better if the jobs this minister wants to train people to do were available in the communities of Wadeye and Yuendumu because there are private sector companies using the labour which comes out of prisons, or wherever else - I would prefer if it did not come out of prisons - so they come out of prison and there is a job for them. Would it not be a good thing if we trained people for jobs and they could actually do those jobs in their own communities because private investment could reach those communities?
That is one of the shortcomings of the Land Rights Act. It is investment adverse. That can be fixed; it can be done with the right approach by the land councils - I am hearing some very positive things from the land councils in relation to this - but also with the right approach to amendments to the Land Rights Act which would enable that sort of thing to occur.
If I was part of a government that had the Land Rights Act patriated to it I would not be charging through it and trying to change it because I want to deprive Aboriginal people of their land rights. That is an ancient battle which has been had. I would change the Land Rights Act to achieve the outcomes other forms of land title can achieve, namely jobs creation and those sorts of things, so when a person comes out of a prison and goes back to Yuendumu they go to the notice board in the community and there are 10, 20, 30 jobs available. That would do something about the recidivism rate.
The approaches to education are useful and necessary. It is not just a question of doing time. I noticed the minister said: ‘We are going to continue to be tough on crime.’ I know it is the sort of mantra you have to chant as a member of parliament as people expect you to be tough on crime. But people now think, not only are we tough on crime but we are going to do something while those people are inside the can.
At the last Territory election that is exactly what the Country Liberals ran as a policy. We did the unusual thing of making political advertisements 30 seconds long. The reason we chose to do that was because we had a message: ‘Yes, we will be tough on crime but when you go inside the can there will be something that happens inside’. The old chest beating of: ‘We are going to be tough on crime. We are going to throw them all in the slammer’, was a message we did not want to send out. We wanted to send out: ‘When you get done and you go to prison something will happen while you are there’. We had to buy 30 second slots. It took us much longer but it nearly got us from four seats into government because it was a positive message which resonated in the community and this government has picked up on it.
That positive message was always there under the former government. There was a place called Wildman River and there was the prison farm at Gunn Point - all of those things were quite effective. Every so often a prisoner would bolt from Gunn Point. Big deal, because where would they run to? Would they go to Rio de Janeiro and move into Ronnie Biggs’ old house now that he has vacated it? Not likely! They would go back to Wadeye or Yuendumu. They are not that hard to pick up and once you have found them they go into the big house proper and that is the last time they run away. But that is part of the process we have to turn our minds to and lower security prisons will, once in a blue moon, produce runaways. We know the cottages outside the prison fence in Alice Springs have produced people who have gone AWOL but the risk of that is, once you get picked up, you end up back inside the big house and you do not get to see the outside anymore, so it is a very substantial loss of privileges.
Having digressed, I will return to the issue of classifications. One of the things I wanted to see when I spoke to Ken Middlebrook - again I thank him and look forward to contact from the minister’s office as to when this will be done - was how the classification system works. I have been promised a copy of the classification manual and I still have not received it. I wonder if the minister can ensure that manual is forwarded to me as promised - I will deal with it as a confidential document - and the other document I asked for during that briefing more recently. If those documents can find their way to me, I would be obliged, minister. I want to get my head around this classification system because therein lies the physical structure of your building.
At the moment, I am unsatisfied that the classification system is effective. It causes delays which mean those prisoners who default through the classification system to maximum security take up maximum security space which may not be needed. We hear that a quarter of our prison population is in remand so if we have a classification system which can even deal with remand prisoners – we know many of these guys because, as the minister said, half of these guys have been in the prison within the last two years. So we know who these people are. What I hope is that we find a quicker way to classify remand prisoners; otherwise they end up in maximum security. I suspect most of them do not need to be there which means you are building a maximum security section which is larger than it has to be because of the systems which are in place. I was heartened and gratified that this was a front-and-centre issue for Mr Middlebrook.
This was one of the reasons I wanted to do a shift at the prison. I want to see what happens there. As much as I respect Mr Middlebrook, I am not just going to take his word for it. I have always said we have to think critically, even about the advice we receive from our trusted advisors. Just because they say something does not necessarily mean they have given you the whole picture. I do not think it is an unreasonable request. The minister had a little cheap shot written into the speech. I do not know if he insisted upon that or not; it does not really matter. That is why I want to get engaged. I ask the minister to do the same thing - spend a shift down there. It is not because I am an ex-police officer. I will be going out, hopefully, with the taxis between 2 am and 6 am in the not-so-distant future because I want to see what they have to go through on Mitchell Street between those hours.
The Taxi Council has said: ‘Absolutely, we will make it available to you’. I have contacted a local cab driver I know. He wants me to go out into his highly dangerous work environment. He can offer me no protection. What concerns me is that I raised the issue of doing a shift with Mr Middlebrook when I first visited the prison to look at one of the work programs - by the way it was a good work program which they are running with Batchelor College; it was really impressive and I hope to see more of that sort of thing through the programs the minister is talking about – Mr Middlebrook listened to me and took that away. I heard from inside the department the determination had been made and the answer would be no, prior to me making the application. It was about a week-and-a-half by the time I got around to writing to the minister’s office and I had already heard I would be refused the opportunity. I asked the minister’s office anyhow and was refused the opportunity. I thought to myself: ‘Bother’ because surely the minister can make a decision for himself.
I am not accusing Mr Middlebrook of anything; I am simply saying he discussed it with some of his colleagues and they came to the determination that when the inquiry was received the answer would be no. Even before I spoke to the minister’s office I heard that was what was going to happen. I was not in the least bit surprised when I was told. In fact, I had a media release ready, complaining that I, as the shadow Corrections minister, was not allowed to look at how a prison operates by working with the prison officers.
The Prison Officers’ Association told me it does not have a problem with it. I do not see what the minister’s problem is. This business about occupational health and safety – nuts! Nuts to that; it is not true. I would do nothing other than walk behind the people I was told to walk behind, stay behind the doors I was told to stay behind. I just wanted an opportunity to speak to workers in the workplace.
It makes me ask the question: does the minister take these opportunities, or does he just sit in the office and wait for these bits of paper to arrive on his desk? ‘Minister, it is time for you to make the ministerial statement about a new era in Corrections’, and the minister dutifully walks in here, rattles off all the numbers which have been very well written by whoever in the department provided this information. The minister trots it out, reads it out, and sits down again.
But how involved is he? He has travelled to all of these places and been shown these things but has he done homework on how our prison system has developed? Has he read Michel Foucault, a fellow I have little time for as a philosopher but, nevertheless, his is the seminal work, for some reason, on the nature of custody as far back in the 1800s as the prison in Ghent in Belgium where prison philosophy changed over time. What about places like Newgate Prison and understanding how those prisons became desperate places? We can even take lessons from 200 or 300 years ago from these debtor’s prisons, as they were known at the time. All of these things, as time passes, help you create a picture of the nature of custody and what custody is all about.
What psychological works have been read and explored by the minister on what custody does to people at the psychological level? Is the presence of a shackling point in a prison wall really that offensive to the psyche of a prisoner? Some people would say it is; others say it is not. It is worth exploring all of these things and this can all be done independently of the department.
The minister has personal staff who can do much of this research for him. I urge him not only to rely on the department but to ask the personal staff to do some homework. Get another perspective of it from someone who has not spent their whole life in the system. Shock, horror, I wonder if the minister has sat down and had coffee with half-a-dozen prisoners, away from the prison guards and the management, and said to the prisoners: ‘All right, what are your issues? Tell me about them’. They are in there for committing crimes but, generally speaking, once they are off the turps they are not so bad and you can deal with them. I recommend that. I would love to have that opportunity, but I suspect, for whatever reason, I would be told I am not allowed to speak to the prisoners. Gosh, I cannot even speak to the prison officers. I can tell the prison hierarchy that should there be a change of government and I become the minister for prisons, these things will occur. I will speak to prison officers and prisoners and will try to get my head around these issues.
The nature of custody concerns me, particularly in light of things like the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. There is still a great deal of valuable material in that Royal Commission and it is worth boning up on to get a picture. It also enables you to ask more critical questions of the people around you who have the ideas.
In a briefing in the absence of Mr Middlebrook, I asked if the classifications could be done better. To my surprise, the public servant, who will remain nameless, told me it was a stupid question: of course it can be done better. But it still did not deal with the issue, which is why I was so much more satisfied with Mr Middlebrook’s response because he understood that everything he constructs in the prison system turns on the ability to administer it effectively. The more effective the administration, the more flexible you can be with the buildings.
I turn my attention to the work camps at Katherine and Tennant Creek. I believe Tracker Tilmouth had much to do with pushing the matter at Tennant Creek, and that is a good idea. The idea of the Katherine location was well flagged by the Country Liberals prior to the last election because of our habitual drunks policy. We know the prison population will increase by about 300 if that policy - dare I say, when, that policy sees the light of day - because we know the 35 000 apprehensions for public drunkenness will lead very quickly to an increase of our prison population. They will not be high-security prisoners; we know where we are going to put them, we signalled Katherine and signalled an institution very much along the lines the minister has described, to do very similar things. We will use the NGOs, and even use them inside the prison system to deliver these sorts of services.
The minister, quite rightly, pointed out that the NGOs have a role when prisoners leave prison, but the NGOs can have a role prior to prisoners leaving prison, particularly when you are trying to do something like deal with 250 to 300 habitual drunks, which is about the number of drunks we have which are constantly in our faces, on our streets and those sorts of things. The government’s response to those people has been to talk about SMART Courts and alcohol management plans and those sorts of things; they have a certain merit, but they end up punishing the community as a whole, particularly when you have to produce photo ID every time you buy booze.
Our side of the House believes people who show the conduct are the people who are directly responsible and the rest of the community should remain as unmolested as possible to go about their lawful business - but I understand that will lead to an increase of 250 to 300 prisoners. That is just the way it is and, should we form a government, Mr Middlebrook should prepare himself for that increase in his prison population. That is the nature of what we will do, but the philosophy the government is talking about reflects the philosophy of the policy we took to the last election. Once you are inside - and it will not be a high-security prison - we are talking about habitual drunks who will spend three months at a time in our institution and many of them will be drying out for the first week or two and they will be in an environment where they will be very pliant. These people are traditionally, off the booze, not bad people. What we propose to use is a hybrid between the health system, that is, a health intervention, and the criminal justice system as a vehicle to get them there. That is something the government has picked up on and is using. I acknowledge that is not too bad.
All in all, I am not disappointed with the statement. There are some aspects I would have liked to have heard more about, particularly the classification of prisoners; it is a very important issue. But, as a general set of comments, there is nothing in here that a CLP-led government would necessarily have any major problems with. We acknowledge this is early days and there will be problems along the way. The bracelets may not work; the work camps may have a few problems here and there, who knows? I agree with the assertion the minister made that you cannot keep doing the same thing and expect a different result.
In the spirit of fairness and reasonableness I offer these comments to the minister. He may choose to make further comment later or seek for one of his colleagues to make comment. I continue to request the possibility of working shift there. I do not want to find the dirt and make trouble. I want to find out from the prison officers, away from their management, what they are thinking on a day-to-day basis, to inform myself. I do not want to be cute about it, I do not want to be smart about it; if I have to sign a confidentiality agreement, I will. I want to see how the system works and I want to see what the problems are with the system. If you need to convince me that we need a new gaol then let me see the old one in detail, how it works with all of its shortcomings. I do not think the prison will be that exposed to political comment simply because I have spent eight hours there talking with the prison officers.
Madam Speaker, those are my comments. I thank the minister for bringing this statement to the House.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I support the minister for Corrections and our government’s investment in a new era in Corrections. The reform is about reducing recidivism; the rate is too high with 47% of offenders back in gaol within two years, compared to 39% nationally. This reform is about providing contemporary facilities to increase rehabilitation options to help break the cycle of crime. The Berrimah prison is well past its use-by date and this government has announced a new prison will be built at Holtze. We have considered the advice of experts and recognise that a greenfield site is a necessary investment to provide the tools needed for prisoner rehabilitation.
The reforms are designed also to tackle alcohol-related crime. Alcohol-related crime has a devastating effect on our community and we see the flow-on effect through our prisons. We know 60% of all assaults and 67% of all domestic violence incidents in the Territory are alcohol related. Surveys also show that 72% of Territory prisoners stated their offence was committed under the influence of alcohol. That is why we are leading reforms to turn off the tap to problem drinkers who cause violence and mandate treatment.
Since we came to government we have toughened laws and increased police resources. As a result, our prison numbers have grown and we make no apology for this. If you break the law you face tough consequences. We are focused on reducing the repeat offences - reducing recidivism.
Indigenous offenders make up the majority of prisoners. In fact, 82% of prisoners are Indigenous and many have low numeracy and literacy skills and few job prospects. This government is investing in education and training, housing and health in the bush to turn this around. As mentioned before, we are also tackling alcohol misuse and associated crime. The violent crime we see is a result of chronic alcohol misuse and resultant family dysfunction which often results in violence. We are building A Working Future for Indigenous Territorians to turn around the level of disadvantage and the sense of hopelessness and provide a sense of hope for the future, away from a life of crime and dysfunction.
I understand the community is concerned about sentencing and ensuring punishments handed down by the court reflect our community’s sentiment and the law. The Australian Bureau of Statistics publishes data on sentencing around the country. This data shows that Territory courts are the toughest courts in the country, handing down the highest proportion of imprisonment sentences by far in all levels of the court. Eighty-six per cent of defendants proven guilty in the Northern Territory Supreme Court received an imprisonment sentence compared with 66% in comparative courts nationally. The Northern Territory Magistrates Court handed down imprisonment sentences to 24% of defendants proven guilty compared with 5% nationally.
The Northern Territory Children’s Court handed down imprisonment sentences to 17% of defendants proven guilty compared with 7% nationally, and for defendants proven guilty with an assault offence, 92% were given an imprisonment sentence in the Supreme Court, 71% in Magistrates Courts and 35% in Children’s Courts. The corresponding national figures are 68% in the higher courts, 18% in Magistrates Courts and 15% in Children’s Courts.
Our tough new laws are there so first time offenders convicted of certain violent offences will have to serve a term of imprisonment. This law has resulted in more first time offenders spending time in gaol. Repeat offenders are subject to mandatory imprisonment for serious violent offences. Repeat breaches of domestic violence orders also result in mandatory imprisonment. This government has introduced tough new laws regarding bail for serious violent offenders which have resulted in more offenders being held in our gaols. We recognise, under this new era in Corrections, we will provide the courts with another tool in their tool kit. The courts and community can be confident that, once sentenced, offenders will not just sit back and do their time. There will be rehabilitation, treatment and education and there will be hard work to be done by these offenders.
We are providing the courts with tougher sentencing options with the new community custody orders and community-based orders at their disposal. The community custody orders will be a new sentencing option for non-violent offenders facing an imprisonment period of less than 12 months. Courts will be able to order offenders to serve their custodial sentences outside prison under strict supervision by Corrections and require them to attend rehabilitation and training programs and participate in employment and community work. New community-based orders will be available to courts dealing with low-level offenders who are not facing an imprisonment period. Both community-based orders and community custody orders will allow courts to mandate offenders’ participation in education, training and treatment programs.
An additional 31 Community Corrections Officers will be recruited and stationed across the Territory in each of the regional centres including the growth towns of Wadeye, Yuendumu, Lajamanu and in Nhulunbuy and on Groote Eylandt. New community work crews will be established to deliver work programs in urban and remote areas in connection with the orders.
New electronic surveillance measures will give correctional staff the ability to monitor the location and behaviour of offenders on community-based orders, home detention and parole. A voice recognition system will be introduced to tighten the control measures for offenders and parolees serving their sentence in remote communities.
The government will deliver an extra 45 supported accommodation and rehabilitation beds to get offenders into treatment and break the cycle of recidivism. Our alcohol reforms are out in the community by means of the consultation period. They will be complementary to the reforms outlined in the new era in Corrections. It is clear that alcohol misuse is having a devastating impact on our community and on Territorians; this is why the commitment to providing rehabilitation and treatment within the Corrections system in this new era in Corrections is vital.
The new SMART Court will also mean that more people who have committed criminal offences which are related to alcohol or drug problems will be accessing treatment programs while still being punished for their criminal offending. The government will construct a 20-bed multipurpose, supported accommodation and treatment centre adjacent to the Alice Springs gaol, creating a justice precinct. A key element of the new supported accommodation and treatment centre will be the delivery of an intensive driving offender program. Driving offenders make up about 25% of the prison population - about half for drink-driving and the other half for licensing infringements.
Courts will be given the power to order driving offenders facing imprisonment of 12 months or less into the new program which will include alcohol and other drug treatment and therapeutic intervention, drink-driving education, a mechanical workshop, and driver licensing training.
The Elders Visiting Program will be expanded to deliver a more structured role in offender reintegration. This great program commenced in 2004 to help prisoners maintain links with community and culture. The program has grown to have more than 20 elders offering support in Alice Springs and Darwin Correctional Centres. A new post-release support program will be established to provide post-release support and accommodation for prisoners at the end of their sentence.
This government is taking action on alcohol, and action to reduce recidivism. We believe our community will benefit. The government has put in place some of the toughest measures in Australia to restrict alcohol supply and consumption. We are cracking down on alcohol misuse and those who commit crimes when affected by alcohol. As you know, we are proposing to ban problem drinkers from purchasing alcohol through the banned drinker register. The opposition has a lock-‘em-up attitude when it comes to the alcohol problem in our community. We have made a clear distinction between people who are committing criminal offences and those who simply have a health program.
Madam Speaker, I commend the Minister for Correctional Services for this statement and his effort in putting this together. It is the most significant change in Corrections in the history of the Territory. It is a change which takes Corrections in the Territory into the modern era of Corrections. It is a bold and clear move by the government to ensure we reduce recidivism whilst being tough on anyone breaking the law.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Speaker, I support the Minister for Correctional Services’ statement on the new era in Corrections. The Northern Territory has the highest rate of incarceration of any jurisdiction in Australia. It is an unfortunate fact that the prison population has continued to grow in recent years.
The numbers are alarming. In 2008-09, over 3000 adults were released from custody in the Northern Territory. While imprisonment is intended to reduce crime, it is of particular concern that almost half of all Northern Territory prisoners will return to prison at some time. Clearly, there is scope to increase opportunities to help prisoners not to reoffend. The new era in Corrections recognises the challenges experienced by people leaving prison: social isolation, rejection by family, poor health, and unemployment, which can lead to reoffending.
This new strategy can positively influence behaviour change and increase opportunities for prisoners to re-enter the broader community through a range of integrated approaches. These will include treatment and rehabilitation, education and training, and longer-term support. A key part of this strategy will be the development of new sentencing options, coupled with new residential alcohol and other drugs services for those with substance misuse problems.
My Department of Health and Families will, therefore, work closely with NT Correctional Services to enhance the capacity of the residential drug and alcohol treatment services in the major centres of the Northern Territory. This additional capacity will be in existing alcohol and other drugs services, all to be managed by these agencies. Irrespective of whether the increased capacity will be in existing services or in new dedicated facilities, the Department of Health and Families will ensure the programs provided for offenders are tailored to meet their needs so they have a greater likelihood of success.
As part of the new era in Corrections, funding of additional alcohol and other drugs treatment beds will be delivered to support the community custody orders. Five new residential places will become available in Darwin in early 2012. Funding has been provided in Kalano in Katherine for five places for offenders with a further 10 beds to become available progressively for the community sector starting in early 2012. In Alice Springs, five beds will also be provided by a non-government agency in early 2012, with a further 20 beds becoming available in 2013. The new residential programs will be for offenders who are assessed as likely to benefit and are then directed by the court to participate in individual, tailored drug treatment and rehabilitation programs, education, training, and related interventions.
These changes will complement the proposed alcohol reforms currently being considered which include establishing a Substance Misuse Assessment and Referral Court, banning problem drinkers from buying takeaway alcohol, introducing mandatory rehabilitation for problem drinkers, and enhancing treatment and rehabilitation options for problem drinkers. The changes will also build on the Alcohol and Other Drugs Prison In-Reach Program which has been operating for almost two years. This service provides alcohol and other drugs interventions and treatment and is available for all male and female prisoners at the Darwin Correctional Centre and the Don Dale Juvenile Detention Centre. The skilled team includes a counsellor, psychologist, and social support workers.
The program enables prisoners to receive support services in prison and ongoing counselling when they are released from prison, which means they do not need to be assessed multiple times by a variety of services before they are released. The comprehensive program engages clients in the process of change, using motivational interviewing and brief interventions, and matches clients to the most appropriate agencies to address their needs. The prison in-reach program also works closely with the Department of Justice’s prison programs to reduce the recidivism rates of short-term prisoners by giving them skills, strategies and links to support agencies. In 2009-10, the program provided 506 episodes of care, almost all of which were for alcohol-related assessment, counselling and group work. Most of these were for adult offenders. This is not soft on crime, these are pragmatic approaches aimed at breaking the cycle of offending and reoffending by providing ways out of a life of crime and reintegration into the community. The in-reach program will be available in Alice Springs prison under the new era in Corrections.
While the new era initiatives are aimed at providing new options in intervention, support and rehabilitation of adults and reducing adult offending rates across the Northern Territory, there is an equal commitment to ensuring the juvenile justice system and the Territory’s juvenile offending rates are regularly scrutinised and, if necessary, reformed. With this call in mind, the Northern Territory government, with input from key agencies such as the Department of Health and Families, has committed to considering a new model for a strategic approach to all aspects of our juvenile justice system.
Addressing mental health issues in prisons requires different levels of care, and the Northern Territory government has incorporated these needs in the development of a Health-managed, 36-bed mental health and behaviour management unit which will be built adjacent to the new Doug Owston Correctional Centre at Holtze. The unit will have the capacity to provide a range of environments within a single facility for people with mental illness or cognitive disability. The flexible design of the unit can be configured to meet the needs of residents who require low-, medium- or high-security environments. There will be separate accommodation arrangements for men and women, and facilities which promote rehabilitation and cultural practices. The emphasis is on establishing an adaptable, multifunctional environment which can be reconfigured to meet the needs of the resident population at any given time.
This model will provide effective care to this population group in a safe, humane and secure environment. The facility will be managed and staffed by the Department of Health and Families, and will operate as a Health facility rather than a Correctional facility.
A formal referral system will be established which may be initiated from the court system, Correctional facilities, the police, mental health or disability services. Individuals who will be accommodated include persons subject to custodial supervision orders under Part 2A of the Criminal Code, sentenced or remanded prisoners who have a mental illness and require a sub-acute level of care, and prisoners with cognitive disabilities who would benefit from a transfer to the facility for a period of time. The length of stay may vary from a few days to extended periods of time, subject to custodial supervision orders. The facility will have a clearly articulated relationship with primary health care services. Other special services will include alcohol and other drugs services and programs provided in prisons, such as education and vocational training. Interventions undertaken within the facility will include assessment and treatment, behavioural management, rehabilitation, and community reintegration programs, with the aim of promoting recovery where possible and minimising the risk of reoffending.
The new era in Corrections recognises the importance of changing the way we manage the underlying issues, such as alcohol and other drugs misuse, and mental health problems, which often contribute to a custodial sentence. The new era in Corrections offers opportunities to make positive changes and enable prisoners to gain skills, improve their self-esteem and learn to manage their addictions and mental health problems.
Madam Speaker, the development of low-security sites in the Katherine and Barkly work camps will provide options to gain and/or increase work skills in regional settings, and will contribute to the health and wellbeing of a predominantly Indigenous group. These new pathways will allow people to break their offending and reoffending lifestyles, transition to different lifestyles and become productive Territorians.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the statement. I know the minister has done a great deal of work in putting together a new era in Corrections - working in cooperation with the Independent member for Nelson - which has included visits interstate as well as conversations locally with many experts in the area about the best way to manage our prison population into the future.
The Fannie Bay Gaol, one of the original Territory prisons, is in my electorate. It is a fantastic heritage site now. The new era will move on from the days of the Fannie Bay Gaol. As I have said in this House before, it seems that everyone was released from Fannie Bay Gaol over the years. When it was bombed or blown away in the cyclone they opened the doors and let the prisoners out - an interesting way to handle prisoners but when a crisis hits you, you need to do those things.
With a new era in Corrections we are looking at how we can work with prisoners to reduce recidivism. Much of what we want to do is work with people, teach them the basics of whatever is preventing them resuming a life which we would consider to be normal and not a life of crime. That is what we need to work on and we have always had that intention as a government. We know that often you have to keep looking for ways to do things better. This is one of those things which we do look at and think about how we can do a better job. We have a minister who is full of enthusiasm and energy, and is working with the member for Nelson and others. There is a very good department - very good people there who also have a passion for this area. We want to see Territorians rehabilitated, able to return to society and contribute to society - get a job, earn a crust, start a family, do the normal things. We do not want people leaving prison and returning to crime.
We have a minister with a clear policy, passion and intent and he has brought to the House a statement which encapsulates much of that. I know he has an electorate interest in the work camp in Barkly as well. That comes from a solid policy basis of what we want to do there. We have a minister who is tackling this area with a great deal of energy. There are things we can do better and we want to make sure prisoners can contribute to society when they leave prison. That is what everyone wants. We do not want people going into prison, learning the wrong life skills, coming out and returning to a life of crime. We want people who contribute to society.
There are many people who go to prison and say: ‘What have I done with my life? How do I break the cycle of offending?’ In prison they can have an opportunity – there is intervention in the system so we have them, they are there, they want to do things differently. We can talk to them. There is a whole bunch of different ways that can happen. Talking to people who have participated in the jackeroo program where the kids were on horses and learning how to work in the cattle industry, that was a fantastic way for people to realise there is more to life than what they were doing which was what led them to end up in prison in the first place.
We do want a new era in Corrections. We want a new era in the way people interact with society. It is a very important thing that we want to do. We want to save Territorians. It is about Territorians. Our greatest resource is our people and, unfortunately, too many of our people are going to prison. We have too many people doing the wrong thing and going to gaol. We have a very high incarceration rate. Our police are very good at catching people, getting them to the courts, and the courts are putting them in gaol. We want to stop it; we want to reduce the recidivism rate and break the cycle of re-offending. We want a new era in Corrections. We want people who go to prison to be rehabilitated and become ordinary members of society.
It is really important. Our people are our greatest resources. We have a very big Territory. We have a great deal of land and minerals but we do not have enough people and we have to look after them. We have to make sure we keep the ones we have and that they can contribute. There are many policy areas where we want to tackle that with health and education. We are talking about a new era in Corrections and it is in that new era where we want to work out how we can save the people who are entering our prison system.
I thank the minister for the energy and passion he has put into this. You only have to hear him speak to know he is energised by the challenge, and it is a very confronting challenge. I know he has a - soul mate may be the wrong word - but he has the Independent member for Nelson who is also very keen to see us make ground in this area and work with Territorians who have done the wrong thing but are capable of starting afresh. That is what we want to achieve with our new era in Corrections.
Madam Speaker, I commend the statement to the House and thank the minister for bringing it on.
Ms McCARTHY (Local Government): Madam Speaker, I support this statement. It is important that this House has the opportunity to look at where we are going in our vision with Correctional Services, especially as my colleague speaks passionately about the new era in Corrections.
As a Yanyuwa woman from the Gulf of Carpentaria, I know with my own family and clan groups the visiting opportunities we have for families to talk to those in prison – it is well known that there are far too many family members in our correctional services in Darwin and Alice Springs. Each bush member could look at that but I can look at it from personal experience. On a number of the visits I have had to the prison over the years, both in a formal capacity and in a personal capacity, I have unfortunately seen too many of my extended family in the prison system.
It is absolutely pivotal that our government focuses on the plans we have for the regions. With the work I am doing with A Working Future across the Northern Territory we recognise - as we do in the need for child protection and improving the issue of neglect of our children - we have to focus on the regions within our government and the vision we have for the Northern Territory. We have to focus on building not only our families but the infrastructure across the regions to make a real generational difference in the lives of Indigenous Territorians.
That is why part of the new era in Corrections is so much about the massive reform process we are embarking on in A Working Future and the 20 growth towns, but also in economic development. All of this is combined in creating a choice for people who live in the bush, creating opportunities where they can go into reasonable employment, earn considerable amounts of money to be able to look after their families and have the choice of where they live. Too many Indigenous people are in our prison system and we know we have to work on this in a whole-of-government way across agencies and in a collaborative effort.
Our commitment to a safer Territory has seen an increase in the Police, Fire and Emergency Services budget by more than 126% since 2001; an extra 399 police officers across the Northern Territory since 2002; and in Budget 2010-11, $27m was made available for policing in 18 of our remote communities. That is a key part of A Working Future.
We have also made the reporting of domestic violence mandatory and we have invested $15m over three years to tackle family violence. Our strong stance against violence is also about social and attitudinal change. Our government stands here, it stands out there and it says it will not tolerate any form of violence. We have taken a very bold and brave step in ensuring the reporting of domestic violence is mandatory. On top of this, since January 2009, we have created 19 safe places across 15 remote communities in partnership with the Australian government.
The Henderson government’s new package of alcohol reforms will also go further in tackling violence and antisocial behaviour. These are some of the significant investments our government has made to ensure the safety and security of all Territorians. This new era in Corrections is the next step in building communities which are safe for everyone to enjoy.
The Minister for Correctional Services presented this House with stark statistics. The Territory imprisonment rate is, on a per capita basis, about six times the national average. These statistics paint a bleak picture. However, as the former NT Chief Magistrate, Jenny Blokland, explained to Stateline in September last year, these statistics are partly a reflection of increased policing in the Northern Territory, particularly in remote areas. Jenny Blokland told Stateline:
The growth in police numbers in the bush means people are now paying the price for offences which previously might have gone undetected. This is reflected in the statistics.
On a positive note, I was at Numbulwar on Friday and one of the early things I had to do as member for Arnhem was to be a part of the opening of the police hub at Numbulwar. It has made a tremendous, positive difference in the safety, of women and children in particular, but to all in the community.
In 2009, the Senate Select Committee on Regional and Remote Indigenous Communities identified that Northern Territory court lists have increased and the increases in charges have been for relatively minor types of offending. The main increases have been seen in the following three types of offences in the 12 months to 30 June 2008: traffic offences; offences against Justice, breach of domestic violence orders, breached bail, escaped custody and breach of orders; and public order offences.
While the increased police presence is improving the level of safety in our regions, it is also placing greater pressure on our prison system. We also recognise that imprisonment is extremely costly. It is costly in the monetary value of infrastructure, and operational costs and the social and human costs of men and women who need the support to come out of the system and have a chance to rehabilitate and have a future.
In March this year, the Senate Select Committee on Regional and Remote Indigenous Communities reported that, nationally, the cost of keeping an adult in prison for a year is approximately $100 000. On top of this, Territory families and communities bear the social costs of imprisonment. This is why the Henderson government is working to break the cycle of reoffending and reduce prison numbers in the new era in Corrections. The new era in Corrections will substantially increase access to effective prison rehabilitation and post-release programs, and programs which will provide alternatives to imprisonment for less serious offenders. These initiatives align with the Northern Territory Law Society’s alcohol policy released last week which recommends increased access to effective prison rehabilitation and post-release programs, and programs which provide alternatives to imprisonment for less serious offenders.
This is about stopping the revolving door in and out of prison by creating the opportunity for a better life outside prison and supporting successful reintegration into the community. The establishment of a supported accommodation and treatment centre, together with an additional 45 supported accommodation and rehabilitation beds and the introduction of a new post-release support program, will be central to achieving this goal.
These initiatives align with a key message from the Little Children are Sacred report, namely, that rehabilitation programs are required in prison and within the community as important preventative measures to reduce recidivism and the inter-generational cycle of offending. That is a key message here. One of the common questions I hear as I travel through Arnhem Land and the other regions across the Northern Territory is: what happens to a prisoner when they come home? What has changed in their family circumstances? What has changed in their community circumstances?
This is something our government is very focused on when we look at the other programs of reform we are embarking on in the local implementation plans across the 20 growth towns and the Futures Forums we are holding in 2011 – how are these growth towns going to grow, what is the focus? What I hear in the conversations I have is how do we prevent people from going into the justice system and assist those who have come out.
As the Minister for Correctional Services has told the House, the supported accommodation and treatment centre will provide accommodation, alcohol and other drugs treatment, and work opportunities, as well as an intensive driver offender program. The intensive driver offender program will provide a community-based alternative to imprisonment for driving offenders, who currently make up about 25% of the Northern Territory prison population.
The supported accommodation and treatment centre at Alice Springs will also be used to divert people on remand into treatment to begin rehabilitation while they await trial. The introduction of a new post-release support program as part of a new era in Corrections will provide post-release support and halfway-house accommodation for prisoners at the end of their sentences. Importantly, program staff will work with prison officers and reintegration staff on the development of reintegration plans for prisoners, including establishing links with support services, and job and training opportunities.
This post-release program is vital because, as of 30 June 2009, 73% of prisoners were unemployed at the time of incarceration. The new era in Corrections will also include infrastructure investment in a 36-bed secure mental health behavioural management facility as part of the new Doug Owston Correctional Centre. This facility will be managed by the Department of Health and Families and will provide a more appropriate and effective means of accommodating prisoners with mental health issues.
As Minister for Regional Development, I am pleased this government is also establishing a work camp in the Barkly region and is working toward the development of a prison farm and work camp in Katherine. These facilities will provide the bricks and mortar of our new approach to Corrections across the Northern Territory, stopping the revolving door in and out of prison by creating the opportunity for a better life outside prison, and supporting successful reintegration into the community by rehabilitating, re-educating and training prisoners to make them job ready. This focus on training and education is vital. Importantly, the Barkly and Katherine facilities will deliver work, education and vocational training opportunities for prisoners which are targeted at skills shortages in the surrounding regions.
As Minister for Indigenous Development and Local Government, I am also excited about the opportunities which could grow from partnerships with the shire councils in the new era in Corrections. Partnerships will be established with shire councils to deliver education and training programs in support of new community-based sentencing options for low-level, non-violent offenders not facing an imprisonment period. As the Minister for Correctional Services described to the House, training partnerships with the shires will allow shire councils to identify their skills shortages and Corrections to tailor their job training programs to meet these skills gaps.
To deliver these training programs, an additional 31 Community Corrections Officers will be recruited and stationed across the Northern Territory in each of the regional centres and in the growth towns of Wadeye, Yuendumu and Lajamanu. Community work crews based in Alice Springs and Darwin will also deliver training and work programs. These teams will travel as required to regional centres, such as Katherine and Tennant Creek, as well as the growth towns of Gunbalanya, Wadeye and Hermannsburg.
As Minister for Women’s Policy, I will highlight the considerable work undertaken by Correctional Services to improve conditions for women in prison. In 2007, the Office of Women’s Policy, in partnership with Correctional Services, undertook an analysis of the situation of women in the Darwin and Alice Springs Correctional Centres and made a series of recommendations. Northern Territory Correctional Services has subsequently developed a policy and action plan addressing the needs of female offenders in prison which guides and prioritises developments within the Alice Springs and Darwin Correctional Centres. As part of this policy and action plan, a women’s prisoner consultative group of elected women prisoners was created to provide information and input into issues of concern for women.
In addition, Correctional Services has provided increased access to education and training programs, including a deckhand course, building construction training, and a women’s only community services work party. Cognitive skills, self-esteem and life skills programs are now being delivered in the rehabilitation area. Critical new infrastructure has also been completed including additional housing, at-risk cells and visiting facilities. Simultaneously, 37 of the 41 Women in Prison recommendations made in the Ombudsman’s 2007-08 annual report have been completed and four are partially completed.
The implementation of these recommendations has included the development of the Female Prisoners in Prison policy, which is a commitment under our Building on our Strength women’s policy; the establishment of female community service work parties in Darwin and Alice Springs, an initiative which allows the women to give something back to the community, promotes rehabilitation, and engenders new skills; and the construction of a new education and program facility for female prisoners at Darwin Correctional Centre, which seven women had hands on involvement in constructing.
The implementation of the Ombudsman’s recommendations has also included the provision of improved infrastructure for women prisoners such as accommodation for women who have achieved the lowest possible security rating at Darwin Correctional Centre; a new visiting facility, the women’s block at Darwin Correctional Centre; and a 25-bed women’s facility at Alice Springs Correctional Centre. This new facility addressed a previous shortage of beds for women prisons at Alice Springs Correctional Centre. The shortage of beds had meant that Alice Springs women prisoners would sometimes be transferred to Darwin Correctional Centre, away from their families. With the provision of this new 25-bed facility, the women prisoners in Alice Springs can remain close to their families.
Madam Speaker, the Henderson government is committed to ensuring our communities are safe for everyone to enjoy. The new era in Corrections will make our communities and families safer by supporting successful reintegration into the community by rehabilitating, re-educating and training prisoners to make them job ready. I commend the statement to the House.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Speaker, there is no doubt the minister has put a great deal of effort into this. He has described it many times in this House as a new era in Corrections. We have heard the term used time and time again. We have all had a little joke about that but the matter is certainly not a joke; it is serious.
The minister started tonight by suggesting he had spoken to many prison officers and that no one disagreed that they needed a new prison. The reality is that none of us are ever going to knock back a new house. I am sure everyone here would love to move into a new house - new facilities, new modern equipment, it would be fantastic. To date, in none of the arguments the minister has made, or ministers on the other side, has there been any just cause provided to suggest why the current prison cannot be upgraded to an acceptable standard or, if there are sound grounds for a new prison, that the same land cannot be used rather than a greenfield site which must come at a huge cost.
The new site will require sewerage, electricity, and other essential services which will have to be constructed for the first time but which already exist at the current prison site. The question needs to be asked: what is the secret agenda this government may have for that land? Why is it so important that we build a new prison and close a perfectly good prison which is only 30 years old? As I have said in previous debates, many people in this House and the Territory live in homes which are in excess of 30 years old. I am sure with regular updating and maintenance they can be kept in good order. I stress that there is no reason why the current prison cannot be, with considerable money I am sure, brought to a standard which would be considered first-class in anyone’s world.
There is no doubt that law and order is a major issue in the Northern Territory and we should be seen to do all we can to provide an effective police and prison service for those people who step outside the laws to which we all should be living. To me, this all comes down to priorities. This will be my main point tonight. It has to be about priorities.
We have a government which appears to have lost track, dropped the ball, so to speak, in releasing land, causing a huge spike in land prices in the Northern Territory. We have heard this argument time and time again in this House because it is true, damn true. The price of homes and rentals has gone through the roof and it all comes back to one thing: the failure to release land quickly enough to keep up with market demand. No more, no less, that is it. That is the reason. So, we have a situation in the Northern Territory where young families cannot afford to live and many are choosing to leave. Even with two jobs, in some cases, they still find it difficult to put three meals on the table each day, pay the exorbitant rents or mortgage, and at the same time feed and educate their children and live in what has become perhaps the most expensive city in which to live in Australia.
With all the issues we have facing us today, all the issues with child protection, how can anyone in this House argue the fact that the ball has been dropped with child protection and that it will take money and human resources to fix the problem. Again, to me, this comes down to priorities.
How is it that we have a government which is set to spend, who knows, as much as half a billion dollars on building a new prison when we have so many other issues to deal with? The minister probably should be commended for convincing his Cabinet colleagues this is more important than any other issue we have in the Northern Territory. This is more important than child protection, other law and order issues, our health system, our environment, infrastructure and education. We are told we need this new prison above everything else which is going wrong in the Northern Territory.
It disappoints me no end to talk about this because I honestly do not understand. I do not understand how we can put at the very top of our list perhaps $0.5bn worth of prison infrastructure which I am yet to be convinced we need. As I said, the prison officers who work there, the prisoners, they would all love to go into a new facility. We would all like a new home, so no can be expected to say: ‘Oh no, we want to stay here, love this place, absolutely adore this place. Don’t move us into a nice, new, flash place! Don’t do that! I want to stay here’. Not many people would say that. To me, it all comes down to priorities and I know that if it was a Country Liberals government today it would not prioritise $0.5bn worth of prison above some of the more important issues which are affecting the Northern Territory at the moment.
One thing the previous Minister for Local Government raised was the work camps. On this side of the House we agree they are a good concept. It is part of our policy that work camps and teaching prisoners how to prepare for life outside of prison is good. A lovely lady by the name of Shirley Weatherstone - she is not in my electorate; she lives in Dillon Court in Gray - wanted me to pass on to the minister, through this House, her thanks to, and admiration for, the Corrections crew which maintains her lawns and looks after her place. She said there does not seem to be a problem too big for those guys. They do their work and are very well-mannered. She thinks there are many things governments do which are good and do not receive the praise they should. She has asked me to pass this on to you and hopefully encourage you to let the team know they do a fantastic job. This is just one of many projects which could work in work camps.
There is no doubt we should have a Corrections system where people's behaviour, their attitude to the community and themselves, can be changed and where we provide a structure so change is brought about through a good education program within prisons. If we can teach a person how to change a light bulb if they do not know how to, we should do it. If we need to teach someone to read or write, we should do it. We need to have programs in place which help prepare people for jobs outside prison, such as work-ready programs, even to the extent of what were considered as pre-apprenticeship courses years ago where people would learn all there is to know about certain trades. Further to that, real opportunities should be provided outside prison where these people with their new skills can be employed so they do not end up on the street.
It saddens me that we have created a society where, in my opinion, life on the street is worse than being in prison. Life on the street is harder than being in prison. There are not many people on the street who get their cigarettes for free and get a bed and sheets every night in a cosy cell. I know it is a cell and they are in a place they cannot walk out of. The lack of freedom is the only thing which is perhaps worse than being on the street because on a rainy night they are protected from the rain. On a cold night in the Dry Season, they are protected from the cold. They are provided with three meals a day and have access to things like DVD players and movies. They can work out in a gymnasium which most regular folk have to pay for.
We pay for our meals, for air-conditioning if we want it, our electricity bills; we pay for everything. Yet, these people who are locked away from society are put into a place which, for many of them, sadly, is a better place than what they have living on the street: living on Vesteys Beach or East Point or any of the many places - not just in Darwin but in Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Katherine and other places where the conditions they live in are far worse than they are in prison.
We have created a society where it is better to be on the inside. Should we not have a society where people are scared to be locked up? We want to create an environment which is so harsh people do not want to be there. If they happen to be there, teach them not only a lesson so they never want to go back again, but provide the support services they need to make them thrive and become part of our community.
I love to hear stories where someone has been in gaol and, years later, they have learnt their lessons and they are now providing for the community – such as through a mentor program, providing advice and guidance to young people to put them on the right track. In some cases these young fellows and women do not have the guidance from their families. That is another sad indictment of society today.
We have to provide a Corrections system which is going to do all that. I would love to see a day where people can have their lives turned around through hard work and determination and when they are released are provided opportunities, and perhaps even a few dollars in the bank which they have earned in prison through working in market gardens and in other jobs. Perhaps they can make the prison a cheaper place for the Territory economy by putting back into the running of the prison.
We have some serious issues in the Territory. I have mentioned child protection, some law and order issues, health, environment, education, major stuff-ups in infrastructure projects - all failures of this government in one regard or another. In the last week, we have seen what happens when a very hard working opposition starts to focus on some of these failures. This government doing its best to try to divert the public’s attention from it and onto other issues using tactics which are less than what one would hope for in this parliament.
This issue we have talked about in regard to the Leader of the Opposition was ignited, and has been fanned remarkably well, by the Labor government at a time when we should be focusing on some of the failures and, once identified, work to solve those issues.
I understand and appreciate the minister has worked damn hard. As I said before, he has worked so damned hard he has convinced his Cabinet colleagues this is perhaps the most important issue that we have in the Northern Territory - the most important issue because we are about to stump up nearly $0.5bn. I will rephrase that: taxpayers are about to stump up as much as $0.5bn by the time this is up and running. If we can go on the track record of this government, the $300m which was allocated will not go anywhere near finishing this job. They spoke a long time about Tiger Brennan Drive costing $110m and now we hear it is going to cost more because of mistakes. Guaranteed, there will be issues with this development if it goes ahead and it will cost more than the $300m; we will be getting closer to the $0.5bn mark.
Madam Speaker, it comes down to priorities and I cannot fathom how this government considers that this project can be prioritised in front of every other issue we have in the Northern Territory. I implore the government to reconsider, to perhaps spend half the amount of money and reconstruct the existing prison, bring it up to standard; do whatever you have to do with $150m! Spend the other $150m on things like child protection, housing and infrastructure! Spend it wisely! Spend it on some of the things we desperately need, not on some fanciful prison! I cannot understand why we need it.
Mr McCARTHY (Correctional Services): Madam Speaker, I thank all members for their contributions to this debate. I will start with a quote from the Attorney-General: ‘providing another tool in the tool kit’. That relates to the new orders which will provide real consequences but also real opportunities which drill down to deconstruct offending behaviour, probably something which has not been done before in the Northern Territory to the degree that the new era will complete that task. Drilling down to the offending behaviour and providing opportunities for offenders to address what is holding them back, what is preventing their personal development and, in the macro sense, their community development.
The Minister for Health and Families provided a very positive contribution about rehabilitation and treatment for abusers of alcohol, and a very wise and well thought out contribution about the work ahead with juvenile offenders. That goes hand in hand with our new era in Corrections, as prevention is better than cure. The Minister for Health and Families outlined the importance of dealing with the juvenile element in our community and the need to understand and change their offending behaviour.
The Minister for Health and Families also outlined a very important part of the new correctional services precinct, the 36-bed secure mental health facility. This is addressing a real need within the Territory of offenders who are unfit to plea, are incapable of understanding their circumstances in relation to their offending behaviour and need extra care and Health and Families intervention with proper therapy programs to make their outcomes the best possible.
The member for Fannie Bay talked about the Fannie Bay Gaol, and the heritage site, crossing over into my other portfolio of Arts and Museums - his compliments about working together, working with the member for Nelson, the members from government, our Caucus and working up the ideas of the new era and how we will implement those strategies effectively. What the member for Fannie Bay was saying as a Gen-Y, as a change in history - a Gen-Y who has outlined to this House that the Northern Territory people are our greatest resource. That is the essence of the new era. It is about working with the most disadvantaged Territorians and turning their lives around. People are our greatest resource - a great statement from the young member and one of the true elements of our new era to take people’s lives, offer them alternatives, provide education, training and rehabilitation to address offending behaviour and then turn them back into the mainstream as productive adults, but more importantly, as people who have better choices and a better understanding.
The Minister for Local Government spoke as a strong Indigenous woman, as a leader with passion. She talked about the plans and links with the new era for the regions and partnerships with the shires. I have talked with shires across the Territory and they support our new era and are waiting eagerly for our new era to link with the people, job opportunities, working communities and reparation, making offenders more accountable and visible in their communities - most importantly, offenders conducting work in their communities to repay their debt to their communities and society, to learn and move on.
The important links which the Minister for Local Government and Indigenous affairs made with the A Working Future policy - which is not only a focus on infrastructure but a focus on generational difference - a massive reform process focused on generational change and offering offenders alternatives to understand their offending behaviour, deconstruct their offending behaviour and make choices to move on and not reoffend, to reduce the level of recidivism. We have heard from members on this side of the House who have worked in this space who support this concept, can articulate it and go forward with it. I thank them for their contributions.
The Minister for Local Government and Indigenous affairs also provided the links with enhancing the lives of our children. When you start to add all these elements up, you start to question what price we put on this. If we want to look at this as a budgetary exercise, if we want to make comparisons in terms of pure budgets then I throw that back to the links members on this side are making. Enhancing the lives of our children - what price do we put on that? Improving the conditions of women in prison - and there were some great initiatives outlined by the Minister for Local Government and Indigenous affairs. She spoke of the improvements we have seen in the conditions for women in our prisons, the great initiatives which have been undertaken and the plans to conduct more.
In response to the member for Brennan, for very good reasons the prison officers did not comment on leaving the old Berrimah prison. It needs to be taken into account that, not only for being able to do their job better and sharing in the ambition of turning people’s lives around, but also for real occupational health and safety issues - the old prison is outdated. It is past its use-by date, is an aged piece of infrastructure and does not support the new methods in correctional services.
What the member for Brennan has done with his comments in good faith is taken back the new era development, planning and hard work by 12 months. We have been down this road; we have had the experts assess it; we have looked at interstate; we have comments from all factors and components of modern, innovative correctional services and we have looked at the Lands and Planning issues. We have looked at the construction issues and none of it has stacked up. It will cost the Territory more money; it will put people at risk; it will chase the tail of recidivism without delivering anything. We need a new facility.
There is no secret agenda. The agenda is to reduce recidivism. The government’s agenda is brave and bold. It will cost but it will deal with the most disadvantaged Territorians and make productive citizens - in the words of the member for Fannie Bay, investing in our best resource, our people. We can talk money; we can talk how important it is.
I can tell the story to this House about land release which is occurring five times faster than ever before in the Territory, about our most recent meeting yesterday evening with the Real Estate Institute of Northern Territory which congratulated us on our land release policy, asked us to temper it and told us there is real movement now. We are seeing results from our program. It complimented us on the infrastructure components on our head services which we are putting in, recognising the opportunities for further development, economic growth and population growth - infrastructure into our land release program in our new suburbs, not only in Darwin and Palmerston but across the Northern Territory.
In response to the member for Brennan, the new era in Corrections for Brennan is just one of a raft of huge, big and bold policy developments from this government. It is interesting to be able to talk to this statement and wrap this statement at the end of the parliamentary year. If you want to examine some of the massive policy developments, the innovative and forward thinking policies of this government, then you need a new debate to talk about it. They have been occurring at regular intervals this year; they have been coming together to deliver real outcomes and they are quite historical in taking the Northern Territory forward.
Member for Brennan, thank you for the wonderful comment from the constituent about the community support parties. That is a positive comment. Community support parties are an excellent initiative which I discovered upon coming into the portfolio. I found a brilliant initiative delivering millions of dollars worth of goodwill and work within the community every year, not only in Darwin but in Alice Springs. The first thing I said to Corrections was: ‘Let us take this concept and build it and grow it so it provides accredited training and work-ready skills. Let us target it to real jobs and match it with skills shortages across the regions’. It was very much an infant start, a great concept, and that is how the new era started to grow. I thank all my colleagues from government who have been active in the role of advising, supporting and encouraging it. When it came down to tin tacks, there were some very courageous Cabinet members and Caucus colleagues who backed it with the necessary funding. They have backed it with the funding that is resourcing the investment in the Territorians who need it most.
There is a landmark change under way in addressing Territory prison numbers and the rate of reoffending. It is a sad fact that the Northern Territory has the highest per capita incarceration rate in the country and the highest recidivism rate. It was agreed by all members tonight that we have to do better. We must change the way we do things. We must deliver better education, more rehabilitation and more training. The new area in Corrections provides the roadmap to reach this target.
I will deconstruct some of the contributions from the member for Port Darwin. The member for Port Darwin acknowledged that this is a workable proposal. However, the member for Port Darwin used the politics of the moment to compare it to the CLP’s announcements at the last election. There are some fundamental differences and some quite radical differences if we want to deconstruct individual members’ contributions over the 12 months we have been developing the new era.
Before I go to that, I will talk about what a new prison does. The member for Port Darwin had questions about the classification system. In the time I have I will summarise it very briefly. The new Doug Owston Correctional Services facility will be a multiclassification prison. It is purpose built, innovative, and uses the measures of efficiency to manage the prison population. The classification system can be described as a board of snakes and ladders. It is up to the prisoner to provide the determination and motivation to gain the trust of society, Correctional Services facility’s operational staff and the government, and show they plan to make a difference. It is about working up and not working down.
I appreciate the member for Port Darwin’s acknowledgement of Mr Ken Middlebrook. I appreciate the acknowledgement of the prison officers and the importance of their occupational health and safety.
The member for Port Darwin commented on therapeutic programs and the balance between therapeutic programs and basic programs of the past which rely on the carrot and the stick or punishment. What we need to factor in as part of the new era thinking is that we are dealing with many Territorians who have very low levels of education and awareness. We have a real challenge to increase the education levels and the levels of awareness and deconstruct the offending behaviour.
There has to be a balance between punishment and therapeutic programs, but we have to acknowledge what I said in the statement about using initiatives which reflect the Territory context. If you talk to Mr Ken Middlebrook, who has 35 years of experience in Correctional Services, he has a very balanced outlook on the Territory context. He is focused on delivering for disadvantaged Territorians with low levels of education and awareness, who need basic support to become work ready, to understand offending behaviour with rehabilitation, training and real outcomes. We are talking about jobs, being work ready, and self-esteem. Mr Middlebrook has a very clear focus on building the self-esteem of our prisoners.
The member for Port Darwin talked briefly about the past prison farms at Gunn Point and Wildman River. My research has taught me these became very dated Correctional Services programs. We must reflect on a new era of prisoners as well as a new era in Corrections. The new era of prisoners is a challenge way above what was being delivered at Gunn Point and Wildman River. We are going to do it better; we are going to use new initiatives and deliver better results. We have set ambitious targets.
The member for Port Darwin encouraged me to work a shift as a Correctional Services officer. I do not think I have any need to work a shift. I do not support the member for Port Darwin working a shift because I visit the prison regularly and I know the member for Port Darwin has visited the prison. I encourage him to continue to do that because that is the best research you can do.
In response to the comment: ‘as the minister trots it out’, member for Port Darwin, this portfolio, like my other portfolios, I take very seriously; I do not trot out anything. In fact, I could enlighten the House about some of the grief, disappointment and emotion I have gone through when I have visited our Correctional Services facilities and come into contact with my ex-students on a number of occasions in different facilities. How does the minister do his homework, was the question. When I make contact with my ex-students I generally start by asking three questions. The first one is: ‘Are you okay?’ Normally I receive a very positive answer. We get that right. They are safe, secure and okay. ‘What are you doing in here?’ That shows a level of literacy which sometimes needs to be deconstructed as they generally tell me the reason why they are incarcerated, but that is not what I am asking. The question means, what are you enrolled in? Which programs have you signed up for? What kind of rehabilitation are you telling our Correctional Services officers you need and want to be a part of? How are you planning to make the most of this circumstance? The new era is addressing that directly. The last question I ask is: ‘What plans do you have for when you return to your community?’ Generally, that engages the offender in a conversation about what will be different when they get out, and that is what the new era reflects as well.
In regard to doing my homework, on a recent visit to Don Dale I got to see some of the incredible training and education programs. The music program was truly inspiring. We enjoyed having a jam together, the minister and the juveniles, and we played the Blues …
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Speaker, I move an extension of time for the minister to finish his speech, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. We were participating in an exercise to normalise an experience. We played the Blues, and we had a lot of fun and a lot of laughs. My message was that the music educators had a responsibility to teach these kids the Blues, because they were all into Hip Hop. Hip Hop is an evolution of the Blues. It all started with the Blues. That was a powerful message to leave with those students, among the other images we created about music centres on the outside, opportunities in the community, work in the music sector and how they are talented people and should be looking at using their talents in positive ways.
The member for Port Darwin talked about deaths in custody. Aboriginal deaths in custody are on my mind regularly. They are a very emotional part of this job which challenges me daily. If you start to talk about Aboriginal deaths in custody and why we no longer have shackles in prison cells then you can start to understand that in the Territory we have very special needs in our Correctional Service system and we need to be sensitive as well as hard and well disciplined.
The classification system, which the member for Port Darwin mentioned a number of times – he requested a copy of the manual, I have written that down - is the essence of what is needed before you get into a work camp or a prison farm. I think there was a misunderstanding that work camps and prison farms are final points in the classification system. Everyone who commits a crime and is committed to a Correctional Services facility goes to prison. The classification system then takes into account all the factors of their lives, their offending behaviour, health and wellbeing, and they are then provided with the tools to create the opportunity to work up the snakes and ladders board, restore faith and trust and show they are truly repaying their debt to the community and to society.
The classification system will be used as the final deciding factor in who gets to the next level of training and rehabilitation. In the Barkly work camp offenders will sign a contract. Their final exit from the Correctional Services facility in Alice Springs will be the signing of a contract to say: ‘I am going to the Barkly work camp because I am going to make a difference. I am not coming back to prison. I am going to stop this cycle of recidivism. I am going to engage in training, education, rehabilitation and in efforts in the community. I am going to be visible. I am going to be accountable. I am going to show the youth of the community that a life of crime is not a good path. I am going to make a difference in my life and I am going to make it with my actions rather than my words’.
There have been many good contributions to this. The work now is heading into the groundwork of infrastructure, programs, new jobs, and training the prison officers for the Barkly work camp - having eight locals embark on that journey makes me very proud. The community is working with us and I feel the community has embraced this new era because it reflects the best investment we can make: an investment in turning disadvantaged Territorians into productive citizens and reducing the unacceptable rate of recidivism.
I am going to finish on a harsh note, and the harsh note is a real challenge because I have been doing the work with my colleagues on this side of the House and there has been a great deal of negative comment. It relates to confusion. Let us clear it up in the last sittings of the parliamentary year with this wrap of the statement about the new era in Corrections.
First of all we are going to need a correction to a publication called Opposition Leaders News which was funded by the Leader of the Opposition and was distributed to houses in Darwin and Palmerston. There was a quote in it about the portfolio of Correctional Services:
I think we have agreed - I know the member for Port Darwin has agreed - we need this new facility. The member for Port Darwin talked about his ambition to be the minister for Corrections and to continue working with this new facility. That needs to be cleared up now and the Leader of the Opposition probably needs to address that. That has gone out to the community and it is misleading.
I would also like to make a very strong point about a comment which offended me deeply in relation to my ex-students, my visits to Correctional Services facilities and working with prison officers. It is a comment which was made by the member for Braitling on 20 October 2010 and it needs to be addressed. I quote:
It has been a huge year in the House. The member for Braitling is a polished performer in this House, and I give credit where credit is due, but I notice his youth and enthusiasm does get carried away and that translates into very inappropriate comments. I suggest that, as a local member and a politician - and there is no doubt he has a flair for politics and has a great deal to offer. As an Indigenous man in Central Australia he needs to get on board with us. We do not mind criticism, we do not mind a stoush and we love a good debate, but those sorts of comments are over the top. They are extremely negative and offensive and we want it straightened out now. We are moving forward with this new era and I believe members on the other side are joining with us. Let us get the entire House in order. Let us talk about what the member for Brennan talks about: a bipartisan approach. Let us focus on the most disadvantaged Territorians and check our language, emotions and sensationalism in trying to grab headlines or media attention.
There are going to be opportunities to do it and it will be done, but with the new era let us all buckle down and talk about a welcome shift in policy which has been acknowledged by the opposition. The member for Macdonnell has not made many comments to me but I am sure she supports the new era. I commend the member for Nelson because he has put his money where his mouth is. He has done the hard yards. We have travelled on the road across four different jurisdictions. We have looked at Correctional Services facilities. We have talked, debated and argued. We have had experts in the room and have finally come up with a very clear policy platform and way forward.
That was part of the Chief Minister’s agreement. Being the minister for Corrections, I featured in that agreement from day one and I have been honoured to work as part of that agreement with all members, particularly government members, but also the member for Nelson. We are looking forward to the delivery, which will be challenging. The member for Port Darwin brought that out. There are no guarantees, but unless we do things differently, we will never know.
Madam Speaker, the new era in Corrections presents exciting opportunities and real challenges. Work is already under way with the Barkly work camp, one of the many new initiatives. I welcome the challenge because I am determined to reduce the rate of reoffending, reduce prison numbers and build a safer Territory.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table the revised Legislative Assembly Sitting Dates for 2011.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Being the last sitting before Christmas, I take this opportunity to say my thanks and Christmas wishes for 2010.
Madam Speaker, I wish you and your family a very special Christmas, and a wonderful New Year. I wish the Chief Minister, my parliamentary colleagues and their families a Merry Christmas and a safe and Happy New Year. I also extend my best wishes and thanks to the dedicated staff of the Legislative Assembly, particularly the staff of Hansard who sometimes have trouble understanding my accent, but they are learning!
I extend my best wishes to my Electorate Officer, Debbie Rowland, and her long-suffering family, and to my ministerial office staff: Helen, Deidre, Ray, Natasha, Robyne, Kylie, Trish, Karina, Maria and Leonie. It has been a very busy year with many portfolios to be addressed, and without your support I would not be able to do what I am doing today.
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to all my constituents in the electorate of Casuarina. I am honoured to represent you, and I look forward to continuing to represent you in the Legislative Assembly in 2011.
For those who are leaving Darwin to celebrate the Christmas holidays with loved ones interstate and overseas, I wish you a safe and enjoyable trip. Please drive carefully and come back; we want every single one of you back in the Territory.
For those staying in town over the Christmas period, I look forward to catching up with you in this wet weather and hope to see you in Casuarina where I will be wrapping presents for Somerville as is my tradition every year. It is like doorknocking; the difference is people come to you, you do not go to them; but it is good fun too.
I take the opportunity to thank Ms Sabina Knight who will be leaving the Northern Territory in December to continue her career in Queensland. Ms Knight has a long history as a remote area nurse, a professional leader and a remote health advocate in the Northern Territory and nationally. Her career has included working at the Aboriginal Community Control Sector in the Department of Health and Families as a remote area nurse, as well as spending several years as a remote area educator. She played instrumental roles in establishing and maintaining the Council of Remote Area Nurses of Australia; the Central Australian Remote Practitioners Association’s (CARPA) Standard Treatment Manual, National Rural Health Alliance, and the Centre for Remote Health.
In recent years, Ms Knight has been a member of the Northern Territory Health Advisory Council and assisted in the orientation and training of interstate health professionals involved in the Australian government’s child health checks. In 2008 she was invited by the Australian government’s minister for Health, the Hon Nicola Roxon, to be a member of the National Health and Hospital Reform Commission.
Throughout her career, Ms Knight has generously provided expert advice, support and encouragement to the main stakeholders involved in remote and Aboriginal health. She has also maintained strong personal and professional links with remote Aboriginal communities and health services through annual nursing placements in Central Australia and coordinating the delivery of various postgraduate education programs through the Centre for Remote Health in Alice Springs.
Sabina will commence as the Director of the Mt Isa Centre for Remote Health in January 2011. I am sure you will all join me in wishing her well in her future endeavours.
I take this opportunity to thank community organisations, government departments and businesses within my electorate for their efforts. To Ben Gill, the GPT staff and the tenants of Casuarina Shopping Centre; Tony Miaoudis and the tenants of Casuarina Village Shopping Centre; Chris Vidouris and the tenants of Casuarina Convenience Centre; and all small business owners and staff within the Casuarina shopping precinct, I wish you all a prosperous and happy festive season.
I also thank the Casuarina Police Station Superintendent, Peter Gordon, Officers-in-Charge John Ginnane and Shaun Furniss, and all the hard-working police officers for their efforts in assisting to maintain a safe environment within the Casuarina electorate. The new Police Beat shopfront has been tremendous in providing quick assistance around the Casuarina shopping precinct; this new initiative has benefited the Casuarina community greatly.
I thank and extend my best wishes to the Northern Territory government staff, the Darwin City Council and support organisations which provided assistance and advice to my Electorate Officer in response to constituents’ complaints this year. I wish you all a wonderful festive season.
To my supportive ministerial staff and my electorate officers, I repeat: without your support I would not be able to do what I have been doing in my portfolios and electorate. Also, to government department staff, especially the departments I have ministerial responsibility for - the Department of Health and Families and the Department of Resources - thank you all for your hard work and assistance during 2010. It has been a very busy year for me as a local member and as a minister. It has been a year filled with many memorable surprises. I am most fortunate to have had wonderful support staff whose tireless efforts and commitments are very much appreciated.
I thank my sons, Alexander and Michael, with whom I look forward to spending more time during the Christmas break - especially Michael who misses his father very much. We see each other in the morning when I drive him to school and we have very good discussions; I ask questions and he grunts back at me, which is what happens with teenagers. One grunt means yes, two grunts means no.
To my team of helpers, volunteers, and ALP branch members, I thank you for your continued support and dedication and for being ready to assist when needed. I appreciate that. You are a loyal group of people and, although we do not get to catch up often, please understand my sincere gratitude. I wish all of you and your families a joyous Christmas and I look forward to your support in 2011.
Over the years I have highlighted the many successes the schools in the Casuarina electorate have had: Dripstone Middle School, Nakara Primary School and Alawa Primary School. I am extremely proud of the teachers and the staff in these schools; they have done a tremendous job. I thank the school principals, Barry Griffin, Sarah May, and Fathma Mauger. To the school council members, thank you for your efforts with your schools; your valuable time is very much appreciated.
I make a special mention of Nakara Principal, Barry Griffin and wish him a wonderful retirement. I am looking forward to catching up with you some time next week for a few drinks before you depart. I also take the opportunity to wish all students, teachers and school staff an enjoyable school holiday break.
It has been a tremendous year and a very busy year. I am looking forward to a break during Christmas; everyone in this job deserves it. I know many people say we do not work hard but I would like to swap with them sometimes and they can do our jobs 24/7. When everything goes wrong it is our fault but when someone needs help they come to our doorstep. It does not matter if you are in opposition or the government, as local members we are there to help and people come from all over our electorates for help.
Madam Deputy Speaker, to you and to all my parliamentary colleagues on both sides of this House, Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you and your families.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will raise a couple of concerns about the information ministers provide other members in this House through letters and the accuracy of that information, which is passed on by minders or whoever. There are two short stories here that underline how accurate information is that ministers have.
The first one is a letter I received from the Minister for Transport. It says:
That would all seem fine, except this same thing has been debated for many years with the Palmerston Council. However, it is the next part of the letter which I found astounding. I spoke about this last week. One of the issues raised was the safety of one of the pedestrian crossings and the fact that the lights were not working very well and were off more than they were on. I wrote to the minister suggesting the crossing be upgraded to a proper pedestrian crossing with lights, or that the lights be upgraded to LED lights so people would see them. The letter says:
The second letter is one I wrote to minister Burns in his capacity as Minister for Public and Affordable Housing. This was about a property at Bonson Terrace, Moulden, where there are a few issues with a person who was affecting many people. It included illegal alcohol being produced on the property, and this person and the people visiting his property were behaving so antisocially that a number of people were complaining.
I wrote to the minister and I received the normal response from the minister saying he acknowledged the letter, thank you very much. I then received a follow up letter, dated 21 October 2010, which says:
I will not read out the address:
I accepted this on face value and we all know it went to the papers. The Northern Territory News ran an article on this situation, with photos, and I think it was even on the news. By all accounts you would expect the government has been, or is, working on this. Yet it is now 7 November and I have – and I can table this if requested - a complaint signed by each of the residents of 22 Bonson Terrace, again complaining that nothing has been done. This person is still doing what he was doing before; the antisocial behaviour has not improved one iota and they feel the government has not done anything about this issue.
It is okay to tell the media: ‘Yes, all is in hand, we are working on the issue’, but I want to know what the outcomes are when you make these promises. I take the minister at his word. His letter was genuine and well written and he pointed out everything I raised in my initial letter. But here we are weeks and weeks later and again I am contacted by the same group saying nothing has been done. I ask the minister to review it again.
Dr Burns: Can you table the letter?
Mr CHANDLER: Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to table the document.
Leave granted.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Deputy Speaker, Dr Michael Myers is currently the Principal of Parap Primary School, one of the best schools in the Territory, if not the best. It is a close call between Stuart Park Primary and Parap Primary but perhaps we could place Parap Primary at the very top. It is a great school, and I know Dr Myers loves the school and the community.
Dr Myers is taking some well earned extended leave from January next year, prior to retiring later in the year. It is important to mark his retirement and his career. I have spoken to Mick, his Assistant Principal, the Chair of the school council and other community members so they could acknowledge his career on the Parliamentary Record. His retirement will mean the loss of a gentleman who has devoted his career to the education and nurturing of generations of Territorians.
With the exception of periods of study interstate and overseas, Dr Myers has spent his entire career in Northern Territory education. To put that length of commitment and dedication into perspective, he was recruited by the Commonwealth government Department of Territories before there was a local member to stand in this House and speak in an adjournment debate. He was recruited before there was a Territory government.
Mick left an administrative position with the Royal Australian Navy to undertake intensive, two-year teacher preparation and community and social development programs at the Australian School of Pacific Administration, Sydney. He was college dux in each year of the program. I and many members would know Dr Myers from his long tenure at Parap; however, he started his career a long way from Parap with his first 10 years spent in Top End Indigenous communities including three years as Principal of Ngukurr community school. To quote Mick:
There is no doubt those 10 years were rewarding for the Territory and for Dr Myers.
It is always important to find teachers who will spend time in a community and invest in their local school. To have Dr Myers spend time in each community saw a significant contribution made to the education and broader social development in each community. In return, Mick learnt valuable life lessons about himself, about Indigenous life, culture and perspectives and he developed lifelong, deeply enriching relationships with many Indigenous community members.
That dedication to working in the regions is always a big investment. Living remotely can have an impact on your family, and Mick is very close to his family. It is clear when he talks about his family he has a lot of pride and love for them, like most of us do. His wife, Patricia, is a dedicated, highly respected, long-serving Territory teacher. Their three children were educated in the Territory, including their tertiary education. Their son is a medical microbiologist specialising in genetics and currently teaches and researches at the University of Maryland in the USA; their eldest daughter resides in Western Australian and is a midwife and nurse educator; and their youngest daughter is Deputy Principal of the Vienna International School in Austria - a very good family.
Mick will now have more time to spend with his family and not on his particular, but far from exclusive, interest in primary education. His record is impressive. He has been principal of five large NT schools in both urban and remote areas. He has held senior administrative positions with the predecessors of the current Department of Education and Training, and has led large Northern Territory educational regions. His contribution has encompassed a range of complex organisational environments including pre-school, primary, post-primary, secondary, university senior undergraduate programs, and adult education. The organisational environments include Australian Indigenous and NT urban communities, and an Asian and North American context. He has also made significant contributions to school sport and performing arts development, seeing these as important avenues for supporting many developmental needs among children and communities across the Northern Territory.
Dr Myers has an abiding interest and involvement in the multiple dimensions and the practical and theoretical complexities of the principalship which he has seen firsthand as he has served as a Northern Territory principal for 40 years. Dr Myers was awarded the A W Reeves Memorial Fellowship in 1995 by the Northern Territory Department of Education to undertake advanced study and research in educational leadership and management at the University of Alberta, Canada. He is the only Northern Territory school-based educator to be awarded this fellowship and the final Australian educator to undertake the prestigious program as a Reeves scholar prior to its discontinuance.
During the tenure of the fellowship he gained a Doctorate in Educational Leadership and Management from the University of Alberta with complementary doctoral-accredited study undertaken at Harvard University, Massachusetts, USA. His dissertation, which examined relationships between school-based management and school and student learning outcomes, was nominated by the University of Alberta for the award of Best Education Dissertation in Canada in 1997.
Dr Myers has lengthy experience in leadership of a range of diverse professional organisations. For example, Foundation President, NT Principals Association, now known as ANTSEL, the first organisation in Australia encompassing all facets of school and educational institutional leadership; National Director, Board of Directors, Australian Council for Education Administration, holding particular responsibility for international Indigenous educational leadership development; Foundation Member, President, Vice President and Committee Member for the Australian Council of Educational Administration NT; Member and Acting Chairman for the NT Board of Studies; Chairman, Board of Management, The Beat Foundation - we all know The Beat, a joint initiative of the Rotary organisations, schools, and the NT Department of Education and Training which fosters the development of performing arts and young people through scholarships, and the conduct of the annual Beat performance in Darwin; the A W Reeves Fellowship, as I mentioned, and his time at Massachusetts, USA; and he was elected Fellow of Australian Council for Educational Leaders, the third NT educator to be recognised in Australia this way. I have left out about half of his accreditations in reading this out. He is a very learned fellow, and has done many things.
I also place on the record, in their own words, the thoughts of those who know Mick best in the workplace - the people who get to work with him every day. I thank Kerry Hudson, who was an Assistant Principal for the first three terms this year at Parap and longer, and is now Acting Principal at Anula, and Yvonne Harding, Assistant Principal at Parap. They were very happy to have the opportunity to talk to staff and to put into words their thoughts of Mick. So, thank you to Yvonne, Kerry and all the staff and people at Parap Primary School who put a few words together:
Ken Hutton, Chair of the Parap Primary School Council for the past several years, has also worked closely with Mick, and has said:
I echo Ken’s final sentiment. Thanks, Mick, for all your efforts at Parap, and all the best for the future. The fact that so many people were willing to contribute and wanted their thoughts expressed tonight vouches for the work Mick has done. I thank him and wish him, Pat and his family all the best for the future.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Deputy Speaker, it comes to that time of the year when people are trying to find very good Christmas presents for friends and family. Fortunately, Helen Joraslafsky, Manager of the National Pioneer Women’s Hall of Fame in Alice Springs, had the idea to suggest to Jose Petrick, a long-term Alice Springs resident, that she produce a fifth edition of The History of Alice Springs Through Landmarks and Street Names, a book which was published in 2005. Jose has kindly now produced a fifth edition of the Alice Springs landmarks and street names. The member for Fannie Bay may have seen a copy of the fourth edition, which is a true bible of Alice Springs people who have had streets named after them.
The pioneers of Alice Springs and the founding fathers and mothers of Alice Springs have been recognised through many streets in town. It is an absolute bible for anyone who has seen that book in the fourth edition. I had the opportunity on Saturday afternoon to launch Jose’s fifth edition of The History of Alice Springs Through Landmarks and Street Names. It was a fantastic day; Jose gave a spiel about some of her experiences in Alice Springs and paid tribute to a number of people. Jose’s family is mentioned in the book. I gave a speech and spoke about a street I pass through to get to my residence in Alice Springs, which is Erija Street. I would never have known what Erija stood for without this book - it comes from the Arrernte word meaning wedge tailed eagle. It is a fantastic book.
When Jose published this fifth edition, which was launched on Saturday, there were some new streets which had to be announced. Two new streets have been added, Wright Place, named after Mrs Daffodil Wright - I am reading some words from the book - nee Sandford, a pioneer cattle station wife and husband Charlie started the first laundry in Alice Springs. Also Teague Crescent and Violet Teague Park. These two new streets in the park are at the end of Albrecht Drive in the new subdivision of Larapinta so it is quite fitting I had the opportunity to launch this book. Also, it is quite fitting the former member for Braitling, Mrs Loraine Braham, launched the fourth edition. It is fantastic.
I read the fourth and fifth editions - much the same. One of the big differences I was disappointed in, which I spoke about on Saturday, is in the fourth edition there were 40 street name updates but, in the fifth edition, there were only two. That is a reflection of the poor development of the town under this government and I made a special point of that.
Jose Petrick is, as I described on Saturday, a golden nugget in Alice Springs; she has put in place this information on history, and for anyone who is looking for a good Christmas present, The History of Alice Springs Through Landmarks and Street Names is a great gift. The National Pioneer Women’s Hall of Fame has purchased 100 copies for their use and I purchased one, as did a number of people on Saturday. I know the Mayor, Damien Ryan, and CEO, Rex Mooney, were also there contributing. I have handed an order form to the member for Stuart, the Minister for Central Australia, and I am sure he will get on board; I hope the Northern Territory Library purchases this edition.
I recognise the hard work Jose does for Alice Springs. She, her family and her networks have all been pioneers in Alice Springs and without people like Jose and her networks, history is lost. She should be acknowledged for the hard work she has done. I acknowledge that and continue to provide a lot of support to Jose.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Deputy Speaker, as a new member of parliament, this is my eighth week in the job ...
Mr Tollner: And a good member you are turning out to be too.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Thank you, member for Fong Lim.
There is a theme emerging in the problems which have been presented to me by constituents. One of them is similar to an issue the member for Brennan raised earlier. I have been approached by four clusters of neighbours in the Araluen electorate who are having problems with department of Housing tenants living adjacent to them. I know this is a very common problem throughout the Northern Territory but, as their local member and their advocate in the community, I really feel a responsibility to bring to the parliament’s attention what is happening in the suburbs of Araluen.
These families, and there are about 15 involved in these four different locations, are expressing great discomfort, unhappiness, misery even, and some are claiming their children are traumatised by what they are seeing, hearing and experiencing from their adjacent neighbours.
I am talking about Housing department accommodation, four houses which are home to five or six people and, as many could report in their electorates, the families are talking about noise through the night, antisocial behaviour, people pulling up at all hours, tooting the horn, yelling, drunkenness, and some people have witnessed quite serious assaults. It is very disturbing and annoying behaviour, which has a great impact on these families. I am talking about families in which young people are being kept up until the early hours of the morning by the noise and the commotion next door and parents are not able to sleep because of that which has an impact on how the families function.
All these families have made reports, to some extent, to the department of Housing. Some of them have not made formal complaints but I know they have spoken in passing to people who have been available to them within the department. They have complained, they have made formal complaints, they have their sheets from the Housing department in which they can record specific incidents of antisocial behaviour, noise, whatever it is that is happening next door that is causing them discomfort, grief and misery.
In one neighbourhood, the Housing department tenants in question went to a hearing – I think they had been given a notice to remedy and during that time the case had gone to a hearing. The neighbours were asked to present information at that hearing, which did not come about. The tenants remained in the house and there was no change and no relief from the behaviour their neighbours are being subjected to.
The first thing I did was make an appointment with the Housing department and I met with the acting manager of the local Housing department. The women who deal with complaints in the Alice Springs office are very obliging and very helpful. They explained to me that they were confined by the Tenancy Act and they explained to me the courses of action available to neighbours of Housing department accommodation when they were unhappy with the behaviour of tenants.
As a member of parliament, I feel a little helpless and powerless, like the people who are coming to me with these complaints. I am concerned the notice to remedy used in a couple of examples was only for 14 days and on one occasion the tenants just packed up and left town for 14 days then came back and continued on with their usual behaviour. The Tenancy Act seems to be on the side of the tenants, not the neighbours who are being subjected to the behaviour.
As a new member of parliament I would appreciate any advice you may have of what to advise people in this situation. I believe there should be more options available for people who are in this situation. One family is leaving town as a direct result of the unhappiness they have been experiencing. They are worried about the value of their property and do not want me to mention where they live. I asked them if I could mention their names and, although they would love to go public, they are worried about reprisal in the last few weeks they remain in the house, as well as their ability to rent the house after they leave and the option of selling at a later date.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I really feel for these people. I do not know what the answer is and I would appreciate any feedback my fellow members of parliament may have in addressing this very concerning issue.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to talk about matters of procurement, and I will specifically refer to a couple of tenders which have been awarded.
I am also going to talk about the issue of potential corruption in the procurement process. I do not want my comments to be in any way misconstrued when I talk about tenders which have raised my eyebrows, nor do I want it to be thought that I am alleging corruption in relation to those tenders. Nevertheless, I will speak about some other matters which have caused me some concern.
I am aware of the tender rules in relation to not necessarily taking the cheapest tender, and sometimes there are good reasons not to. I speak specifically of tenders T101532, T101533 and T101534 for which the jobs were granted not so long ago. These are the Palmerston rugby and soccer field, tennis and netball courts, and the AFL paddocks. Certain information has come to my attention about those tenders which makes me concerned because of the substantial difference between the cheapest price and the awarded price.
Like the Rosebery School, there is deep concern and ructions in the industry about these issues because of the substantial difference between the cheapest and the successful tenderers. Having made that observation, the matters of Rosebery School were referred to the Auditor-General and they came back with a clean bill of health. However, even the Auditor-General has limitations of what he can extract and I have heard the concerns raised about these three tenders as well. Moreover, you hear the usual rumblings - and I am fully aware and cognisant of the truism that tenders will always have criticisms raised against them because the unsuccessful tenderers are unhappy. But the rumblings just beneath the surface continue and they cause me concern.
Last year, I had cause to refer a direct allegation of corruption to the Auditor-General. The person involved and their employer came and saw me and there was an allegation of the transfer of a substantial amount of property which would have had a value of $50 000 or $60 000 in response to a favourable tender. I immediately referred that to the Auditor-General who said it is a criminal act and has to go to the police for investigation; quite rightly so, but I had to deal with a very nervous person who was giving me information and an equally nervous employer, because this is a small town. That matter was then referred to the police after the Auditor-General made some initial investigations and it is to my understanding he took a statutory declaration from the person who had made the allegations.
Sadly, when the police were involved, the person who had given me the information became very nervous and no further investigations ensued but there was some circumstantial evidence to support that person’s allegation about the movement of some property. The reason I speak in such vague terms is because there is no evidence other than what I was told and some circumstantial evidence; however, it is sufficient, coupled with many other stories I hear burbling just beneath the surface, for me to say to this government, and particularly the Treasurer: ‘Have a close look at what is happening in the tender process!’
I suspect there are many more stories just beneath the surface and the reason I raise it publicly in this instance is if one person was prepared to come forward, although they became nervous and finally refused to assist with the investigation, their allegation was nevertheless profoundly serious and has the potential, if ever proved, to undermine the faith in the tendering process across the Northern Territory. I come into this House and talk about this because I call on other Territorians who may be in possession of information to start telling me or contacting me so we can discover if there is any truth in the mutterings and the murmurings I am hearing.
The tender process is something which has to be like Caesar’s wife, not only beyond question, but seen to be beyond question and, because I consistently hear these mutterings, I am sufficiently concerned to raise it in this House and make the comments publicly.
If people are aware of corruption, I urge them to contact the authorities and the police. If you do not wish to contact the police, or are nervous about contacting the police, then I ask people to contact me with a full statement and supporting assurance of full confidentiality. I am concerned about what I am hearing. I do not raise this issue in this House lightly. If I had not received a direct allegation of corruption, which was finally abandoned by the person because they became too nervous and there was no supporting circumstantial evidence, and if I was not aware of other tender issues being raised consistently, I would not stand in this place and do what I am doing.
Having made that statement, the reason I do so is I am sufficiently concerned about this to make a public call for people to come forward and start describing the issues surrounding them and the issues which are concerning them.
As I said, I referred three tenders to the Auditor-General and I made no allegations in relation to those tenders; they simply raised my curiosity. They have also raised the curiosity of other people but I make no allegation or assertion of wrongdoing in any of those tenders. Nevertheless, I would like the Auditor-General to look at them so we can get a sense, at least, of what is happening in the tender process when such tenders are awarded and, more generally, the public need to be assured that the tender process is squeaky clean because, I can tell you, and as the government knows full well, the tender process amongst industry players is being described as far from that.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Deputy Speaker, it is the festive season and, as tradition has it, it is time to thank those who have helped us through the year. First, we thank the Hansard staff who are still working and will continue to work for some time tonight. Without those people working hard behind the scenes, whom the public do not get to see, what we say or do in here would not be recorded as efficiently as it is. So, we thank them.
I also thank all our parliamentary staff of the Legislative Assembly. Regardless of whether you are on the table behind us or the bench in front of us, you all do a fantastic job and you do it with true impartiality. I know through the year it has not always been easy but, without doubt, you have done it well and your families should be proud of the hours you put in; be it hard on them at times.
To all my colleagues on this side of the House, a Merry Christmas. To all my colleagues on the other side of the House, I wish you all a Merry Christmas and I hope you have some time with your families. It is not always an easy time in this House and you are always away from your families with late hours. So, I hope you get some time with your families and enjoy the festive season and have a safe New Year.
I wish all the electorate officers on both sides of this House, who work tirelessly to front the public when we are not in the office and do a fantastic job no matter what side of the House they represent, a Merry Christmas. The job of an electorate officer is a thankless one in most cases, and in your own hearts and minds you represent people through your elected member. Well done to you all; I hope you have a Merry Christmas because it is not always an easy job following the tail of a member of parliament.
To my electorate officer, Donna Ellice, you are an absolute legend. I am very proud to be associated with you; to have you work in my office is an honour. You represent the electorate of Drysdale with much gusto; you do it in an extremely professional manner and, for a small person, Donna, you have a huge heart. I hope our relationship lasts for a long time. Merry Christmas to you, Donna, and your family, including the fish in our fish bowl in our electorate office - I hope they have a good Christmas. Someone might want to feed them.
I extend my wishes to all the aldermen and staff of the Palmerston City Council in my electorate. They are a big part of the team for Palmerston which makes Palmerston great. You all work hard, right down to every one of the regulatory officers who do a fantastic job and, of course, the aldermen, many of whom I meet at various functions throughout Palmerston. You are doing a great job and we look forward to another brilliant year next year.
I am lucky to have quite a few schools in my electorate and every one of the staff involved in the schools, every one of the teachers - be it the Palmerston High School, Palmerston Middle School, Driver Primary School, Durack Primary School, Charles Darwin University, and the Palmerston Christian School – you take our young minds and do your best to mould them. I hope you and all the children and, in the case of the high schools and the university, the young adults of the Northern Territory, have a safe New Year, and you all come back next year and enjoy another year of learning, because learning is a way to the future. I hope you continue to do very well. I wish you all another Merry Christmas.
Durack Primary School’s Principal is Jo Wynn. I am informed this is her last year as she is retiring. Last Friday at assembly, I asked Jo how many years she had been teaching. She thought for some time, and said: ‘45-odd years’. That is amazing! As you described, you have been all over the country and overseas teaching. You came to the Territory in 1973 and have been teaching here ever since. Your final post is with the Durack Primary School in my electorate, a school I am very proud of.
Jo, thank you for your many decades of hard work. Rest yourself well, and enjoy your travels; I believe you intend to go to Africa - she has been to Russia and China in recent times. Enjoy the travels, be safe, and really enjoy your time. You have earned it, without doubt. Thank you very much for your tireless efforts over, as you said, 45-odd years of teaching and shaping the young minds of Australian children; that is amazing.
Thank you very much to everyone, and a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. We have a couple more days left in this parliament. It has been an interesting couple of weeks and it will continue to be interesting for the next couple of days, so when we go home tonight, remember we have a couple more days, rest well and enjoy your holidays when they come to you.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will say a few things about Corrections. Unfortunately, I was not able to be here for the whole debate today but I would like to put on record a few of my thoughts about where we are going with Corrections in the Northern Territory.
There has been much talk about a $300m prison and some people criticise the government for spending that amount of money. It is a great deal of money but that emphasis is only one part of the equation. The part of the equation I would like to see more emphasis placed on is at the beginning and at the end.
We have to put more emphasis on early intervention, especially with kids while they are at school. When we see they are at risk we need programs and strategies to start to attack those problems early. I was once told that $1 spent on early intervention is about the equivalent of $15 later on in life. People might have seen the youth program - I think it was Roper Gulf Shire - run for youth at risk in Ngukurr and Numbulwar. They were doing Certificate 1 in agriculture. I think it is called rural ops; I call it the stockman’s course. They were doing that course at Mataranka Station and it was an excellent thing for the shire council to promote.
That is where we should be encouraging more emphasis, especially from the government. It is no good spending $300m building a big prison if we are not spending equivalent amounts to reduce the numbers that enter our prison system.
We need to take people, especially young people from the urban areas, out bush. The government made a big song and dance about Hamilton Downs youth camp in Alice Springs, especially at the last election, but since that election the government has not put the same emphasis on using that youth camp for the programs it claimed it was supporting. Charles Darwin University is doing work there; the Waltja women’s culture group has been running programs there for older women and women’s groups; Tangentyere Council has been doing some work on diversion programs, but it seems that money, instead of going to Hamilton Downs, is going on what is sometimes referred to as the soft option - that is, camel treks - instead of a more concentrated diversionary program which you would expect to come from Hamilton Downs. If the money given for these so-called camel treks was put into the Hamilton Downs youth camp it would be a far better project and would increase the use of Hamilton Downs as a place for youth at risk.
Hamilton Downs is used for other things, but there was a lot of noise made by the government at the last election about how they were putting emphasis into places like Hamilton Downs. I hope the government does not drop off the use of that youth camp because we are halfway between elections. I hope it still uses that camp to help young people get back on the straight and narrow.
There should be more community recreation centres. Darwin is poorly serviced by those types of things – there is The Shack in Casuarina and the Palmerston YMCA - and that is it. The Shack is pretty small when you consider the number of young people in Darwin; it is not a great big recreation centre, and properly funding that area needs to be thought about. This is part of the early intervention which needs to happen. If we are talking about a new era we need to talk about a new era from the beginning to the end, not just the bit in the middle.
There are other things which contribute to people going to gaol which are similar to the things which get kids into trouble and are part of the problem when it comes to child protection - alcohol, housing and jobs. If we only talk about the $300m for a prison and do not discuss what we are doing about housing, employment and alcohol problems then we will not achieve much and will continue to have as many people in prison, and more, and continue to have the same recidivism rates. If people do not have jobs, proper houses which are not overcrowded, and if alcohol takes over because of the depressing circumstances in which they live, then there will be violence and people will be arrested and end up in gaol. That is just as true as the sun coming up tomorrow morning.
At the other end of the system, we have to make sure there is employment. When someone is released - it is no good training them in prison to find there is no work out there - we have to make sure there is work. I have said before, I think we should scrap the CDEP program, not because I think it is necessarily bad, although it has some faults, but because that money should be turned into full-time jobs, people should be employed in communities and councils should be involved in developing those jobs.
We need to have follow-up programs; if you put someone out the prison gates and there is no continual follow-up, people will drift into bad habits again. It is no good saying we have a program. The program has to be big enough to follow-up all prisoners leaving the prison to ensure we do not see them again. If there is no one to help them when life gets tough they will fall into bad habits again and be back in prison. You do not need me to say that; you just have to look at the statistics which show the number of people who are reoffending and coming back into the prisons.
We need to continue the training programs. It is disappointing that there has been no decision made on the stockman’s course which was held in the Darwin prison last year. It is similar to the course the young people were doing at Mataranka and is something we should ensure there are enough funds for because I saw the difference that course made to those 15 prisoners this year; it is well worth continuing. The government should make every effort to do so.
We not only need the work camp which has been planned in Katherine and the one being built in the Barkly, we need work camps elsewhere where people can work in national parks and other minor town centres. I think the prison farm in Katherine is great; it is something I have been pushing for a long time and is part of the discussions I have had with the government about prisons. We need a prison farm, or similar, in the Alice Springs region as well. I do not think they should all be in this part of the world.
There have been some comments made recently about mainstream prisons. Unfortunately, when a meeting was held in Howard Springs regarding the site of the new prison - I thought it was a poorly run meeting - I do not think people understood the reason the prison has been sited there. Some people have said it should still be sited at Berrimah. That is where I thought it should be sited originally but I looked at the plans for the new prison - the footprint, the difficulties of the site not only from water logging but from lack of level land and the high voltage power lines nearby. We know it is a high electricity strike area; we also know if you put it on the farm next door there are issues with pollution, and that area is not flat. I looked at both of those areas a number of times; I met with architects, engineers, designers and, even though I argued the case that it should end up in that area, it simply was not going to work and that is the reason they had to look for another site.
The planned site is further away than the existing prison is from Knuckeys Lagoon residents, who also live in a rural environment; it is about the same distance Durack is from the existing prison. It has been sited as far as possible from residents, and that had limitations because that is where Defence wanted it. I believe it is a suitable area. It is on land presently used for gravel extraction, so it is land which has already been disturbed. I believe that is a suitable site. There may be other options later on for that land in the form of industry, or more subdivisions, or access to a regional waste facility, but that is yet to be decided.
I heard the minister talk earlier today about prisons and Corrections, but if we do not put more emphasis on early intervention and do not follow that up with programs to help prevent people reoffending, if we do not concentrate on employment, either in the prison or before people get to prison, and if we do not concentrate on jobs afterwards, we will continue to have recidivism.
We need to put more money into early intervention and what happens when prisoners are released from gaol.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Inappropriate Signage in Chamber
Inappropriate Signage in Chamber
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Daly and member for Fong Lim, I remind you that signs are not acceptable in the Chamber. Please remove the signs from your laptops, thank you.
Ms Lawrie: Would that be the members for Drysdale and Braitling as well?
Madam SPEAKER: We can leave those ones for the moment.
MESSAGE FROM ADMINISTRATOR
Message No 22
Message No 22
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received from His Honour the Administrator, Message No 22 notifying assent to bills passed in the October sittings of the Assembly.
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
Member for Macdonnell
Member for Macdonnell
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move that leave of absence be granted this day to the member for Macdonnell, Ms Anderson.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Council of Territory Cooperation – Discharge of Member for Macdonnell
Council of Territory Cooperation – Discharge of Member for Macdonnell
Mr WOOD (Nelson)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move - That the member for Macdonnell, Ms Anderson, be discharged from service on the Sessional Committee of the Council of Territory Cooperation.
Motion agreed to.
OCCUPATIONAL LICENSING (NATIONAL UNIFORM LEGISLATION) BILL
(Serial 139)
(Serial 139)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
This bill seeks to implement the Occupational Licensing National Law - or the National Law - as set out in the schedule to the Occupational Licensing Law Act 2010 of Victoria as a law of the Northern Territory. The National Law sets out the regulatory framework for the National Occupational Licensing System - or the National Licensing System. This is one of the key reforms under the National Partnership Agreement to Deliver a Seamless National Economy signed by the Council of Australian Governments in December 2008. The proposed reform aims to replace the current multiple licensing regimes across jurisdictions with a single national system, thereby reducing red tape for businesses and individuals, and potentially improving labour mobility and productivity.
The Ministerial Council for Federal Financial Relations has primary responsibility for implementing the National Licensing System. It is intended that an appropriate ministerial council would, in the future, be charged with the responsibility of administering the system.
The National Law establishes the National Occupational Licensing Authority - or the Licensing Authority - to administer the National Licensing System and make policy recommendations to the ministerial council. The Licensing Authority will be governed by the National Occupational Licensing Board, and be supported in its policy role by Occupational Licensing Advisory Committees. The National Licensing System will operate on a ‘national delegated agency model’ whereby the ministerial council and the Licensing Authority determines the development, maintenance and performance of licensing policy, while state and territory regulators continue to provide administrative functions relating to licensing and enforcement.
Policy functions that may remain with jurisdictions cover: conduct requirements concerning how work in regulated occupations is to be performed; consumer protection and public safety laws; consumer complaints and remedies; and appeals mechanisms.
The National Licensing System will initially cover seven economically important occupational areas. These are: air-conditioning and refrigeration; building and building-related occupations; electrical; land transport, passenger vehicle drivers and dangerous goods only; maritime; property-related occupations; and plumbing and gas fitting. All of these categories, with the exception of air-conditioning and refrigeration, are currently licensed in the Territory and will be part of the national approach. A future policy decision is to be taken on whether or not air-conditioning and refrigeration licences should be part of the national scheme.
There are currently 800 licence types, including endorsements, in these seven initial occupational areas across the eight states and territories. This COAG reform will make it easier for occupational licensees to operate across state and territory borders without the burden of applying for additional licences. This will benefit the Territory in attracting skilled labour in the future.
Implementation for the seven initial occupational areas will occur in two phases with the first tranche of occupations commencing in July 2012 and the second tranche joining the scheme from 1 July 2013. This staggered introduction is necessary to provide adequate time for the development of appropriate licensing policies for each occupational area. Provision is also made for further occupational areas to be included in the national scheme over time where jurisdictions agree to do so. The National Law provides for national consistency in licensing policy and the approach to disciplinary arrangements for licensees whilst still providing a sufficient degree of flexibility to deal with issues specific to particular jurisdictions or occupations.
The model bill provides the high-level framework for the National Licensing System. Operational aspects, industry, and occupation-specific issues will be covered in national regulations which will be made by the responsible ministerial council. However, there is a small risk that the unique circumstances which can exist in jurisdictions such as the Territory may not always be fully appreciated and may require a level of flexibility, or for regard to be had to distributional impacts of national proposals which might be otherwise subsumed in the national interest.
Although the risk is small, the Occupational Licensing (National Uniform Legislation) Bill 2010 will preserve the ability of the Territory’s Legislative Assembly to effectively disallow future regulations made pursuant to the National Law which are deemed inappropriate to the Territory’s circumstances. In addition, the model adoption bill which was drafted for those non-host jurisdictions choosing to apply the National Law by referencing the Schedule to the Victorian enactment as host jurisdiction provides for amendments to the National Law passed by the Victorian Parliament to apply automatically in each jurisdiction. In some cases, agreement to amend the National Law may only require the agreement of a bare majority of the ministerial council.
This is not the Territory’s preferred legislative arrangement. Accordingly, the Territory bill re-enacts the model National Law as an appendix to the Territory act so nationally-agreed amendments to the act will not automatically apply in the Northern Territory, as they will in those jurisdictions which have referenced the Victorian act ‘as in force from time to time’. Instead, the Territory bill provides for the Administrator to make regulations to amend the appendix to the Territory act to apply nationally-agreed amendments. This ensures amendments are able to be applied easily and in a timely fashion but, nevertheless, subject to appropriate parliamentary scrutiny and disallowance powers. The Northern Territory approach to apply the National Law as an appendix to the Territory act also has the advantage of ensuring the Northern Territory legislation database reflects the current state of the law as it applies in the Northern Territory at any future point of time. It provides for transparency, efficiency and convenience for Territorians, while retaining our commitment to the implementation and operation of the National Law and the proposed National Licensing Scheme in the Territory.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement to accompany the bill.
Debate adjourned.
CONSUMER AFFAIRS AND FAIR TRADING AMENDMENT (NATIONAL UNIFORM LEGISLATION) BILL
(Serial 132)
(Serial 132)
Continued from 28 October 2010.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, the opposition will not be opposing this bill. It is a product of a national agreement; COAG rules supreme. Essentially, it is a melding of consumer protection laws throughout all jurisdictions of this nation.
In the dark ages of the Whitlam government, a few things occurred which were small, dim flickers of light in an otherwise dark time. One of those dim flickers of light was the Trade Practices Act, which went a long way to addressing the issues of trade practices in this country. The common law provided some comfort, but as responsibilities and liabilities became increasingly complex and difficult with the passage of time and the operation of laws of negligence and such things, as well as the inequitable relationship between some businesses, it was determined by the Parliament of Australia that the trade practices of firms be restrained by a legislative instrument rather than mere reliance on the principles of the common law. Consequently, the Trade Practices Act was born.
In 1994, I came into possession of my first Miller’s Trade Practices Act, which was the standard text for matters of trade practice in this country, and it was a surprisingly thin volume. I have brought my last two copies of Miller’s to demonstrate how things have changed. This one is hardly what you would call a thin volume; it is 800 pages long and is the 1997 version of Miller’s Annotated Trade Practices Act. I now have the 2008 version which is 2080 pages from cover to cover. The Trade Practices Act, as an organ of corporate governance in this country, has been growing, some would argue, malignantly, for some time. The Trade Practices Act, and I imagine my next copy of Miller’s, is going to get thicker. It may even come in two volumes, by virtue of the fact that its expansion has now resulted in this arrangement at a COAG level. The expansion of the Trade Practices Act has taken it in all sorts of directions never anticipated by its original and some of the areas it has infiltrated include matters relating to consumer law.
Primarily and historically, the Trade Practices Act was an organ which restricted itself to the relationship between businesses and did not offer any form of effective consumer protection. Each of the state jurisdictions produced their own consumer legislation. In the Northern Territory it is known as the CAFTA, or the Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading Act.
The inevitable has occurred, and that is that the Trade Practices Act’s growth has finally penetrated so deeply into the area of consumer law that the concept of unconscionableness, which is central to the Trade Practices Act, has found its way into the consumer law. It is a necessary part of the organic growth of this country’s trade and consumer practices that there is a meeting of the minds between the two spheres of influence.
Consequently, this government has seen fit to go to COAG and sign an agreement which does little more than reflect many of the principles which exist in our current Trade Practices Act. The nature of commerce nowadays is that companies operate in different jurisdictions and it makes perfect sense that larger companies be afforded a single reliable point of reference for their trade practices and their consumer protections.
The ups and downs of these types of arrangements are that you win a few and lose a few. I am critical that the federal legislation will not have carriage of sanctions which can see imprisonment as one of the penalties available for courts to impose; they are restricted to fines. I acknowledge that fines are substantially larger under the Trade Practices Act, or the Schedule to the Trade Practices Act, which this will ultimately represent. Nevertheless, I am disappointed there are no penalties by which a court may choose to imprison under the federal regime. I am not aware of any stage where anyone has been sent to prison as a result of a breach of the CAFTA; I could stand corrected, but I suspect I am right. As a consequence, the sanction is there as a threat but is yet to manifest itself in reality.
To cut a long story short, we have more than enough business before this House to keep us occupied; there is nothing in this which I find particularly concerning. I make my usual observation that every time we sign up to national legislation, a little of our federation erodes away, and I am an ardent federalist. I hope in all of these arrangements, when we enter into them, there is still a capacity written into the arrangements which will enable us, in the interests of people living in the Northern Territory, to step away from uniform arrangements if they do not suit the outcomes needed for the people of the Northern Territory. If we give away powers absolutely - I believe it was McClelland, I could stand corrected on the name, who made a comment in a case not so long ago about the High Court’s exercise of its jurisdiction, that the states’ parliaments could be rendered little more than debating societies. This is also potentially part of that process. However, I also acknowledge the reality of the world we live in and the necessity to provide a uniform approach for commercial environments.
Madam Speaker, it is not in the instinct of the CLP to do anything which would substantially undermine the integrity of the commercial environment which this House is duty bound to protect.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, I also support the bill. It was good to hear the member for Port Darwin indicate that the opposition is supporting the legislation, although I understand there are some questions regarding penalties and other things which the Attorney-General will cover.
We are amending the Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading Act so the Australian consumer law which the federal government has passed will become the consumer law of the Northern Territory. The member for Port Darwin touched on some of the federal and state issues and the historical context of the legislation. What we are doing is also being done by the other states and territories which means there will be one consumer law for Australia; it means certainty for the consumer, the wholesaler and the retailer – one law applying equally. It is a big change. As flagged by the Attorney-General, it is the largest overhaul of consumer law in Australia for over 25 years. It is a big step forward, and a timely one considering the changes to technology and the changes to people's attitudes about what they buy, when they buy it, how they buy it, and how people sell it to them.
The Australian consumer law we will be adopting was negotiated through COAG, I understand, and it was agreed it will cover a number of issues: a single, national law for consumer protection and fair trading based on 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 draw upon best practice in the existing state and territory consumer laws.
While we have all signed up for the new agreement, there is a process of change to be made to the laws: Four jurisdictions, three of them states, need to agree the changes can be made so there is some flexibility built into the system in such a way as it provides certainty over the long term about what people are doing and how they are doing it. It sounds reasonable, and we will see how it works in practice. As I said, there will be greater certainty, consistency and clarity for consumers as a result of all states and territories adopting the changes.
It is also a result of modern drafting. There has been a significant period of time since consumer affairs was last addressed nationally –25 years - and there will be consistent rules of business making the conduct of business across state and territory borders easier - less red tape, to an extent but, more importantly, less need for different practices allowing for easier training -employees will only need one set of rules, and with trading your business partners will know with certainty that your product and services are fine if practised in one state to then practice in another. To adopt that report into another jurisdiction creates a greater certainty for both businesses and consumers, means safer products, one clear and constant set of safety obligations - consumer transactions will have one set of rules. It is a win for people who worry when making purchases.
There are greater protections for misleading or deceptive conduct and unconscionable conduct. Greater protections against, to quote the Attorney-General:
- … 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 multiply pricing; referral selling and harassment or coercion.
Those are things many people worry about and for which they need protections.
Perhaps the reforms of most interest to the basic consumer are those around unsolicited selling. Door-to-door salesmen have moved on; I have not been doorknocked by anyone selling a vacuum cleaner or the Encyclopaedia Britannica. I remember the encyclopaedia salesman knocking on our door when I was growing up in Alice Springs. He would proudly hold the encyclopaedia up by one page to show how tough it was. I have never been doorknocked by a salesman; I am not sure if Mormons or politicians count. Perhaps I need to be careful on my weekly doorknock. If you are doorknocked at the moment the products most often sold are security systems. There is a certain irony in that; unsolicited salesmen are selling something to keep away the unsolicited.
However, door-to-door is not as prevalent as it was. Telephone salespeople have become more common, and we need to provide consumers with greater protection. Technology has changed, people’s attitudes have changed, and with those reforms and modern drafting of legislation those changes are now embraced. We need greater protections for people around the unsolicited telephone call and there are a number of protections which, to quote the Attorney-General:
- … 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.
More rights for people in dealing with an unsolicited salesperson. You do not always make the right decision at the time; protections are needed, they are important, people can make mistakes. Sometimes out of politeness, when someone is at the door, you say yes to something you should not have. So you need a cooling-off period. People do not like being rude and get caught up in a situation they should not have and, after a moment of reflection, after the person has left, you wonder why you did it. So we need protections; we need an opportunity to cool-off after being caught on the spot.
These reforms capture the changes in how things are sold to people which have occurred over the last 25 years and bring much needed new protection for consumers in the Territory. It is timely for these reforms to update our legislation. They afford Territorians the same rights as every other Australian when it comes to buying and selling, and that goes for businesses as much as households - business buyers too. In fact, businesses probably receive more unsolicited calls than households. These are much needed protections which recognise changes in technology, changes in how people buy and sell. It is sensible legislation.
Madam Speaker, I commend the Attorney-General for bringing the bill forward and I commend it to the House.
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I support the bill and endorse the comments of my colleague. As it is about consumer affairs matters, I thought it appropriate to take the opportunity to comment generally. When the opposition was discussing this bill, the member for Port Darwin commented that the Consumer Affairs Council folded because there were no members and there was no interest. That is incorrect. The Consumer Affairs Council was fully operational at the time support was withdrawn by the previous Attorney-General, Mr Stirling. Graeme Bevis was supporting the motor trade industry, there were obviously many issues there; Barbara Vos and Michael Uibo were on the Council, Cheryl Kuhn, the financial counsellor with Anglicare, was also on the Council and a Chair for a period of time, the late Peter Brown was very much involved with the Consumer Affairs Council for 10 years. There was a representative …
Madam SPEAKER: Excuse me, member for Goyder, can I ask you to pause. I have been advised that the televisions which report Hansard and the proceedings here have gone off in members’ offices, and the lights have clearly gone off in the Sub Table Office. I would like to find out whether we are still recording before we ask you to continue. Please stop the clock for the member for Goyder while we get some advice.
Mr Gadd, can you tell me what is going on?
I have been advised that Hansard is still working. The Sub Table Office cannot hear us, so it is a bit of a problem, but we will see if we get further advice. We may have to suspend for a short period. Member for Goyder, thank you.
Ms PURICK: Thank you, Madam Speaker. To continue, the Consumer Affairs Council had a representative from the Tangentyere Council representing the views, wishes, and issues in Central Australia, a representative from the Arnhem Land Program Association, ALPA, and another person by the name of Jackie Nichols. For a period of time I was on this council and the council did a great deal of good work which was supported by industry and community. Marilyn McDonnell worked within the Office of Consumer Affairs – she was and is a sterling person - and provided the secretariat services to the Consumer Affairs Council. So, to say the Consumer Affairs Council did not have people or interest is incorrect.
It was a great disappointment to many of the people who worked on the council when it lost support of the minister - from talking with some of them, departmental people at senior level did not like the council because the council reported directly to the minister on not only their work but consumer issues, particularly in remote communities. They did a great deal of work with the Arnhem Land Progress Association and community stores to ensure the pricing was on products. In many stores people in those communities had no idea what they were paying for items - whether they were luxury items or essential items - when it was the law to have all items marked. They also did a lot of work visiting the communities to ensure they could get the best possible fresh produce.
Much work was done with Michael Long to raise awareness of consumer issues in the community. They also did a great deal of work with the office and the council in regard to financial planning for people in communities and urban areas. The Office of Consumer Affairs does a lot of work to highlight scams and things of that nature, but the council was very active and strong until it started to lose the support of the minister. Why, I do not know.
Madam Speaker, I am interested to know if the current Attorney-General has any thoughts about resurrecting the Consumer Affairs Council because I believe, at this point of time, we have a need for such a council and the work it did.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I support the bill. It is important that we have national standards for consumer affairs. My only concern is that we do have a Consumer Affairs department and it has many regulations and laws. However, the impression I get from people who have tried to use Consumer Affairs as a means of getting some justice is that sometimes it seems to fail. Whether the department does not have enough people or resources to do some of the things the people ask it to do I am never sure.
For instance, I was contacted earlier this year by a constituent who had some major issues with a patio being built on his premises. The issue is still outstanding; it is nearly 12 months old. He has been through the Building Advisory Services and Consumer Affairs. He has quite a number of outstanding problems with the patio. It has not been finished according to what was expected and yet we do not seem to have a government department which is able to sort that out. To my understanding he contacted Consumer Affairs, he was given some good information and they tried to mediate on this matter but that was about as much as it could do. There are times when people think that is all Consumer Affairs does.
I remember writing to Consumer Affairs and asking why a certain poultry farmer was selling free range-eggs when all his birds were in cages. I asked them if they would inspect his premises, because they had the right to do that, but they said I would have to do that. It gave me the impression that there are times there when Consumer Affairs is hamstrung by lack of staff or finances, or that it simply does not have the power to do some of the things people may expect it to do.
I feel concerned for this constituent. It is taking so long for this matter to be sorted out, yet he has a patio that, for instance, has been screwed down in the valleys in the roofing iron, which is not normally where you put the screws because it means they leak. Also, the poles which were put into the concrete were not protected from corrosion. The minister may say some of that is the Building Board side of things. You would hope it is but it appears to have stagnated in that area as well. He has used the government departments, hoping some benefit would come from having those departments investigate and act on the complaints. Instead, a letter may be written or comments made but it does not go much further than that.
We have all of these changes in the legislation and it mentions there are specific consumer protections. It says:
- … 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 …
I would have thought if someone has said they will build a patio it would come up to the building code, it would be constructed properly, and it would not leak or corrode. For some reason, this constituent is left with a patio which has not come up to the requirements he was expected to pay for, yet there does not seem to be any way that anyone can help him unless he takes the person to court. I would have thought taking the person to court is throwing the onus back on the owner of the patio rather than on the departments which are meant to carry out the intent of the law.
I ask the minister to advise whether our department has the wherewithal to carry out actions against people or businesses which produce false or misleading representations of goods or services. I know Consumer Affairs does act occasionally when it comes to fireworks, or they may put out a recall notice. That is all fine, but I wonder whether they have the ability to take on an issue like this patio which has not been completed in a proper fashion. Do they have the power to force the person to complete the job? Do they have the power to talk to the Building Advisory Services and ask if the building meets the standards? Is there a way the consumer can feel the department is acting in a serious manner on matters which can cost the consumer a great deal of money and leave them with a facility which is not up to standard.
Madam Speaker, I welcome the legislation before us. It is good that we have this uniform legislation. I hope we do not have legislation without having the teeth. I hope where there are infringements on the legislation the department can act so consumers are not just protected in theory by legislation on paper but are protected on the ground when the time comes for these laws to be used.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I thank all members for their contribution to the debate and I will touch on each of the matters raised by the members in my summing up. I sincerely thank members for their support because from 1 January 2011 Australia will have a single national consumer law, the Australian Consumer Law, referred to as the ACL. That arose from a 2008 COAG agreement to develop a new consumer policy framework comprising a single national consumer law based on the Trade Practices Act of 1974, drawing on the recommendations of the Productivity Commission and best practice in state and territory consumer laws, including a provision regulating unfair contract terms.
The ACL will include: a new national unfair contract terms law, covering standard form contracts; a new national law guaranteeing consumer rights when buying goods and services, which replaces existing laws on conditions and warranties; a new national product safety law and enforcement system; a new national law for unsolicited consumer agreements, which replaces existing state and territory laws on door-to-door sales and other direct marketing; simple national rules for lay-by agreements; and new penalties enforcement powers and consumer redress options.
I note that the shadow Attorney-General issued a press release on 16 November and said he did not believe the Territory had done the right thing in signing up for this. I recognise his support today. He said that because elements of being able to be gaoled have been removed we have not stood up for the rights of Territorians. Nothing could be further from the truth. This new law gives enhanced protection to consumers through all those mechanisms I have stated and only two provisions in the previous law attracted a potential gaol penalty, which has never been used. That was an absurd line for the member for Port Darwin to run. He glossed over that this stemmed from a Productivity Commission report and there was a very strong case to go to a seamless national economy with a uniform and higher level of protection - I emphasise higher level of protection - for Australian consumers while at the same time addressing the weaknesses in existing laws.
The new policy framework will improve consumer law enforcement powers, reduce compliance costs for businesses and increase access to information regarding dispute resolution - which relates to an issue the member for Nelson raised - and consumer issues. The Productivity Commission has estimated that the economic benefits of the framework will be between $1.5bn and $4.5bn a year. I am of the view that the adoption of the ACL will benefit Territorians by providing a modern and nationally consistent approach to consumer issues and fair trading generally. It will provide enhanced consumer protection, such as provisions relating to unfair contract terms and lay-by, and it will enhance enforcement options.
The member for Fannie Bay identified increased protections for consumers in cooling-off periods and the ability to capture the changes in technology in the way consumers are approached by merchants. I understand that the member for Port Darwin questioned the need for any law at all in a briefing. Why not rely on the common law? I did note that today he seems to have changed his position on that and is now an advocate of law in this area; I welcome that change. Given that was raised, I want to go into some of history of the consumer protections and how they have been developed. It is important to highlight that in this debate.
From the 13th century to the 19th century, most issues in the English legal system were dealt with under the common law. Statutes were only enacted in relation to matters of constitutional structure or changes to the law considered essential for policy reasons, or where the action could only be undertaken in the exercise of legislative power. Examples in the first category include statutes such as the Act of Settlement to settle the succession to the English throne, and the Acts of Union to join the kingdoms of England and Scotland. Examples in the second category include bills of rights, enumerating the rights to which subjects were entitled, and the statute of frauds, stipulating that certain classes of contract had to be in writing and signed. Examples in the third category include taxing and appropriation statutes.
Commencing in the 19th century, statutes were used more frequently. There were two principal reasons for this development. First, society was becoming more complex, requiring responses to issues not comprehensively dealt with under the common law. In any event, the common law at that stage was not uniform, was applied differently by different courts, and was difficult to identify with any precision. Second, the publication of the Napoleonic Code had led most European countries to adopt statute as a sole basis of their legal systems for its greater certainty.
While the English legal system maintained the common law tradition, statutes were increasingly adopted in areas thought to require a clear statement of rules of general application or some more immediate response than was possible under the evolutionary development of the common law. Towards the end of the 19th century, statutes had come to overshadow the common law as the primary source of English law. This was particularly so in the area of public law, which may broadly be defined as the field of the law regulating the structure and administration of government, the conduct of government in its relations with its citizens, and the responsibilities of government employees. The enactment of statutes in that field was essential because modern social services could only be provided by creating new public authorities with powers far more extensive than the prerogative powers allowed to the government by the common law.
Statutes also came to predominate in the sphere of private law, which may broadly be defined as that part of the law dealing with aspects of relationships between individuals that are not of direct concern to the state such as property, trusts, family law, contract, commercial law, and tort.
Statutes regulating the field of private law fell into three broad categories. The first was where the law was developed in a long series of decisions and massive cases from which it was difficult to identify the central principles. For example, the Partnership Act and the Sale of Goods Act which remain in force in every Australian jurisdiction codify the fundamental principles in a few relatively simple provisions. The second category was where the practice of common law had evolved to require enormously lengthy documents and/or cumbersome procedures. For example, any conveyance under the old common law system of titles required an exhaustive and expensive inquiry into the chain of ownership going back many decades. It was replaced by the Torrens legislation for simplicity and certainty. Third, statutes were used to deal with isolated points of private law where a rule had been established by the common law which was recognised to work in justice. For example, the Limitation Act was passed to ensure people and businesses were not exposed to the risk of litigation long after the events said to give rise to the legal liability had arisen.
No one would doubt the enactment of legislation in those fields was in the public interest. The general approach of modern governments, including the Territory government, is legislation is introduced only for those matters which are essential to the government’s objectives and which cannot be achieved in other ways, bearing in mind legal requirements and parliamentary obligations and conventions. In general, legislation is only enacted to redefine or extend existing rights or obligations, to circumscribe or extend powers if there is a constitutional requirement to raise revenue and appropriate monies, or if it is justified for important policy reasons.
To say legislation is always unnecessary where the field of activity is covered by the common law is at odds with history and experience. There are many examples which illustrate the proposition. The criminal law was previously covered largely by the common law, supplemented by isolated statutes dealing with particular issues. In 1899, Queensland enacted a criminal code which had been formulated by Samuel Griffith who was the then Chief Justice of Queensland and later became the Chief Justice of the High Court. The code afforded a greater degree of simplicity and certainty to the enforcement of the criminal law. Codes were also adopted by Western Australia, Tasmania and, in 1983, by the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory. Even in states which do not have a code, much of the criminal law has been consolidated into statute. In short, no jurisdiction has adopted the position that legislation in relation to criminal law is unnecessary, because the matter was covered by the common law.
In consumer affairs and fair trading laws, prior to the introduction of the Trade Practices Act and the Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading Act, the common law and equity provided a number of remedies which might fall under the general description of a consumer protection, such as fraudulent misrepresentation, unconscionable dealings, passing off, breach of contract, etcetera. There was no doubt, however, as corporations and businesses became more powerful and more sophisticated with an attendant disparity between the positions as sellers of goods and services and the position of consumers as buyers, these common law and equitable protections were inadequate. For example, there were many types of misleading and deceptive conduct which did not give rise to any remedy at common law and practices were adopted by sellers to exclude any contractual liability. It was for this reason the consumer protection provisions of the acts strengthened the position of consumers relative to sellers and implied into consumer contracts non-excludable conditions as to quality, fitness, and title.
So far as public safety was concerned, it is generally accepted that the common law remedies in contract and negligence were entirely inadequate to give a consumer any meaningful recourse in relation to matters such as product performance, composition, contents, design, and construction. The common law had nothing to say about price fixing and anti-competitive practices. Overall, it is a nonsense to suggest legislation is never desirable or necessary where the field of activity is covered by common law. The question whether legislation is desirable or necessary in any case can only be answered by examining the operation of the common law and the policy reasons for the legislative intervention. In this case, there are very good reasons for ensuring Australian consumers are protected by specific legislation with appropriate remedies and compliance tools which can be effectively used by the relevant authorities.
The member for Port Darwin said in debate today that the Trade Practices Act did not have consumer provisions. That is wrong. I am advised that Part 5 of the Trade Practices Act was always about consumer law. Part 5 is now repealed and the ACL will replace it. As I said previously, the member for Port Darwin raised the issue of removing gaol offences in a media release. Under the legislation which is being repealed only two offences carry the potential of imprisonment and there has been no case in the Territory where anyone was imprisoned. This new law has a broad range of more appropriate penalties or remedies, such as prosecutions, civil penalties, injunctions, damages, compensation orders, redress orders, adverse publicity orders, and disqualification orders. It certainly strengthens the arm, if you like, against unfair practices.
Regarding the concerns of the member for Goyder, there are no plans to resurrect the Council of Consumer Affairs. The roles of consultation and education which the council had previously undertaken are now undertaken by Consumer Affairs. I will talk about some of the roles it currently undertakes to give you examples because we do support activities which raise awareness to ensure consumers are advised of their rights and which ensure that any unconscionable practices are given the short shrift and stopped. That also addresses the question from the member for Nelson about Consumer Affairs having the wherewithal to carry out its activities. The answer to that is ‘absolutely’, and these new national laws will give them greater wherewithal.
____________________
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, would you mind if I acknowledge these young people in the gallery. Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Year 5/6 Millner Primary School students, accompanied by Ms Sheeree Arratta and Ms Deb Stevens. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
____________________
Ms LAWRIE: I welcome the students. I attended Millner Primary School in 1975 after Cyclone Tracy when it was called Nimira, which was the merging of Nightcliff Primary, Millner Primary and Rapid Creek Primary for a year while we reconstructed the Nightcliff and Rapid Creek schools. So I have been to that school. It is a great school and you are doing a great amount of work for the environment. Congratulations and welcome to the Assembly.
I digress from debate on consumer law, Madam Speaker.
In regard to enforcement activities, a range of tools are used to ensure Territorian consumers are protected from rogue traders. These include naming and shaming powers, enforceable undertakings, and contact with traders to change trading practices. In the past year, a number of successful actions have been undertaken on behalf of consumers. To name a few, these include: cancellation of 248 door-to-door contracts, totalling $721 000, from a rental company selling whitegoods to Indigenous consumers; obtaining an enforceable undertaking from an international company not to promote an alleged pyramid scheme in the Northern Territory; cancellation of a number of contracts by a local rental company breaching door-to-door trading provisions; and, warning consumers about itinerant traders offering cheap bitumen driveways.
Consumer Affairs also undertakes compliance action, which includes ensuring traders do not breach legislation and do follow up on complaints. That addresses the questions from the members for Goyder and Nelson about the activity of the department of Consumer Affairs. I cannot comment on the specific matter raised by the member for Nelson. However, I am more than happy for the member for Nelson to contact my office should he want follow up on individual matters. The role of Consumer Affairs is to provide advice and advocacy for consumers. Consumer Affairs cannot make orders about consumer matters. The court is the forum for determining these contractual matters if the matter cannot be resolved. The ACL, the new law, will give the commissioner greater powers and more options to deal with consumer problems. I hope that addresses the concerns of the member for Nelson.
I thank the members for Port Darwin, Fannie Bay, Goyder and Nelson for contributing to the debate. We have a law which will be passed in this Chamber, with bipartisan support and support of the Independent present, which puts in place stronger protections for consumers, broadens the powers of Consumer Affairs in addressing protections for consumer, provides consistency in consumer protections across our great nation; and - fond as I am as Treasurer for any reduction in red tape and bureaucracy imposed on business - reduces the burden of consumer laws on business. The Productivity Commission has estimated the economic benefits of this framework to be between $1.5bn and $4.5bn a year.
What we have before the Chamber today is what I describe as a win/win - improved protection for consumers, strengthened powers for the consumer watchdog, a reduction in red tape and burden on business, and an economic benefit to our great nation. That is a very fine win/win.
I thank Robert Chamberlain from my department, who has put in a great deal of work in bringing this legislation to the House. I know he has worked tirelessly on other legislation for us. I do not normally single out individuals, but I know Robert is kicking into a career phase and has been a great member of our Department of Justice. I thank him for his tireless work on the Consumer Affairs and Fair Trading Amendment (National Uniform Legislation) Bill 2010 (Serial 132).
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
MOTION
Note Paper - Auditor-General’s October 2010 Report to the Legislative Assembly
Note Paper - Auditor-General’s October 2010 Report to the Legislative Assembly
Continued from 19 October 2010.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Speaker, the Northern Territory Auditor-General conducted a general compliance and four specific audits on the Department of Health and Families, testing compliance with government and departmental policies and procedures and assessing governance in our systems. The department has accepted all recommendations and is taking the necessary action to implement action to improve processes. The department’s external Audit Committee, chaired by Mr Iain Summers, a former Northern Territory Auditor-General, will monitor implementation of the recommendations.
With the overall agency compliance audit, the Auditor-General made findings about the department’s procurement processes. For example: instances where documented procurement procedures were not adhered to; some public tendering processes were not fully compliant; some goods and services were procured without adequate approval; and requisitions were raised subsequent to the receipt of goods or services. The department is addressing these issues and providing mandatory training for all officers responsible for procurement.
The Accountable Officer’s Trust Account is used to hold rental bonds for staff accommodation. The Auditor-General identified a breakdown in internal controls and made findings about: instances of double payments; overpayments; and revenue being recorded through the Accountable Officer’s Trust Account. The department is addressing these issues with centralised reconciliation of the Accountable Officer’s Trust Account which are now being carried out based on current tenant data provided by the hospitals. Key bonds are no longer being collected at Alice Springs Hospital which has reduced the administrative burden. These measures can reduce the instances identified in the audit.
The Auditor-General considered the stock control process at the Royal Darwin Hospital pharmacy and found adequate internal control over acquisition, storage and dispensing of pharmacy stock. Some issues were identified with record keeping, security, and disposal of Schedule 8 drugs. The department has taken the following actions to rectify the issues: developing or updating procedures and policies; and requiring documents, for example purchase orders for prescriptions, to be retained in an appropriate secure storage facility for the requisite time.
The Auditor-General found the department has conscientiously made much effort, since 2004, to improve processes for managing relationships and service delivery by non-government organisations, but further work is still required for a robust performance system.
The department has commenced reforms in grants administration and management of grant-funded service provision. The key reforms include:
- review of non-government organisations governance framework within the Department of Health and Families Grants Management Framework;
Certain issues need attention, such as the use of delegations, outdated patient travel guidelines and procedures, records management, documents relating to patient responsibilities, and travel acquittals. The department is taking action including:
- Corporate Information Services developing and reviewing authorised Department of Health and Families record retention and disposal schedules. Travel requests will now be archived as required by the disposal schedule;
updated guidelines will be using the Department of Health and Families Protocol Management and Production Tool format for ease of access and to remove any anomalies; and
The Department of Health and Families is also addressing how best to ensure approvals are properly completed and that only authorised delegates grant an approval. All outstanding travel acquittals will be processed.
The Pensioner and Carer Concession Scheme was also subject to an audit. The Auditor-General found reasonable assurance that the internal controls are ensuring compliance. Some weaknesses in procedures were identified with financial delegations; retention of supporting documentation; and outdated procedures. The department has taken the following actions:
- financial delegations have been updated;
supporting documentation is now retained to verify decisions made; and
the Pensioner and Carer Concession Scheme policy and procedures manual is being updated and consolidated and will be made available on the Intranet. Staff will be trained in the application of the manual.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I acknowledge the Auditor-General and his office and thank them for the hard work they have put in throughout the year to provide the Legislative Assembly with a number of reports, this being one of them. Difficult tasks I am sure; not the sort of thing I could get my teeth into with any great interest; however, it is a necessary part of the auditing system of the functions of government and departments to see how they are performing on a number of levels. Thank you to Mr McGuiness.
This is a snapshot of a number of departments conducted by way of audit by the Audit-General’s department from January 2010 to June 2010. The auditing includes not only financial statements but also looks at some of the agencies internal controls, compliance and governance arrangements and a snapshot of how those governance arrangements and other areas of the departments’ performance are going. Reading this report has raised some concerns about governance arrangements under the helm of a number of ministers on the other side of the House. It is not to say this report is entirely bad, it is certainly not, and it is not to say this is just an opportunity to criticise, it is not. The most important thing arising from audit reports such as this is departments can begin to identify where they need to tidy up their act. It is incumbent on the minister concerned to lead the charge in respect to how departments move forward in achieving the recommendations arising out of findings the Auditor-General makes.
It was quite heartening to listen to the first response from government from the Minister for Health. I notice the comments in the Auditor-General’s report from the departments indicate that, pretty much across the board, the departments have adopted the findings of the Auditor-General. It is nice to see the minister stand in the House and acknowledge that the departments have recognised - or his department has recognised - what needs to be fixed, particularly when it comes to governance arrangements.
The report covers a number of departments. It was not an audit of the entire range of government departments we have in the Northern Territory, but of some of them. There are some highlights in here, and I am happy to point those out. I am always happy to give credit where credit is due. I commend the staff of the Department of Education and Training. The audit opinion for that department is very positive. The Attorney-General said:
The department had in place a high-level strategic reporting system, complemented by separate divisional reporting systems, independent evaluations of selected programs and schools, and the systemic monitoring of measures intended to provide early indications of schools that may be at risk.
To those who are responsible for having those governance arrangements in place, I say well done, and to the minister I say well done.
That is about as good as it gets. The report goes on to talk about the Department of Health and Families and covers a number of areas of operation within the Department of Health and Families. I will start with the Patient Assistance Travel Scheme. What will become apparent as I go through a few of these departments are some consistencies across the departments which are not good consistencies. There are areas here which seem to be problem areas that are common to a number of departments. I am referring to, in the first instance – and this is one of the key findings under PATS – insufficient and incomplete supporting documentation. The report went on to say:
- The current financial delegations relating to the scheme were not being adhered to and reliance was placed on information contained in outdated patient travel guidelines which were inconsistent with the approved delegations manual.
What you have there is staff not following the rules, guidelines and delegations they have. It goes on to say:
- Supporting documentation for travel requisitions was not being retained and requisitions were being destroyed six months after they were entered …
That gave rise to a situation where:
- … information such as the delegated officer’s approval, medical practitioner’s referral and patient’s declaration were not available for either management or audit purposes.
Without looking at the directives with respect to how long those documents need to be retained so they can be audited, I suspect that period of time is much longer than the six months which is referred to in this report. I know that to be the case because when I was in the police force, working in administrative roles, there were some very stringent guidelines about how long documents needed to be retained for audit reasons and so records could be referred to for some time into the future.
I would have to go back and dig out the Coronial finding and report on a gentleman who died at Kalkarindji some time ago when he was dropped off at the Kalkarindji airstrip after a PATS repatriation. I suspect if I went to that Coronial report I would find some reference to the fact that some were no longer available. I stand corrected if I am wrong; however, I suspect that to be the case. That is an example of one of the very good reasons that departments must comply with requirements and delegations about how long documents are kept. In a practical way, you can see how not keeping records can affect future events, therefore, it is imperative that documents are kept as per requirements.
Moving on to the NT Pensioner and Carer Concession Scheme (NTPCCS), the findings say:
- The financial delegations relating to the NTPCCS warranted review as it was not considered possible to adhere to those delegations in a practical way.
A common thread is the insufficient supporting documentation which I referred to before.
- The audit revealed that supporting documentation provided in support of applications was not being retained …
The same deal again. It makes me wonder what sort of department the minister is running. He said he has taken all this on board, but it really is not good enough. These are very basic functions of departments, to get the paperwork right.
The report talks about pharmacy stock control, including drugs and poisons. The finding is rather concerning:
- Some issues concerning security and disposal procedures for the Schedule 8 drugs were raised with the department. The audit was hampered by a lack of documentation, with documentation in support of transactions that had been entered into the Ascribe system being held for a period of only one month, whereas the provisions of the Poisons and Dangerous Drugs Act [that] require documentation be held for a period of two years.
That is a clear breach of legislation. Not only do we have shoddy practices with respect to paperwork, which appears to be endemic in the Department of Health and Families, but the minister has allowed these types of breaches to occur. Breaches of legislation have also occurred. I believe that is an abrogation by the minister, leaving his department hanging out to dry and putting the staff in a position where they could face prosecution and could become the subject of investigation. The minister should take this on board. It is a very serious issue, where you have departmental staff, doing their job - I am not critical of departmental staff, because they are working very hard under difficult circumstances. Often they are poorly resourced and, most of the time, having worked in a government department, namely the police, for 21 years, the people who work in these departments are good people.
They just want to get in there and get their jobs done to the best of their ability. What constrains them is that ‘best of their ability’. If they are not trained, not told, not advised, not given the opportunity to understand the implications and ramifications of the guidelines particularly - and now we are seeing it here - with respect to the legal implications. In the Department of Health and Families they have breached the Poisons and Dangerous Drugs Act. The minister should be ashamed of himself for letting the governance arrangements in his department fall to this level. If I were working in that area of pharmacy stock control I would be screaming from the rafters in whatever way I could and demanding that I, as an employee, be fully trained and made fully conversant with everything required of me as an employee with responsibilities, particularly legal responsibilities, under the Poisons and Dangerous Drugs Act.
The report goes on to talk about the role of NGOs and then moves on to the Department of Housing, Local Government and Regional Services. The audit of this department is not as scathing as that of the Department of Health and Families. I note in the audit opinion that:
- … the Department of Housing, Local Government and Regional Services had not implemented a performance management system that enabled it to assess the effectiveness, efficiency and economy of its operations in relation to the provision of public housing to ensure Territorians have access to safe, sustainable and affordable housing.
As I move through the report, I find that is a common thread also. If I move to the Department of Justice:
- … in my opinion a performance management system did not exist that was capable of providing adequate and reliable information to enable management to assess whether the objectives in relation to the Fines Recovery Unit were being achieved effectively, and with regard to efficiency and economy.
In this day and age, government is under more and more scrutiny for its performance, particularly its financial performance and how it spends its money in relation to the outcomes it achieves at the end of the day. Without a performance management system there is no way of identifying how well you are going against benchmarks. You can have management meetings, and you can put a few people in the room, have supervisors’ meetings, pat each other on the back and say: ‘Yes, we seem to be going pretty well’, but at the end of the day there is no way you can have an objective assessment of how your section or department is performing unless you have a performance management system.
I move on to the Department of Natural Resources, Environment, the Arts and Sport. It says here that that department:
- … had not established a performance management system during the year ended 30 June 2009 …
I hope the minister will speak about this later today and tell us his department now has a performance management system in place. I will be listening carefully to what you have to say, minister, because we need to know, and Territorians need to know they are getting value for money through the departments. Otherwise you end up with a bunch of public servants with no real direction, no real way of assessing how they are going in their departments, bumbling along from one day to the next.
Several other departments are touched on, such as NT Fleet, and Police, Fire and Emergency Services. The report then moves on to the administration of grants. I have used the word ‘shoddy’ before, and use the word again to describe what I read about in here. I am not suggesting any impropriety, but very poorly managed and governed administration of grants through a number of departments which were audited.
On page 49 of the report the Auditor-General states that, in his opinion:
- … the Department of the Chief Minister did not have adequate policies and processes in place to ensure grants and subsidies paid were correctly identified, accounted for, and acquitted.
As I thumbed through the report and looked across the different agencies which were audited, there are quite a few departments where there were inadequate policies. Perhaps the policies are there, they are just not being adhered to.
Page 51 of the report talks about specific grants which raised concerns with the Auditor-General. It is useful to quickly run through a few of these because it creates a context:
- 24 June 2009 – $1.1m to the Alice Springs Town Council for CCTV.
Evidence of acquittal of this grant was not provided for audit and the grant agreement did not indicate project milestones or time frames for the completion of works.
- 30 June 2009 - $200 000 to the Parap Railway Club for rebuilding costs following fire damage.
No grant application, agreement or acquittal could be made available during the course of the audit.
- 30 June 2009 - $166 000 to the Greek Orthodox Community of Northern Australia.
Again, evidence of acquittal of the grant could not be provided.
- 30 June 2009 - $297 868 to the Department of Finance and Deregulation.
No grant agreement or acquittal could be provided during the course of the audit.
It is apparent the processes around the administration of grants in the Department of the Chief Minister - there are other agencies as well. This is appalling. If I was audited by the Australian Taxation Office on my personal taxation return and could not produce the kind of documents referred to in this Auditor-General’s report, I would find myself in a world of hurt. We are standing in the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory talking about this. The NT government is not going to get into trouble as such, is it? I would be.
We have a situation where, in so many cases, the departments or agencies are not complying with the most basic paperwork requirements in administering grants. How on earth are you supposed to run a system like that? Surely there is a process in place? And it would not be that hard to follow, would it? A grant application comes in – ta da! There it is, a piece of paper sitting in a folder. Then, upon the grant application goes another document, another document, and another document until it finally reaches the person who is going to approve that grant. It is going to have all sorts of recommendations and reports on it. Yet, it would seem there are people in the Northern Territory government - ministers on that side of the House - writing cheques, perhaps on a whim.
If there is a case of expediency, if there is some urgency around the grant of money, the reality might be that you do not have all the paperwork in front of you. Urgent - I cannot really imagine a circumstance which would require it, but it may happen. You would think, during the course of an audit on the approval of grants, those documents could be located and presented. It makes me wonder what is happening in some of these departments. I am concerned about it.
The situation with the Department of the Chief Minister was so bad the Auditor-General made some specific comments at the end of the section on that agency. He said:
- I noted a number of instances where signed grant agreements were unable to be located, leading me to conclude that they may not exist.
Fair enough, if you did not have them when you signed the cheque, okay, dig them up for the audit. Cannot find them for the audit, but we know where they might be so we will go and get them for you. I find it quite disturbing that the Auditor-General has concluded some of these grant applications do not even exist. It makes me consider this should have some further investigation. I note the Auditor-General makes the point that there was:
- At least one instance where an organisation received a grant during 2009 notwithstanding its failure to acquit a similar grant that was provided in 2008.
My understanding of the grant process is you cannot be given a grant for a similar purpose if you have not acquitted a previous grant. Perhaps there are two sets of rules this government is running. I know of a number of specific cases where organisations have sought grants from this government and were told unequivocally there is no way on God’s earth they were going to get a grant until they acquitted the previous year’s grant. Yet, we find here cases where that has occurred.
I move on to the Department of Housing, Local Government and Regional Services. There were 19 grants which the Auditor-General looked at. He speaks at some length about a grant to Thamarrurr Incorporated on 30 June 2009. It was a special purpose grant of $250 000. He says:
- The grant to Thamarrurr Incorporated was distinct from grants to the local government shires in that it was ‘to establish and administer the Remote Service Delivery Engagement Group for the Wadeye region’. This grant was paid without a signed grant agreement having been completed until several months after the grant was provided.
Again, this is a case of, if nothing else, really shoddy paperwork. He goes on to say the payment of funds occurred on 30 June 2009, so it seems it was granted on the same day it was applied for and it was several months before the grant agreement was signed. The formal agreement referred to in the department’s letter was not signed by the department until 6 October. Interestingly, a copy of the agreement provided to the Auditor-General during the course of that audit had not been signed by a representative of Thamarrurr. I thought all parties needed to put their signature on a document such as that.
Ms PURICK: Madam Speaker, I move an extension of time for the member for Katherine, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
The Auditor-General also notes with respect to that grant that:
- From the agreement it appears that the only outcome from this process was to ‘Provide fully considered recommendations … for allocation of 50 new houses by 31 December 2009’.
What we have here is a grant of $250 000 to Thamarrurr Incorporated as a Special Purpose Grant to:
- ‘Provide fully considered recommendations … for allocation of 50 new houses by the end of 2009’.
The other purposes outlined in the grant application were:
- meetings and related administrative tasks …
the establishment of communication and networking systems …
local community and existing shire service delivery plans, strategic plans and community projects to be considered together.
- the initiation of processes to enable all spheres of government to engage effectively with a body of eminent community citizens with cultural authority …
It cost the Northern Territory $250 000 to come up with some recommendations for the allocation of 50 new houses by 31 December 2009. Those are expensive recommendations. As the Auditor-General points out, the grant was applied for, it was paid on the same day, yet it did not have the paperwork attached to it until some months later, and then not signed by a representative of Thamarrurr. Quite extraordinary. It surprises me to read this, and it prompts me to dig up some of the previous reports to the Legislative Assembly by the Auditor-General to see whether this is the norm. How long has this shoddy accounting being going on? I suspect for quite some time, I will have to have a look.
Going on to some more of these grants, it talks about Natural Resources, Environment and the Arts grants. Here is a classic - how can you get a grant from this government when you do not even have Development Consent Authority approval to construct what you want the grant for?
- 12 June 2009 - $0.37m to the Football Federation of the Northern Territory for the Nakara Oval floodlighting.
The report goes on to say the money was paid:
- However there appears to be a long history of planning issues with this project and planning consent had not been yet been obtained …
Dr Burns: Yes, CLP stooges blocking it …
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE:
- … for the floodlighting on …
Dr Burns: … that is what has been going on.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Who has been blocking it?
Dr Burns: CLP stooges.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: I will pick up on the interjection from the minister for Housing. So if so-called CLP stooges are blocking the development process, this government is going to walk in and give them the grant anyway?
Ms Lawrie: Not true.
Mr WESTERA van HOLTHE: Well, that is what it says.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Here is another one: 26 June 2009, $418 000 to the Darwin Golf Club. Nine months went by, the approval went through on the same day, the funds were released on the same day, yet the funding agreement was not signed until 5 March 2010, some nine months later. Funding for Darwin City Council for Bagot Oval - three months before they got the funding agreement through – and the list goes on. The Auditor-General points out that:
- … the department had no overarching grants policy and that acquittals were not being received on a timely basis.
We see that the operational sides of some of these departments are badly run and now we see they are badly run administratively as well. To come across so many instances of grants which are shoddily done, and the governance arrangements, the paperwork around that - I would not like to be holding this up as my tax return and having the ATO audit me.
I look forward to hearing what other ministers have to say about their departments and what they have done to remedy the issues which have been raised by the Auditor-General in this report. I also look forward to hearing from ministers what their future plans are. If they have not ensured all the areas the Auditor-General has raised in this report are fixed, when are they going to do it and within what time frames? Not only for my edification, for the departmental staff who work in these areas.
It is incumbent upon ministers to ensure they lead and guide their departments, and ensure those departments operate well, including administratively. I hope the ministers, in their responses, can convince their public servants they have a handle on this and have the means to effect some changes in the way these departments are run.
Madam Speaker, this is not just an opportunity to criticise; we hope to see an improvement in the way the departments are managed from an administrative point of view, especially given the content of this report.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I thank the Auditor-General for the October 2010 report to the Legislative Assembly we are debating, as usual, in the November sittings. Territorians are well served by a very professional Auditor-General, and I believe he is highly regarded nationally. I have heard very positive feedback about our Auditor-General wherever I travel, to whomever I talk. Being a former member of the Public Accounts Committee, I know how much effort he puts into supporting and advising that committee, and I thank him for that. As Treasurer I pay due and robust attention to any matters the Auditor-General raises. Under the Labor government we have a very different way of dealing with Auditor-General’s reports; we take them seriously and ensure our departments take note of matters the Auditor-General raises and we expect, as ministers, they respond fulsomely to matters raised by the Auditor-General.
The Auditor-General undertook an audit of the Fines Recovery Unit within the Department of Justice. I am pleased to advise all matters have since been addressed to the satisfaction of the Auditor-General. The Auditor-General found performance management systems within the Fines Recovery Unit could be enhanced to measure whether the objectives of the Fines Recovery Unit were being achieved effectively, and with regard to efficiency and economy. The Department of Justice has stated while there are performance management systems in place to assess the effective achievement of the objectives of the FRU, it accepted the Auditor-General’s advice and is taking steps to improve the timeliness, documentation and effectiveness of the processes.
I was advised by the Auditor-General that this response from the Department of Justice was accepted as satisfactory. There were six audit issues identified relating to the FRU:
- (1) some corporate planning documents had not been finalised. I am informed business plans for the Court Support and Independent Officers division and the FRU have been finalised, and that risk assessment planning remains in progress;
(4) budgeting process should be formalised. Improved documentation processes have been implemented;
(5) Department of Justice objectives in relation to the FRU should be clarified. The department has agreed to implement this in future business planning processes; and
(6) debt on outstanding warrants and other fines valued at $5.936m may not be able to be collected in full.
I now turn to agency compliance audit. The report also deals with compliance audits for a number of agencies, including the Department of Justice. In response to the issues raised, the Department of Justice is reviewing internal processes and practices and will be providing training in relation to the issues raised. This response, I am advised, has been viewed as satisfactory by the Auditor-General. There are five audit issues which were identified in relation to the agency compliance audit.
- 1. the Accountable Officer’s Trust Account reconciliations.
The Department of Justice acknowledges the implementation of the prisoner money management system, PMMS, which was intended to improve management and reporting of prisoner funds, has had the unintentional impact of increasing the difficulty in undertaking timely reconciliations of the Accountable Officer’s Trust Account. The Department of Justice is currently reviewing the PMMS with a view to improving the system support in the timeliness and accuracy of the reconciliations. Department of Justice is reviewing internal processes and practices, and will be providing training on reconciliations to all accountable officers to address issues raised in the audit.
2. hospitality documented procedures were not adhered to.
The Department of Justice has responded that, in this case, hospitality expense approval was requested in advance. However, circumstances prevented formal written approval occurring at the time. The approval was obtained on the approver’s return to office.
- 3. travel documented procedures were not adhered to.
- 4. procurement documentation procedures were not adhered to.
The Department of Justice has noted that all procurement staff are required to undertake procurement training and be made aware of the processes and procedures. Controls in relation to internal requisitions have been reviewed and corrected, and the requirement for the Northern Territory Industry Capability Network approval has been addressed.
- 5. fixed asset deficiencies.
I now turn to criminal property forfeiture. The report identified that, generally, there are satisfactory processes and internal controls in place at the Office of the Public Trustee in relation to the seizure and forfeiture of property under the Criminal Property Forfeiture Act. They are adequate and capable of ensuring compliance with the act. One audit issue was identified relating to criminal property forfeiture involving occasional delays in the disposal of property due to delay in notification of a forfeiture order to the Public Trustee. New procedures have been implemented to address this issue.
Madam Speaker, I commend the Auditor-General again for the significant efforts he undertakes in going through the accounts of government departments and checking their procedures and processes are robust. I commend the Auditor-General for the very fine, fair, frank, and fearless work he undertakes on behalf of Territorians.
Ms McCARTHY (Local Government): Madam Speaker, I speak to those parts of the Auditor-General’s report which relate to the agency compliance audit for the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority and the audit of the administration of grants by the Department of Housing, Local Government and Regional Services. As honourable members know, the purpose of the agency compliance audits is to ascertain the extent to which agencies are implementing and maintaining procedures to ensure they are meeting legislative requirements, including subordinate and delegated legislation.
The Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority is a small agency, but one which plays an important role in the social, economic and cultural development of the Northern Territory. In recent years, this has included significant effort ensuring site clearances for work in our growth towns, including the SIHIP program and other infrastructure work linked with A Working Future. It has also continued to work closely with industry, particularly the mining, pastoral and seafood industries, to assist these industries in managing their responsibilities in protecting sacred sites. I congratulate board Chair, Bernard Abbott, and AAPA CEO, Dr Ben Scambary and his staff for their important work.
In reviewing the authority’s procedures and compliance with legislative requirements, the Auditor-General found the control over fixed assets could be enhanced. The Auditor-General’s report noted that, as a small agency, the AAPA has relied on the Department of Business and Employment for control of the authority’s fixed assets. AAPA only purchases a small amount of fixed assets from its capital budget. Items include IT hardware, software, licences and video conferencing equipment. There was a period last year when the authority was without an experienced finance officer and the procurement of capital items was not properly entered into the fixed asset system. When the error was first identified, the Department of Business and Employment was immediately contacted and the problem was fixed.
I am pleased that the chief executive of AAPA has responded by acknowledging that AAPA has responsibility for ensuring appropriate controls, and he has committed to ensuring appropriate training in this area, enhancing amongst his key staff an understanding of requirements and the ability to implement and maintain control measures.
I also note that AAPA has now employed a suitably qualified finance officer who ensures appropriate advice from DBE fixed asset section is obtained and followed when procuring capital items. The Auditor-General also noted there were weaknesses in internal audit procedures, and the chief executive has taken action to ensure his executive management group understands the need for internal audit processes and, in particular, tasks the Director of Policy and Planning to coordinate regular audits of key financial transactions. The agency response to this finding also includes the development of an enhanced internal audit program.
Lastly, for this agency, the Auditor-General found there was a need for the agency’s accounting and property manual to be updated to provide more explanation of the Treasurer’s Directions as they apply in this audit area. The AAPA is in the process of ensuring that additional reference to the Treasurer’s Directions is included in the accounting and property manual.
I turn now to the audit comments about the administration of grants by the Department of Housing, Local Government and Regional Services. It is important to note that the Auditor-General found that:
- … the Department of Housing, Local Government and Regional Services had adequate policies and processes in place to ensure grants and subsidies paid were correctly identified, accounted for and acquitted.
The Department of Housing, Local Government and Regional Services is, by the nature of its work, an agency which disperses a large number of grants, whether they are for work relating to housing, outstation services, animal welfare, water safety, or supporting our local government sector.
A large proportion of the agency’s payments to shire councils are linked to provision of remote housing property and tenancy services. The Auditor-General noted for the 2008-09 financial year that there appeared a marked increase in the value of grants paid immediately prior to 30 June 2009, ‘Near end of year grants’, as he calls them. The Auditor-General also commented that almost all of the grants in the last week of June 2009 were grants to local government shires.
Part of the increase in the value of grants in June 2009 is linked to advance payments to our local government bodies as first quarter Commonwealth local roads and financial assistance grant entitlements for the 2009-10 financial year. This action was a direct response to a request to do so from the Commonwealth Minister for Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Development as a measure to assist local governments to ensure job security, particularly in rural and remote areas, as part of the Commonwealth response to the global financial crisis. The independent chair of the Northern Territory Local Government Grants Commission also supported this measure. These advance payments were made to all municipal and shire councils, as well as to the Local Government Association of the Northern Territory for the component of the Commonwealth road grant which is paid to LGANT.
In reporting on the administration of grants, the Auditor-General also commented on a grant to Thamarrurr Incorporated:
- This grant was paid without a signed grant agreement having been completed until several months after the grant was provided.
The Auditor-General’s concern focused on: payment of the grant and delay in finalising formal agreement in relation to the grant; a lack of project milestones, time frames or deliverables whereby the department can assess the appropriateness of any grant acquittal; no specified due date for the acquittal, although the time period of the agreement was set for 1 July 2008 to 31 December 2009 and the funding agreement noted the grant was to be acquitted on completion of the project. At the time of providing this grant, the Wadeye community was concerned about their mixed experience with a COAG Indigenous coordination trial. In particular, the community had low levels of confidence in another set of new working arrangements to deliver on major housing reform and investment and the development of a local implementation plan under the Remote Service Delivery National Partnership. This grant was made to assist Thamarrurr Incorporated, a strong and community-based leadership group, engage with government on the design and on-ground implementation of these major reforms.
Earlier this month, I visited Wadeye with other government ministers as part of our commitment to take Cabinet to the bush. While we were there we saw the improvements which are progressing at Wadeye and how the work of Thamarrurr Incorporated and the Thamarrurr Development Corporation were connecting local people to government and maximising local involvement in planning and implementation of improvements under A Working Future. While conclusion of this funding agreement should have been more timely, it should be noted that the grant agreement did clearly specify the purpose of the grants: meetings and administrative tasks associated with establishment of communications and networking systems to facilitate the A Working Future policy and processes to enable all spheres of government to engage effectively with people. The department’s advice is that the grant has been acquitted in line with the funding agreement.
The Auditor-General, in his comments in relation to the administration of grants within the Department of the Chief Minister noted, in relation to a grant to the Marngarr Aboriginal Corporation, that:
- Evidence of acquittal of this grant could not be provided and the grant agreement did not indicate project milestones or time frames or deliverables relating to the activity.
The administration of this grant transferred to the Department of Housing, Local Government and Regional Services in December 2009, at the time of the transfer of the Service Delivery Coordination Unit to my department. This agreement has been part acquitted and in June 2010 I agreed to extend the grant and final acquittal into the 2010-11 financial year. As with the grant to Thamarrurr Incorporated, the purpose of the grant is clearly set out in the funding agreement with the Marngarr Aboriginal Corporation.
The Auditor-General’s comments regarding the administration of grants have been noted and responded to by the department. Current arrangements are that the majority of departmental grants are managed under a signed funding agreement containing stringent guidelines relating to use of funds and with formal reporting and acquittal requirements. Other grant programs, where outcomes are clear and identifiable, are managed under service level agreements.
Madam Speaker, the government has a significant reform and development agenda to deliver, including ongoing support for the local government sector and through A Working Future. It is important that grant funds are well directed and are being spent and managed appropriately. I thank the Auditor-General and his team for their ongoing work in ensuring appropriate administrative arrangements are in place and being implemented within Northern Territory government agencies.
Debate suspended.
WITHDRAWAL OF BUSINESS
Matter of Public Importance
Matter of Public Importance
Ms PURICK (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I seek to remove from the agenda the matter of public importance which was delivered to your office this morning.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you.
Motion agreed to.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise you of the presence in the Speaker’s Gallery of members of the Palmerston Rural U3A. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
MOTION
Proposed Censure of Government – Allegations Against the Leader of the Opposition
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I move – That this Assembly censure the government in its entirety for its dishonest attack on the Leader of the Opposition, using unfounded allegations of crime, and recklessly peddling third-party slander to that end.
Absolutely, you should accept the censure. Never in the history of this House has such a tawdry, grubby and awful approach been used by this government to embarrass an innocent man!
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr Bohlin: Whilst oil is spilling into our seas, you sit here and slander.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale! Member for Port Darwin, why are you still on your feet?
Mr ELFERINK: Because I am angry, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: That is not an explanation. I remind honourable members that while this is a censure motion the rules of debate remain the same and words which are used in the censure motion may be used in debate. Words which are not in the censure motion, which are disorderly, cannot be used. I remind you of that because I think members frequently forget the rules of this House.
Member for Port Darwin, you have the call.
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Two of the words which appear in that motion are ‘dishonest’ and ‘slander’. They are a disgrace and well would the Chief Minister leave this Chamber right now …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member knows he cannot refer to the presence or absence of any member.
Mr ELFERINK: I withdraw that, Madam Speaker. But well would we expect the Chief Minister to be terrified of this debate and embarrassed by this debate, because as we have had demonstrated by the head of the AEC who wrote to the Attorney-General, she made this tawdry, nasty and disgraceful allegation based on nothing. Yet, she is prepared, as the first law officer of this jurisdiction, to allege, and I quote the Chief Legal Officer of the AEC:
- … a serious criminal offence.
An offence which was not made out in any way by the letter she sent and the issues she brought into this place.
An innocent man has had his good name besmirched by this grubby and tawdry government. They deserve to stand censured for their shortcomings as a government. This is the hallmark of their government: question, ask, challenge and you will have your name dragged through the mud. If your name is Susan Mansfield you will be berated for speaking openly. If you are a journalist asking a simple question, your telephone records will be there for examination. If you are a member of this House, and the Attorney-General does not like you, your personal financial details will be dragged through this House so they can make their points.
Do they choose to better themselves? Do they choose to lift themselves out of the mire of their own maladministration? No, they do not. As they walk out, one by one, we see how embarrassing this issue is for them. We stay here and challenge them to make good on their allegations of villainy, or apologise. We know they will not apologise to this House. We know there is no dignity or grace amongst them. The first law officer of the Northern Territory was prepared to use an e-mail - of which she has not made the author’s identity available to anyone - to besmirch the good name of Terry Mills. That is an embarrassment and a disgrace.
As I look at the backs of their chairs I know how embarrassed they are. They do not have the courage to stay in this place and face their accuser. This is a disgraceful performance which I see before me; I cannot believe they would simply stand up and walk out of this Chamber.
Mr GUNNER: A point of order, Madam Speaker! You cannot reflect on the presence or absence of members in the House.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, you have already been directed on this.
Mr ELFERINK: I withdraw, Madam Speaker, but their presence or otherwise is a reflection on themselves and who they are.
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I was getting something from the government lobby printer for this debate.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order, minister. Resume your seat!
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The first law officer would rather turn to an anonymous e-mail to besmirch an innocent man than seek legal advice. The first law officer of this jurisdiction’s only view, the only approach she has when she receives some information, is to send it to a spin doctor to see how they can hurt, offend and crush people. That is the shame of this, because it is the hallmark of their government. Let us not be better people; let us do a simple thing and accuse innocent people of criminal offences. They will stop at nothing; they have stopped at nothing and should be censured for their evil.
It is worth quoting at length this letter from the Chief Legal Officer of the Australian Electoral Commission:
- As you are aware, a breach of section 326 of the Electoral Act is a serious criminal offence.
Yes, it is. The offence of bribery is a serious charge to make and what does she base her charge upon?
- I have also examined the two videos published on YouTube by Young Labor NT that were forwarded by your Justice Advisor … on 26 November 2010 …
Ms Lawrie: She was named.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, she was named. I did her the courtesy of not embarrassing her and tying her good name with your tawdry exercise.
A YouTube video by Young Labor NT was offered as evidence of a crime against an innocent man. That is the quality of leadership the first law officer of this jurisdiction provides to the people of the Northern Territory. It is so excruciatingly embarrassing to read I can barely bring myself to utter it.
Madam Speaker, I quote:
- … and … am unable to identify any information or other material that could possibly be regarded as being prima facie evidence of any breach of section 326 …
Whenever a lawyer considering a prosecution looks at any evidence which comes before them, the first thing they will ask is: is the offence made out? That is what this lawyer did, and guess what? The answer was no. Apparently the Chief Legal Officer of the Australian Electoral Commission is not convinced Labor YouTube videos are anything like prima facie evidence, let alone evidence enough to convict, which is what the first law officer would have us believe.
The disgraceful attack, the awful attack, by the Leader of Government Business in this House last week – he said the Leader of the Opposition should not even have been in this Chamber. I can tell you, the first law officer of this House and this jurisdiction should definitely not be in this Chamber.
Dr Burns: No, there is more.
Mr ELFERINK: So produce it! Let us see the evidence! Let us see the evidence upon which you accuse people. Where is the evidence? In a civilised society we produce evidence when we make accusations, and so far we have a YouTube video and an unidentified e-mail as the full evidence ramped up against an innocent man. The lawyer of the Australian Electoral Commission said he could not have committed the offence; it is impossible for him to have committed the offence, and these guys say it is a technicality.
It is not a technicality, it is the law. If this Attorney-General had bothered to check, had taken one minute to ask a lawyer, she would have been told this. Whilst I am a lawyer, I am not a lawyer of any experience you could speak of, yet I spent a little time over the last few days doing some legal homework on some of the allegations made against the Leader of the Opposition.
It was very interesting because one of the allegations made was that the Leader of the Opposition was in the same position as the former Premier of New South Wales, Nick Greiner. What was not made clear to this House was that the New South Wales Supreme Court, headed by one of the finest jurists in this country, Chief Justice Gleeson as he was at the time, head of the Supreme Court - the only reason he left that job was because he went to the High Court – found Nick Greiner to be an innocent man who had done nothing wrong and committed no crime. Yet they compared Nick Greiner with the Leader of the Opposition. Guess what? It is a good comparison. They are both innocent men. That is part of this tawdry exercise; they will try to rewrite the history and decisions of the New South Wales Supreme Court to support their dishonesty and slanders.
We hear stuff about these people all the time from their own party sources. We hear rumours about marital issues and all sorts of things. Do we write letters to the editor about it? No! Do we get on Facebook and put postings on it about these people? No! Do we get the Young Country Liberals to make YouTube videos about it? No! We respect people’s privacy and try to act honourably when it comes to dealing with these sorts of issues. What did they do? They got a disaffected CLP member’s e-mail - so they allege - and put a bit of black texta on it - it could have come from bloggyblogs@hotmail.com for all we know – then they allege a criminal offence. They have the audacity to allege crimes for which people can go to gaol. I am dismayed that they have done this thing. They are dishonourable, disreputable, and I find their actions utterly and completely revolting. Any fair-minded person in this place, and beyond this place, would come to the same conclusion.
It is astonishing that they still try to fight this issue and continue to make these allegations. Listen carefully, Madam Speaker! They have stopped using the words ‘crime’ and ‘bribery’. What was their real intention? I suspect someone, possibly, would have told them how folly-ridden this exercise was going to be. They would have pursued it anyhow. I suspect they anticipated that the Australian Electoral Commission would send it on to the DPP which would then investigate it and the whole thing would go on for months and months, leaving an innocent man in legal limbo whilst those investigations ran. That was the plan: to continue to allow the smear to run and, just occasionally, poke it along. They did not calculate on the integrity of a man I have never met, a man called Paul Pirani, the Chief Legal Officer of the Australian Electoral Commission.
The condemning evidence the Attorney-General was going to bring to the prosecution of this matter was presented to Mr Pirani of the AEC, and he did the legal equivalent of going – ‘Whatever! I am not going to pay any attention to this. I know what this is. This is a tawdry little smear campaign backed up with YouTube videos, and I will not put the credibility and the integrity of the Australian Electoral Commission’s legal department against what is, obviously, a political hatchet job’. Thank God for the honest, decent, and upright legal advice of the Australian Electoral Commission. Their tawdry little plan did not work because they did not get the desired effect - months and months of ongoing pain for the Leader of the Opposition.
The Leader of the Opposition is, in every sense, a gentleman. I know these things do bite deep from time to time, and these things hurt. I know the Leader of the Opposition has been hurt by the dishonest and slanderous acts of this government. I am glad this has been put out of its misery so quickly. I am glad he has been relinquished from this attack because it would have preyed on his mind, as the government expected it to. They are bullies and they are thugs and they would have sat around smiling about it.
Last week the Chief Minister of the Northern Territory sat in this place, rocking back in his chair, smugly laughing that they had all this material on the Leader of the Opposition. What they had was an unidentified e-mail and a YouTube video, and for that they decided it was good enough to try to keep this man in legal limbo for the next few months. That is an absolute disgrace and they are absolutely disgraceful. If they had done a moment of research they would have run into the same things that the Australian Electoral Commission had run into, and the same thing the Senate ran into.
Chapter 8 of the Senate report in relation to the allegations by Tony Windsor against John Anderson, through an intermediary, Mr Maguire, clearly demonstrated that, even if a job had been offered, in that case, an ambassadorial role, it was insufficient to make out the offence alleged by this Attorney-General, and it is clearly listed at 8.55 in that document:
- The committee understands that the AFP did not interview either Mr Anderson or Senator Macdonald. It does not know why, but it is possible that the police had satisfied themselves that, in the words of the AFP press release… ‘none of the versions of the conversations related by any of the witnesses can amount to “an offer to give or confer” a benefit …
Why do those words strike you as being familiar? Oh, my goodness, gracious me, are they somewhere in the letter from the AEC? If you go to that media release it says the CDPP concluded that:
- … none of the versions of the conversations related by any of the witnesses can amount to an ‘offer or to give or confer’ a benefit. Further there is no evidence in this material of Mr Maguire having conspired with any other person to make an offer to Mr Windsor.
The first point they make is that even if the job had been offered, it was some sort of ambassadorial role, it did not make out the offence; it stumbled at the first hurdle. If the Attorney-General had taken a moment to realise that and ask a couple of questions, the legal advice she received would have come to the same conclusion. Yet she persisted with the use of the word ‘bribery’ for all of its ugly imputations and suggestions.
I return to the decisions by the New South Wales Supreme Court, and let us go for a hypothetical session and say this offer was made, bearing …
Dr Burns: Oh, hypothetical now.
Mr ELFERINK: You see, he is prepared to jump up and get all twitchy. I am saying ‘hypothetical’ because I do not know what that conversation was about. Do you know why? Because the conversations I have had have been very general. I do not know what that was about, but if your legal advice had done any homework on what the Leader of Government Business held up as being a corrupt act, he would have heard this from the legal advice in terms of the Greiner decision, and this is Justice Gleeson:
- I do not conclude that at the time Greiner knew or believed that he was doing anything corrupt. He saw it as a smart political move. In part he was motivated by a desire not to prejudice Metherell's future employment prospects because of his (Greiner's) justified views of Metherell's past conduct.
Even if the offer was made they would have known, if they had read the case they referred to, that it was not a corrupt act.
Dr Burns: Just a ‘smart political move’.
Mr ELFERINK: I pick up on that interjection ‘a smart political move’. That is an interesting thing to say. If you believe that then that is what you allege of him, you do not say he is a criminal, allege bribery and make the attack on those grounds. That is what Justice Gleeson suggested you do. If you had taken the time to read the case, you would have discovered that and would not have alleged criminal offences against this innocent man.
Ms Lawrie: Not innocent.
Mr ELFERINK: Go outside and say that.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: Madam Speaker, I invite the Attorney-General to go outside and make that allegation.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr ELFERINK: Go outside, because the Attorney-General would run the Northern Territory in the same way Stalin ran his empire.
Ms Lawrie: Not true. You are ridiculous.
Mr ELFERINK: It is true. If you read books like The Gulag Archipelago by Solzhenitsyn, I refer you to chapter 1, the only thing you had to do to do to get a person convicted and sent to a Gulag was to rely on the accusation of a third party. That is what the Soviet Union used to do in determining guilt or innocence, not rely on the processes of justice. She has no interest in justice because politics comes before justice. Spin comes before decency and villainy comes before that which is right.
I saw them laughing and giggling and saying what great dirt they have on the Leader of the Opposition and it is about the good people of the CLP trying to expose this evil and villainous Leader of the Opposition. Well, he is not evil and villainous; he is an innocent man and this first law officer of the Northern Territory insults this House with her presence. If she was honest and had a shred of integrity she would resign. She would resign, walk away from this job, hang her head in shame, move to Antarctica, live with the penguins, and never sully the Northern Territory with her cast shadow ever again.
This censure motion could only be resisted by the most cynical of Labor supporters. To allege criminality as a normal process of spin without any substance whatsoever, to use the word ‘bribe’, to try to embarrass and harass this man of good fame and good repute only so you can run his name down, shows exactly the sort of government we have. This government has been asked on repeated occasions to govern well for the people of the Northern Territory. This government has failed. It has engaged in maladministration on so many levels.
The issue with the Mataranka cows which we heard before, the SIHIP debacle, the Montara oil spill dodge and weave by the minister for Mines and Energy, the ‘I am not guilty for this, I am not guilty for that’ approach, the dodging and weaving on that horrendous situation in our child protection arena - those are the things we should be talking about but all they are interested in is throwing the body of a good man to the media pack so they can feast on him rather than focus on the things that matter like 90 000 barrels of oil leaking into the sea, Deborah Melville and the cattle station with 800 dead cows.
These are the things which matter to the people of the Northern Territory. We should be making our very best and most valiant attempts to be governing the Northern Territory in that fashion. We see a government which is more interested in hurting and destroying than it is in creating and building up because it is easier to break with a baseball bat than it is to create with a stonemason’s tool. They are tearers, wreckers, thugs and bullies; they are villainous and they do anything at all to hurt, destroy, maim, cripple, bully and embarrass. They do nothing for the people of the Northern Territory other than haunt them with their presence.
The public service has become a torrid, scared place because of the way these people have taken their …
Mr Henderson: Rubbish.
Mr ELFERINK: Well, if it is rubbish, why is Sue Mansfield’s name being dragged through the mud? Why is she being bullied in the workplace? Why is it that a journalist asks a question about the proposed boat registration and we find the journalist’s phone records have been gone through? We are living increasingly in a police state where the act of declaring a person a criminal is sufficient to secure a conviction.
The Territory deserves better than this evil, villainy and ghastliness. I see the Chief Minister laugh. What has happened to an innocent man in the last three days is an act of evil and you have no right to smile whatsoever because this Chief Minister is a man who has lost control of the thugs who surround him and as a consequence he is no better than those thugs.
Madam Speaker, this government deserves to be condemned; this government deserves to be censured by this House, and if this House does not censure this government then it demonstrates its tentacles have reached into this House and the thoughts and acts of common decency have withered on the vine in this House.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I advise the House the ABC reported on the 3 pm news:
- The ABC has seen documents that show opposition leader Terry Mills offered a government job to the Country Liberals candidate for Lingiari, Leo Abbott, in the run-up to the federal election.
Mr Mills has denied he offered a bribe to Mr Abbott and the Australian Electoral Commission today confirmed it had found no evidence of wrongdoing.
The personal minutes of two members of the Country Liberals’ management committee record that Mr Mills offered Mr Abbott a job, provided he stood aside as the candidate.
The minutes say that the position would be provided if the Coalition won the election in August …
… The ABC has tried without success to talk to Mr Abbott.
Mr Mills' office is considering a response.
Those minutes obtained by the ABC very clearly state that Terry Mills made an offer of a job. The Leader of the Opposition now has no choice – he must resign.
For seven days he refused to come clean with Territorians and tell the truth. He has avoided the truth for seven days. He has hidden from the media, even bunkering down in a Darwin restaurant. For seven days he has been hiding from the truth. Today, he can no longer hide from the truth; he must resign. This is disgraceful. He has pretended he did not offer the job. He hid, ducked, weaved and pretended, by attacking the CLP sources, that he was Mr Squeaky Clean. He is not. He has no credibility; he has shown he is dishonest. He sunk to whatever level it took, including what would have been bribery but for the timing of the offer. He sunk to whatever level he could to get Leo Abbott to do his political bidding; to do what he wanted in a sleazy, little tactic he used to attack the then member for Solomon in the federal election campaign.
He has probably even told his colleagues there was nothing to it, he is an innocent man. He has probably also lied to his parliamentary colleagues …
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Speaker! This censure motion does not use the word ‘lie’ and she has no right to make that allegation without any proof. Please get her to withdraw it.
Madam SPEAKER: Attorney-General, can you reword, please?
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, I withdraw the word ‘lied’. He probably said something like: ‘There is nothing to this; I am innocent; I will tough it out. This is simply a smear campaign’. Well, what ran on the ABC News at 3 pm today showed clearly that the Leader of the Opposition is guilty of offering an inducement to a candidate in a federal election campaign to step down from his candidacy. The minutes of two members of the CLP management committee …
Mrs Lambley: You have blood on your hands - children’s blood.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, I ask that that offensive remark be withdrawn.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, I ask you to withdraw that remark, please.
Mrs LAMBLEY: I withdraw.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Araluen, when you speak to me you must rise in your seat. Thank you very much.
Mrs LAMBLEY: I withdraw my comments, Madam Speaker.
Ms LAWRIE: That shows the level of …
Mr Chandler: They do not like the focus on themselves, do they?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Brennan!
Ms LAWRIE: You would truly support that interjection, member for Brennan?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: I thought better of you, member for Brennan. Maybe I should not have thought better of you – unbelievable!
The ABC says it has the minutes of two members of the CLP management committee which show the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Blain, Terry Mills, offered Leo Abbot a job to step down as the candidate for Lingiari ...
Mr Mills: Wrong.
Ms LAWRIE: I will pick up on the interjection where he said: ‘Wrong’. He maintains that two members of the CLP management committee who took minutes of the meeting are wrong, and that he did not offer Leo Abbot a job. Interesting and curious, given that the Leader of the Opposition has had seven days to categorically deny it …
Mr Mills: I was defending a charge of a serious criminal offence, Attorney-General.
Ms LAWRIE: To categorically deny it, and he has chosen instead …
Mr Mills: A serious criminal offence is what you charged me with.
Ms Scrymgour: Why did you not come out and say you were getting legal advice?
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Ms LAWRIE: He has had seven days to come clean with Territorians - it does not take legal advice to tell the truth …
Mr Mills: This is a serious allegation.
Ms LAWRIE: If the member for Blain – yes, this is a serious allegation.
Mr Mills: Absolutely.
Ms LAWRIE: If the Leader of the Opposition had not offered a job to Leo Abbott at that meeting, he could have denied it. He could have come on the record straightaway, like Tony Abbot did, and deny it. But, he chose not to deny it. He chose instead to hide from the media for seven days.
Anyone who has any understanding of Australian political history would know that is unprecedented. That is extraordinary behaviour. All of us, from time to time, have allegations made against us: allegations which vary in degrees of seriousness and which we quickly and vehemently deny if there is no basis to them. Tony Abbot immediately denied the allegations; he did not offer a job. The Leader of the Opposition hid for seven days and, when he did come out, he did not tell the truth. He did not directly answer the question: ‘Did you offer Leo Abbot a job’? He did not answer that question, reasonably being put by the media. Instead, he obfuscated. To this moment, in a censure debate in the parliament through a Question Time, he has not answered the question: did he offer a job to Leo Abbot?
Legitimately, the media has been interested in this because this goes to the heart of honesty. Did he try to induce a candidate to step down during the election campaign? But for an issue of timing - and I will still have a look at those legalities, that is not finished yet - did he try to induce a candidate to not run in an election, in breach of the law?
Then, he hid for seven days. The question is still out there. The ABC 3 pm News has run that it has seen documents which show the Opposition Leader, Terry Mills, offered a government job to the Country Liberals’ candidate for Lingiari in the run-up to the last federal election. Mr Mills has denied he offered a bribe to Leo Abbot, and the Australian Electoral Commission today said it had found no evidence of wrongdoing. Well, maybe there is some evidence now. Maybe the ABC has uncovered evidence, in having seen the minutes of two members of the CLP management committee, that there was an inducement for a candidate to step down. That attracts a significant fine or a gaol term.
We have a highly discredited and shameful member in this Chamber today. The Leader of the Opposition, if he had any shred of integrity left, would resign. Has he misled Territorians? Has he misled his own colleagues? In the circle of trust we all know we need in our party wings, has he misled them? Did you at any stage in the last seven days pretend to your colleagues that you did not make the offer, there is nothing to this, we are making it up as some kind of a smear campaign, and tell them to stick by you because you have done nothing wrong?
Today we find out, through the media, that you have done something wrong. Today, we find out through the media that there is evidence you have done something wrong.
Mr Mills: I have not done anything wrong.
Ms LAWRIE: You can sit there, shake your head and bury your head in the sand about this, member for Blain. You can be in the most bizarre denial I have seen in this Chamber. The reality is, if this ABC report is right, where they have seen two members of the CLP management committee’s minutes which show you did offer a job to Leo Abbott, you have done something wrong. You have done something very wrong, something which led to the resignation of Nick Greiner as Premier in New South Wales.
If there is this evidence, our government would surely like to see it, and we are calling on the Leader of the Opposition to come clean. It is as simple as that. You still have not given a simple yes or no answer to the question: did you offer Leo Abbott a job to get him to step down from his candidacy in the seat of Lingiari during the federal election campaign? That question remains unanswered. Your credibility is shot, it is gone. There is no recovery from here, member for Blain. You have hidden for seven days. You then tried to obfuscate, and still not directly answer the question: did you or did you not offer Leo Abbott a job? Today you continue to pretend that it is just a smear from the ALP because we like to smear. Well, that is wrong.
I listened to the member for Port Darwin dig that big hole in this Chamber during the censure debate. I listened to him refer to us as evil and villainous. We are not evil, we are not villainous. We want the truth. Very simple: tell the truth! We have to tell the truth in this Chamber, otherwise we breach our privilege. We have to tell the truth to our electorate otherwise we do not deserve to be members. The Leader of the Opposition is hiding. He has been refusing to come clean and tell the truth. This is the most disgraceful political episode I have seen in many a year, and he is left with no option but to resign. You cannot offer a candidate a job to step down from your candidacy without having undertaken a significant wrongdoing. It is the wrong thing to do.
Stand here, member for Blain, and tell this Chamber whether or not you offered Leo Abbott a job! If you did, stand here and say you know it was wrong. It is wrong to induce someone to step down from their candidacy. Read the Australian Electoral Commission! Read the act! It is wrong. You are off the hook on a technicality, but if new evidence has come to light and I, on informal advice, question whether there is further evidence to be investigated there. My advice to you, member for Blain, is that you are not off the hook.
The ABC reported on the 3 pm news that it has seen documents which show the Opposition Leader, Terry Mills, offered a government job to the Country Liberals candidate for Lingiari in the run-up to the last federal election. The minutes say the position would be provided if the Coalition won the election in August. The ABC has tried without success to talk to Mr Abbott and Mr Mills’ office is considering a response. No wonder Leo was a little hesitant at taking the job offer. There is no lay down misre about the outcome of a federal election. It was too close to call - all political pundits were saying that - and as we saw, there were 17 days without a federal election result and we have a minority Labor government running the country. Thank God, I say.
Mr Abbott probably wisely weighed the chances of whether he would have the job on offer by the Leader of the Opposition. You cannot hide from the truth forever, Terry Mills. You need to go on the public record; you have the chance in this censure debate brought on by your own side.
To be very clear, did you or did you not offer Leo Abbott a job to set down his candidacy? Yes or no? That, in anyone’s terms, is a bribe. If you did that you were inducing someone not to run in an election campaign. That is counter to the pillars of democracy to which we all sign. Absolutely counter to democracy. You do not do that in the Australian version of democracy; you do not induce people in regard to their candidacy in the Australian version of democracy.
These are serious allegations and we as a government have taken them seriously every step of the way. You pretended in Question Time today that I had categorically alleged you had committed bribery. No, I asked the AEC to investigate. Read my original letter! I did not categorically say it; I asked them to investigate the allegations. I have continued to ask: ‘Did you or did you not?’ In every part of this debate I have said they were allegations in the media which needed to be investigated or needed to be responded to by the person who is the subject of those allegations.
As I have said, in public life, from time to time allegations are led against members. But every time they are the member steps out the front door, answers those allegations head-on and denies them if they did not do what they were alleged to do. In this case, the Leader of the Opposition ran and hid for seven days. You do not need legal advice to tell the truth. You do not need legal advice to step out the front door and say: ‘No, I did not do that’. You need legal advice if you did do it. There is still a big question mark hanging over you …
Mr Mills: It is a very serious allegation that you make.
Ms LAWRIE: A very serious allegation I make, is the interjection from the Leader of the Opposition - if it is right, if you did offer a job, you must resign because it is a very serious allegation.
Come clean today in this Chamber, Leader of the Opposition. For seven days you refused to tell Territorians the simple truth, yes or no, did you offer Leo Abbott a job to step down from his candidacy in the seat of Lingiari in the federal election campaign? For seven days you have avoided the truth. You have hid from the media, bunkering down in a restaurant. For seven days you have been hiding from the truth, Terry Mills.
Today, he can no longer hide from the truth; he must resign. There is evidence that the ABC has seen minutes by two different members of the CLP Committee of Management of that now infamous meeting on 14 and 15 August. That he made an inducement to a candidate is enough for him to resign. What is also disgraceful is if at any stage he told his colleagues in their party wing that there was nothing to it, it was a concocted ALP smear and that it is all right, it will wash over, then he misled his colleagues. If that is what he has been saying to you he has misled his own party.
One thing we know on this side, and have learnt through bitter experience, is to be effective you have to trust each other. You have to work as a united team. Through bitter experience, because we were all burnt by the fires of the member for Macdonnell; it is on the public record. She walked out the door and said what she wanted to say after a period where we had trusted her. That trust was irrevocably broken. We learnt it the toughest possible way. You need trust, and the most important place for trust in any political party rests with the leader. The leader has to be the most trustworthy of your team. They lead your team. They bind you when it is tough; when things in life get tough they lead you through that and you need to trust them. We all have enormous trust for our leader, the Chief Minister. A great leader! He leads us through the process.
Madam Speaker, I suspect trust does not exist on the other side. We have seen a party deeply divided. The CLP is deeply divided and if the Leader of the Opposition had any shred of integrity left, if what the ABC says is true and it has seen the minutes of the meeting from two different members of the CLP management committee, he has hidden the truth from Territorians, his party members and from this parliament. He has no shred of credibility left and must resign.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I do not usually speak on censure motions and I will not be voting on this one; however, I would like to have my comments on record.
Politics, from the public’s point of view, is sometimes not worthy of being called a decent occupation because sometimes what we see in this Chamber and hear in the media does nothing to encourage people to take part in the very important role we are asked to perform for society. There are times when we have to make decisions not based on whether we have a party allegiance, or whether the media makes connotations on who you are and what you do, but on what you think of the person you are asked to speak about.
I remind members that the member for Arafura was accused by the CLP of lying about her visit to a certain hairdresser, which was based on an article in The Australian. I had to make a decision as to whether I believed the journalist or the member for Arafura. Whilst there was much pressure on the member for Arafura for various reasons, I trusted she was an honest person, that her version of events was correct, and I supported her. That is the way it should be.
There is a great deal of politics in this debate. I do not owe anything to the CLP. I stood in this parliament just over 12 months ago and there were not many kind words said about me in having an agreement with the government. However, I am not - nor have I been brought up as - one who holds grudges or continues to harbour hate or disagreement with people forever and a day. It is not the way I have been brought up. I understand the politics of this place, and there will be times when even the best of your friends will say something about you which you may not agree with. I am not beholden to the CLP one bit. However, I do not take that into account. That is not the way I believe I should look at these things.
Obviously, the CLP has some internal troubles. You would have noticed I had a column in the paper recently and anyone who reads between the lines knows that is how I see it from an outsider’s point of view. Again, that is not an issue for me; that is an issue for the CLP. I am not a member of the party and I do not think I should get into that debate at this time. That is an internal matter; this issue is about the integrity of a person.
The ALP sees this as an advantage. It has been having a pretty hard time this year with child protection, SIHIP, Mataranka Station, issues about oil spills, and even a bit of Tiger Brennan Drive. It has not had the easiest last couple of months. That is not to say it will not be able to fix some of those issues. Time will tell.
However, it can be convenient, when you look at the way politics is played out, one way you can distract people from bad press is to move the bad press over to someone else. In politics, as they say, all is fair in love and war. One can accept that is probably a fair thing. However, I am not saying I support that either. That is the politics of this place and is sometimes the reason people are turned off being politicians.
My belief is that, regardless of these allegations, anonymous or otherwise, regardless of the tactics one can use to fight those party-political, point-scoring battles which is a common practice in the Westminster system, you have to make a judgment of the person. My belief is the person is a good person. The Leader of the Opposition, not from a party political point of view - maybe I should put it more personally; I have known the member for Blain for a long period of time. Obviously, we have differences of opinion on certain matters but that is irrelevant. I think the member for Blain is a good person. He has told me he has done nothing wrong and I believe it. If you do not take people on trust, you will look people in the eye all the time and think: ‘I cannot accept what you say. I am going to be suspicious every time someone says something to me’.
There are times when you have to be trustful of people. That, at times, has burnt me. When I was on the Litchfield Council a lady came to me asking for help to pay a debt to the council. I went to the council meeting and pleaded her case. I found out six months later she had not paid any of the money. I looked a fool in front of the council because I had stuck up for a person I trusted. If I was to say, therefore, from now on I will never trust anyone else, that would be a bad step in life. I trust people on face value. If they tell me something that is not true, well, that is for them to worry about, not me. I know Terry Mills is a good person. I have not always agreed with him when he has been debating certain issues, but that is me as an Independent. I did not like what I saw in the last sittings of parliament with the issues of Damian Hale and co, but unfortunately, I see that is the way party politics sometimes plays itself out.
If Terry Mills tells me he has done nothing wrong then I will accept that. I am here to say, whilst I am not accepting the material which has been put in front of me, I need to put on record that I believe Terry Mills is a good, honest person. Madam Speaker, I accept his word that he has done nothing wrong.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE (Katherine): Madam Speaker, it is important to distil from this very sordid few days in the Northern Territory parliament just what this is and what this is not. This is a disgusting, sleazy, lowbrow, politically-spun attempt to discredit the Leader of the Opposition. That is what it is and nothing more. I am dismayed and extremely disappointed in this Northern Territory government, as I expect most Territorians are.
I heard the Attorney-General speak about the Australian way of democracy and criticising the Leader of the Opposition for what she alleges is a breach of the Australian way of democracy. Well, we also have an Australian way when it comes to going the man. That is extremely un-Australian and that is what has happened over the course of the last few days here. Going the man might be all right if there were some really honest and genuine undercurrents. However, this is nothing more than a tactic to divert attention away from the many, the multiple, the staggeringly huge failures which beset the Northern Territory government. We have seen these issues come out in this parliament over the course of the two years or so since the 2008 election.
In talking about going the man, the member for Nelson mentioned the acrimony between the County Liberals and him over the arrangement between him and the Chief Minister to keep him in power. When we criticised the member for Nelson we were accused of going the man and we were castigated. Fair call, the media picked it. Some elements of the public were unhappy with it. But, when that happened it was not just for the sake of politics. It was with a genuine belief that we wanted better government in the Northern Territory, and the way to achieve that was to have the member for Nelson change his mind, quite contrary to what is going on now. This is not about better government, this is simply distilling what it is from what it is not, and what this is, is a grubby attack on a good man for the sake of politics
The Labor government must have thought this was a godsend. They must wake up every morning thinking: ‘What is going to happen next? What else can we use? What will others provide us by way of ammunition to besmirch the good name of Terry Mills?’ Sadly, they get the ammunition from time to time and we are seeing that come out now.
Instead, the focus in this room, across the media and across the Northern Territory, should be the continuing failings of this government. That is what all this is about. This is about diverting attention from the failings of this government. It has been said before and I will say it again: it is the worst government the Northern Territory has ever had. The only thing it can hang its hat on is a smear campaign against the Leader of the Opposition, not a very well put together one either.
I sit in this House and I tend to watch what goes on, relatively quietly …
Madam SPEAKER: Relatively, I would like to make that comment member for Katherine.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Madam Speaker, I stand corrected. I watch what happens on the other side of the House. I watch the faces, the body language and how they play their games. At no time has it been more evident what game is being played on that side of the House than through this sordid affair.
If the Attorney-General stands there - and I see her quite often; she feigns indignation and sincerity – she wants to stand there looking out for the best interests of the Territory, yet whenever there is something going on there is an unmistakable smirk on the Attorney-General’s face. That is true of the Chief Minister as well. I see the minister for Housing smirk too but I think that is often because he is genuinely amused by what is going on in the House. You cannot mistake the insincerity which is emanating from and pouring out of members on the other side of the House. For the Attorney-General to feign sincerity and try to convince people she is genuine does not bear any sort of scrutiny whatsoever.
That leads me to how this has played out. I have a copy of the letter from the AEC, which we have all been provided; thank you to the Attorney-General for tabling that today. She stood in this House and made criminal allegations against the Leader of the Opposition.
A member: Shame.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: It is shameful that she would stand here on a wisp of air in terms of evidence. She stood here and accused the Leader of the Opposition of a very serious offence. She stood on nothing and nothing is what is contained here – actually what is contained here is something but it outlines what the nothing is. The Attorney-General said earlier today that the Leader of the Opposition was off the hook by virtue of timing. I will go back to this letter and talk about the so-called evidence. There is some evidence, apparently, which has been provided to the AEC which it also used in coming to the determination that there was no case for the Leader of the Opposition to answer.
Let us look at the so-called evidence. Page 1:
- I have examined the newspaper article attached to your letter of 24 November 2010 and am unable to identify any information or other material that could possibly be regarded as prima facie evidence of any breach of section 326 of the Electoral Act occurred involving Mr Leo Abbott, Mr Tony Abbott or Mr Terry Mills in the lead-up to 21 August 2010 general election.
We have a newspaper article; I am flabbergasted. In the scheme of things, the Attorney-General works in a position much higher than when I worked within the realms of law enforcement; I was a police officer. When I was a police officer - and even now - I knew what evidence was. I would like to inform the Attorney-General, through the Chair, a newspaper article is not evidence. It is some diatribe written by a journalist - their interpretation, perhaps a few quotes, but not evidence. The letter goes on to talk about the two videos published on YouTube by Young Labor NT. I am not even going to read the rest of that. I would like to inform the Attorney-General, through the Chair, that two videos made by Young Labor are also not evidence. I have not seen the video; I do not know if anyone on this side of the House has, I suspect all those guys have. Do they have some young Labor person sitting in a chair talking about some alleged incident? That is not evidence. For goodness sake, I suggest the Attorney-General go back to the law books, pick up the Criminal Code and the Evidence Act and learn what evidence is.
I mentioned the word before, I said I was disappointed. What I am really disappointed about is that our Attorney-General, the chief law person in the Northern Territory, does not know what evidence is; she puts a newspaper article and a couple of videos up as evidence. We are in very sorry hands in the Northern Territory if the Attorney-General does not know what evidence is. I suspect it is probably more the case she had nothing to send to the AEC other than this newspaper article and a couple of YouTube videos.
For the Attorney-General, based on that so-called evidence, to stand here under parliamentary privilege and accuse the Leader of the Opposition of bribery is scurrilous. I cannot believe we have someone in this House who would stoop to such a lowbrow act which could damage the reputation of a good man, under parliamentary privilege, on a wisp of air. It is reprehensible behaviour!
The Attorney-General called for the Leader of the Opposition to resign. The Attorney-General should go because she is incompetent. She presents something like that to the AEC and says: ‘This is all we have’. Unbelievable!
Mr Conlan: That is your Attorney-General? That is an embarrassment.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: Apparently, it is an embarrassment. No wonder I said the other day we are not mature enough to have statehood in the Northern Territory because we are run by these clowns.
On top of that we have to draw some inferences from Question Time today. The Attorney-General was asked whether she had sought any legal advice before she sent this so-called evidence to the AEC. We can infer from the dodging and weaving displayed by the Attorney-General around that question that she did not seek any legal advice. It almost makes me lose my words, it is so ridiculous. She has a piece of paper which is a photocopy of a newspaper article, a couple of YouTube videos which the Attorney-General purports to be evidence of an offence, and you would think the Attorney-General might get some legal advice, and ask: ‘Does this really stack up? Is it worth sending off?’ But no, we can infer today from what was not said during Question Time that the Attorney-General did not seek legal advice.
Now we have the latest revelation today that the ABC has, apparently, seen the notes or minutes taken by some members of the CLP management committee. I am advised that what is detailed in those alleged notes is not true - the Leader of the Opposition did not walk back into a CLP management committee meeting and utter anything like that. I guess you can make all the claims you like from that side of the House around all this stuff. What I could do, if I wanted to take some minutes of what occurs in this parliament, I could write down in my diary that today the Attorney-General is wearing a red dress. I could collude. I could talk to my colleague, the member for Goyder, and say: ‘Hey, can you just put in there that the Attorney-General is wearing a red dress today?’ That is how simple it could be.
If there are these minutes of that meeting they will need to stand up to legal scrutiny. If there is a further investigation they will have to be further examined to determine whether they are credible, meet the test of evidence, and are admissible in court.
Without that, the Attorney-General is flying on a wisp of air. There is no substance to this. It is as simple as that and …
Mr Mills: It is on the radio; it must be true.
Mr WESTRA van HOLTHE: That is right, trial by media, because it suits the Labor government’s agenda. That is how simple it can be. It is not difficult to see the lay of the land. We have a Labor government which is performing so badly in virtually every aspect of government. For goodness sake, they cannot even get a road right. They cannot get Tiger Brennan Drive right. They cannot handle child protection. They cannot regulate offshore oil. My goodness me, look at the scathing report. I warned the Resources minister some months ago how scathing that report would be and, sure enough, it is. They cannot even monitor the health and welfare of animals – look at Mataranka Station.
Madam Speaker, this government has a litany of failures under its belt. All it can do is talk about politics and discredit people on this side of the House because it is the only weapon it has.
Dr BURNS (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, it is timely to return to the Electoral Act, as mentioned in the letter to my colleague, the Attorney-General. Section 326 talks about bribery. It says:
- A person shall not ask for, receive or obtain, or offer or agree to ask for, or receive or obtain any property or benefit of any kind, whether for the same or any other person on the understanding that:
Section 326(b), says:
- … any candidature of the first-mentioned person.
Penalty $5000 or imprisonment for two years, or both.
For the opposition to assert it is unreasonable for my colleague to ask the question and refer the matter to the Australian Electoral Commission, on the basis of what you read there and the reports in the media of two transcripts on this issue - for anyone to say she is doing the wrong thing must have rocks in their head. The question is: did the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Blain, Terry Mills, offer Leo Abbott a position in return for him relinquishing his candidature and endorsement for the seat of Lingiari during the last federal election? That is a simple question. That is the question the Leader of the Opposition has failed to answer over the past seven days.
However, there is a deeper question. There is the question of legality. Politics is not only the confluence of legality; it is also a test of personality, character and honesty. As ministers and individuals in this parliament I often say we all have our turn here, we all come under the torch and under the spotlight, some more than others. I have had my share of controversy in this parliament, both in my portfolios and some incidents which have happened off the ball in this parliament. I have always endeavoured to tell the truth about those matters often to my own cost. I have endeavoured to tell the truth when I have been asked questions by the media. I believe the Leader of the Opposition has failed on a crucial test.
He is putting himself forward as the alternative Chief Minister for the Northern Territory, and he has failed. It was actually a cowardly way that he - I do not use that word lightly, it was used against me and I copped it on the chin - but the way in which he holed up like he was under siege in the Hot Rocks restaurant - or whatever it is called, Lewinsky’s - was disgraceful. As a man, he should have met with the media and said: ‘Yes, I did do it. I was misunderstood. I was not offering him a bribe. I was trying to provide a way forward for him in his career after the election’, whatever he had to say. Avoiding the media has only stoked the fire. There is an old saying by Oscar Wilde:
- In old days men had the rack. Now they have the Press.
It is trial by media in many cases; we have all faced it. I am very disappointed that the Leader of the Opposition did not face up, did not front up and still has not fronted up. It is a disappointment. There have been comparisons made with my colleague, the member for Arafura, and Wax-gate, as it was called. I do not think there is much of a comparison. She fronted the media and this parliament and answered the accusations which were made in The Australian. The member for Blain has done none of those things.
Politics is a tough game, as the member for Nelson said. It tests us, but I am wondering about the Leader of the Opposition. I know he wants the job; I know he has been very altruistic over the years with the good he believes he could bring to the Northern Territory as Chief Minister. But he has failed a major test. All of the comments I have made in the past week have been in my own language - my own thoughts about the problems the Leader of the Opposition has with this matter and the longer he holds out the worse it is becoming for him.
I am reminded of Watergate and the incident with Bill Clinton. These things start in a very small way but they build up - as Richard Nixon denied being involved, and the people around him denied the conspiracy in relation to Watergate, it built up and in the end Richard Nixon left the White House to avoid impeachment. We all remember as he took off in that helicopter he said: ‘You are not going to have Dick Nixon to pick on anymore’, meaning the press. We all know with the former President of the United States Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky - he was in denial and my colleague, the member for Karama, really hit it on the head that the member for Blain is in serious denial over this matter. He thinks he can tough it out. I do not think he can tough it out because the information which has come to hand today will fuel the fire even more.
Moving back to the legalities of whether it has been illegal or not – that is a question in my mind but there is more of a question about the way in which the Leader of the Opposition operates by offering people under-the-counter deals. When we came to government last year, the arrangement which was made between the Chief Minister and the member for Nelson was published. That was a published agreement and it stated what it would deliver. There has been no such transparency with the Leader of the Opposition and his offer to Leo Abbott. I suggest there is a bit of a story in whatever dealings the Leader of the Opposition had with the member for Macdonnell as well. We read about some of it in King Brown Country but I heard on the grapevine that he spoke with her and certain arrangements and deals were made but he did not bother speaking to his party wing about it.
There is a document floating around, as I understand, a bit like this transcript …
Mr Elferink: We have seen the quality of your documents. They are lies.
Dr BURNS: It will surface sooner or later, member for Port Darwin. The document says somewhere, so I am told: ‘Do not discuss it with anyone and I will not be telling my party wing about it either’. That is a big disappointment. We know we have two Gerrys in this Chamber but I think we have two Terrys. We have the good Terry, whom we have always known, and then suddenly the cover is coming off and we are seeing this other Terry; the Terry who makes deals, who cannot stand up and fess up, the Terry who cannot look them in the eye and say: ‘Yes, I did offer him a job’. This is a big worry and the people of the Northern Territory are starting to understand there are two Terrys. I think people will take that on board. There is an old saying which comes from the Scriptures:
- As you sow, so shall you reap.
This is happening with the Leader of the Opposition.
The member for Katherine was talking about going the man. I have never seen anything more disgraceful than what happened during the August sittings with Damian Hale. That was absolutely disgraceful, and we hear the bleating of some members of the CLP saying: ‘We knew it was not true he bashed his missus, but we did it anyway’. The member for Blain was square and centre behind that strategy, and the Leo Abbott thing was all part of it. I am talking in a moral sense here, not a legal sense. It is all coming home to roost with the Leader of the Opposition; as you sow, so shall you reap. That is a Scripture the Leader of the Opposition should remember. The CLP is leaking like a sieve. We have at least two who attended that meeting; we have leaks coming in all over the place, information all over the place. You are a party which is deeply divided and you are divided over your Opposition Leader.
It was such a silly thing for the opposition to go to this in Question Time today and bring on a censure motion, because the Leader of the Opposition is vulnerable. Whoever thought out this strategy needs to have their head read. I am sure the person who thought out this strategy was thinking: offence is the best defence. Well, not in this case because he is vulnerable. You can see the pressure on his face. The best thing he could do is resign. I know everyone thinks he is their best and only chance, and up to a point that was right. However, it is all starting to come apart now.
You need to look at another strategy because the Leader of the Opposition is damaged beyond repair. There is a great big fracture on that side of the equation. Not only has he shown a complete lack of judgment in handling this matter, particularly the media, on reflection, there would be people on the other side saying he showed a complete lack of judgment some 12 months ago with the way he handled the strategy with the member for Macdonnell, and what happened in this parliament last year. He has missed his chance and should move on with life. He probably has plans after politics; however, it is, to a large extent, all over for the member for Blain.
I have been around this parliament for about 10 years and have seen crucial moments in parliament. This censure debate has been crucial. Although members opposite may be in denial over this, those with eyes which can see on the other side - hopefully you have a few cool heads in your party behind the scenes, although quite a few have been coming to me and complaining about the member for Blain. One even said to me he is dangerous and should not be in charge of the Northern Territory.
Mr Elferink: Name them! Tell me who these faceless people are! You are a liar!
Dr BURNS: I am not going to name them. I am not going to name them.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order! Member for Port Darwin! I ask you to withdraw, member for Port Darwin!
Mr ELFERINK: I withdraw liar, Madam Speaker.
Dr BURNS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The member for Port Darwin talked about smart political moves, and coming back to the Damian Hale saga, it was seen as a very smart political move to have Natasha Griggs win the seat of Solomon, which she did. However, it has come at an enormous cost because what was happening underneath, the plotting, the scheming, the e-mails and information which has come forward, have cost the member for Blain quite heavily. Who knows, he might not have had to indulge in all this for the same result. That is the irony of all of this, because there was a swing around the country.
I commend Damian Hale; he was a pretty honest sort of bloke. He stood up about Muckaty; he stood up about a range of issues. He fronted about Eaton. I am sure we will hear about this later in the week, but at least he said: ‘This is the situation’. He did not say: ‘Yes, I will fix it up after the election’. He did not lie; he told the truth. He stood up and told the truth. The other thing I admire Damian Hale for was when Kevin Rudd went through his anguished walk, Damian Hale was right beside him. Damian Hale had loyalty, and he was an honest man.
Natasha Griggs is the federal member now, and I hope she does her best for the Territory. I am sad that Damian Hale lost his seat, not just because he is in the Labor Party or a Labor candidate. I honestly believe the things I just said about Damian Hale. The issues that were run against him - the member for Brennan calling him a nasty drunk. How nasty is that? I say to the member for Brennan: karma; what goes around comes around, mate. You told me when you first came into this place: ‘I do not like all this personal stuff’, and there he was, engaging in it on this floor. It was probably one of the most disgraceful episodes. Those members of the opposition who did not join in like a pack of dogs against Damian Hale have credit. I know who you are. I saw you sitting there and I saw the looks on your faces - those people on the opposition who have integrity and did not want to join in this cowardly attack on Damian Hale. I say shame to those who did. So, what goes around, comes around.
Just to reflect …
Mr Elferink: Is that a threat? Is that a threat?
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Port Darwin, cease interjecting.
Dr BURNS: About what?
Mr Elferink: Sounds like a threat to me.
Dr BURNS: I am talking about karma. I am talking about what goes around comes around, if you want to indulge in that sort of politics here. We have seen the Leader of the Opposition orchestrate it. It is all coming back on him. His dishonesty, his deceit, the fact he cannot stand up in this parliament, he cannot stand up in front of the media and he holes out in a restaurant for five hours. For goodness sake! What sort of a leader cannot go outside and front Katrina Bolton, who is about this tall, asking a question? He cannot do that. This is a test of character and he has failed.
You have talked about the legalities of it, the Attorney-General has talked about that, but there are huge questions about Terry Mills’ integrity and character. There is an old saying that …
Mr Elferink: Based on nothing.
Dr BURNS: Well, there was one that came out at the last election. I know the Leader of the Opposition has the poster up in his office, because he has told me so: ‘Terry Mills not up to it’. He gloated and said people obviously did not think that way. I believe people will be thinking that now. There is another old political saying that comes from none other than Paul Keating: ‘Fish stinks from the head down’. This whole thing has had a smell about it from the start. The smell continues.
We know why the backers of Terry Mills back him: you think he is your best and only hope. Well, you are in dreamland because he is seriously damaged. He is damaged beyond repair by this matter.
I reiterate the call, as we have all day, for the Leader of the Opposition to come into this House and make a personal explanation and say whether he did or did not offer Leo Abbott a job in return for him relinquishing his candidature in the last election. It is as simple as that. You do not need legal advice to tell the truth. While we are on the subject of legal advice, are you going to table yours from Mr Maley?
Mr Elferink: He is his lawyer, so what?
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Dr BURNS: You are always asking us to table legal advice. I am challenging you to table your legal advice on this matter.
Mr Elferink: We had a conversation with Mr Maley and I read to you some of the work I did. Go and have a look at it.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Dr BURNS: Well, a culture of cover-up again. This is what this is all about. You have accused us of having a culture of cover-up. This is your mantra, this is your line. This whole thing has been a cover-up - a pretty badly orchestrated cover-up because you are leaking like a sieve; it is out in the public domain.
The Leader of the Opposition is completely damaged and, if anything, this parliament should be running a censure against the Leader of the Opposition for the way in which he has not been forthright, forthcoming and truthful with Territorians.
This is probably one of the silliest censure motions I have ever seen. Talk about leading with your chin. Do not talk about the war. This was an ill-conceived move. Whoever conceived this is probably the same person who has been advising the Leader of the Opposition to hole up in a restaurant for five hours. It is a very silly strategy. You have to front the media and the public. If you want to be the next Chief Minister of the Northern Territory that is what you have to do, that is what people expect. He has not done it, he is not worthy.
Madam Speaker, I believe the only thing for him to do is resign.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 11 Noes 12
Mr Bohlin Mrs Aagaard
Mr Chandler Dr Burns
Mr Conlan Mr Gunner
Mr Elferink Mr Hampton
Mr Giles Mr Henderson
Mrs Lambley Mr Knight
Mr Mills Ms Lawrie
Ms Purick Mr McCarthy
Mr Styles Ms McCarthy
Mr Tollner Ms Scrymgour
Mr Westra van Holthe Mr Vatskalis
Ms Walker
Motion negatived.
TABLED PAPER
Pairing Arrangement – Member for Daly and Member for Goyder
Pairing Arrangement – Member for Daly and Member for Goyder
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received a document relating to pairs for the time period 6.30 pm to 9 pm today for the members for Daly and Goyder. It is signed by the two Whips. I table that document.
MOTION
Note Paper - Auditor-General’s October 2010 Report to the Legislative Assembly
Note Paper - Auditor-General’s October 2010 Report to the Legislative Assembly
Continued from earlier today.
Dr BURNS (Education and Training): Madam Speaker, the Auditor-General’s October 2010 report discussed results of audits conducted over the period January to June 2010, including matters pertaining to poor audits conducted in the Department of Housing, Local Government and Regional Services. I will go through a few of the issues raised by the Auditor-General in relation to that department and will then move on to the Education department.
First, Performance Management System Audit, which is contained on pages 27 and 28: the results of this audit indicated that the department had not implemented an adequate system to assess the extent to which output deliverables for public housing were being delivered and outcomes achieved as at June 2009. Since the audit, the department has developed a new strategic framework 2010-13, which largely addresses matters raised by the Auditor-General. The department is also developing a quarterly performance reporting program to monitor the effect of efficient and economical delivery of agency outcomes.
The Agency Compliance Unit, on pages 43 to 47: the results of this audit raised a range of compliance issues which the department has acknowledged. The department is reviewing internal processes to ensure it has an appropriate and sustainable government structure to improve compliance with government’s policies and procedures.
Administration of Grants Audit, on pages 49 to 61: the results of this audit indicated the department had adequate policies and processes in place. The department enforces the requirements for grants paid by the department to be bound by a signed funding agreement which contains stringent guidelines relating to the use of funds, formal reporting, and acquittal requirements.
As my colleague said, the grant paid to Thamarrurr Incorporated was a one-off sum paid in accordance with the formal approval of the Treasurer and the then minister. This grant was acquitted by 30 June in line with the agreement.
I will talk briefly about the department of Housing and that part for which I have responsibility. I have been working with Mr Ken Davies, the CEO, to move the department forward with its systems and processes. I commend Ken Davies and the team, and all the people who work within the Housing department for recognising the challenges we have and moving forward. It will take some time; however, I have every confidence in Ken Davies and the team to bring about positive change within that department. There are many processes and proposals coming forward to rejuvenate that department and enable it to move forward and efficiently do the myriad of tasks for which it is responsible.
I turn to the Department of Education and Training, or DET. The report raised concerns in relation to the following: the objectives of Northern Territory current grants should be clarified in relation to corporate governance plans and communicated to stakeholders; grant funding agreements need to be streamlined across all divisions; information systems supporting grants should be reviewed and enhanced; more transparent reporting, including public disclosure for Northern Territory government grants.
The DET response is as follows: the DET Strategic Plan 2009-12 is currently being rolled out across the department. The department is paying particular attention to the links between business plans and the strategic plan. These links include regular and standard reporting mechanisms through a web-based reporting environment.
Also, this department has commenced development of a web-based environment to inform school planning and target setting. The department is also committed to upgrading information systems in relation to grants, and is committed to ensuring public disclosure through the DET annual report as well as individual school annual reports for education grants. The department has also reported on training outcomes through national data collections published in the national annual report. DET is also leading a comprehensive, cross-sectoral review of recurrent grants to non-government schools and improved outputs and outcomes reporting.
The report highlighted the need to ensure the accounting and property manual is updated, and I assure the House this review is under way.
The Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education or BIITE: this report draws attention to concern about the institute’s ability to continue to operate without ongoing financial support. DET, BIITE, CDU, and DEWR are working closely to finalise a partnership between CDU and BIITE. The focus will be on collaboration in education, shared corporate services, and coordination of infrastructure and capital development. DET is involved in the partnership negotiation and will continue to monitor BIITE’s performance and financial situation.
As a government we see the Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education as a crucial part of education for Indigenous people across the Territory. It has a long and very important history in delivering that education; however, over the past two years or so, BIITE has encountered quite a number of difficulties. There needed to be intervention, and the federal government intervened. The Northern Territory government supported that intervention and provided some funding for BIITE to continue delivering services, because the last thing we want to see is those services ceased. We wanted to see a renewal and rejuvenation of BIITE and for it to move on from the problems which had beset it over the last couple of years.
There is a new principal at BIITE, someone with much experience in Western Australia and someone I have much confidence in. I commend the work of the Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education. The partnership being put forward between the federal government, the Northern Territory government and Charles Darwin University is important. Everyone recognises we need to maintain the autonomy and character of BIITE because it has a great deal of history and, through that autonomy, it can have many positive outcomes. It is very well known across the length and breadth of the Territory. It has a long history and is well recognised by Indigenous people across the Territory.
It will be a model similar, in some respects, to the Menzies School of Health Research, where there is a large degree of autonomy for the institution but there are very important links with Charles Darwin University. That is probably the best model; it has been shown to work with the Menzies School of Health Research and Charles Darwin University. Whilst not replicating that model completely, there are elements of it which can be applied in the case of the Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education.
Charles Darwin University: no matters of significance or material weaknesses in controls were identified. It has increased revenue of $13.82m, mainly Australian government and Northern Territory government financial assistance. I am sure members are aware that Charles Darwin University operates under its own act and has autonomy under that act. Nonetheless, as minister, I interact very closely with Charles Darwin University. I commend Professor Barney Glover, the council of the university, and all who work in the university for the fine work they are doing. Barney Glover is taking the university to the next step of its development.
We are always mindful we have a relatively small population base in the Northern Territory. It is important for the Charles Darwin University to have partnership with other tertiary institutions around Australia. It is developing partnerships in a number of faculties and professions. I commend them for the establishment of a medical school in Darwin, where students will go through from go to whoa and we will have homegrown doctors. That is a very important partnership with the Commonwealth. These are tremendous steps forward for the university and for the Northern Territory.
I have always believed Charles Darwin University is a pivotal institution for the Northern Territory and the advancement of the Northern Territory. Both sides of parliament recognise that, and we work in a bipartisan way in our support for Charles Darwin University. I am glad that support is there across the Chamber. I believe it will continue to the benefit, not only of Charles Darwin University, but of the Northern Territory community.
I have a bit of a conflict of interest here. Menzies School of Health Research - no matters of significance or material weaknesses in controls were identified. As people would know, I spent quite a number of years at the Menzies School of Health Research with John Mathews as the Director. Jonathan Carapetis was my roommate at Menzies. We shared an office. I commend Jonathan Carapetis for the fantastic work he is doing with the Menzies School of Health Research. He too is lifting it to the next level. There has been incredible growth under his directorship. He has a great deal of experience clinically as a specialist paediatrician and as a researcher. He has much to offer the Menzies School of Health Research generally in the Northern Territory, but particularly in Indigenous research. I know the number and value of grants under his directorship have been growing substantially. Menzies has many building plans on foot, which is good for the Northern Territory. It is, like Charles Darwin University, a pivotal institution within the Northern Territory. I commend it for its work.
I commend the Auditor-General for his work. In my mind he is a great statutory officer and servant of this parliament. I do not use the word ‘servant’ in a demeaning way, I mean it in the most profound way. The Auditor-General identifies problems fearlessly. He points to them but he works constructively with the agencies and with government to try to resolve those issues. That is a more positive, engaging way to do things than sending atomic bombs to agencies. Maybe we could argue in this place that agencies deserve atomic bombs sometimes, but the best way in life is to try to engage, be constructive and indicate a way forward. The agencies appreciate that they can work constructively with the Auditor-General. He is a hard task master; he is not a soft touch. He knows when things are happening and when they are not. I think the agencies understand that and they fall over themselves, for the want of a better expression, to work constructively with our Auditor-General.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I commend Frank McGuiness and his work, not only reporting to this parliament but also to the Public Accounts Committee. He is a fantastic statutory officer and a fantastic Auditor-General. He has had vast experience in the Territory. From memory, he also knows a great deal about roads and the formula for the wear and tear on roads. I spoke to him once about that. He understands the conditions of the Northern Territory and the challenges we face as a government and within the departments. However, he wants everything to be run in the most effective and transparent way. As a parliament we can take much confidence from the work of Frank McGuiness as the Auditor-General. I commend the Auditor-General’s report to the House.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, it is nice to be back to a normal volume of speaking voice. There are couple of issues in the Auditor-General’s report which leapt out at me, and while they are not specifically in my shadow portfolios, I think they suffer mentioning. I note the Auditor-General’s caution in relation to the Department of Health and Families in a couple of areas, specifically the role of NGOs in delivering their outcomes. Government gives away substantial amounts of money to various NGOs to provide outcomes, but there seems to be very little auditing of what happens in terms of bang for buck. He has expressed some concern about mini-bureaucracies, if you like, starting to form in these NGOs off the public nipple.
I am glad the Auditor-General picks up on these things as they are important issues. It is interesting that he takes his audits to the level he does. I have always been an admirer of the approach of a mile deep, an inch wide; rather than a mile wide, an inch deep, because by probing in that fashion you get closer to the heart of matters.
I notice there is a legislative breach, not a serious one, dealing with Schedule 8 drugs, or the control of drugs in hospitals. It appears the auditing process and pharmacy stock control is not up to speed. Some of these drugs are used for painkilling. Drugs like morphine, MS Contin, those sorts of things, are serious drugs and have to be properly managed. The stock control system is basically a series of stocktakes - the signing out on the use of drugs and an oversight, double checking – and, unless people collude, it would be very hard to get around that system. I am sure there are ways to do it. What is of concern is the requirement to keep records in a prescribed register for two years. The system which has been used up until now in the hospitals has been to use a series of sheets of paper in a binder. When the binder is full, apparently the sheets of paper are thrown away. It takes about six months to get to that point. That is not a particularly useful result.
I also note some comments about the Department of Housing, Local Government and Regional Services. The response from the department was:
- … Strategic Framework 2010-13 includes a three-year priority that focuses on implementing and monitoring high standards of governance and accountability in the organisation’s operations …
I love the language, but what is the substance behind it? I am not entirely sure what comes back. The Auditor-General found there was no effective system in place for that department and I commend the current minister for kicking a few backsides around. The minister for Housing was on his feet a few moments ago. Things are finally happening in that department.
I made the observation the other day that, for two years since the last election, I have been complaining about the conditions of Tomaris Court. The minister, to his credit, agreed to visit Tomaris Court with me. He made an appointment a month or so out and, amazingly, in that month the institution of Tomaris Court started being cleaned up substantially: lawns were mowed; graffiti was painted out; faeces which were rubbed on the walls had been steam cleaned away; all the rubbish in the laundry blocks had been cleaned away and several problem tenants were evicted. So I doorknocked a couple of my regulars there and one of my regulars said: ‘Yes, we have seen a bit of an improvement over recent days, particularly in the last couple of days. That has been really good’.
That is good news. The only problem is that I thought the minister had told the department he was coming. The minister assured me he had made no such comments. Then he made the comment that his diary was available to the department to be checked. So the department would have been aware of the ministerial visit to Tomaris Court at 8.30 pm on a Friday two weeks ago. It appears the strategic framework 2010-13 and the three-year priority which focuses on implementing and monitoring high standards of governance is largely governed by the minister’s diary. So the strategic framework should actually read: ‘We will check the minister’s diary, find out where he is going and then we had better clean it up because we know this guy is going to give us a bit of a toe’.
Good on the minister for being that frightening, but it concerns me that delivering the service at a public service level is more about the minister’s diary than actually delivering the service. I sit there and bleat, whinge, write letters and come into this place and complain about Tomaris Court and not much occurs. The minister announces he is going to visit Tomaris Court and all of a sudden it is cleaned up. That tells you that one of the fundamental problems with this government is that it is still so responsive to ministerial whimsy that it is not about service delivery any more, it is about finding out how to avoid conflict with the minister, then housetraining the minister, in many cases, and making sure the minister does what he or she is told. If the minister is going to do something we should be well ahead of the minister and be able to cover off on that.
That component of the Auditor-General’s report is the part I particularly wanted to comment on. I am glad Tomaris Court is being cleaned up. I hope the minister will come there with me every six months to see how it is going so the faeces does get cleaned off the wall on a regular basis, the lawns are mowed, the drunks are chased out, evictions occur, and the graffiti is painted over. Good on the minister for being frightening. I hope he continues the work. I will be double checking to make sure the things I have asked him to attend to have been attended to at Tomaris Court.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am grateful the minister has given his time at 8.30 on an evening. We all know as politicians how busy we can be and the demands even on our evenings. I acknowledge the minister’s visit. I acknowledge the effect it has had on Tomaris Court and let us hope the standards remain.
Mr McCARTHY (Lands and Planning): Madam Deputy Speaker, I welcome the Auditor-General’s report and appreciate the role he and his office play in checking records and driving government agencies to continue to deliver improved reporting and accounting practices.
The October report confirms that the role of the auditor to improve government auditing and accounting processes is working well. For the departments which I have carriage, I am pleased to note the auditor found only minor improvements could be made. All of his recommendations are being implemented by the relevant agencies. With the regard to the then Department of Planning and Infrastructure, the Auditor-General undertook an extensive review and the department has responded to the report. I will read from their response:
- The report has been reviewed and the key findings of the department’s compliance audit have been noted and are currently being addressed through the review of the department’s governance policies and procedures.
Audit issue 1: The Procurement Directions, Treasurer’s Directions and procurement sections in the Accounting and Property Manual were not always complied with.
The current delegations are being revised as a direct result of the new agency structure. The release on approval will provide the opportunity for DLP to emphasise the importance of officers being familiar with their limitations.
Audit issue 2: The MP reconciliation was not prepared in a timely manner;
Noted - With the announcement of the agency restructure on 4 December 2009, the deadlines were not met. However 30 June 2009 was reconciled, and YTD AIS and GAS expenditure was reconciled. Management was confident with the financial information presented on the balance sheet.
Audit issue 3: Non-compliance instances with the Treasurer’s Directions were noted in respect of official travel, telephone and hospitality expenses.
The recommendation is noted. An internal audit was conducted by DPI in 2008 which found that in all sampled transactions, policy and procedure had been adhered to. DLP officers will be encouraged to complete TRIPS requisitions in a timely manner.
Audit issue 4: Risk Management and Audit Committee.
The new DLP RMAC charter has been developed and includes the formal nomination of the secretariat function to ensure minutes are taken and issued to all members. The charter includes the stated meeting schedule and the RMAC has utilised Sharepoint to ensure all documentation is available to all members.
I also want to touch on the Auditor-General’s investigations into the administration of grants. I spoke last week about this government’s track record in delivering increased Arts funding across the Territory. It is a record we are proud of. No doubt my comments were a surprise to the opposition which has been making uninformed public comments on the Arts. The department, through Arts NT and the Film Office, administers a range of grants programs to provide for a growing and sustainable arts industry in the Territory and it is important that grants are fairly distributed. Most of the grants are recommended by independent review panels which ensures a broad range of views are considered during funding and assessment rounds.
The audit noted that the Department of Natural Resources, Environment, the Arts and Sport had adequate policies and processes in place to ensure grants and subsidies paid are correctly identified, accounted for and acquitted. This is a welcome finding.
Madam Deputy Speaker, in closing, I thank Frank McGuiness and his team for providing a thorough and important report.
Mr HAMPTON (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Deputy Speaker, I also welcome the Auditor-General’s report. The Northern Territory Auditor-General’s Office conducted two audits of NRETAS, my agency: an agency compliance audit for the year ending 30 June 2010, and a grants expenditure audit for the year ending 30 June 2009. A performance management systems audit was also conducted for the Territory Wildlife Park for the financial year 2008-09.
NRETAS was previously selected for an agency compliance audit in 2007. The primary objective of this audit was to assess and test the adequacy of the systems developed by accountable officers to achieve compliance with their accountability and control requirements. The final report opinion of the Auditor-General stated that the accounting and control procedures examined for NRETAS provided reasonable assurances that the responsibilities of the accountable officer, as set out in the Treasurer’s Directions and Procurement Regulations and Guidelines, would be met if those systems continued to operate in the manner identified during the audit.
The Auditor-General’s report evidences the substantial improvements made over the last three years in identifying risks and strengthening and developing better control practices. Two audit issues were raised in the final report. The first audit issue identified that the agency’s formal procedures to monitor the conditions of the assets could be enhanced. NRETAS has recently risk-assessed its asset management and identified and implemented an internal control process to formally review the asset register on an annual basis. The second audit issue identified that hospitality expenses had been approved after they had been incurred. NRETAS will continue to reinforce the requirements to follow the agency’s hospitality policy and procedures.
The primary objective of the grants expenditure audit is to assess whether the agency’s internal controls provide reasonable assurances that grants and subsidies made comply with the Treasurer’s Directions. Some opportunities for improvement were identified during the course of the audit and relate to four audit issues. The first audit issue noted that some grants appeared to have been paid in haste and before the project relating to the grant funding was expected to commence, particularly in two peaks, August 2008 and June 2009. These related to operational grants made to various libraries in August, and triennial grants made to various peak sporting bodies in June. The agency noted it will continue to ensure that, as a minimum, a memorandum of understanding is in place for all grant payments, and it will endeavour to minimise the time between moving from an MOU to a formal grant agreement.
The second audit issue noted the agency has no overarching grants policy database. The agency is in the process of finalising procurement of a whole-of-agency grants management database. Implementation of the databases will include the development of an agency-wide policy and procedures for grants management.
The third audit issue noted there was no signed agreement between one recipient and the Northern Territory government. The West Arnhem Fire Management Agreement was signed on 24 August 2006, between the Northern Territory government and Darwin LNG Pty Ltd for the purposes of offsetting some of the greenhouse gas emissions from the plant at Wickham Point. The agreement provides that a formal review can be initiated from 1 January 2011. Initial planning has started to commence negotiations with ConocoPhillips on 1 January 2011.
The fourth audit issue noted one acquittal was not received on a timely basis. The agency noted that grant acquittals are generally closely monitored and assessed, and future grant payments to this recipient will be withheld if non-compliance with conditions set out in the grant agreement is evident.
Overall, the final report option of the Auditor-General states the agency has adequate policies and processes in place to ensure grants and subsidies paid are correctly identified, accounted for, and acquitted.
The performance management systems audit of the Territory Wildlife Park was commissioned by the Auditor-General and conducted by Deloitte Tohmatsu on behalf of the Auditor-General’s Office. The audit opinion was:
- … the Department of Natural Resources, Environment, the Arts and Sport had not established a performance management system during the year ended 30 June 2009 that enabled it to assess the effectiveness, efficiency, and economy of its operations in relation to the Territory Wildlife Park’s stated outcome of ‘Visitor experience that showcase the biodiversity of the unique environment of the Top End and promotes conservation issues’.
NRETAS has taken considerable action to address the audit issues. There were quite a few audit issues raised for the Territory Wildlife Park. The agency has responded and I will list a couple of those for Hansard.
The first one is that a performance management system did not exist for the Territory Wildlife Park for the year ended 30 June 2009. The agency has responded by developing, formally endorsing and implementing a strategic plan, a business plan, and unit action plans at the Territory Wildlife Park for the period May 2010 to June 2011. Each plan includes key performance measures. Reports on the outcomes, linked to the key performance measures, are reviewed fortnightly at the Territory Wildlife Park leadership group meetings, and monthly at the GBD managers’ meeting.
Another audit issue which was highlighted for the Territory Wildlife Park was that a strategic, business risk-assessment was performed for the Bio-division and the Government Business Division Parks, however, it was not formally finalised. The agency responded by completing and formally endorsing a risk assessment for the Government Business Division Parks in April 2010. Risk management is now a standing agenda item for the Government Business Division leadership group and the Territory Wildlife Park leadership group.
Another audit issue raised in the report of the Auditor-General for the Territory Wildlife Park was that business plans for the Territory Wildlife Park, the GBD Parks, or the Bio-division were not formally endorsed for the year ended 30 June 2009. The agency’s response to this was to formally endorse the GBD Parks’ charter and the Territory Wildlife Park’s strategic, business and action plans clearly meet the GBD Parks’ charter and agency priorities.
There were also some issues raised with specific grants to which I will respond. The specific issues were that a number of grants were paid in the last week of June which appear to have been rushed and it took too long to progress from a memorandum of understanding to the grant agreement and, in some cases, it then took too long to complete projects. Some of those issues have been dealt with, particularly with some of the grants, such as the Nakara lights. There were also grants to: NT Cricket to construct and upgrade facilities at Marrara Cricket Ground; the Darwin Golf Club to upgrade the irrigation system; the Darwin City Council to assist with upgrades to Bagot Oval; the Alice Springs Town Council for the viewing area of the basketball stadium; and Alice Springs Town Council for a glass crusher. I am sure the Treasurer has responded to some of those issues. Many of those grants cover complex projects and have taken longer than expected to progress from the memorandum of understanding to the formal grant agreement. In most of those cases the projects have been completed.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the Auditor-General for his report, and his staff for their work. In my agency we are always looking at ways we can improve our systems and the findings are most welcome.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank the Auditor-General for his report to the Legislative Assembly on matters arising from audits conducted in the period 1 January 2010 to 30 June 2010. My ministerial colleagues and I value the work of the Auditor-General in assisting the process of transparency and accountability through independent analysis and drawing our attention to matters of interest.
The majority of the report deals with the results of performance management system audits, which assess the extent to which effective systems have been established and that performance is consistent with desired outcomes. I commend the Auditor-General for inquiring into such matters as they go to the heart of the NT government’s Working for Outcomes framework adopted some years ago.
Whilst there are a number of positive findings, several audits of performance management systems across agencies noted adverse findings with a lack of effective and efficient systems, including: NT Police, Fire and Emergency Services’ Road Safety Strategy; the Department of Business and Employment’s Green Fleet Strategy; the Department of Health and Families’ Non-government Organisation Services; the Department of Housing, Local Government and Regional Services’ Public Housing Services; the Department of Justice’s Fines Recovery Unit; and the Department of Natural Resources, Environment, The Arts and Sport’s Territory Wildlife Park.
The Auditor-General noted that the development of effective and efficient performance management systems is not a simple task and requires a significant investment of time and resources. All agencies subject to adverse findings committed to implementing measures to improve their performance management systems.
The audits of the administration of grants in three agencies found that two of the three agencies audited had satisfactory policies and processes in place. There were areas of improvement identified for the administration of grants in the Department of the Chief Minister which are being addressed by the agency with the assistance of the Auditor-General and the Department of Justice. The Department of the Chief Minister has commenced work in developing an overarching grants policy and framework, ensuring appropriate agreements are in place for all grants and that processing of acquittals is timely.
The audits of financial statements conducted during the reporting period all resulted in unqualified audit opinions and confirmed them as being compliant with relevant accounting standards. This is a commendable achievement.
While unqualified, the audit of financial statements of Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education again raised a question of BIITE’s viability as an ongoing concern. This is to be addressed through a collaborative partnership planned with CDU in 2012.
The audits of general compliance with prescribed policies and procedures across nine agencies identified no major matters but highlighted the ongoing need for agencies to comply with Treasurer’s Directions and maintain strong frameworks of internal controls throughout the financial year.
The Auditor-General’s report also included the first contravention of the new Public Information Act which resulted from a letter that included statements which sought to promote the interests of a political party and influence electors’ voting intentions before the Commonwealth election. The letter also included comments which could be construed as statements of opinion rather than statements of fact. The potential misuse of public monies was avoided by the settlement of the liability during the course of the Auditor-General’s review.
That was the issue where, under the Leader of the Opposition’s letterhead in the lead-up to the federal election, the CLP was forced to pay back - I may have this wrong - around $18 000 to the public purse. The Leader of the Opposition, when he spoke in support of the introduction of this act, berated me and the government for the inappropriate use of public funding for political purposes but the first casualty under the new legislation was the Country Liberal Party. A letter which the Leader of the Opposition signed and was on his letterhead, which he had the temerity to try to blame an administrative assistant in his office for sending out in the lead-up to the election campaign, was pinged by the Auditor-General. The CLP was forced to pay back the cost and the Leader of the Opposition blamed some poor girl in his office for acting in contravention of the legislation which he spoke so highly about. I suppose it shows the system is working.
The Auditor-General’s October 2010 report provides over 100 pages of information and analysis on audit activity conducted over the reporting period and provides an assurance to parliament and all Territorians that government agencies are transparent and accountable for managing resources under their control and have been subjected to the highest levels of scrutiny.
This has been a very thorough audit. I will talk about a couple of the findings in the audit of Police, Fire and Emergency Services. The objective of the audit of the Road Safety Strategy was to determine whether performance management systems of Northern Territory Police, Fire and Emergency Services, NTPFES, enable the agency to assess whether its objectives in relation to the Road Safety Strategy are being achieved effectively. The Auditor-General’s report concluded there was a decline in the relative motor vehicle accident rate over the period 1990 to 2008. However, the agency had no formal process or system which permitted it to analyse and report on the success of the strategy initiatives. Therefore, it was not possible to form a view on whether individual initiatives were effective or efficient.
A traffic and specialist services command is now established and will operate from the Nightcliff Police Station. The command will be headed by a commander and will provide an enhanced strategic focus for road policing and will improve service delivery across the Territory. A revised roads policing strategy will also form part of the work for the new traffic command.
Madam Deputy Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues, I thank the Auditor-General for his report. I take this opportunity to express my full support for the Auditor-General for his continued independent analysis of governance and accountability on behalf of the Assembly, the government and the Territory community, and for continuing to draw our attention to matters of importance. The role of the Auditor-General and the ongoing program of audits of financial statements, internal controls and compliance is a vital component in maintaining accountable government.
Motion agreed to; paper noted.
MOTION
Note Paper - Council of Territory Cooperation Annual Report 2009-10
Note Paper - Council of Territory Cooperation Annual Report 2009-10
Continued from 12 August 2010.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, this annual report deals with the Council of Territory Cooperation from its establishment to 30 June this year. The report gives an outline of the purpose of the CTC, the inquiry process, the CTC reporting requirements, the government response requirements and the Secretariat. The report details the work program of the CTC, including an overview of its functions, its ability to self-reference a number of public hearings and meetings, and a number of reports delivered by the close of this report.
As well as the table showing the CTC expenditure from its establishment to 30 June 2010, the key aspects of the report show a total of $295 038 was spent which included $165 170 for salaries which included some casual Hansard transcription staff, $93 661 for operational expenses and $36 207 for travel.
The report also has three appendices which highlight the terms of the agreement from which the CTC was established, the terms of reference of the CTC, and a full list of all meetings, including all participants at those meetings. One area which was not included was an attendance record of members at meetings during this period, which is normal in annual reports, but this may be attended to in the future.
There are a number of issues arising from the report on which I would like to comment. The first is that the CTC is probably a first in Australia and is an attempt to bring all sides of politics together to inquire into government policies. This has enabled it to question the public service about what the government is doing in a range of policies such as SIHIP, local government reform, and A Working Future. The lack of ability to force ministers to be questioned at CTC meetings has been a matter the CLP members disagreed with and was recently given as the reason they have resigned from the CTC.
As Chair of the CTC, I am aware the government has been asked to look at the possibility of ministers attending hearings under certain guidelines; the government is still considering this proposal. The CTC, also uniquely, is able to self-refer and has done so on a number of occasions in regard to a major electricity failure last year and a perceived inconsistency of domestic violence figures between two government departments. The CTC, I hope, has opened up government policy to more public scrutiny with the majority of its hearings being open to the media and the public, again, something which does not occur at most parliamentary committees.
Anyone reading this report can see the amount of work the CTC has been able to achieve over the length of the report and it has tabled 35 recommendations from those reports. The government has to respond to those reports within three months, which it has done. Like any other committee, the recommendations do not have to be agreed to by the government, but for those it has agreed to, the next task for the CTC is to see if those changes have taken place.
Since this report, as mentioned before, the two CLP members have resigned and the Independent member for Macdonnell has also formally resigned, although it is fair to say she only attended a very small number of meetings so this had little practical effect on the makeup of the CTC.
The CTC will continue although it has a smaller number and hopes the CLP will reconsider and come back to the CTC. In the meantime, the CTC intends to take stock of where it is going, what its future priorities and workload will be considering both Labor members have other commitments which take a considerable amount of their time. As Chair, I believe the CTC has a future and I will work towards the goal of all sides of parliament coming together on issues which should be beyond the restrictions of party politics. As an example, at our next public hearings in Darwin, the CTC should be hearing from various bodies and people which have been set up to oversee the recommendations of the Growing them strong, together report. This is something all sides of politics should be interested in.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I thank all members of the CTC, both past and present. That includes the member for Arafura, you, as member for Nhulunbuy, the member for Katherine, the member for Macdonnell, and the member for Fong Lim - although he was a member for such a short period; we might have had one meeting during that time but he was not able to attend. Two of our previous members were the member for Fannie Bay, and the member for Port Darwin who stepped down for a period of time but came back later.
I thank the Secretariat, Ms Helen Campbell, Ms Jan Whitehead, Mr Simon Flavel, Ms Karen Turner, Ms Kim Cowcher, and also previous staff, Ms Pat Hancock and Mrs Kay Parsons. They have all done a tremendous job and have put a great deal of hard work into developing the CTC which is an important part of the parliamentary process. I thank my personal advisor, Michelle Nuske for all the hard work she has done in helping me as Chair of the CTC.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will talk about the CTC as an institution. On day 1 when the idea was proposed during that all-too-infamous debate as to whether or not we were going to allow this government to continue, I spoke to the member for Nelson after he had made his statement; I was one of the first people to collar him. I said: ‘What exactly is this new council of cooperation going to do? Is it a parliamentary committee? Is it another Chamber? What is it?’ The member for Nelson was unable to describe what he thought, other than that he thought it was a good idea.
The problem I was concerned about became manifest very quickly, because this thing could have been only one of two things. It could only have been an upper House in this Chamber, in which case we would have had to clear out the library and have a Legislative Council and two Chambers. I am not sure if that would have been possible under the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act, I would have to check that. Or it would have to be a parliamentary committee. We like to call it the Council of Territory Cooperation, but it is a parliamentary committee.
We already have a parliamentary committee which holds the public account to scrutiny. Much of what the CTC does is little more than a Public Accounts Committee held in public. I maintained that from the outset. I continue to maintain that today. What this committee achieves could be easily achieved by simple amendments to the standing orders or the reference to the Public Accounts Committee, and this would be a resolved issue. But no, there was no Public Accounts Committee; we had to dress this thing up to be the Council of Territory Cooperation.
There was a long and hard discussion between my colleagues and me as to whether we should bother because it was just an extension of the Labor government. The deal had been struck.
The inherent problems of the deal, which were obvious to me at the time, have become obvious to the member for Nelson as time has passed, which has forced him to say things like he will not vote against government. He started to realise the implications of those sorts of actions.
The member for Nelson has also repeatedly run the defence that this is the government which was properly elected. Well, actually, no. It was the members of this House who were elected. It is the members of this House who determine who forms government. The member for Nelson has quickly side-stepped that issue and said government is elected by the people. It is not. Government is elected by this House. Whoever can form the majority of support in this House forms government. You can ask Ted Baillieu, or Colin Barnett, or Julia Gillard how that works. The people did not vote for Julia Gillard as Prime Minister; she was the leader of the Labor Party in a parliament where, with the support of a couple of Independents and by the grace of those Independents, could form a government. The same applies here. I have always taken the view - and these are the comments which resonated with me for the member for Nelson, as well as Rob Oakeshott, Tony Windsor and Bob Katter - that it was a close-run thing. It was so close; it was so hard to separate the two, which is what the member for Nelson argued.
If an Independent is in that situation, then there is a very simple thing to do. You check the records of the Australian Electoral Commission, or you ring them and ask them: where did the number two votes go when I was elected? If the member for Nelson, or the member for New England, or Oakeshott, wherever he is the member for, rang the Electoral Commission because they could not separate the two parties, they would have had a response from the Electoral Commission saying: ‘Well, the number two votes flowed in this percentage to that person, that side or that side’. I argue that, in New England and Mr Oakeshott’s electorate, certainly in Mr Katter’s electorate, and in the member for Nelson’s electorate, the number two votes would have been flowing in the direction of conservative politics.
If you want to run the argument that it is the people’s choice, then run the argument that it is the people’s choice legitimately, not in the fashion the member for Nelson has chosen to run it - that it is the people who elected the government. They elected a majority of members, some of which became disenfranchised and disappointed with the government of the day and did what is their exclusive right to do: take their value of vote away from the government and reduce the government to a minority government. The only thing which keeps that minority government alive is the support of the member for Nelson.
The member for Nelson promised Territorians he would hold this government to account, and yet, as time has passed, we have seen examples time and time again of maladministration. Maladministration surrounding child protection, SIHIP – and the member for Nelson is now intimately aware and involved in this. He knows the second intervention on the Northern Territory was based around SIHIP because the government had completely stuffed it up and it is going to cost Territory taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars to fix. He fails to find that maladministration and continues to call this government a competent government.
Then we see examples of other forms of maladministration, and the astonishing, breathtaking failures of the minister for Resources to even try to take any responsibility for the Montara oil field, which he collects millions of dollars worth of fees to manage, and spends less than a million dollars every year on oversight. The argument from the government is that it costs so much to get these professionals. Well, spend on those professionals what you earn from the mining industry. When you read the report - it is around page 218 - of the wash-up of the Montara oil spill, in one particular year $15m was taken in by government as revenue through the Territory Treasury’s books while expenditure on oversight, policing and regulation was $980 000. That was an abnormal year, most years it is a little over $2m; the average is well over $2m and every year the expenditure on regulation is less than $1m. The failure to see maladministration when we have 90 000 barrels of oil floating around in the Arafura Sea is surprising.
We have the child protection thing, the Deborah Melville thing, which still leaves me shaking my head in disbelief. Anyone who watched the Four Corners program on this, it brought home in sharp relief what a decayed and decrepit child protection system we have. Yet the member for Nelson still cannot see there is maladministration in spades on the other side of the House.
Now we have the added component that, rather than doing something and fixing their maladministration on this side of the House, we see the ghastly approach the government has chosen to use – because their own polling is telling them that the Leader of the Opposition is a popular, well regarded, well thought of man …
Ms SCRYMGOUR: A point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker! Standing Order 67, relevance. We are debating the CTC annual report. I cannot see anywhere in the annual report of the CTC anything to do with Labor Party polling, let alone Montara. I seek your ruling on a point of relevance. The member for Port Darwin should get back to debating the annual report.
Madam DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order, member for Arafura. Member for Port Darwin, it is an annual report. There is the opportunity for the third report …
Mr ELFERINK: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I appreciate your guidance. The argument I am trying to construct is that the CTC is an organ of an arrangement based on the assumption that the Northern Territory government will be held to account. To demonstrate how the member for Nelson has failed to hold the Northern Territory government to account and that the maladministration continues, I have to demonstrate to this House all of the evidence of maladministration. That is what I am talking about.
The maladministration which goes on now includes, not incompetence, but it has turned to active vitriol and accusations of crimes which have never been committed. That is maladministration. In fact it is more than maladministration; it is mala fide - bad faith. It is not incompetence we are talking about now. Now we are talking about acts of malice and yet, sadly, we are still ticking along.
I read in the last Sunday Territorian that the member for Nelson said: ‘You’ll just have to wait your turn, boys’. So it is no longer an issue of maladministration. It is now straight forward, straight up and down, an issue of: ‘The Labor Party is in government. I do not really care what they do because they are the ones who were chosen by the people’. It is not correct. The CTC has come to represent a vehicle by which government has been able to give the member for Nelson, who is still a mere Independent member of this House, extra staff and extra cash to do all sorts of things. I wish I had the staff and extra cash so I could do my job better, but I do not.
The CTC has in many respects failed to achieve the goals it has been set simply because we spend a great deal of money, we come into this place, drop a bit of paper on the Table which the government says, in most instances, is noted. There is no active administration involved and there is no capacity to do this House’s job of questioning ministers. If you ask these bureaucrats we get to talk to - and they are hard-working, decent people - they will provide what information they can. Some of them have become very forthcoming as they have become used to the process, but ultimately you ask why a decision was made. ‘That decision was made by the minister’. You know you cannot ask the next question because the answer will be: ‘You will have to ask the minister’.
I finally, as a member of the CTC, convinced not only the member for Nelson but the Labor members that the committee could only effectively work if there were ministers coming in and explaining what they were doing and the decisions they were making. So all of us, as a group, the Labor members, the two Independents and the two Country Liberal members on the committee, said ministers must come to the committee because it is government which is held to account through this process, not public servants. Whilst the public servants have been very informative, that is all we have gotten out of it.
The government has refused to avail ministers to that organ of this House and consequently the organ has failed on its own merits. It is for that reason the Leader of the Opposition finally determined, in consultation with his parliamentary colleagues, that continued participation would not achieve anything other than keeping the Labor government in power. It is a fact finding mission; that is all it is. It has a grand title. It has a fairly large budget and some staff but its achievements have been nominal, noted, and a couple of the simpler things have been applied, but my goodness, gracious me, it is not what Territorians were promised.
I genuinely participated, and continued to participate for a year, in the operation of the Council of Territory Cooperation in an effort to make it work. Even before the Growing them strong, together inquiry was launched I was asking questions about child protection, and the reply from the CTC at the time, I think it was about November of last year, was: ‘No, we cannot do it. We have too much else on our plate. It is too big’.
It turns out that child protection is one of the most fundamentally important issues the CTC could have looked at and we would have been there well before Dr Bath and the government. I found that disappointing because we could have been well in advance of the Growing them strong, together report, yet we delayed. The consequences of that delay are not paid by John Elferink or Gerry Wood or whoever else. The consequences of that delay are not heard. They are in the homes where children are neglected and abused. I regret I was not firmer than I was on that issue at that time. I have a few regrets in this place and that is one of them.
The CTC is, in intent, noble; in practice, weak, and fundamentally weak because we cannot get ministers to explain themselves and their decision-making processes. For that reason, I am not satisfied the CTC is worth its money. It could just be a PAC and, at least, the ministers can come to the PAC. It has not stacked up and is not what it promised to be.
Ultimately, I cannot change the member for Nelson’s mind. He can only change that but I appeal to the sense of reason I know he has and I appeal to him to look at what is happening in this jurisdiction and what is happening on those government benches. If he cannot bring himself to support forming a Country Liberal government until the next Territory election then, at least, make a determination that the people can be asked to judge because I believe this government is now mired deeply in maladministration.
The member for Nelson made a promise to check on this government and that promise is on the verge of being broken. I hope the member for Nelson does see the reasonable case which is being put forward by the members on this side of the House, that this government is quickly becoming unfit to govern. The events of the last week demonstrate it is now interested more in destroying rather then creating. Once the government has decayed to that point it is time that people get to pass judgement on it, and because it has to happen through a process, it would require the member for Nelson to pass a resolution of no confidence.
Madam Deputy Speaker, one of the downsides of fixed four-year terms - and New South Wales is going through this at the moment - is that governments, no matter how bad, stick it out. I think the time has come, and it is within the member for Nelson’s power, to cut the thread of the sword of Damocles and let it come plunging down on the heads of this government so the people can decide. At the moment, the people are being sorely cheated.
Motion agreed to; paper noted.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
A New Era in Corrections - Update
Mr McCARTHY (Correctional Services): Madam Deputy Speaker, it is with pride that I update the House on the government’s significant investment in the new era in Corrections. This government is focused on building a safer Territory. We have delivered almost 400 extra police since coming into office. We have delivered significant legislative reform in areas including child protection, alcohol reform, domestic violence, volatile substances, and proceeds of crime. With more police than before and strong legislation, people who commit crime are being caught and going to gaol.
In 2000-01, the rate of incarceration per 100 000 adults in the Territory was 483. By 2008-09, that had grown to 647. This government does not step back from its stance against crime. If you commit an offence you will face the full strength of the law.
In the Northern Territory, 47% of offenders are back in gaol within two years. That is compared to a national average of 39%. About 82% of prisoners are Indigenous; many with low literacy and numeracy skills and with few job prospects. I am saddened each time I visit the correctional centres in Alice Springs and Darwin because I see those statistics reflected in real people with lives which have gone off the track. I see Territorians who are on a cycle of offending, who all too often head back to gaol within two years of leaving. That is the personal side of these statistics and this debate. We cannot continue doing things in the same way and expect to turn those statistics around; the system must be changed.
Over the last year I have travelled Australia inspecting correctional centres and systems. In partnership with Correctional Services’ experts, and sometimes with the member for Nelson, I have looked at what works to reduce reoffending, what does not, and what could be applied to the Territory’s conditions. Across the board, it was clear that rehabilitation, education and training is essential if we are to make changes in people’s lives.
That is at the heart of the new era in Corrections which I was pleased to join with the Chief Minister in announcing in September. The $68m package delivers new prison facilities, tougher sentencing options for our courts, investment in alcohol and drug rehabilitation, electronic surveillance of offenders, and improved reintegration and post-release support. Government and NT Correctional Services have set an ambitious target of reducing prisoner numbers off the top by 20%, or 220 prisoners. We want to reduce the rate of reoffending to, at most, the national average of 39%. These targets will not be easy to achieve but we are focused on achieving change.
Members will be aware that work is under way in a review of the juvenile justice system. That work will complement the new era in Corrections. We need to ensure our treatment of young offenders provides them with the support and discipline necessary to succeed. Access to more education, training and rehabilitation is essential if we are to give prisoners a reason and a purpose to move away from the offending which led them to gaol in the first place.
Having the right tools and facilities at your disposal is central to being able to perform your job effectively. Access to modern facilities is needed if we are to achieve the targets of a new era in Corrections.
Since being appointed Minister for Correctional Services, I have been to Berrimah on a number of occasions. I must admit on my first visit I was taken aback. When members on the other side of this House are quick to say things like: ‘It is easy being inside; it is a holiday’, I wonder if they have been inside B Block in Berrimah. Others say: ‘I was a police officer a decade ago. That makes me suitable to work as a prison officer’. That is an insult to our hard-working prison staff. On a daily basis, prison officers are challenged by the job of moving prisoners safely from secure area to secure area so they can access programs and activities. We should never forget that prisons are not just about prisoners; they are about the staff who work there too and their right to a safe workplace.
Prison is not, and should not, be some kind of retreat. If we are serious about breaking the cycle of reoffending, prison needs to be a place where training and programs can be delivered with dedicated education and rehabilitation spaces. That is not possible at Berrimah gaol, and it is not just me or this government saying that. Before committing to building a new prison, government wanted to be sure we could not extend or rebuild the Berrimah gaol. A team of experts was put together, including a prison architect, engineers, a planner, correctional services’ experts from the Territory and nationally, and costs analysts. They went over Berrimah with a fine-toothed comb and told us there was not enough space, it was not cost effective, and it was not safe for staff to rebuild on that site. Their findings in a nutshell: Berrimah prison is outdated and cannot be rebuilt. We need a new prison.
The new Darwin prison precinct is a key plank of the government’s new era in Corrections. It will be built on Section 4225 in Holtze, about 4 km north of Howard Springs Road along the old boat ramp track. The site was chosen in consultation with the member for Nelson under the Parliamentary Agreement. I thank the member for Nelson for his input and his broader discussions of and interest in the new era for Corrections. I also acknowledge the member for Goyder, who has taken the time to visit the site, talk with the appropriate staff and understand the final decision on the prison location.
The project will include an 800-bed prison and a 36-bed secure mental health facility. The mental health facility will be managed by the Department of Health and Families. It will provide a more appropriate and effective means of accommodating prisoners with mental illness.
The 800-bed prison, named the Doug Owston Correctional Centre, will adopt best practice in design and construction, including security. It will deliver what Berrimah cannot: dedicated space for education, training, industries and rehabilitation programs. These programs are central to breaking the cycle of reoffending. The Doug Owston Correctional Centre will also deliver program space and accommodation for elders and respected persons working with prisoners, and a horticultural area for food production.
On the day the package of measures for the new era in Corrections was announced, I had the pleasure of heading to Berrimah to talk to prison officers and other staff about the plans. They were very interested in the new prison precinct and its new facilities. Not one officer said they would be sad to leave the Berrimah gaol behind; they are looking forward to a safer, more efficient place to work.
A short list of three consortia has been announced to form a public/private partnership with the Territory government to design, construct, finance and maintain the prison precinct. Axiom Corrections, SeNTinel and Assure Partners all have local, national and international links, and a public/private partnership will deliver the best value for money for Territorians. Each consortium has been asked to submit a request for proposal, including detailed costings and measurable local industry and Indigenous participation plans to achieve between 75% to 90% local content. More than 1000 direct and indirect jobs are expected to be created from the project, generating significant opportunities for local businesses. Construction is planned to commence in late 2011, with the prison to be operational in 2014.
The government is also establishing a work camp in the Barkly and is working towards the development of a prison farm and work camp in Katherine. Both will be focused on low-security offenders. The primary goal of work camps is community reparation and rehabilitation, linking prisoners to education and vocational training. It is about getting prisoners job ready, getting them into work and repaying the community, and reducing the risk of reoffending. The 50-bed Barkly work camp is rapidly becoming a reality. Territory business, J Hutchinson, has been awarded a $6.45m contract to construct the camp. Facilities will include a multipurpose classroom for education and training programs, including literacy and numeracy, and a training workshop. Training, community projects and work programs at the camp will be targeted at skills shortages in the Barkly region. That focus has been welcomed by local business in Tennant Creek, presenting opportunities for prisoners to transition into real jobs at the end of their sentence.
The camp will be operational next year and its first officer-in-charge has been appointed. Eight of the 15 trainee prison officers who graduated in Alice Springs earlier this month will be heading to the work camp and a recruitment drive is continuing to fill the 14 officer spots. A community liaison committee has been established to be a conduit between the work camp and Barkly region communities. This is an exciting project which will deliver job opportunities for Tennant Creek and the region, and life changing opportunities for offenders.
To Katherine - the government is in talks with Charles Darwin University about access to land for the construction of a 170-bed prison farm and work camp for low-security prisoners. Talks are also focused on establishing training and education links with Charles Darwin University in Katherine and Mataranka, including the potential for a rural operations course. The prison farm and work camps programs will be centered on literacy and numeracy, horticulture, agriculture and community maintenance and reparation programs. Training will be geared towards skills shortages in the Katherine region. Government plans to construct the facility in stages, using a combination of traditional contract delivery and prisoners enrolled in an accredited vocational training program. The prison farm and work camp proposal would provide direct opportunities for the region with an expected 54 jobs on site once fully operational.
The new prison facilities being delivered through the new era are built on a $23.6m infrastructure program already rolled out in Darwin in Alice Springs Correctional Centres. The works included 100 extra beds in Alice Springs, comprised of 52 low-security beds and 24 medium-security beds for male prisoners and a 24-bed multi-classification accommodation unit for female prisoners. An additional 148 beds were delivered in Darwin as well as upgrades and additions to medical, education and prisoner administration support services.
As members may be aware, prisoners engaged in the Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education vocational training constructed 24 of the 148 beds. The BIITE program is going from strength to strength and is doing great work in training our prisoners for future careers in the construction industry.
Sentencing options - to further support the central aim of more education, training and rehabilitation for offenders, the government will introduce tougher sentencing options for the courts. Community custody orders and community-based orders will give courts the power to order non-violent offenders into education, training, rehabilitation and work programs. It is not good enough for non-violent offenders to simply cool their heels and wait out their sentence in prison. These offenders need to pay back the community, get into rehabilitation and work.
Community custody orders will be a sentencing option for the courts for non-violent offenders facing imprisonment periods of less than 12 months. The courts will be able to order offenders to serve their custodial sentence outside prison, requiring them to attend rehabilitation and training programs, and participate in employment and community work. These sentences will be served under strict supervision by Corrections and offenders who breach their orders will face spending the remainder of their sentence in prison. The community-based orders will be available to courts dealing with low-level, non-violent offenders who are not facing an imprisonment period. The community-based orders will allow courts to mandate offenders’ participation in education, training and treatment programs.
Government will introduce legislation to support the new community custody orders and community-based orders next year. We understand this legislation needs supporting resources to deliver the programs on the ground. We will recruit an additional 31 Community Corrections Officers who will be stationed across the Territory in each of the regional centres - in the growth towns of Wadeye, Yuendumu and Lajamanu, and in Nhulunbuy and on Groote Eylandt.
Community work crews will be set up to deliver work programs linked to the orders in both urban and remote areas. The crews will be staffed by Community Corrections Officers trained in adult education and qualified to deliver and assess vocational training units. They will be based in Alice Springs and Darwin and will travel as required to centres such as Katherine, Tennant Creek, Oenpelli, Wadeye and Hermannsburg to deliver training and work programs. The community work crews will deliver projects focused on conservation and land management, small equipment operations and occupational health and safety.
We will not stop there; partnerships will also be established with registered training organisations, non-government organisations and shire councils to deliver education and training programs in support of new court orders. I am particularly excited about the opportunities which could grow from partnerships with the shire councils. A training partnership would allow shire councils to identify their skills shortage area to Corrections and allow Corrections to tailor their job training programs to meet these skills gaps. This will hopefully lead to offenders being able to transition into work on their release and break the cycle of re-offending. For the shire councils it will be the opportunity to grow their workforce with people who live in that community.
As a former educator, I cannot say enough about the importance of access to education and training in changing someone’s life. I am proud to say this government has boosted funding for prisoner education by $1m in 2009-10 to $1.93m. The boost in funding has allowed the expansion of education services, particularly for prisoners on remand and those serving a sentence of less than six months. I pay tribute to the hard-working teaching and support staff working in our correctional centres. NT Corrections has signed a memorandum of understanding with the Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education for a partnership on prisoner education and training and also purchases training from the Charles Darwin University.
There is a range of programs on offer in our gaols, including literacy and numeracy, life skills, white card for the construction industry, Certificates 1, 2 and 3 in construction and Certificate 1 in metal fabrication. We are focused on delivering programs which are value for money and provide real outcomes. We are focused on delivering programs which will make prisoners job ready when their sentence is up and will see that offenders are able to transition into employment and away from re-offending.
With regard to rehabilitation, there has been much debate in this House recently about this government’s significant package of reform to tackle alcohol abuse and related crime. With 72% of prisoners reporting their offence was committed under the influence of alcohol, rehabilitation is an important part of breaking the cycle of reoffending. Members will be aware that NT Corrections delivers a range of treatment and rehabilitation programs in our facilities including programs addressing alcohol and illicit drugs, Indigenous family violence, sex offender treatment and victim awareness.
The new era in Corrections delivers a significant investment in rehabilitation and targeted programs. A major component is an investment in infrastructure – an additional 45 supported accommodation and rehabilitation beds. We will build a new 20-bed supported accommodation and treatment centre in the Alice Springs Correctional Centre precinct. The centre will be operated by a non-government organisation with around-the-clock supervision of offenders. Driving offenders make up 25% of our prison population and serve an average of 75 days in gaol. That time frame makes it difficult to have prisoners undertake meaningful rehabilitation and training programs. Government wants to see these drivers in treatment and driver education.
Courts will be given the power to order driving offenders facing imprisonment of 12 months or less into an intensive driver offender program to be delivered at the supported accommodation and treatment centre. The program will deliver alcohol and other drug treatment, drink-driving education, driver licensing training and some mechanical training. Upon completion of the program offenders will be able to obtain their learner’s licence or have their disqualification period lifted under strict conditions such as the installation of an alcohol interlock device. The supported accommodation and treatment centre will also provide accommodation, alcohol and other drug treatment and links to jobs, health and other services.
About a quarter of the Territory’s prison population are remandees, that is, offenders refused bail and awaiting their court case. The supported accommodation and treatment centre will be used to divert remandees into treatment as appropriate. This will mean that offenders who need alcohol treatment rehabilitation will be able to start immediately instead of having to wait for their trial. Diverting remandees into alcohol treatment will also reduce the demand on prison beds. Construction of the centre and the start of its operation is flagged for the 2012-13 financial year. Supporting legislation will be amended next year so that time spent in the supported accommodation is equivalent to time on remand.
In support of the government’s alcohol reforms and the new community custody orders I outlined, we will work with the non-government sector to deliver an additional 25 alcohol and drug treatment beds. We will also build and provide ongoing funding for five beds in Alice Springs and in Darwin. We will build and fund 10 beds and fund an extra five beds to deliver a total of 15 beds in Katherine. These extra beds will greatly enhance the capacity of the sector to deliver residential and outreach programs. Construction of these beds will commence next financial year.
Ensuring community confidence and safety is an important facet of the new era in Corrections. The community and the courts rightly need to know that Corrections has the necessary tools to monitor the location and behaviour of offenders on home detention, community-based orders, and parole. Starting next year, two new electronic surveillance systems will be rolled out across the Territory. One element will be the ability to order offenders to wear electronic transmitters, most easily visualised as ankle bracelets, which will link to monitoring devices in the home, workplace, or other court-specified locations. Any breaches of orders in the offender’s behaviour or location will be registered through an alarm system to supervising Correctional officers. The monitoring system will be linked through the 24-hour control centre at the Alice Springs Correctional Centre. The system will be piloted in Darwin with 30 transmitters rolled out in 2011-12. It will be followed by the roll-out of a further 20 transmitters in Alice Springs in 2012-13. After the first two years, the program will be extensively assessed and will be rolled out further if it proves to suit Territory conditions.
The second electronic surveillance system will be the introduction of a voice recognition system for next year. Under the system, offenders can be required to report via a secure phone line in a predetermined location with electronic recognition of their voice. Voice recognition can operate through designated landlines or satellite phones, and can include additional elements such as a web camera. Voice recognition will be particularly beneficial in the monitoring of offenders in remote locations where it can be difficult to deliver face-to-face checks. NT Correctional Services is currently assessing the operation of voice recognition systems in other jurisdictions and will determine which elements are most suitable for the Territory’s conditions.
As with the electronic transmitters, the voice recognition system will be comprehensively assessed in the first two years of operation. The introduction of the new systems will be supported with a $3.8m injection into Community Corrections, including the recruitment of 10 extra staff. Legislation to support both new systems will be introduced in 2011.
It is widely recognised that the period immediately after release is one of the most crucial in breaking the cycle of reoffending. Links with housing, jobs, and support networks and services all play a role in helping an offender get their life back together. NT Corrections currently delivers a range of prisoner support programs as diverse as work-release placements, job find activities, family wellbeing, Centrelink and Medicare support, driver education, and reintegration and repatriation support.
To complement and enhance these programs, the new era in Corrections delivers stronger reintegration and post-release support measures. We will expand the Elders Visiting Program which supports prisoners to maintain links with their community and culture. There are now more than 20 elders working with prisoners in Alice Springs and Darwin Correctional Centres. Through the new era in Corrections, government will formalise the emerging role of the program in providing support for prisoners to help them reintegrate into their community.
Additional funding of $350 000 in 2011-12, $614 000 in 2012-13, and $845 000 in 2013-14 will help elders provide support such as mediation, liaison with probation officers and police, and the development of post-release plans. The expanded services will be focused on the Barkly, Katherine, and East Arnhem. They will be supported by Aboriginal Liaison Officers in the Katherine and Barkly region who will link in with the new work camps.
Commencing next financial year, we will also fund a program to provide post-release support and accommodation for prisoners. The program will be operated by a non-government organisation which will work with the Corrections staff to develop reintegration plans, including job and training opportunities and accommodation options. The program will also deliver funding support for halfway houses as needed.
The Territory’s high rate off reoffending makes it clear we cannot continue in the same way. The new era in Corrections is a period of real opportunity to turn that story around. I am confident that the new era in Corrections, with its focus on education, rehabilitation, and training will reduce prison numbers and break the cycle of reoffending.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, I say at the outset, and this will surprise the minister, not bad. I read this statement last night and I thought to myself, okay, this is a workable set of proposals. It picks up on many things this side of the House has been advocating for some time. It would be difficult for us to be critical of many of the programs outlined in this, when the inspiration for them perhaps came from the policy announcements we made in the last election. Consequently, I am glad this is a government which listens.
I am starting to think I am showing my age, because I still think of Berrimah as the new prison; I remember when Fannie Bay was operating. My goodness, have we not come a long way since Fannie Bay was operating because gosh, it was the mid-1970s, if memory serves me, or even early 1980s, when finally the Berrimah prison was opened and it was state-of-the-art for the time. Philosophies change and approaches change, but the Berrimah prison was a prison which did its job.
Further, I presume the reference to B Block is a reference to the maximum security block and I appreciate what the minister is saying; B Block is an unpleasant place and it is full of unpleasant people. People who spend time in B Block, especially if they have been imprisoned for a while, are not there because they have to be but because they need to be for other reasons. Even murderers can finally, although it takes them a few years, work their way out of maximum security and into other places in the gaol. I remember seeing Mr Crabbe about 15 years ago when I visited the Berrimah prison. He was convicted of the murder of five people when he drove his truck into the pub at Ayers Rock. He was working on a truck as a trustee of some sort. I am advised he has been a model prisoner since the day he went into prison; so, even people who have those sorts of things against them can work their way out of maximum security, given enough time.
The reality of what is happening at the moment will probably make the new prison inevitable, in spite of the policies of this side of the House prior to the last Territory election. The truth is that, should the government go full term, this thing will be under construction during the next election. I will not be flagging that we would stop construction on a building which is half built should there be a change of government. We have to be realistic that the new prison is inevitable, so it is now necessary to talk about what this new building does.
What I am disappointed not to hear from the minister about and would like to hear more about, perhaps from other members, is how the classification system which will be used in the prison is going to affect its design. I have spoken to Ken Middlebrook on a couple of occasions and I thank him for the advice he has given to me. Mr Middlebrook is a competent man and he is quite dedicated to the cause he has set himself. I am also grateful that the minister does what Mr Middlebrook tells him to do, and I will return to that issue shortly. I do not agree with everything in Mr Middlebrook’s philosophy but not all people will agree on everything. I am told he has had the shackling hook points removed from various points around the prison. He has said handcuffs will no longer be available for prison officers to wear on their belts and I have been advised by other people that the D-shackles have been removed from some of the restraint beds. The advice I have received in relation to other forms of restraint being introduced into the prison I do not have a major problem with, but I believe things like shackling points and the D-shackles on restraint beds can stay there and if prison officers believe they get greater security out of handcuffs then so be it. The prison officers should be at the top of mind when it comes to work safety and work practices in these places. If they feel they would be safer with handcuffs then we can trust their judgement.
However, those are minor points of difference with Mr Middlebrook and this government. I would not declare my relationship with him as being poor as a consequence of that. I appreciated his forthrightness and his comments to me. We will differ over those minor points and I will continue to look forward to a productive working relationship with him should I become the Attorney-General and minister for prisons in the Northern Territory government.
I did raise the issue of the classification system with Mr Middlebrook, specifically because I think it affects the design of prisons. I am reassured to hear it is an issue to which Mr Middlebrook has turned his attention. You can see that philosophy working its way through the rest of these programs.
I pause briefly to digress on one issue, the concept of therapeutic jurisprudence which is working its way into government policies. As I have said in the past, I am not intrinsically against therapeutic jurisprudence; I just hope that its approach, when applied, is applied in consistence with its philosophy. What I have seen on other occasions in other places, particularly in the courts and in the pre-gaoling environment, is that whilst there is a strong desire to adhere its principles, in practice it is done quite differently. I visited the Credit Courts and watched them in action, and the SMART courts will be a variant form of the Credit Courts and the Alcohol Courts and they will have this therapeutic component.
I do not essentially subscribe to the philosophy of therapeutic jurisprudence that the contact with authority figures should necessarily be a non-negative experience for the people who have those contacts. I have no problem if people have a negative experience with police officers, courts or prisons. I hope, however, that the prison is not so onerous that it would make the experience necessarily negative.
There is still room in our system of law for the concept of punishment. Therapeutic jurisprudence does not necessarily embrace that idea. The law should be dealing with people firmly, but I agree with this component of the minister’s speech: in managing prisoners to punish and do nothing else would be a shortcoming. It is something I will keep my eye on, particularly in relation to how the prison operates. I hope people come out of it better people than when they go into it. That is exactly what the minister is trying to achieve.
These programs are necessary programs. We hope there is education but I hope that minister over there convinces the Chief Minister that other things need to happen, particularly with the Land Rights Act. This is my hoary, old chestnut which I keep going back to: it would be so much better if the jobs this minister wants to train people to do were available in the communities of Wadeye and Yuendumu because there are private sector companies using the labour which comes out of prisons, or wherever else - I would prefer if it did not come out of prisons - so they come out of prison and there is a job for them. Would it not be a good thing if we trained people for jobs and they could actually do those jobs in their own communities because private investment could reach those communities?
That is one of the shortcomings of the Land Rights Act. It is investment adverse. That can be fixed; it can be done with the right approach by the land councils - I am hearing some very positive things from the land councils in relation to this - but also with the right approach to amendments to the Land Rights Act which would enable that sort of thing to occur.
If I was part of a government that had the Land Rights Act patriated to it I would not be charging through it and trying to change it because I want to deprive Aboriginal people of their land rights. That is an ancient battle which has been had. I would change the Land Rights Act to achieve the outcomes other forms of land title can achieve, namely jobs creation and those sorts of things, so when a person comes out of a prison and goes back to Yuendumu they go to the notice board in the community and there are 10, 20, 30 jobs available. That would do something about the recidivism rate.
The approaches to education are useful and necessary. It is not just a question of doing time. I noticed the minister said: ‘We are going to continue to be tough on crime.’ I know it is the sort of mantra you have to chant as a member of parliament as people expect you to be tough on crime. But people now think, not only are we tough on crime but we are going to do something while those people are inside the can.
At the last Territory election that is exactly what the Country Liberals ran as a policy. We did the unusual thing of making political advertisements 30 seconds long. The reason we chose to do that was because we had a message: ‘Yes, we will be tough on crime but when you go inside the can there will be something that happens inside’. The old chest beating of: ‘We are going to be tough on crime. We are going to throw them all in the slammer’, was a message we did not want to send out. We wanted to send out: ‘When you get done and you go to prison something will happen while you are there’. We had to buy 30 second slots. It took us much longer but it nearly got us from four seats into government because it was a positive message which resonated in the community and this government has picked up on it.
That positive message was always there under the former government. There was a place called Wildman River and there was the prison farm at Gunn Point - all of those things were quite effective. Every so often a prisoner would bolt from Gunn Point. Big deal, because where would they run to? Would they go to Rio de Janeiro and move into Ronnie Biggs’ old house now that he has vacated it? Not likely! They would go back to Wadeye or Yuendumu. They are not that hard to pick up and once you have found them they go into the big house proper and that is the last time they run away. But that is part of the process we have to turn our minds to and lower security prisons will, once in a blue moon, produce runaways. We know the cottages outside the prison fence in Alice Springs have produced people who have gone AWOL but the risk of that is, once you get picked up, you end up back inside the big house and you do not get to see the outside anymore, so it is a very substantial loss of privileges.
Having digressed, I will return to the issue of classifications. One of the things I wanted to see when I spoke to Ken Middlebrook - again I thank him and look forward to contact from the minister’s office as to when this will be done - was how the classification system works. I have been promised a copy of the classification manual and I still have not received it. I wonder if the minister can ensure that manual is forwarded to me as promised - I will deal with it as a confidential document - and the other document I asked for during that briefing more recently. If those documents can find their way to me, I would be obliged, minister. I want to get my head around this classification system because therein lies the physical structure of your building.
At the moment, I am unsatisfied that the classification system is effective. It causes delays which mean those prisoners who default through the classification system to maximum security take up maximum security space which may not be needed. We hear that a quarter of our prison population is in remand so if we have a classification system which can even deal with remand prisoners – we know many of these guys because, as the minister said, half of these guys have been in the prison within the last two years. So we know who these people are. What I hope is that we find a quicker way to classify remand prisoners; otherwise they end up in maximum security. I suspect most of them do not need to be there which means you are building a maximum security section which is larger than it has to be because of the systems which are in place. I was heartened and gratified that this was a front-and-centre issue for Mr Middlebrook.
This was one of the reasons I wanted to do a shift at the prison. I want to see what happens there. As much as I respect Mr Middlebrook, I am not just going to take his word for it. I have always said we have to think critically, even about the advice we receive from our trusted advisors. Just because they say something does not necessarily mean they have given you the whole picture. I do not think it is an unreasonable request. The minister had a little cheap shot written into the speech. I do not know if he insisted upon that or not; it does not really matter. That is why I want to get engaged. I ask the minister to do the same thing - spend a shift down there. It is not because I am an ex-police officer. I will be going out, hopefully, with the taxis between 2 am and 6 am in the not-so-distant future because I want to see what they have to go through on Mitchell Street between those hours.
The Taxi Council has said: ‘Absolutely, we will make it available to you’. I have contacted a local cab driver I know. He wants me to go out into his highly dangerous work environment. He can offer me no protection. What concerns me is that I raised the issue of doing a shift with Mr Middlebrook when I first visited the prison to look at one of the work programs - by the way it was a good work program which they are running with Batchelor College; it was really impressive and I hope to see more of that sort of thing through the programs the minister is talking about – Mr Middlebrook listened to me and took that away. I heard from inside the department the determination had been made and the answer would be no, prior to me making the application. It was about a week-and-a-half by the time I got around to writing to the minister’s office and I had already heard I would be refused the opportunity. I asked the minister’s office anyhow and was refused the opportunity. I thought to myself: ‘Bother’ because surely the minister can make a decision for himself.
I am not accusing Mr Middlebrook of anything; I am simply saying he discussed it with some of his colleagues and they came to the determination that when the inquiry was received the answer would be no. Even before I spoke to the minister’s office I heard that was what was going to happen. I was not in the least bit surprised when I was told. In fact, I had a media release ready, complaining that I, as the shadow Corrections minister, was not allowed to look at how a prison operates by working with the prison officers.
The Prison Officers’ Association told me it does not have a problem with it. I do not see what the minister’s problem is. This business about occupational health and safety – nuts! Nuts to that; it is not true. I would do nothing other than walk behind the people I was told to walk behind, stay behind the doors I was told to stay behind. I just wanted an opportunity to speak to workers in the workplace.
It makes me ask the question: does the minister take these opportunities, or does he just sit in the office and wait for these bits of paper to arrive on his desk? ‘Minister, it is time for you to make the ministerial statement about a new era in Corrections’, and the minister dutifully walks in here, rattles off all the numbers which have been very well written by whoever in the department provided this information. The minister trots it out, reads it out, and sits down again.
But how involved is he? He has travelled to all of these places and been shown these things but has he done homework on how our prison system has developed? Has he read Michel Foucault, a fellow I have little time for as a philosopher but, nevertheless, his is the seminal work, for some reason, on the nature of custody as far back in the 1800s as the prison in Ghent in Belgium where prison philosophy changed over time. What about places like Newgate Prison and understanding how those prisons became desperate places? We can even take lessons from 200 or 300 years ago from these debtor’s prisons, as they were known at the time. All of these things, as time passes, help you create a picture of the nature of custody and what custody is all about.
What psychological works have been read and explored by the minister on what custody does to people at the psychological level? Is the presence of a shackling point in a prison wall really that offensive to the psyche of a prisoner? Some people would say it is; others say it is not. It is worth exploring all of these things and this can all be done independently of the department.
The minister has personal staff who can do much of this research for him. I urge him not only to rely on the department but to ask the personal staff to do some homework. Get another perspective of it from someone who has not spent their whole life in the system. Shock, horror, I wonder if the minister has sat down and had coffee with half-a-dozen prisoners, away from the prison guards and the management, and said to the prisoners: ‘All right, what are your issues? Tell me about them’. They are in there for committing crimes but, generally speaking, once they are off the turps they are not so bad and you can deal with them. I recommend that. I would love to have that opportunity, but I suspect, for whatever reason, I would be told I am not allowed to speak to the prisoners. Gosh, I cannot even speak to the prison officers. I can tell the prison hierarchy that should there be a change of government and I become the minister for prisons, these things will occur. I will speak to prison officers and prisoners and will try to get my head around these issues.
The nature of custody concerns me, particularly in light of things like the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. There is still a great deal of valuable material in that Royal Commission and it is worth boning up on to get a picture. It also enables you to ask more critical questions of the people around you who have the ideas.
In a briefing in the absence of Mr Middlebrook, I asked if the classifications could be done better. To my surprise, the public servant, who will remain nameless, told me it was a stupid question: of course it can be done better. But it still did not deal with the issue, which is why I was so much more satisfied with Mr Middlebrook’s response because he understood that everything he constructs in the prison system turns on the ability to administer it effectively. The more effective the administration, the more flexible you can be with the buildings.
I turn my attention to the work camps at Katherine and Tennant Creek. I believe Tracker Tilmouth had much to do with pushing the matter at Tennant Creek, and that is a good idea. The idea of the Katherine location was well flagged by the Country Liberals prior to the last election because of our habitual drunks policy. We know the prison population will increase by about 300 if that policy - dare I say, when, that policy sees the light of day - because we know the 35 000 apprehensions for public drunkenness will lead very quickly to an increase of our prison population. They will not be high-security prisoners; we know where we are going to put them, we signalled Katherine and signalled an institution very much along the lines the minister has described, to do very similar things. We will use the NGOs, and even use them inside the prison system to deliver these sorts of services.
The minister, quite rightly, pointed out that the NGOs have a role when prisoners leave prison, but the NGOs can have a role prior to prisoners leaving prison, particularly when you are trying to do something like deal with 250 to 300 habitual drunks, which is about the number of drunks we have which are constantly in our faces, on our streets and those sorts of things. The government’s response to those people has been to talk about SMART Courts and alcohol management plans and those sorts of things; they have a certain merit, but they end up punishing the community as a whole, particularly when you have to produce photo ID every time you buy booze.
Our side of the House believes people who show the conduct are the people who are directly responsible and the rest of the community should remain as unmolested as possible to go about their lawful business - but I understand that will lead to an increase of 250 to 300 prisoners. That is just the way it is and, should we form a government, Mr Middlebrook should prepare himself for that increase in his prison population. That is the nature of what we will do, but the philosophy the government is talking about reflects the philosophy of the policy we took to the last election. Once you are inside - and it will not be a high-security prison - we are talking about habitual drunks who will spend three months at a time in our institution and many of them will be drying out for the first week or two and they will be in an environment where they will be very pliant. These people are traditionally, off the booze, not bad people. What we propose to use is a hybrid between the health system, that is, a health intervention, and the criminal justice system as a vehicle to get them there. That is something the government has picked up on and is using. I acknowledge that is not too bad.
All in all, I am not disappointed with the statement. There are some aspects I would have liked to have heard more about, particularly the classification of prisoners; it is a very important issue. But, as a general set of comments, there is nothing in here that a CLP-led government would necessarily have any major problems with. We acknowledge this is early days and there will be problems along the way. The bracelets may not work; the work camps may have a few problems here and there, who knows? I agree with the assertion the minister made that you cannot keep doing the same thing and expect a different result.
In the spirit of fairness and reasonableness I offer these comments to the minister. He may choose to make further comment later or seek for one of his colleagues to make comment. I continue to request the possibility of working shift there. I do not want to find the dirt and make trouble. I want to find out from the prison officers, away from their management, what they are thinking on a day-to-day basis, to inform myself. I do not want to be cute about it, I do not want to be smart about it; if I have to sign a confidentiality agreement, I will. I want to see how the system works and I want to see what the problems are with the system. If you need to convince me that we need a new gaol then let me see the old one in detail, how it works with all of its shortcomings. I do not think the prison will be that exposed to political comment simply because I have spent eight hours there talking with the prison officers.
Madam Speaker, those are my comments. I thank the minister for bringing this statement to the House.
Ms LAWRIE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I support the minister for Corrections and our government’s investment in a new era in Corrections. The reform is about reducing recidivism; the rate is too high with 47% of offenders back in gaol within two years, compared to 39% nationally. This reform is about providing contemporary facilities to increase rehabilitation options to help break the cycle of crime. The Berrimah prison is well past its use-by date and this government has announced a new prison will be built at Holtze. We have considered the advice of experts and recognise that a greenfield site is a necessary investment to provide the tools needed for prisoner rehabilitation.
The reforms are designed also to tackle alcohol-related crime. Alcohol-related crime has a devastating effect on our community and we see the flow-on effect through our prisons. We know 60% of all assaults and 67% of all domestic violence incidents in the Territory are alcohol related. Surveys also show that 72% of Territory prisoners stated their offence was committed under the influence of alcohol. That is why we are leading reforms to turn off the tap to problem drinkers who cause violence and mandate treatment.
Since we came to government we have toughened laws and increased police resources. As a result, our prison numbers have grown and we make no apology for this. If you break the law you face tough consequences. We are focused on reducing the repeat offences - reducing recidivism.
Indigenous offenders make up the majority of prisoners. In fact, 82% of prisoners are Indigenous and many have low numeracy and literacy skills and few job prospects. This government is investing in education and training, housing and health in the bush to turn this around. As mentioned before, we are also tackling alcohol misuse and associated crime. The violent crime we see is a result of chronic alcohol misuse and resultant family dysfunction which often results in violence. We are building A Working Future for Indigenous Territorians to turn around the level of disadvantage and the sense of hopelessness and provide a sense of hope for the future, away from a life of crime and dysfunction.
I understand the community is concerned about sentencing and ensuring punishments handed down by the court reflect our community’s sentiment and the law. The Australian Bureau of Statistics publishes data on sentencing around the country. This data shows that Territory courts are the toughest courts in the country, handing down the highest proportion of imprisonment sentences by far in all levels of the court. Eighty-six per cent of defendants proven guilty in the Northern Territory Supreme Court received an imprisonment sentence compared with 66% in comparative courts nationally. The Northern Territory Magistrates Court handed down imprisonment sentences to 24% of defendants proven guilty compared with 5% nationally.
The Northern Territory Children’s Court handed down imprisonment sentences to 17% of defendants proven guilty compared with 7% nationally, and for defendants proven guilty with an assault offence, 92% were given an imprisonment sentence in the Supreme Court, 71% in Magistrates Courts and 35% in Children’s Courts. The corresponding national figures are 68% in the higher courts, 18% in Magistrates Courts and 15% in Children’s Courts.
Our tough new laws are there so first time offenders convicted of certain violent offences will have to serve a term of imprisonment. This law has resulted in more first time offenders spending time in gaol. Repeat offenders are subject to mandatory imprisonment for serious violent offences. Repeat breaches of domestic violence orders also result in mandatory imprisonment. This government has introduced tough new laws regarding bail for serious violent offenders which have resulted in more offenders being held in our gaols. We recognise, under this new era in Corrections, we will provide the courts with another tool in their tool kit. The courts and community can be confident that, once sentenced, offenders will not just sit back and do their time. There will be rehabilitation, treatment and education and there will be hard work to be done by these offenders.
We are providing the courts with tougher sentencing options with the new community custody orders and community-based orders at their disposal. The community custody orders will be a new sentencing option for non-violent offenders facing an imprisonment period of less than 12 months. Courts will be able to order offenders to serve their custodial sentences outside prison under strict supervision by Corrections and require them to attend rehabilitation and training programs and participate in employment and community work. New community-based orders will be available to courts dealing with low-level offenders who are not facing an imprisonment period. Both community-based orders and community custody orders will allow courts to mandate offenders’ participation in education, training and treatment programs.
An additional 31 Community Corrections Officers will be recruited and stationed across the Territory in each of the regional centres including the growth towns of Wadeye, Yuendumu, Lajamanu and in Nhulunbuy and on Groote Eylandt. New community work crews will be established to deliver work programs in urban and remote areas in connection with the orders.
New electronic surveillance measures will give correctional staff the ability to monitor the location and behaviour of offenders on community-based orders, home detention and parole. A voice recognition system will be introduced to tighten the control measures for offenders and parolees serving their sentence in remote communities.
The government will deliver an extra 45 supported accommodation and rehabilitation beds to get offenders into treatment and break the cycle of recidivism. Our alcohol reforms are out in the community by means of the consultation period. They will be complementary to the reforms outlined in the new era in Corrections. It is clear that alcohol misuse is having a devastating impact on our community and on Territorians; this is why the commitment to providing rehabilitation and treatment within the Corrections system in this new era in Corrections is vital.
The new SMART Court will also mean that more people who have committed criminal offences which are related to alcohol or drug problems will be accessing treatment programs while still being punished for their criminal offending. The government will construct a 20-bed multipurpose, supported accommodation and treatment centre adjacent to the Alice Springs gaol, creating a justice precinct. A key element of the new supported accommodation and treatment centre will be the delivery of an intensive driving offender program. Driving offenders make up about 25% of the prison population - about half for drink-driving and the other half for licensing infringements.
Courts will be given the power to order driving offenders facing imprisonment of 12 months or less into the new program which will include alcohol and other drug treatment and therapeutic intervention, drink-driving education, a mechanical workshop, and driver licensing training.
The Elders Visiting Program will be expanded to deliver a more structured role in offender reintegration. This great program commenced in 2004 to help prisoners maintain links with community and culture. The program has grown to have more than 20 elders offering support in Alice Springs and Darwin Correctional Centres. A new post-release support program will be established to provide post-release support and accommodation for prisoners at the end of their sentence.
This government is taking action on alcohol, and action to reduce recidivism. We believe our community will benefit. The government has put in place some of the toughest measures in Australia to restrict alcohol supply and consumption. We are cracking down on alcohol misuse and those who commit crimes when affected by alcohol. As you know, we are proposing to ban problem drinkers from purchasing alcohol through the banned drinker register. The opposition has a lock-‘em-up attitude when it comes to the alcohol problem in our community. We have made a clear distinction between people who are committing criminal offences and those who simply have a health program.
Madam Speaker, I commend the Minister for Correctional Services for this statement and his effort in putting this together. It is the most significant change in Corrections in the history of the Territory. It is a change which takes Corrections in the Territory into the modern era of Corrections. It is a bold and clear move by the government to ensure we reduce recidivism whilst being tough on anyone breaking the law.
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Speaker, I support the Minister for Correctional Services’ statement on the new era in Corrections. The Northern Territory has the highest rate of incarceration of any jurisdiction in Australia. It is an unfortunate fact that the prison population has continued to grow in recent years.
The numbers are alarming. In 2008-09, over 3000 adults were released from custody in the Northern Territory. While imprisonment is intended to reduce crime, it is of particular concern that almost half of all Northern Territory prisoners will return to prison at some time. Clearly, there is scope to increase opportunities to help prisoners not to reoffend. The new era in Corrections recognises the challenges experienced by people leaving prison: social isolation, rejection by family, poor health, and unemployment, which can lead to reoffending.
This new strategy can positively influence behaviour change and increase opportunities for prisoners to re-enter the broader community through a range of integrated approaches. These will include treatment and rehabilitation, education and training, and longer-term support. A key part of this strategy will be the development of new sentencing options, coupled with new residential alcohol and other drugs services for those with substance misuse problems.
My Department of Health and Families will, therefore, work closely with NT Correctional Services to enhance the capacity of the residential drug and alcohol treatment services in the major centres of the Northern Territory. This additional capacity will be in existing alcohol and other drugs services, all to be managed by these agencies. Irrespective of whether the increased capacity will be in existing services or in new dedicated facilities, the Department of Health and Families will ensure the programs provided for offenders are tailored to meet their needs so they have a greater likelihood of success.
As part of the new era in Corrections, funding of additional alcohol and other drugs treatment beds will be delivered to support the community custody orders. Five new residential places will become available in Darwin in early 2012. Funding has been provided in Kalano in Katherine for five places for offenders with a further 10 beds to become available progressively for the community sector starting in early 2012. In Alice Springs, five beds will also be provided by a non-government agency in early 2012, with a further 20 beds becoming available in 2013. The new residential programs will be for offenders who are assessed as likely to benefit and are then directed by the court to participate in individual, tailored drug treatment and rehabilitation programs, education, training, and related interventions.
These changes will complement the proposed alcohol reforms currently being considered which include establishing a Substance Misuse Assessment and Referral Court, banning problem drinkers from buying takeaway alcohol, introducing mandatory rehabilitation for problem drinkers, and enhancing treatment and rehabilitation options for problem drinkers. The changes will also build on the Alcohol and Other Drugs Prison In-Reach Program which has been operating for almost two years. This service provides alcohol and other drugs interventions and treatment and is available for all male and female prisoners at the Darwin Correctional Centre and the Don Dale Juvenile Detention Centre. The skilled team includes a counsellor, psychologist, and social support workers.
The program enables prisoners to receive support services in prison and ongoing counselling when they are released from prison, which means they do not need to be assessed multiple times by a variety of services before they are released. The comprehensive program engages clients in the process of change, using motivational interviewing and brief interventions, and matches clients to the most appropriate agencies to address their needs. The prison in-reach program also works closely with the Department of Justice’s prison programs to reduce the recidivism rates of short-term prisoners by giving them skills, strategies and links to support agencies. In 2009-10, the program provided 506 episodes of care, almost all of which were for alcohol-related assessment, counselling and group work. Most of these were for adult offenders. This is not soft on crime, these are pragmatic approaches aimed at breaking the cycle of offending and reoffending by providing ways out of a life of crime and reintegration into the community. The in-reach program will be available in Alice Springs prison under the new era in Corrections.
While the new era initiatives are aimed at providing new options in intervention, support and rehabilitation of adults and reducing adult offending rates across the Northern Territory, there is an equal commitment to ensuring the juvenile justice system and the Territory’s juvenile offending rates are regularly scrutinised and, if necessary, reformed. With this call in mind, the Northern Territory government, with input from key agencies such as the Department of Health and Families, has committed to considering a new model for a strategic approach to all aspects of our juvenile justice system.
Addressing mental health issues in prisons requires different levels of care, and the Northern Territory government has incorporated these needs in the development of a Health-managed, 36-bed mental health and behaviour management unit which will be built adjacent to the new Doug Owston Correctional Centre at Holtze. The unit will have the capacity to provide a range of environments within a single facility for people with mental illness or cognitive disability. The flexible design of the unit can be configured to meet the needs of residents who require low-, medium- or high-security environments. There will be separate accommodation arrangements for men and women, and facilities which promote rehabilitation and cultural practices. The emphasis is on establishing an adaptable, multifunctional environment which can be reconfigured to meet the needs of the resident population at any given time.
This model will provide effective care to this population group in a safe, humane and secure environment. The facility will be managed and staffed by the Department of Health and Families, and will operate as a Health facility rather than a Correctional facility.
A formal referral system will be established which may be initiated from the court system, Correctional facilities, the police, mental health or disability services. Individuals who will be accommodated include persons subject to custodial supervision orders under Part 2A of the Criminal Code, sentenced or remanded prisoners who have a mental illness and require a sub-acute level of care, and prisoners with cognitive disabilities who would benefit from a transfer to the facility for a period of time. The length of stay may vary from a few days to extended periods of time, subject to custodial supervision orders. The facility will have a clearly articulated relationship with primary health care services. Other special services will include alcohol and other drugs services and programs provided in prisons, such as education and vocational training. Interventions undertaken within the facility will include assessment and treatment, behavioural management, rehabilitation, and community reintegration programs, with the aim of promoting recovery where possible and minimising the risk of reoffending.
The new era in Corrections recognises the importance of changing the way we manage the underlying issues, such as alcohol and other drugs misuse, and mental health problems, which often contribute to a custodial sentence. The new era in Corrections offers opportunities to make positive changes and enable prisoners to gain skills, improve their self-esteem and learn to manage their addictions and mental health problems.
Madam Speaker, the development of low-security sites in the Katherine and Barkly work camps will provide options to gain and/or increase work skills in regional settings, and will contribute to the health and wellbeing of a predominantly Indigenous group. These new pathways will allow people to break their offending and reoffending lifestyles, transition to different lifestyles and become productive Territorians.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the statement. I know the minister has done a great deal of work in putting together a new era in Corrections - working in cooperation with the Independent member for Nelson - which has included visits interstate as well as conversations locally with many experts in the area about the best way to manage our prison population into the future.
The Fannie Bay Gaol, one of the original Territory prisons, is in my electorate. It is a fantastic heritage site now. The new era will move on from the days of the Fannie Bay Gaol. As I have said in this House before, it seems that everyone was released from Fannie Bay Gaol over the years. When it was bombed or blown away in the cyclone they opened the doors and let the prisoners out - an interesting way to handle prisoners but when a crisis hits you, you need to do those things.
With a new era in Corrections we are looking at how we can work with prisoners to reduce recidivism. Much of what we want to do is work with people, teach them the basics of whatever is preventing them resuming a life which we would consider to be normal and not a life of crime. That is what we need to work on and we have always had that intention as a government. We know that often you have to keep looking for ways to do things better. This is one of those things which we do look at and think about how we can do a better job. We have a minister who is full of enthusiasm and energy, and is working with the member for Nelson and others. There is a very good department - very good people there who also have a passion for this area. We want to see Territorians rehabilitated, able to return to society and contribute to society - get a job, earn a crust, start a family, do the normal things. We do not want people leaving prison and returning to crime.
We have a minister with a clear policy, passion and intent and he has brought to the House a statement which encapsulates much of that. I know he has an electorate interest in the work camp in Barkly as well. That comes from a solid policy basis of what we want to do there. We have a minister who is tackling this area with a great deal of energy. There are things we can do better and we want to make sure prisoners can contribute to society when they leave prison. That is what everyone wants. We do not want people going into prison, learning the wrong life skills, coming out and returning to a life of crime. We want people who contribute to society.
There are many people who go to prison and say: ‘What have I done with my life? How do I break the cycle of offending?’ In prison they can have an opportunity – there is intervention in the system so we have them, they are there, they want to do things differently. We can talk to them. There is a whole bunch of different ways that can happen. Talking to people who have participated in the jackeroo program where the kids were on horses and learning how to work in the cattle industry, that was a fantastic way for people to realise there is more to life than what they were doing which was what led them to end up in prison in the first place.
We do want a new era in Corrections. We want a new era in the way people interact with society. It is a very important thing that we want to do. We want to save Territorians. It is about Territorians. Our greatest resource is our people and, unfortunately, too many of our people are going to prison. We have too many people doing the wrong thing and going to gaol. We have a very high incarceration rate. Our police are very good at catching people, getting them to the courts, and the courts are putting them in gaol. We want to stop it; we want to reduce the recidivism rate and break the cycle of re-offending. We want a new era in Corrections. We want people who go to prison to be rehabilitated and become ordinary members of society.
It is really important. Our people are our greatest resources. We have a very big Territory. We have a great deal of land and minerals but we do not have enough people and we have to look after them. We have to make sure we keep the ones we have and that they can contribute. There are many policy areas where we want to tackle that with health and education. We are talking about a new era in Corrections and it is in that new era where we want to work out how we can save the people who are entering our prison system.
I thank the minister for the energy and passion he has put into this. You only have to hear him speak to know he is energised by the challenge, and it is a very confronting challenge. I know he has a - soul mate may be the wrong word - but he has the Independent member for Nelson who is also very keen to see us make ground in this area and work with Territorians who have done the wrong thing but are capable of starting afresh. That is what we want to achieve with our new era in Corrections.
Madam Speaker, I commend the statement to the House and thank the minister for bringing it on.
Ms McCARTHY (Local Government): Madam Speaker, I support this statement. It is important that this House has the opportunity to look at where we are going in our vision with Correctional Services, especially as my colleague speaks passionately about the new era in Corrections.
As a Yanyuwa woman from the Gulf of Carpentaria, I know with my own family and clan groups the visiting opportunities we have for families to talk to those in prison – it is well known that there are far too many family members in our correctional services in Darwin and Alice Springs. Each bush member could look at that but I can look at it from personal experience. On a number of the visits I have had to the prison over the years, both in a formal capacity and in a personal capacity, I have unfortunately seen too many of my extended family in the prison system.
It is absolutely pivotal that our government focuses on the plans we have for the regions. With the work I am doing with A Working Future across the Northern Territory we recognise - as we do in the need for child protection and improving the issue of neglect of our children - we have to focus on the regions within our government and the vision we have for the Northern Territory. We have to focus on building not only our families but the infrastructure across the regions to make a real generational difference in the lives of Indigenous Territorians.
That is why part of the new era in Corrections is so much about the massive reform process we are embarking on in A Working Future and the 20 growth towns, but also in economic development. All of this is combined in creating a choice for people who live in the bush, creating opportunities where they can go into reasonable employment, earn considerable amounts of money to be able to look after their families and have the choice of where they live. Too many Indigenous people are in our prison system and we know we have to work on this in a whole-of-government way across agencies and in a collaborative effort.
Our commitment to a safer Territory has seen an increase in the Police, Fire and Emergency Services budget by more than 126% since 2001; an extra 399 police officers across the Northern Territory since 2002; and in Budget 2010-11, $27m was made available for policing in 18 of our remote communities. That is a key part of A Working Future.
We have also made the reporting of domestic violence mandatory and we have invested $15m over three years to tackle family violence. Our strong stance against violence is also about social and attitudinal change. Our government stands here, it stands out there and it says it will not tolerate any form of violence. We have taken a very bold and brave step in ensuring the reporting of domestic violence is mandatory. On top of this, since January 2009, we have created 19 safe places across 15 remote communities in partnership with the Australian government.
The Henderson government’s new package of alcohol reforms will also go further in tackling violence and antisocial behaviour. These are some of the significant investments our government has made to ensure the safety and security of all Territorians. This new era in Corrections is the next step in building communities which are safe for everyone to enjoy.
The Minister for Correctional Services presented this House with stark statistics. The Territory imprisonment rate is, on a per capita basis, about six times the national average. These statistics paint a bleak picture. However, as the former NT Chief Magistrate, Jenny Blokland, explained to Stateline in September last year, these statistics are partly a reflection of increased policing in the Northern Territory, particularly in remote areas. Jenny Blokland told Stateline:
- … we’ve had an increase during the last couple of years of 17% [of] people actually being before the courts and charged with criminal offences. So there is something that is driving that and that probably is greater detection, particularly out bush with greater police numbers. So there has been greater numbers actually coming into the system.
The growth in police numbers in the bush means people are now paying the price for offences which previously might have gone undetected. This is reflected in the statistics.
On a positive note, I was at Numbulwar on Friday and one of the early things I had to do as member for Arnhem was to be a part of the opening of the police hub at Numbulwar. It has made a tremendous, positive difference in the safety, of women and children in particular, but to all in the community.
In 2009, the Senate Select Committee on Regional and Remote Indigenous Communities identified that Northern Territory court lists have increased and the increases in charges have been for relatively minor types of offending. The main increases have been seen in the following three types of offences in the 12 months to 30 June 2008: traffic offences; offences against Justice, breach of domestic violence orders, breached bail, escaped custody and breach of orders; and public order offences.
While the increased police presence is improving the level of safety in our regions, it is also placing greater pressure on our prison system. We also recognise that imprisonment is extremely costly. It is costly in the monetary value of infrastructure, and operational costs and the social and human costs of men and women who need the support to come out of the system and have a chance to rehabilitate and have a future.
In March this year, the Senate Select Committee on Regional and Remote Indigenous Communities reported that, nationally, the cost of keeping an adult in prison for a year is approximately $100 000. On top of this, Territory families and communities bear the social costs of imprisonment. This is why the Henderson government is working to break the cycle of reoffending and reduce prison numbers in the new era in Corrections. The new era in Corrections will substantially increase access to effective prison rehabilitation and post-release programs, and programs which will provide alternatives to imprisonment for less serious offenders. These initiatives align with the Northern Territory Law Society’s alcohol policy released last week which recommends increased access to effective prison rehabilitation and post-release programs, and programs which provide alternatives to imprisonment for less serious offenders.
This is about stopping the revolving door in and out of prison by creating the opportunity for a better life outside prison and supporting successful reintegration into the community. The establishment of a supported accommodation and treatment centre, together with an additional 45 supported accommodation and rehabilitation beds and the introduction of a new post-release support program, will be central to achieving this goal.
These initiatives align with a key message from the Little Children are Sacred report, namely, that rehabilitation programs are required in prison and within the community as important preventative measures to reduce recidivism and the inter-generational cycle of offending. That is a key message here. One of the common questions I hear as I travel through Arnhem Land and the other regions across the Northern Territory is: what happens to a prisoner when they come home? What has changed in their family circumstances? What has changed in their community circumstances?
This is something our government is very focused on when we look at the other programs of reform we are embarking on in the local implementation plans across the 20 growth towns and the Futures Forums we are holding in 2011 – how are these growth towns going to grow, what is the focus? What I hear in the conversations I have is how do we prevent people from going into the justice system and assist those who have come out.
As the Minister for Correctional Services has told the House, the supported accommodation and treatment centre will provide accommodation, alcohol and other drugs treatment, and work opportunities, as well as an intensive driver offender program. The intensive driver offender program will provide a community-based alternative to imprisonment for driving offenders, who currently make up about 25% of the Northern Territory prison population.
The supported accommodation and treatment centre at Alice Springs will also be used to divert people on remand into treatment to begin rehabilitation while they await trial. The introduction of a new post-release support program as part of a new era in Corrections will provide post-release support and halfway-house accommodation for prisoners at the end of their sentences. Importantly, program staff will work with prison officers and reintegration staff on the development of reintegration plans for prisoners, including establishing links with support services, and job and training opportunities.
This post-release program is vital because, as of 30 June 2009, 73% of prisoners were unemployed at the time of incarceration. The new era in Corrections will also include infrastructure investment in a 36-bed secure mental health behavioural management facility as part of the new Doug Owston Correctional Centre. This facility will be managed by the Department of Health and Families and will provide a more appropriate and effective means of accommodating prisoners with mental health issues.
As Minister for Regional Development, I am pleased this government is also establishing a work camp in the Barkly region and is working toward the development of a prison farm and work camp in Katherine. These facilities will provide the bricks and mortar of our new approach to Corrections across the Northern Territory, stopping the revolving door in and out of prison by creating the opportunity for a better life outside prison, and supporting successful reintegration into the community by rehabilitating, re-educating and training prisoners to make them job ready. This focus on training and education is vital. Importantly, the Barkly and Katherine facilities will deliver work, education and vocational training opportunities for prisoners which are targeted at skills shortages in the surrounding regions.
As Minister for Indigenous Development and Local Government, I am also excited about the opportunities which could grow from partnerships with the shire councils in the new era in Corrections. Partnerships will be established with shire councils to deliver education and training programs in support of new community-based sentencing options for low-level, non-violent offenders not facing an imprisonment period. As the Minister for Correctional Services described to the House, training partnerships with the shires will allow shire councils to identify their skills shortages and Corrections to tailor their job training programs to meet these skills gaps.
To deliver these training programs, an additional 31 Community Corrections Officers will be recruited and stationed across the Northern Territory in each of the regional centres and in the growth towns of Wadeye, Yuendumu and Lajamanu. Community work crews based in Alice Springs and Darwin will also deliver training and work programs. These teams will travel as required to regional centres, such as Katherine and Tennant Creek, as well as the growth towns of Gunbalanya, Wadeye and Hermannsburg.
As Minister for Women’s Policy, I will highlight the considerable work undertaken by Correctional Services to improve conditions for women in prison. In 2007, the Office of Women’s Policy, in partnership with Correctional Services, undertook an analysis of the situation of women in the Darwin and Alice Springs Correctional Centres and made a series of recommendations. Northern Territory Correctional Services has subsequently developed a policy and action plan addressing the needs of female offenders in prison which guides and prioritises developments within the Alice Springs and Darwin Correctional Centres. As part of this policy and action plan, a women’s prisoner consultative group of elected women prisoners was created to provide information and input into issues of concern for women.
In addition, Correctional Services has provided increased access to education and training programs, including a deckhand course, building construction training, and a women’s only community services work party. Cognitive skills, self-esteem and life skills programs are now being delivered in the rehabilitation area. Critical new infrastructure has also been completed including additional housing, at-risk cells and visiting facilities. Simultaneously, 37 of the 41 Women in Prison recommendations made in the Ombudsman’s 2007-08 annual report have been completed and four are partially completed.
The implementation of these recommendations has included the development of the Female Prisoners in Prison policy, which is a commitment under our Building on our Strength women’s policy; the establishment of female community service work parties in Darwin and Alice Springs, an initiative which allows the women to give something back to the community, promotes rehabilitation, and engenders new skills; and the construction of a new education and program facility for female prisoners at Darwin Correctional Centre, which seven women had hands on involvement in constructing.
The implementation of the Ombudsman’s recommendations has also included the provision of improved infrastructure for women prisoners such as accommodation for women who have achieved the lowest possible security rating at Darwin Correctional Centre; a new visiting facility, the women’s block at Darwin Correctional Centre; and a 25-bed women’s facility at Alice Springs Correctional Centre. This new facility addressed a previous shortage of beds for women prisons at Alice Springs Correctional Centre. The shortage of beds had meant that Alice Springs women prisoners would sometimes be transferred to Darwin Correctional Centre, away from their families. With the provision of this new 25-bed facility, the women prisoners in Alice Springs can remain close to their families.
Madam Speaker, the Henderson government is committed to ensuring our communities are safe for everyone to enjoy. The new era in Corrections will make our communities and families safer by supporting successful reintegration into the community by rehabilitating, re-educating and training prisoners to make them job ready. I commend the statement to the House.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Speaker, there is no doubt the minister has put a great deal of effort into this. He has described it many times in this House as a new era in Corrections. We have heard the term used time and time again. We have all had a little joke about that but the matter is certainly not a joke; it is serious.
The minister started tonight by suggesting he had spoken to many prison officers and that no one disagreed that they needed a new prison. The reality is that none of us are ever going to knock back a new house. I am sure everyone here would love to move into a new house - new facilities, new modern equipment, it would be fantastic. To date, in none of the arguments the minister has made, or ministers on the other side, has there been any just cause provided to suggest why the current prison cannot be upgraded to an acceptable standard or, if there are sound grounds for a new prison, that the same land cannot be used rather than a greenfield site which must come at a huge cost.
The new site will require sewerage, electricity, and other essential services which will have to be constructed for the first time but which already exist at the current prison site. The question needs to be asked: what is the secret agenda this government may have for that land? Why is it so important that we build a new prison and close a perfectly good prison which is only 30 years old? As I have said in previous debates, many people in this House and the Territory live in homes which are in excess of 30 years old. I am sure with regular updating and maintenance they can be kept in good order. I stress that there is no reason why the current prison cannot be, with considerable money I am sure, brought to a standard which would be considered first-class in anyone’s world.
There is no doubt that law and order is a major issue in the Northern Territory and we should be seen to do all we can to provide an effective police and prison service for those people who step outside the laws to which we all should be living. To me, this all comes down to priorities. This will be my main point tonight. It has to be about priorities.
We have a government which appears to have lost track, dropped the ball, so to speak, in releasing land, causing a huge spike in land prices in the Northern Territory. We have heard this argument time and time again in this House because it is true, damn true. The price of homes and rentals has gone through the roof and it all comes back to one thing: the failure to release land quickly enough to keep up with market demand. No more, no less, that is it. That is the reason. So, we have a situation in the Northern Territory where young families cannot afford to live and many are choosing to leave. Even with two jobs, in some cases, they still find it difficult to put three meals on the table each day, pay the exorbitant rents or mortgage, and at the same time feed and educate their children and live in what has become perhaps the most expensive city in which to live in Australia.
With all the issues we have facing us today, all the issues with child protection, how can anyone in this House argue the fact that the ball has been dropped with child protection and that it will take money and human resources to fix the problem. Again, to me, this comes down to priorities.
How is it that we have a government which is set to spend, who knows, as much as half a billion dollars on building a new prison when we have so many other issues to deal with? The minister probably should be commended for convincing his Cabinet colleagues this is more important than any other issue we have in the Northern Territory. This is more important than child protection, other law and order issues, our health system, our environment, infrastructure and education. We are told we need this new prison above everything else which is going wrong in the Northern Territory.
It disappoints me no end to talk about this because I honestly do not understand. I do not understand how we can put at the very top of our list perhaps $0.5bn worth of prison infrastructure which I am yet to be convinced we need. As I said, the prison officers who work there, the prisoners, they would all love to go into a new facility. We would all like a new home, so no can be expected to say: ‘Oh no, we want to stay here, love this place, absolutely adore this place. Don’t move us into a nice, new, flash place! Don’t do that! I want to stay here’. Not many people would say that. To me, it all comes down to priorities and I know that if it was a Country Liberals government today it would not prioritise $0.5bn worth of prison above some of the more important issues which are affecting the Northern Territory at the moment.
One thing the previous Minister for Local Government raised was the work camps. On this side of the House we agree they are a good concept. It is part of our policy that work camps and teaching prisoners how to prepare for life outside of prison is good. A lovely lady by the name of Shirley Weatherstone - she is not in my electorate; she lives in Dillon Court in Gray - wanted me to pass on to the minister, through this House, her thanks to, and admiration for, the Corrections crew which maintains her lawns and looks after her place. She said there does not seem to be a problem too big for those guys. They do their work and are very well-mannered. She thinks there are many things governments do which are good and do not receive the praise they should. She has asked me to pass this on to you and hopefully encourage you to let the team know they do a fantastic job. This is just one of many projects which could work in work camps.
There is no doubt we should have a Corrections system where people's behaviour, their attitude to the community and themselves, can be changed and where we provide a structure so change is brought about through a good education program within prisons. If we can teach a person how to change a light bulb if they do not know how to, we should do it. If we need to teach someone to read or write, we should do it. We need to have programs in place which help prepare people for jobs outside prison, such as work-ready programs, even to the extent of what were considered as pre-apprenticeship courses years ago where people would learn all there is to know about certain trades. Further to that, real opportunities should be provided outside prison where these people with their new skills can be employed so they do not end up on the street.
It saddens me that we have created a society where, in my opinion, life on the street is worse than being in prison. Life on the street is harder than being in prison. There are not many people on the street who get their cigarettes for free and get a bed and sheets every night in a cosy cell. I know it is a cell and they are in a place they cannot walk out of. The lack of freedom is the only thing which is perhaps worse than being on the street because on a rainy night they are protected from the rain. On a cold night in the Dry Season, they are protected from the cold. They are provided with three meals a day and have access to things like DVD players and movies. They can work out in a gymnasium which most regular folk have to pay for.
We pay for our meals, for air-conditioning if we want it, our electricity bills; we pay for everything. Yet, these people who are locked away from society are put into a place which, for many of them, sadly, is a better place than what they have living on the street: living on Vesteys Beach or East Point or any of the many places - not just in Darwin but in Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Katherine and other places where the conditions they live in are far worse than they are in prison.
We have created a society where it is better to be on the inside. Should we not have a society where people are scared to be locked up? We want to create an environment which is so harsh people do not want to be there. If they happen to be there, teach them not only a lesson so they never want to go back again, but provide the support services they need to make them thrive and become part of our community.
I love to hear stories where someone has been in gaol and, years later, they have learnt their lessons and they are now providing for the community – such as through a mentor program, providing advice and guidance to young people to put them on the right track. In some cases these young fellows and women do not have the guidance from their families. That is another sad indictment of society today.
We have to provide a Corrections system which is going to do all that. I would love to see a day where people can have their lives turned around through hard work and determination and when they are released are provided opportunities, and perhaps even a few dollars in the bank which they have earned in prison through working in market gardens and in other jobs. Perhaps they can make the prison a cheaper place for the Territory economy by putting back into the running of the prison.
We have some serious issues in the Territory. I have mentioned child protection, some law and order issues, health, environment, education, major stuff-ups in infrastructure projects - all failures of this government in one regard or another. In the last week, we have seen what happens when a very hard working opposition starts to focus on some of these failures. This government doing its best to try to divert the public’s attention from it and onto other issues using tactics which are less than what one would hope for in this parliament.
This issue we have talked about in regard to the Leader of the Opposition was ignited, and has been fanned remarkably well, by the Labor government at a time when we should be focusing on some of the failures and, once identified, work to solve those issues.
I understand and appreciate the minister has worked damn hard. As I said before, he has worked so damned hard he has convinced his Cabinet colleagues this is perhaps the most important issue that we have in the Northern Territory - the most important issue because we are about to stump up nearly $0.5bn. I will rephrase that: taxpayers are about to stump up as much as $0.5bn by the time this is up and running. If we can go on the track record of this government, the $300m which was allocated will not go anywhere near finishing this job. They spoke a long time about Tiger Brennan Drive costing $110m and now we hear it is going to cost more because of mistakes. Guaranteed, there will be issues with this development if it goes ahead and it will cost more than the $300m; we will be getting closer to the $0.5bn mark.
Madam Speaker, it comes down to priorities and I cannot fathom how this government considers that this project can be prioritised in front of every other issue we have in the Northern Territory. I implore the government to reconsider, to perhaps spend half the amount of money and reconstruct the existing prison, bring it up to standard; do whatever you have to do with $150m! Spend the other $150m on things like child protection, housing and infrastructure! Spend it wisely! Spend it on some of the things we desperately need, not on some fanciful prison! I cannot understand why we need it.
Mr McCARTHY (Correctional Services): Madam Speaker, I thank all members for their contributions to this debate. I will start with a quote from the Attorney-General: ‘providing another tool in the tool kit’. That relates to the new orders which will provide real consequences but also real opportunities which drill down to deconstruct offending behaviour, probably something which has not been done before in the Northern Territory to the degree that the new era will complete that task. Drilling down to the offending behaviour and providing opportunities for offenders to address what is holding them back, what is preventing their personal development and, in the macro sense, their community development.
The Minister for Health and Families provided a very positive contribution about rehabilitation and treatment for abusers of alcohol, and a very wise and well thought out contribution about the work ahead with juvenile offenders. That goes hand in hand with our new era in Corrections, as prevention is better than cure. The Minister for Health and Families outlined the importance of dealing with the juvenile element in our community and the need to understand and change their offending behaviour.
The Minister for Health and Families also outlined a very important part of the new correctional services precinct, the 36-bed secure mental health facility. This is addressing a real need within the Territory of offenders who are unfit to plea, are incapable of understanding their circumstances in relation to their offending behaviour and need extra care and Health and Families intervention with proper therapy programs to make their outcomes the best possible.
The member for Fannie Bay talked about the Fannie Bay Gaol, and the heritage site, crossing over into my other portfolio of Arts and Museums - his compliments about working together, working with the member for Nelson, the members from government, our Caucus and working up the ideas of the new era and how we will implement those strategies effectively. What the member for Fannie Bay was saying as a Gen-Y, as a change in history - a Gen-Y who has outlined to this House that the Northern Territory people are our greatest resource. That is the essence of the new era. It is about working with the most disadvantaged Territorians and turning their lives around. People are our greatest resource - a great statement from the young member and one of the true elements of our new era to take people’s lives, offer them alternatives, provide education, training and rehabilitation to address offending behaviour and then turn them back into the mainstream as productive adults, but more importantly, as people who have better choices and a better understanding.
The Minister for Local Government spoke as a strong Indigenous woman, as a leader with passion. She talked about the plans and links with the new era for the regions and partnerships with the shires. I have talked with shires across the Territory and they support our new era and are waiting eagerly for our new era to link with the people, job opportunities, working communities and reparation, making offenders more accountable and visible in their communities - most importantly, offenders conducting work in their communities to repay their debt to their communities and society, to learn and move on.
The important links which the Minister for Local Government and Indigenous affairs made with the A Working Future policy - which is not only a focus on infrastructure but a focus on generational difference - a massive reform process focused on generational change and offering offenders alternatives to understand their offending behaviour, deconstruct their offending behaviour and make choices to move on and not reoffend, to reduce the level of recidivism. We have heard from members on this side of the House who have worked in this space who support this concept, can articulate it and go forward with it. I thank them for their contributions.
The Minister for Local Government and Indigenous affairs also provided the links with enhancing the lives of our children. When you start to add all these elements up, you start to question what price we put on this. If we want to look at this as a budgetary exercise, if we want to make comparisons in terms of pure budgets then I throw that back to the links members on this side are making. Enhancing the lives of our children - what price do we put on that? Improving the conditions of women in prison - and there were some great initiatives outlined by the Minister for Local Government and Indigenous affairs. She spoke of the improvements we have seen in the conditions for women in our prisons, the great initiatives which have been undertaken and the plans to conduct more.
In response to the member for Brennan, for very good reasons the prison officers did not comment on leaving the old Berrimah prison. It needs to be taken into account that, not only for being able to do their job better and sharing in the ambition of turning people’s lives around, but also for real occupational health and safety issues - the old prison is outdated. It is past its use-by date, is an aged piece of infrastructure and does not support the new methods in correctional services.
What the member for Brennan has done with his comments in good faith is taken back the new era development, planning and hard work by 12 months. We have been down this road; we have had the experts assess it; we have looked at interstate; we have comments from all factors and components of modern, innovative correctional services and we have looked at the Lands and Planning issues. We have looked at the construction issues and none of it has stacked up. It will cost the Territory more money; it will put people at risk; it will chase the tail of recidivism without delivering anything. We need a new facility.
There is no secret agenda. The agenda is to reduce recidivism. The government’s agenda is brave and bold. It will cost but it will deal with the most disadvantaged Territorians and make productive citizens - in the words of the member for Fannie Bay, investing in our best resource, our people. We can talk money; we can talk how important it is.
I can tell the story to this House about land release which is occurring five times faster than ever before in the Territory, about our most recent meeting yesterday evening with the Real Estate Institute of Northern Territory which congratulated us on our land release policy, asked us to temper it and told us there is real movement now. We are seeing results from our program. It complimented us on the infrastructure components on our head services which we are putting in, recognising the opportunities for further development, economic growth and population growth - infrastructure into our land release program in our new suburbs, not only in Darwin and Palmerston but across the Northern Territory.
In response to the member for Brennan, the new era in Corrections for Brennan is just one of a raft of huge, big and bold policy developments from this government. It is interesting to be able to talk to this statement and wrap this statement at the end of the parliamentary year. If you want to examine some of the massive policy developments, the innovative and forward thinking policies of this government, then you need a new debate to talk about it. They have been occurring at regular intervals this year; they have been coming together to deliver real outcomes and they are quite historical in taking the Northern Territory forward.
Member for Brennan, thank you for the wonderful comment from the constituent about the community support parties. That is a positive comment. Community support parties are an excellent initiative which I discovered upon coming into the portfolio. I found a brilliant initiative delivering millions of dollars worth of goodwill and work within the community every year, not only in Darwin but in Alice Springs. The first thing I said to Corrections was: ‘Let us take this concept and build it and grow it so it provides accredited training and work-ready skills. Let us target it to real jobs and match it with skills shortages across the regions’. It was very much an infant start, a great concept, and that is how the new era started to grow. I thank all my colleagues from government who have been active in the role of advising, supporting and encouraging it. When it came down to tin tacks, there were some very courageous Cabinet members and Caucus colleagues who backed it with the necessary funding. They have backed it with the funding that is resourcing the investment in the Territorians who need it most.
There is a landmark change under way in addressing Territory prison numbers and the rate of reoffending. It is a sad fact that the Northern Territory has the highest per capita incarceration rate in the country and the highest recidivism rate. It was agreed by all members tonight that we have to do better. We must change the way we do things. We must deliver better education, more rehabilitation and more training. The new area in Corrections provides the roadmap to reach this target.
I will deconstruct some of the contributions from the member for Port Darwin. The member for Port Darwin acknowledged that this is a workable proposal. However, the member for Port Darwin used the politics of the moment to compare it to the CLP’s announcements at the last election. There are some fundamental differences and some quite radical differences if we want to deconstruct individual members’ contributions over the 12 months we have been developing the new era.
Before I go to that, I will talk about what a new prison does. The member for Port Darwin had questions about the classification system. In the time I have I will summarise it very briefly. The new Doug Owston Correctional Services facility will be a multiclassification prison. It is purpose built, innovative, and uses the measures of efficiency to manage the prison population. The classification system can be described as a board of snakes and ladders. It is up to the prisoner to provide the determination and motivation to gain the trust of society, Correctional Services facility’s operational staff and the government, and show they plan to make a difference. It is about working up and not working down.
I appreciate the member for Port Darwin’s acknowledgement of Mr Ken Middlebrook. I appreciate the acknowledgement of the prison officers and the importance of their occupational health and safety.
The member for Port Darwin commented on therapeutic programs and the balance between therapeutic programs and basic programs of the past which rely on the carrot and the stick or punishment. What we need to factor in as part of the new era thinking is that we are dealing with many Territorians who have very low levels of education and awareness. We have a real challenge to increase the education levels and the levels of awareness and deconstruct the offending behaviour.
There has to be a balance between punishment and therapeutic programs, but we have to acknowledge what I said in the statement about using initiatives which reflect the Territory context. If you talk to Mr Ken Middlebrook, who has 35 years of experience in Correctional Services, he has a very balanced outlook on the Territory context. He is focused on delivering for disadvantaged Territorians with low levels of education and awareness, who need basic support to become work ready, to understand offending behaviour with rehabilitation, training and real outcomes. We are talking about jobs, being work ready, and self-esteem. Mr Middlebrook has a very clear focus on building the self-esteem of our prisoners.
The member for Port Darwin talked briefly about the past prison farms at Gunn Point and Wildman River. My research has taught me these became very dated Correctional Services programs. We must reflect on a new era of prisoners as well as a new era in Corrections. The new era of prisoners is a challenge way above what was being delivered at Gunn Point and Wildman River. We are going to do it better; we are going to use new initiatives and deliver better results. We have set ambitious targets.
The member for Port Darwin encouraged me to work a shift as a Correctional Services officer. I do not think I have any need to work a shift. I do not support the member for Port Darwin working a shift because I visit the prison regularly and I know the member for Port Darwin has visited the prison. I encourage him to continue to do that because that is the best research you can do.
In response to the comment: ‘as the minister trots it out’, member for Port Darwin, this portfolio, like my other portfolios, I take very seriously; I do not trot out anything. In fact, I could enlighten the House about some of the grief, disappointment and emotion I have gone through when I have visited our Correctional Services facilities and come into contact with my ex-students on a number of occasions in different facilities. How does the minister do his homework, was the question. When I make contact with my ex-students I generally start by asking three questions. The first one is: ‘Are you okay?’ Normally I receive a very positive answer. We get that right. They are safe, secure and okay. ‘What are you doing in here?’ That shows a level of literacy which sometimes needs to be deconstructed as they generally tell me the reason why they are incarcerated, but that is not what I am asking. The question means, what are you enrolled in? Which programs have you signed up for? What kind of rehabilitation are you telling our Correctional Services officers you need and want to be a part of? How are you planning to make the most of this circumstance? The new era is addressing that directly. The last question I ask is: ‘What plans do you have for when you return to your community?’ Generally, that engages the offender in a conversation about what will be different when they get out, and that is what the new era reflects as well.
In regard to doing my homework, on a recent visit to Don Dale I got to see some of the incredible training and education programs. The music program was truly inspiring. We enjoyed having a jam together, the minister and the juveniles, and we played the Blues …
Mr VATSKALIS: Madam Speaker, I move an extension of time for the minister to finish his speech, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr McCARTHY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. We were participating in an exercise to normalise an experience. We played the Blues, and we had a lot of fun and a lot of laughs. My message was that the music educators had a responsibility to teach these kids the Blues, because they were all into Hip Hop. Hip Hop is an evolution of the Blues. It all started with the Blues. That was a powerful message to leave with those students, among the other images we created about music centres on the outside, opportunities in the community, work in the music sector and how they are talented people and should be looking at using their talents in positive ways.
The member for Port Darwin talked about deaths in custody. Aboriginal deaths in custody are on my mind regularly. They are a very emotional part of this job which challenges me daily. If you start to talk about Aboriginal deaths in custody and why we no longer have shackles in prison cells then you can start to understand that in the Territory we have very special needs in our Correctional Service system and we need to be sensitive as well as hard and well disciplined.
The classification system, which the member for Port Darwin mentioned a number of times – he requested a copy of the manual, I have written that down - is the essence of what is needed before you get into a work camp or a prison farm. I think there was a misunderstanding that work camps and prison farms are final points in the classification system. Everyone who commits a crime and is committed to a Correctional Services facility goes to prison. The classification system then takes into account all the factors of their lives, their offending behaviour, health and wellbeing, and they are then provided with the tools to create the opportunity to work up the snakes and ladders board, restore faith and trust and show they are truly repaying their debt to the community and to society.
The classification system will be used as the final deciding factor in who gets to the next level of training and rehabilitation. In the Barkly work camp offenders will sign a contract. Their final exit from the Correctional Services facility in Alice Springs will be the signing of a contract to say: ‘I am going to the Barkly work camp because I am going to make a difference. I am not coming back to prison. I am going to stop this cycle of recidivism. I am going to engage in training, education, rehabilitation and in efforts in the community. I am going to be visible. I am going to be accountable. I am going to show the youth of the community that a life of crime is not a good path. I am going to make a difference in my life and I am going to make it with my actions rather than my words’.
There have been many good contributions to this. The work now is heading into the groundwork of infrastructure, programs, new jobs, and training the prison officers for the Barkly work camp - having eight locals embark on that journey makes me very proud. The community is working with us and I feel the community has embraced this new era because it reflects the best investment we can make: an investment in turning disadvantaged Territorians into productive citizens and reducing the unacceptable rate of recidivism.
I am going to finish on a harsh note, and the harsh note is a real challenge because I have been doing the work with my colleagues on this side of the House and there has been a great deal of negative comment. It relates to confusion. Let us clear it up in the last sittings of the parliamentary year with this wrap of the statement about the new era in Corrections.
First of all we are going to need a correction to a publication called Opposition Leaders News which was funded by the Leader of the Opposition and was distributed to houses in Darwin and Palmerston. There was a quote in it about the portfolio of Correctional Services:
- The Henderson government should drop its plan for an expensive new prison.
I think we have agreed - I know the member for Port Darwin has agreed - we need this new facility. The member for Port Darwin talked about his ambition to be the minister for Corrections and to continue working with this new facility. That needs to be cleared up now and the Leader of the Opposition probably needs to address that. That has gone out to the community and it is misleading.
I would also like to make a very strong point about a comment which offended me deeply in relation to my ex-students, my visits to Correctional Services facilities and working with prison officers. It is a comment which was made by the member for Braitling on 20 October 2010 and it needs to be addressed. I quote:
- … if I was the prisons minister, I would build a big concrete hole and put all the bad criminals in there. ‘Right, you are in the hole, you are not coming out. Start learning about it! It might break every United Nations’ convention on the rights of the prisoner but: ‘Get in the hole’.
It has been a huge year in the House. The member for Braitling is a polished performer in this House, and I give credit where credit is due, but I notice his youth and enthusiasm does get carried away and that translates into very inappropriate comments. I suggest that, as a local member and a politician - and there is no doubt he has a flair for politics and has a great deal to offer. As an Indigenous man in Central Australia he needs to get on board with us. We do not mind criticism, we do not mind a stoush and we love a good debate, but those sorts of comments are over the top. They are extremely negative and offensive and we want it straightened out now. We are moving forward with this new era and I believe members on the other side are joining with us. Let us get the entire House in order. Let us talk about what the member for Brennan talks about: a bipartisan approach. Let us focus on the most disadvantaged Territorians and check our language, emotions and sensationalism in trying to grab headlines or media attention.
There are going to be opportunities to do it and it will be done, but with the new era let us all buckle down and talk about a welcome shift in policy which has been acknowledged by the opposition. The member for Macdonnell has not made many comments to me but I am sure she supports the new era. I commend the member for Nelson because he has put his money where his mouth is. He has done the hard yards. We have travelled on the road across four different jurisdictions. We have looked at Correctional Services facilities. We have talked, debated and argued. We have had experts in the room and have finally come up with a very clear policy platform and way forward.
That was part of the Chief Minister’s agreement. Being the minister for Corrections, I featured in that agreement from day one and I have been honoured to work as part of that agreement with all members, particularly government members, but also the member for Nelson. We are looking forward to the delivery, which will be challenging. The member for Port Darwin brought that out. There are no guarantees, but unless we do things differently, we will never know.
Madam Speaker, the new era in Corrections presents exciting opportunities and real challenges. Work is already under way with the Barkly work camp, one of the many new initiatives. I welcome the challenge because I am determined to reduce the rate of reoffending, reduce prison numbers and build a safer Territory.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
TABLED PAPER
Sittings Dates for 2011 - Revised
Sittings Dates for 2011 - Revised
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table the revised Legislative Assembly Sitting Dates for 2011.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr VATSKALIS (Health): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Being the last sitting before Christmas, I take this opportunity to say my thanks and Christmas wishes for 2010.
Madam Speaker, I wish you and your family a very special Christmas, and a wonderful New Year. I wish the Chief Minister, my parliamentary colleagues and their families a Merry Christmas and a safe and Happy New Year. I also extend my best wishes and thanks to the dedicated staff of the Legislative Assembly, particularly the staff of Hansard who sometimes have trouble understanding my accent, but they are learning!
I extend my best wishes to my Electorate Officer, Debbie Rowland, and her long-suffering family, and to my ministerial office staff: Helen, Deidre, Ray, Natasha, Robyne, Kylie, Trish, Karina, Maria and Leonie. It has been a very busy year with many portfolios to be addressed, and without your support I would not be able to do what I am doing today.
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to all my constituents in the electorate of Casuarina. I am honoured to represent you, and I look forward to continuing to represent you in the Legislative Assembly in 2011.
For those who are leaving Darwin to celebrate the Christmas holidays with loved ones interstate and overseas, I wish you a safe and enjoyable trip. Please drive carefully and come back; we want every single one of you back in the Territory.
For those staying in town over the Christmas period, I look forward to catching up with you in this wet weather and hope to see you in Casuarina where I will be wrapping presents for Somerville as is my tradition every year. It is like doorknocking; the difference is people come to you, you do not go to them; but it is good fun too.
I take the opportunity to thank Ms Sabina Knight who will be leaving the Northern Territory in December to continue her career in Queensland. Ms Knight has a long history as a remote area nurse, a professional leader and a remote health advocate in the Northern Territory and nationally. Her career has included working at the Aboriginal Community Control Sector in the Department of Health and Families as a remote area nurse, as well as spending several years as a remote area educator. She played instrumental roles in establishing and maintaining the Council of Remote Area Nurses of Australia; the Central Australian Remote Practitioners Association’s (CARPA) Standard Treatment Manual, National Rural Health Alliance, and the Centre for Remote Health.
In recent years, Ms Knight has been a member of the Northern Territory Health Advisory Council and assisted in the orientation and training of interstate health professionals involved in the Australian government’s child health checks. In 2008 she was invited by the Australian government’s minister for Health, the Hon Nicola Roxon, to be a member of the National Health and Hospital Reform Commission.
Throughout her career, Ms Knight has generously provided expert advice, support and encouragement to the main stakeholders involved in remote and Aboriginal health. She has also maintained strong personal and professional links with remote Aboriginal communities and health services through annual nursing placements in Central Australia and coordinating the delivery of various postgraduate education programs through the Centre for Remote Health in Alice Springs.
Sabina will commence as the Director of the Mt Isa Centre for Remote Health in January 2011. I am sure you will all join me in wishing her well in her future endeavours.
I take this opportunity to thank community organisations, government departments and businesses within my electorate for their efforts. To Ben Gill, the GPT staff and the tenants of Casuarina Shopping Centre; Tony Miaoudis and the tenants of Casuarina Village Shopping Centre; Chris Vidouris and the tenants of Casuarina Convenience Centre; and all small business owners and staff within the Casuarina shopping precinct, I wish you all a prosperous and happy festive season.
I also thank the Casuarina Police Station Superintendent, Peter Gordon, Officers-in-Charge John Ginnane and Shaun Furniss, and all the hard-working police officers for their efforts in assisting to maintain a safe environment within the Casuarina electorate. The new Police Beat shopfront has been tremendous in providing quick assistance around the Casuarina shopping precinct; this new initiative has benefited the Casuarina community greatly.
I thank and extend my best wishes to the Northern Territory government staff, the Darwin City Council and support organisations which provided assistance and advice to my Electorate Officer in response to constituents’ complaints this year. I wish you all a wonderful festive season.
To my supportive ministerial staff and my electorate officers, I repeat: without your support I would not be able to do what I have been doing in my portfolios and electorate. Also, to government department staff, especially the departments I have ministerial responsibility for - the Department of Health and Families and the Department of Resources - thank you all for your hard work and assistance during 2010. It has been a very busy year for me as a local member and as a minister. It has been a year filled with many memorable surprises. I am most fortunate to have had wonderful support staff whose tireless efforts and commitments are very much appreciated.
I thank my sons, Alexander and Michael, with whom I look forward to spending more time during the Christmas break - especially Michael who misses his father very much. We see each other in the morning when I drive him to school and we have very good discussions; I ask questions and he grunts back at me, which is what happens with teenagers. One grunt means yes, two grunts means no.
To my team of helpers, volunteers, and ALP branch members, I thank you for your continued support and dedication and for being ready to assist when needed. I appreciate that. You are a loyal group of people and, although we do not get to catch up often, please understand my sincere gratitude. I wish all of you and your families a joyous Christmas and I look forward to your support in 2011.
Over the years I have highlighted the many successes the schools in the Casuarina electorate have had: Dripstone Middle School, Nakara Primary School and Alawa Primary School. I am extremely proud of the teachers and the staff in these schools; they have done a tremendous job. I thank the school principals, Barry Griffin, Sarah May, and Fathma Mauger. To the school council members, thank you for your efforts with your schools; your valuable time is very much appreciated.
I make a special mention of Nakara Principal, Barry Griffin and wish him a wonderful retirement. I am looking forward to catching up with you some time next week for a few drinks before you depart. I also take the opportunity to wish all students, teachers and school staff an enjoyable school holiday break.
It has been a tremendous year and a very busy year. I am looking forward to a break during Christmas; everyone in this job deserves it. I know many people say we do not work hard but I would like to swap with them sometimes and they can do our jobs 24/7. When everything goes wrong it is our fault but when someone needs help they come to our doorstep. It does not matter if you are in opposition or the government, as local members we are there to help and people come from all over our electorates for help.
Madam Deputy Speaker, to you and to all my parliamentary colleagues on both sides of this House, Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you and your families.
Mr CHANDLER (Brennan): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will raise a couple of concerns about the information ministers provide other members in this House through letters and the accuracy of that information, which is passed on by minders or whoever. There are two short stories here that underline how accurate information is that ministers have.
The first one is a letter I received from the Minister for Transport. It says:
- Thank you for your letter dated 15 October 2010, regarding pedestrian road safety issues in the Palmerston CBD.
The Department of Lands and Planning has undertaken a comprehensive pedestrian study to investigate options for improving pedestrian safety at Chung Wah Terrace from the Oasis Shopping Centre to the Palmerston Shopping Centre. The study has included an assessment of pedestrian activity and existing facilities, including those for persons with a disability, along Temple Terrace from Chung Wah Terrace to Maluka Street.
The department plans to discuss the results of the study with the Palmerston City Council and following these discussions, the Department will undertake remedial works during 2011 in consultation with the council.
That would all seem fine, except this same thing has been debated for many years with the Palmerston Council. However, it is the next part of the letter which I found astounding. I spoke about this last week. One of the issues raised was the safety of one of the pedestrian crossings and the fact that the lights were not working very well and were off more than they were on. I wrote to the minister suggesting the crossing be upgraded to a proper pedestrian crossing with lights, or that the lights be upgraded to LED lights so people would see them. The letter says:
- In regard to the existing pedestrian crossing on Temple Terrace, I am pleased to advise that the yellow wig-wag flashing lights have now been upgraded to LED for enhanced visibility.
The second letter is one I wrote to minister Burns in his capacity as Minister for Public and Affordable Housing. This was about a property at Bonson Terrace, Moulden, where there are a few issues with a person who was affecting many people. It included illegal alcohol being produced on the property, and this person and the people visiting his property were behaving so antisocially that a number of people were complaining.
I wrote to the minister and I received the normal response from the minister saying he acknowledged the letter, thank you very much. I then received a follow up letter, dated 21 October 2010, which says:
- Dear Mr Chandler,
Thank you for your letter of 22 September 2010, in which you raised safety concerns relating to a public housing tenant …
I will not read out the address:
- … Moulden, and also allegations of illegal brewing and sale of alcohol from a public housing dwelling within this complex.
I have asked officers from Territory Housing to make contact with the parties concerned and am advised that they are actively working with the tenancies to rectify the issues currently being experienced. Territory Housing views complaints of antisocial behaviour very seriously and investigates each complaint. Upon review of the investigation every tenant is individually assessed and supported by Territory Housing staff or non-government support agencies as deemed necessary.
In extremely serious cases, Territory Housing may consider termination of the tenancy through an application to the Commissioner of Tenancies or the Local Court for breaches of the Tenancy Agreement.
In regards to the alleged illegal brewing of alcohol I have asked the Department to work with the Northern Territory Licensing Commission to investigate the matter.
As you would be aware, on the evening of 30 September 2010, the Northern Territory Licensing Commission carried out a raid on a property in Bonson Terrace. As this matter is currently before the courts it would be inappropriate to comment any further.
I accepted this on face value and we all know it went to the papers. The Northern Territory News ran an article on this situation, with photos, and I think it was even on the news. By all accounts you would expect the government has been, or is, working on this. Yet it is now 7 November and I have – and I can table this if requested - a complaint signed by each of the residents of 22 Bonson Terrace, again complaining that nothing has been done. This person is still doing what he was doing before; the antisocial behaviour has not improved one iota and they feel the government has not done anything about this issue.
It is okay to tell the media: ‘Yes, all is in hand, we are working on the issue’, but I want to know what the outcomes are when you make these promises. I take the minister at his word. His letter was genuine and well written and he pointed out everything I raised in my initial letter. But here we are weeks and weeks later and again I am contacted by the same group saying nothing has been done. I ask the minister to review it again.
Dr Burns: Can you table the letter?
Mr CHANDLER: Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to table the document.
Leave granted.
Mr GUNNER (Fannie Bay): Madam Deputy Speaker, Dr Michael Myers is currently the Principal of Parap Primary School, one of the best schools in the Territory, if not the best. It is a close call between Stuart Park Primary and Parap Primary but perhaps we could place Parap Primary at the very top. It is a great school, and I know Dr Myers loves the school and the community.
Dr Myers is taking some well earned extended leave from January next year, prior to retiring later in the year. It is important to mark his retirement and his career. I have spoken to Mick, his Assistant Principal, the Chair of the school council and other community members so they could acknowledge his career on the Parliamentary Record. His retirement will mean the loss of a gentleman who has devoted his career to the education and nurturing of generations of Territorians.
With the exception of periods of study interstate and overseas, Dr Myers has spent his entire career in Northern Territory education. To put that length of commitment and dedication into perspective, he was recruited by the Commonwealth government Department of Territories before there was a local member to stand in this House and speak in an adjournment debate. He was recruited before there was a Territory government.
Mick left an administrative position with the Royal Australian Navy to undertake intensive, two-year teacher preparation and community and social development programs at the Australian School of Pacific Administration, Sydney. He was college dux in each year of the program. I and many members would know Dr Myers from his long tenure at Parap; however, he started his career a long way from Parap with his first 10 years spent in Top End Indigenous communities including three years as Principal of Ngukurr community school. To quote Mick:
- This decade was both very challenging and immensely rewarding.
There is no doubt those 10 years were rewarding for the Territory and for Dr Myers.
It is always important to find teachers who will spend time in a community and invest in their local school. To have Dr Myers spend time in each community saw a significant contribution made to the education and broader social development in each community. In return, Mick learnt valuable life lessons about himself, about Indigenous life, culture and perspectives and he developed lifelong, deeply enriching relationships with many Indigenous community members.
That dedication to working in the regions is always a big investment. Living remotely can have an impact on your family, and Mick is very close to his family. It is clear when he talks about his family he has a lot of pride and love for them, like most of us do. His wife, Patricia, is a dedicated, highly respected, long-serving Territory teacher. Their three children were educated in the Territory, including their tertiary education. Their son is a medical microbiologist specialising in genetics and currently teaches and researches at the University of Maryland in the USA; their eldest daughter resides in Western Australian and is a midwife and nurse educator; and their youngest daughter is Deputy Principal of the Vienna International School in Austria - a very good family.
Mick will now have more time to spend with his family and not on his particular, but far from exclusive, interest in primary education. His record is impressive. He has been principal of five large NT schools in both urban and remote areas. He has held senior administrative positions with the predecessors of the current Department of Education and Training, and has led large Northern Territory educational regions. His contribution has encompassed a range of complex organisational environments including pre-school, primary, post-primary, secondary, university senior undergraduate programs, and adult education. The organisational environments include Australian Indigenous and NT urban communities, and an Asian and North American context. He has also made significant contributions to school sport and performing arts development, seeing these as important avenues for supporting many developmental needs among children and communities across the Northern Territory.
Dr Myers has an abiding interest and involvement in the multiple dimensions and the practical and theoretical complexities of the principalship which he has seen firsthand as he has served as a Northern Territory principal for 40 years. Dr Myers was awarded the A W Reeves Memorial Fellowship in 1995 by the Northern Territory Department of Education to undertake advanced study and research in educational leadership and management at the University of Alberta, Canada. He is the only Northern Territory school-based educator to be awarded this fellowship and the final Australian educator to undertake the prestigious program as a Reeves scholar prior to its discontinuance.
During the tenure of the fellowship he gained a Doctorate in Educational Leadership and Management from the University of Alberta with complementary doctoral-accredited study undertaken at Harvard University, Massachusetts, USA. His dissertation, which examined relationships between school-based management and school and student learning outcomes, was nominated by the University of Alberta for the award of Best Education Dissertation in Canada in 1997.
Dr Myers has lengthy experience in leadership of a range of diverse professional organisations. For example, Foundation President, NT Principals Association, now known as ANTSEL, the first organisation in Australia encompassing all facets of school and educational institutional leadership; National Director, Board of Directors, Australian Council for Education Administration, holding particular responsibility for international Indigenous educational leadership development; Foundation Member, President, Vice President and Committee Member for the Australian Council of Educational Administration NT; Member and Acting Chairman for the NT Board of Studies; Chairman, Board of Management, The Beat Foundation - we all know The Beat, a joint initiative of the Rotary organisations, schools, and the NT Department of Education and Training which fosters the development of performing arts and young people through scholarships, and the conduct of the annual Beat performance in Darwin; the A W Reeves Fellowship, as I mentioned, and his time at Massachusetts, USA; and he was elected Fellow of Australian Council for Educational Leaders, the third NT educator to be recognised in Australia this way. I have left out about half of his accreditations in reading this out. He is a very learned fellow, and has done many things.
I also place on the record, in their own words, the thoughts of those who know Mick best in the workplace - the people who get to work with him every day. I thank Kerry Hudson, who was an Assistant Principal for the first three terms this year at Parap and longer, and is now Acting Principal at Anula, and Yvonne Harding, Assistant Principal at Parap. They were very happy to have the opportunity to talk to staff and to put into words their thoughts of Mick. So, thank you to Yvonne, Kerry and all the staff and people at Parap Primary School who put a few words together:
- Mick is a very quiet, humble, unassuming gentleman. The staff at Parap Primary School unanimously believe that he can be very proud of his long and successful career. As a principal, Mick Myers has gained the trust and respect of all staff. He has strong values and very much believes that family and children come first. There have been so many occasions when Mick has supported staff through a myriad of family crises, tragedies and special occasions. Staff members at Parap Primary appreciate his compassion and know they always have his support. The school community is very important to Mick.
- He is very passionate about children and genuinely cares about each and every individual child. The achievements of children are celebrated and all interests and skills are applauded equally: school sport, music, instrumental, academic and so on. Mick instils sound values across the year levels and sets high expectations for all. He believes that all children can be nurtured and, therefore, never gives up on supporting any goal set by students, staff or parents to achieve this.
- He actively supports and initiates parental input in the decision-making. His office has very much an open door policy and he willingly spends the time to listen attentively to parents and then follow up.
- As a school leader, Mick has facilitated the professional growth of his staff. He actively encourages teachers and executive staff to build their capacity so as to become a better teacher or leader. Teaching and administrative staff at Parap know that if they have an idea, a project or passion that they wish to explore they will get the support and trust from Mick. He allows people to get on with the job in their way. He does not feel as though he has to be the one to direct. However, he is always available for advice and support and will quietly steer people towards achieving the goal. Mick’s distributed leadership style has allowed all staff at Parap to grow in confidence and, with that, challenge them to continually improve.
- We, the Associate Principals, have learnt a great deal from Mick and have worked together as a very cohesive and highly effective team.
- Mick will be missed by all the staff at Parap who view him as a long-time caring friend who has had a significant impact on all our lives, and for that we are very grateful. We wish him well in every venture he and Pat decide to do in the future.
Ken Hutton, Chair of the Parap Primary School Council for the past several years, has also worked closely with Mick, and has said:
- I would like to pay tribute to Mick’s dedication and vision for the school and its community. Mick has been a tireless worker for the department and has gone beyond the call of duty many times and has stood firm when the going gets tough.
The current state of the primary school’s curriculum and facilities is largely due to Mick’s initiative and willingness to pursue excellence. He has been well supported by the two Vice Principals, Kerry Hudson and Yvonne Harding, and dedicated staff and parent body. The school stands as a testimony to what can be achieved with dedication and vision and it can rightly be proud of its achievements under Mick’s guiding hand.
The school will miss his efforts. However, we all wish him and his family every happiness for their future.
I echo Ken’s final sentiment. Thanks, Mick, for all your efforts at Parap, and all the best for the future. The fact that so many people were willing to contribute and wanted their thoughts expressed tonight vouches for the work Mick has done. I thank him and wish him, Pat and his family all the best for the future.
Mr GILES (Braitling): Madam Deputy Speaker, it comes to that time of the year when people are trying to find very good Christmas presents for friends and family. Fortunately, Helen Joraslafsky, Manager of the National Pioneer Women’s Hall of Fame in Alice Springs, had the idea to suggest to Jose Petrick, a long-term Alice Springs resident, that she produce a fifth edition of The History of Alice Springs Through Landmarks and Street Names, a book which was published in 2005. Jose has kindly now produced a fifth edition of the Alice Springs landmarks and street names. The member for Fannie Bay may have seen a copy of the fourth edition, which is a true bible of Alice Springs people who have had streets named after them.
The pioneers of Alice Springs and the founding fathers and mothers of Alice Springs have been recognised through many streets in town. It is an absolute bible for anyone who has seen that book in the fourth edition. I had the opportunity on Saturday afternoon to launch Jose’s fifth edition of The History of Alice Springs Through Landmarks and Street Names. It was a fantastic day; Jose gave a spiel about some of her experiences in Alice Springs and paid tribute to a number of people. Jose’s family is mentioned in the book. I gave a speech and spoke about a street I pass through to get to my residence in Alice Springs, which is Erija Street. I would never have known what Erija stood for without this book - it comes from the Arrernte word meaning wedge tailed eagle. It is a fantastic book.
When Jose published this fifth edition, which was launched on Saturday, there were some new streets which had to be announced. Two new streets have been added, Wright Place, named after Mrs Daffodil Wright - I am reading some words from the book - nee Sandford, a pioneer cattle station wife and husband Charlie started the first laundry in Alice Springs. Also Teague Crescent and Violet Teague Park. These two new streets in the park are at the end of Albrecht Drive in the new subdivision of Larapinta so it is quite fitting I had the opportunity to launch this book. Also, it is quite fitting the former member for Braitling, Mrs Loraine Braham, launched the fourth edition. It is fantastic.
I read the fourth and fifth editions - much the same. One of the big differences I was disappointed in, which I spoke about on Saturday, is in the fourth edition there were 40 street name updates but, in the fifth edition, there were only two. That is a reflection of the poor development of the town under this government and I made a special point of that.
Jose Petrick is, as I described on Saturday, a golden nugget in Alice Springs; she has put in place this information on history, and for anyone who is looking for a good Christmas present, The History of Alice Springs Through Landmarks and Street Names is a great gift. The National Pioneer Women’s Hall of Fame has purchased 100 copies for their use and I purchased one, as did a number of people on Saturday. I know the Mayor, Damien Ryan, and CEO, Rex Mooney, were also there contributing. I have handed an order form to the member for Stuart, the Minister for Central Australia, and I am sure he will get on board; I hope the Northern Territory Library purchases this edition.
I recognise the hard work Jose does for Alice Springs. She, her family and her networks have all been pioneers in Alice Springs and without people like Jose and her networks, history is lost. She should be acknowledged for the hard work she has done. I acknowledge that and continue to provide a lot of support to Jose.
Mrs LAMBLEY (Araluen): Madam Deputy Speaker, as a new member of parliament, this is my eighth week in the job ...
Mr Tollner: And a good member you are turning out to be too.
Mrs LAMBLEY: Thank you, member for Fong Lim.
There is a theme emerging in the problems which have been presented to me by constituents. One of them is similar to an issue the member for Brennan raised earlier. I have been approached by four clusters of neighbours in the Araluen electorate who are having problems with department of Housing tenants living adjacent to them. I know this is a very common problem throughout the Northern Territory but, as their local member and their advocate in the community, I really feel a responsibility to bring to the parliament’s attention what is happening in the suburbs of Araluen.
These families, and there are about 15 involved in these four different locations, are expressing great discomfort, unhappiness, misery even, and some are claiming their children are traumatised by what they are seeing, hearing and experiencing from their adjacent neighbours.
I am talking about Housing department accommodation, four houses which are home to five or six people and, as many could report in their electorates, the families are talking about noise through the night, antisocial behaviour, people pulling up at all hours, tooting the horn, yelling, drunkenness, and some people have witnessed quite serious assaults. It is very disturbing and annoying behaviour, which has a great impact on these families. I am talking about families in which young people are being kept up until the early hours of the morning by the noise and the commotion next door and parents are not able to sleep because of that which has an impact on how the families function.
All these families have made reports, to some extent, to the department of Housing. Some of them have not made formal complaints but I know they have spoken in passing to people who have been available to them within the department. They have complained, they have made formal complaints, they have their sheets from the Housing department in which they can record specific incidents of antisocial behaviour, noise, whatever it is that is happening next door that is causing them discomfort, grief and misery.
In one neighbourhood, the Housing department tenants in question went to a hearing – I think they had been given a notice to remedy and during that time the case had gone to a hearing. The neighbours were asked to present information at that hearing, which did not come about. The tenants remained in the house and there was no change and no relief from the behaviour their neighbours are being subjected to.
The first thing I did was make an appointment with the Housing department and I met with the acting manager of the local Housing department. The women who deal with complaints in the Alice Springs office are very obliging and very helpful. They explained to me that they were confined by the Tenancy Act and they explained to me the courses of action available to neighbours of Housing department accommodation when they were unhappy with the behaviour of tenants.
As a member of parliament, I feel a little helpless and powerless, like the people who are coming to me with these complaints. I am concerned the notice to remedy used in a couple of examples was only for 14 days and on one occasion the tenants just packed up and left town for 14 days then came back and continued on with their usual behaviour. The Tenancy Act seems to be on the side of the tenants, not the neighbours who are being subjected to the behaviour.
As a new member of parliament I would appreciate any advice you may have of what to advise people in this situation. I believe there should be more options available for people who are in this situation. One family is leaving town as a direct result of the unhappiness they have been experiencing. They are worried about the value of their property and do not want me to mention where they live. I asked them if I could mention their names and, although they would love to go public, they are worried about reprisal in the last few weeks they remain in the house, as well as their ability to rent the house after they leave and the option of selling at a later date.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I really feel for these people. I do not know what the answer is and I would appreciate any feedback my fellow members of parliament may have in addressing this very concerning issue.
Mr ELFERINK (Port Darwin): Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish to talk about matters of procurement, and I will specifically refer to a couple of tenders which have been awarded.
I am also going to talk about the issue of potential corruption in the procurement process. I do not want my comments to be in any way misconstrued when I talk about tenders which have raised my eyebrows, nor do I want it to be thought that I am alleging corruption in relation to those tenders. Nevertheless, I will speak about some other matters which have caused me some concern.
I am aware of the tender rules in relation to not necessarily taking the cheapest tender, and sometimes there are good reasons not to. I speak specifically of tenders T101532, T101533 and T101534 for which the jobs were granted not so long ago. These are the Palmerston rugby and soccer field, tennis and netball courts, and the AFL paddocks. Certain information has come to my attention about those tenders which makes me concerned because of the substantial difference between the cheapest price and the awarded price.
Like the Rosebery School, there is deep concern and ructions in the industry about these issues because of the substantial difference between the cheapest and the successful tenderers. Having made that observation, the matters of Rosebery School were referred to the Auditor-General and they came back with a clean bill of health. However, even the Auditor-General has limitations of what he can extract and I have heard the concerns raised about these three tenders as well. Moreover, you hear the usual rumblings - and I am fully aware and cognisant of the truism that tenders will always have criticisms raised against them because the unsuccessful tenderers are unhappy. But the rumblings just beneath the surface continue and they cause me concern.
Last year, I had cause to refer a direct allegation of corruption to the Auditor-General. The person involved and their employer came and saw me and there was an allegation of the transfer of a substantial amount of property which would have had a value of $50 000 or $60 000 in response to a favourable tender. I immediately referred that to the Auditor-General who said it is a criminal act and has to go to the police for investigation; quite rightly so, but I had to deal with a very nervous person who was giving me information and an equally nervous employer, because this is a small town. That matter was then referred to the police after the Auditor-General made some initial investigations and it is to my understanding he took a statutory declaration from the person who had made the allegations.
Sadly, when the police were involved, the person who had given me the information became very nervous and no further investigations ensued but there was some circumstantial evidence to support that person’s allegation about the movement of some property. The reason I speak in such vague terms is because there is no evidence other than what I was told and some circumstantial evidence; however, it is sufficient, coupled with many other stories I hear burbling just beneath the surface, for me to say to this government, and particularly the Treasurer: ‘Have a close look at what is happening in the tender process!’
I suspect there are many more stories just beneath the surface and the reason I raise it publicly in this instance is if one person was prepared to come forward, although they became nervous and finally refused to assist with the investigation, their allegation was nevertheless profoundly serious and has the potential, if ever proved, to undermine the faith in the tendering process across the Northern Territory. I come into this House and talk about this because I call on other Territorians who may be in possession of information to start telling me or contacting me so we can discover if there is any truth in the mutterings and the murmurings I am hearing.
The tender process is something which has to be like Caesar’s wife, not only beyond question, but seen to be beyond question and, because I consistently hear these mutterings, I am sufficiently concerned to raise it in this House and make the comments publicly.
If people are aware of corruption, I urge them to contact the authorities and the police. If you do not wish to contact the police, or are nervous about contacting the police, then I ask people to contact me with a full statement and supporting assurance of full confidentiality. I am concerned about what I am hearing. I do not raise this issue in this House lightly. If I had not received a direct allegation of corruption, which was finally abandoned by the person because they became too nervous and there was no supporting circumstantial evidence, and if I was not aware of other tender issues being raised consistently, I would not stand in this place and do what I am doing.
Having made that statement, the reason I do so is I am sufficiently concerned about this to make a public call for people to come forward and start describing the issues surrounding them and the issues which are concerning them.
As I said, I referred three tenders to the Auditor-General and I made no allegations in relation to those tenders; they simply raised my curiosity. They have also raised the curiosity of other people but I make no allegation or assertion of wrongdoing in any of those tenders. Nevertheless, I would like the Auditor-General to look at them so we can get a sense, at least, of what is happening in the tender process when such tenders are awarded and, more generally, the public need to be assured that the tender process is squeaky clean because, I can tell you, and as the government knows full well, the tender process amongst industry players is being described as far from that.
Mr BOHLIN (Drysdale): Madam Deputy Speaker, it is the festive season and, as tradition has it, it is time to thank those who have helped us through the year. First, we thank the Hansard staff who are still working and will continue to work for some time tonight. Without those people working hard behind the scenes, whom the public do not get to see, what we say or do in here would not be recorded as efficiently as it is. So, we thank them.
I also thank all our parliamentary staff of the Legislative Assembly. Regardless of whether you are on the table behind us or the bench in front of us, you all do a fantastic job and you do it with true impartiality. I know through the year it has not always been easy but, without doubt, you have done it well and your families should be proud of the hours you put in; be it hard on them at times.
To all my colleagues on this side of the House, a Merry Christmas. To all my colleagues on the other side of the House, I wish you all a Merry Christmas and I hope you have some time with your families. It is not always an easy time in this House and you are always away from your families with late hours. So, I hope you get some time with your families and enjoy the festive season and have a safe New Year.
I wish all the electorate officers on both sides of this House, who work tirelessly to front the public when we are not in the office and do a fantastic job no matter what side of the House they represent, a Merry Christmas. The job of an electorate officer is a thankless one in most cases, and in your own hearts and minds you represent people through your elected member. Well done to you all; I hope you have a Merry Christmas because it is not always an easy job following the tail of a member of parliament.
To my electorate officer, Donna Ellice, you are an absolute legend. I am very proud to be associated with you; to have you work in my office is an honour. You represent the electorate of Drysdale with much gusto; you do it in an extremely professional manner and, for a small person, Donna, you have a huge heart. I hope our relationship lasts for a long time. Merry Christmas to you, Donna, and your family, including the fish in our fish bowl in our electorate office - I hope they have a good Christmas. Someone might want to feed them.
I extend my wishes to all the aldermen and staff of the Palmerston City Council in my electorate. They are a big part of the team for Palmerston which makes Palmerston great. You all work hard, right down to every one of the regulatory officers who do a fantastic job and, of course, the aldermen, many of whom I meet at various functions throughout Palmerston. You are doing a great job and we look forward to another brilliant year next year.
I am lucky to have quite a few schools in my electorate and every one of the staff involved in the schools, every one of the teachers - be it the Palmerston High School, Palmerston Middle School, Driver Primary School, Durack Primary School, Charles Darwin University, and the Palmerston Christian School – you take our young minds and do your best to mould them. I hope you and all the children and, in the case of the high schools and the university, the young adults of the Northern Territory, have a safe New Year, and you all come back next year and enjoy another year of learning, because learning is a way to the future. I hope you continue to do very well. I wish you all another Merry Christmas.
Durack Primary School’s Principal is Jo Wynn. I am informed this is her last year as she is retiring. Last Friday at assembly, I asked Jo how many years she had been teaching. She thought for some time, and said: ‘45-odd years’. That is amazing! As you described, you have been all over the country and overseas teaching. You came to the Territory in 1973 and have been teaching here ever since. Your final post is with the Durack Primary School in my electorate, a school I am very proud of.
Jo, thank you for your many decades of hard work. Rest yourself well, and enjoy your travels; I believe you intend to go to Africa - she has been to Russia and China in recent times. Enjoy the travels, be safe, and really enjoy your time. You have earned it, without doubt. Thank you very much for your tireless efforts over, as you said, 45-odd years of teaching and shaping the young minds of Australian children; that is amazing.
Thank you very much to everyone, and a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. We have a couple more days left in this parliament. It has been an interesting couple of weeks and it will continue to be interesting for the next couple of days, so when we go home tonight, remember we have a couple more days, rest well and enjoy your holidays when they come to you.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I will say a few things about Corrections. Unfortunately, I was not able to be here for the whole debate today but I would like to put on record a few of my thoughts about where we are going with Corrections in the Northern Territory.
There has been much talk about a $300m prison and some people criticise the government for spending that amount of money. It is a great deal of money but that emphasis is only one part of the equation. The part of the equation I would like to see more emphasis placed on is at the beginning and at the end.
We have to put more emphasis on early intervention, especially with kids while they are at school. When we see they are at risk we need programs and strategies to start to attack those problems early. I was once told that $1 spent on early intervention is about the equivalent of $15 later on in life. People might have seen the youth program - I think it was Roper Gulf Shire - run for youth at risk in Ngukurr and Numbulwar. They were doing Certificate 1 in agriculture. I think it is called rural ops; I call it the stockman’s course. They were doing that course at Mataranka Station and it was an excellent thing for the shire council to promote.
That is where we should be encouraging more emphasis, especially from the government. It is no good spending $300m building a big prison if we are not spending equivalent amounts to reduce the numbers that enter our prison system.
We need to take people, especially young people from the urban areas, out bush. The government made a big song and dance about Hamilton Downs youth camp in Alice Springs, especially at the last election, but since that election the government has not put the same emphasis on using that youth camp for the programs it claimed it was supporting. Charles Darwin University is doing work there; the Waltja women’s culture group has been running programs there for older women and women’s groups; Tangentyere Council has been doing some work on diversion programs, but it seems that money, instead of going to Hamilton Downs, is going on what is sometimes referred to as the soft option - that is, camel treks - instead of a more concentrated diversionary program which you would expect to come from Hamilton Downs. If the money given for these so-called camel treks was put into the Hamilton Downs youth camp it would be a far better project and would increase the use of Hamilton Downs as a place for youth at risk.
Hamilton Downs is used for other things, but there was a lot of noise made by the government at the last election about how they were putting emphasis into places like Hamilton Downs. I hope the government does not drop off the use of that youth camp because we are halfway between elections. I hope it still uses that camp to help young people get back on the straight and narrow.
There should be more community recreation centres. Darwin is poorly serviced by those types of things – there is The Shack in Casuarina and the Palmerston YMCA - and that is it. The Shack is pretty small when you consider the number of young people in Darwin; it is not a great big recreation centre, and properly funding that area needs to be thought about. This is part of the early intervention which needs to happen. If we are talking about a new era we need to talk about a new era from the beginning to the end, not just the bit in the middle.
There are other things which contribute to people going to gaol which are similar to the things which get kids into trouble and are part of the problem when it comes to child protection - alcohol, housing and jobs. If we only talk about the $300m for a prison and do not discuss what we are doing about housing, employment and alcohol problems then we will not achieve much and will continue to have as many people in prison, and more, and continue to have the same recidivism rates. If people do not have jobs, proper houses which are not overcrowded, and if alcohol takes over because of the depressing circumstances in which they live, then there will be violence and people will be arrested and end up in gaol. That is just as true as the sun coming up tomorrow morning.
At the other end of the system, we have to make sure there is employment. When someone is released - it is no good training them in prison to find there is no work out there - we have to make sure there is work. I have said before, I think we should scrap the CDEP program, not because I think it is necessarily bad, although it has some faults, but because that money should be turned into full-time jobs, people should be employed in communities and councils should be involved in developing those jobs.
We need to have follow-up programs; if you put someone out the prison gates and there is no continual follow-up, people will drift into bad habits again. It is no good saying we have a program. The program has to be big enough to follow-up all prisoners leaving the prison to ensure we do not see them again. If there is no one to help them when life gets tough they will fall into bad habits again and be back in prison. You do not need me to say that; you just have to look at the statistics which show the number of people who are reoffending and coming back into the prisons.
We need to continue the training programs. It is disappointing that there has been no decision made on the stockman’s course which was held in the Darwin prison last year. It is similar to the course the young people were doing at Mataranka and is something we should ensure there are enough funds for because I saw the difference that course made to those 15 prisoners this year; it is well worth continuing. The government should make every effort to do so.
We not only need the work camp which has been planned in Katherine and the one being built in the Barkly, we need work camps elsewhere where people can work in national parks and other minor town centres. I think the prison farm in Katherine is great; it is something I have been pushing for a long time and is part of the discussions I have had with the government about prisons. We need a prison farm, or similar, in the Alice Springs region as well. I do not think they should all be in this part of the world.
There have been some comments made recently about mainstream prisons. Unfortunately, when a meeting was held in Howard Springs regarding the site of the new prison - I thought it was a poorly run meeting - I do not think people understood the reason the prison has been sited there. Some people have said it should still be sited at Berrimah. That is where I thought it should be sited originally but I looked at the plans for the new prison - the footprint, the difficulties of the site not only from water logging but from lack of level land and the high voltage power lines nearby. We know it is a high electricity strike area; we also know if you put it on the farm next door there are issues with pollution, and that area is not flat. I looked at both of those areas a number of times; I met with architects, engineers, designers and, even though I argued the case that it should end up in that area, it simply was not going to work and that is the reason they had to look for another site.
The planned site is further away than the existing prison is from Knuckeys Lagoon residents, who also live in a rural environment; it is about the same distance Durack is from the existing prison. It has been sited as far as possible from residents, and that had limitations because that is where Defence wanted it. I believe it is a suitable area. It is on land presently used for gravel extraction, so it is land which has already been disturbed. I believe that is a suitable site. There may be other options later on for that land in the form of industry, or more subdivisions, or access to a regional waste facility, but that is yet to be decided.
I heard the minister talk earlier today about prisons and Corrections, but if we do not put more emphasis on early intervention and do not follow that up with programs to help prevent people reoffending, if we do not concentrate on employment, either in the prison or before people get to prison, and if we do not concentrate on jobs afterwards, we will continue to have recidivism.
We need to put more money into early intervention and what happens when prisoners are released from gaol.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016