2007-08-21
Madam Speaker Aagaard took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise you of the presence in the Speaker’s Gallery of the family and friends of the new member for Greatorex. In particular, I advise of the presence of the new member’s mother, Mrs Jennifer McCormick, his fiance, Miss Elara Bozich, and friend, Mr Neil Aitken. On behalf of all honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: I advise honourable members that on 9 July 2007 the resignation of the former member for Greatorex, Dr Richard Lim, was submitted to His Honour the Administrator via letter pursuant to section 18 of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978. I table the letter.
Madam SPEAKER: I advise honourable members that I have approved ABC television and Channel 9 to film with sound, NT News to take photographs and ABC radio to broadcast during the swearing-in of the new member for Greatorex.
The CLERK: Honourable members, I lay on the table a return to the writ issued by His Honour the Administrator, Mr Ted Egan AO, for the election of the member for the electoral Division of Greatorex on 28 July 2007, certifying the election of Mr Matthew Escott Conlan.
Matthew Escott Conlan made and subscribed the oaths required by law.
Madam SPEAKER: On behalf of all honourable members, I extend warm congratulations to the new member for Greatorex.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise you of the presence in the gallery of Grade 6/7 students from Holy Family Primary School accompanied by Ms Michelle Morris and Grade 5/6 students from Moulden Park Primary School accompanied by Trudy Bland. They are participating in the Parliament of the Wizards that is part of the Celebrating Democracy Week. Honourable members are welcome to watch the Parliament of the Wizards in the Chan Building from 1.20 pm to 1.45 pm. On behalf of all honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: I ask the media to leave the Chamber at this point.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I table the Administrative Arrangements Order dated 7 August 2007, setting out the administrative arrangements of government and portfolio arrangements.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, the ministry and ministerial officers are as follows:
Clare Majella Martin: Chief Minister; Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services; Minister for Asian Relations and Trade; Minister for the AustralAsia Railway; Minister for Indigenous Policy; and Minister for Major Projects;
Sydney James Stirling: Treasurer; Minister for Justice and Attorney-General; and Minister for Statehood;
Paul Raymond Henderson: Minister for Employment Education and Training; Minister for Tourism; Minister for Public Employment; and Minister for Multicultural Affairs;
Christopher Bruce Burns: Minister for Health; Minister for Racing Gaming Licensing; and Minister for Alcohol Policy;
Konstantine Vatskalis: Minister for Business and Economic Development; Minister for Regional Development; Minister for Defence Support; Minister for Sport and Recreation; and Minister for Essential Services;
Delia Phoebe Lawrie: Minister for Planning and Lands; Minister for Infrastructure and Transport; Minister for Natural Resources Environment and Heritage; and Minister for Parks and Wildlife;
Marion Rose Scrymgour: Minister for Family and Community Services; Minister for Child Protection; Minister for Arts and Museums; Minister for Women’s Policy; Minister for Senior Territorians; and Minister for Young Territorians;
Elliot Arthur McAdam: Minister for Local Government; Minister for Housing; Minister for Central Australia; Minister for Corporate and Information Services; Minister for Communications; and Minister Assisting the Chief Minister on Indigenous Policy; and
Christopher William Natt: Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries; and Minister for Mines and Energy.
On 7 August, I reshuffled Cabinet portfolios as I have indicated to place an even greater focus on cracking down on crime and antisocial behaviour. Tackling law and order issues is our top priority; even tougher laws and tougher enforcement will make our streets safe. We will continue to attack crime and its long-term causes and focus on child protection and family support.
The two most senior ministers now hold the two most important law and order and justice portfolios. I have responsibility for police and the Deputy Chief Minister is the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice.
Dr Burns will focus on overcoming the problems that substance abuse, particularly the abuse of alcohol, is causing our Territory. He is responsible for alcohol policy and the rolling out of alcohol management plans across the Territory. He is the Minister for Health, as well as holding the portfolio of Racing and Gaming.
Marion Scrymgour takes on the portfolio of Family and Community Services. She is also minister with special responsibility for child protection and retains the Arts and Museums portfolio.
Delia Lawrie has added the portfolios of Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage to her portfolios of Lands, Planning, Transport and Infrastructure.
Multicultural Affairs has been taken on by Paul Henderson who already has well-established and close relationships with multicultural communities across the Territory.
Madam Speaker, we have made significant strides in the fight against crime and antisocial behaviour including an extra 200 police, but more needs to be done.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader)(by leave): Madam Speaker, the shadow ministerial portfolio responsibilities of opposition members are as follows:
Jodeen Carney, member for Araluen: Attorney-General and Justice; Women’s Policy; AustralAsia Railway; Police, Fire and Emergency Services; Defence Support; Major Projects; Business and Economic Development; Essential Services; Corporate and Information Services; Family and Community Services; and Child Protection;
Terry Mills, member for Blain: Treasury; Employment, Education and Training; Racing, Gaming and Licensing; Alcohol Policy; Asian Relations and Trade; Young Territorians; Primary Industry and Fisheries; Indigenous Affairs; Multicultural Affairs; Statehood; Lands and Planning; and Communications;
Fay Miller, member for Katherine: Opposition Whip; Natural Resources and Heritage; Regional Development; Transport and Infrastructure; Senior Territorians; Mines and Energy; Arts and Museums; Housing; Parks and Wildlife; and Public Employment; and
Our newest member, the member for Greatorex, Matt Conlan, takes on: Health; Central Australia; Local Government, Sport and Recreation; and Tourism.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the member for Greatorex, Mr Conlan, be appointed to serve on the following parliamentary committees: Public Accounts Committee; Standing Orders Committee; and Environment and Sustainable Development Committee.
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received from His Honour the Administrator Message No 22 notifying assent to bills passed in the June sitting of the Assembly.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that leave of absence be granted to the member for Arnhem for this period of sitting owing to bereavement in the family.
Motion agreed to.
The CLERK: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 100A, I inform honourable members that a response to petition No 56 has been received and circulated to honourable members.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, today I update the House on the Territory’s skilled worker recruitment campaign. The skills shortage issue is a national phenomenon and one that is exacerbated in the Territory by the major infrastructure, construction and mineral projects we have seen in recent years.
We are addressing this critical issue through three key initiatives. First, we have invested heavily in education and training to give Territorians the skills and expertise they need to meet the demands of our new and expanding industries. We are on target to achieve 10 000 new apprentices and trainees over four years and we provide targeted incentives to employers, students and new and existing workers to train, retrain and upskill to meet the needs of the Territory’s growing economy. Right now, there are more Territorians registered in training than ever before.
We have also put in place the Overseas Business and Skilled Migration program which has seen many skilled professionals come to live and work in the Territory.
The third of these initiatives is our skilled worker recruitment campaign. The campaign carries a simple message: come to the Territory if you want to build a career and experience one of Australia’s best lifestyles. The campaign began a little over two years ago and, since that time, we have shared our story across Australia and New Zealand in newspapers, magazines and on radio and the Internet.
Our advertising in major metropolitan dailies such as the Herald Sun and in mass circulation lifestyle magazines like Women’s Day and New Idea, has taken the Territory into the minds of literally millions of people. Already, more than 7000 skilled trades people and professionals have expressed an interest in moving to the Territory with their families.
The skilled worker recruitment campaign was evaluated in March. The evaluation shows that most inquiries came from New South Wales and Victoria, and newspapers from these states, both regional and metropolitan, gave us the best value for money. There was a fairly even spread of callers between the city and the country and, given that far fewer people live in regional areas, it shows that it is country people who have the highest level of interest in the Territory at the moment.
Industry, obviously, has a vested interest in the success of this campaign so it is crucial that we work with the private sector to make the best use of our growing database of potential Territorians. The challenge for us is to turn curiosity and interest into job applicants, and we are working hard to achieve this. Following consultations with recruitment agencies, business associations and unions, campaign inquiries are now channelled to private sector recruitment firms, and there is a greater exchange of information between my department and the stakeholders to better match potential employees with interested employers.
It is difficult to estimate how many of the thousands of people who have made the Territory their home over the past year did so as a direct result of the campaign. People move for many reasons, but we expect our closer links with recruitment agencies to give us a clearer idea of the campaign’s effectiveness.
On 24 July, I launched the next phase of the skilled worker recruitment campaign with a major interstate advertising focus. The campaign has a new creative approach using a ‘Dear mum’ theme. This has recent arrivals to the Territory writing or calling back home to report on their great new lifestyle and the opportunities they have found here.
We know from the evaluation that this sort of personal touch works best and that is why we have also expanded the program of information evenings in southern cities this year. Starting next month, these sessions will allow interested skilled workers to chat with a Territorian face-to-face to have their questions answered. All inquiries from the campaign are passed to recruitment agencies which have been asked to report to government on a monthly basis to track the campaign’s success.
The campaign coincided with the start of the southern winter and focuses on our key selling points: a unique, warm and friendly lifestyle and our thriving economy where you can get a job and fast-track a career. It is a message that is resonating with more and more Australians and I will be very pleased to keep the House updated on the campaign as it progresses.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, so many things work in cycles. There was a time when there were not that many opportunities in the Territory because of economic downturn. Now, there has been an upswing in the economy and the Territory is booming as a result, largely, of the resources boom. Each of these scenarios presents different challenges. Here is a challenge for government to capitalise on. It is good to hear the plans that have been outlined. I have to acknowledge, though, that in coming to office in their first term, this government spoke of a jobs plan which they, in fact, did not have until half-way through the first term. That was an opportunity lost. However, not to spend too much time on that, I believe the issue …
Mr Stirling: No, the CLP did not spend any time on it.
Mr MILLS: The issue presenting us with a very real challenge in the Territory is the opportunity for those who move to the Territory to buy a piece of the Territory; to own a home. There are so many young tradesmen who come to the Territory who will work together, to put together their rent so that they can rent a place in town and, once things change in the Territory, as things happen of a cyclical nature, they will most likely go back to dear mum in wherever they have come from.
However, on the other side of it, if the vast resources of land in the Territory were unlocked and released, these young people would come and they would invest in a house and land. They would raise their families here and that would change the face of the Northern Territory. I urge government to release that land, to unblock those blockages that are impeding the release of land in the Northern Territory. It is just ludicrous to look out the window of an aeroplane, and to have the idea in your head that there is a land shortage in the Northern Territory. There is no such thing and government is in the driver’s seat to be able to release the land ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Blain, your time has expired.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for her report. I support the member for Blain’s concerns that it is all very well to get people to come to the Territory, but can they afford to live here? I have this document published by the Property Council of Australia, Residential Development, which contains some very interesting figures. It looks at an electrician and shop assistant working together, with their combined annual gross income of household ranging from about $40 000 to mid-$50 000 and, in Darwin, they cannot afford a house or a unit. They cannot afford to rent a house or unit.
Mr Henderson: An electrician in the Territory would be earning a lot more than $40 000 per year.
Mr WOOD: Well, that is the information.
Mr Henderson: Electricians in the Territory would have …
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr WOOD: Okay, here is a document published by the Property Council of Australia, which has spent quite a bit of money investing in a report on the affordability of housing throughout Australia. Darwin is included, thank heavens, and …
Mr Stirling: You find an electrician working for $40 000 a year.
Mr WOOD: … unfortunately, the government might jump up and down all it likes, but the reality is, even if this is not 100% accurate, many people cannot afford to even buy a unit today …
Mr Henderson: You find even one electrician …
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WOOD: You have the opportunity to do something about it. You have land which you could release at a much cheaper price for people who are buying their homes for the first time, yet all you are worried about is the market. There is land available in the Northern Territory that you, as a government, own ...
Mr Warren: The developers develop it. You know what the reality is, member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD: Where there is a will, there is a way. Unfortunately, the member for Goyder would not have the foggiest - I am sorry; he would not know what he is talking about.
Mr Warren: I have a very clear picture of what is going on …
Mr WOOD: He is not concerned about young families being able to live and develop in the Northern Territory without having a mortgage which will hang over them for the rest of their lives or have to rely on living with mum and dad because they simply cannot get into the market.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, the member for Nelson can wave documentation around and say this is the situation. It is wrong. It is wrong.
Mr Wood: It is not wrong. The Northern Territory News wrote an article the other day about it.
Ms MARTIN: Darwin has the second most affordable housing of any capital city in Australia. We are determined to keep it that way. Listening to the response to this very targeted marketing campaign from the member for Blain, who said that we were remiss in having a Jobs Plan - the CLP in 27 years of government did not have one Jobs Plan. No, not even one …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms MARTIN: As to the passing reference to the economy somehow picking up by itself, we had an economy on its knees when we came to government. There was no growth, no money in forward estimates even for repairs on our roads …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms MARTIN: Absolutely dead and no money! We have turned that around strategically. Businesses with less than 100 employees pay the least tax of any businesses in Australia. We support this economic growth; we have been a key part of that.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order! Honourable members, before I call the minister, I remind you of Standing Order 51. I know we have not met for a while, but I remind you of Standing Order 51 …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: All honourable members …
Mr Wood interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, I would particularly like you to listen to this:
Seniors Month
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Senior Territorians): Madam Speaker, this government sees ageing as a positive stage in our lives. Government continues to support activities that promote active ageing and give senior Territorians a chance to demonstrate how rich and full life can be. Seniors Month is just one of these types of activities.
We are in the middle of another very successful Seniors Month. Setting aside the month of August each year ensures that we, as a community, celebrate and reflect on the contribution older people make to the Territory and to Australian society. Seniors Month has grown over the years to become the largest celebration of senior Territorians. It has become an initiative that seniors look forward to because it is all about them.
This year, I launched Seniors Month on Tuesday, 31 July, at Timeout gym following an exercise class designed especially for older people. This class has become a permanent feature of the gym’s program following ‘come and try’ sessions supported by Senior Months grants, and reflect this government’s commitment to support active ageing.
The Small Grants program introduced by government in 2003 to support activities has put Seniors Month firmly on the map. This year, 42 community groups across the Territory including organisations in Pine Creek, Katherine, Tennant Creek, Alice Springs and the Darwin rural area received funding. This year’s grants supported events to encourage seniors to take part in any activity they enjoy or to try something new.
Over 100 events are being held in all parts of the Territory. This year’s program provides something for everyone: Tai Chi, dinner dance, craft classes, movies, poetry, learning to swim, overnight camping, playing golf and bowls, and even absailing and rock climbing are on offer for seniors to enjoy. The Territory Wildlife Park and Alice Springs Desert Park offered free entry to seniors on Wednesday, 15 August and half-price entry for all seniors every other Wednesday.
I had the pleasure of meeting with members from the Katherine Seniors Association with the member for Katherine on Monday, 13 August in Katherine, a fantastic group of locals who recently enjoyed a cruise on the Katherine Gorge followed by lunch.
A bigger and better Seniors Month calendar proudly sponsored by TIO listed all events and special offers available during Seniors Month. All Seniors Card holders, almost 10 000 households, received the calendar. There is a range of special offers and discounts from local businesses on offer, as well as a diverse range of events and activities. I take this opportunity to thank the business community for supporting senior Territorians. I am pleased to say that this section of the calendar continues to grow.
As part of Seniors Month, I invited some of our senior Territorians to Parliament House to meet the Chief Minister and other members of parliament. About 250 guests came for morning tea and a lively social occasion. The guests also heard about the Chief Minister’s delegation to Victoria in September to examine various accommodation options for older people, including retirement villages. This government is committed to encouraging Territorians to stay in the Territory when they retire.
To help people prepare for this transition in their life, I am pleased to inform you of a continuing initiative developed by the Office of Senior Territorians and the Territory’s key community group on ageing issues, the Council on the Ageing. The office and COTA developed a retirement planning workshop with the assistance of local businesses and organisations. The workshop covers most of the issues people need to be thinking about when planning for retirement, not just the usual financial planning.
Over 80 people have already attended these workshops in both Darwin and Alice Springs, and the feedback has been excellent. I am pleased to announce that the workshops will continue to be held on a regular basis, and the next one is tomorrow night at the Casuarina Public Library.
Madam Speaker, in closing, I thank everyone involved with Seniors Month. I encourage everyone in this House to join in the few remaining activities in Seniors Month for this year and to start planning for an amazing Seniors Month 2008.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for her report. There is no doubt that August is a pretty special time for seniors, when they are acknowledged for the work that they have done in the community, and also given some support for activities to be carried out in their community.
Some of the seniors I was associated with in Katherine during this month, so far, were not well enough to be able to take part in a lot of the activities. However, I was absolutely chuffed to go to their damper and beef morning tea at the Low Level to find quite a few of them, and there were two there who were 88, walking down to the river from the higher part of the Low Level because they have been encouraged to have some physical activity. That was the best they could do and it was a really good effort on their part.
I thank the minister for meeting with the seniors in Katherine. When the minister comes to Katherine she always makes the seniors feel very welcome and heard, and that is extremely important.
We talked during that time about retirement villages. It is an issue which is very important for seniors in the Northern Territory, especially in the regional areas. They do not want to leave but there are no affordable homes for them. My mum lives in a retirement village run by Masonic Homes in South Australia and it works very effectively and is affordable. It is really important to ensure that we can provide accommodation in the Northern Territory so that they will stay here. However, it has to be affordable.
By the way, I believe there were two seniors in Katherine who went for the abseiling. When I saw it on the list, I thought: ‘I do not think anyone is going to take this up’, but two very active seniors said they were looking forward to it. I thank the minister for her report.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Speaker, as the most senior member of the parliament I am very pleased with the minister’s report. I hope you continue to support seniors. We had a fantastic night on Saturday night. It was our seniors’ dinner dance, which we have held for a number of years now, and over 200 seniors attended. I thank the Convention Centre in Alice Springs, which did a fantastic job. They do not charge us for that venue. The combined Rotary Clubs of Alice Springs assisted financially with the event. Every year, we offer our seniors a three-course meal, plus entertainment, plus old time dancing.
The eldest senior was Bruno Simonetto who turns 93 next year. The fact that he came and sat with a group of friends to enjoy an evening indicates the popularity of this event. It is fantastic. Remember last year when we had those wonderful seniors who did the Can Can? What did we have this year as our entertainment plus? You have heard of the Choir of Hard Knocks; we had the Choir of Old Crocks and they went down very well. They were great. They sang a wonderful song. It was Julie Andrews’ My Favourite Things. However, their interpretation of favourite things was slightly different from the original. I will let members have a copy of the lyrics.
Peg Nelson, whom many will know, turned 93 and went for a helicopter ride. How fantastic is that? It is great that our seniors are so active that they do things they have always wanted to. I am really pleased to know that people like Bruno and Peg continue to be active.
I am not going to have time to comment on retirement villages, but we need a retirement village for self-funded retirees. I know the minister has public housing on the agenda for those seniors who live in public housing, which is great. However, you really need to concentrate on keeping our people here by helping self-funded retirees ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, your time has expired.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Senior Territorians): Just quickly, Madam Speaker, yes, retirement villages for private retirees is certainly an issue and something our government is working on. Member for Braitling, you might be senior in age, but you are young at heart. That is what I keep saying to many seniors, Madam Speaker …
Mr Stirling: Isn’t she sweet?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: For many of our seniors, it is a fantastic month, Madam Speaker. It is always great to get amongst the seniors because we often forget their wisdom and their wicked sense of humour. You could sit with many other groups and you would not derive the wisdom or the wicked sense of humour that many of our seniors have. It is a month that I thoroughly enjoy.
Member for Katherine, it would be good to know whether the seniors in Katherine have found a bus driver for their bus.
Mrs Miller: Not yet.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I am looking forward for some of that feedback.
Mr McADAM (Corporate and Information Services): Madam Speaker, I rise to celebrate a remarkable achievement by the Northern Territory Library, which has today been announced as winner of the annual Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Access to Learning Award.
This award recognises innovation in organisations outside the United States in providing access to computers and the Internet. The Gates Foundation seeks to ensure that all people, especially those with the fewest resources, have the opportunity to succeed in school and life. The NT Library’s main responsibilities are to collect, preserve and make accessible the Territory’s documentary heritage and to provide public library services.
Indigenous people have an oral tradition of sharing knowledge and culture; however, very little of this knowledge is captured in the published material usually associated with public libraries. NT Libraries recognised this need and, in 2004, developed the Libraries and Knowledge Centres program to preserve indigenous and cultural heritage.
Mary Elizabeth Moreen from the Mungatopi clan expressed the urgency of this work when she said: ‘You must do this for us. All our old people are dying and then their knowledge is lost forever’. The Library’s Knowledge Centre model incorporates many components of a library, together with a database of indigenous knowledge, historical and cultural material. In communities, a library is often the only public space where people can come to read, find information, access computers, or use the Internet. It is a place where community members interact and provides assistance to those with limited information and communication technology skills.
Community Library Officers employed by councils provide the services with financial assistance and professional support from NT Libraries. Technology is a key component of the libraries’ knowledge model and offers access for online banking, project research, reading news or just checking AFL scores. In addition, each Library Knowledge Centre has its own Our Story database which enables a community to establish a unique digital collection of local knowledge and history. Our Story uses the Ara Irititja software development for communities in Central Australia to store and display photographs, sound recordings, videos and films which can all be viewed through one interface.
It allows restricted access to individual items to cater for cultural sensitivities. The program is unique in that it encourages the development of literacy and IT skills through the interaction of local content and technology.
In all cases, the community owns the content with data stored according to rules set by the community leaders. Elders recognise that young people are interested in working with computers and multimedia, and this is an effective way of undertaking important inter-generational work in keeping culture strong. The Library Knowledge Centres program is leading Australia in the provision of library services to remote indigenous communities. Our Story allows the enrichment of local material through recorded stories, songs and associated information.
Many elderly people are now too ill to make the journey back to their land, so linguists work with elders using photographs from Our Story to name plants and animals found on traditional lands. The information captured on film and audio is matched with the database images so future generations will hear the language and see the visual information.
The most important thing that came out of this very prestigious award is the fact that the NT Library will be the recipient of some $1m to support and develop three key areas: community capacity building; preservation of culture; and early years of literacy.
I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Gates Foundation for its outstanding work throughout the world. It is a very proud achievement for all those associated with NT Libraries being able to secure this very prestigious award. In particular, I thank staff from the NT Library who have worked for a long time on this, and particularly my predecessor, Mr Jack Ah Kit.
I also thank Jo McGill, Cate Richmond, Gibby Maynard and Jay Gibson who played a very important role in developing this very important program across the Northern Territory. I also take this opportunity to thank all the indigenous people in the communities who have contributed so much to make this project work well. It is a real example of communities working together with government and, indeed, the private sector, to get optimum outputs. It also showcases what is possible for communities using computers and the Internet.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, this is a most prestigious award of $1m to the Northern Territory Library. They are going to use the money very constructively to enhance the existing program and I thank everyone involved ...
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable Members, I draw your attention to the presence in the public galleries of staff from the Northern Territory Library. On behalf of all honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, even though my new colleague, the member for Greatorex, is the shadow minister for Local Government, his maiden speech will occur today. I understand that if he speaks in a ministerial report, it will be deemed to be his maiden speech. As important as this ministerial report is, we feel it appropriate that until the member for Greatorex delivers his maiden speech, I speak in his place.
Thank you, minister, for making this a ministerial report. It is important to do so. It is no mean feat to attract the attention of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which is an achievement in itself. To be the recipient of a $1m award is, indeed, a truly wonderful achievement.
We are all aware of the great work that libraries throughout the Territory do but, in particular, what the Northern Territory Library does for all Territorians and, of course, us as parliamentarians. We are very well served in the Northern Territory and in this place by the Northern Territory Library. If ever there was a ringing endorsement as to how wonderful the library service is, then this is it. It probably will not get much better than this, so savour the moment.
As the minister did, I extend my congratulations to Jo McGill and all of her hard-working staff. I know that we do not talk about libraries very much in this place; we probably should. Many of us take the wonderful service for granted to a large extent. However, never forget our appreciation and the appreciation of all Territorians, and congratulations on this well deserved award.
Mr McADAM (Corporate and Information Services): Madam Speaker, I am aware that the new member for Greatorex, the opposition spokesman, cannot speak in respect of this matter for obvious reasons. However, I am sure he would share in this great occasion, because it is very important in the context of Northern Territory libraries being able to receive the recognition they so richly deserve.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I pay tribute to all those present in the galleries from Northern Territory libraries. Thank you very much for your outstanding contribution to Northern Territory Library and libraries throughout the NT. It is an award of which you can all be very proud. We look forward to Library Knowledge Centres, given the dollars, expanding across the Northern Territory because, indeed, it is a very innovative program. I thank you so much for your outstanding work.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr NATT (Mines and Energy): Madam Speaker, I wish to report on the current situation at Mt Todd. The Northern Territory government took responsibility for the day-to-day water management of the Mt Todd mine site in mid-2001 following the collapse of General Gold in 2000.
Since 2001, my department has been managing the site’s water balance to ensure there is minimal impact on the environment. Owing to the unprecedented public interest in the management and environmental impacts of this site, the Mt Todd Reference Group has been formed. It consists of key stakeholders from the community such as the Jawoyn Association, Amateur Fishermen’s Association of the Northern Territory, the Environment Centre of the Northern Territory, Charles Darwin University, the Northern Territory Minerals Council, Pine Creek Town Council, Katherine Town Council, Vista Gold Pty Ltd and the Commonwealth’s Supervising Scientist Division. The group also includes members from the Department of Natural Resources, Environment and the Arts, and my Departments of Primary Industry and Fisheries, and Mines and Energy.
In April 2005, the former Department of Business, Industry and Resources Development commissioned a consultant, Miss Corrine Unger, to develop the terms of reference for a report to determine the studies and management activities required for the rehabilitation planning of the Mt Todd mine site. The report included a risk assessment which identified immediate risks. These were addressed by a $5m priority works program in 2005 which focused on managing the large volumes of water around the site. It included a cleanup and reshape of the heapleach pad, costing $2.5m; a new pumping station and syphoning system costing $2m; improved site security with the installation of fencing, gates and caretaker residence, costing over $250 000; new pumping systems and lines installed around the site; direct power supplied to pumps; and other repairs and maintenance on the site.
Vista Gold, under the conditions of the Vista Gold Agreement, took over management of the site in January 2007. The agreement sees Vista Gold operating Mt Todd until 2010. Under this agreement, the company is able to undertake activities to assess the mineral potential of the area. If, at any time, Vista Gold decides to commence mining operations, it will take over the liability for all rehabilitation at the site. This will require the company to undertake pre-closure studies to ensure the effective final closure of the site.
At present, it is not possible to predict if Vista Gold will mine at Mt Todd. However, unless the company proposes to mine the site, its obligations only extend to managing the current hazards, and not to addressing the long-term rehabilitation issues of the quarantining of those hazards.
I am pleased to report that the Northern Territory government has, this year, provided funding of $630 000 towards the development of the blueprint rehabilitation strategy for the Mt Todd Mine site to facilitate rehabilitation planning should Vista Gold not proceed with mining. The tender process for this work was initiated by my department in late July. All this effort is aimed at returning the Mt Todd site to a safe and stable condition whilst minimising the risk to humans and the environment.
The scope of work includes: reviewing the Unger report and other relevant reports; identification of knowledge gaps and opportunities; updating risk assessment of the site based on changing site conditions, costs, stakeholder perceptions, and the relevant technical information and advances; preliminary scopes of work and indicative costings to address the knowledge gaps identified in order of risk; and present options for final rehabilitation.
You may be assured that if Vista Gold decides to commence mining and, thereby, assumes environmental liability for the site, all the results of the current studies will be transferred to Vista Gold for its planning for the mine site closure and rehabilitation.
As you can clearly see, my department is taking firm action to ensure that mistakes of the past are responsibly managed and that the best possible environmental outcomes are achieved for Mt Todd.
Madam SPEAKER: The overall time for ministerial reports has expired.
Reports noted pursuant to standing orders.
Continued from 18 April 2007.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I have a number of comments to make in relation to this bill. I have spent a fair degree of time on it, as is evidenced by one of the folders I have with me. From the outset, I thank the Attorney-General for making some amendments a couple of months ago. I also thank him and one of his members of staff for providing, as requested, a copy of the amendments late last week. Thank you for that.
There were some matters that were the subject of the amendments which I wanted to raise, but some of the difficulties I highlighted have been remedied by the amendments. Having said that, however, there are some other issues affecting this bill. In the present climate, it is important that we get it right, as we should in any climate. I feel reasonably certain that some of the issues I raise will not come as a surprise, or they should not, to the Attorney-General and his staff. I propose to make comments and then ask some questions on the way through. I indicate at this stage that I am disinclined to go into the committee stage on the basis that I am hopeful that the Attorney-General can respond to the questions I ask. I indicate, as a matter of courtesy, however, that if those questions are not answered in a way I think they should be, then I am likely to go to the committee stage. I will now go through the bill.
This point might be considered relatively minor, but I raise it in any event: the name of the bill. It is the Evidence of Children Bill, but clause 10 contains new sections 21B, 21C, 21E and 21F which deal with vulnerable witnesses, not all of whom are children. It is clearly the intention that these provisions be extended to vulnerable witnesses and not just children, so the title is, with respect, a little curious and some might say misleading. In any event, I ask that the Attorney-General advise in his reply why it is that the name of the bill is what it is.
Second, in relation to clause 9 there is a proposed amendment of section 21A of the Evidence Act. There are a couple of points to make in relation to the amendment, in particular the word ‘examination’. A definition is provided. It reads:
My question is a very obvious one: why does the definition not include evidence-in-chief? Why was that excluded? Is there a reason for it? Might the Attorney-General not consider that evidence-in-chief, given that cross-examination and re-examination are included, be included in that definition for the sake of completeness and good drafting?
I note also that one of the amendments includes the definition of a ‘recorded statement’. One of the amendments provided sought to, and does, overcome one of the concerns I had in relation to the definition of ‘audio visual record’ because it includes now a ‘recorded statement’. I am pleased to see that amendment, however it seems odd that the Evidence Act and the Justices Act use different expressions. The Justices Act uses the expression ‘recorded statement’ which, in turn, includes:
I wonder why one common definition was not used in this bill so it is consistent with other legislation dealing with the same issue.
I now turn to clause 10 about which I have a number of points to make. There was an additional amendment provided last week, but there remain other difficulties. In relation to proposed new section 21B(1), there appears to be a typo. The section reads:
Should it perhaps read:
In other words, the word ‘to’ seems to be missing from the copy of the bill that I was provided with. In relation to the heading of the proposed new section 21B, which is:
It deals with what powers the court may exercise when a vulnerable witness is giving evidence. My question, however, is: is this section intended to apply to all vulnerable witnesses or only those who are witnesses in cases of sexual or serious violence offences? I ask because the Attorney-General should know, and I assume he does, that under the existing provisions of section 21A of the Evidence Act, the definition of vulnerable witnesses is broader. These are, as I am sure he knows, commonly referred to as the vulnerable witness provisions in section 21A of the Evidence Act. It provides that a vulnerable witness is a witness who is a child, a witness who suffers from an intellectual disability, a witness who is the alleged victim of a sexual offence and any other witness who, in the opinion of the court, is under a special disability because of the circumstances of the case or the circumstances of the witness.
Is the new section 21B to apply to all vulnerable witnesses, as you would expect pursuant to section 21A of the existing Evidence Act, or is it only intended to apply to those witnesses who are vulnerable and in relation to sexual offences or other serious violence offences? If that is the case, why and what was the intention underlying this change?
Proposed new section 21B(3), reads:
This is my next point, which I raise because I am somewhat concerned. I am not losing sleep over it, but maybe someone will eventually. I am somewhat concerned because of the use of the words ‘accede’ and ‘good reason’. One does not usually find the word ‘accede’ in legislation when dealing with what a court can and cannot do, so it is an interesting inclusion. However, I am reasonably certain that I have never seen the words ‘good reason’ in legislation like this before.
It is a long time since I have read Pearce on statutory interpretation, but I have had a bit to do with legislation over the last 20 years. I am hard pressed to find ‘good reason’ quoted in any other legislation. Why has that phrase been included in this bill? What might ‘good reason’ be and why has it been expressed in this way? Might this lead to confusion, or at least an appeal, in relation to confusion and differences over what a ‘good reason’ is or is not? It is possible that it will require judicial clarification that should not, in my view, be necessary as government has responsibility to ensure that legislation it presents to parliament is clear and unequivocal.
I turn to another subparagraph of proposed section 21B. It raises, in my view, a number of questions. It is curious that the very legislation which seeks to protect children and other vulnerable witnesses from giving evidence in front of a jury by prerecording their evidence requires that such a child or other vulnerable witnesses’ demeanour and words spoken or sounds made during the replay of a recorded statement are not to be observed unless the vulnerable witness elects to be present in the courtroom for that part of the proceeding. What, in fact, should occur is that the vulnerable witness should watch the interview, if they want to, from the CCTV room. It is odd that we legislate on the one hand to protect vulnerable witnesses, but then say that the witness can be present at court so that the jury can watch his or her behaviour. That seems to defeat the purpose of the child not being in court. Why was this included and what was the rationale for it?
I now turn to proposed new section 21C, which is part of clause 10 of the bill. When I initially looked at this many months ago, I thought this was strange and surely must be a mistake. Having reviewed the matter last night, I am still of that view. Section 21C(1)(b) provides that:
This is at odds with the existing section 21A of the Evidence Act known, and I repeat, as the vulnerable witness provisions. It states that a vulnerable witness is entitled, and I stress ‘entitled’, to give evidence using one or more of the following arrangements as chosen by the witness, and I emphasise ‘as chosen by the witness’. Section 21A of the Evidence Act then lists a number of matters and says that the vulnerable witness can be accompanied by:
(i) a relative;
It seems, under these changes now before us, that the government seeks to take away the vulnerable witnesses’ rights and say the court will determine who is to be present. There is a difference. Under section 21A of the Evidence Act, it is the vulnerable witness who is entitled and who chooses yet, under this bill, the change is ‘the court will determine’. Why, oh why, oh why? What is the reasoning behind this? I understood that the system worked well. However, for seemingly no apparent reason, and I could find nothing in the Attorney-General’s second reading speech in support of this change, the government seeks to change it. I ask the Attorney-General to explain why he has now, under this bill, limited the right of a vulnerable witness to decide who he or she can have to sit with them when they are giving their evidence.
The same provision is repeated in proposed section 21C(2)(d) in respect of a special sitting, so there cannot be any doubt about the government’s intention to take away the rights of a vulnerable witness. They had them, they were appropriate. Long ago I said that they should be wider under section 21A of the Evidence Act. As they presently stand, vulnerable witnesses have certain rights and can make certain decisions. Under this change, government seeks to take it away and to limit it. Why, in the absence of any good reason that I know of and that the Attorney-General has stated, is this being limited?
I turn now to proposed new section 21C(2) of this bill. I note that it has not been amended as part of the new amendments I received last week. It states:
We have debated it in this parliament and it is debated by lawyers around the traps, but I understood that the whole purpose of a special sitting in this context was that it occurs before a jury is empanelled in any event. I ask, quite reasonably I think: why is this amendment included? If there is a good reason for it, can you tell us what it is because I and others are scratching our heads?
The same sorts of questions arise in relation to the new section 21C(2)(c) of the bill in relation to the defendant not being present in the same room as the witness, but it says if he or she does not want to be, other arrangements can be made. Why would a defendant not want to be present when the witness is giving evidence? I am not sure that I know of any who have not wanted to be present when the witness is giving their evidence. Why, when arrangements are made for vulnerable witnesses to be elsewhere, in a CCTV room, would a government legislate for a defendant to be somewhere else as well? There seems to be a certain illogic in the government’s proposed bill or this particular section. I ask, not unreasonably: what the rationale is behind that change? Have representations been received from the DPP specifically on this matter and, if so, what were they? I invite the Attorney-General to ask whether the DPP is happy with the new amendments in relation to the Evidence of Children Amendment Bill now before us.
I am pleased to see that the government has proposed new amendments to the initial change to section 21C(3), so I do not need to deal with the problems arising from the bill it introduced some months ago. I know people behind the scenes have been working on it, and thank them for their efforts in that regard.
I now turn to clause 12 of the bill. It proposes new sections 21E and 21F. First, dealing with section 21E, I will deal with subsection 21E(1). It provides that if the equipment is available and the judge wants video evidence, he or she can order it, overriding the wishes of the victim and the intent of the legislation, and the express wishes of a particular witness. They are only the witnesses for whom an audiovisual record of their evidence exists. Put simply, under this proposal, the court may direct that an audiovisual record be made.
This, again, is at odds with the special measures for vulnerable witnesses contained in section 21A of the Evidence Act known as the vulnerable witness provisions. Section 21A of the Evidence Act provides for a vulnerable witness to choose how they give their evidence. Here, however, under the government’s new proposal, that seems to change. I do not see any reason why the government believes this is necessary. I cannot begin to imagine that government just decides to legislate without sensible reasons for doing so. I ask that the Attorney-General explain why it is that the overriding of the wishes of the victim, in light of the very clearly expressed provisions in section 21A of the Evidence Act, has been deemed necessary?
In relation to the proposed new section 21E(2), my view is that it is inconsistent or, at very least, raises questions because the new provision states:
This seems at odds with the intention and the existing special purpose measures in section 21A of the Evidence Act. In other words, the effect of this change very much seems to be ‘we have these special measures for you, but we will legislate so a court can take them away from you’. I just do not understand why this has been proposed, and I am still searching for a reason. It does not make sense. I would be very grateful if the Attorney-General would explain this. Why do you give people rights on the one hand and take them away or narrow them or limit them on the other?
I now turn to section 21E(4). There is, in my view, a curious reference to ‘later civil or criminal proceedings’. I have a couple of questions in relation to that sentence. What later criminal or civil proceedings? Second, why include civil proceedings? For example, if an offender gets off on an appeal and a woman rape victim has a claim in the civil jurisdiction, her lawyer, presumably, can apply for the pre-recorded evidence to be played at the civil trial. Is that reasonable? Only vulnerable witnesses have their evidence available in this way to be used, according to the new provision, again and again and again. Was that ever intended in relation to the pre-recording of evidence of vulnerable witnesses? No, it was not, judging by parliamentary debates. If something has changed, what and why, and who has suggested it?
It follows that if a child pre-records evidence, it is doing so for the purpose of a prosecution. Does the expression ‘later criminal or civil proceedings’ contemplate an appeal or a retrial? That is not outlined in the provision. Some would say it probably should be. In any event, the central question is: what was the reason for this change?
I now move to proposed new section 21F, of which I have several points to make and questions to ask. Section 21F(1) provides that:
Why is this included when section 21A(2) of the Evidence Act states that a vulnerable witness is entitled to give evidence using one or more of the following arrangements as chosen by the witness? A range of measures are outlined in that section. The section goes on to say that for the purposes of providing the vulnerable witness with emotional support, and I refer here to section 21A(2)(d), the court be closed while evidence is being given by the vulnerable witness.
My point is that there appears to be a narrowing of the language under these proposed changes. Under the changes, the court can be closed in proceedings involving a sexual offence or a serious violence offence yet, under the existing provisions, namely section 21A of the Evidence Act, the court can be closed when any vulnerable witness is giving his or her evidence, regardless of whether it is a sexual offence or some other serious violence offence. I once again refer the Attorney-General to the existing provisions in section 21A of the Evidence Act:
(b) a witness who suffers from a intellectual disability;
(c) a witness who is the alleged victim of a sexual offence to which the proceedings relate; or
That is a reasonably broad definition. It is not limited in any way to sexual offences or to serious violence offences. The court and the vulnerable witnesses have flexibility. Under this change, however, as I said, there is a narrowing. The provision only seems to apply to those vulnerable witnesses who are involved in a sexual offence or some other serious violence offence.
Clearly, a vulnerable witness can be a child or a person with an intellectual disability, as anyone who is a victim of a sexual offence can be. However, I am concerned about the reasonably broad definitions of vulnerable witnesses in proposed section 21A and the narrowing in respect of proposed section 21F(1) of the bill. I ask the Attorney-General to explain why there is a narrowing of this language. I can only assume that it was intentional. If it is intentional, then it may, down the track, create difficulties for lawyers working in this area as well as the courts because they will have what some would say will be two quite competing or conflicting definitions of vulnerable witnesses. Some vulnerable witnesses will have some rights; other vulnerable witnesses, namely those involved in sexual offences or other serious violence offences, will have other rights. I do not believe that is reasonable. What was the rationale for introducing this change? Have you heard from the Witness Assistance Service either in Alice Springs or Darwin? Has the DPP urged you to make these changes? If so, would you be good enough to outline the reason for these changes?
My next point is, in the circumstances, a relatively minor one. It involves the word ‘case’. Proposed new section 21F(1) provides that the court is to be closed in a case , and I emphasise ‘case’, involving a charge of a sexual offence or a serious violence offence while the evidence of a vulnerable witness is being taken. This appears to be a new word in the context of this and other legislation to which it relates. Other legislation includes the Evidence Act, probably the Justices Act and the Sexual Offences (Evidence and Procedure) Act. They are all pretty much under this umbrella. They do not use the word ‘case’; they use the word ‘trial’ or ‘proceeding’. In fact, the word in section 21A of the Evidence Act is ‘proceeding’. Does the word ‘case’ mean something different? If it does not mean something different from a trial or a proceeding, can the Attorney-General tell me why it is that the word ‘case’ is used?
Mr Stirling: What part?
Ms CARNEY: Section 21F(1). Perhaps more importantly, why is consistent wording not used? We would all accept that, in legislation that comes before us, there should be consistency (a) where possible, and (b) pretty much across the board. We have several items of legislation dealing with prosecutions, witnesses, vulnerable witnesses and other instances, yet different words are used. I would like to think that the Attorney-General agrees with me that it is preferable to have consistent wording across the board.
The difficulty is that you will have two items of legislation working together, I suppose. The Evidence of Children Amendment Bill refers to a ‘case’ and the Evidence Act does not. It might be a long shot; it might be unlikely that judicial clarification will need to occur down the track. However, we all have the responsibility to ensure where possible that a consistency of wording and drafting is appropriate, particularly when all of this is pretty much chunked together for prosectors, defence lawyers, judges and magistrates who are going to deal with these every day.
Having expressed my very clear view that I do not believe it is desirable, and I hasten to suggest that lawyers working in the area would share it, I wonder why it is that the government has seen fit to not subscribe to consistency of drafting in this area.
That is pretty much it, Madam Speaker. I do support the bill. However, the Attorney-General knows me well enough to know that, for legislation that comes before us, I take my job as a participant in the legislative process very seriously, so I raised those concerns. It may well be that there are a sensible series of explanations in relation to my points. I am sure that none of them come as a surprise, and I look forward to hearing from the Attorney-General.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, my submission in relation to this Evidence of Children Amendment Bill refers to one specific section which, if we are not going into committee stage, I would like to have dealt with now.
It relates to the amendments the definition of sexual offence in Part 4, section 15. I gather this section was originally changed so that the definition of ‘sexual offence’ could be found in this bill without having to go to other various acts. In the new amendments, there was a change which reads to the effect that ‘sexual offence’ means ‘an indictable offence’. If you go to the amendment in clause 15, paragraph (e) includes any ‘other indecent act’ directed against a person or committed in the presence of a child.
There is no definition of ‘indecent act’. There might be fairly simple answer but, for the record, I would like it cleared up. The query has already been put to the department in a previous discussion before this bill was presented today. For instance, if there is a husband and wife or a couple having sexual intercourse in their house and a young child walks in and sees that occurring, or it could be in a crowded house where it was very difficult for that act to occur privately, is that regarded, even though I do not regard it as such, as an indecent act? I am not saying it is; I just want to know if it could be the case that, under that definition, someone could be committing an offence, in theory, even though they were involved in sexual intercourse as husband and wife or as partners, and were not intending to do anything unlawful?
I would like that clarified. My own judgment is that, naturally, it is not an indecent act, therefore, this would not be the case. However, as you do not have a definition of ‘indecent act’, it would be good to clarify it so there was not any grey area when it came to, for instance, a court action of some sort.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Child Protection): Madam Speaker, I am proud to support this bill and thank the Attorney-General for presenting it and the amendments.
The amendments will reduce the trauma experienced by children and other vulnerable witnesses to improve the quality of their evidence. This bill reminds us that, while it is essential that we apprehend, prosecute and convict people who harm children, we must strive to do it in a way that does no further harm to the child. We must find ways to allow a child’s evidence to be told in the court in a safe and supportive way. We know that the trauma children experience can have a lasting effect and that we must reduce that trauma as much as possible.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this bill so soon after the release of the Little Children are Sacred report. The report’s authors acknowledged that this bill was before the parliament. In recommendation 30, they suggested that following 12 months’ operation of this bill, a review of the changes be conducted. In response to the report by the Chief Minister on Monday, this recommendation has been accepted.
This illustrates the point that our response to child abuse must be comprehensive and wide-ranging. It is not just about my own portfolio of Child Protection. In everything government does, we need to be mindful of the need to protect children from harm and, when they come before the court to give evidence in relation to sexual offences or serious violent offences, we must ensure that they are treated in a caring and protective way to limit any further trauma.
Other members of the House will recall the Evidence Reform (Children And Sexual Offences) Act 2004 which introduced a number of reforms to procedural law for the prosecution of sexual offences. The purpose of these reforms was to reduce the trauma experienced by children and other vulnerable witnesses in criminal proceedings for sexual offences and improve the quality of evidence from those witnesses. The reforms commenced in December 2004. Since that time, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecution has identified areas where the protection can be clarified or expanded to further assist children and vulnerable witnesses. This bill addresses those concerns.
For example, children may currently be required to give evidence on multiple occasions as to the nature of the sexual offences perpetrated upon them. These amendments explicitly limit the possibility that children will have to give evidence multiple times. This bill also strengthens the protection for child witnesses in relation to a serious violent offence. We need to recognise that the harm and trauma in this circumstance can also cause long-lasting trauma.
One of the clear objectives of our whole-of-community approach to stopping child abuse is ensuring that the stories of abused children or other vulnerable witnesses see the bright light of day and the full scrutiny of the court. To make this happen and break the veil of silence, our courts must have in place protection for vulnerable witnesses. We need to do this in a way that does not further add to the trauma and does not perpetuate the cycle of abuse. Our government is absolutely committed to wiping out child abuse. We have been on the right track for the last five years and we have made a number of improvements. This week, we will be introducing a series of measures that will fast-track our response to child abuse and bring real and sustainable improvements in the lives of our children. I commend the Attorney-General for presenting this bill, and look forward to its implementation.
Mr STIRLING (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I thank contributors to the debate for their supportive approach to the intent of these amendments.
The member for Araluen raised a range of points seeking clarification. I will endeavour to cover each of those points and, in the event that I fail to, she has the opportunity, of course, when we go into committee stage to further raise or seek clarification on those issues. We would welcome it at that stage in the event that something is not clear following my closing debate.
The bill certainly will make the process of giving evidence in sexual and violent offence cases easier for children and other vulnerable witnesses. That is what it is all about. It does not strip, in any way, an accused of the fundamental right to test and challenge the evidence presented against them. It simply acknowledges the process of giving evidence in sexual offence cases can be traumatic and seeks to minimise, wherever possible, this trauma for the victims. The same consideration should apply for children who are victims of serious violent offences.
The bill builds on the government’s important 2004 reforms, which were opposed by the CLP opposition at the time, but have been widely regarded as working well.
The bill clarifies some operational issues identified by the DPP. It extends the government’s policy objectives to make sure more vulnerable people can make use of these important protections. It was always intended that the operation of these reforms would be reviewed and amended, where necessary, to ensure that government’s objectives were met. The government is determined to keep working to protect vulnerable witnesses, particularly children in the criminal justice system.
The current bill does not just clarify operation of existing provisions; it builds on the 2004 reforms to make the system even more responsive to the needs of children and other vulnerable witnesses. The bill is a practical, targeted response to the trauma faced by children and vulnerable witnesses in the justice system. The amendments, along with the 2004 reforms, set down rules relating to evidence, court processes, the use of information and communication technology and the principles on which the court is to operate.
A specialist sexual assault court would simply mirror the court processes and protections already in place. We are broadening the class of people and types of offences to which these protections apply. Combined with improved video facilities and extra funding for sexual assault prosecutors announced in 2004, the Territory will have some of the strongest protection for victims anywhere in Australia. The Wild/Anderson report specifically cites and supports this legislation from that point of view.
I thank those who provided comment on the proposed amendments, including the Chief Justice, the Chief Magistrate, Legal Aid Commission, Law Society, Victims of Crime NT, North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency and the Criminal Lawyers Association. The government received a variety of views. Many organisations fully support the object and content of these reforms but not everyone agreed with the extent of the changes, in particular the exemption of children’s written and recorded statements from Oaths Act requirements; the limitations on copying and dissemination of recorded statements; and the extension of the exception to the hearsay rule to serious violence offences. Some views were that these reforms leaned too far in favour of the alleged victim. I considered those views and acknowledge the balance required in the system, but I have made the deliberate decision to put the support and protection of children first.
As a result of the comments received, I flag that I intend to introduce five committee stage amendments later, which have been circulated and tabled. The Department of Justice has worked closely with DPP, Police Major Crime Section and the Child Abuse Task Force to ensure that the amendments achieve the results sought. Concerns were raised by the DPP that this bill: deals with the evidence of children too young to make a statutory declaration under the Oaths Act; clarifies the definition of sexual offence; the law does not cover situations where an offender had been charged with a sexual offence and a non-sexual offence, for example when a child has been sexually assaulted and deprived of her liberty, she is currently required to give evidence at committal on the second charge; and the inability to record evidence of a child other than at a special hearing. The DPP also put compelling arguments for the extension of the initial reforms to include serious violent offences. The DPP has had input into the drafting instructions and reviewed the various draft bills produced. Consideration of DPP comments has resulted in the development of three of the committee stage amendments.
The police are at the front line, of course, in the fight against child abuse and sexual violence. Overall, they do a terrific job, often under very trying circumstances. To complement these legal reforms, we need to make sure police are equipped and able to conduct investigations and interviews that provide all required evidence but do not further traumatise the victim. Northern Territory Police have implemented specialist training in the conduct of child forensic interviewing based on the Western Australian model. Western Australia has significant experience and expertise in this area and is regarded as the national leader in its approach to child witness issues.
The FACS Minister is to introduce the new Care and Protection of Children Bill this week, but the government also recognises that protecting children should not begin and end at the statute book. The Martin government has rebuilt the Territory’s child protection services.
Budget 2007-08 provides $35m to the Child Protection Service compared with less than $8m in 2001. We have dramatically increased child protection staff, with 71 new positions across the Territory. We have formed the Child Abuse Task Force so that police officers and FACS staff can work together and share information to best investigate reports of abuse. We are funding an after-hours child abuse service, which takes child protection notifications from across the Territory, and we have increased funding for sexual assault referral centres by almost $0.5m each year.
The government welcomes the findings of the child abuse inquiry. One of the report’s recommendations, number 30, specifically cites this bill as an important way to protect child victims and vulnerable witnesses in the criminal justice system. I deliberately delayed debate on the bill to ensure it complied with and properly implemented any report recommendations. The government is committed to improving the court process for the most vulnerable members of our community.
I will endeavour to deal with each of the issues raised by the members for Araluen and Nelson. The member for Araluen raised the title of the bill and said that, in her view, it does not accurately reflect the total content of the bill. The primary focus of the amendments is increased protection for child witnesses of sexual and serious violence offences. However, it also expands the protection for adult victims and for those with an intellectual disability. I do not think the member for Araluen was claiming it as a major issue, but the name of the bill is a question of semantics. I would have thought debate should concentrate on the bill’s content and the practical benefits it will provide to children and other vulnerable witnesses. I am sure the member for Araluen would agree.
The DPP commented that there was a need to amend section 21A(1) to insert a definition of ‘examination’. The DPP has suggested the definition of ‘examination’ should specifically refer to examination-in-chief. The definition of ‘examination’ is not intended to be exhaustive; it has been drafted to reflect that in its ordinary use, ‘examination’ will mean examination-in-chief and will include cross-examination and re-examination. It is a rule of statutory interpretation reflected in the use of ‘includes’ rather than ‘means’ in the definition.
On the question of the use of ‘accede’ in section 21B(3), I have no knowledge or idea whether this word appears in other legislation or not. ‘Accede’ is not defined in the amendments, so I understand that its ordinary or dictionary meaning would be used, which I would take to mean ‘agree’ in its simplest form.
There were questions about what constitutes a ‘good reason’. It is not practical, logical or, indeed, possible to draw up a list of what a court might decide is a ‘good reason’. It would depend each time on the facts and the merits of the case. However, in deciding whether there is a ‘good reason’ for something, the courts look at whether the reason, the request or the behaviour is reasonable in the circumstances. A mere wish or desire to depart from accepted practice is not a good reason in itself. Whether an alternative course of action exists and what the effects of adopting that alternative course of action might be, in relation to its use in this section, it is worth noting that it must also be applied in a manner consistent with section 21D that makes clear, in relation to children, that it is the intention of the Legislative Assembly that as children tend to be vulnerable in dealings with persons in authority, including courts and lawyers, child witnesses be given the benefit of special measures.
There was a further question about who may or may not be with a vulnerable witness when he or she gives evidence. The DPP suggested an inconsistency between new section 21C(1) and existing section 21A(2), and that the court has somehow been given additional power to determine whether or not a witness can be accompanied by a support person when he or she is giving evidence. The situation outlined by the DPP mirrors the existing legislation.
Section 21C, Use of Closed Circuit Television, currently provides that the court may make orders about, ‘who may be present at the place at which the vulnerable witness is giving evidence’. Current section 21A(2) provides that a vulnerable witness may be accompanied by a relative, friend or other person the court considers appropriate. However, section 21A(2)(a) also allows the court to refuse to allow the vulnerable witness to be accompanied where it would not be in the interests of justice. No information was provided by the DPP to indicate that this current provision has been interpreted in a manner inconsistent with section 21A(2), or that any problems have arisen. There is no reason then why this should be a problem with the new similar provisions.
In new section 21C(2)(b), regarding special sitting before a jury is empanelled, in relation to the phrase ‘it may be held before the jury is empanelled’, this drafting allows greater flexibility in the operation of the provision. It does not detract from its meaning. Relevant provisions of the Western Australian legislation have also been drafted to allow flexibility in the way matters proceed. Section 106RA of the Western Australia Evidence Act 1906 allows recording after the prosecution has commenced.
The DPP’s comment was that section 21C(2)(c) does not reflect current practice. Proposed section 21C(2)(c) is not limited in its operation for the current procedure whereby the accused, counsel, judge and court staff are in court and the vulnerable witness is in a remote room. It has been drafted to allow current practices to continue, as well as allowing alternative arrangements to be made. There is no reason, given the advances in technology, why the defendant could not be outside the court room, but connected to it while the witness is in the same location as the judge and counsel. Arguably, it might be more comfortable for a witness, and more in line with the principles underlying these provisions, if the child or other vulnerable witness was able to see and communicate with the judge and prosecution directly.
I turn to new section 21F and use of the phrase ‘in a case’. The phrase ‘in a case’ is not used elsewhere in the amendment bill, but it is used frequently in both the Justices Act and the Evidence Act. In fact, it appears in the definition of ‘vulnerable witness’ in section 21A of the Evidence Act. Use of the term is made to distinguish it from trial and proceeding and to ensure the section has the broadest possible application, therefore encompassing committal proceedings, hearings in the Youth Justice Court, the Court of Summary Jurisdiction and trials in the Supreme Court.
The member for Araluen queried section 21B, which says the section applies ‘proceedings for the trial of a sexual offence or a serious violence offence’, and has missed the word ‘to’ so it should read: ‘this section applies to proceedings…’. She is quite right and it will be picked up. It does not need a separate amendment; it can be corrected by slip amendment and is a typographical error, as suggested by the member for Araluen.
I believe the claim was made that the new provisions are somewhat narrower than before in respect of the difference between sections 21A and 21F. The court can be closed under current arrangements: (1) where a child gives evidence in a sexual offence matter and it must be closed; and (2) may be closed for other vulnerable witnesses under current section 21A(2)(d). Under these changes, the provisions have been broadened rather than narrowed so that (1) the court must be closed under section 21F, where a vulnerable witness gives evidence in a sexual or serious violence offence matter, and may still be closed under section 21A(2)(d). Therefore, the provision is unchanged.
In relation to the member for Nelson’s query about sexual offence including ‘(e) any other indecent act…’, there is no definition of ‘indecent act’ and it would appear to pick up a situation whereby two adults were having sex and were seen by a child. These issues were raised during the consultation phase picking up all offences within section 133, ‘act of gross indecency’. The committee stage amendments are designed to concentrate on those offences involving children. It is possible that two adults intentionally having sex in front of a child could, in fact, commit an offence falling within this definition of sexual offence. Being forced to view a sexual act is certainly behaviour that often occurs in the process of grooming children who themselves participate in sexual acts. Therefore, it is entirely appropriate that such offences are included in a category for which children ought to be able to receive protection.
In relation to questions from the member for Araluen, I believe I have covered each of those points. I do not want to get too categoric here. There were many issues raised by the member for Araluen. However, I foreshadow that we are going into the committee stage to debate the amendments and the member for Araluen has a further opportunity, of course, to clarify and interrogate any aspects of the bill.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Clauses 1 to 6, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 7:
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 20.1.
Section 105B of the Justices Act currently allows for the admission of a written or recorded statement at a preliminary examination committal in relation to an offence. However, it also provides that the defence, by notice to the prosecutor, can require the person making the statement to be present at the preliminary examination and give evidence, and the Justice may require a person who has made a recorded statement to attend and give evidence.
Section 105B(11) provides that these circumstances do not apply if the statement was made by a child in a serious sexual offence matter. An amendment is required to bring section 105B into line with the provisions contained in the bill so that a person making the statement cannot be required to appear and give evidence if: (1) the statement was made by a child in a sexual offence or serious violence offence matter; or (2) the statement was made by an adult who is the alleged victim of a sexual offence to which the proceeding relates.
The committee stage amendment achieves this by omitting and replacing current section 105B(11).
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9:
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 20.2.
This amendment inserts the definition of ‘audiovisual record’ within proposed section 21A(1) of the Evidence Act. The amendment is necessary to ensure that the court can be closed when a vulnerable witness is giving evidence, when an audiovisual record is being played, and when a recorded statement is being played.
Proposed section 21F(1) provides for the courts to be closed in a case involving a charge of sexual or serious violence offence when the evidence of a vulnerable witness is being taken. Proposed section 21F(2) provides that section 21F(1) applies to both examination of the vulnerable witness and the replay of an audiovisual record. Concern has been expressed that the term ‘audiovisual record’ will be interpreted strictly and will encompass a recorded statement. In order to ensure that the intention is clear, the amendment clarifies that the audiovisual record referred to in new section 21F(2) includes a recorded statement.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10:
Ms CARNEY: Attorney-General, I may have had trouble hearing you when you were responding in relation to what appeared to be a typo for the new proposed section 21B(1). Did you concede that there was a typo? That is that the sentence should read: ‘This section applies to proceedings for the trial of sexual offences or serious violence offences’. If so, would you be minded to perhaps move an amendment from the floor so that we can insert the word ‘to’? That is my first question. I have some others.
Mr STIRLING: I did cover it. I am sorry; have you had your hearing checked lately, member for Araluen? I was quite precise in my language in my contribution. I did concede that there was an omission. However, I am advised by the Clerk it does not actually need a formal amendment here; it is simply picked up. Having drawn attention to it, we will ensure that it is picked up. I understand that there are sometimes little glitches like this picked up in the final production. Where all else has failed, there is still a last stop-gap. Now that it has been mentioned no less than three times, once by you and twice by me, it certainly will be there. It does not need a separate amendment.
Ms CARNEY: My next question is in relation to this section 21B. Notwithstanding your answers in reply, Attorney-General, I do not think you actually advised of the intention underlying this change. That is: is the section intended to apply to all vulnerable witnesses or only those who are witnesses in cases of sexual or serious violence offences?
Mr STIRLING: I thought I did, but I will just check, Mr Chairman. Bear with me.
I understand that previously under section 21B, child sexual offence was the category. It is now broadened, of course, under these terms to include serious violence offences. The old section 21B said that the section created the offences of a sexual offence or an offence against sections 177, 181, 184 and so on. It now says in relation to a vulnerable witness under section 21B, the section applies to proceedings for the trial of a sexual offence or a serious violence offence. Therefore, it is broader. Before, it was only child sexual offence; now it is child sexual offence and serious violence offence.
Of course, the problem was the sexual offence may well have been accompanied by other acts. A sexual offence might have been one category and there might have been a violence offence, for example, they might have been locked up, those sorts of things. The child, under those circumstances, previously would have had these protective measures around giving evidence for the sexual offence but not for maybe four or five others for which they would still be required to stand in court and deliver. Under this, any of the other associated criminal activity around the sexual offence is picked up as well so they do not have to present and give evidence as they would before.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you. Attorney-General, you have said that it is broadened so it applies to all vulnerable witnesses and those involved in sexual offences and serious offences. You referred in your reply to the parliamentary debate in 2004. I remember that debate very well and I am sure you do, too. You will remember that the very issue you just raised was raised by me in 2004. I made the point that the amendments you made at that time did not include serious offences. You can have a go for not supporting the bill in 2004; the reasons we did not support the bill were very clear. Now, three years later, you are here saying: ‘Oh well, we have fixed up some of those things’. It is pleasing, but certainly in relation to some of the other issues I have highlighted today, it may indeed be the case that your government comes back before the Chamber and says: ‘Oh, we did not get it right’. Therefore, I am pleased that it does expand it, given the issues I highlighted on 7 October 2004. I accept your response that instead of narrowing it, it does apply to all vulnerable witnesses including those involved in sexual offences or other serious offences.
We can move from that section. Can we look, please, at section 21B(3)?
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, I have an amendment standing at this point. Do we want to deal with it before we move on?
Mr CHAIRMAN: We are happy for the Attorney-General to move his amendment.
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 20.3.
Proposed section 21C(3) refers to the giving of identification evidence by a vulnerable witness where that witness is giving evidence at a special sitting of the court. The provision as currently drafted does not extend to giving of evidence at trial. We found that it extends provision for giving of identification evidence at trial, which was a drafting omission and needs to be rectified. The amendment operates by removing the phrase ‘at a special sitting of the court’ to make clear that the section is not limited in its application to special sittings, but also applies to the giving of evidence at trial. I am not sure if the member for Araluen raised that one in 2004, but I am prepared to acknowledge the points raised on 7 October 2004 by the member for Araluen.
Ms Carney: You so bitterly opposed.
Mr STIRLING: I am sure the Attorney-General of the day would have made comment on it. However, it was always the view of this government that we would review the operation of this legislation and amend, where seen fit, to strengthen the provisions for vulnerable witnesses. That is what this exercise is all about. I say well done to the member for Araluen for her foresight on 7 October 2004.
Ms Carney: It was pretty straightforward.
Mr STIRLING: She does not need to be churlish about this. I am happy to commend her for her views that day. It is in there now and she should be appreciative of that fact. It does strengthen the operation of the legislation.
Ms Carney: We are still on clause 10?
Mr CHAIRMAN: We certainly are.
Ms CARNEY: Attorney-General, thank you. I did listen and I heard your answer in relation to the use of the words ‘good reason’ in section 21B(3).
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, I have an amendment here on which we have not voted, and I believe the member for Araluen is past that.
Ms CARNEY: Sorry, in relation to?
Mr STIRLING: Amendment 20.3, which simply means that the giving of the identification evidence also applies at trial, not just at the special sitting.
Ms CARNEY: Okay, you want to move that amendment?
Mr STIRLING: I have moved it but we have not voted on it.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Are you speaking to the amendment or not?
Mr STIRLING: No, she is on another mission.
Amendment agreed to.
Ms CARNEY: In relation to the words ‘good reason’ in section 21B(3), I listened to your answers. However, so that I am clear and, perhaps more importantly, for the sake of the Parliamentary Record, do you acknowledge, Attorney-General, that because of the inclusion of the words ‘good reason’, it may require judicial clarification or interpretation down the track? If you make that concession, why is it you do not acknowledge that a different phrase be included?
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, a fair question. However, in relation to ‘good reason’, I am advised that the term is used in a number of Northern Territory acts. The courts have built up a volume of law around its meaning. References to ‘good reason’ are found in the Coroners Act in relation to a person entering a declared disaster area; the Firearms Act in relation to decisions about licensing and as a defence to the failure to produce a firearm when requested by the police to do so; and the Local Government Act as grounds for restricting access to otherwise public records. Perhaps most relevantly, it is the criteria or basis for a number of decisions the courts are required to make under the Supreme Court Rules, including the categorisation of proceeding, the giving of evidence by affidavit and the process and content of discovery.
The courts are the appropriate place for the exercise of such discretion and for determining such questions. I do not believe that the court, in determining this question, will consider issues such as inconvenience to the court and having to list the matter twice for a special sitting and for the trial as a good reason to deny access to the protection provided by these amendments. It seems to me there is a body of history around this. It is already in a range of legislation and there is quite a volume of law around this meaning. It ought not present any real problems in respect of greater understanding or clarification.
Ms CARNEY: It has been a long time, Attorney-General, since I have looked at the Coroners Act and the Firearms Act. However, do you agree that the ‘good reason’ to which you have referred to in those statutes might, in fact, be good reasons for doing things quite different from the good reason contained in this bill?
While I acknowledge that, as you said in your reply, it is very difficult to insert in legislation a list of what the good reasons are, nevertheless, the use of the words ‘good reason’ in legislation such as this, might, do you agree, lead in any event to confusion and the need for judicial interpretation down the track? I will not pursue it after this, but I would like your answer in relation to it.
Mr STIRLING: No. I accept that you have virtually asked me the same question, which is whether I agree that clarification effort would have to go into this later on. Not on the advice I have. It is not just the legislation as mentioned. The courts are required to make, under the Supreme Court Rules, a whole range of decisions based around good reason. It is not a specific term in one item of legislation. Good reason is good reason, and there is a volume of law around that meaning. It is never practical to draw up a list, and I think that the member for Araluen concedes that.
The problem with lists is what you leave out. There will always be a case that, no matter how diligent the list is and how much input goes into it, there will be a category that is not on the list. That would be most unfair under these circumstances. I can only go on the advice of the agency and the officers putting this work together. It needs to be watched. Now it is in debate, possibly that is something to keep an eye on for the future and see if the member for Araluen is right over time. However, the advice that I have is that it will not be a difficulty.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you. In relation to new section 21C(b), I have a question. I said in my response that this section seems to be at odds with the existing section 21A of the Evidence Act that refers to a vulnerable witness being entitled to give evidence using one or more of a number of arrangements as chosen by a witness. Does the Attorney-General concede that the new section 21C(b) limits or takes away some flexibility, some would say rights, of vulnerable witnesses by virtue of the fact that whereas under section 21A of the Evidence Act, vulnerable witnesses have certain entitlements and can make certain decisions, yet under the new section, the court will determine those decisions for them? Does the Attorney-General accept that the two are at odds; namely the section that we are now debating and section 21A of the Evidence Act? If so, is he comfortable with that and, if so, why?
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, I am comfortable with it. I assume that the member for Araluen has the Evidence Act before her. However, if you look at section 21A(2):
(2) Subject to subsection …
(c) that the vulnerable witness be accompanied by –
(i) a relative;
However, in section 21A(2A), immediately following:
Ms CARNEY: There are still concerns in relation to this provision. We could take all day and I note the time. I will not be much longer. The question I asked in relation to this was: what was the rationale for making these changes? Who suggested it? Did you get advice from the Witness Assistance Services either in Alice Springs or Darwin? Was it recommended by the DPP? I will leave it at that for this one.
Mr STIRLING: Bear with me, Mr Chairman. The advice I have is that all the changes to sections 21A, B, and C are all out of the DPP on their advice and because of what had happened in court.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Attorney-General. I will leave it there. I have a couple of questions in relation to clause 12.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12:
Ms CARNEY: In relation to proposed new section 21E(2), can the Attorney-General explain why this change is required? What did the DPP or Witness Assistance Service advise in relation to it? Was it at their suggestion? If it was not at their suggestion, who suggested it?
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, the issue here is one of flexibility and borrowed, I think, from the Western Australian system where, if a victim chose to present evidence in court themselves, they could still elect to have it recorded in the event that a mistrial or something untoward occurred, and may have to come back. You would have the option of having recorded evidence in the event that you had to present again and may not wish to. It is a measure of flexibility to give the victim the best of both worlds in that sense. They might think: ‘Yes, I can go through this, I can get through this. But just in case anything untoward happens, I do not know about if I want to go do it again, so I will elect to have it recorded’, in the knowledge that if they did have to present again they can rely on the recording, even though they have fronted up themselves the first time or at that particular point.
Ms CARNEY: Given that my questions were so obviously straightforward …
Mr STIRLING: Did it come from DPP? Yes, in fact, on advice from the DPP and based on the Western Australian experience.
Ms CARNEY: I listened to the Attorney-General’s response, but still on clause 12 in relation section 21F(1), do you accept that there is a narrowing of the language based on the existing provisions contained in the Evidence Act? Can you advise what the reasons are underlying this change?
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, I have to get this right: Section 21F(1) is a narrowing? Why did we do this? I think we went over this before. I am not sure if the member for Araluen can explain further why it is seen as a narrowing when it is actually picking up not just the sexual offence but the serious violence offence as well. It is, to our collective minds, a broadening rather than a narrowing.
Ms CARNEY: Fair point. I guess, given your previous answer that these changes do apply to all vulnerable witnesses and not those involved in just sexual offences or serious violence offences, your answer makes sense. It is a broadening and I apologise for asking that question again. However, prior to today we did not have an indication from government as to whether the legislation sought or intended to include other vulnerable witnesses. My view is it should have been clearly expressed in the legislation. It has not been, but we now have on the Parliamentary Record the Attorney-General’s response and I thank him for it. I do not think I will pursue the other matters and I look forward to reading the Attorney-General’s responses in the Parliamentary Record. Thank you.
Clause 12 agreed to.
The committee suspended.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: I advise honourable members of the presence in the gallery of Parliament House Public Tour Program visitors, and also participants in the Charles Darwin University Legislative Assembly internship program: Ms Katherine Knuth, Mr Vincent Wiles, Ms Mary Wignell and Mr Stoil Tzitzelkor. On behalf of all honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Continued from earlier this day.
In committee in continuation:
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order! The committee has before it the Evidence of Children Amendment Bill 2007, Serial 91, together with the schedule of amendments No 20 circulated by the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General, Mr Stirling.
Clauses 13 and 14, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 15:
Mr WOOD: Mr Chairman …
Mr STIRLING: No. I have an amendment to clause 15. Do you want to speak to clause 15?
Mr WOOD: Clause 15. Are you going to speak on that?
Mr STIRLING: I have an amendment, but you go.
Mr WOOD: All right, but I am speaking to the amendment.
Mr STIRLING: I have to put the amendment if you want to speak to it.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Attorney-General, would you like to put the amendment?
Mr STIRLING: Yes, when I find my notes. There is a reason why I wanted to pursue this before lunch, and that is because there are multitudes of paper associated with this legislation. I am now getting back to it.
Mr Chairman, I move amendment 20.4 in relation to the definition of ‘sexual offence’. The amendment is to omit ‘of which an element is’ and substitute ‘involving’. Amendments 20.4 and the next, 20.5, are related. It was government’s intention, in drafting these amendments, to provide additional protection to alleged victims of sexual abuse and to extend that protection to child victims of serious violence offences.
Following introduction of the original bill, additional consultation was undertaken with members of the legal professional and key legal organisations. One of the comments made during these consultations was that section 133, Gross Indecency in Public, should not be included within the definition of ‘sexual offence’ proposed to be inserted in Sexual Offences (Evidence and Procedure) Act.
Government is not prepared to remove section 133 as a whole. We hold the view that children who view the acts covered by this section may suffer trauma and distress. Therefore, as a compromise measure, it is proposed to remove application of the section as it relates to acts directed at adults. The first part of this amendment is to remove the reference to offences ‘of which an element is’ certain actions and to replace it with offences ‘involving’ certain actions.
As an example, under gross indecency in public, it might be flashing to a crowd or streaking where you could say the whole 100 000 at the footy ground might be victims of it. However, we wanted to retain it where it might be an act of exposure or flashing directed specifically at a child. We wanted to hold it in there so that the provisions of this bill that protect the victim in giving evidence still apply in that situation where it is deliberately directed at a child and could give rise to a range of trauma and distress.
I hope I have made myself clear to the member for Nelson. If he has a question on it, I would be happy to hear it.
Mr WOOD: Attorney-General, I refer to my comments earlier regarding my concerns about the entry on your amendment schedule in relation to section 3(e):
I spoke to a member of the public during lunch, so I am glad that we did have a break during lunch. That person recalled the case of a couple having sexual intercourse in Malak. It was probably in the Wet Season, probably pretty hot, had the blinds open and, I gather, they were booked by the police. What concerns me is the word missing out of section 3(e) is ‘deliberately’ directed against a person or committed in the presence of a child. It is too broad as it is. The essence of what you are trying to say is if someone deliberately does something which can be harmful to a child, we should make sure that that does not occur. However, I would hate to see someone get caught up in doing something which, you might say, comes naturally and is the prerogative of a couple, then being charged with an offence under this section which was not meant to be. However, the simple addition of the word ‘deliberately’ before the word ‘directed’ would overcome that issue.
Mr STIRLING: I just want to catch that last bit. I think the member for Nelson referred to the word ‘directed’. Is that what you said?
Mr WOOD: No, I will just explain that. In section 3(e), it says: ‘any other indecent act directed against a person or committed in the presence of a child’. I am saying it should read ‘any other indecent act deliberately directed against a person or committed in the presence of a child’ or ‘deliberately committed in the presence of a child’. You may have to put that in as an either/or.
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, I do not intend to debate this forever, but directed against a person is read as having deliberate intent. ‘Directed against a person’, so it does not need ‘deliberately’; it speaks for itself.
Mr WOOD: Does that also apply to the second part of the clause: ‘committed in the presence of a child’? Should it have the words ‘deliberately committed in the presence of a child’;?
Mr STIRLING: My advice is yes.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 20.5. We are still on clause 15. This is actually the amendment that the member for Nelson was just addressing. We have not put amendment 20.5 yet, but I am doing it now.
The amendment forms the second part of our decision about section 133 to ensure that the offence is retained in relation to children. The amendment removes the current reference to whether or not it involves physical contact between two or more persons and replaces it with a reference to ‘any other indecent act directed against a person or committed in the presence of a child’. It will ensure the indecent act offences as well as gross indecency involving a child are captured by the definition.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Mr STIRLING: I want to put on the record where we were before lunch, Mr Chairman, discussing clause 12, which sets out matters related to the closure of the court. I want to make it absolutely crystal clear what these amendments achieve and, in fact, what the bill achieves overall.
The Evidence Act currently allows the court to be closed in two circumstances: (1) under the current section 21A(1A), the court must be closed when a vulnerable witness gives evidence in relation to a sexual offence; and (2) under current section 21A(2)(a), a vulnerable witness is entitled to have the court closed in any matter unless the court determines that this is not in the interests of justice or the urgency of the proceeding makes the arrangement inappropriate.
The evidence of children amendments broaden this situation so that under section 21F, the court must be closed while any vulnerable witness gives evidence in a sexual offence matter or where a child, intellectually disabled person or witness under a special disability owing to the circumstances of the case gives evidence as to a sexual or serious violence offence.
The current section 21A(2) has not changed. A vulnerable witness is still entitled to have the court closed while giving evidence in any matter unless the court determines this is not in the interests of justice or the urgency of the proceeding makes the arrangement inappropriate. The definition of ‘vulnerable witness’ has not changed. What section 21F does is broaden the application of the mandatory court closure provisions to include not only vulnerable witnesses in sexual assault matters, but also children, the intellectually disabled and witnesses under a special disability in serious violence matters and move these arrangements for mandatory closure from section 21A(1A) to section 21F. What it does not do is remove the entitlement of a vulnerable witness in any matter to use the provisions in section 21A(2).
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.
Mr STIRLING (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I will be brief. I thank the Attorney-General for clarifying some of the matters I raised in my reply, and some in the committee stage. Having said that, my view remains that all legislation coming before us should be very clear. Unfortunately, in parts, this bill is not. The Attorney-General and I will probably have to agree to disagree in relation to some of the issues I raised to which he provided answers. I did not chase him up hill and down dale because his position is very clear.
However, it is important to make the point that the reforms to the Evidence of Children (Sexual Offences) Bill in 2004 were not right. I do not think this is the first time that we have had amendments to it since 2004. Certainly, this is a series of significant amendments. I simply make the point that it is pleasing that some of the issues I raised in 2004 have now been remedied. I might say, I was abused almost beyond belief by members of government for, in the first place, having the audacity, in the minds of some government members, to raise my concerns, and second, the extensive way in which they were raised. Whilst it is satisfying to see, three years down the track, that things have been fixed, the fact is that it should not have taken three years to fix them.
I remember the debate in a number of respects. I remember raising the difficulties that would arise with pre-recorded video evidence. Now, we see an entire new section 105A about providing safeguards for the video. It should have been done three years ago. Equally, in relation to section 21B, I raised a number of points and I think I concluded by saying that the section was amiss. Where are we three years later? A whole new section! My point is that we should not have had to wait three years. More importantly, the lawyers working with this legislation and others working in the justice system should not have had to wait three years.
Some of the issues I raised in 2004 have been remedied, others have not. Certainly, some of the issues I raised in relation to this bill will come back at another time. There may well be appeals in relation to some matters. I note that section 21B, according to the Attorney-General’s second reading speech, was criticised by the Court of Criminal Appeal last year.
We should not have to come back to clarify the legislation that this government has a responsibility to get right in the first instance. No one says for a moment that legislation should not be refined over time; of course it should. However, there have been fundamental problems in relation to this raft of legislation.
I urge this Attorney-General, even though I had a lot of time for his predecessor, to do whatever he can to ensure that we do not have to keep coming back, three years later, to fix the legislation that you and your government should have got right in the first place. It is easy for you and I, Attorney-General, to go to our respective homes at the end of the night and tick the box and say: ‘That is a job well done’. The witnesses, victims and those working in the justice system should not have to put up with bad legislation. Even privately, government members would concede that some of it should have been significantly better. I know it is a cause of great frustration for those working in the system and with some of this legislation that it is not as good as it should be.
I understand that there are even more amendments being proposed in relation to either the Evidence Bill or the Evidence of Children (Sexual Offences) Bill and so on. I urge people in the department and in the Attorney-General’s office who have the ability to make the decisions to assist those people to ensure that the requests by those working in the system every day, unlike us, are listened to because they do know what they are saying and doing.
I take my responsibility as a person who participates in the legislative process very seriously indeed; I think everyone in the parliament would acknowledge that. I do not think it is good enough to keep coming back. I do not think it is good enough to wait years for legislation to be fixed. I sincerely urge and implore you to ensure that, for the legislation that has been contained in media releases in recent days, to get it right so that it achieves what you say it will achieve in your media releases so that our justice system works well and so that those who work within it, including the victims, witnesses and the accused, have the rights that they expect and deserve.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 20 June 2007.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Madam Speaker, the intention of government is to reduce road deaths as recommended by the Road Safety Report. Of course, reducing fatalities on our roads is very important so, in theory, a demerit points system seems quite reasonable. However, in practice from other jurisdictions where this legislation is in place, unfortunately, I do not see any evidence that this system makes an impact on saving lives.
What the demerit points system was designed to do is change driver behaviour. Our roads would be a wonderfully safe place to travel if every driver conformed. Unfortunately, they do not. Demerit points do not lead to poor outcomes for drivers who comply with the law. Compliant drivers do not get fined now and they will not lose demerit points for breaches after government has introduced the system. Non-compliant drivers will, however, continue to be caught and pay fines and now they will accrue demerit points as well. The periods of suspension are: the loss of 12 to 15 points is three months suspension; 16 to 19 points, four months suspension; and 20 or more points is five months suspension.
There have been many questions about the efficiency of demerit points as a system and today, I want to include some of the evidence that has been collated. I refer to the Victorian parliament’s inquiry into the demerit points system, which concluded:
They went on to point out that there was some anecdotal evidence that some drivers may have modified their behaviour as a result of the scheme, however that hardly represents a scientific-based statistical analysis.
Since that time, there have been international studies conducted in relation to the operation of such schemes. The University of Sienna in Italy has conducted comprehensive research into demerit points schemes internationally, focusing on Australian outcomes. Interestingly enough, I do not know if they intended to introduce them in Italy, but it would be hilarious to see how a demerit points system worked on their roads.
In the report called Understanding Deterrence and Compliance Under a Demerit Point System, the authors, Marcello Basili and Antonio Nicita, make similar distinctions between compliant and non-compliant drivers, as do other reports. They break up the drivers into three groups, and this is quite relevant to drivers in the Northern Territory. There are those drivers who will follow the rules at all times, no matter what, and they are conformist drivers. There are those who will occasionally or exceptionally break the road rules and they are called non-conformist deterred drivers. Then there are those who will break the rules regardless of any sanction and they are called non-conformist, non-deterred drivers.
A demerit points system would not have any impact on the first group of conformist drivers because they are responsible drivers. It would not have any impact on the last group of drivers who are non-conformist, non-deterred drivers because they do not care about breaking the rules; therefore, the rules are meaningless to them. For the middle group of drivers, called the non-conformist deterred drivers, the existence of the demerit points system, in the conclusion of the study, was that they produced a counter-intuitive effect. Many of these drivers will increase their rate of offending until they have nearly exhausted their points before they comply with traffic rules.
The authors of the report conclude that the points are seen as an economic band of value. The existence of a 12-point buffer is seen by many drivers as a licence to engage in poor driving because they have a buffer or a reserve of points available to them. It is almost as though the existence of the points indicates that they have a sanction to offend for a period of time. These drivers, once they have nearly exhausted the points, then engage in compliant driver behaviour.
In essence, the researchers conclude for non-conformist deterred drivers, the introduction of a budget of points may actually increase, rather than decrease, their attitude to infringing traffic laws to the extent that renders the points thresholding binding.
Other research carried out by the Monash University Accident Research Centre examined the issue of whether demerit points accrual was an indicator of future accidents. In a report entitled The Relationship between Demerit Points Accrual and Crash Involvement, which was published in April 1997, the researchers concluded that there was a relationship between the accrual of demerit points and accidents.
The worst offenders were young men, especially those with heavy vehicle licences. It has long been established that young men are the greatest risk takers, and I refer to a research paper written by Peter Marsh entitled Sex differences in driving and insurance risk. This was carried out at the Social Issues Research Centre in August 2004. His report confirms that there is a link between the accrual of demerit points and crash involvement, but it does not offer evidence that demerit points lower the incidence of risk-taking behaviour.
Put simply, there is little research to suggest that demerit points lower accident rates. The Marcello Basili and Antonio Nicita report does show that some drivers are deterred, but only after a period of increased risk-taking behaviour. Once again, the worst offenders are young men.
Nothing in the legislative package before the House targets young men specifically. It would have done well to address young men, all young people, rather than use a broad sword to deal with driver behaviour. Consequently, an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy is being introduced by this government which will not achieve its desired outcome.
I have received a significant negative comment from the community about this legislation, and I am sure there are plenty of other members in this House who have heard from disgruntled Territorians. They are sick and tired of being packaged like all other states just for the sake of it. The community is negative towards this legislation because it is being sold to them as saving lives. Well, the research that I have cited today indicates that it is not a significant factor. Fatal motor accidents are more often caused by drunk drivers, drunk pedestrians staggering out in front of vehicles, drunk drivers on back roads speeding, drivers and passengers not wearing seat belts and inexperienced young drivers.
Hoons, and I am sure the member for Nelson can certainly verify this, fuelled with alcohol and in souped-up vehicles are often the cause of these tragic fatalities in our residential areas. Demerit points will mean nothing to these people; they are happy to break the law. The introduction of demerit points will have little impact on these people’s attitudes.
The Country Liberal Party does not support legislation that does not address the fundamental issues of road safety in the Northern Territory. The glaring problems associated with our high road tolls include failure to use seatbelts, drunks and drink driving, road standards and insufficient young driver education. I have previously spoken in this House during the road safety debates about the CLP’s road safety plans, which are much tougher than the government’s stance. I reiterate the areas in which we would be much tougher. Because alcohol causes so much heartache and is responsible for so many road accidents and fatalities, we believe that the driving with alcohol infringement penalties are not tough enough. We would add mandatory blood alcohol testing when a motor vehicle is pulled over by a police officer for any offence or suspicion of an offence. Pursuant to Recommendation 8 of the Road Safety Task Force, where education is highlighted, the County Liberal Party would use school-based constables to teach all years of school children at least once per term about seat belts. We would mandate all school buses having seat belts within 12 months, with two years of incentives.
We believe that extended driver training is extremely important for our young people and to encourage them to participate in something to become as skilled as possible while they are still young, we believe that the carrot and stick offer of incentive to purchase new vehicles with lower engine power is a positive step. Drivers between the ages of 16 and 23 who purchase a car less than seven years old with an engine capacity generating no more than 95 kW will be entitled to no stamp duty, no cost of registration for two years and no cost of third party insurance for two years. We would also reward young drivers with free licence renewal for P-platers who complete an incident-free probationary period.
While on the subject of road safety, demerits and infringements, where do cyclists fit into this? At the moment, young people have to wear a helmet or they receive an infringement whereas adults do not have to wear a helmet. Mum gets on the bike, and if Mum is not totally responsible, she does not wear a helmet, but she says to the kids: ‘You have to wear a helmet or else you will be in strife’. What sort of message do we send? It is contradictory because we are saying that your skull must be thicker once you grow up and it is not going to bounce as much, or it will not crack open as it does when you are a little child. Send a clear message to adults as well as children that to protect your head when you are riding a cycle - not a motorbike; that is already covered - you must wear a helmet.
In my experience, and I am sure the experience of other people here who have attended vehicle accidents that involve bicycles, those who have not been wearing a helmet and have been injured are not a pretty sight. I am not aware that government has addressed this issue yet, but I would be pleased to hear from the minister in her reply.
When helmets were introduced in the Northern Territory, there was a backlash from adults to say they did not want to wear them. I do not know exactly what happened at that time, but I do know that for the protection and safety of all people, everyone should be wearing a helmet when they are on the road. We would all agree that the cost of a well-fitted cyclist helmet makes the difference between life and death or serious disability. I am interested to know what the minister has to say on that.
The Country Liberal Party has some offers for the stick and carrot approach that I talked about earlier. I am quite wedded to the member for Nelson’s amendments. Have you introduced them yet?
Mr Wood: I will.
Mrs MILLER: You will. I am wedded to those because instead of trying to penalise people all the time, we should be looking for incentives to encourage people to change their behaviour. It will be interesting to see how the minister responds to those.
When this government introduced speed limits to the Territory after being so adamant that they would never do it, the reason was the road toll was excessively high and strong measures had to be put in place to address it. The argument that the speed limit would make a significant impact has not played out because already this year with the speed limit enforced, our road toll is higher than last year. That is a terrible tragedy for so many families. The government has the right motives in wanting to reduce the road toll; everyone in this House wants to see the road toll reduced. However, the measures they have put in place in the Northern Territory, especially the speed limits and demerit points system, have not and will not achieve the desired result. The concentration needs to be on young people, young men, and the offending of young drivers coupled with a focus on drink driving, which is the real killer in the Northern Territory.
This morning, I was coming in from Casuarina along the main road, and it was …
Ms Lawrie: Bagot Road or the Stuart Highway?
Mrs MILLER: Bagot Road. It was interesting to note that I was in a flow of traffic and I was doing the speed limit. I am very careful; it would not look good for the shadow minister for Transport to receive a fine. I am very conscious of how I travel. This morning, I was travelling at the speed limit. The flow of traffic was steady coming in on Trower Road, quite steady, but I was the only one doing the speed limit.
I am concerned that the demerit points system is going to penalise people who are going about their work, getting from home to their place to work, who may be going 82 km/h 83 km/h or 84 km/h and who will be penalised, and could actually be penalised quite a few times because they are in a flow of traffic. It is fantasy to think that all traffic is going to slow down and be compliant by driving at 80 km/h because, generally speaking, they will not.
You are going to incur the wrath of many Territorians on our roads who drive safely, who are only travelling 2 km/h, 3 km/h, or 4 km/h over the speed limit. They are not causing any trouble; they are getting to work quite safely. I was probably the pain on the road doing to 80 km/h in that zone and 70 km/h in the 70 km/h zone because everyone was going past me. That means government would have picked up quite a bit of money and there would have been quite a few demerit points allocated. That would not have been received very well by good, law-abiding citizens. You will find that you will have some very upset and annoyed people. That is one example.
Another one is delivery truck drivers and taxis, passenger-carrying vehicles, taking people from A to B, which can do up to 4 km/h over the limit. When you are talking to someone in the back seat or concentrating on the road, you could be going 2 km/h or 3 km/h over and, all of a sudden, you are going to get whacked with a demerit point. It will not take long for a cab driver to be whacked with a lot of demerit points and lose his licence. There are quite a few people out there who are not very happy with this because it could very well affect their living ...
Mr Natt: Come on, Fay.
Mrs MILLER: I am sorry, but it is a reality. The member for Drysdale smirks. He comes from South Australia where there is a demerit points system, and he knows that the findings of the research I have cited are true. I see it on the roads when I am down there myself, and it certainly has not saved lives. As a matter of fact, it has not made any difference to the number of lives that have been saved. That was the sole reason for introducing demerit points in the Northern Territory, so we would become a nanny state just like the rest of Australia. That is the sole reason. It certainly has not been introduced to save lives.
Madam Speaker, the Country Liberal Party does not support this legislation.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I do not support the demerit points amendment bill for different reasons. It is not that I am suggesting that we should not be strict with people on the road. I remember John Maley, my predecessor at Litchfield Shire Council, once saying: ‘Do not introduce legislation that you do not need to introduce’. In other words, do not duplicate legislation. That is the direction from which I come in this debate. I notice that on page 52 of the road safety report it says:
The assumption by government is that by making it into a package, it will help, but even the road safety report people say they cannot really prove that. It sounds like a good idea and other states reckon it is great, but when it is boiled down and analysed, there is no proof that it has made life better than existing legislation. That is my argument.
Another area that concerns me is that we are going to introduce this new scheme of administration and bureaucracy to run a demerit points system. When you read what the minister said in the second reading and what is repeated in the road safety report, there are probably 37 000 drivers, roughly 30% of all drivers, who are likely to receive a demerit point in three years, and I presume that there are three years in a term. That means we have roughly 120 000 drivers who are licensed. Then you said it is anticipated that only 1% or 2% of the 37 000 drivers are likely to receive enough demerit points to have their licence suspended under the system, which works out to be a minimum of 370 people. That means that we have 119 600, and I am using general figures to illustrate this, good drivers who will now come under a system which is aimed to reform the 370 drivers we estimate are the reason for this legislation.
If that is not a whopping big sledge hammer to crack a little peanut, I will eat my hat. Are we introducing legislation that far outweighs what we are trying to do? Why not, for instance, use existing laws? If you drink drive twice over 0.05, there is automatic disqualification. Of course, if you do it again, you are disqualified again. That is not much different from demerit points. You are going to be disqualified. I know there is an answer to this, but it does look funny in the table where you give three demerit points for over the limit, and you give another three points for over the limit. By that time you are disqualified under the existing regime, but under the demerit points system, you do not have enough points to be disqualified. I know that the two run parallel, but it seems to send the wrong signal.
Why can’t we use existing laws to crack down on those people? Speeding: your demerit points system says over 30 km/h and up to 45 km/h over the limit, and that is fairly serious speeding, four demerit points; over 45 km/h above the speed limit, six demerit points. Why don you not have a law that says if you do it once, twice or three times, you are disqualified? The essence of what you are trying to do is to get those people off the road.
You will not catch the people who could not care two hoots about whether they are disqualified or not because they are the people who drive without a licence. Demerit points or no demerit points, you are not going to make any difference to them. You have to look at something the CLP is putting as a possibility: you physically take their car away from them if that has to be the case. If someone is caught driving without registration several times, that may be the only option because demerit points are not going to save you from that.
The same applies to unregistered vehicles. If they are time and time again not registered, that means the person driving the car could not care two hoots about existing legislation. They are not going to care about demerit points, so I do not think demerit points will change that. You have to have some other laws, whether it is that your vehicle is impounded if you drive a vehicle three months out of registration and you do it a couple of times. That is the only way because you are not going to change people’s habits with this law or the previous law. They have shown they are not interested.
On the issue of seat belts, I was talking to an ex-traffic policeman from the Northern Territory who has now moved south and was back recently for the Darwin Cup. He said no matter what you say about accidents, the big problem with people dying is they were not wearing seat belts, whether it is alcohol or speeding or what. He said it was seat belts. Again, if we found people who were caught not wearing their seat belt three times and they were given disqualification, should that be the way to go? I am concerned that in your demerit points system, you take three points from a driver who fails to wear a seat belt, you take another three points from the driver if he fails to ensure children or young people wear a seat belt but, when it comes to an adult passenger, there is nothing. I understand there are some issues such as if that is my mother and she refuses to wear the seat belt. However, it may be the case that the driver still has a duty. You cannot fly in an aeroplane without wearing seat belts when requested. Maybe, considering that people not wearing seatbelts is one of the prime reasons people are killed in accidents, if we are going to have this demerit points system, there should be some consistency.
When you look at the penalties that exist for failing to wear a seat belt, they are equal except for a child. If a driver fails to wear a seat belt, the present penalty is $200. If an adult passenger fails to wear a seat belt, it is $200. The driver is fined $240 if a child does not wear a seat belt. There is an equivalent fine for an adult passenger not wearing a seat belt, but there are no demerit points for the driver. That is inconsistent.
Also inconsistent is for some reason, and it is populist legislation, if you are have hand-held mobile at your ear, you attract demerit points. Why are we picking on hand-held mobiles? You could have a two-way radio, which a lot of people have. You hold it in your hand to talk to it. You could be changing a cassette or CD in your car. You could be conversing with a passenger, not keeping your mind on what is happening, which is one of the problems of talking on mobile phones. Why have we not looked at driving without due care instead of being so specific?
No one likes to see people with their phone held to their ear, and everyone toots at them because they are going 10 km/h slower because they have forgotten what speed they are travelling at, or they are driving around the corner one handed and they have not changed gear so the car starts to shake. Yes, it is a bit of a nuisance, but what is the difference between that and people changing the cassette? I came across a vehicle upside down in water. The driver and his daughter were lucky they had their seatbelts on; they were suspended. The driver drove off the road simply because he was trying to change the cassette in the car and took his eyes off the road. This legislation is a little too specific. If you are going to have demerit points, they should apply to driving without due care.
One thing that worries me is that we are going to have 23 demerit point categories in the regulations. Once they are in the regulations, the minister can just add to them without any debate in this parliament. We could end up like New South Wales in which, if anyone has had a look at their system, if you are on 11 and your tail light happens to be broken, you could get a demerit point of one and you are over. I give the government a pat on the back in relation to this: at least if you are going to have demerit points, most of the offences are pretty sensible. You have stuck with the serious ones, and I will be careful of what I say here, the minor ones by which people in New South Wales can lose their licence. That is one good thing about these categories for demerit points.
If you were going down this path of having demerit points, you could argue you are only adding to them. Failing to give way at a children’s crossing, I would have thought, would attract a penalty because children are the ones who are most at risk. That is why you penalise the driver for having a child in a vehicle not wearing a seatbelt. Again, I am not saying that that is the way we go because you could do that with existing legislation: punish the people who are repeat offenders by disqualifying them. If they drive while they are disqualified, introduce tougher legislation like impounding their vehicle.
Another thing that worries me, which is purely governments being carried away, is doubling demerit point penalties at holiday times. When Christmas or Picnic Day or whatever comes around, for some reason everyone is more at risk. I do not know, it just sounds like that is New South Wales. They might say it is terrific; people down there might be immune to all that. I do not really want to go down that path. If we have the legislation and people break the law, are fined or taken off the road. I am worried that it is the thin edge of the wedge; once we start going down the demerit points system path, we will end up like the other states. I really do not want to end up like New South Wales. They certainly have overkill, which is perhaps a poorly chosen word. I will put it this way: they have excessive demerit points.
This second last issue I would like to raise, and I know that it probably will not gain much support, is when people lose their demerit points in rural areas. In many ways, they are doubly penalised. I am sure you will say, minister, that they know the rules and should not break them, and that is fair enough, but if you have a very poor bus service or none or hardly have a bicycle path worth looking at, if you lose your licence in the rural area, you have a hard time getting to work. I understand you will say: ‘Yes, well you should not have lost your licence’. The difference is if you lose your licence in the city, you can get on a bike or on a bus.
I do not know the way around it unless you can give people an exemption to only go to work and back, a bit like home detention. You can only say: ‘That is it, you cannot drive anywhere else’. People in the rural area have raised that issue with me, and I fully understand the argument that they should not have done it, so too bad. However, the problem is that they are doubly penalised simply because they have no other options of getting to work, at least not safe options.
The last thing is more in the form of a question about education. I thank the government for the briefing yesterday. I gather this legislation will come into effect on 1 September, not far away. People have forgotten about this until I remind them it is coming up in this sitting of parliament. You are going to hit them with a big surprise, demerit points. I am interested to know what education program you will have for motorists in the Northern Territory, because it needs explaining. Even though I do my best, I have trouble trying to work out when the demerit points system starts, when the three years commence and when you lose what you already gained. It is a little tricky reading that in the paper. I am sure you can come up with a diagram of what the government means when your time is completed so all your previous demerit points are wiped.
The reason I have an amendment, which I will speak to, is that we focus too much on penalising people. We are always saying: ‘If you do this, you will get that; you do this, you get that’. This is a very good opportunity to support my amendment, which is a 10% discount on one vehicle registration. People might say that is a lot of money for the government, but most of the money we would be losing would be the third party insurance, which is part of your registration fee. If you can encourage people to drive safely, in theory you should have fewer accidents; if you have fewer accidents you have fewer injuries so you have less cost to insurance companies in the form of payouts. If that is the case, surely this is cost effective.
I ask the government to support the amendment. I know that is very unlikely, but I say to the government: at least consider it at a later stage if you do not consider it now. If you want to sell this, and you like selling things, especially policies that are not the most popular, throw in a carrot. This is the carrot. Say to people: ‘We will give you a 10% discount if you do not have any demerit points over three years and, if you do it with the next three years you get another 10%, and if you do it in the next three years you get another 10%, up to 60%’. The government still gets some income. You might be a bit old by then, but you still get your income. If you have a demerit point in that period, you go back to scratch and start over again.
That is a good way of encouraging people without saying: ‘You will lose your licence or you will get a fine’. I hope the government will support it. If they cannot support it, they might support the principle behind what I am trying to do and perhaps come back with a similar proposal. I will certainly be willing to look at it and people would be pleased because it will show the government at least is looking at alternative ways of doing things, not just using the New South Wales model.
Madam Speaker, I do not support the bill, and not necessarily for the same reasons as the CLP. I am saying, yes, we should crack down on people who offend driving laws. We can do it using existing laws. The few people who are being targeted are not enough to warrant such a huge change in the administration, the bureautic processes, that this will require. We can do it as we have it. I remember John Maley for one thing: saying if you do not need legislation, do not introduce it. This is a perfect case of how we can do what we are trying to achieve with what we have already.
Debate adjourned.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, the most difficult question facing the Northern Territory government remains today as it has done since self-government: how do we close the huge disadvantage gaps that exist between indigenous and non-indigenous Territorians? I believe everyone here accepts that the gaps are huge. The statistics are well known and very confronting and across the board. While there may be levels of disagreement about how we change things, we all agree it must be done.
Yesterday, I announced a plan to end indigenous disadvantage. We have called it Closing the Gap of Indigenous Disadvantage - A Generational Plan of Action. It is a complex and thorough proposal. It outlines a way forward for Aboriginal Territorians in particular and, ultimately, a way forward for all of us. Closing the Gap generates a $286m commitment from the Territory budget. It outlines the creation of more than 220 new positions. If we are going to substantially affect the disadvantaged we need more educators, more people to help with law enforcement, and more health professionals.
Closing the Gap delivers a major legislative reform package. It reaches out to the federal government to join us in working with Aboriginal Territorians to implement the plan. Closing the Gap also acknowledges and accepts the need for a meaningful engagement with Aboriginal people, and for Aboriginal people to respond by accepting responsibility to be part of the change.
Closing the Gap also contains the Northern Territory government’s response to the Wild/Anderson report into the protection of Aboriginal children from sexual abuse. We have addressed all recommendations of the report and, in many instances, we have gone well beyond the recommendations of the report. But Closing the Gap is much more than our response to the Wild/Anderson report; it is the most comprehensive response aimed at addressing indigenous disadvantage ever produced by a Northern Territory government. Government accepts that while much has been done, we have a backlog of disadvantage that has to be bridged. We have to take a giant stride to bring about change.
We are proud of the fact that, in education, we have employed 110 additional teaching positions above formulae aimed directly at the bush and the regions. This government brought proper secondary education to the bush with the first students graduating their NTCE in their community in 2003 in Kalkarindji. New secondary schools have been built in Wadeye, Minyerri, Kalkarindji, Maningrida, Shepherdson College and Papunya. In addition to these new schools, secondary education has now rolled out to a further 22 schools across the remote Territory.
The government has introduced an indigenous employment strategy in the public sector which has resulted in a significant increase in numbers in the public sector. In 2001 there were around 700 indigenous people employed in the public sector. Today there are over 1150; a 64% increase. We have employed 318 new nurses since we came to office.
The life expectancy of indigenous women has been extended by three years to 68 years. The indigenous infant mortality rate has fallen by 36%. We have attacked chronic diseases with expanded kidney dialysis to the regions and in remote areas. We have built 479 houses for remote indigenous Territorians, and recently announced a $100m expansion of the housing program for communities.
This government has increased police numbers by 200, which includes implementing the specialist teams and task forces such as a sexual assault team and the Child Abuse Task Force. There has been significant new legislation to give the police and justice system the tools to tackle antisocial behaviour, including drug courts and alcohol courts, drug house legislation, dry area legislation and private premises legislation.
This is the first government to seriously tackle alcohol abuse. We have put into place an Alcohol Framework and are progressively rolling out local area alcohol management plans. These plans are showing signs of success. Groote Eylandt has seen a drop of around 70% in crime and antisocial behaviour, and in Alice Springs there has been significant recorded drops in alcohol use in the first quarter of the year.
Madam Speaker, I could go on. We have arrested the declining investment in Aboriginal society, and Closing the Gap takes that investment to a new level.
This package does rely on Aboriginal Territorians stepping forward and seizing the opportunities that will flow from the Territory government and the federal government’s increased investment. We must move forward together to prevent child abuse, to provide education and to ensure meaningful employment and a richly rewarding life.
Indigenous life and culture has much to offer all Territorians. However, we will have gained nothing and it will make no sense if we simply charge in and tell people what is good for them. This is the huge task that faces us: we must re-educate and re-equip a whole generation. We have to lift every social and economic measure and make the indigenous outcomes the same to finally ensure there is no difference between being a black or white Territorian. We must do it together, we must do it in partnership but, Madam Speaker, we must do it.
It is important to say, at this stage, that no one holds any particular moral high ground when it comes to child abuse; we all abhor it. It is a scourge when a society does not properly care for its children. It is also important in this debate that we acknowledge that the problem of child abuse does not belong to the indigenous community alone. It occurs across Australia, and we should and must do all we can to prevent it.
The Territory is unique, we all know that, for many reasons: our climate, our pristine environment and our people are a special mix. We must work to create a society where diversity is valued and we are all proud of living with and beside a culture that is 60 000 years old and has global recognition that helps define the Territory.
Before I address the underlying causes of indigenous disadvantage and our plans to address them, I want to talk about the recent federal government intervention into indigenous affairs in the Territory. The political rhetoric that minister Brough has wrapped the intervention in is both unwelcome and unnecessary, particularly when the breadth of cooperation that has previously existed between the two governments is considered. Minister Brough’s high-handed actions are probably best highlighted by the fact that he has had to apologise recently to the people of Yirrkala for saying they all lived in a kava-induced fog. Broad, sweeping, inaccurate generalisations help no one in this debate.
In April 2005, the Territory and federal governments signed the Overarching Agreement on Indigenous Affairs. In his speech at the signing, the Prime Minister said:
The two governments entered bilateral agreements on affordable indigenous housing, strengthening the indigenous arts sector and establishing a strong local government at the time of signing. Since the signing, boosting indigenous employment and economic development and Healthy Country, Healthy People were added as recently as September 2006. As well, officers have been working on additional schedules aimed at strategic interventions in priority communities, safer families and children, education and training, child health and wellbeing and youth. The most recent review of the overarching agreement by officials of both governments declared it to be a positive arrangement that was producing results. I sincerely hope that cooperation and negotiation will, once again, show how our governments best work together to achieve results for indigenous Territorians.
Our sense is that when the election frenzy subsides, we will again be able to move forward in an atmosphere free of name calling and finger pointing. In the stated objectives of the intervention, our position is clear: we agreed with an increased police presence and, of course, welcomed it. We agreed with more childcare workers, further alcohol controls, pornography control and welfare reform that encourages school attendance.
However, we do not see how the compulsory acquisition of land helps, especially when the federal government knew we were close to negotiating agreements on leasing for housing with Territory land councils. We do not see how the removal of permits helps, a view supported by Aboriginal Territorians and Northern Territory police. We cannot see how disempowering indigenous leadership helps, and we cannot see how abolishing the CDEP program where there is no labour market helps support a work ethic.
I now want to turn to our plan of action in Closing the Gap. As I have said, our plan will address the underlying causes that lead to the gaps in outcomes and set up the environment that has led to the abuse of children as outlined in the Wild/Anderson report. This plan addresses 97 recommendations of the report, as well as providing a way forward that begins to close the gap of indigenous disadvantage. In addition to responding to the Wild/Anderson report, Closing the Gap takes its lead by identifying measurable targets from those established by the Productivity Commission in their report called Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage. This body of work by that reputable organisation shows that to make a real change, effort must be focused on housing, education, jobs and partnerships.
Our plan sets out firm targets for achievement of measurable results at five, 10 and 20 years, with the expectation that children born at that time will have the same future to look forward to whether they are indigenous or non-indigenous. We are committing significant resources, more than $286m over five years and more than 220 new staff, as well as providing a suite of legislative changes to ensure they have a good framework to be effective.
The government will introduce the Care and Protection of Children Bill into the Legislative Assembly at this sitting to replace the Community Welfare Act and to provide for the Children’s Commissioner and other child protection measures. We will introduce the Local Government Amendment Bill to allow for transition to new local government arrangements, introduce the Local Government Amendment Bill (No 2) and the revised Local Government Act in late 2007 to embed the new local government arrangements. We will see a roll-out of dry areas under the amendments passed to the Liquor Act in 2006, commencing with Alice Springs on 1 August this year, and progressing to other areas during 2007. In this session, we will introduce amendments to the Liquor Act to provide power to the Racing, Gaming and Licensing Minister to implement urgent liquor supply measures, alcohol restrictions in town camps and provide power to police to search vehicles. We will pass the Evidence of Children Amendment Bill to provide greater protection for child victims and witnesses, and introduce amendments to the Domestic Violence Act later in 2007 to improve its effectiveness in remote communities.
Aside from the legislative action, Closing the Gap addresses seven strategic areas for action: safety, including child protection; health; housing; education; jobs; culture; and a better way of doing business. Key expenditure includes $79.36m for child protection; $38.61m to implement the Remote Area Policing strategy, community justice and other safety measures; $10.11m for alcohol and drug management; $23.4m to achieve better health outcomes; $42.32m for housing in indigenous communities; $70.68m towards education; $13m to improve indigenous employment and economic development; and $8.95m towards better cross-cultural understanding and engagement in service delivery. We will create more than 220 new positions, employing more police officers, educators and health professionals.
Safety is the bedrock for people to be able to engage with education and work and plan for the future. We will build personal and community safety through a strong child protection system, effective alcohol and drug management, adequate policing, youth development and youth support programs, and the engagement of the community in developing local solutions to crime and family violence. There will be 10 additional school counsellors, a permanent child abuse task force of 23 FACS staff and 24 police alongside expanded sexual assault referral centres.
On top of this, we will implement a remote policing strategy, including 16 new police. We will put in place 10 more community courts, employ 10 more community corrections officers, develop indigenous family violence programs, recruit eight additional alcohol compliance inspectors and implement pornography and gambling education programs.
In health, we will provide the opportunity for a healthy lifestyle through a focus on early childhood health and development, preventative health, sporting and recreational activities and primary health care programs. Through integrated family and children centres in remote communities, we will deliver expanded antenatal and maternal care programs, and deliver programs that strengthen development and learning in early childhood. We will expand alcohol and drug rehabilitation services in remote communities. Primary health care will receive expanded programs targeting hearing loss and preventable chronic disease. We will continue working with the Australian government and the Aboriginal community controlled health sector to further develop and fund a primary health care strategy and improve service delivery system across the Northern Territory.
Providing families with safe, affordable or appropriate housing and access to essential services, including power, water and sewerage is critical. I identified it as a Territory government priority from early in our administration. Because the effort required is so large in dollar terms, the primary responsibility for funding in this area must be the Australian government. We have reason to believe they are significantly increasing their effort. The Northern Territory government has already made a commitment of $100m over five years towards remote housing. We have announced the roll-out of the Territory Housing management framework across the Territory, and we will be investing $117.3m for repairs and maintenance, management and related initiatives. In addition to these efforts, we will work in partnership with the Australian government to address the backlog in remote indigenous housing, and we will provide government employee housing in remote areas to the value of $42.32m.
In education, we need to provide children with a good start to life through preschool and early education programs in preparation for school, and access to high-quality primary, secondary and tertiary education. We will provide six additional mobile preschools, recruit 47 additional teachers and assistants; build 15 additional classrooms; establish a school attendance team to track school attendance; implement a ‘value of schooling’ education campaign; upgrade two homeland learning centres to small schools; upgrade 15 community education centres; improve IT resources for staff and students; provide regional hostels for senior studies; and develop partnership programs to improve student engagement and community involvement.
Jobs provide the sustainability factor for all other reforms. We need to provide adults with opportunities through supporting the provision of local jobs to local people; increasing indigenous employment in our Northern Territory Public Sector; enhancing literacy, numeracy and vocational skills; and supporting economic activity in the bush.
We will work with the Australian government to: transition CDEP jobs supporting Northern Territory government and local government services to mainstream Northern Territory Public Sector positions; increase indigenous employment in the Northern Territory Public Sector through recruitment policies, job redesign, mentoring and support and skills training; support the development of businesses for indigenous people building on the work of the Indigenous Business Development program, and develop other initiatives; identify those jobs within the 1500 existing jobs in community that are suitable for transition to local employment, and assist transition to local employment through training and mentoring; make indigenous employment a focus of government procurement policy; and use current and future indigenous housing construction programs and capital work programs to facilitate opportunities for training and employment of local indigenous people.
Another one of the key areas is culture. We recognise the unique importance of cultural identity for indigenous people and for the Territory, and want to develop an environment of mutual respect through cross-cultural awareness, communication and engagement. We will expand indigenous cultural programs in Northern Territory government schools; implement cross-cultural programs in the Northern Territory Public Sector; and implement a whole-of-government indigenous communication strategy to ensure indigenous people are aware of government actions and have an understanding of policies that will affect them.
To achieve our goals we need to find a better way of doing business. We will work together with indigenous Territorians to ensure that they are engaged in policy and service delivery in areas affecting them. We will help ensure indigenous Territorians are committed to meeting their obligations and responsibilities in shaping and creating a better future for their children. To ensure this we will establish an Indigenous Affairs Advisory Council advising the Chief Minister; implement local government reform across the Territory to create nine new shires and four existing municipal councils replacing 60-plus smaller community government councils, many of which are regularly in a state of collapse; and establish local community boards to allow community representation and involvement in local government and to promote indigenous leadership and provide the basis for indigenous people to meet their obligations to help shape a better future for their children.
This is a big package for the Northern Territory, but even with this increased commitment we will still need the full support of the federal government to achieve real change. In this package, we have identified those areas of assistance that will be our priority areas. I do not intend to go over them in detail now, but they will, obviously, include housing, community safety, the long-term retention of 50 police, education, boarding schools in the bush, resourcing for English as a Second Language and filling the gap in primary health care.
My message to the Commonwealth from day one of the intervention has been to develop long-term plans, and these are evident in my statement today. Investment today will lead to lower costs in health, prisons and policing over time, and deliver us a stronger economy where the indigenous population is seen as an economic asset rather than a cost. This package is aimed at the bush, but it will have a strong effect in urban communities. By getting it right in the bush, we will ease the problems of antisocial behaviour in the towns and cities. We will also ease the pressure on services such as the hospitals, and that is good for everyone.
Closing the Gap is a far-reaching and comprehensive plan of action. It is designed for the long term. It has addressed all the recommendations of the Wild/Anderson inquiry and report, but it intentionally goes further. Closing the Gap provides measurable targets over five, 10 and 20 years.
I conclude by repeating the vision: by 2030, every baby born in the Territory will have equal opportunity in life, a vision we all endorse and must make real. I invite members opposite and all Territorians to join in this challenging but essential work, and I urge you to support Closing the Gap.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, let me say at the outset that I, like every other Territorian, support better housing, better health services and better education outcomes in the bush. I also strongly support any person’s, organisation’s or government’s attempts to improve all of these issues for Aboriginal Territorians. Put simply, I support improvements in the lives of Aboriginal men, women and children who live in our remote communities.
I have to say, however, that much of the report the subject of this debate falls short. Had education, health, housing and so on been within the inquiry’s terms of reference, then I would applaud and congratulate the authors of the report. However, the report was about child sexual abuse, and it and many of the recommendations fall short, and in some instances a long way short, of providing a clear direction to government. As a result, the government’s response falls short accordingly.
I will go through many parts of the report and comment where necessary, although time will prevent me from going into the level of detail that I would like. I want to go through the report because government’s response focuses on it, even though the Chief Minister says that the government’s response goes beyond it. The fact is the report underpins government’s response. The government has addressed the recommendations, which the Chief Minister has said.
I obtained an independent analysis of the report from Dr Annie Cossins from the University of New South Wales, a leading expert on child abuse. I did so because, after reading the report, I had a number of concerns and misgivings about many of its recommendations. I am pleased I obtained the analysis. In essence, the author of the report I commissioned was critical of a number of recommendations, about 20 to 30. My comments today include much of what Dr Cossins concluded. However, before going through our respective assessments, and in that I include my own, it is important for me to list, albeit in a summarised version, her comments.
Dr Cossins concluded that some of the recommendations were not focused on particular outcomes or objectives; that much of the report had not conducted an up-to-date literature search on the profiles of sex offenders and the causes of child sexual abuse; and that there was a failure in the report to make any concrete recommendations to address barriers associated with prosecuting child sex offences. She observed that one of the recommendations had not been well thought out or researched; and she was critical of some recommendations on the basis that they should have been the subject of a research project by suitably qualified people. She had considerable doubts about the purpose, goals and practicality of other recommendations.
I propose to go through much of the report. Commencing on page 6, the authors said and I quote:
They did stray, and significantly so. While everyone is concerned about the range of issues affecting indigenous Territorians, the brief of the inquiry was very specific and some criticism is warranted for straying a long way beyond it. In relation to the terms of reference, I question whether the authors did, in fact, undertake an examination of ‘the extent and nature of’ sexual abuse in communities. It does not appear as though they did. While the authors considered some of the ‘factors contributing to sexual abuse’, they covered a number of areas but did not give any consideration to the gender or power imbalance factor. There is remarkably little in the way of analysis of the causes of sexual abuse of children.
The summary in Chapter 3 suggests that the authors have fallen a long way short in meeting their own terms of reference. There is really nothing that goes to an examination of the causes of child sexual abuse. The authors were asked to ‘identify barriers and issues associated with the provision of effective responses to and protecting against sexual abuse of Aboriginal children’. They did not address the culture of fear and intimidation as described by Dr Nanette Rogers in her Lateline interview in May last year, nor did they discuss how kinship obligations may play out in these cases. The authors did not produce the effective responses they were asked to in the terms of reference. Indeed, some of the responses must be seriously questioned as to their value and effectiveness.
The authors were also required to consider the practices, procedures and resources of NT government agencies. It does not appear that there has been any detailed consideration of the resources of the government.
In Chapter 4, the inquiry has contributed very little in terms of its task. It seems to have reframed the task and sought ways to deal with all problems being experienced by Aboriginal communities. This means that nothing is offered for those children presently being abused. No one would argue that the wider problems must be resolved. It is a great shame, however, that the original purpose has, for all intents and purposes, been abandoned.
I note in Question Time today the Chief Minister said that she was disappointed with some parts of the report. The Chief Minister had great confidence in the report and its authors from the outset. That seems to have shifted.
Throughout the report, there is no gender analysis. There are numerous references to men who were sexually abused as children going on to abuse as men. However, the authors refer to the fact that more girls are sexually abused than boys, but fail to comment on, let alone examine, why it is that most of the girls who were abused do not go on to sexually abuse children.
On page 121 under the heading Inter-generational Sexual Abuse of Children, the authors give one example of a man who ultimately self-reported that he himself had been abused. The authors seem to accept that it amounts to some level of excuse or, failing that, an inevitability that where men have been abused, they go on to become abusers. The fundamental issue is that most victims of sexual assault are girls who do not go on to become offenders themselves. It was disappointing, to say the least, that the authors completely failed to examine this issue. This failure has meant, in so many respects, a significantly flawed report.
At page 16 the authors said:
Where is the literature that, in essence, says that neglect leads on a predictable pathway to sexual abuse? There are plenty of parents who neglect their children, but they do not sexually abuse them. This kind of generalisation is highly questionable. It is more accurate to say that neglect and physical and emotional abuse make children vulnerable, but to say that it leads to sexual abuse is incorrect.
At page 16 the authors discuss alcohol, and the figures are well known. I note, however, a concern that some would have, namely that not everyone who is an alcoholic abuses their children, whether they are indigenous or non-indigenous. I also note that children are sitting around watching their parents who are neglecting them while they are getting drunk. These parallels are making children vulnerable to sexual abuse because they are not being looked after. Such abuse, however, is not a logical consequence of having an alcoholic parent.
In addition, when these authors and others refer to the scourge of alcoholism, it has to be remembered that some Aboriginal women are also sitting around in river beds or out in the communities getting drunk, and they do not sexually abuse children. There is an overemphasis on alcohol as the cause for sexual abuse. Sober men commit acts of violence and sexually abuse children. The authors have not dealt with this at all. This approach to looking at the problem of sexual abuse is simplistic at best. I am concerned that the government has adopted a similar response.
On page 40, the authors referred to the Territory’s large land mass and small settlements in some parts of the country. They went on to say:
It does not follow that people who live in remote places and who have social and environment problems abuse their children or are more likely to do so. Australia’s history shows very clearly that remoteness from major centres has been experienced over generations by many families. There has never been a suggestion that this and some of the problems that it brings are associated with child sexual abuse. One wonders, therefore, why the authors did not include figures in places like Darfur in the Sudan.
On page 43 of the report, after a number of definitions of sexual abuse have been provided, the authors stated:
This is an irrelevant and unnecessary comment. The argument is an old one and it has become trite. Furthermore, the law on the issue is well settled. The only conclusion that can be drawn from the inclusion of this in the report is that Aboriginal girls aged between 11 and 14 do not have the same legal rights as non-Aboriginal girls of the same age.
At page 43 under the heading of Family Violence, the authors say:
In the absence of data provided, one is compelled to ask how many men have applied for restraining orders in the last five years at the Courts of Summary Jurisdiction in the Northern Territory. There are, and will continue to be, problems in using the terms ‘family violence’, ‘domestic violence’ and ‘child abuse’ without adequate definitions. Further, these terms on occasion in the report are used interchangeably, which was unhelpful and confusing. At page 43, the authors placed great value on the term ‘family violence’ and said it would be used to describe a range of violence that may exist within a family. The authors are all over the shop in their definition selection, and one wonders why they had such difficulty with this basic point. The authors appear to have adopted about seven definitions for sexual abuse.
At pages 44 and 46, the authors detailed the meetings held, and a list of the meetings is contained on page 308. The authors seem to have met with many individual groups, but there is no evidence they met with children. If they did, where, how many, what were their ages, and what did they say? It is extraordinary that a report of this nature could be produced absent the views of young people. Moreover, while the authors seem to find it legitimate to seek to hammer home the point ‘that in Aboriginal culture post-pubescent children’ etcetera, no attempt was made to consult the same girls.
Language and culture issues are discussed on pages 50 and 51 of the report. The authors said:
It is very unlikely that the language barriers and cultural gaps are causing child sexual abuse, and the authors do not provide any evidence that this is the case, yet they assert that these barriers must be overcome in order to stop child sexual abuse. I compare this with previous references to sexual abuse being ‘learnt behaviour’ at page 58. Put simply, the authors maintained that Aboriginal people have learnt sexual abuse, but that the only way it can be overcome is by getting rid of cultural and language barriers. These kinds of assertions are illogical.
Notwithstanding this inconsistency, the authors suggested throughout the report that Aboriginal people are part of the way forward. It is not sensible to propose that Aboriginal people are at once overwhelmed and so disempowered that they are unable to protect their children, and then to say at the same time that they have knowledge and ideas about the way forward. I simply note this internal inconstancy in the report.
At page 58, the authors said:
For the authors to assert that media coverage and commentary has caused offence to the extent that it amounted to a barrier to dealing with sexual abuse is astonishing. Surely, comments made by media, politicians and commentators cannot be used as an excuse or barrier to addressing child sexual abuse. If so, the authors are not only apparently accepting of this, but unquestioning about such a response from Aboriginal people.
At page 60 of the report, the authors assert:
This raises a number of questions but the obvious one is: how can this be so, given the language barriers described earlier in the report? I use just one example at page 51 where it said that it was a common theme that many Aboriginal people did not understand the mainstream law and many mainstream concepts. Also, it was asserted in the report that some people did not know what child and sexual abuse was. How then, can the authors assert that these very same people talked about the history of colonisation?
At page 62, the authors referred to the existence of various social issues that may, according to them, encourage offending. Among those listed was ‘inadequate overcrowded housing’. This kind of nonsense has to be tackled head on. First, many Australians live in overcrowded housing but do not sexually abuse children. Second, most sexual offences happen away from witnesses. Indeed, this partly explains why convictions for sexual offences are notoriously difficult; there are rarely any witnesses. In remote areas many, if not most, sexual assaults occur under a tree or in the back of a Toyota, not in overcrowded housing. If there is overcrowding, then what that means is that there are likely to be lots of people in a room where a child is sleeping. In turn, it makes it harder to sexually abuse a child. No one wants to see overcrowded housing, indeed, more and adequate housing is necessary, but it cannot be accepted, nor should it, that inadequate, overcrowded housing encourages offending. I note with great interest that there is no evidence in the report to support the assertion in any event.
Finally, it could be argued that by claiming that overcrowding and other social ills encourages offending amounts to excusing Aboriginal men who sexually abuse children. A more thoughtful assessment is essential. At page 65, the authors outline a story regarding a 17-year-old boy showing 10 younger children degrading and depraved pornography and said that one of the children:
I ask the question: are there serious rapes and non-serious rapes? Why did the authors see fit to suggest that there was some difference between a serious rape and a non-serious rape?
On pages 70 and 71, the authors discuss traditional marriages. Why is this included in a report about child sexual abuse? There seems to be a widespread justification for traditional marriages which include men having sex with girls who are under 16 years of age. Such discussion is not appropriate in any event in this context because the law is the law and the authors know that, whether they accept it or not.
On page 71, there is discussion about Sub-Cultural Traditional Marriages. It lists examples where young girls were in relationships with much older men. The authors said that they were told that the conduct is against Aboriginal law but the elders are powerless to stop it. This is at odds with other references in the report to the significant role the elders will, must and should play in making the community safe for children. If the elders are powerless to stop this then, surely, it follows that they are powerless to stop the sexual abuse of children. Once again, this is one of the very many inconsistencies contained in the report.
On page 73, in relation to child discipline, the authors called on the government, in consultation with Aboriginal people, to develop in relation to discipline of children strategies to inform Aboriginal communities about their rights and responsibilities in relation to using physical correction ‘that is reasonable in the circumstances’. It is an astonishing thing to suggest that a concept such as ‘reasonable in the circumstances’ could be understood by the many Aboriginal people who, the authors said at page 51, did not understand the mainstream law and many mainstream concepts, and that, according to them, many Aboriginal communities were unclear on what child sexual abuse was. The suggestion, in light of what the authors contend are the facts, are at odds. Put simply, if communities and the people who live in them, according to the authors, can barely understand a concept such as ‘do not have sex with children’ one wonders why it is that the authors claim that they are able to understand the concept of ‘reasonable in the circumstances’ and ‘physical correction’.
On page 74, the authors remarked:
Given that it is overwhelmingly the case that Aboriginal men, not women, sexually abuse children, this assertion must be criticised for failing to provide any explanation or analysis. Surely, they do not contend that Aboriginal women are confused about this. Aboriginal women have been concerned for a long time about the sexual abuse of children. They must, therefore, understand what it is. Second, how can the authors say that Aboriginal people have a problem with the age of consent when one considers that children as young as one, two and three are sexually abused? Do the authors seriously assert that Aboriginal men in communities who have sex with three-year-olds do so simply because they do not understand the age of consent? It is both absurd and insulting to Aboriginal people.
Under the heading ‘Failure or reluctance to report’ on page 76, the authors have referred to, and apparently approve of, a quote from a person in Katherine who said:
On page 77, a person is quoted in relation to reporting abuse to police. The person said:
On page 77 under the heading ‘Feelings of Shame,’ the authors said:
This is a concerning conclusion for the authors to have arrived at. There are, however, three significant points to make here. First, any family would feel shamed and angry after sexual abuse of a child has surfaced. That should not, however, mean that in the non-Aboriginal community or the Aboriginal community that this would or should prevent a report being made. Second, on what basis do the authors conclude that the particular community in question, as is the clear inference, would be reluctant to report further instances of sexual abuse? Third, if an Aboriginal community did not report sexual abuse for reasons suggested by the authors, then Territorians could legitimately ask whether it is reasonable to provide the support and funding that the Aboriginal community requires to overcome the problems, and whether, in fact, they were committed to addressing child sexual abuse. That said, it was an irresponsible comment to make and insults Aboriginal people by suggesting that they would put their feelings of anger and shame above the needs of their children.
I note that many of the people with whom the authors spoke produced countless reasons for why it is that adults do not help children. I found that deeply concerning. In relation to leadership, it was interesting that one page of the report dealt with that issue. It is also interesting to note that on that single page there is no discussion about leadership from either Aboriginal men or women.
On page 84, the authors note what COAG has agreed upon in relation to the low rate of school attendance and what actually is required. Why have the authors strayed into this area when there is no explanation or reason proffered about the links between truancy and child sexual abuse?
On page 89, under the heading ‘Screening for child-related employment,’ the authors referred to the forthcoming bill to replace the Community Welfare Act and advised that it includes a provision that requires:
The authors noted, and apparently condone, an exemption from this requirement which excludes voluntary workers in an educational institution. The reason provided is that it is apparently due to
This means, and I look forward to looking at the bill in detail, that there will be screening for people who are employed to work with children, but that some of those who are volunteers will be exempt. That has to be considered absurd in anyone’s language.
On page 91, the authors discussed the creation of a child death review and prevention committee. They exist in other jurisdictions and they review deaths on a case-by-case basis. However, the authors made a number of additional suggestions, one of which is that the committee conduct research. This would be unusual and, based on other jurisdictions, could be said not to properly be the role of such a committee. I look forward to looking at the Care and Protection of Children Bill to see whether it contains those details of the child death review and prevention committee. I support the establishment of such a committee, but only in relation to those children who die as a result of injuries from child abuse and neglect.
On page 91 the authors stated:
That does not, in my view, absolve the inquiry from making recommendations in relation to this important area. The failure to do so could be seen as an opportunity lost. I note that the Attorney-General has announced various measures. I look forward to considering those in due course. One such opportunity that was lost was the establishment of a specialist sexual offences court.
The authors recommended that FACS and police undertake greater liaison with family or clan groups including the conduct of post-case debriefings and utilising trained community brokers where appropriate. Such a suggestion raises a number of problems, given the privacy and confidentiality issues and relationship and kin difficulties. Indeed, such a recommendation may be inappropriate. Much more thought needs to be given to it before such measures become normal practice.
At page 99, the authors referred to:
The difficulty is that they do not say who is failing to share the information. There are a number of anecdotal explanations, but for anyone with responsibility for implementing the report’s recommendations, there is no useful information about what particular problems arise from and what the results are of the failure to share information. Additionally, the authors failed to articulate how exactly it is that sharing information would protect children. They should have done so if the intention was to, for example, change professional practice.
At page 100, the authors use the term ‘strict confidentiality’. What is the difference between strict confidentiality and confidentiality? Is there a sliding scale? We do not know. Also at page 100, the authors said:
communities need accurate information in order to take appropriate decisions and actions to keep children safe.
They went on to say:
It is not the case that communities need to be included in investigations for child sexual abuse. In fact, apart from privacy and confidentiality considerations, children may well be put at risk if communities are involved. Ordinarily, many people are spoken with in the course of investigations, but the suggestion that the whole community needs to be involved borders on the absurd. Is the street or neighbourhood involved in investigations involving children in urban areas? No, and there are very good reasons for that. Put simply, just because people who are the subject of a report are Aboriginal and live in the bush, it does not mean that they are not entitled to the same privacy and confidentiality provisions that exist for others.
The authors also suggested feedback about child abuse investigations be provided to:
The authors have apparently not even entertained the possibility that some members of Aboriginal controlled organisations may be the alleged perpetrators or family member of an alleged perpetrator, let alone any risks to a child or its family members that may ensue as a result of the feedback being given inappropriately in the course of or even after an investigation.
At page 101, there was a disturbing comment by the authors who said that they were told during the consultation that:
They went on to say:
If it is the case that such people are to be employed by FACS or others for the purposes of encouraging those investigating reports of child sexual abuse to go through the right people, then this is an outrageous and offensive recommendation and one that has little regard for the existing laws of the Northern Territory. It is concerning that the authors said:
The terms of this recommendation, and much that precedes and follows it, seem oriented to establishing a separate legal policy framework for Aboriginal people in remote communities. Clearly, the inquiry has expressed its own view about the propriety of giving information to family and clan groups which are, arguably, ‘the right people’. If they were dealing with non-Aboriginal Territorians in the suburbs, it would be like advising everyone else in the street about an investigation and thinking that neighbours have a legitimate interest. These parts of the report are remarkably offensive.
At page 111, there is a reference to CAT, the Child Abuse Task Force, being involved in:
I ask why they are talking about high profile cases, and to which ones are they referring. No explanation has been provided. The authors referred to the Child Abuse Task Force, but did not seem to direct their minds as to whether it should be established in Alice Springs or other centres. I believe that the government has suggested that CAT will be located in other centres, and that is welcomed.
Mrs MILLER: Madam Speaker, I move an extension of time for the Leader of the Opposition pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker and member for Katherine. At page 112, the authors asserted:
I disagree with that statement, as do police officers. The authors provided no evidence to support the statement, and no explanation of why Aboriginal children are, according to them, naturally suspicious of police. It is asserted as though it were fact. In some communities, amid all of the violence and the dysfunction, the local copper has been a lifeline and is invariably the one person a child can trust. Also, there are Aboriginal police officers and ACPOs. I note in addition that, in very recent times, many police officers have been welcomed with open arms by a number of Aboriginal communities.
The authors went on to assert that, as a result of this suspicion:
This needs further explanation. What exactly are the risks? What exactly are the authors saying? Surely, they are not suggesting that people need to assess any form of risk before they report suspected child abuse. If so, it is not good enough when dealing with child sexual abuse. Further, it makes a complete nonsense of some of the other discussion and recommendations about cultural barriers and going through the right people and so on.
On page 113, the authors quoted from the police submission in relation to the Child Abuse Task Force and said:
Since the report, the government has announced that the CAT will be permanent. If so, we are compelled to ask: has CAT been evaluated? If so, what were the results? If it was not evaluated, why not? Will it be? How, when and by whom?
At page 119, the authors appear to quote extensively from the Asche report in 1999. In what appears to be a quote, or at least quoted with approval by the authors, is a reference to the fact that judges and magistrates should not undertake specialist training because it would be abhorrent. This is at odds with work undertaken elsewhere in this country, and the relatively recent New South Wales report which strongly recommends training for judges and magistrates. Training of judges and magistrates is not new and has taken place in other jurisdictions. What is so different about judges and magistrates in the Territory that they would not be able or willing to learn about subjects that would assist them in fulfilling their responsibilities?
At page 112, there is a reference to the Witness Assistance Service and how assistance to children:
I understand that no increases in convictions at trial have been shown to arise from the Witness Assistance Service. Evidence shows that children are more comfortable and tend to be better at giving their evidence if they use the vulnerable witness facilities. However, on some occasions, while this may lead to a plea of guilty, it is not the case that the Witness Assistance Service actually ensures an increased conviction rate at trial.
At page 120, there is a reference to increasing, ‘awareness and feeling’. There is also a reference to the community needing to be told how and why the mainstream law has been imposed on members of that community. This is troubling. It logically follows that the community has to be advised on why it was that action has been taken against a perpetrator. Again, there are issues about privacy and confidentiality. In the wider community, people are not generally given private information. It must be questioned why Aboriginal communities should be treated so differently, and which child victims in particular should have their rights to privacy and confidentiality overridden. Presently, it is an offence to identify the child who is the subject of a child protection investigation.
In relation to recommendation 33, which suggests:
This is impractical and undesirable, as witness assistance officers are not employed to embark on ‘healing and reconciliation’ in the community. The recommendation shows a level of ignorance about the Witness Assistance Service and what their officers actually do. Further, what is meant by ‘healing and reconciliation’? I put to myself that I no longer wonder why so few cases of child abuse in so many communities are reported. I am compelled to ask: does anyone care more about what happens to children than adults?
Furthermore, it is an ill-considered recommendation and one that, once again, overlooks privacy and confidentiality issues. It is not appropriate to arrange for a whole lot of people, whether they be NGOs or public servants, to go into communities and tell people there everything that has happened in a child abuse case. This may, indeed, breach legislative requirements as well as FACS policy guidelines. It does not contemplate the possibility that perpetrators or family members may be members of the community justice group, and it completely misses one of the points raised by Dr Nannette Rogers about the fear and intimidation that exists in communities, and the clear and present relevance of kinship issues and how they play out in the communities.
At page 125, there is a reference to an allegation being a:
Surely, the authors are not suggesting that a child, having made an allegation of sexual abuse, has in his or her mind the outcome that the person might be removed from the community. This is a draconian view. That it has been given additional currency and approval by the authors is disappointing. Some people who have worked in this area for years, rather than months, have sought to have such views relegated to the past where they belong. I note that under proposals announced recently in relation to domestic violence, there is an intention to remove perpetrators from the community. I hope that the authors and others do not raise the draconian view that this could be ‘a powerful tool in the hands of a mischievous complainant’. I feel certain that the Attorney-General would not do so.
Madam Speaker, there is so much more in this report which I have read from cover to cover but, in the context of this debate, time is against me and I cannot get to them all. However, these are some of the issues. These are some of the reasons why the report fell short. I am sad about that; I know a lot of other people are sad about it. It is not just me who is critical; it is Dr Annie Cossins and I note that others are critical. Government has, I believe, received representations containing criticisms as well.
In June last year, the Chief Minister said:
Amongst some of the measures that we would implement would be the establishment of specialist sexual offences courts. This will address the low conviction rates for sexual offences. We would provide specialist training and make it compulsory for judges and magistrates. We would remove perpetrators from the communities, as is proposed under the Domestic Violence Act, an idea that I talked about in 2004. However in order to do that, policing is critical.
We support mandatory reporting of domestic violence. We would abolish committal proceedings in line with the uniform Evidence Act. I was very pleased, indeed, to hear the Attorney-General say that he would do so. We would also fast-track all prosecutions for sexual offences. We would upgrade the vulnerable witness room at Alice Springs as a matter of urgency. We would assess the viability of establishing one-stop shops as recommended by Dr Cossins, which would include forensic examinations by trained doctors, nurses, counselling services, legal advice and so on. In remote areas, we would consider the viability of the establishment of mobile units which would go on circuit to so many communities.
We would establish specialist teams such as child abuse teams in regional areas that would co-opt specialists for particular purposes. We would also inquire into the usefulness or otherwise of therapeutic intervention, namely sex offender programs, because the report was short in that area as well. They are some of the things we would do. This is, I think, an opportunity lost.
Madam Speaker, these are just some of my comments in relation to the report to be read, no doubt, by others in due course.
Mr STIRLING (Justice and Attorney-General): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Chief Minister’s statement on Closing the Gap, the Northern Territory’s indigenous plan of action. There is no doubt that it is a significant moment in Territory history.
I want to touch on what the Leader of the Opposition had to say. I thought hers was an absolutely extraordinary contribution in response to the Chief Minister’s statement on Closing the Gap of Indigenous Disadvantage – a Generational Plan of Action. Earlier today, the Leader of the Opposition made a point in debate on the bill that the title of the bill did not reflect all of the amendments contained within it. Yet this afternoon, we have a Ministerial Statement from the Chief Minister on Closing the Gap of Indigenous Disadvantage – A Generational Plan of Action, in which the Chief Minister has outlined in an overview and some detail the government’s response not just to Little Children are Sacred, but moving on from the report and addressing indigenous disadvantage over the longer term. The Leader of the Opposition, in response: what does she give us? Thirty-five, nearly 40, minutes of critique on the Little Children are Sacred report. She never mentioned Closing the Gap. She never said or indicated support or otherwise for the government’s proposals as outlined by the Chief Minister. She never put, until the last 30 or 40 seconds when she was well past time and she had to have an extension, what in fact the opposition might do in any of these areas.
The government has moved on from the report; we made that clear. The Chief Minister made that clear in putting the response that she has. As I said, only in the last 30 to 40 seconds did the Opposition Leader mention that they would bring in specialist courts, removal of perpetrators, training of magistrates, judges, upgrading of facilities for vulnerable witnesses and so on. Why did we get this critique, a 35- or 40-minute critique of Little Children are Sacred, when the real debate, the title of the debate, is about Closing the Gap of Indigenous Disadvantage? It is because the Leader of the Opposition contracted an expert in this area of child abuse. That person was contracted and paid to do a body of work around Little Children are Sacred.
I do not know what the Leader of the Opposition paid for that work, but she was not going to waste a cent of it. She was not going to waste a cent of it because she gave us word by word, blow by blow, almost 40 minutes of a critique of Little Children are Sacred prepared by a professional consultant and paid for by the Leader of the Opposition. They had a crack on ABC radio the other day. The consultant had a go and I thought her remarks were pretty objective actually, particularly her attacks on the federal government and their intervention and its seriousness or otherwise. I thought it was pretty good. I do not know what the Leader of the Opposition paid her to make those sorts of remarks, but that was the sort of genuine commentary this expert was making.
We had the ludicrous situation today where we had, as a title for a Ministerial Statement, Closing the Gap on Indigenous Disadvantage – a Generational Plan of Action and we get in response a 35-minute critique of Little Children are Sacred. On page 97, a deficiency here and on page 98; she went almost page by page on deficiencies and weaknesses in the report according to the child sex abuse expert contracted by the Leader of the Opposition ...
Ms Carney: No. Wrong. Wrong.
Mr STIRLING: It indicates two things: laziness, absolute laziness, on the part of the Leader of the Opposition because she could not get herself across the information on Closing the Gap on Indigenous Disadvantage. She could not put any sort of argument from the opposition as to whether they agreed or disagreed with any of the responses of government ...
Ms Carney: Wrong. You just come to the same old line: you will be right, mate.
Mr STIRLING: We will go on, and Territorians will never know what the Leader of the Opposition and the CLP think of Closing the Gap of Indigenous Disadvantage, a Generational Plan of Action. She is upset that a bill might have contained a couple of amendments outside its title, and she has the temerity just a few hours later to come in and totally miss the point on the title of a major announcement.
I said we are in a significant moment in Territory history and the Chief Minister’s announcement is going to be one of the single most important policy addresses during my time in this Assembly. It is clear how the Territory directs its resources and expertise to combat indigenous disadvantage, systemic neglect, and child abuse and will determine the Territory’s direction for decades to come.
The Chief Minister’s statement included a massive commitment of $286m to lift indigenous Territorians to new era of health, safety, education and economic opportunities, and will form the basis of a quite fundamental change in how indigenous Territorians live their lives. It will directly and immediately affect one-third of the population but, just as importantly, its influence will soon be felt by all Territorians and will, indeed, affect the lives of children born 20 years from today.
The Chief Minister’s statement demonstrates powerfully and compellingly that we will no longer tacitly accept that some members of our community are destined to receive no education, be illiterate and innumerate, have no job prospects, be vulnerable to child abuse, violence and neglect, contract preventable but debilitating illnesses and, ultimately, die much younger just because they are indigenous.
We, as a government and a community, will no longer accept much higher levels of assault and murder, substance abuse and sexual violence within our indigenous communities. We will no longer accept indigenous children not going to school, not having a home, and not feeling safe and supported in their communities. The Wild/Anderson report has helped bring these issues to the forefront, and we are committed to fully addressing the recommendations to determine how best to protect indigenous children from abuse and violence. However, we are going much further.
The Martin government recognises that you cannot isolate and tackle one aspect of indigenous disadvantage and ignore the others. It is our opportunity and our challenge, which is why the government’s response is a comprehensive package of legislative reform, employment and economic engagement, urgent community and child safety improvements, health and substance abuse initiatives, active policing and an ambitious but achievable Territory-wide house building program. The package must stretch across all of these areas if we are to make a practical, sustainable and decisive difference in indigenous Territorians’ lives. However, indigenous Territorians themselves have also to play a central role inside this project. They must use this important structure provided by Closing the Gap. They must grasp their potential to shape the Territory’s future economic, social and cultural development
I am proud to set out my agency’s contributions to this plan of action. As Treasurer, I know we can only commit this level of funding because of our strong financial management of the economy over the past six years. As the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General, I have the opportunity to provide direct legal and governmental protection for indigenous Territorians. The sole test I have applied is whether my agency’s contributions will effect sustainable, beneficial, long-term change for indigenous children, their parents, families and their communities. It is a test which our reforms and some of the federal reforms pass, with the notable exceptions of their ill-considered land acquisition and permit system changes and removal of CDEP.
I will immediately bring forward a series of strong legislative reforms aimed at protecting indigenous women and children in their homes, the community and the criminal justice system. I am pleased we passed the Evidence of Children Amendment Bill today. These amendments, outlined in detail earlier, are specifically referred to in the report and will expand and improve existing court protection of children and vulnerable witnesses.
I have directed these protections must come into force as soon as possible. I expect them to be available in cases of sexual or serious violence offences involving children and adult victims of sexual offences within weeks. As recommended, the Department of Justice will commission a review of court procedures for vulnerable witnesses following 12 months of operation of these amendments.
I will also introduce reforms to the Bail Act in this sitting. The reforms pick up a recommendation in the report to ensure factors such as the child’s age and physical and emotional wellbeing are taken into account by a magistrate when determining whether to grant the alleged offender bail.
Again, the government has gone beyond the report because indigenous Territorians must have faith that the Territory’s justice system will protect them and their loved ones. That is why we will be reversing the current presumption in favour of bail for those charged with serious sexual offences, including all sexual offences against children. It is not a step we take lightly. It is based on evidence that many defendants attempt to intimidate victims into not testifying and allegedly commit further serious offences whilst on bail. I know from discussions with Community Corrections and police officers on the ground, MLAs with bush electorates, and community members that this is a particular problem in remote communities. I will set out the reforms in more detail when I introduce the bill.
Together, these legislative reforms are structured to increase reporting, charging and successful prosecutions of sexual offenders and child abusers. I have also prioritised and will seek to introduce in October a major overhaul of Domestic Violence Act. I do not consider the current act adequately protects the most vulnerable members of our society. Instead of tinkering around the edges, it is time we rebuilt protection against domestic and family violence from the ground up.
The new scheme will, therefore, include: allowing children to apply for domestic violence orders on their own behalf or through a representative if under 15; a presumption in favour of an applicant with children in her care remaining in a home and community; simplifying and standardising court orders and application procedures; ensuring defendants understand their legal obligations; creating personal violence restraining orders for people suffering from violence or abuse but not directly related to the perpetrator, such as unrelated community members; and allowing courts to include in their orders for perpetrators to attend rehabilitation and violence programs.
The second component of the Justice portfolio’s contribution to Closing the Gap will be to further boost focus on rehabilitation and crime prevention. We will establish extensive rehabilitation services for offenders, in particular support and supervision of adult and juvenile sex offenders, to help stop the cycle of reoffending. Government will achieve this by: developing comprehensive sex offender rehabilitation programs and adopting best practice programs for offenders who are also victims of sexual abuse, at a cost of $4.4m; expanding the Indigenous Family Violence Offender program currently operating in Central Australian Communities with funding of $5.2m; employing another 10 Corrections officers to provide support and monitoring of those on parole to complement the decision last year to boost funding for stronger supervision of offenders upon release into remote communities at a cost of $4.62 m; expanding the successful Elders Visiting Program from four to 12 communities, at a cost of $960 000 over five years; introducing the alcohol court in Katherine, Tennant Creek and Nhulunbuy with extra funding; and $1.24m for two specialist court clinicians.
I am pleased to announce the expansion of the successful Community Court program from three to 10 locations across the Territory at a cost of $2.1m. Community Courts have proved effective in increasing awareness and an understanding of the justice system within indigenous communities. By increasing community involvement in court processes, offenders are able to understand the harm they have caused to victims and their own families. Victim support will be enhanced with the expansion of the Witness Assistance Service to Katherine at a cost of $900 000.
The third Justice component of the plan of action is to educate indigenous Territorians regarding the risk, harms and legal restrictions on using pornographic material. The problem lies in the lack of cultural context in the material and little discretion on where and when it is shown in remote communities. Evidence from high profile sexual assault cases suggests that pornography has been watched by offenders prior to and during assaults. The Territory, therefore, supports and will enforce Commonwealth prohibition of such material in prescribed areas. In discussions with the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, the Commonwealth Attorney-General also undertook to look at the transmission of pornographic pay TV channels in certain locations. Workshops are being conducted across the Territory to prepare for this education program, which will have commenced by December this year. It complements Commonwealth law by addressing the potential impact on children from exposure to pornography, explaining the film and literature classification system, and setting out what materials now are illegal to possess in certain areas. Territory Police and Justice officers are also actively stepping up monitoring of illegal material, streamlining processes to shut down distribution post office boxes and prosecuting distributors who are often based interstate.
The legislative reforms and programs I have outlined will help to provide indigenous Territorians with safety, security and a clear way forward. I am proud be a minister in and Deputy Chief Minister of a government willing to work in partnership with indigenous Territorians to confront these challenges head on and devote substantial energy and resources for Closing the Gap. I commend the Chief Minister’s statement to the House. It is a pity we did not get some sort of a view from the opposition as to whether they supported it or not.
Mr McADAM (Local Government): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I welcome the announcement of the Chief Minister’s generational strategy, Closing the Gap. I was also perplexed in respect of the response by the Leader of the Opposition because, as the Deputy Chief Minister indicated, she spent a substantial amount of time effectively critiquing the report commissioned by this government and carried out by Rex Wild and Pat Anderson. It was a little disappointing that she did not take the opportunity to put a vision, a strategy which, in the long term, is going to alleviate many of the problems that impact or affect indigenous communities across the Northern Territory.
Over the last few months, most members in this House will be aware of how much has been said and written about the report commissioned by this government. Of course, most members will be aware it was the catalyst for the intervention of the Commonwealth government.
The Leader of the Opposition had an opportunity to put her position and make comment in respect of the Commonwealth government’s intervention but, more importantly, to come up with a strategic response. In the Northern Territory over a long period of time, parties, of whichever political persuasion, have taken it upon themselves to treat Aboriginal people as political footballs. Unfortunately, over the last few months, the Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory have been no different.
I call upon the Leader of the Opposition to engage with the indigenous community. Even though she may not wish to engage us in government, I urge her to engage in an open, frank and meaningful way; to look at ways and means of coming up with some real opportunities on these issues. This government has done that over the last five or six years. We cannot get everything right. The bottom line is that we have been sincere and committed in attempting to resolve and alleviate some of the issues which are occurring.
Returning to the statement in question, this strategy includes the Northern Territory government’s action to address indigenous disadvantage, and make real commitments to improve the inequality of life for indigenous Territorians. The real and long-term commitment shown in this strategy document is the dollars on the table. The clear targets for intervals of five, 10, 15 and 20 years show that the Martin government is committed to real achievements in the lives of indigenous Territorians immediately and in to the future. The plan addresses what is often referred to as the grassroots issues which are causing much of the disadvantage experienced by indigenous Territorians.
Government policy is addressing these grassroots issues of poor health and safety, inadequate housing, poor education and infrastructure and the lack of ongoing employment, which have historically been ad hoc, disconnected, and viewed only as short-term.
Such politically opportunist strategies have failed to make any significant positive impact on indigenous disadvantage. The longevity of the Northern Territory government’s commitment presented today, and the proposed improvements in the coordination of service delivery for indigenous Territorians across all areas of government will ensure tangible and lasting impacts of Closing the Gap.
Fundamental requirements for good governance and on-the-ground results are well thought through polices, focussed delivery plans and consistent efforts. Regrettably, these elements of good governance have been missing in relation to indigenous affairs in recent years as the Australian government has dabbled with constant redesign and changes in its plans and programs. This included the abolition of the only true indigenous representative model, the Aboriginal Torres Strait Islander Commission and its operational arm the Aboriginal Torres Strait Islander Services; establishment of the indigenous coordination centres; and the constant change and disruption to Australian government programs intended to address indigenous disadvantage. The key objective of many of these changes has been to mainstream service delivery. Until now, the changes do not appear to have made any significant advance in coordination, consistency of effort or on-the-ground improvements.
While the Australian government’s emergency response has again highlighted the level of indigenous disadvantage in the Territory, plans have clearly been made on the run and any long-term financial commitments are sadly lacking. In fact, many have been sceptical about the Prime Minister’s motives, particularly given the timing of the announcements and their withdrawal of funding to address many of these issues over the last decade. By contrast, this government has consistently acknowledged the seriousness of the issues faced by indigenous people across the Territory, particularly those in our remote communities.
This is not something we have only learned about recently. In October last year, well before the Little Children are Sacred report was released, the Chief Minister announced a package of measures, including real money on the table, to start to turn around the chronic and desperate situation that too many indigenous Territorians face. As part of the package, the Chief Minister announced an additional $100m over five years for housing in remote areas and that, in support of this significant increase in housing funding, Territory Housing would assume responsibility for existing remote housing programs.
The key objectives of the decision taken by this government last year were to deliver more housing at less cost, to manage housing better and support more indigenous employment, particularly in the areas of housing construction, tenancy management and maintenance. We know that this is, of course, just a beginning and that this investment on its own will not go anywhere near meeting the complete housing backlog we face. That is why, within Closing the Gap, we have identified an ambitious target of reducing unmet housing need by 20% over the next five years. To achieve this, we have asked the Australian government to work in partnership with us to construct 1000 houses in the next five years. This is only one-quarter of the estimated backlog of houses. However, delivering 1000 houses and related essential services will be the most significant single investment ever made by a government to meet the housing needs of indigenous Territorians.
Within 10 years, we aim to ensure that the difference between rates of indigenous and non-indigenous people hospitalised with diseases associated with poor environmental health will be halved. Looking further ahead, we aim that within 20 years, fewer than 10% of indigenous Territorians will live in overcrowded conditions, and rates of indigenous home ownership will have increased and, obviously, the rates of diseases associated with overcrowding will be comparable with those of the mainstream population.
Integral to our efforts will be to use innovative strategies to lower the cost of housing significantly. This includes exploring a range of manufacturing, transport and assembly options; using longer-term, larger and more targeted contracts of up to three to five years and to provide certainty for contractors, and time to absorb the overheads involved in setting up in communities and the front-end costs of training; increasing the focus on land servicing in the headworks in non-targeted communities in readiness for future construction activity; using local labour through employment and training programs; and taking a strategic repairs and maintenance approach which will complement and add to the various maintenance programs already in existence in remote communities.
While getting more houses on the ground is a key priority, we also need to make sure that we protect and better manage the houses we already have as well as the new ones we will build. This is why Territory Housing has been tasked with rolling out a new housing management system in remote areas which will bring the management of publicly funded housing in line with the standard that we expect in our urban centres. As the largest housing provider in the Northern Territory, Territory Housing is the only organisation equipped to transform how houses in remote areas are managed and maintained on the scale that we are talking about within the time frame that we need.
Because of the critical importance of these reforms in indigenous housing, it is imperative that I outline the key elements of our strategy. Tenancy management is to be supported centrally through systems, operational policies and a business strategy, but managed through a local community office of local Territory Housing or agency employees. Direct management arrangements will be put in place in most cases, but there will be flexibility for agency arrangements; for example, where an existing housing association has capability, capacity and a willingness to operate as an agent of Territory Housing.
Housing repairs and maintenance and some other housing-related services will, where appropriate, be purchased through new local government shires on a commercial basis. Local government shires may, in turn, contract out to other indigenous organisations to provide these services. The shires will have to perform against clear contract requirements in the same way as an existing housing maintenance contractor in urban areas operates. Performance requirements will include indigenous employment and training outcomes. In some cases, repairs and maintenance may be built into a broader contracting arrangement for delivery of housing infrastructure on a large scale in specific communities; for example, where it is considered that there are better employment and training opportunities for local indigenous people through this approach.
Increased funding on improved rental collection, better tenancy management, and government support will be allocated for repairs and maintenance to ensure that housing conditions are maintained at higher levels for a longer period. Life skill programs and Pride in Your Place initiatives will form a key part in the new management approach because we recognise that people need to be better able to maintain and manage their tenancies if we are to increase the life span of the assets and the health and wellbeing of residents.
We will be implementing a new rent framework for remote areas. My department is in the process of letting a tender for specialist advice to help in this critical task. Work will be guided by a steering committee, which will include community representatives to ensure we develop sensible, practical and affordable rent arrangements.
We have been working to begin these reforms from July 2008, commencing in some key communities and then rolling out across the Northern Territory over the next three to five years. We are, however, ready and willing to work with the Australian government’s emergency intervention approach to maximise opportunities for new Australian government investment and the benefit of a joint government approach to improving housing infrastructure. I expect we will need to be in a position to respond quickly to implement changes that are needed should the Australian government want to work in partnership in this critical area and build on the commitments we have already made.
In addition to reforms to remote community housing, this government has also recognised that with the increased government service activity detailed in this generational plan, government must ensure that we can attract skilled workers to ensure the success of these initiatives. We must consider incentives for both local and other employees to work in some of the most remote locations of the Northern Territory if we are to achieve real gains in improving the lives of people living in these communities.
In response to this need, the Martin government has committed $42.3m over five years for additional government employee housing. This will help us to attract high quality professionals to deliver key services such as police, education and health services.
Improved community capacity is a key priority for both the Australian and Northern Territory governments. In February this year, I detailed to the House the state of current local government in remote areas and the need for comprehensive structural reform of the sector. In particular, almost 50% of existing remote councils were unsustainable or, at the very best, in need of external monitoring and support. Most remote local governments found it increasingly difficult to attract and retain quality personnel to fill chief executive officer positions or other key positions. Few had access to the expertise needed to address the major problems they faced.
Australian government policies in relation to funding of small councils are also changing. Many of the existing councils will only be eligible for a minimum financial assistance grant by 2008-09 under the current Grants Commission distribution process. These funds will not be sufficient to allow councils to employ key staff and provide services to residents. These conditions make it very difficult to plan, fund and deliver local government services.
Improvements to local government community infrastructure create local economies and generate employment opportunities. This situation also stifles broader community development practices. In order to ensure that every Territorian is afforded the same functionality through sustainable local government, the Martin government has committed to local government reform to create a professional third tier of government across the Territory. We intend to create local authorities capable of delivering local government and other services with the full confidence of the Northern Territory and the Australian governments.
The Australian government has said that it supports the reforms and is providing important financial support for the reform process. We have jointly committed to improving local government in the Territory and this process will not be compromised by the emergency interventions. Rather, the long-term success of many interventions will, in turn, enhance local government. My department is working hard to implement a local government model that includes nine shire councils: the Tiwi Island Local Government Council that already exists; the Top End; West Arnhem; East Arnhem; Victoria River; Daly Shire; East Shire which is an area surrounding Katherine; the Barkly Shire; the Central Desert Shire; and the MacDonnell Shire. These will join our municipal councils in Darwin, Palmerston, Alice Springs, and in an expanded Katherine Town Council to see full incorporation of the Northern Territory for the first time.
The shires will be divided into wards with representatives from each ward or electorate to form the shire council. All councillors who represent the people living in the area of the ward will be advocates for local issues on the shire council and keep local residents informed about all important decisions and activities of the council.
These shire councils will provide greater reliability and consistency of services. Stable local government administrators, with highly-skilled managers working effectively with elected representatives, will ensure service delivery standards are maintained and funds are spent with greater accountability. Furthermore, the local community may request its shire council to establish a local board to provide local community advice to the elected members of the shire. Local boards will be integral to the governance and community engagement architecture of councils formed under the Local Government Act in the Northern Territory. Local boards will play an important role in promoting indigenous leadership through their links into the Chief Minister’s Indigenous Affairs Advisory Council. Closing the Gap allocates a new appropriation of $3m to facilitate the establishment and running of these boards.
Another important initiative identified in Closing the Gap is provision for the construction and/or upgrade of community infrastructure such as multipurpose community centres at a cost of $5m over five years.
These new investments will be applied to infrastructure projects identified by communities on a matching funds basis, including …
Ms LAWRIE: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move an extension of time to allow the minister to conclude his remarks pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr McADAM: … partnering with the Australian government and the private sector, thus levering at least a further $10m into community infrastructure development over the next five years. Historically, local government has been relied upon to deliver many government services on behalf of both the Australian and Northern Territory governments.
Increased government activity in remote areas in the form of new or expanded program services is likely to result in a greater role for local government as service providers, advocates and facilitators of programs at the local level. The enhanced ability of local government bodies to deliver services will better place new shires in negotiating agreements with central government agencies, forming enduring alliances and partnerships with businesses in the non-government sector and ensuring that quality services are provided on the ground.
A key priority of the Northern Territory government is to ensure that the major reforms in local government and housing management I have detailed will create more opportunities for local indigenous training and employment. Indigenous housing has traditionally presented great opportunities for training and employment, largely in the construction sector. Current housing reforms will ensure that this initiative, which is currently providing for the training of 40 apprentices per year, will expand. The development of indigenous building teams will provide ongoing employment for trained local people who contribute to the desperately needed skills trade pool in remote areas of the Northern Territory.
The new public housing model and the new local government shire model will create more opportunities for local employment and subsequent training. The Northern Territory government is committed to developing local work forces as an integral aspect of the development of the new shire arrangements which will include core functions such as community infrastructure, parks, local roads, etcetera; community environment standards such as waste, litter and weeds; community engagement; libraries; community events; administration; community information; corporate services; financial administration; human resource management systems and processes; agency services and other services delivered on a fee-for-service basis such as infrastructure maintenance and construction of roads, buildings, essential service contracts, aged care, childcare, disability services, community patrols, commercial stores, workshops and art centres. Other administrative functions such as post offices and Centrelink could also become an integral part of the new arrangements.
At present, there are approximately 3000 people in paid full-time positions within remote local councils. Approximately 1500, or more than half of these paid positions, are occupied by non-indigenous people. Both the Australian and Northern Territory governments are committed to greater employment of local people in our bush communities. Each shire plan will be required to develop an indigenous employment strategy to increase the number of jobs held by local indigenous people.
The Australian government has recently announced the progressive wind-up of CDEP in the Northern Territory. This will have a major impact on the livelihoods of indigenous people in remote areas who rely on CDEP organisations to provide services, jobs, training and enterprise development opportunities. The removal of CDEP without full consideration of the consequences and without well thought-out transition plans will have a dramatic and potentially soul-destroying impact on many remote communities. These impacts include: reduction or breakdown in essential and non-essential service delivery; financial stress for organisations currently dependent on CDEP for funding of jobs; subsequent follow-on impacts in a range of services currently subject to a hidden subsidy; breakdown in communications capacity, for example, the remote broadcasting sector, which is virtually entirely dependent on CDEP; breakdown or serious disruption to social services, including early childhood and youth programs, aged care and other projects supporting community wellbeing; impacts on family income; and depression among CDEP workers transferred from meaningful work to the chain-gang approach of work for the dole; loss of a sense of community ownership of projects and job design, exacerbating the sense that indigenous Territorians do not have the capacity to shape their own future; more control over people’s lives by dictating to them how, when and where they will work; the consequences of population drift to regional centres, again further impacting on the housing shortages in those centres; and overcrowding and antisocial behaviour.
The Territory government is continuing to urge the Australian government to fully understand the impact of the removal of CDEP and to implement a careful transitional arrangement to ensure remote indigenous Territorians have access to real training and employment opportunities. In particular, we will be negotiating with the Australian government to properly support the transition of 600 CDEP positions that support local government services into mainstream jobs.
Contrary to the Australian government’s hastily conceived, ill-considered, drastic knee-jerk reaction, the Territory government has presented a well thought out plan for constructive action to address indigenous disadvantage in the Territory, included in which is being able to engage closely with indigenous people. This plan aims at an outcome nothing short of significantly improving life for indigenous Territorians. I see a future for fellow indigenous Territorians where we will share the same health, education and employment outcomes as presently being experienced by the non-indigenous community. For the most part, the plight of disadvantaged Aboriginal people has continued to worsen and, despite improvements in some areas, we are yet to turn this around.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I am confident the initiatives outlined in the Chief Minister’s statement today will provide the framework from which indigenous Territorians’ livelihoods and community wellbeing can change for the better.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Child Protection): Mr Deputy Speaker, in supporting the Chief Minister’s statement, may I say that it comes at a critical point in the history of the Territory. What we do now and how we embrace the challenge of the next 20 years will affect the lives of all of us, not to mention those who will come after us.
This is about the future; a future in which we must close the gap. The gap must be closed for practical and moral reasons. In the next 20 years, more than 30 000 Aboriginal children will be born in the Northern Territory. It is as though we are holding those 30 000 lives in our hands today as we consider the actions we must take over two decades to ensure the outcomes we desperately need. It is those lives we must think of if we are to hold our heads high as a community in the Northern Territory.
The Wild/Anderson inquiry was a turning point. The inquiry, instituted by this government, answered the questions and made 97 recommendations to which this government is responding, and more. No one here pretends that this inquiry was the first to alert us to the issues of child protection on indigenous communities. As the Prime Minister knows full well, it was he who received urgent pleas to take action six years ago. He did nothing.
Since coming to government in 2001, this government has been alerted to the issue and has done much. Increased spending from around $8m a year under the CLP to $34m a year on child protection, is evidence of that. We recognise, and the Wild/Anderson report has been a stark reminder, that we need to do more, much more. It is also a stark reminder that we must take action for the long term. It is not something which can be done as part of an ill-planned, knee-jerk blitz in which a boots-on-the-ground philosophy masquerades as a solution in which the only thing on the horizon is a six-month window to the next election.
At the heart of the inquiry’s recommendations, and of our response is the absolute necessity of taking a long-term view over the problems we face. The scourge of child abuse cannot be defeated by one-dimensional quick fixes. It is not something which will be resolved by simple minded approaches to narrow problems. There is no simple shopping list of solutions. Any solutions must take a root and branch approach to tackling the broad living conditions our people experience. It is why we must approach this on generational terms, and we must take the long view.
In moving around the bush in the last two months talking to many hundreds of people whose lives have been so drastically affected by the federal intervention, a single fact stands out: people feel betrayed. Good, honest, caring members of our remote towns and communities spoke up at the inquiry. They spoke from their hearts and many spoke for the first time about their fears. The result has been that they have been flogged by distant, ideologically-driven politicians and bureaucrats, remote from the realities of our everyday lives.
Instead of compassion and understanding, and a working through of the ways and means of reaching mutual understandings and solutions, thousands of our parents and grandparents have been tarred by the same brush.
I have attending meetings made up of decent, caring fathers, uncles, brothers and grandfathers who feel that they have been universally branded as perpetrators, as child abusers. To see these men, who are undoubtedly innocent of the horrific charges being bandied about, reduced to helplessness and, in some cases, tears, speaks to me of widespread social damage, not of a decent approach to tackling child abuse.
I have attended meetings down south in which Aboriginal men have been universally condemned as uncaring, substance abusing, vicious molesters while Aboriginal women have been portrayed as hopelessly weak, pathetic creatures, incapable of caring for their families or their children.
This new McCarthyism has to stop, and stop now. It is why, for example, the federal government must immediately suspend its charge to abolish CDEP. The destruction of CDEP is not about creating real jobs; it is about branding all Aboriginal people of being incapable of handling money. It is about stigmatising all Aboriginal people as being hopeless drunks and gamblers. The abolition of CDEP is not about moving people from welfare to work, but of forcing people from work to welfare.
This betrayal by the federal government, felt so acutely by so many people, has not thus far, and I repeat thus far, done anything to save the children. That issue has been lost in the merry-go-round of vilification that has been adopted by so many federal politicians. It is why federal minister Brough believed that, last week, he could get away with dismissing his critics as living in ‘a fog of substance abuse’. That he was forced to apologise says little for him or his integrity. The very fact of his use of such McCarthyist tactics speaks volumes.
Let us face it: the Commonwealth survey teams have done nothing that the Commonwealth did not know about before. The Commonwealth has been working in partnership with Northern Territory government agencies from the days of the CLP 30 years ago to the present in defining what is out there and calculating the needs. Last December, the most recent CHINS, or Community Housing Infrastructure Needs Survey, into housing infrastructure, was completed; a joint Commonwealth-Territory program. The so-called survey is little more than window dressing. We know the results. They will tell us that for generations, Aboriginal Territorians have endured poor housing, poor health, low educational outcomes and fewer job prospects.
While not necessarily directly causal in relationships, these social factors, which the Commonwealth has known about for 30 years and which the current federal government has presided over for 11 years, have undoubtedly impacted on the incidence and severity of community and family violence, sexual abuse, and substance abuse.
That is why we are urging the Commonwealth to join us on the generational plan the Chief Minister has outlined today. It is why we have, in my portfolio, now brought the resources to bear on the problem from $8m under the CLP to a projected $50m a year. We do not reject recent Commonwealth interest in the area; we just want more than rhetoric and heavy-handed McCarthyism.
As I said, in the 26 minutes the Territory government got to appear in the Senate 10 days ago, and you can imagine 26 minutes to consider and respond to 500 pages of legislation, I said:
In broad terms, the Northern Territory government has supported the federal government’s intervention where it directly targets child abuse. The Northern Territory government has been calling for increased federal government investment for indigenous Territorians since at least 2001. The Northern Territory government supports proposed changes to laws that allow access to pornography, additional police and additional medical resources. We welcome these things but since the federal government has announced its legislative follow-up to the intervention, the Northern Territory government has become increasingly concerned. Our government has made it clear from day one that it does not support the removal of the permit system or the compulsory acquisition of Aboriginal land. Neither of these measures directly target child abuse. The removal of the application of the Racial Discrimination Act is also a concern. The immediate abolition of the CDEP scheme is another area we believe needs much more consideration.
We have a remarkable opportunity before us, perhaps a once in a lifetime opportunity, so why would the federal government not want to consult and involve Aboriginal people in this intervention? Why seek to deliberately rush and exclude us? The Northern Territory government takes the issue of child abuse very seriously. We commissioned the Little Children are Sacred report, and I am concerned that the children we need to protect are being lost in this whole debate. It is not about leases and access to Aboriginal land; what started this is the need to protect children. Since the intervention and this legislation, the protection of the children we wrote about in that inquiry has been taken off the radar.
In my area of responsibility, there will be an additional $79.36m a year available for child protection. This will include the provision of a Children’s Commissioner, 10 child protection workers, 37 additional specialist Family and Children’s Services staff, 40 police, remote policing strategy and Child Abuse Task Force, four specialist alcohol rehabilitation workers, and 26 family violence support workers. However, as the Chief Minister pointed out yesterday, none of this will work without the active engagement of Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory.
I believe this will happen for the simple reason that it is the kind of thing Aboriginal Territorians have been looking for over many years. It is why we have seen the activism of so many Aboriginal Territorians on issues such as Night Patrols and substance abuse programs, with women’s centres, health services and schools. This activism must be rewarded, and the Closing the Gap generational plan for action is a vital step on the road to achieve measures of equality that have not been available in theTerritory at any stage before or post-self-government.
Child protection is a profoundly complex question for the children and the families involved, no less than for the state which, of necessity, has a role in its administration. It is an area in which the state is deliberately asked by the community to intervene and interfere with an institution that is customarily regarded as sacrosanct: the family. Violence, sexual abuse and neglect within the family have a variety of complex, interwoven origins including poverty, mental health issues, substance abuse and uneven power relationships between adults and children, women and men.
At times, the problems seem absolutely intractable. We are talking here of young people’s lives that will forever be touched by experience, often too horrible to contemplate, let alone comprehend. We are talking here of actions by one human against another that are often too hideous to think about, let alone forgive. The role of the state in child protection is that it is asked, even commanded, to actively intervene in the lives of members of our community. The judgment of the community is that some people are too vulnerable to do anything but rely on the state. The state is asked to make those choices in the name of child protection, including potentially taking children away from their families temporarily or permanently. The state is asked to care for our children, and very often our women, too, in less than perfect circumstances.
While we and our police and child protection workers, nurses, health workers, doctors and teachers try to do good, a fine line must be trodden. There are no glib, easy solutions, no quick fixes. Anyone in this place or beyond who tries to tell us otherwise is a complete fool. Anyone who thinks that a solution can be reached with just a bit of juggling of a budget here or there, or gaoling people for a longer term is kidding themselves because we are dealing with people who are damaged, sometimes horrifically, and every action and inaction can have consequences that are profoundly difficult to predict for those people. We are dealing with imperfect human beings in an imperfect world administered by an imperfect state. There are no simple solutions.
However, there is an overarching philosophy that must guide us, as legislators, and so many of the frontline workers in the field of child protection to whom I pay tribute to today; that is, no matter what positive outcomes we might hope to achieve, our guiding principle must be to do no further harm. We owe that to the children; the future and to the 30 000 Aboriginal children who will be born over the next 20 years.
As you know, there are not a lot of laughs in child protection. Not a day goes by without material crossing my desk that is testament to the evil that humans can do to each other, especially to our women and children. It often seems hopeless. Perhaps Malcolm Fraser was right in pointing out ‘life was not meant to be easy’. However, as Mr Fraser has also pointed out on a number of occasions the complete quotation comes from the Irish writer George Bernard Shaw who originally said: ‘Life is not meant to be easy, my child, but take courage, it can be delightful’.
Mr Deputy Speaker, let us do our utmost and best on both sides of this Assembly to take courage and hope, and let us create a society in which life for our kids can, indeed, be delightful.
Dr BURNS (Health): Mr Deputy Speaker, as anyone who has lived in the Territory for any length of time knows, and as the Chief Minister highlighted today, there is a huge disadvantage gap between indigenous and non-indigenous Territorians. This disadvantage ranges across just about every facet of life from educational outcomes to job opportunities, imprisonment and health outcomes right through to life expectancy.
It became obvious to me during my early days in the Territory, through my experiences with Aboriginal people, including a couple of stints living and working in Maningrida and spending a lot of time in communities across the Top End of the Northern Territory. These experiences made a considerable impact on me, as I noted in my maiden speech in this House on 17 October 2001. I will revisit some of the remarks I made then because they are relevant today:
I am proud to say that over the past six years, this government has committed more resources than any previous government to trying to reduce the extent of this disadvantage. I am proud to be part of this government for that very reason.
Today, with the statement before the House, we are detailing our comprehensive response to a comprehensive report by Rex Wild and Pat Anderson. We are also laying out the way forward in bridging the gap that exist between Aboriginal Territorians and non-Aboriginal Territorians. This is very important for us here and now, as it is for those in the future. What is happening today is something for future generations. This is very significant. As a government, we are standing by our commitment and inviting the Commonwealth government to work with us in an effective and engaged way to achieve the goals that all of us want to see.
The Little Children are Sacred report arising from the independent Inquiry into the Protection of Aboriginal Children from Sexual Abuse, which was commissioned by this government, highlighted not just the seriousness of sexual abuse, but the complexity of the issue. We are moving to address the recommendations of that report in a comprehensive and detailed fashion. We believe we need to go further and also tackle the broader issues at the heart of the long-term disadvantage suffered by indigenous Territorians.
You have heard today from the Chief Minister about our Closing the Gap initiative, the most comprehensive package to tackle indigenous disadvantage in the Territory’s history. The Chief Minister has outlined what will happen in the first five years of the 20-year generational plan. As part of the $286m to be spent in the first five years of Closing the Gap, an additional $23.4m will be directed to the improvement of the health outcomes for Aboriginal Territorians. We have increased overall spending on the health budget by 73% since coming to office in 2001. Some 58% of our health budget is being spent on Aboriginal Territorians who, as we know, represent some 30% of the Territory’s population. We realise, as a government, that we can do more and we are doing more. The fact that we are spending a significant proportion of our health budget on this one group of Territorians reflects the unfortunate reality of the health of Aboriginal people.
As Health minister, I am pleased to be able to say that we are now seeing some positive trends in Aboriginal health. For example, birth weights amongst Aboriginal children are increasing, as is the life expectancy of Aboriginal women, which has increased by some three years since 2001.
In 2004, this government introduced the Building Healthier Communities framework to set the directions for Health and Community Services over the next five years. We have already made significant progress in achieving positive outcomes through Building Healthier Communities, but there is much more that needs to be done in Aboriginal health. The $23.4m committed to health and wellbeing funding over the next five years as part of the Closing the Gap initiative will help us to make in-roads in this vital area.
This $23.4m will be directed to the following areas: $9.6m to establish integrated family and children’s centres on remote communities to deliver early childhood education and health programs; $8.8m to expand and implement programs targeting hearing loss and preventable chronic disease; $4.5m for sport and recreation programs and infrastructure in each shire; and $500 000 to expand alcohol rehabilitation and treatment services.
Just as importantly, this government recognises the role alcohol plays in so many of the problems affecting Aboriginal Territorians. While the previous government implemented the innovative Living with Alcohol strategy, it was a strategy primarily aimed at non-indigenous Territorians. I do not believe it was particularly effective in reducing harmful alcohol consumption amongst indigenous Territorians.
While we have already put in place significant initiatives to help reduce alcohol availability and consumption, such as alcohol management plans, I emphasise that this is such a vital area for Aboriginal people that we have moved to increase our capacity to do more. The extra $10.1m to be spent on alcohol and drug initiatives as part of the Closing the Gap package will help us give our alcohol management efforts more muscle.
Closing the Gap will reduce the supply of alcohol through various measures including: comprehensive supply restrictions; declaration of dry areas for public and private premises and remote areas; and increased police powers; recruitment of eight additional alcohol compliance inspectors across the Territory to ensure compliance with alcohol regulations, at a cost of $1.35m; recruitment of two court clinicians based in Darwin and Alice Springs to service the Katherine, Tennant Creek and Nhulunbuy regions at a cost of $1.245m; implement a licensing identification system in regional and remote takeaway outlets at a cost of $3.77m; expand the Return to Country program for Katherine, Alice Springs and Darwin at a cost of $250 000; implement regional alcohol management strategies initially in Alice Springs, Katherine, Tennant Creek, east and west Arnhem Land and Timber Creek at a cost of $2.5m; and a widespread alcohol education program detailing the negative impacts of alcohol and emphasising safe drinking levels and healthy alternatives to drinking at a cost of $1m.
Amendments to the Liquor Act passed in 2006 to declare dry areas commenced with Alice Springs on 1 August and is progressing to other areas throughout August. We will introduce amendments to the Liquor Act in the current sitting to give the minister the capacity to implement urgent liquor supply measures, introduce alcohol restrictions in various areas and provide power to the police to search vehicles.
The Little Children are Sacred report embraces the view that prevention is better than cure. The Northern Territory government strongly endorses the inquiry’s view that crisis intervention and responding to abuse after the fact will not prevent sexual abuse of children. We therefore strongly support Recommendation 40 seeking collaboration between the Northern Territory and Australian governments in consultation with Aboriginal people to develop a comprehensive long-term strategy to build a core service platform in Aboriginal communities including education and primary health care services.
Given the seriousness of this issue, I am pleased that progress has already been made on a number of the report’s health-related recommendations. Others are either in the process of being implemented or are the subject of intensive negotiation and planning with the Australian government. For example, we have implemented the Guidelines for Management of Sexual Health in Children and Young People, providing consistent protocols to health clinics across the Territory.
The Northern Territory government also strongly endorses Recommendation 42 of the report; that is there should be an increased focus on antenatal maternity support and health development support for children aged nought to five years. This recommendation is consistent with the Northern Territory government’s Building Healthier Communities framework, which committed us to giving kids a good start in life. This focus involves: the delivery of targeted support for pregnant women and for children in the first year of life; increasing the child health work force in remote communities; standardising the management of childhood illness; and strengthening child health monitoring and evaluation activities.
Additionally, the last few years have seen significant additional NT government funding for maternal and child health, including funding that commenced in 2002 of $2.2m for the remote area child health initiative, which will increase to $2.8m per annum in 2008-09. The child health initiative enabled the establishment of a maternal child and youth health team in 2004 which provides support and staff upskilling to remote health centres for child health programs. In addition, the Northern Territory government has provided an additional $400 000 per annum to employ four outreach midwives for remote communities whose primary role is to work with health centre staff to ensure high-quality antenatal care.
I am proud that this government, from its earliest days, has significantly boosted antenatal and early childhood health care, particularly targeted in remote communities. Today, I am pleased that we will further increase our investment in child and maternal health services as part of the Closing the Gap package.
There will be additional resources over five years totalling $9.6m to enhance delivery of antenatal care and maternal health programs, and to support the delivery of programs that strengthen the development and learning for nought to five-year-olds. This increased investment will contribute to building integrated childhood and family support services in regional and remote communities that strengthen families, prevent child sexual abuse and support vulnerable children.
Key elements of these health-related early childhood and maternal health initiatives include new rural and remote hospital discharge liaison positions to ensure that children arriving home after staying in hospital are well supported by community-based health services, and that their families are better able to provide appropriate follow-up care to the child. Other extra resources will include extra midwifery training places and additional midwifery trainers, increased antenatal education programs in urban and remote settings, more outreach midwives for remote communities and a pool of remote community-based child development workers to support social and learning programs for children aged less than five.
I am pleased to announce today that the Northern Territory government is further investing in programs to address chronic diseases such as diabetes, respiratory disease, kidney failure and hearing loss. The Territory has established world best practice approaches to prevention, early intervention and management of these chronic diseases.
An important element of our recently announced chronic disease-related investment is $4.5m over five years to provide sport and recreation officers, facilities and programs for each shire. Obviously, this is all about increasing physical activity. Evidence strongly links physical activity to healthier weight and, therefore, reduced chronic disease as well as, where someone has a chronic disease such as diabetes, better outcomes for that person. The Closing the Gap plan recognises that better detection in primary health care settings will increase demand on the acute sector. I am pleased that our Closing the Gap initiative also provides an additional $8.8m over five years to ensure timely specialist ear, nose and throat and physician services plus inpatient care on referral.
Finally, as the minister, it has been my privilege to see the dedication, hard work and professionalism shown not just by the maternal and child health nurses, but by all health practitioners and Aboriginal community leaders who work to support Aboriginal mothers and children. The additional funding I have announced today will greatly assist this ongoing and important work, as there is much to be done to improve the health of Aboriginal Territorians.
We know that alcohol is a major problem in the Northern Territory. Figures from 2004-05 show that per capita Territorians drink 17.6 litres of alcohol per year compared with the national average of 9.83 litres per person. This means we drink almost twice the amount of alcohol as other Australians. Figures from 2005-06 show that per capita the Katherine region has the Territory’s highest liquor consumption at 20 litres per person per year, Top Enders consume 17.3 litres per capita, the central region 16.3 litres and the Barkly region 14.7 litres.
Clearly, some Territorians are drinking too much, and we know that alcohol has a tragic impact, particularly on Aboriginal Territorians. The facts are stark. In 2004, more than 17% of Territorians were drinking alcohol at levels causing high risk of long-term harm. Nationally, 10% of the population engages in harmful drinking. Figures from 2005-06 show that more than 70% of our prison population has been incarcerated because of alcohol-related offences. We know that a large majority of the Territory’s prison population are Aboriginal. Apart from the health and social consequences, it has been well documented that alcohol is also a factor in child sexual abuse.
As a government, we have made a concerted effort over the past two years in particular to address the Territory’s long history of heavy drinking. However, the government’s just-announced Closing the Gap strategy will allow us to focus even more on the harm inflicted on Aboriginal Territorians by alcohol. Over the next five years, the Territory government will move to reduce the supply of alcohol through a range of measures including comprehensive supply restrictions and the declaration of dry areas in both public and private premises and remote areas.
As recommended in the Little Children are Sacred report, the government will continue to implement the Alcohol Framework as a matter of urgency. Our Closing the Gap plan will direct an initial $2.5m towards this initiative. A range of measures are also being put in place to address alcohol and antisocial behaviour. Alcohol reforms, giving the minister the power to determine alcohol supply restrictions, are being introduced and passed on urgency at this sitting. These reforms will increase police powers to allow random searches inside general restricted areas and remove the ability of licensed premises with a takeaway licence to book up other items, such as food.
There will be a roll-out of a licensing identification system, including the requirement to produce photographic ID to purchase alcohol in regional and remote takeaway outlets accessible to the public. Announcements have already been made in regard to initiatives to commence in Alice Springs and Katherine. This program will be given greater impetus under the Closing the Gap initiative, with $3.77m committed for licensing identification systems in regional and remote centres.
I will take some time to highlight the success that Groote Eylandt has experienced with their alcohol management plan. On 1 July 2005, a new alcohol management system commenced operation on Groote Eylandt and Bickerton Island. The system was approved by the Licensing Commission following extensive consultation with a range of key community stakeholders. It was also instigated and continues to be supported by the indigenous communities of both Groote Eylandt and Bickerton Island ...
Mr HENDERSON: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move an extension of time to allow my colleague the member for Johnston to conclude his remarks pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Dr BURNS: I thank my colleague. The major object of the system I have been outlining at Groote Eylandt and Bickerton Island was the introduction of permits for the purchase of takeaway liquor from either of Alyangula’s two licensed premises or to bring liquor into the Groote Eylandt restricted area.
In July 2007, the Menzies School of Health Research completed a formal evaluation of the management system. The evaluation has shown that since the introduction of the permit system, there has been a reduction in alcohol-related harm. Specifically, there has been a 52% decrease in property crimes in 2005-06 compared with the 2004-05 period. House break-ins had the largest decrease of 86%, commercial break-ins and motor vehicle thefts and other thefts decreased by more than 50%. Police call-outs for aggravated assaults fell by 67% in 2005-06 and this was the lowest of the past four years. The number of adults admitted to correctional centres from Groote Eylandt and Bickerton Island was also the lowest for four years, with figures 23% lower than for 2002 to 2004. The commencement of probation and parole or other conditional liberty orders fell by 42% from 2005 to 2006, reaching a four-year low. Work attendance improved amongst indigenous employees at the local mine. Absenteeism for indigenous employees dropped from 7.8% in 2004-05 to 2.4% in 2005-06.
Although difficult to quantify, all interviews highlighted that there has been a significant improvement in social function within the indigenous communities after the permit system was introduced. In particular, there was reduced violence and increased harmony reported, which was linked to an increased engagement in work or other productive activity such as hunting and artwork.
The Groote Eylandt management plan is an example of a community working together with government to achieve outstanding results from which we all benefit. I again congratulate all those involved in developing the plan and those involved in maintaining it, including the hard-working permit committee and the service providers such as licensing staff, police and health workers who have assisted in achieving these good results. I also commend the leadership of those communities who have also really got behind this plan.
Our alcohol management plans will complement significant supply and distribution reforms already in place such as dry areas legislation and the alcohol court, both initiatives of this government.
The Territory will support the Commonwealth’s alcohol ban on all Aboriginal land, noting that many indigenous communities have taken advantage of our pre-existing legislation and are declared dry already. As part of the Closing the Gap initiative, some $1.35m will be spent to engage an additional eight inspectors to increase the capacity of government to ensure compliance.
The Northern Territory government will introduce a new Liquor Act by the end of this year which will require licensing decisions to take into account the social impact of alcohol and minimise community harm. The reforms will also provide flexible mechanisms to deal quickly with harm when it arises. Under these changes to the Liquor Act - and I am not talking about the ones on urgency during this sitting; I am talking about ones proposed to be introduced into parliament towards the end of this year - current practice will be formalised whereby the Licensing Commission considers advice from police and the Department of Health and Community Service on liquor licence applications where submitted. That was a particular element I focused on as minister when I was new to both those portfolios. It is a really important way to go that the Licensing Commission takes advice and the view of police and Health and Community Services into account.
Government will require the Licensing Commission to consider community and child impact statements when so advised by police and the Department of Health and Community Services. The Department of Justice will develop a best practice model of community drinking club by June 2008, including the implementation of options. The Northern Territory government will undertake a widespread education as part of the campaign on the negative impact of alcohol and healthy alternatives to drinking. Under the Closing the Gap initiative, $1m will be spent on alcohol education. The education campaign will incorporate different strategies in order to increase knowledge in indigenous communities about the harms of alcohol and provide information which will lead to a change in drinking culture, including safe drinking levels, alternatives to alcohol consumption and moving to lower strength alcohol.
The Alcohol Court Act commenced operation in July 2006 and provides assessment and coerced treatment of offenders with an alcohol dependency where necessary. A court may make alcohol intervention orders a form of sentence that includes a period of imprisonment that may be fully or partially suspended, community-based treatment and supervision by Correctional Services. The court may also make prohibition orders to limit or prohibit the consumption of alcohol and require the offender to undertake specified treatment. The court may only deal with people charged with offences who are assessed as being alcohol-dependent. The court operates in Darwin and Alice Springs and is assisted by court clinicians who provide assessment for the court and monitor the progress of offenders subject to orders. As at 30 April 2007, 69 clients have been referred to the court; 84% of these people were indigenous; 46% of those referrals were eligible for the program; 21 failed the program; and 12 completed the program.
In addition to the wide-ranging reforms to alcohol licensing, the government will hire two new court clinicians to increase the capacity of the courts to deal with alcohol-related offending. A $1.24m commitment as part of Closing the Gap will mean the two clinicians will be based in Darwin and Alice Springs and will be able to service regional centres like Katherine, Nhulunbuy and Tennant Creek.
The Martin government is responding to the issues identified in the report around gambling by putting at least $1.25m over the next five years into ensuring that indigenous gambling issues form part of the body of research which Charles Darwin University is conducting as well as providing for the amelioration of gambling problems through expansion of current counselling and education services. As part of Closing the Gap, a further $250 000 will be spent to expand the Return to Country program. An expanded Return to Country program means people who might otherwise become trapped in the cycle of drinking and the many obvious problems that go with that life will have the capacity to access healthier lifestyle choices.
Mr Deputy Speaker, there are many challenges in trying to close the glaring disadvantage gap that exists between indigenous and non-indigenous Territorians. We are making progress, but there is more to do. I am confident the Closing the Gap package gives us improved capacity to tackle the challenges that lie in front of us. Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the statement to the House.
Ms LAWRIE (Infrastructure and Transport): Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the Chief Minister for her statement today in the House, Closing the Gap - the Northern Territory Indigenous Plan of Action. It is both a comprehensive and extremely well thought-out response to the Wild/Anderson inquiry but, importantly, takes it further.
It takes the response of the government into a long-term generational strategy. The Chief Minister has been on the record asking the Commonwealth to participate in a national plan for a generational response to indigenous disadvantage right across Australia. The generational plan of action from the Northern Territory really does lay down a blueprint for action that the other states and the Commonwealth should pay heed to and join us in responding to.
Importantly, it does identify significant funding investment and resources. It was interesting in Question Time today to hear the carping and whining of the Leader of the Opposition. Her assumption was that the $286.43m from this Territory government was really some artful dodging and shifting of already committed funds. There was a look of surprise on her face when she discovered that all of the money announced in the Closing the Gap initiative is new money. These are new resources to tackle the significant disadvantage of indigenous Territorians.
It is a five-year plan of action. Importantly, it has targets sitting behind it that take us through the generational plan of action to the 10- and 20-year target phases. It is a critically important commitment by the Territory government to addressing the significant disadvantage of indigenous Territorians.
I have had responsibility for Family and Community Services previously, so I want to note that what the generational plan does is build on the actions of the government over previous years since the Martin government came to power in 2001. In the area of Family and Community Services, we need to focus on the important FACS budget. When the Martin Labor government came to power in 2001, the CLP budget for child protection was $7.9m. Currently, it is $35m. The announcements today add almost $80m for child protection initiatives. It is significant and unmatched by any other massive increase in funding by a government addressing indigenous child abuse or the broad area of child neglect, which is also critically important.
We are doing that off the back of having quadrupled the FACS budget, putting 71 additional staff into responding to notifications in the system and, importantly, creating the new initiative of the Child Abuse Task Force, which comprises police and FACS officers working side by side. The Martin Labor government also centralised an after-hours service. Prior to the Martin government, there was no after-hours child abuse service. Basically, the CLP seemed to think that abuse and neglect did not happen at night or beyond 5 pm, obviously nonsense policy.
Also important is that reforms in the past few years have included boosting remote teams and the agency’s capacity to work with remote communities and to respond to those remote notifications.
The improved intake of FACS has seen a range of intelligence regarding serious child abuse matters coming into the intake team and being dealt with collaboratively by FACS and police officers. These are highly skilled professionals, there to assess every report of child abuse from the public and decide what appropriate action to take. Calls to the 1800 700 250 child abuse hotline are answered by the central intake team 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
In addition, we have improved the Sexual Assault Referral Centre, providing an extra $480 000 to expand the SARC service to meet increasing demand. We have seen an extra three staff come into this area. New premises in Alice Springs are in the process of being negotiated with appropriate increases in budget for operational costs like extra SARC doctors, training of the doctors, counsellors and additional travel costs.
The area of specialist care, a new service and initiative of the Martin Labor government will build on these reforms. It provides enhanced educational, social and development outcomes for young people who are in the care of the minister. With the child protection reforms, in terms of legislation, they will soon be in the care of the CEO of the department. This is a critically important area. We are seeing increasing numbers of complex care requirements in the care of children coming into our system. We are seeing increasing numbers of sibling groups coming into our care, as well as increasing numbers of babies. Sometimes, it is very difficult to find the appropriate foster care arrangements for the most complex cases. We have had some 21 children in the specialist care program. They are being managed holistically in a range of their care needs and support. It is fantastic to see in the initiatives in Closing the Gap funding to build on the specialist care program to be able to provide the higher level and holistic care package for increasing numbers of children requiring intensive care.
We have seen some joint initiatives between police and FACS. One that is still in its infancy, but for which I have great hope, is the Peace at Home initiative in the Katherine region, which is again a co-location of police and FACS child protection workers to work together to reduce family violence and decrease child abuse, especially in our indigenous families in the communities around Katherine. This is another example of how we are working in partnership across government to respond to child abuse.
Home Strength is a new intensive family preservation service that has been operating in Darwin for some time now. Again, this is an initiative of the Martin government. It assists families whose children are at risk of either abuse or neglect. It is getting in at that preventative end, trying to assist the families so that we are not in the position of having to remove the children. This is always and should be a last resort for child protection agencies; that is, the families are dysfunctional, but there is no immediate risk to the care of the children. However, there are critical needs for intensive support in those families to ensure that the children’s safety is guaranteed and to give the tools to the family to reduce the poverty and disadvantage in which that family are living and the poor decision-making that comes as a result of those circumstances. Therefore, Home Strength is a critically important service in our urban area for families.
Safe Families is a similar program developed with elders at Tangentyere Council in Alice Springs. Again, it works to prevent family breakdown. It works to identify safe family placements for children who may have been taken into care and, if safe placements cannot be identified, children can be placed in a house where they are cared for until they can be returned to the family or to the extended family with that intensive family support model underpinning the Safe Families program. I want to thank the hard-working staff of Tangentyere. They are doing a fantastic job in the town camps with the Safe Families program.
The Closing the Gap policy absolutely builds on these achievements. I have wholehearted support for the Chief Minister’s statement and for the work that the member for Arafura will undertake as Minister for Child Protection and minister with FACS responsibility. The funding and resources that have been announced as part of Closing the Gap will underpin a robust range of responses to protect children right across the spectrum of their needs, not just the percentage that are sexual abuse cases. Horrendous as they are, they are the smallest percentage within the child protection system. Really, we need to put in resources to build the whole continuum of child protection, which is prevention, and critically important prevention, with assistance of families in crisis, assistance of the neglect cases and responses to those neglect cases as well as the physical and emotional abuse and the most horrific end of the spectrum, which is sexual abuse.
I turn to the agencies for which I have responsibility and first, Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage, and Parks and Wildlife. The Northern Territory government has, for quite a while, recognised that long-term solutions to indigenous disadvantage requires serious initiatives across all areas of government activity. Important steps have been taken in the Natural Resources and Environment portfolio long before the delivery of this report to which we are responding today. The commitment to make a real difference by creating opportunities for indigenous employment and enterprise has been reinforced by both the Wild/Anderson report and the government’s responses in Closing the Gap.
As well as the very tangible material benefits that resource management programs can bring, those efforts are also important demonstrations of respect for indigenous culture and the skills that indigenous people bring to roles critical for the future development of the Northern Territory. The many essential contributions that indigenous people already make to protection and management of the Territory’s natural and cultural assets must be better recognised and rewarded through employment and other economic opportunities.
To make this happen, the Department of Natural Resources, Environment and the Arts has been working with many indigenous communities to build in management of land and sea as a core contribution to regional development and the protection of natural and cultural values, values that are important to both indigenous and non-indigenous people. Some of the most important initiatives are that in addition to the important symbolism of formal recognition of rights and responsibilities in management of land and resources through equitable participation in planning and management, new jobs have been created and traditional owners have been employed. Training has also been provided to indigenous people so they take up future opportunities as either park rangers within the department or develop contracting capacity for work in parks or adjacent land. Indigenous enterprise in commercial parks and land management activities are emerging and groups from Hermannsburg, Watarrka outstation, Amoonguna, Tennant Creek, Timber Creek, Binjari and Katherine have been engaged in contract arrangements to work on parks.
In addition, the department is expanding its support for indigenous protected areas and the efforts of community-based ranger groups. Building on a successful model which commenced with the Dhimurru Land Management Aboriginal Corporation in Nhulunbuy, the department is locating experienced staff for communities to assist in the implementation of plans of management for indigenous protected areas. A senior ranger will be placed with the Yirralka Rangers at the Laynhapuy Homelands in north-east Arnhem, and a senior female ranger will be placed with the Anindilyakwa Land Council to facilitate the development of an indigenous female ranger program on Groote Eylandt.
The department provides assistance through the support for applications for Australian government funding. We also provide technical advice and assistance for the development of management plans for proposed indigenous protected areas, and we are supporting junior ranger programs that, in addition to engaging youth, help to build the pathways to jobs in formal paths and other indigenous ranger groups.
NRETA is maintaining its support for the recording of indigenous languages and knowledge that underpins the development of new economic opportunities in resource management and use. A potentially important area of growth in remote employment is providing environmental services to both the government and private sector. Large companies are seeking opportunities to purchase environmental services such as mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions and biodiversity credits. Opportunities are expected to increase with a proposed establishment of an Australian carbon trading market.
The Territory government broke entirely new ground in facilitating a major $20m contract between indigenous people in Western Arnhem Land and Darwin liquefied natural gas with ConocoPhillips. By skilful management of fire, indigenous land managers have reduced carbon emissions from savannah fires, and the company has paid to support that work as part of their offsets program. Other companies have shown interest in participating in similar projects.
To build on this success, NRETA is conducting research to refine methods and build capacity to take up new opportunities in other parts of northern Australia. NRETA also supports the work of both the Desert Knowledge and Tropical Savannahs Management Cooperative Research Centres in their studies of enterprise opportunities based on the use of native plants and animals. All of these opportunities and others have been promoted to the Australian government in bilateral negotiations.
The Northern Territory government seeks a Healthy Country, Healthy People schedule to the Overarching Agreement on Indigenous Affairs; Australian government support to greatly accelerate access to opportunities for indigenous environmental businesses that will contribute to both Territory and federal goals in regional development; improvements in biosecurity and conservation of our natural and cultural values. The title of the schedule represents much more than a catchy phrase. Recent studies involving collaborations between NRETA and Charles Darwin University have shown that participants in Working on Country programs enjoy better physical health, including reduced incidence of diabetes and cardiovascular disease than non-participants living in the same settings, whether on an outstation or in a larger community.
The benefits of the programs I have outlined extend well beyond immediate improvements in the wellbeing of participants and their families. They make a critical contribution to the promotion of justifiable pride in indigenous culture, and wider recognition of the essential contributions its members make to Territory society. Indigenous society has demonstrated great strength and resilience throughout its history. The Northern Territory government is committed to using every means available to support indigenous people to overcome disadvantage and take prominent roles in the shaping of the Territory.
In regional development and opportunities to improve the disadvantage of indigenous Territorians, you cannot go past the work done by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure. Without infrastructure provision from the government, largely, we do not see benefits flowing to the bush.
Roads, roads, and roads sum up a lot of the need in the bush. This has always been one of the largest issues and is consistently raised with Cabinet members and local members when we are in the bush. Better roads basically lead to better economic, social and health outcomes. Only 23% of the Territory’s road network is sealed. It is an understatement to say that we need the collaboration of the Commonwealth government to drastically improve the roads budgets of the Territory to provide real economic outcomes and benefits to indigenous communities across the Northern Territory. It is unacceptable to have a road network with only 23% sealed.
In recognition of this, the Territory government put in place a record $180m roads budget this financial year to try to address some of the disadvantage to our road network. Importantly, we have increased the repairs and maintenance program by $7.5m this year, but with an ongoing commitment of tens of millions of dollars into future years. Yes, there are some big road projects. The Victoria Highway is a significant road project, but just as important are the road projects such as the Mereenie Loop that will provide far better road conditions to a range of communities in Central Australia and provide tourism opportunities that flow from better access.
In addition, there is a range of capital work which is critical to our indigenous communities and it will underpin the economic growth that Closing the Gap identifies as a great need. You cannot address indigenous disadvantage without, obviously, addressing the need to have jobs in the bush.
In the area of aerodromes and barge landings, the Budget 2007-08 allocations are significant. The repairs and maintenance program for aerodromes has increased to $1.96m, and minor new works for these aerodromes is $1.15m. In addition, there is a capital works program of some $2.43m. It is interesting when you attend the National Transport Ministers’ Council that the southern ministers argue about the Commonwealth failing to fund their aerodromes appropriately. It is the Territory government which funds the aerodromes’ upkeep across the Territory, something which is starkly different from our southern counterparts. Critical also to those coastal communities are barge landings. The repairs and maintenance program has increased to some $82 000 in this current budget.
People underestimate the importance of planning appropriately the roll-out of improved infrastructure across the bush. The Martin Labor government has always had, integral to its budget, incremental annual increases driving the improvement of infrastructure into the bush. I welcome the generational plan of action. There are some significant opportunities for Territorians within it. It addresses a gap which has existed throughout the history of the Territory, and one which governments should not ignore. The plan of action sets down ambitious but achievable targets for the next five, 10 and 20 years.
I commend the Chief Minister for the boldness of her statement and the commitment of the government. I commend my Cabinet colleagues for the work which I know each of us and the agencies have done to respond comprehensively to the Wild/Anderson report and, importantly, take those initiatives much further to provide for this generational plan of action. I commend all the bush members of the parliament. They have been outspoken advocates for Territorians living in disadvantage. They have been absolutely clear in their focus of the areas of need and how government can, should and must address that need.
Closing the Gap targets the core areas which members of this parliament who have bush electorates have identified and articulated. I look forward to going out to the communities and talking them about the opportunities contained within Closing the Gap.
Debate adjourned.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Madam SPEAKER: Before I call on the new member Greatorex, I advise honourable members that I have approved the radio broadcast of the member for Greatorex’s first speech.
I also want to acknowledge the presence in the gallery of family and friends of the member for Greatorex and, on behalf of honourable members, extend to you a warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I ask we extend the usual courtesies to the member for Greatorex during his first speech. I call on the member for Greatorex.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, my success in the 28 July by-election would not have been possible without the support and encouragement of many people: my party, of course, my colleagues and my family and friends. A lot of hard work went into achieving the result. However, it is a lot more than just a one-man show.
Whilst time prohibits me from thanking everyone who contributed to the success individually, there are a few I want to mention. First, the Leader of the Opposition for the support and guidance she provided to me throughout the course of the campaign; the whole of the Alice Springs Branch of the Country Liberal Party for their tireless efforts throughout the campaign; and three women particularly who I want to thank, who worked every single day throughout the course of the campaign and on polling day. It was a seven-day-a-week job in the campaign office and, of course, on polling day. They are Francoise, Donna, and Karen.
I especially want to thank my fiance, Elara, who is here today. She has not only been 100% supportive of me throughout the course of the campaign and the election, but also planning our wedding for 1 September. I have a sneaking suspicion she was probably happy that I was otherwise occupied for that. We have a lot on our plate over the next few weeks.
I thank my guests who are here: my mum from Brisbane, Elara, and a long-time friend, Neil, who have come from Alice Springs and Brisbane to be here today for my swearing-in and this maiden speech.
I extend a thank you to the Legislative Assembly, the Clerk and his staff, for the help they have given me in settling into this job. Of course, it can be quite a daunting process, and I make no secret that it is quite daunting. I am grateful for the help from Legislative Assembly staff, the Clerk and Madam Speaker, for the efforts that you have shown to me and making my family feel welcome. I very much appreciate it.
Of course, my background is commercial radio. Some members in the House perhaps might be aware of that and the program I conducted on Radio 8HA in Alice Springs. I thank those who loyally listened to that show over many years, some who have become quite good friends. The staff and management of Radio 8HA deserve a special mention, and everyone who contributed to the program over the last three years. They have helped make it one of the most unique and successful radio programs in the short history of commercial radio in the NT. It is worth remembering that there are only four commercial radio stations in the Northern Territory: two here in Darwin; and two in Alice Springs. We are small but elite group, you might say.
Of course, I thank the people of Greatorex. Obviously, not everyone voted for me and the Country Liberal Party, but I do promise, and I made this promise on election night, to work hard for every single person in the electorate.
Madam Speaker, I enter this parliament with a great sense of humility and responsibility. Greatorex is one of the newest seats in the Northern Territory, formerly known as Sadadeen and previously held by Denis Collins and my immediate predecessor, Dr Richard Lim. It was named after Tony Greatorex who was a war hero and Rat of Tobruk. It is a great honour to serve an electorate named after someone who was part of such a legendary Australian group as those of the 9th Division of the Australian Army. The Rats of Tobruk were led by Lieutenant-General Sir Leslie Morshead in a fierce 242-day battle against the famous General Rommel and the Rats of Tobruk made a remarkable contribution to the outcome of World War II.
Tony Greatorex represented Central Australia in the old Legislative Council prior to 1974 and was President of that council from 1969 to 1974. Therefore, it is with a great sense of history that I take on this role as the member for Greatorex. Tony Greatorex was a big figure in Alice Springs and the Northern Territory and a great Australian. His memory is certainly not lost today.
I was born and raised in Queensland. My first taste of the Northern Territory was in 1984 when our family visited my brother who was stationed in Darwin with the Royal Australian Air Force in the days before 75 Squadron were stationed at RAAF Tindal. Some might remember the days of the graceful but noisy Mirage fighter that used to be a daily part of life in the Top End. Those were the days when SKYCITY Casino was called the Diamond Beach Casino. In fact, I think it only had been operating for about a year or so. Parliament sat across from this building. There was the famous old Darwin Airport and police vehicles were made up of four-wheel drives with green canvas canopies. I had never seen anything like it.
During that trip, we visited Katherine, Jabiru, Kakadu, major attractions like Adelaide River War Cemetery, the fish feeding in Darwin, Katherine Gorge and the Old Darwin Gaol. When I returned to Brisbane after that trip, I felt I had a real taste of life in the Territory. I thought I had become a frontier man. It never occurred to me that there were still about a million square kilometres of the Northern Territory that I had not even considered.
It was not until a few years later that I stumbled across a book by Keith Willey called Tales of the Big Country and Boss Drover. It tells the story of a famous drover and Centralian called Max Savage. It described his life in Alice Springs and Central Australia. In fact, some of Max’s family live in Alice Springs today. The book dealt with the early days of Alice, and by ‘early days’, I mean 1930s and 1940s. There were many characters of the region, like Walkie Talkie Nelson and Talking Tex Tyrell, and their famous talking competition that took place at the old Stuart Arms Hotel, which nowadays is the Alice Plaza.
There were men like Nat Buchanan, or Paraway as he was known to local Aborigines. He still holds the record for driving 20 000 head of cattle from the Kimberley through the Northern Territory and into the Queensland sale yards in the 1880s. Driving 20 000 head was no mean feat long before fences and road trains, as Ted Egan would eventually sing in a tribute to old Paraway.
There were people like Uncle Ly Underdown, Jock Nelson, Mona Minahan, Albert Namatjira, Olive Pink, of course, Reg Harris and the mighty Hayes family, great pioneers from the heart of Australia, in the days before airconditioning and swimming pools; survivors and legends of a simple life in such a wild environment.
It was stories like this I was able to take away from that book by Keith Willey that compelled me to pursue a life in Central Australia and the Northern Territory, although I was unaware of what modern day Alice would be like, or even if a city slicker like myself could even survive in remote Australia. That was only seven years ago and, since arriving, the opportunities that have come my way in that short period of time are ones that just would not be possible in larger, more populated areas of Australia. The opportunity to enter this parliament is a glowing example.
The Territory is a grand place for opportunity. People from all walks of life and all cultures have access to opportunities like no other place. Whatever your chosen or desired profession, you can attain levels of success in the Northern Territory that you might have thought impossible elsewhere.
Madam Speaker, 2008 celebrates the 30th anniversary of self-government for the Northern Territory. It is with a great sense of pride and humility that I will be in this Chamber as a member of the Northern Territory parliament to celebrate and commemorate that milestone. Many members have served the Northern Territory through their parliamentary commitments over the last 30 years, and 24 of those members are in this House right now. There is a good chance that the names of all those who have held office since 1 July 1978 will be remembered by many a long-term resident of the Northern Territory.
It is one of the great paradoxes of the Northern Territory that despite the sheer size and the vast land mass, Territorians are still able to maintain an intimacy and familiarity with each other. We all know someone who knows someone from every far corner of the Northern Territory; it is the epitome of a close knit community.
The task ahead of me is, without question, a large one. While not insurmountable, it will come with its challenges. Under the current political climate, as a new member, perhaps I have a lot more responsibility; more, perhaps, than is traditionally expected when one arrives for the first time. I refer to a letter given to me after my familiarisation by the Clerk during my introduction to Parliament House, and I quote:
They were restful words from the Clerk for a newcomer entering this parliament for the fist time.
Addressing the wants and needs of the people of Greatorex, Alice Springs and the Northern Territory is a big job. It comes with expectations. It requires discipline, common sense, levels of pragmatism, compassion, an element of leadership and, of course, the desire to want to do it. One of the great lessons in life, I believe, is that you get out what you put in. The reward for effort is only matched by the effort itself.
Madam Speaker, in conclusion, I thank everyone who has helped me attain this position as the member of Greatorex, everyone who contributed to my campaign, and for the support of my family and friends. I dedicate this parliamentary career to the people of Greatorex, Alice Springs, and the Northern Territory and will strive to deliver results for those who put me here.
Mr NATT (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I wish to recognise a young local hero. For those who read the headlines of Saturday’s Northern Territory News, you will have read ‘Boy Hero Saves Crash Victim’.
The boy in question is a school boy by the name of Max Johnson who is 13 years of age and attends Palmerston High School where he is currently doing Year 8. He also lives in my electorate of Drysdale with his mum, Melissa. I congratulate Max on his outstanding deed last week. It was great to see someone take on the responsibility of dealing with an emergency the way Max did.
Last Wednesday, he was riding his bike to school and found a young male lying unconscious and bleeding in a ditch after falling off his bike. Max woke the injured boy and got him to his house, then rang his mum and an ambulance. He laid him on the couch and tried to keep his temperature down by putting a packet of frozen peas on his forehead. The young lad kept falling asleep, and Max kept waking him to ensure he was conscious during the ordeal. Max remained calm throughout the entire episode, and I understand the young injured boy is in Royal Darwin Hospital with head injuries.
Young Max showed responsibility beyond his years and, in these days of uncertainty and the shaping of times ahead for many of our troubled youth, Max is a wonderful example of the capabilities of our youths in extreme circumstances.
I congratulate Max on his wonderful effort to help this injured young boy, and wish him all the best. I am sure he will be appropriately recognised in the not-too-distant future. Well done, Max.
Over the last four or five days in Palmerston, we have had a person of note visit. I speak of the NASA astronaut, James Reilly II. He has visited schools and talked with students about his experiences in outer space, and has been inspiring young people to dream big.
Space travel, as we all know, is fascinating and intriguing for many of our population, be they old or young. I am one who has taken a keen interest in space travel and the results achieved by missions undertaken over many years since man first walked on the moon. In my high school days, we all congregated at a friend’s place and watched the walk on the moon on black and white television one afternoon in the late 1960s, which is going back a few years.
Jim Reilly recently completed his mission, on 22 June, to the international space station in the STS-117 Atlantis. To have a gentleman of this calibre and experience visit Darwin is a real coup. He has spoken to more than 1000 Palmerston students during his visit, and they have been delighted to have the opportunity to pose their questions and satisfy their insatiable quest for knowledge on outer space.
The Palmerston City Council and Mayor Robert MacLeod have hosted a number of activities including receptions and meetings with stakeholders to discuss the potential of the proposal to establish a space school for Palmerston. The program aims to gather some of Australia’s leading intellectual, enthusiastic and intuitive young students and, hopefully, guide them on to a path to become the scientists, engineers or technologists of tomorrow. The school would also be there to provide bright young secondary students with motivational programs to raise awareness of science and space. Such programs also encourage students to follow disciplines and careers in science technology and engineering, and to expand the knowledge and professional skills of educators in the space science. It also enables students with similar interests in space and science to interact with each other.
The State Space schools are conducted specifically for school students between 15 and 17 years of age who have demonstrated a keen interest and aptitude for space science-related subjects. It will capture around 40 students and five teachers and it is run over a five-day period as part of an annual inhouse program. The program includes leading experts lecturing in fields of space and space science, and this occasionally includes visits from NASA leading astronauts. There are hands-on activities like building and launching model rockets, astronomy lessons and problem solving and team building, and there are many visits to science and technology centres and university research facilities.
It is a wonderful program for our aspiring space cadets and budding scientists, technicians and engineers. I congratulate the Palmerston City Council, especially Robert MacLeod, for the initiative taken to organise James’ visit to Palmerston and Darwin. Most of all, I thank James Reilly II for visiting the Territory and enlightening us on his exciting travel in outer space.
Cazalys Palmerston Club is a very strong and active club within the Palmerston community. I became involved a few years ago now in my previous life as the General Manager of AFLNT, when the then president, Ray Norman, and Danny Masters, one of the committee men, were trying to set up the club to assist not only the AFLNT and its clubs, but a number of sporting clubs in and around the Palmerston area. It was an initiative undertaken by Peter La Pira, the owner of the club. Peter approached the NTFL Board to see whether they would like to become involved with the club. Obviously, in my capacity as the General Manager of the AFLNT at the time, I visited and attended several of the board meetings.
The club, over time, has grown extensively from one that was struggling financially earlier on but, through good management and board practices, the club has really grown into a strong community centre and now distributes some fantastic sums of money to sporting organisations and clubs in and around the Palmerston area.
On Monday, 13 August, a reception was held for the distribution of the half-yearly proceeds to some of these local clubs. Seven years ago, when I first started in the Northern Territory with the AFLNT, $15 000 was distributed between the AFLNT, the NTFL clubs and several community sporting clubs. Last Monday, $40 000 was given to the AFLNT and $170 000 was distributed amongst the local sporting clubs. It goes to show how well the club has been managed over the years. To give such sums of money to community sporting clubs is an absolute credit to the club and the people involved with the club.
I congratulate everyone involved, Noel Fahey, the general manager, and his staff. They have done a wonderful job and I know the netball, cricket, softball, Rugby League, eight ball and hockey clubs have all benefited greatly from it as, of course, has the AFLNT, as I said.
Cazalys has also been recognised for its commitment to Palmerston. It won the prestigious Australian Hotel Association Best Club Community Service Award for 2007. It is terrific to see the club blossom and go ahead in leaps and bounds to ensure that local clubs benefit from their contribution. Well done to everyone involved.
In closing, I acknowledge a milestone reached by a gentleman with whom I was involved at AFLNT. I refer to the former Territory Thunder Coach, Damien Hale. Damien has just retired from the position to pursue a career in federal politics. His coaching career has spanned 20 years and, in the last three, he has served as the Northern Territory Thunder Coach. He is probably hailed as the Territory’s most successful AFL coach of the modern era. I must say that my involvement with the AFLNT with Damien was an absolute delight. He is a bit of a character and has a terrific sense of humour but, at the end of the day, he was there for football and he would fit in with whatever the AFLNT had in mind at the time to ensure that football prospered in the Northern Territory.
Damien coached St Mary’s to, I think, three premierships over the last couple of years before he took on the role of Territory Thunder Coach. He played for St Mary’s in the late 1980s and through the 1990s. He played in premiership teams under the great coach John Taylor.
Damien has relinquished the job to, as I said, turn his full attention to the task of winning the federal seat of Solomon for the Labor Party. I know that the enthusiasm he has shown in football will be put into his campaign effort. Damien is a very skills-oriented coach, very skills-motivated, and is a great educator in the game. He has a wonderful knowledge of the modern game and has adapted to its changes and challenges. Those changes and challenges have come in leaps and bounds since I played. It is great to see a person whose skill and ability adapts with the game and achieves some wonderful results.
He has terrific rapport with the players, which I noticed from the word go. I guess it is his open and amenable approachability. He has worked fantastically well with both indigenous and non-indigenous players, and he seems to have the ability to get the best out of anyone he coaches. He has a great outlook on the game and, as I said, his good humour and understanding of the way the game is played nowadays has stood him in good stead.
He has had wonderful support from Jenny, his wife, and his family. I know his mum and dad have been a wonderful support for him over many years. I know that Bob and Bev have been terrific for him over those years. I congratulate Damien on a wonderful job well done with Territory Thunder. I know he will be sadly missed. To try to replace someone of that calibre from within the Territory is terribly difficult. I wish him all the best with his campaign.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, at Question Time today, I raised the issue of the Youth Justice Act and the frustration that some small business owners have when their businesses are broken into. In early May, a number of juveniles broke into local businesses, destroyed stock, damaged the premises, they suffered loss of business and had to pursue insurance claims, which immediately put up their premiums.
It is very frustrating for business people when this occurs. I understand the philosophy of the Juvenile Diversion Scheme to stop young people from going to court and trying to get a resolution before they do so. However, the whole process has dragged on for nearly four months, and the business people concerned are extremely frustrated about the process. That is why I raised it with the Attorney-General. He should be looking at the process to make it more streamlined.
It seems to be the case that the victims are the ones who are not being listened to, with the emphasis being on the offenders. If there was a little more of a shock to this, perhaps the offenders would realise the damage they have done. As regards compensation, the Youth Justice Act talks about the offender paying but, of course, when you are a 10-year-old or 11-year-old, you do not have the means. That is why I have suggested to the Attorney-General he needs to amend the legislation to ensure that parents or guardians are responsible for the damage that occurs, and the costs incurred by the proprietor that they cannot recover. It is one of those things that I am sure many people throughout the Territory have experienced: the break-ins by these young kids who really do not care. This particular incident happened at 5 am when they should have been at home. It is asked over and over again: where were the parents? It would be a wake-up call for their parents if the parents suddenly had to start paying bills for the damage that their children had done.
In his reply, the Attorney-General said he would follow up. It is really important that he does so that people believe justice is happening and that it is just not one of those mickey mouse processes that never seems to get a result.
While I am on my feet, I congratulate the new member for Greatorex. He is going to enjoy his time in this House. It is exciting, as most of us felt when we first entered parliament. The by-election for Greatorex brought out some very exciting times for Independents in Alice Springs. I acknowledge the presence in the gallery of Mr Paul Herrick and his campaign manager, Mr Anthony Yoffa, who fought a good fight over a very short, fast two weeks. As we all know, Let’s Fire Up Alice was the campaign slogan. I noticed the paper the other day said: ‘the embers are still glowing’. I am not quite sure what that means, but we shall wait and see.
It also brings out some ugly sides of politics, which is a sad thing for Independents. The major parties are so strong and the amount of money they can pour into a campaign illustrates the strength of parties. The CLP poured in a lot of money and resources into the campaign in Alice Springs. It was interesting; sometimes we do get the nasty bits. I noticed this brochure from the ALP’s Jo Nixon, which said: ‘Why we’re supporting Jo Nixon’ and had Andrew Maloney’s photo. That brought an instant result from the CLP because Andrew Maloney was a very strong CLP supporter. Interestingly enough, there were some rather vicious letters in the paper condemning Andrew because he said: ‘I am going to stand up for this person’. It happens that people can change their points of view, and we have to respect that, as we all might like to do at different stages.
I remind the House that, yes, I was a CLP member at one stage. Before that, I was a member of the National Party. Now I am an Independent ...
Mr Henderson: What about the Labor Party, Loraine?
Mrs BRAHAM: No, I have not done that yet.
Mr Henderson: We are very friendly.
Mrs BRAHAM: I think it is too late.
The thing I admired about Andrew Maloney was he was the only CLP person who rang me after the 2005 election and congratulated me, the only CLP person who did it. He also said: ‘Thank you for a clean campaign’. I could certainly have run more of a dirty campaign at the time because, obviously, the CLP candidate was not exactly free of a nasty side. We could have spread around ‘CLP man punched in nightclub’. We know how that all came about. The gentleman concerned, unfortunately, had done the wrong thing by a young wife of five months, and the family and friends of his young wife were quite distraught. It reflects part of his character. I was pleased that he did not get to represent Braitling because, if you cannot trust someone, how can they be trusted torepresent people?
I thank Andrew Maloney for ringing me and saying that. I do not think I have ever had anyone else from the CLP congratulate me. In fact, I need to remind the CLP that they are the ones who dumped me; I did not dump them. Sometimes, their attitude seems to be that they have the anger at me whereas, I guess, if anyone should be angry, it certainly should be me, not them.
The other interesting part of the campaign was that it brought together a group of people who were not really attached until they became a campaign group for an Independent. Through that process of working together, they showed how unity can bring loyalty and commitment. I am certainly hoping that in the general election campaign in 2008 or 2009, whatever the government decides, we will be able to have that strong band of people to back an Independent, as they have done for Mr Herrick in the campaign he has just run. It is not easy to put yourself up to the general public. It is not easy to say ‘vote for me’. It is even harder when they say: ‘No, I will not; I am going to vote for a party’. All I say to Paul is that you know the votes you did get were for you, not a party. That is a very important thing.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, there are interesting times ahead. We are already calculating when the government is going to go to the next election. I reckon not for a little while because things are not going too well for them at the moment, and they will need to get over the federal government election. However, it is going to be probably one of the most interesting elections that the Territory has had because there will be a lot of people out there. Certainly, a lot of people have said to me: ‘We need another party. We need the Liberals to come in and take over because there is just not the strength on the ground for the CLP any more’. Perhaps they need to change their image and we need to see that.
Having said that, there is also a feeling out there that the Independents can join forces and make a difference. I remember what Peter Murphy said in one of his articles; that the Independents are more effective as an opposition than the opposition themselves in this House at the moment. Today’s Question Time was a great example of that. Both parties were hammering how many dollars were being spent on what, but they forgot that what we should have been talking about is the outcomes we intend to get out of this whole process at the moment. So, interesting times ahead; I look forward to the next election not as a candidate, but from behind the scenes.
Mr HAMPTON (Stuart): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to acknowledge three constituents from the Yuendumu community who recently received their Order of Australia Medals. We had the ceremony at Yuendumu on Thursday 16 August, only last week, which was also attended by the Administrator of the Northern Territory, Mr Ted Egan. It was truly a remarkable event. The three worthy recipients of the Order of Australia Medal were Mr Andrew Stojanovski, affectionately known as Yakajirri, his Aboriginal name, and Mrs Peggy Nampijinpa Brown, my grandmother, and Mr John Japangardi Miller, my grandfather, all worthy recipients of the medal.
I would like to read out the acceptance speech from Mr Stojanovski. It gives a good summary of what the Mt Theo program is all about. It is particularly relevant in the situation we find ourselves in today with the intervention from Canberra and our Chief Minister’s statement today on Closing the Gap. I quote the letter:
Andrew Stojanovski OAM
16 August 2007
As I said, the investiture of those three great Territorians and Australians was a great event, a remarkable event. It was my pleasure to be there to witness that. It was a great turnout by the community. There were kids from school singing songs and, as Andrew said, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people attended and paid their respects and recognition to three great Territorians.
Without detracting too much from the celebrations that day, there were a lot of people who approached me as their local member, sad and upset with comments which were made in the Senate by Senator Bill Heffernan about the program at Mt Theo. I would just like to read another letter of response from the Mt Theo mob as they have asked me, as their local member to do:
That was a letter in response from Petty Brown, OAM, one of the founders of the Mt Theo program; Johnny Miller OAM, a co-founder; Andrew Stojanovski OAM, founding manager; Enid Gallagher, the Chairperson; Warren Williams, Chairperson; and Susie Low, the Manager.
Mr Deputy Speaker, we heard today that the Chief Minister made a landmark announcement in Closing the Gap. Over the last 10 weeks, I have been out and about and I will be speaking in support of the statement tomorrow. One of the places I did visit over the past nine weeks was Batchelor Institute. I had a good discussion there with students about the intervention, about my role as an indigenous person in the Territory and as a member of parliament. The students have also asked me to read a letter and have it put on the public record. It is a letter they wrote to the minister, Mal Brough:
That was signed by Enid Gallagher from Yuendumu; Joan Pracy from Katherine, Melardella Gibuma, she did not say from where, unfortunately; Shiela Rose; Lena Williams; Shannon Mununggurr; and Petrina Slater, just some of the students from Batchelor.
I will close by saying that I understand Senator Heffernan has not formally apologised to the Mt Theo program or to the Yuendumu community, so people out there are still waiting for some sort of apology from him. I am also interested in seeing what response from Mal Brough the students from Batchelor get to their letter.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight I wish to discuss a matter that has received some media in recent times. The issue arises out of the procedural fairness extended to the new owners of the Tiwi Supermarket in Darwin’s northern suburbs. It deals with the transfer of the business at the leased premises known as the Tiwi Supermarket. The issue is a matter of timing, basically. The vendor in that transaction was Jannie Mathers and her husband, and the purchasers were Mr and Mrs Gray.
A little about Mr and Mrs Gray: they decided, in the later stages of their careers, to move to the Northern Territory because their daughter is here and they thought it would be to relocate and invest in a business so that they could be gainfully employed and close to their daughter who works at the Darwin hospital. Their experiences as a result, which I will proceed to explain, have caused them a huge amount of grief and loss of faith in the dream they once had of moving to the Northern Territory.
To cut a long story short, the purchasers agreed to take on the shop in December 2006. The agreement was a verbal contract, unusual for this day and age, but perfectly legal. It is clear from the outset that both parties considered themselves bound by their words. I have met both parties and I can verify that they are people who trusted each other, whatever others may say.
Sadly, in this case, Mrs Mather’s performance as a licensee has been chequered, to say the least. She has been responsible for several breaches of the terms of her liquor licence and the most recent suspension was for 56 days, the longest suspension in the history of the Territory. Nevertheless, the licence itself was active at the time the money was handed over by the Grays on 19 April this year. The date, 19 April, is significant. It is important to remember this date because it is facts that surround the transfer of property and this liquor licence that go to the heart of this issue: procedural fairness and injustice.
On 16 March 2007, the Licensing Commission received a complaint about a boy buying liquor at the Tiwi shops. Clearly, this was a further and serious breach by the licensee, Mrs Mather. This is not in dispute; indeed, there are no facts in this whole matter that are in dispute.
What also is clear is that on the 26 and 30 March 2007, the purchasers, the Grays, contacted the Licensing Commission about transferring the licence. During these contacts, as the Licensing Commission said, the Grays were informed, but not in writing, to exercise caution when purchasing the property. It also said that the Grays were advised by commission staff to seek legal advice, though not in writing. What the Grays were not told was that there was a new investigation afoot. They were certainly made aware of the old breaches against the licence, but there was no indication there was an investigation afoot.
On 20 April, one day after the money to buy the store was transferred to the vendor, the vendor was advised for the first time that there had been a complaint against her licence. It was clear the Licensing Commission knew of her intention to sell the property. It is also clear they knowingly withheld information about the new complaint. All the while, the Grays were dealing with the Licensing Commission which knew, but did not advise them as purchaser.
Although there is a policy that licences are not transferred while there are outstanding matters, and that liquor licences are separate parts of the supermarket to which they are attached and, therefore, treated quite independently by the Liquor Commissioner, I harbour grave concerns about the decisions to withhold this vitally important information from the potential purchaser, while also keeping the vendor in the dark until after the premises were sold. There may be actions available to the purchaser against the vendor to recover damages because of an implied term in the contract of sale, which is a possibility technically. Practically, the implied term was that a liquor licence came with the deal. However, the purchaser simply cannot afford to pursue such a matter and because the purchase was complete before the vendor was aware of the latest complaint, she could hardly be held to be culpable in her actions. She was not formally advised until after the sale was completed.
The commissioner was also mindful of the issue because it is addressed in the decision. However, the commissioner anticipated the decision to cancel the licence would lead to action in another forum. It will not. There will be no court case because the purchasers simply cannot afford it. There cannot be another licence issued because the minister has declared a moratorium so they are snookered. The purchasers, therefore, are damned because of timing and an arbitrary and indifferent decision by the Liquor Commissioner.
The only person in this arrangement who was in a position to see what was about to happen was the Liquor Commissioner. It was his office which was aware of the complaint and of the impending sale of the premises. Neither the vendor nor the purchaser were aware that this was about to occur. Whilst it is true that the decision by the purchasers to go ahead without a written contract is foolhardy, there was no culpability on their part. Also, the vendor was utterly unaware of the complaint until after the purchase was completed. The Liquor Commissioner’s reported response regarding the reason the decision was made - that licensees should not think they can walk away from their responsibilities by selling the licence - is absurd.
It appears the intent is to punish the licence for its failings; it is because there has been a breach of the licence. Therefore, the Liquor Commissioner has deemed fit to punish the licence. As the commissioner so rightly points out, it is not the commission’s job to punish, it is their job to administer the licences. How then, does the commissioner explain this statement in his decision?:
What is in the public interest is an administrative process which does not set people up to fail. If the commissioner was aware of the potential for an injustice, why would he let circumstances unfold in which the injustice became inevitable? Government has made it clear that they want to rein in liquor licences. The commissioner is clearly under instructions, despite his reported independence, to do so. I understand the problems of alcohol in this community, however to have allowed this situation to unfold and make an innocent third party, which is the saddest part of all this, the scapegoat is not in the interest of good governance or fairness.
The subsequent indifference displayed in this issue is also of concern. The commissioner had a duty to inform the offending licensee of the complaint. Just doing the right thing would have helped alleviate immense grief and terrible disappointment from a couple who had made a decision to move to the Territory. They could have made them aware of that complaint and that could have been done prior to the sale of the property. I ask that this matter be re-visited in one fashion or another. There is no capacity for the purchaser to sue despite the commissioner’s assumption that this would occur.
I understand that the purchasers, the moment that they heard the nature of the complaint, immediately moved to deal with the person who had caused that problem. They have done all they can. The person who had held responsibility for the licence whilst the breach occurred now has been paid for that business and lives elsewhere but, upon hearing this, has become so aggrieved that they immediately came back because they feel, quite rightly, that they have let down the purchaser, the Grays. They were unaware while the contract was being negotiated that this was afoot. The only person, as I have said, who was aware of the whole story unfolding, is the commissioner
I understand that the Grays have made representation to their local member, the member for Casuarina. I urge the member for Casuarina to take this issue of procedural unfairness and administrative neglect, I call it, seriously and intervene as far as possible in the interests of what is right. I ask the minister to take personal note of the story behind this. You might be able to derive some slight comfort from entertaining legal arguments on procedural matters, but look at the people behind this. The ones who have caused no fault whatsoever are the ones who are bearing the penalty, and that is not right. That may be administratively tidy, but it is improper and unfair.
I ask the minister to find some way of intervening in the interest of what is right for a good couple whose only fault is that they shook hands and believed that their word was their bond. They have been left to carry a terrible load. They say, as a result of this episode, they may not be able to continue. They are the ones who are left to bear the burden. I ask the minister to please spend some time with them, learn of their story, and see what he, as a minister, can do to do the right thing for the Grays.
Ms SACILOTTO (Port Darwin): Mr Deputy Speaker, it has been a very busy Dry Season month in the electorate of Port Darwin. I will start by talking about the 100 years of scouting, the anniversary and the birthday of scouting. His Honour the Administrator, Mr Ted Egan, Chris Doige and around 150 other people gathered for the sunrise on the Esplanade on 1 August, including the Darwin 1st Sea Scouts, of whom my son, Luca, is a member. It was a fantastic gathering. The Kiwanis provided everyone with a hot cooked breakfast and did a fantastic job. Everyone enjoyed it. There was quite a bit of history and very interesting commentary about the father of scouting, Sir Baden-Powell. It was a good morning and set the scene for the other events in relation to the 100 years of scouting celebrations.
On 3 August 2007, Larrakeyah Primary School hosted a special assembly in celebration of the opening of the new shade structure over the basketball courts. I thank the principal, Mr Graham Chadwick, and the hard-working staff and parent committee for including me in this special event. I was particularly proud to present achievement awards to many of the junior primary students.
On 4 August 2007, the Turf Club Gala Ball was a fantastic event. SKYCITY’s Andrew Wilson and Manuel Cruze and their fantastic and professional staff should be commended for the spectacular and well-managed massive event, in the order of almost 3000 people. There was groovy entertainment provided by 1970s/1980s rock idol, Leo Sayer. I believe I speak on behalf of all attendees when I say it was a great night.
On 6 August, the Carlton Draught Darwin Cup races were a fantastic day. I thank and congratulate Foster’s Australia for their support of this very important event on the NT sporting and social calendar. I particularly thank the NT Foster’s team led by Mr Lincoln Jenkin, Mr Des Friedrich, the CEO of Darwin Turf Club, the committee and fabulous staff for looking after everyone so well.
On 7 August, I was pleased to attend the opening of the new premises and the launch of LifeLine. The new premises are in Shepherd Street in my electorate. I extend my sincere appreciation to Patron, Ms Nerys Evans and Shani Darby and the board for hosting the event. It was a big move for the organisation. They are to be commended for the fantastic service they provide, which is well used by many Territorians.
As members will know, August is Seniors Month. There have been a huge number of events for or by seniors so that the community embraces enjoying seniors. The highlight has been the Seniors Morning Tea at Parliament House hosted by the Speaker, the member for Nightcliff. It was a fantastic morning tea and the place was packed. Some of my constituents who attended included Mr Jack Haritos, Mr Christadoulou, Mr Bob Beadman, Mr Brian Hilder, Mr John Whyte, Mr Cyril and Mrs Pauline Young and Ms Greata Quong. Unfortunately, Ms Josephine Lee was unable to attend.
Other events for Seniors Month have been fantastic and are ongoing until the end of the month. There are many people trying things they have not tried in the past, which is a fantastic part of Seniors Month because people get out of their comfort zones and have a fantastic time. Some of the other events I have attended recently included Christmas in July, hosted by the National Seniors and put together by Mr Cyril Young. It was a fantastic event. I could not believe that I could find my Christmas hat in July, but I did manage to find it. I had a great night. We sang Australian Christmas carols and enjoyed a beautiful feast prepared by the Darwin Palms Resort. They were fantastic hosts. The meal was lovely and the company was even better. I enjoyed that event.
I am looking forward to 25 August, which is the National Seniors Race Day at the Darwin Turf Club. This will be my third National Seniors Race Day. On the first race day, the horses could not get started because the ambulance did not arrive, but we had a fantastic day. Last year was bigger and better, and I believe this year is a sell-out and has been for a couple of weeks. Congratulations to Cyril Young and the team at National Seniors for launching such a great event, which is growing in popularity and is a testament to how much fun people have because they keep coming back and bringing their friends. We might need to take over the whole place next year.
On 11 and 12 August was the Tropical Garden Spectacular at the George Brown Botanic Gardens. It was a fantastic two days. This was my second year of hosting a stall at the Spectacular. It was great to talk to a lot of people. Even though many of my constituents live in apartment complexes, they were at the Garden Spectacular because it is fantastic, even for people with small or balcony gardens. I spoke to a lot of people over the days and we discussed many issues. I am sure there will be some very good ideas to come from those conversations.
We participated in the Gardening Olympics. On my team were the members for Brennan, Sanderson and Macdonnell. We were pitched against the member for Nelson’s team. Unfortunately, apparently he pipped us at the post again with his Chicko-seum, which was an amphitheatre for chickens. Normally, he has contraband, such as cut-out chickens and windmills and the like. We made a mammoth effort. We broke a couple of giant pavers, almost on our feet, and enjoyed the day. It was fantastic. There were many gardens after that which were a lot better than ours and the member for Nelson’s.
The Tropical Garden Spectacular’s main organisers were Simon Smith and Jayne Dellow. They were fantastic, running around the whole day, very enthusiastic and very hard workers. I commend them for their efforts and say that it was bigger and better than last year. I am sure it will be bigger and better next year. I plan to be involved again next year, as I really enjoy the weekend, particularly competing in the Gardening Olympics. Next year, I am going to give it my best shot to try and knock off the member for Nelson and be victorious in the Gardening Olympics, at least between the two of us. It has to be one in four.
I will close tonight on a sad note. On 20 August, I attended the funeral of the member for Arnhem’s mother, Limandabina Charlie, who passed away on 3 August this year. She was a loving mother and grandmother and strong Garrawa and Yanyuwa elder. I extend my condolences to Patrick, Barbara, Selina, Allan and Kelvin. It was a very sad occasion. It was a huge tribute to the person she was, because the whole community attended the event and there was a lot of sorrow.
I was humbled to be a part of that at the invitation of the member for Arnhem because Maisie, as I know her, was a very friendly and welcoming woman. Only after meeting her a couple of times, the standard welcome was a big hug and a kiss on the cheek and ‘Hello, my sister’. Hers was a really friendly face. She was always with family. Her family adored her, which was very evident at the ceremony where her family, her children and her grandchildren, spoke. There were a lot of people there, very sad, but with fantastic memories of a loving mother. Once again, I convey my sympathy to all the family and all of the people who knew this wonderful woman. May she rest in peace.
Mr BURKE (Brennan): Mr Deputy Speaker, I add my condolences to the member for Arnhem for the passing of her mother, Limandabina Charlie, who was a loving mother and grandmother, strong Garrawa and Yanyuwa elder. She was born on 16 February 1953 and, sadly, passed away on 3 August this year. She was born at Manangoora Station, the second eldest child of Jerry and Bella Charlie who are now deceased. She had four brothers and five sisters. She grew up at Manangoora and Sharka Point. She would travel up and down the McArthur River and the islands in a dugout canoe with her uncle and auntie, Tyson and Rosie, and her big brother, Danny. She then went back to live with her parents when they moved to Brunette Downs, where she went to school.
They moved to Gallipoli and Alexandria Stations with her grandfather, Tommy Peters. In Borroloola, the Pattemores were her teachers. When she was about 16, she worked for Mr and Mrs Festing as a housemaid with her cousin, Chloe Mulholland, and Mavis’ sister, also now deceased. She became the first Aboriginal teacher’s aide in Borroloola. She had her first son, Patrick, in 1967, followed by Barbara, Selina, Allan and Kelvin.
She went to live in Brisbane and Alice Springs with Barbara’s dad when Barbara was a child. Then, when Limandabina came back, she lived in Borroloola and worked at the shops. She moved to Robinson River when Selina and Allan were young. Selina stayed with Auntie Maureen in Borroloola and Allan went with her to Robinson. She lived with Kelvin’s dad, now deceased, and they moved around the Gulf country and to Benmarra. They then came back to Borroloola for Kelvin’s schooling. While they were in Borroloola, they became members of the AIM church.
Limandabina studied at Batchelor as a linguist and translated the Garrawa dictionary. She also studied at Darwin Bible College when Esther and Rhonda were there. Limandabina moved to Darwin in 1998 where she lived in Palmerston and cared for nieces and nephews: Caitlin, Leandra, Joel, Kaleb, Dwayne, Gareth and Clint. The house became a warm and welcoming one for the Borroloola families.
Sadly, in 2004, she was affected with kidney disease which meant she had to have dialysis treatment three days per week. On 3 August, after one of her dialysis treatments, she came home to her house and passed away.
As well as being the mother of a friend, Limandabina was a friend to me. As the member for Port Darwin has already said, she always greeted you with a hug and a kiss. She lived in Palmerston as I said, and was, in fact, a constituent of mine as well. Having door knocked the area a number of times, I can certainly say that her house was always full of love and family.
My family’s heartfelt condolences go out to Barbara and all the families and the community affected by this lady’s passing. I was honoured and privileged to attend the smoking ceremony at the house. Sharon, my wife, came with me as well. It was a very sad occasion for everyone. However from the privileged times I was able to have talking to her, she would have preferred us to think about the wonderful times that people shared with her and the wonderful and strong lady that she was. She was certainly generous in all manner of the word - generous in her love, her patience and her kindness - and a lady with a great deal of passion and pride in her community and her family.
I thank all of her family for being generous with me and sharing their times with me. I apologise to them that I was not able to attend the funeral in Borroloola this week. My family and I share the great loss that they feel.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise you of the presence in the Speaker’s Gallery of the family and friends of the new member for Greatorex. In particular, I advise of the presence of the new member’s mother, Mrs Jennifer McCormick, his fiance, Miss Elara Bozich, and friend, Mr Neil Aitken. On behalf of all honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
TABLED PAPER
Resignation of Former Member for Greatorex
Resignation of Former Member for Greatorex
Madam SPEAKER: I advise honourable members that on 9 July 2007 the resignation of the former member for Greatorex, Dr Richard Lim, was submitted to His Honour the Administrator via letter pursuant to section 18 of the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act 1978. I table the letter.
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Media Arrangements - Swearing-in of Member for Greatorex
Media Arrangements - Swearing-in of Member for Greatorex
Madam SPEAKER: I advise honourable members that I have approved ABC television and Channel 9 to film with sound, NT News to take photographs and ABC radio to broadcast during the swearing-in of the new member for Greatorex.
RETURN TO WRIT
Division of Greatorex
Division of Greatorex
The CLERK: Honourable members, I lay on the table a return to the writ issued by His Honour the Administrator, Mr Ted Egan AO, for the election of the member for the electoral Division of Greatorex on 28 July 2007, certifying the election of Mr Matthew Escott Conlan.
Matthew Escott Conlan made and subscribed the oaths required by law.
Madam SPEAKER: On behalf of all honourable members, I extend warm congratulations to the new member for Greatorex.
Members: Hear, hear!
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise you of the presence in the gallery of Grade 6/7 students from Holy Family Primary School accompanied by Ms Michelle Morris and Grade 5/6 students from Moulden Park Primary School accompanied by Trudy Bland. They are participating in the Parliament of the Wizards that is part of the Celebrating Democracy Week. Honourable members are welcome to watch the Parliament of the Wizards in the Chan Building from 1.20 pm to 1.45 pm. On behalf of all honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: I ask the media to leave the Chamber at this point.
TABLED PAPER
Government Administrative Arrangements
Government Administrative Arrangements
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I table the Administrative Arrangements Order dated 7 August 2007, setting out the administrative arrangements of government and portfolio arrangements.
GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATIVE ARRANGEMENTS
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, the ministry and ministerial officers are as follows:
Clare Majella Martin: Chief Minister; Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services; Minister for Asian Relations and Trade; Minister for the AustralAsia Railway; Minister for Indigenous Policy; and Minister for Major Projects;
Sydney James Stirling: Treasurer; Minister for Justice and Attorney-General; and Minister for Statehood;
Paul Raymond Henderson: Minister for Employment Education and Training; Minister for Tourism; Minister for Public Employment; and Minister for Multicultural Affairs;
Christopher Bruce Burns: Minister for Health; Minister for Racing Gaming Licensing; and Minister for Alcohol Policy;
Konstantine Vatskalis: Minister for Business and Economic Development; Minister for Regional Development; Minister for Defence Support; Minister for Sport and Recreation; and Minister for Essential Services;
Delia Phoebe Lawrie: Minister for Planning and Lands; Minister for Infrastructure and Transport; Minister for Natural Resources Environment and Heritage; and Minister for Parks and Wildlife;
Marion Rose Scrymgour: Minister for Family and Community Services; Minister for Child Protection; Minister for Arts and Museums; Minister for Women’s Policy; Minister for Senior Territorians; and Minister for Young Territorians;
Elliot Arthur McAdam: Minister for Local Government; Minister for Housing; Minister for Central Australia; Minister for Corporate and Information Services; Minister for Communications; and Minister Assisting the Chief Minister on Indigenous Policy; and
Christopher William Natt: Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries; and Minister for Mines and Energy.
On 7 August, I reshuffled Cabinet portfolios as I have indicated to place an even greater focus on cracking down on crime and antisocial behaviour. Tackling law and order issues is our top priority; even tougher laws and tougher enforcement will make our streets safe. We will continue to attack crime and its long-term causes and focus on child protection and family support.
The two most senior ministers now hold the two most important law and order and justice portfolios. I have responsibility for police and the Deputy Chief Minister is the Attorney-General and Minister for Justice.
Dr Burns will focus on overcoming the problems that substance abuse, particularly the abuse of alcohol, is causing our Territory. He is responsible for alcohol policy and the rolling out of alcohol management plans across the Territory. He is the Minister for Health, as well as holding the portfolio of Racing and Gaming.
Marion Scrymgour takes on the portfolio of Family and Community Services. She is also minister with special responsibility for child protection and retains the Arts and Museums portfolio.
Delia Lawrie has added the portfolios of Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage to her portfolios of Lands, Planning, Transport and Infrastructure.
Multicultural Affairs has been taken on by Paul Henderson who already has well-established and close relationships with multicultural communities across the Territory.
Madam Speaker, we have made significant strides in the fight against crime and antisocial behaviour including an extra 200 police, but more needs to be done.
OPPOSITION OFFICE HOLDERS
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader)(by leave): Madam Speaker, the shadow ministerial portfolio responsibilities of opposition members are as follows:
Jodeen Carney, member for Araluen: Attorney-General and Justice; Women’s Policy; AustralAsia Railway; Police, Fire and Emergency Services; Defence Support; Major Projects; Business and Economic Development; Essential Services; Corporate and Information Services; Family and Community Services; and Child Protection;
Terry Mills, member for Blain: Treasury; Employment, Education and Training; Racing, Gaming and Licensing; Alcohol Policy; Asian Relations and Trade; Young Territorians; Primary Industry and Fisheries; Indigenous Affairs; Multicultural Affairs; Statehood; Lands and Planning; and Communications;
Fay Miller, member for Katherine: Opposition Whip; Natural Resources and Heritage; Regional Development; Transport and Infrastructure; Senior Territorians; Mines and Energy; Arts and Museums; Housing; Parks and Wildlife; and Public Employment; and
Our newest member, the member for Greatorex, Matt Conlan, takes on: Health; Central Australia; Local Government, Sport and Recreation; and Tourism.
MOTION
Committee Membership
Committee Membership
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the member for Greatorex, Mr Conlan, be appointed to serve on the following parliamentary committees: Public Accounts Committee; Standing Orders Committee; and Environment and Sustainable Development Committee.
Motion agreed to.
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 June sitting of the Assembly.
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
Member for Arnhem
Member for Arnhem
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that leave of absence be granted to the member for Arnhem for this period of sitting owing to bereavement in the family.
Motion agreed to.
RESPONSE TO PETITION
The CLERK: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 100A, I inform honourable members that a response to petition No 56 has been received and circulated to honourable members.
Petition No 56
Closure of Farrar Medical Centre
Date presented: 17 April 2007
Presented by: Mr Wood
Referred to: Minister for Health
Date response due: 29 August 2007
Date response received: 20 August 2007
Date response presented: 21 August 2007
Response:
As stated in previous responses to this matter, the Australian government (AG) continues to hold primary responsibility for the provision of general practice (GP) services. Through the AG’s Investing in After Hours GP Services Program, GPs are able to apply and be considered for additional assistance to enhance provision for after-hours GP services.
I strongly encourage all based GP services as well as the GP Divisions to access the AG initiatives and incentives.
I would like to take this opportunity to stress my support for the provision of services. Indeed, I have advocated and will continue to advocate with the Australian government Minister for Health and Ageing on these matters of GP access for Territorians.
I am also pleased to inform you of the ongoing success of the NT HealthDirect service. This primary care service provides callers with immediate access to registered nurses on a 24-hour, seven days per week basis. Callers are able to obtain health information, advice and symptom-based assessment and referral. To date, from June 2005 to May 2007, NT HealthDirect has handled a total of 31 966 calls. It has an average daily call rate of 44 calls, of which 14% originate from the Palmerston/greater Darwin area.
I am also pleased to advise on the progress being made by the Department of Health and Community Services in the implementation of the Palmerston Regional Plan. In this plan, the government has committed to improving access to health and community services that are closer to home. Service enhancements have already occurred with the employment of a Child and Family Health Nurse, providing the first annual breast screening clinic in Palmerston in April 2007, and increased support services for people with significant memory loss or early stage dementia.
The provision of health services remains important to this government, and the Department of Health and Community Services is continually exploring and implementing the most cost-effective and equitable health services possible.
MINISTERIAL REPORTS
Skilled Worker Campaign
Skilled Worker Campaign
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, today I update the House on the Territory’s skilled worker recruitment campaign. The skills shortage issue is a national phenomenon and one that is exacerbated in the Territory by the major infrastructure, construction and mineral projects we have seen in recent years.
We are addressing this critical issue through three key initiatives. First, we have invested heavily in education and training to give Territorians the skills and expertise they need to meet the demands of our new and expanding industries. We are on target to achieve 10 000 new apprentices and trainees over four years and we provide targeted incentives to employers, students and new and existing workers to train, retrain and upskill to meet the needs of the Territory’s growing economy. Right now, there are more Territorians registered in training than ever before.
We have also put in place the Overseas Business and Skilled Migration program which has seen many skilled professionals come to live and work in the Territory.
The third of these initiatives is our skilled worker recruitment campaign. The campaign carries a simple message: come to the Territory if you want to build a career and experience one of Australia’s best lifestyles. The campaign began a little over two years ago and, since that time, we have shared our story across Australia and New Zealand in newspapers, magazines and on radio and the Internet.
Our advertising in major metropolitan dailies such as the Herald Sun and in mass circulation lifestyle magazines like Women’s Day and New Idea, has taken the Territory into the minds of literally millions of people. Already, more than 7000 skilled trades people and professionals have expressed an interest in moving to the Territory with their families.
The skilled worker recruitment campaign was evaluated in March. The evaluation shows that most inquiries came from New South Wales and Victoria, and newspapers from these states, both regional and metropolitan, gave us the best value for money. There was a fairly even spread of callers between the city and the country and, given that far fewer people live in regional areas, it shows that it is country people who have the highest level of interest in the Territory at the moment.
Industry, obviously, has a vested interest in the success of this campaign so it is crucial that we work with the private sector to make the best use of our growing database of potential Territorians. The challenge for us is to turn curiosity and interest into job applicants, and we are working hard to achieve this. Following consultations with recruitment agencies, business associations and unions, campaign inquiries are now channelled to private sector recruitment firms, and there is a greater exchange of information between my department and the stakeholders to better match potential employees with interested employers.
It is difficult to estimate how many of the thousands of people who have made the Territory their home over the past year did so as a direct result of the campaign. People move for many reasons, but we expect our closer links with recruitment agencies to give us a clearer idea of the campaign’s effectiveness.
On 24 July, I launched the next phase of the skilled worker recruitment campaign with a major interstate advertising focus. The campaign has a new creative approach using a ‘Dear mum’ theme. This has recent arrivals to the Territory writing or calling back home to report on their great new lifestyle and the opportunities they have found here.
We know from the evaluation that this sort of personal touch works best and that is why we have also expanded the program of information evenings in southern cities this year. Starting next month, these sessions will allow interested skilled workers to chat with a Territorian face-to-face to have their questions answered. All inquiries from the campaign are passed to recruitment agencies which have been asked to report to government on a monthly basis to track the campaign’s success.
The campaign coincided with the start of the southern winter and focuses on our key selling points: a unique, warm and friendly lifestyle and our thriving economy where you can get a job and fast-track a career. It is a message that is resonating with more and more Australians and I will be very pleased to keep the House updated on the campaign as it progresses.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, so many things work in cycles. There was a time when there were not that many opportunities in the Territory because of economic downturn. Now, there has been an upswing in the economy and the Territory is booming as a result, largely, of the resources boom. Each of these scenarios presents different challenges. Here is a challenge for government to capitalise on. It is good to hear the plans that have been outlined. I have to acknowledge, though, that in coming to office in their first term, this government spoke of a jobs plan which they, in fact, did not have until half-way through the first term. That was an opportunity lost. However, not to spend too much time on that, I believe the issue …
Mr Stirling: No, the CLP did not spend any time on it.
Mr MILLS: The issue presenting us with a very real challenge in the Territory is the opportunity for those who move to the Territory to buy a piece of the Territory; to own a home. There are so many young tradesmen who come to the Territory who will work together, to put together their rent so that they can rent a place in town and, once things change in the Territory, as things happen of a cyclical nature, they will most likely go back to dear mum in wherever they have come from.
However, on the other side of it, if the vast resources of land in the Territory were unlocked and released, these young people would come and they would invest in a house and land. They would raise their families here and that would change the face of the Northern Territory. I urge government to release that land, to unblock those blockages that are impeding the release of land in the Northern Territory. It is just ludicrous to look out the window of an aeroplane, and to have the idea in your head that there is a land shortage in the Northern Territory. There is no such thing and government is in the driver’s seat to be able to release the land ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Blain, your time has expired.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for her report. I support the member for Blain’s concerns that it is all very well to get people to come to the Territory, but can they afford to live here? I have this document published by the Property Council of Australia, Residential Development, which contains some very interesting figures. It looks at an electrician and shop assistant working together, with their combined annual gross income of household ranging from about $40 000 to mid-$50 000 and, in Darwin, they cannot afford a house or a unit. They cannot afford to rent a house or unit.
Mr Henderson: An electrician in the Territory would be earning a lot more than $40 000 per year.
Mr WOOD: Well, that is the information.
Mr Henderson: Electricians in the Territory would have …
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr WOOD: Okay, here is a document published by the Property Council of Australia, which has spent quite a bit of money investing in a report on the affordability of housing throughout Australia. Darwin is included, thank heavens, and …
Mr Stirling: You find an electrician working for $40 000 a year.
Mr WOOD: … unfortunately, the government might jump up and down all it likes, but the reality is, even if this is not 100% accurate, many people cannot afford to even buy a unit today …
Mr Henderson: You find even one electrician …
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WOOD: You have the opportunity to do something about it. You have land which you could release at a much cheaper price for people who are buying their homes for the first time, yet all you are worried about is the market. There is land available in the Northern Territory that you, as a government, own ...
Mr Warren: The developers develop it. You know what the reality is, member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD: Where there is a will, there is a way. Unfortunately, the member for Goyder would not have the foggiest - I am sorry; he would not know what he is talking about.
Mr Warren: I have a very clear picture of what is going on …
Mr WOOD: He is not concerned about young families being able to live and develop in the Northern Territory without having a mortgage which will hang over them for the rest of their lives or have to rely on living with mum and dad because they simply cannot get into the market.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, the member for Nelson can wave documentation around and say this is the situation. It is wrong. It is wrong.
Mr Wood: It is not wrong. The Northern Territory News wrote an article the other day about it.
Ms MARTIN: Darwin has the second most affordable housing of any capital city in Australia. We are determined to keep it that way. Listening to the response to this very targeted marketing campaign from the member for Blain, who said that we were remiss in having a Jobs Plan - the CLP in 27 years of government did not have one Jobs Plan. No, not even one …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms MARTIN: As to the passing reference to the economy somehow picking up by itself, we had an economy on its knees when we came to government. There was no growth, no money in forward estimates even for repairs on our roads …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms MARTIN: Absolutely dead and no money! We have turned that around strategically. Businesses with less than 100 employees pay the least tax of any businesses in Australia. We support this economic growth; we have been a key part of that.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order! Honourable members, before I call the minister, I remind you of Standing Order 51. I know we have not met for a while, but I remind you of Standing Order 51 …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: All honourable members …
Mr Wood interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, I would particularly like you to listen to this:
- No Member may converse aloud or make any noise or disturbance which in the opinion of the Speaker is designed to interrupt or has the effect of interrupting a Member speaking.
Seniors Month
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Senior Territorians): Madam Speaker, this government sees ageing as a positive stage in our lives. Government continues to support activities that promote active ageing and give senior Territorians a chance to demonstrate how rich and full life can be. Seniors Month is just one of these types of activities.
We are in the middle of another very successful Seniors Month. Setting aside the month of August each year ensures that we, as a community, celebrate and reflect on the contribution older people make to the Territory and to Australian society. Seniors Month has grown over the years to become the largest celebration of senior Territorians. It has become an initiative that seniors look forward to because it is all about them.
This year, I launched Seniors Month on Tuesday, 31 July, at Timeout gym following an exercise class designed especially for older people. This class has become a permanent feature of the gym’s program following ‘come and try’ sessions supported by Senior Months grants, and reflect this government’s commitment to support active ageing.
The Small Grants program introduced by government in 2003 to support activities has put Seniors Month firmly on the map. This year, 42 community groups across the Territory including organisations in Pine Creek, Katherine, Tennant Creek, Alice Springs and the Darwin rural area received funding. This year’s grants supported events to encourage seniors to take part in any activity they enjoy or to try something new.
Over 100 events are being held in all parts of the Territory. This year’s program provides something for everyone: Tai Chi, dinner dance, craft classes, movies, poetry, learning to swim, overnight camping, playing golf and bowls, and even absailing and rock climbing are on offer for seniors to enjoy. The Territory Wildlife Park and Alice Springs Desert Park offered free entry to seniors on Wednesday, 15 August and half-price entry for all seniors every other Wednesday.
I had the pleasure of meeting with members from the Katherine Seniors Association with the member for Katherine on Monday, 13 August in Katherine, a fantastic group of locals who recently enjoyed a cruise on the Katherine Gorge followed by lunch.
A bigger and better Seniors Month calendar proudly sponsored by TIO listed all events and special offers available during Seniors Month. All Seniors Card holders, almost 10 000 households, received the calendar. There is a range of special offers and discounts from local businesses on offer, as well as a diverse range of events and activities. I take this opportunity to thank the business community for supporting senior Territorians. I am pleased to say that this section of the calendar continues to grow.
As part of Seniors Month, I invited some of our senior Territorians to Parliament House to meet the Chief Minister and other members of parliament. About 250 guests came for morning tea and a lively social occasion. The guests also heard about the Chief Minister’s delegation to Victoria in September to examine various accommodation options for older people, including retirement villages. This government is committed to encouraging Territorians to stay in the Territory when they retire.
To help people prepare for this transition in their life, I am pleased to inform you of a continuing initiative developed by the Office of Senior Territorians and the Territory’s key community group on ageing issues, the Council on the Ageing. The office and COTA developed a retirement planning workshop with the assistance of local businesses and organisations. The workshop covers most of the issues people need to be thinking about when planning for retirement, not just the usual financial planning.
Over 80 people have already attended these workshops in both Darwin and Alice Springs, and the feedback has been excellent. I am pleased to announce that the workshops will continue to be held on a regular basis, and the next one is tomorrow night at the Casuarina Public Library.
Madam Speaker, in closing, I thank everyone involved with Seniors Month. I encourage everyone in this House to join in the few remaining activities in Seniors Month for this year and to start planning for an amazing Seniors Month 2008.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for her report. There is no doubt that August is a pretty special time for seniors, when they are acknowledged for the work that they have done in the community, and also given some support for activities to be carried out in their community.
Some of the seniors I was associated with in Katherine during this month, so far, were not well enough to be able to take part in a lot of the activities. However, I was absolutely chuffed to go to their damper and beef morning tea at the Low Level to find quite a few of them, and there were two there who were 88, walking down to the river from the higher part of the Low Level because they have been encouraged to have some physical activity. That was the best they could do and it was a really good effort on their part.
I thank the minister for meeting with the seniors in Katherine. When the minister comes to Katherine she always makes the seniors feel very welcome and heard, and that is extremely important.
We talked during that time about retirement villages. It is an issue which is very important for seniors in the Northern Territory, especially in the regional areas. They do not want to leave but there are no affordable homes for them. My mum lives in a retirement village run by Masonic Homes in South Australia and it works very effectively and is affordable. It is really important to ensure that we can provide accommodation in the Northern Territory so that they will stay here. However, it has to be affordable.
By the way, I believe there were two seniors in Katherine who went for the abseiling. When I saw it on the list, I thought: ‘I do not think anyone is going to take this up’, but two very active seniors said they were looking forward to it. I thank the minister for her report.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Speaker, as the most senior member of the parliament I am very pleased with the minister’s report. I hope you continue to support seniors. We had a fantastic night on Saturday night. It was our seniors’ dinner dance, which we have held for a number of years now, and over 200 seniors attended. I thank the Convention Centre in Alice Springs, which did a fantastic job. They do not charge us for that venue. The combined Rotary Clubs of Alice Springs assisted financially with the event. Every year, we offer our seniors a three-course meal, plus entertainment, plus old time dancing.
The eldest senior was Bruno Simonetto who turns 93 next year. The fact that he came and sat with a group of friends to enjoy an evening indicates the popularity of this event. It is fantastic. Remember last year when we had those wonderful seniors who did the Can Can? What did we have this year as our entertainment plus? You have heard of the Choir of Hard Knocks; we had the Choir of Old Crocks and they went down very well. They were great. They sang a wonderful song. It was Julie Andrews’ My Favourite Things. However, their interpretation of favourite things was slightly different from the original. I will let members have a copy of the lyrics.
Peg Nelson, whom many will know, turned 93 and went for a helicopter ride. How fantastic is that? It is great that our seniors are so active that they do things they have always wanted to. I am really pleased to know that people like Bruno and Peg continue to be active.
I am not going to have time to comment on retirement villages, but we need a retirement village for self-funded retirees. I know the minister has public housing on the agenda for those seniors who live in public housing, which is great. However, you really need to concentrate on keeping our people here by helping self-funded retirees ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Braitling, your time has expired.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Senior Territorians): Just quickly, Madam Speaker, yes, retirement villages for private retirees is certainly an issue and something our government is working on. Member for Braitling, you might be senior in age, but you are young at heart. That is what I keep saying to many seniors, Madam Speaker …
Mr Stirling: Isn’t she sweet?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: For many of our seniors, it is a fantastic month, Madam Speaker. It is always great to get amongst the seniors because we often forget their wisdom and their wicked sense of humour. You could sit with many other groups and you would not derive the wisdom or the wicked sense of humour that many of our seniors have. It is a month that I thoroughly enjoy.
Member for Katherine, it would be good to know whether the seniors in Katherine have found a bus driver for their bus.
Mrs Miller: Not yet.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: I am looking forward for some of that feedback.
Access to Learning Award
Mr McADAM (Corporate and Information Services): Madam Speaker, I rise to celebrate a remarkable achievement by the Northern Territory Library, which has today been announced as winner of the annual Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Access to Learning Award.
This award recognises innovation in organisations outside the United States in providing access to computers and the Internet. The Gates Foundation seeks to ensure that all people, especially those with the fewest resources, have the opportunity to succeed in school and life. The NT Library’s main responsibilities are to collect, preserve and make accessible the Territory’s documentary heritage and to provide public library services.
Indigenous people have an oral tradition of sharing knowledge and culture; however, very little of this knowledge is captured in the published material usually associated with public libraries. NT Libraries recognised this need and, in 2004, developed the Libraries and Knowledge Centres program to preserve indigenous and cultural heritage.
Mary Elizabeth Moreen from the Mungatopi clan expressed the urgency of this work when she said: ‘You must do this for us. All our old people are dying and then their knowledge is lost forever’. The Library’s Knowledge Centre model incorporates many components of a library, together with a database of indigenous knowledge, historical and cultural material. In communities, a library is often the only public space where people can come to read, find information, access computers, or use the Internet. It is a place where community members interact and provides assistance to those with limited information and communication technology skills.
Community Library Officers employed by councils provide the services with financial assistance and professional support from NT Libraries. Technology is a key component of the libraries’ knowledge model and offers access for online banking, project research, reading news or just checking AFL scores. In addition, each Library Knowledge Centre has its own Our Story database which enables a community to establish a unique digital collection of local knowledge and history. Our Story uses the Ara Irititja software development for communities in Central Australia to store and display photographs, sound recordings, videos and films which can all be viewed through one interface.
It allows restricted access to individual items to cater for cultural sensitivities. The program is unique in that it encourages the development of literacy and IT skills through the interaction of local content and technology.
In all cases, the community owns the content with data stored according to rules set by the community leaders. Elders recognise that young people are interested in working with computers and multimedia, and this is an effective way of undertaking important inter-generational work in keeping culture strong. The Library Knowledge Centres program is leading Australia in the provision of library services to remote indigenous communities. Our Story allows the enrichment of local material through recorded stories, songs and associated information.
Many elderly people are now too ill to make the journey back to their land, so linguists work with elders using photographs from Our Story to name plants and animals found on traditional lands. The information captured on film and audio is matched with the database images so future generations will hear the language and see the visual information.
The most important thing that came out of this very prestigious award is the fact that the NT Library will be the recipient of some $1m to support and develop three key areas: community capacity building; preservation of culture; and early years of literacy.
I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the Gates Foundation for its outstanding work throughout the world. It is a very proud achievement for all those associated with NT Libraries being able to secure this very prestigious award. In particular, I thank staff from the NT Library who have worked for a long time on this, and particularly my predecessor, Mr Jack Ah Kit.
I also thank Jo McGill, Cate Richmond, Gibby Maynard and Jay Gibson who played a very important role in developing this very important program across the Northern Territory. I also take this opportunity to thank all the indigenous people in the communities who have contributed so much to make this project work well. It is a real example of communities working together with government and, indeed, the private sector, to get optimum outputs. It also showcases what is possible for communities using computers and the Internet.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, this is a most prestigious award of $1m to the Northern Territory Library. They are going to use the money very constructively to enhance the existing program and I thank everyone involved ...
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
____________________
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable Members, I draw your attention to the presence in the public galleries of staff from the Northern Territory Library. On behalf of all honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
____________________
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, even though my new colleague, the member for Greatorex, is the shadow minister for Local Government, his maiden speech will occur today. I understand that if he speaks in a ministerial report, it will be deemed to be his maiden speech. As important as this ministerial report is, we feel it appropriate that until the member for Greatorex delivers his maiden speech, I speak in his place.
Thank you, minister, for making this a ministerial report. It is important to do so. It is no mean feat to attract the attention of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which is an achievement in itself. To be the recipient of a $1m award is, indeed, a truly wonderful achievement.
We are all aware of the great work that libraries throughout the Territory do but, in particular, what the Northern Territory Library does for all Territorians and, of course, us as parliamentarians. We are very well served in the Northern Territory and in this place by the Northern Territory Library. If ever there was a ringing endorsement as to how wonderful the library service is, then this is it. It probably will not get much better than this, so savour the moment.
As the minister did, I extend my congratulations to Jo McGill and all of her hard-working staff. I know that we do not talk about libraries very much in this place; we probably should. Many of us take the wonderful service for granted to a large extent. However, never forget our appreciation and the appreciation of all Territorians, and congratulations on this well deserved award.
Mr McADAM (Corporate and Information Services): Madam Speaker, I am aware that the new member for Greatorex, the opposition spokesman, cannot speak in respect of this matter for obvious reasons. However, I am sure he would share in this great occasion, because it is very important in the context of Northern Territory libraries being able to receive the recognition they so richly deserve.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I pay tribute to all those present in the galleries from Northern Territory libraries. Thank you very much for your outstanding contribution to Northern Territory Library and libraries throughout the NT. It is an award of which you can all be very proud. We look forward to Library Knowledge Centres, given the dollars, expanding across the Northern Territory because, indeed, it is a very innovative program. I thank you so much for your outstanding work.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mt Todd Rehabilitation
Mr NATT (Mines and Energy): Madam Speaker, I wish to report on the current situation at Mt Todd. The Northern Territory government took responsibility for the day-to-day water management of the Mt Todd mine site in mid-2001 following the collapse of General Gold in 2000.
Since 2001, my department has been managing the site’s water balance to ensure there is minimal impact on the environment. Owing to the unprecedented public interest in the management and environmental impacts of this site, the Mt Todd Reference Group has been formed. It consists of key stakeholders from the community such as the Jawoyn Association, Amateur Fishermen’s Association of the Northern Territory, the Environment Centre of the Northern Territory, Charles Darwin University, the Northern Territory Minerals Council, Pine Creek Town Council, Katherine Town Council, Vista Gold Pty Ltd and the Commonwealth’s Supervising Scientist Division. The group also includes members from the Department of Natural Resources, Environment and the Arts, and my Departments of Primary Industry and Fisheries, and Mines and Energy.
In April 2005, the former Department of Business, Industry and Resources Development commissioned a consultant, Miss Corrine Unger, to develop the terms of reference for a report to determine the studies and management activities required for the rehabilitation planning of the Mt Todd mine site. The report included a risk assessment which identified immediate risks. These were addressed by a $5m priority works program in 2005 which focused on managing the large volumes of water around the site. It included a cleanup and reshape of the heapleach pad, costing $2.5m; a new pumping station and syphoning system costing $2m; improved site security with the installation of fencing, gates and caretaker residence, costing over $250 000; new pumping systems and lines installed around the site; direct power supplied to pumps; and other repairs and maintenance on the site.
Vista Gold, under the conditions of the Vista Gold Agreement, took over management of the site in January 2007. The agreement sees Vista Gold operating Mt Todd until 2010. Under this agreement, the company is able to undertake activities to assess the mineral potential of the area. If, at any time, Vista Gold decides to commence mining operations, it will take over the liability for all rehabilitation at the site. This will require the company to undertake pre-closure studies to ensure the effective final closure of the site.
At present, it is not possible to predict if Vista Gold will mine at Mt Todd. However, unless the company proposes to mine the site, its obligations only extend to managing the current hazards, and not to addressing the long-term rehabilitation issues of the quarantining of those hazards.
I am pleased to report that the Northern Territory government has, this year, provided funding of $630 000 towards the development of the blueprint rehabilitation strategy for the Mt Todd Mine site to facilitate rehabilitation planning should Vista Gold not proceed with mining. The tender process for this work was initiated by my department in late July. All this effort is aimed at returning the Mt Todd site to a safe and stable condition whilst minimising the risk to humans and the environment.
The scope of work includes: reviewing the Unger report and other relevant reports; identification of knowledge gaps and opportunities; updating risk assessment of the site based on changing site conditions, costs, stakeholder perceptions, and the relevant technical information and advances; preliminary scopes of work and indicative costings to address the knowledge gaps identified in order of risk; and present options for final rehabilitation.
You may be assured that if Vista Gold decides to commence mining and, thereby, assumes environmental liability for the site, all the results of the current studies will be transferred to Vista Gold for its planning for the mine site closure and rehabilitation.
As you can clearly see, my department is taking firm action to ensure that mistakes of the past are responsibly managed and that the best possible environmental outcomes are achieved for Mt Todd.
Madam SPEAKER: The overall time for ministerial reports has expired.
Reports noted pursuant to standing orders.
EVIDENCE OF CHILDREN AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 91)
(Serial 91)
Continued from 18 April 2007.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I have a number of comments to make in relation to this bill. I have spent a fair degree of time on it, as is evidenced by one of the folders I have with me. From the outset, I thank the Attorney-General for making some amendments a couple of months ago. I also thank him and one of his members of staff for providing, as requested, a copy of the amendments late last week. Thank you for that.
There were some matters that were the subject of the amendments which I wanted to raise, but some of the difficulties I highlighted have been remedied by the amendments. Having said that, however, there are some other issues affecting this bill. In the present climate, it is important that we get it right, as we should in any climate. I feel reasonably certain that some of the issues I raise will not come as a surprise, or they should not, to the Attorney-General and his staff. I propose to make comments and then ask some questions on the way through. I indicate at this stage that I am disinclined to go into the committee stage on the basis that I am hopeful that the Attorney-General can respond to the questions I ask. I indicate, as a matter of courtesy, however, that if those questions are not answered in a way I think they should be, then I am likely to go to the committee stage. I will now go through the bill.
This point might be considered relatively minor, but I raise it in any event: the name of the bill. It is the Evidence of Children Bill, but clause 10 contains new sections 21B, 21C, 21E and 21F which deal with vulnerable witnesses, not all of whom are children. It is clearly the intention that these provisions be extended to vulnerable witnesses and not just children, so the title is, with respect, a little curious and some might say misleading. In any event, I ask that the Attorney-General advise in his reply why it is that the name of the bill is what it is.
Second, in relation to clause 9 there is a proposed amendment of section 21A of the Evidence Act. There are a couple of points to make in relation to the amendment, in particular the word ‘examination’. A definition is provided. It reads:
- examination of a witness includes cross-examination and re-examination.
My question is a very obvious one: why does the definition not include evidence-in-chief? Why was that excluded? Is there a reason for it? Might the Attorney-General not consider that evidence-in-chief, given that cross-examination and re-examination are included, be included in that definition for the sake of completeness and good drafting?
I note also that one of the amendments includes the definition of a ‘recorded statement’. One of the amendments provided sought to, and does, overcome one of the concerns I had in relation to the definition of ‘audio visual record’ because it includes now a ‘recorded statement’. I am pleased to see that amendment, however it seems odd that the Evidence Act and the Justices Act use different expressions. The Justices Act uses the expression ‘recorded statement’ which, in turn, includes:
- audio tape, video tape and other audio visual means.
I wonder why one common definition was not used in this bill so it is consistent with other legislation dealing with the same issue.
I now turn to clause 10 about which I have a number of points to make. There was an additional amendment provided last week, but there remain other difficulties. In relation to proposed new section 21B(1), there appears to be a typo. The section reads:
- This section applies proceedings for the trial of a sexual offence or a serious violence offence.
Should it perhaps read:
- This section applies to proceedings for the trial of a sexual offence or a serious violence offence?
In other words, the word ‘to’ seems to be missing from the copy of the bill that I was provided with. In relation to the heading of the proposed new section 21B, which is:
- Evidence of vulnerable witnesses in cases of sexual or serious violence offences.
It deals with what powers the court may exercise when a vulnerable witness is giving evidence. My question, however, is: is this section intended to apply to all vulnerable witnesses or only those who are witnesses in cases of sexual or serious violence offences? I ask because the Attorney-General should know, and I assume he does, that under the existing provisions of section 21A of the Evidence Act, the definition of vulnerable witnesses is broader. These are, as I am sure he knows, commonly referred to as the vulnerable witness provisions in section 21A of the Evidence Act. It provides that a vulnerable witness is a witness who is a child, a witness who suffers from an intellectual disability, a witness who is the alleged victim of a sexual offence and any other witness who, in the opinion of the court, is under a special disability because of the circumstances of the case or the circumstances of the witness.
Is the new section 21B to apply to all vulnerable witnesses, as you would expect pursuant to section 21A of the existing Evidence Act, or is it only intended to apply to those witnesses who are vulnerable and in relation to sexual offences or other serious violence offences? If that is the case, why and what was the intention underlying this change?
Proposed new section 21B(3), reads:
- If a prosecutor asks the Court to admit a recorded statement in evidence or to hold a special sitting under subsection (2), the Court must accede to the request unless there is good reason for not doing so.
This is my next point, which I raise because I am somewhat concerned. I am not losing sleep over it, but maybe someone will eventually. I am somewhat concerned because of the use of the words ‘accede’ and ‘good reason’. One does not usually find the word ‘accede’ in legislation when dealing with what a court can and cannot do, so it is an interesting inclusion. However, I am reasonably certain that I have never seen the words ‘good reason’ in legislation like this before.
It is a long time since I have read Pearce on statutory interpretation, but I have had a bit to do with legislation over the last 20 years. I am hard pressed to find ‘good reason’ quoted in any other legislation. Why has that phrase been included in this bill? What might ‘good reason’ be and why has it been expressed in this way? Might this lead to confusion, or at least an appeal, in relation to confusion and differences over what a ‘good reason’ is or is not? It is possible that it will require judicial clarification that should not, in my view, be necessary as government has responsibility to ensure that legislation it presents to parliament is clear and unequivocal.
I turn to another subparagraph of proposed section 21B. It raises, in my view, a number of questions. It is curious that the very legislation which seeks to protect children and other vulnerable witnesses from giving evidence in front of a jury by prerecording their evidence requires that such a child or other vulnerable witnesses’ demeanour and words spoken or sounds made during the replay of a recorded statement are not to be observed unless the vulnerable witness elects to be present in the courtroom for that part of the proceeding. What, in fact, should occur is that the vulnerable witness should watch the interview, if they want to, from the CCTV room. It is odd that we legislate on the one hand to protect vulnerable witnesses, but then say that the witness can be present at court so that the jury can watch his or her behaviour. That seems to defeat the purpose of the child not being in court. Why was this included and what was the rationale for it?
I now turn to proposed new section 21C, which is part of clause 10 of the bill. When I initially looked at this many months ago, I thought this was strange and surely must be a mistake. Having reviewed the matter last night, I am still of that view. Section 21C(1)(b) provides that:
- The court will determine who is to be present in the same room as the witness while the evidence is given.
This is at odds with the existing section 21A of the Evidence Act known, and I repeat, as the vulnerable witness provisions. It states that a vulnerable witness is entitled, and I stress ‘entitled’, to give evidence using one or more of the following arrangements as chosen by the witness, and I emphasise ‘as chosen by the witness’. Section 21A of the Evidence Act then lists a number of matters and says that the vulnerable witness can be accompanied by:
(i) a relative;
It seems, under these changes now before us, that the government seeks to take away the vulnerable witnesses’ rights and say the court will determine who is to be present. There is a difference. Under section 21A of the Evidence Act, it is the vulnerable witness who is entitled and who chooses yet, under this bill, the change is ‘the court will determine’. Why, oh why, oh why? What is the reasoning behind this? I understood that the system worked well. However, for seemingly no apparent reason, and I could find nothing in the Attorney-General’s second reading speech in support of this change, the government seeks to change it. I ask the Attorney-General to explain why he has now, under this bill, limited the right of a vulnerable witness to decide who he or she can have to sit with them when they are giving their evidence.
The same provision is repeated in proposed section 21C(2)(d) in respect of a special sitting, so there cannot be any doubt about the government’s intention to take away the rights of a vulnerable witness. They had them, they were appropriate. Long ago I said that they should be wider under section 21A of the Evidence Act. As they presently stand, vulnerable witnesses have certain rights and can make certain decisions. Under this change, government seeks to take it away and to limit it. Why, in the absence of any good reason that I know of and that the Attorney-General has stated, is this being limited?
I turn now to proposed new section 21C(2) of this bill. I note that it has not been amended as part of the new amendments I received last week. It states:
- (b) in the case of a trial by jury, the special sitting is to be held in the absence of a jury (and may be held before the jury is empanelled).
We have debated it in this parliament and it is debated by lawyers around the traps, but I understood that the whole purpose of a special sitting in this context was that it occurs before a jury is empanelled in any event. I ask, quite reasonably I think: why is this amendment included? If there is a good reason for it, can you tell us what it is because I and others are scratching our heads?
The same sorts of questions arise in relation to the new section 21C(2)(c) of the bill in relation to the defendant not being present in the same room as the witness, but it says if he or she does not want to be, other arrangements can be made. Why would a defendant not want to be present when the witness is giving evidence? I am not sure that I know of any who have not wanted to be present when the witness is giving their evidence. Why, when arrangements are made for vulnerable witnesses to be elsewhere, in a CCTV room, would a government legislate for a defendant to be somewhere else as well? There seems to be a certain illogic in the government’s proposed bill or this particular section. I ask, not unreasonably: what the rationale is behind that change? Have representations been received from the DPP specifically on this matter and, if so, what were they? I invite the Attorney-General to ask whether the DPP is happy with the new amendments in relation to the Evidence of Children Amendment Bill now before us.
I am pleased to see that the government has proposed new amendments to the initial change to section 21C(3), so I do not need to deal with the problems arising from the bill it introduced some months ago. I know people behind the scenes have been working on it, and thank them for their efforts in that regard.
I now turn to clause 12 of the bill. It proposes new sections 21E and 21F. First, dealing with section 21E, I will deal with subsection 21E(1). It provides that if the equipment is available and the judge wants video evidence, he or she can order it, overriding the wishes of the victim and the intent of the legislation, and the express wishes of a particular witness. They are only the witnesses for whom an audiovisual record of their evidence exists. Put simply, under this proposal, the court may direct that an audiovisual record be made.
This, again, is at odds with the special measures for vulnerable witnesses contained in section 21A of the Evidence Act known as the vulnerable witness provisions. Section 21A of the Evidence Act provides for a vulnerable witness to choose how they give their evidence. Here, however, under the government’s new proposal, that seems to change. I do not see any reason why the government believes this is necessary. I cannot begin to imagine that government just decides to legislate without sensible reasons for doing so. I ask that the Attorney-General explain why it is that the overriding of the wishes of the victim, in light of the very clearly expressed provisions in section 21A of the Evidence Act, has been deemed necessary?
In relation to the proposed new section 21E(2), my view is that it is inconsistent or, at very least, raises questions because the new provision states:
- An order may be made under this section whether or not special measures are taken for the protection of the witness.
This seems at odds with the intention and the existing special purpose measures in section 21A of the Evidence Act. In other words, the effect of this change very much seems to be ‘we have these special measures for you, but we will legislate so a court can take them away from you’. I just do not understand why this has been proposed, and I am still searching for a reason. It does not make sense. I would be very grateful if the Attorney-General would explain this. Why do you give people rights on the one hand and take them away or narrow them or limit them on the other?
I now turn to section 21E(4). There is, in my view, a curious reference to ‘later civil or criminal proceedings’. I have a couple of questions in relation to that sentence. What later criminal or civil proceedings? Second, why include civil proceedings? For example, if an offender gets off on an appeal and a woman rape victim has a claim in the civil jurisdiction, her lawyer, presumably, can apply for the pre-recorded evidence to be played at the civil trial. Is that reasonable? Only vulnerable witnesses have their evidence available in this way to be used, according to the new provision, again and again and again. Was that ever intended in relation to the pre-recording of evidence of vulnerable witnesses? No, it was not, judging by parliamentary debates. If something has changed, what and why, and who has suggested it?
It follows that if a child pre-records evidence, it is doing so for the purpose of a prosecution. Does the expression ‘later criminal or civil proceedings’ contemplate an appeal or a retrial? That is not outlined in the provision. Some would say it probably should be. In any event, the central question is: what was the reason for this change?
I now move to proposed new section 21F, of which I have several points to make and questions to ask. Section 21F(1) provides that:
- The court is to be closed, in a case involving a charge of sexual offence or a serious violence offence, while the evidence of a vulnerable witness is being taken.
Why is this included when section 21A(2) of the Evidence Act states that a vulnerable witness is entitled to give evidence using one or more of the following arrangements as chosen by the witness? A range of measures are outlined in that section. The section goes on to say that for the purposes of providing the vulnerable witness with emotional support, and I refer here to section 21A(2)(d), the court be closed while evidence is being given by the vulnerable witness.
My point is that there appears to be a narrowing of the language under these proposed changes. Under the changes, the court can be closed in proceedings involving a sexual offence or a serious violence offence yet, under the existing provisions, namely section 21A of the Evidence Act, the court can be closed when any vulnerable witness is giving his or her evidence, regardless of whether it is a sexual offence or some other serious violence offence. I once again refer the Attorney-General to the existing provisions in section 21A of the Evidence Act:
- ‘vulnerable witness’ means –
(b) a witness who suffers from a intellectual disability;
(c) a witness who is the alleged victim of a sexual offence to which the proceedings relate; or
- (d) a witness who is, in the opinion of the Court, under a special disability because of the circumstances of the case or the circumstances of the witness.
That is a reasonably broad definition. It is not limited in any way to sexual offences or to serious violence offences. The court and the vulnerable witnesses have flexibility. Under this change, however, as I said, there is a narrowing. The provision only seems to apply to those vulnerable witnesses who are involved in a sexual offence or some other serious violence offence.
Clearly, a vulnerable witness can be a child or a person with an intellectual disability, as anyone who is a victim of a sexual offence can be. However, I am concerned about the reasonably broad definitions of vulnerable witnesses in proposed section 21A and the narrowing in respect of proposed section 21F(1) of the bill. I ask the Attorney-General to explain why there is a narrowing of this language. I can only assume that it was intentional. If it is intentional, then it may, down the track, create difficulties for lawyers working in this area as well as the courts because they will have what some would say will be two quite competing or conflicting definitions of vulnerable witnesses. Some vulnerable witnesses will have some rights; other vulnerable witnesses, namely those involved in sexual offences or other serious violence offences, will have other rights. I do not believe that is reasonable. What was the rationale for introducing this change? Have you heard from the Witness Assistance Service either in Alice Springs or Darwin? Has the DPP urged you to make these changes? If so, would you be good enough to outline the reason for these changes?
My next point is, in the circumstances, a relatively minor one. It involves the word ‘case’. Proposed new section 21F(1) provides that the court is to be closed in a case , and I emphasise ‘case’, involving a charge of a sexual offence or a serious violence offence while the evidence of a vulnerable witness is being taken. This appears to be a new word in the context of this and other legislation to which it relates. Other legislation includes the Evidence Act, probably the Justices Act and the Sexual Offences (Evidence and Procedure) Act. They are all pretty much under this umbrella. They do not use the word ‘case’; they use the word ‘trial’ or ‘proceeding’. In fact, the word in section 21A of the Evidence Act is ‘proceeding’. Does the word ‘case’ mean something different? If it does not mean something different from a trial or a proceeding, can the Attorney-General tell me why it is that the word ‘case’ is used?
Mr Stirling: What part?
Ms CARNEY: Section 21F(1). Perhaps more importantly, why is consistent wording not used? We would all accept that, in legislation that comes before us, there should be consistency (a) where possible, and (b) pretty much across the board. We have several items of legislation dealing with prosecutions, witnesses, vulnerable witnesses and other instances, yet different words are used. I would like to think that the Attorney-General agrees with me that it is preferable to have consistent wording across the board.
The difficulty is that you will have two items of legislation working together, I suppose. The Evidence of Children Amendment Bill refers to a ‘case’ and the Evidence Act does not. It might be a long shot; it might be unlikely that judicial clarification will need to occur down the track. However, we all have the responsibility to ensure where possible that a consistency of wording and drafting is appropriate, particularly when all of this is pretty much chunked together for prosectors, defence lawyers, judges and magistrates who are going to deal with these every day.
Having expressed my very clear view that I do not believe it is desirable, and I hasten to suggest that lawyers working in the area would share it, I wonder why it is that the government has seen fit to not subscribe to consistency of drafting in this area.
That is pretty much it, Madam Speaker. I do support the bill. However, the Attorney-General knows me well enough to know that, for legislation that comes before us, I take my job as a participant in the legislative process very seriously, so I raised those concerns. It may well be that there are a sensible series of explanations in relation to my points. I am sure that none of them come as a surprise, and I look forward to hearing from the Attorney-General.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, my submission in relation to this Evidence of Children Amendment Bill refers to one specific section which, if we are not going into committee stage, I would like to have dealt with now.
It relates to the amendments the definition of sexual offence in Part 4, section 15. I gather this section was originally changed so that the definition of ‘sexual offence’ could be found in this bill without having to go to other various acts. In the new amendments, there was a change which reads to the effect that ‘sexual offence’ means ‘an indictable offence’. If you go to the amendment in clause 15, paragraph (e) includes any ‘other indecent act’ directed against a person or committed in the presence of a child.
There is no definition of ‘indecent act’. There might be fairly simple answer but, for the record, I would like it cleared up. The query has already been put to the department in a previous discussion before this bill was presented today. For instance, if there is a husband and wife or a couple having sexual intercourse in their house and a young child walks in and sees that occurring, or it could be in a crowded house where it was very difficult for that act to occur privately, is that regarded, even though I do not regard it as such, as an indecent act? I am not saying it is; I just want to know if it could be the case that, under that definition, someone could be committing an offence, in theory, even though they were involved in sexual intercourse as husband and wife or as partners, and were not intending to do anything unlawful?
I would like that clarified. My own judgment is that, naturally, it is not an indecent act, therefore, this would not be the case. However, as you do not have a definition of ‘indecent act’, it would be good to clarify it so there was not any grey area when it came to, for instance, a court action of some sort.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Child Protection): Madam Speaker, I am proud to support this bill and thank the Attorney-General for presenting it and the amendments.
The amendments will reduce the trauma experienced by children and other vulnerable witnesses to improve the quality of their evidence. This bill reminds us that, while it is essential that we apprehend, prosecute and convict people who harm children, we must strive to do it in a way that does no further harm to the child. We must find ways to allow a child’s evidence to be told in the court in a safe and supportive way. We know that the trauma children experience can have a lasting effect and that we must reduce that trauma as much as possible.
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this bill so soon after the release of the Little Children are Sacred report. The report’s authors acknowledged that this bill was before the parliament. In recommendation 30, they suggested that following 12 months’ operation of this bill, a review of the changes be conducted. In response to the report by the Chief Minister on Monday, this recommendation has been accepted.
This illustrates the point that our response to child abuse must be comprehensive and wide-ranging. It is not just about my own portfolio of Child Protection. In everything government does, we need to be mindful of the need to protect children from harm and, when they come before the court to give evidence in relation to sexual offences or serious violent offences, we must ensure that they are treated in a caring and protective way to limit any further trauma.
Other members of the House will recall the Evidence Reform (Children And Sexual Offences) Act 2004 which introduced a number of reforms to procedural law for the prosecution of sexual offences. The purpose of these reforms was to reduce the trauma experienced by children and other vulnerable witnesses in criminal proceedings for sexual offences and improve the quality of evidence from those witnesses. The reforms commenced in December 2004. Since that time, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecution has identified areas where the protection can be clarified or expanded to further assist children and vulnerable witnesses. This bill addresses those concerns.
For example, children may currently be required to give evidence on multiple occasions as to the nature of the sexual offences perpetrated upon them. These amendments explicitly limit the possibility that children will have to give evidence multiple times. This bill also strengthens the protection for child witnesses in relation to a serious violent offence. We need to recognise that the harm and trauma in this circumstance can also cause long-lasting trauma.
One of the clear objectives of our whole-of-community approach to stopping child abuse is ensuring that the stories of abused children or other vulnerable witnesses see the bright light of day and the full scrutiny of the court. To make this happen and break the veil of silence, our courts must have in place protection for vulnerable witnesses. We need to do this in a way that does not further add to the trauma and does not perpetuate the cycle of abuse. Our government is absolutely committed to wiping out child abuse. We have been on the right track for the last five years and we have made a number of improvements. This week, we will be introducing a series of measures that will fast-track our response to child abuse and bring real and sustainable improvements in the lives of our children. I commend the Attorney-General for presenting this bill, and look forward to its implementation.
Mr STIRLING (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I thank contributors to the debate for their supportive approach to the intent of these amendments.
The member for Araluen raised a range of points seeking clarification. I will endeavour to cover each of those points and, in the event that I fail to, she has the opportunity, of course, when we go into committee stage to further raise or seek clarification on those issues. We would welcome it at that stage in the event that something is not clear following my closing debate.
The bill certainly will make the process of giving evidence in sexual and violent offence cases easier for children and other vulnerable witnesses. That is what it is all about. It does not strip, in any way, an accused of the fundamental right to test and challenge the evidence presented against them. It simply acknowledges the process of giving evidence in sexual offence cases can be traumatic and seeks to minimise, wherever possible, this trauma for the victims. The same consideration should apply for children who are victims of serious violent offences.
The bill builds on the government’s important 2004 reforms, which were opposed by the CLP opposition at the time, but have been widely regarded as working well.
The bill clarifies some operational issues identified by the DPP. It extends the government’s policy objectives to make sure more vulnerable people can make use of these important protections. It was always intended that the operation of these reforms would be reviewed and amended, where necessary, to ensure that government’s objectives were met. The government is determined to keep working to protect vulnerable witnesses, particularly children in the criminal justice system.
The current bill does not just clarify operation of existing provisions; it builds on the 2004 reforms to make the system even more responsive to the needs of children and other vulnerable witnesses. The bill is a practical, targeted response to the trauma faced by children and vulnerable witnesses in the justice system. The amendments, along with the 2004 reforms, set down rules relating to evidence, court processes, the use of information and communication technology and the principles on which the court is to operate.
A specialist sexual assault court would simply mirror the court processes and protections already in place. We are broadening the class of people and types of offences to which these protections apply. Combined with improved video facilities and extra funding for sexual assault prosecutors announced in 2004, the Territory will have some of the strongest protection for victims anywhere in Australia. The Wild/Anderson report specifically cites and supports this legislation from that point of view.
I thank those who provided comment on the proposed amendments, including the Chief Justice, the Chief Magistrate, Legal Aid Commission, Law Society, Victims of Crime NT, North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency and the Criminal Lawyers Association. The government received a variety of views. Many organisations fully support the object and content of these reforms but not everyone agreed with the extent of the changes, in particular the exemption of children’s written and recorded statements from Oaths Act requirements; the limitations on copying and dissemination of recorded statements; and the extension of the exception to the hearsay rule to serious violence offences. Some views were that these reforms leaned too far in favour of the alleged victim. I considered those views and acknowledge the balance required in the system, but I have made the deliberate decision to put the support and protection of children first.
As a result of the comments received, I flag that I intend to introduce five committee stage amendments later, which have been circulated and tabled. The Department of Justice has worked closely with DPP, Police Major Crime Section and the Child Abuse Task Force to ensure that the amendments achieve the results sought. Concerns were raised by the DPP that this bill: deals with the evidence of children too young to make a statutory declaration under the Oaths Act; clarifies the definition of sexual offence; the law does not cover situations where an offender had been charged with a sexual offence and a non-sexual offence, for example when a child has been sexually assaulted and deprived of her liberty, she is currently required to give evidence at committal on the second charge; and the inability to record evidence of a child other than at a special hearing. The DPP also put compelling arguments for the extension of the initial reforms to include serious violent offences. The DPP has had input into the drafting instructions and reviewed the various draft bills produced. Consideration of DPP comments has resulted in the development of three of the committee stage amendments.
The police are at the front line, of course, in the fight against child abuse and sexual violence. Overall, they do a terrific job, often under very trying circumstances. To complement these legal reforms, we need to make sure police are equipped and able to conduct investigations and interviews that provide all required evidence but do not further traumatise the victim. Northern Territory Police have implemented specialist training in the conduct of child forensic interviewing based on the Western Australian model. Western Australia has significant experience and expertise in this area and is regarded as the national leader in its approach to child witness issues.
The FACS Minister is to introduce the new Care and Protection of Children Bill this week, but the government also recognises that protecting children should not begin and end at the statute book. The Martin government has rebuilt the Territory’s child protection services.
Budget 2007-08 provides $35m to the Child Protection Service compared with less than $8m in 2001. We have dramatically increased child protection staff, with 71 new positions across the Territory. We have formed the Child Abuse Task Force so that police officers and FACS staff can work together and share information to best investigate reports of abuse. We are funding an after-hours child abuse service, which takes child protection notifications from across the Territory, and we have increased funding for sexual assault referral centres by almost $0.5m each year.
The government welcomes the findings of the child abuse inquiry. One of the report’s recommendations, number 30, specifically cites this bill as an important way to protect child victims and vulnerable witnesses in the criminal justice system. I deliberately delayed debate on the bill to ensure it complied with and properly implemented any report recommendations. The government is committed to improving the court process for the most vulnerable members of our community.
I will endeavour to deal with each of the issues raised by the members for Araluen and Nelson. The member for Araluen raised the title of the bill and said that, in her view, it does not accurately reflect the total content of the bill. The primary focus of the amendments is increased protection for child witnesses of sexual and serious violence offences. However, it also expands the protection for adult victims and for those with an intellectual disability. I do not think the member for Araluen was claiming it as a major issue, but the name of the bill is a question of semantics. I would have thought debate should concentrate on the bill’s content and the practical benefits it will provide to children and other vulnerable witnesses. I am sure the member for Araluen would agree.
The DPP commented that there was a need to amend section 21A(1) to insert a definition of ‘examination’. The DPP has suggested the definition of ‘examination’ should specifically refer to examination-in-chief. The definition of ‘examination’ is not intended to be exhaustive; it has been drafted to reflect that in its ordinary use, ‘examination’ will mean examination-in-chief and will include cross-examination and re-examination. It is a rule of statutory interpretation reflected in the use of ‘includes’ rather than ‘means’ in the definition.
On the question of the use of ‘accede’ in section 21B(3), I have no knowledge or idea whether this word appears in other legislation or not. ‘Accede’ is not defined in the amendments, so I understand that its ordinary or dictionary meaning would be used, which I would take to mean ‘agree’ in its simplest form.
There were questions about what constitutes a ‘good reason’. It is not practical, logical or, indeed, possible to draw up a list of what a court might decide is a ‘good reason’. It would depend each time on the facts and the merits of the case. However, in deciding whether there is a ‘good reason’ for something, the courts look at whether the reason, the request or the behaviour is reasonable in the circumstances. A mere wish or desire to depart from accepted practice is not a good reason in itself. Whether an alternative course of action exists and what the effects of adopting that alternative course of action might be, in relation to its use in this section, it is worth noting that it must also be applied in a manner consistent with section 21D that makes clear, in relation to children, that it is the intention of the Legislative Assembly that as children tend to be vulnerable in dealings with persons in authority, including courts and lawyers, child witnesses be given the benefit of special measures.
There was a further question about who may or may not be with a vulnerable witness when he or she gives evidence. The DPP suggested an inconsistency between new section 21C(1) and existing section 21A(2), and that the court has somehow been given additional power to determine whether or not a witness can be accompanied by a support person when he or she is giving evidence. The situation outlined by the DPP mirrors the existing legislation.
Section 21C, Use of Closed Circuit Television, currently provides that the court may make orders about, ‘who may be present at the place at which the vulnerable witness is giving evidence’. Current section 21A(2) provides that a vulnerable witness may be accompanied by a relative, friend or other person the court considers appropriate. However, section 21A(2)(a) also allows the court to refuse to allow the vulnerable witness to be accompanied where it would not be in the interests of justice. No information was provided by the DPP to indicate that this current provision has been interpreted in a manner inconsistent with section 21A(2), or that any problems have arisen. There is no reason then why this should be a problem with the new similar provisions.
In new section 21C(2)(b), regarding special sitting before a jury is empanelled, in relation to the phrase ‘it may be held before the jury is empanelled’, this drafting allows greater flexibility in the operation of the provision. It does not detract from its meaning. Relevant provisions of the Western Australian legislation have also been drafted to allow flexibility in the way matters proceed. Section 106RA of the Western Australia Evidence Act 1906 allows recording after the prosecution has commenced.
The DPP’s comment was that section 21C(2)(c) does not reflect current practice. Proposed section 21C(2)(c) is not limited in its operation for the current procedure whereby the accused, counsel, judge and court staff are in court and the vulnerable witness is in a remote room. It has been drafted to allow current practices to continue, as well as allowing alternative arrangements to be made. There is no reason, given the advances in technology, why the defendant could not be outside the court room, but connected to it while the witness is in the same location as the judge and counsel. Arguably, it might be more comfortable for a witness, and more in line with the principles underlying these provisions, if the child or other vulnerable witness was able to see and communicate with the judge and prosecution directly.
I turn to new section 21F and use of the phrase ‘in a case’. The phrase ‘in a case’ is not used elsewhere in the amendment bill, but it is used frequently in both the Justices Act and the Evidence Act. In fact, it appears in the definition of ‘vulnerable witness’ in section 21A of the Evidence Act. Use of the term is made to distinguish it from trial and proceeding and to ensure the section has the broadest possible application, therefore encompassing committal proceedings, hearings in the Youth Justice Court, the Court of Summary Jurisdiction and trials in the Supreme Court.
The member for Araluen queried section 21B, which says the section applies ‘proceedings for the trial of a sexual offence or a serious violence offence’, and has missed the word ‘to’ so it should read: ‘this section applies to proceedings…’. She is quite right and it will be picked up. It does not need a separate amendment; it can be corrected by slip amendment and is a typographical error, as suggested by the member for Araluen.
I believe the claim was made that the new provisions are somewhat narrower than before in respect of the difference between sections 21A and 21F. The court can be closed under current arrangements: (1) where a child gives evidence in a sexual offence matter and it must be closed; and (2) may be closed for other vulnerable witnesses under current section 21A(2)(d). Under these changes, the provisions have been broadened rather than narrowed so that (1) the court must be closed under section 21F, where a vulnerable witness gives evidence in a sexual or serious violence offence matter, and may still be closed under section 21A(2)(d). Therefore, the provision is unchanged.
In relation to the member for Nelson’s query about sexual offence including ‘(e) any other indecent act…’, there is no definition of ‘indecent act’ and it would appear to pick up a situation whereby two adults were having sex and were seen by a child. These issues were raised during the consultation phase picking up all offences within section 133, ‘act of gross indecency’. The committee stage amendments are designed to concentrate on those offences involving children. It is possible that two adults intentionally having sex in front of a child could, in fact, commit an offence falling within this definition of sexual offence. Being forced to view a sexual act is certainly behaviour that often occurs in the process of grooming children who themselves participate in sexual acts. Therefore, it is entirely appropriate that such offences are included in a category for which children ought to be able to receive protection.
In relation to questions from the member for Araluen, I believe I have covered each of those points. I do not want to get too categoric here. There were many issues raised by the member for Araluen. However, I foreshadow that we are going into the committee stage to debate the amendments and the member for Araluen has a further opportunity, of course, to clarify and interrogate any aspects of the bill.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Clauses 1 to 6, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 7:
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 20.1.
Section 105B of the Justices Act currently allows for the admission of a written or recorded statement at a preliminary examination committal in relation to an offence. However, it also provides that the defence, by notice to the prosecutor, can require the person making the statement to be present at the preliminary examination and give evidence, and the Justice may require a person who has made a recorded statement to attend and give evidence.
Section 105B(11) provides that these circumstances do not apply if the statement was made by a child in a serious sexual offence matter. An amendment is required to bring section 105B into line with the provisions contained in the bill so that a person making the statement cannot be required to appear and give evidence if: (1) the statement was made by a child in a sexual offence or serious violence offence matter; or (2) the statement was made by an adult who is the alleged victim of a sexual offence to which the proceeding relates.
The committee stage amendment achieves this by omitting and replacing current section 105B(11).
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9:
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 20.2.
This amendment inserts the definition of ‘audiovisual record’ within proposed section 21A(1) of the Evidence Act. The amendment is necessary to ensure that the court can be closed when a vulnerable witness is giving evidence, when an audiovisual record is being played, and when a recorded statement is being played.
Proposed section 21F(1) provides for the courts to be closed in a case involving a charge of sexual or serious violence offence when the evidence of a vulnerable witness is being taken. Proposed section 21F(2) provides that section 21F(1) applies to both examination of the vulnerable witness and the replay of an audiovisual record. Concern has been expressed that the term ‘audiovisual record’ will be interpreted strictly and will encompass a recorded statement. In order to ensure that the intention is clear, the amendment clarifies that the audiovisual record referred to in new section 21F(2) includes a recorded statement.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 10:
Ms CARNEY: Attorney-General, I may have had trouble hearing you when you were responding in relation to what appeared to be a typo for the new proposed section 21B(1). Did you concede that there was a typo? That is that the sentence should read: ‘This section applies to proceedings for the trial of sexual offences or serious violence offences’. If so, would you be minded to perhaps move an amendment from the floor so that we can insert the word ‘to’? That is my first question. I have some others.
Mr STIRLING: I did cover it. I am sorry; have you had your hearing checked lately, member for Araluen? I was quite precise in my language in my contribution. I did concede that there was an omission. However, I am advised by the Clerk it does not actually need a formal amendment here; it is simply picked up. Having drawn attention to it, we will ensure that it is picked up. I understand that there are sometimes little glitches like this picked up in the final production. Where all else has failed, there is still a last stop-gap. Now that it has been mentioned no less than three times, once by you and twice by me, it certainly will be there. It does not need a separate amendment.
Ms CARNEY: My next question is in relation to this section 21B. Notwithstanding your answers in reply, Attorney-General, I do not think you actually advised of the intention underlying this change. That is: is the section intended to apply to all vulnerable witnesses or only those who are witnesses in cases of sexual or serious violence offences?
Mr STIRLING: I thought I did, but I will just check, Mr Chairman. Bear with me.
I understand that previously under section 21B, child sexual offence was the category. It is now broadened, of course, under these terms to include serious violence offences. The old section 21B said that the section created the offences of a sexual offence or an offence against sections 177, 181, 184 and so on. It now says in relation to a vulnerable witness under section 21B, the section applies to proceedings for the trial of a sexual offence or a serious violence offence. Therefore, it is broader. Before, it was only child sexual offence; now it is child sexual offence and serious violence offence.
Of course, the problem was the sexual offence may well have been accompanied by other acts. A sexual offence might have been one category and there might have been a violence offence, for example, they might have been locked up, those sorts of things. The child, under those circumstances, previously would have had these protective measures around giving evidence for the sexual offence but not for maybe four or five others for which they would still be required to stand in court and deliver. Under this, any of the other associated criminal activity around the sexual offence is picked up as well so they do not have to present and give evidence as they would before.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you. Attorney-General, you have said that it is broadened so it applies to all vulnerable witnesses and those involved in sexual offences and serious offences. You referred in your reply to the parliamentary debate in 2004. I remember that debate very well and I am sure you do, too. You will remember that the very issue you just raised was raised by me in 2004. I made the point that the amendments you made at that time did not include serious offences. You can have a go for not supporting the bill in 2004; the reasons we did not support the bill were very clear. Now, three years later, you are here saying: ‘Oh well, we have fixed up some of those things’. It is pleasing, but certainly in relation to some of the other issues I have highlighted today, it may indeed be the case that your government comes back before the Chamber and says: ‘Oh, we did not get it right’. Therefore, I am pleased that it does expand it, given the issues I highlighted on 7 October 2004. I accept your response that instead of narrowing it, it does apply to all vulnerable witnesses including those involved in sexual offences or other serious offences.
We can move from that section. Can we look, please, at section 21B(3)?
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, I have an amendment standing at this point. Do we want to deal with it before we move on?
Mr CHAIRMAN: We are happy for the Attorney-General to move his amendment.
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 20.3.
Proposed section 21C(3) refers to the giving of identification evidence by a vulnerable witness where that witness is giving evidence at a special sitting of the court. The provision as currently drafted does not extend to giving of evidence at trial. We found that it extends provision for giving of identification evidence at trial, which was a drafting omission and needs to be rectified. The amendment operates by removing the phrase ‘at a special sitting of the court’ to make clear that the section is not limited in its application to special sittings, but also applies to the giving of evidence at trial. I am not sure if the member for Araluen raised that one in 2004, but I am prepared to acknowledge the points raised on 7 October 2004 by the member for Araluen.
Ms Carney: You so bitterly opposed.
Mr STIRLING: I am sure the Attorney-General of the day would have made comment on it. However, it was always the view of this government that we would review the operation of this legislation and amend, where seen fit, to strengthen the provisions for vulnerable witnesses. That is what this exercise is all about. I say well done to the member for Araluen for her foresight on 7 October 2004.
Ms Carney: It was pretty straightforward.
Mr STIRLING: She does not need to be churlish about this. I am happy to commend her for her views that day. It is in there now and she should be appreciative of that fact. It does strengthen the operation of the legislation.
Ms Carney: We are still on clause 10?
Mr CHAIRMAN: We certainly are.
Ms CARNEY: Attorney-General, thank you. I did listen and I heard your answer in relation to the use of the words ‘good reason’ in section 21B(3).
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, I have an amendment here on which we have not voted, and I believe the member for Araluen is past that.
Ms CARNEY: Sorry, in relation to?
Mr STIRLING: Amendment 20.3, which simply means that the giving of the identification evidence also applies at trial, not just at the special sitting.
Ms CARNEY: Okay, you want to move that amendment?
Mr STIRLING: I have moved it but we have not voted on it.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Are you speaking to the amendment or not?
Mr STIRLING: No, she is on another mission.
Amendment agreed to.
Ms CARNEY: In relation to the words ‘good reason’ in section 21B(3), I listened to your answers. However, so that I am clear and, perhaps more importantly, for the sake of the Parliamentary Record, do you acknowledge, Attorney-General, that because of the inclusion of the words ‘good reason’, it may require judicial clarification or interpretation down the track? If you make that concession, why is it you do not acknowledge that a different phrase be included?
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, a fair question. However, in relation to ‘good reason’, I am advised that the term is used in a number of Northern Territory acts. The courts have built up a volume of law around its meaning. References to ‘good reason’ are found in the Coroners Act in relation to a person entering a declared disaster area; the Firearms Act in relation to decisions about licensing and as a defence to the failure to produce a firearm when requested by the police to do so; and the Local Government Act as grounds for restricting access to otherwise public records. Perhaps most relevantly, it is the criteria or basis for a number of decisions the courts are required to make under the Supreme Court Rules, including the categorisation of proceeding, the giving of evidence by affidavit and the process and content of discovery.
The courts are the appropriate place for the exercise of such discretion and for determining such questions. I do not believe that the court, in determining this question, will consider issues such as inconvenience to the court and having to list the matter twice for a special sitting and for the trial as a good reason to deny access to the protection provided by these amendments. It seems to me there is a body of history around this. It is already in a range of legislation and there is quite a volume of law around this meaning. It ought not present any real problems in respect of greater understanding or clarification.
Ms CARNEY: It has been a long time, Attorney-General, since I have looked at the Coroners Act and the Firearms Act. However, do you agree that the ‘good reason’ to which you have referred to in those statutes might, in fact, be good reasons for doing things quite different from the good reason contained in this bill?
While I acknowledge that, as you said in your reply, it is very difficult to insert in legislation a list of what the good reasons are, nevertheless, the use of the words ‘good reason’ in legislation such as this, might, do you agree, lead in any event to confusion and the need for judicial interpretation down the track? I will not pursue it after this, but I would like your answer in relation to it.
Mr STIRLING: No. I accept that you have virtually asked me the same question, which is whether I agree that clarification effort would have to go into this later on. Not on the advice I have. It is not just the legislation as mentioned. The courts are required to make, under the Supreme Court Rules, a whole range of decisions based around good reason. It is not a specific term in one item of legislation. Good reason is good reason, and there is a volume of law around that meaning. It is never practical to draw up a list, and I think that the member for Araluen concedes that.
The problem with lists is what you leave out. There will always be a case that, no matter how diligent the list is and how much input goes into it, there will be a category that is not on the list. That would be most unfair under these circumstances. I can only go on the advice of the agency and the officers putting this work together. It needs to be watched. Now it is in debate, possibly that is something to keep an eye on for the future and see if the member for Araluen is right over time. However, the advice that I have is that it will not be a difficulty.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you. In relation to new section 21C(b), I have a question. I said in my response that this section seems to be at odds with the existing section 21A of the Evidence Act that refers to a vulnerable witness being entitled to give evidence using one or more of a number of arrangements as chosen by a witness. Does the Attorney-General concede that the new section 21C(b) limits or takes away some flexibility, some would say rights, of vulnerable witnesses by virtue of the fact that whereas under section 21A of the Evidence Act, vulnerable witnesses have certain entitlements and can make certain decisions, yet under the new section, the court will determine those decisions for them? Does the Attorney-General accept that the two are at odds; namely the section that we are now debating and section 21A of the Evidence Act? If so, is he comfortable with that and, if so, why?
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, I am comfortable with it. I assume that the member for Araluen has the Evidence Act before her. However, if you look at section 21A(2):
(2) Subject to subsection …
- Subject to subsection (2A) and section 21B, in a matter where subsection (1A) does not apply, a vulnerable witness is entitled to give evidence using one or more of the following arrangements as chosen by the witness:
(c) that the vulnerable witness be accompanied by –
(i) a relative;
- for the purpose of providing the vulnerable witness with emotional support until the court be closed.
However, in section 21A(2A), immediately following:
- (2A) The court may make an order that the vulnerable witness is not to give evidence using an arrangement under subsection (2) if satisfied that –
Ms CARNEY: There are still concerns in relation to this provision. We could take all day and I note the time. I will not be much longer. The question I asked in relation to this was: what was the rationale for making these changes? Who suggested it? Did you get advice from the Witness Assistance Services either in Alice Springs or Darwin? Was it recommended by the DPP? I will leave it at that for this one.
Mr STIRLING: Bear with me, Mr Chairman. The advice I have is that all the changes to sections 21A, B, and C are all out of the DPP on their advice and because of what had happened in court.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Attorney-General. I will leave it there. I have a couple of questions in relation to clause 12.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12:
Ms CARNEY: In relation to proposed new section 21E(2), can the Attorney-General explain why this change is required? What did the DPP or Witness Assistance Service advise in relation to it? Was it at their suggestion? If it was not at their suggestion, who suggested it?
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, the issue here is one of flexibility and borrowed, I think, from the Western Australian system where, if a victim chose to present evidence in court themselves, they could still elect to have it recorded in the event that a mistrial or something untoward occurred, and may have to come back. You would have the option of having recorded evidence in the event that you had to present again and may not wish to. It is a measure of flexibility to give the victim the best of both worlds in that sense. They might think: ‘Yes, I can go through this, I can get through this. But just in case anything untoward happens, I do not know about if I want to go do it again, so I will elect to have it recorded’, in the knowledge that if they did have to present again they can rely on the recording, even though they have fronted up themselves the first time or at that particular point.
Ms CARNEY: Given that my questions were so obviously straightforward …
Mr STIRLING: Did it come from DPP? Yes, in fact, on advice from the DPP and based on the Western Australian experience.
Ms CARNEY: I listened to the Attorney-General’s response, but still on clause 12 in relation section 21F(1), do you accept that there is a narrowing of the language based on the existing provisions contained in the Evidence Act? Can you advise what the reasons are underlying this change?
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, I have to get this right: Section 21F(1) is a narrowing? Why did we do this? I think we went over this before. I am not sure if the member for Araluen can explain further why it is seen as a narrowing when it is actually picking up not just the sexual offence but the serious violence offence as well. It is, to our collective minds, a broadening rather than a narrowing.
Ms CARNEY: Fair point. I guess, given your previous answer that these changes do apply to all vulnerable witnesses and not those involved in just sexual offences or serious violence offences, your answer makes sense. It is a broadening and I apologise for asking that question again. However, prior to today we did not have an indication from government as to whether the legislation sought or intended to include other vulnerable witnesses. My view is it should have been clearly expressed in the legislation. It has not been, but we now have on the Parliamentary Record the Attorney-General’s response and I thank him for it. I do not think I will pursue the other matters and I look forward to reading the Attorney-General’s responses in the Parliamentary Record. Thank you.
Clause 12 agreed to.
The committee suspended.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: I advise honourable members of the presence in the gallery of Parliament House Public Tour Program visitors, and also participants in the Charles Darwin University Legislative Assembly internship program: Ms Katherine Knuth, Mr Vincent Wiles, Ms Mary Wignell and Mr Stoil Tzitzelkor. On behalf of all honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
EVIDENCE OF CHILDREN AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 91)
(Serial 91)
Continued from earlier this day.
In committee in continuation:
Mr CHAIRMAN: Order! The committee has before it the Evidence of Children Amendment Bill 2007, Serial 91, together with the schedule of amendments No 20 circulated by the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General, Mr Stirling.
Clauses 13 and 14, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 15:
Mr WOOD: Mr Chairman …
Mr STIRLING: No. I have an amendment to clause 15. Do you want to speak to clause 15?
Mr WOOD: Clause 15. Are you going to speak on that?
Mr STIRLING: I have an amendment, but you go.
Mr WOOD: All right, but I am speaking to the amendment.
Mr STIRLING: I have to put the amendment if you want to speak to it.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Attorney-General, would you like to put the amendment?
Mr STIRLING: Yes, when I find my notes. There is a reason why I wanted to pursue this before lunch, and that is because there are multitudes of paper associated with this legislation. I am now getting back to it.
Mr Chairman, I move amendment 20.4 in relation to the definition of ‘sexual offence’. The amendment is to omit ‘of which an element is’ and substitute ‘involving’. Amendments 20.4 and the next, 20.5, are related. It was government’s intention, in drafting these amendments, to provide additional protection to alleged victims of sexual abuse and to extend that protection to child victims of serious violence offences.
Following introduction of the original bill, additional consultation was undertaken with members of the legal professional and key legal organisations. One of the comments made during these consultations was that section 133, Gross Indecency in Public, should not be included within the definition of ‘sexual offence’ proposed to be inserted in Sexual Offences (Evidence and Procedure) Act.
Government is not prepared to remove section 133 as a whole. We hold the view that children who view the acts covered by this section may suffer trauma and distress. Therefore, as a compromise measure, it is proposed to remove application of the section as it relates to acts directed at adults. The first part of this amendment is to remove the reference to offences ‘of which an element is’ certain actions and to replace it with offences ‘involving’ certain actions.
As an example, under gross indecency in public, it might be flashing to a crowd or streaking where you could say the whole 100 000 at the footy ground might be victims of it. However, we wanted to retain it where it might be an act of exposure or flashing directed specifically at a child. We wanted to hold it in there so that the provisions of this bill that protect the victim in giving evidence still apply in that situation where it is deliberately directed at a child and could give rise to a range of trauma and distress.
I hope I have made myself clear to the member for Nelson. If he has a question on it, I would be happy to hear it.
Mr WOOD: Attorney-General, I refer to my comments earlier regarding my concerns about the entry on your amendment schedule in relation to section 3(e):
- (e) any other indecent act directed against a person or committed in the presence of a child...
I spoke to a member of the public during lunch, so I am glad that we did have a break during lunch. That person recalled the case of a couple having sexual intercourse in Malak. It was probably in the Wet Season, probably pretty hot, had the blinds open and, I gather, they were booked by the police. What concerns me is the word missing out of section 3(e) is ‘deliberately’ directed against a person or committed in the presence of a child. It is too broad as it is. The essence of what you are trying to say is if someone deliberately does something which can be harmful to a child, we should make sure that that does not occur. However, I would hate to see someone get caught up in doing something which, you might say, comes naturally and is the prerogative of a couple, then being charged with an offence under this section which was not meant to be. However, the simple addition of the word ‘deliberately’ before the word ‘directed’ would overcome that issue.
Mr STIRLING: I just want to catch that last bit. I think the member for Nelson referred to the word ‘directed’. Is that what you said?
Mr WOOD: No, I will just explain that. In section 3(e), it says: ‘any other indecent act directed against a person or committed in the presence of a child’. I am saying it should read ‘any other indecent act deliberately directed against a person or committed in the presence of a child’ or ‘deliberately committed in the presence of a child’. You may have to put that in as an either/or.
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, I do not intend to debate this forever, but directed against a person is read as having deliberate intent. ‘Directed against a person’, so it does not need ‘deliberately’; it speaks for itself.
Mr WOOD: Does that also apply to the second part of the clause: ‘committed in the presence of a child’? Should it have the words ‘deliberately committed in the presence of a child’;?
Mr STIRLING: My advice is yes.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 20.5. We are still on clause 15. This is actually the amendment that the member for Nelson was just addressing. We have not put amendment 20.5 yet, but I am doing it now.
The amendment forms the second part of our decision about section 133 to ensure that the offence is retained in relation to children. The amendment removes the current reference to whether or not it involves physical contact between two or more persons and replaces it with a reference to ‘any other indecent act directed against a person or committed in the presence of a child’. It will ensure the indecent act offences as well as gross indecency involving a child are captured by the definition.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Mr STIRLING: I want to put on the record where we were before lunch, Mr Chairman, discussing clause 12, which sets out matters related to the closure of the court. I want to make it absolutely crystal clear what these amendments achieve and, in fact, what the bill achieves overall.
The Evidence Act currently allows the court to be closed in two circumstances: (1) under the current section 21A(1A), the court must be closed when a vulnerable witness gives evidence in relation to a sexual offence; and (2) under current section 21A(2)(a), a vulnerable witness is entitled to have the court closed in any matter unless the court determines that this is not in the interests of justice or the urgency of the proceeding makes the arrangement inappropriate.
The evidence of children amendments broaden this situation so that under section 21F, the court must be closed while any vulnerable witness gives evidence in a sexual offence matter or where a child, intellectually disabled person or witness under a special disability owing to the circumstances of the case gives evidence as to a sexual or serious violence offence.
The current section 21A(2) has not changed. A vulnerable witness is still entitled to have the court closed while giving evidence in any matter unless the court determines this is not in the interests of justice or the urgency of the proceeding makes the arrangement inappropriate. The definition of ‘vulnerable witness’ has not changed. What section 21F does is broaden the application of the mandatory court closure provisions to include not only vulnerable witnesses in sexual assault matters, but also children, the intellectually disabled and witnesses under a special disability in serious violence matters and move these arrangements for mandatory closure from section 21A(1A) to section 21F. What it does not do is remove the entitlement of a vulnerable witness in any matter to use the provisions in section 21A(2).
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments; report adopted.
Mr STIRLING (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I will be brief. I thank the Attorney-General for clarifying some of the matters I raised in my reply, and some in the committee stage. Having said that, my view remains that all legislation coming before us should be very clear. Unfortunately, in parts, this bill is not. The Attorney-General and I will probably have to agree to disagree in relation to some of the issues I raised to which he provided answers. I did not chase him up hill and down dale because his position is very clear.
However, it is important to make the point that the reforms to the Evidence of Children (Sexual Offences) Bill in 2004 were not right. I do not think this is the first time that we have had amendments to it since 2004. Certainly, this is a series of significant amendments. I simply make the point that it is pleasing that some of the issues I raised in 2004 have now been remedied. I might say, I was abused almost beyond belief by members of government for, in the first place, having the audacity, in the minds of some government members, to raise my concerns, and second, the extensive way in which they were raised. Whilst it is satisfying to see, three years down the track, that things have been fixed, the fact is that it should not have taken three years to fix them.
I remember the debate in a number of respects. I remember raising the difficulties that would arise with pre-recorded video evidence. Now, we see an entire new section 105A about providing safeguards for the video. It should have been done three years ago. Equally, in relation to section 21B, I raised a number of points and I think I concluded by saying that the section was amiss. Where are we three years later? A whole new section! My point is that we should not have had to wait three years. More importantly, the lawyers working with this legislation and others working in the justice system should not have had to wait three years.
Some of the issues I raised in 2004 have been remedied, others have not. Certainly, some of the issues I raised in relation to this bill will come back at another time. There may well be appeals in relation to some matters. I note that section 21B, according to the Attorney-General’s second reading speech, was criticised by the Court of Criminal Appeal last year.
We should not have to come back to clarify the legislation that this government has a responsibility to get right in the first instance. No one says for a moment that legislation should not be refined over time; of course it should. However, there have been fundamental problems in relation to this raft of legislation.
I urge this Attorney-General, even though I had a lot of time for his predecessor, to do whatever he can to ensure that we do not have to keep coming back, three years later, to fix the legislation that you and your government should have got right in the first place. It is easy for you and I, Attorney-General, to go to our respective homes at the end of the night and tick the box and say: ‘That is a job well done’. The witnesses, victims and those working in the justice system should not have to put up with bad legislation. Even privately, government members would concede that some of it should have been significantly better. I know it is a cause of great frustration for those working in the system and with some of this legislation that it is not as good as it should be.
I understand that there are even more amendments being proposed in relation to either the Evidence Bill or the Evidence of Children (Sexual Offences) Bill and so on. I urge people in the department and in the Attorney-General’s office who have the ability to make the decisions to assist those people to ensure that the requests by those working in the system every day, unlike us, are listened to because they do know what they are saying and doing.
I take my responsibility as a person who participates in the legislative process very seriously indeed; I think everyone in the parliament would acknowledge that. I do not think it is good enough to keep coming back. I do not think it is good enough to wait years for legislation to be fixed. I sincerely urge and implore you to ensure that, for the legislation that has been contained in media releases in recent days, to get it right so that it achieves what you say it will achieve in your media releases so that our justice system works well and so that those who work within it, including the victims, witnesses and the accused, have the rights that they expect and deserve.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
TRANSPORT LEGISLATION (DEMERIT POINTS) AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 106)
(Serial 106)
Continued from 20 June 2007.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Madam Speaker, the intention of government is to reduce road deaths as recommended by the Road Safety Report. Of course, reducing fatalities on our roads is very important so, in theory, a demerit points system seems quite reasonable. However, in practice from other jurisdictions where this legislation is in place, unfortunately, I do not see any evidence that this system makes an impact on saving lives.
What the demerit points system was designed to do is change driver behaviour. Our roads would be a wonderfully safe place to travel if every driver conformed. Unfortunately, they do not. Demerit points do not lead to poor outcomes for drivers who comply with the law. Compliant drivers do not get fined now and they will not lose demerit points for breaches after government has introduced the system. Non-compliant drivers will, however, continue to be caught and pay fines and now they will accrue demerit points as well. The periods of suspension are: the loss of 12 to 15 points is three months suspension; 16 to 19 points, four months suspension; and 20 or more points is five months suspension.
There have been many questions about the efficiency of demerit points as a system and today, I want to include some of the evidence that has been collated. I refer to the Victorian parliament’s inquiry into the demerit points system, which concluded:
- The committee found that no significant evaluations have ever been conducted to prove the real worth of the demerit points system. There is evidence from research conducted in 1987 that some drivers change their behaviour after the first traffic offence, however, Vic Roads analysis of more recent data is inconclusive.
They went on to point out that there was some anecdotal evidence that some drivers may have modified their behaviour as a result of the scheme, however that hardly represents a scientific-based statistical analysis.
Since that time, there have been international studies conducted in relation to the operation of such schemes. The University of Sienna in Italy has conducted comprehensive research into demerit points schemes internationally, focusing on Australian outcomes. Interestingly enough, I do not know if they intended to introduce them in Italy, but it would be hilarious to see how a demerit points system worked on their roads.
In the report called Understanding Deterrence and Compliance Under a Demerit Point System, the authors, Marcello Basili and Antonio Nicita, make similar distinctions between compliant and non-compliant drivers, as do other reports. They break up the drivers into three groups, and this is quite relevant to drivers in the Northern Territory. There are those drivers who will follow the rules at all times, no matter what, and they are conformist drivers. There are those who will occasionally or exceptionally break the road rules and they are called non-conformist deterred drivers. Then there are those who will break the rules regardless of any sanction and they are called non-conformist, non-deterred drivers.
A demerit points system would not have any impact on the first group of conformist drivers because they are responsible drivers. It would not have any impact on the last group of drivers who are non-conformist, non-deterred drivers because they do not care about breaking the rules; therefore, the rules are meaningless to them. For the middle group of drivers, called the non-conformist deterred drivers, the existence of the demerit points system, in the conclusion of the study, was that they produced a counter-intuitive effect. Many of these drivers will increase their rate of offending until they have nearly exhausted their points before they comply with traffic rules.
The authors of the report conclude that the points are seen as an economic band of value. The existence of a 12-point buffer is seen by many drivers as a licence to engage in poor driving because they have a buffer or a reserve of points available to them. It is almost as though the existence of the points indicates that they have a sanction to offend for a period of time. These drivers, once they have nearly exhausted the points, then engage in compliant driver behaviour.
In essence, the researchers conclude for non-conformist deterred drivers, the introduction of a budget of points may actually increase, rather than decrease, their attitude to infringing traffic laws to the extent that renders the points thresholding binding.
Other research carried out by the Monash University Accident Research Centre examined the issue of whether demerit points accrual was an indicator of future accidents. In a report entitled The Relationship between Demerit Points Accrual and Crash Involvement, which was published in April 1997, the researchers concluded that there was a relationship between the accrual of demerit points and accidents.
The worst offenders were young men, especially those with heavy vehicle licences. It has long been established that young men are the greatest risk takers, and I refer to a research paper written by Peter Marsh entitled Sex differences in driving and insurance risk. This was carried out at the Social Issues Research Centre in August 2004. His report confirms that there is a link between the accrual of demerit points and crash involvement, but it does not offer evidence that demerit points lower the incidence of risk-taking behaviour.
Put simply, there is little research to suggest that demerit points lower accident rates. The Marcello Basili and Antonio Nicita report does show that some drivers are deterred, but only after a period of increased risk-taking behaviour. Once again, the worst offenders are young men.
Nothing in the legislative package before the House targets young men specifically. It would have done well to address young men, all young people, rather than use a broad sword to deal with driver behaviour. Consequently, an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy is being introduced by this government which will not achieve its desired outcome.
I have received a significant negative comment from the community about this legislation, and I am sure there are plenty of other members in this House who have heard from disgruntled Territorians. They are sick and tired of being packaged like all other states just for the sake of it. The community is negative towards this legislation because it is being sold to them as saving lives. Well, the research that I have cited today indicates that it is not a significant factor. Fatal motor accidents are more often caused by drunk drivers, drunk pedestrians staggering out in front of vehicles, drunk drivers on back roads speeding, drivers and passengers not wearing seat belts and inexperienced young drivers.
Hoons, and I am sure the member for Nelson can certainly verify this, fuelled with alcohol and in souped-up vehicles are often the cause of these tragic fatalities in our residential areas. Demerit points will mean nothing to these people; they are happy to break the law. The introduction of demerit points will have little impact on these people’s attitudes.
The Country Liberal Party does not support legislation that does not address the fundamental issues of road safety in the Northern Territory. The glaring problems associated with our high road tolls include failure to use seatbelts, drunks and drink driving, road standards and insufficient young driver education. I have previously spoken in this House during the road safety debates about the CLP’s road safety plans, which are much tougher than the government’s stance. I reiterate the areas in which we would be much tougher. Because alcohol causes so much heartache and is responsible for so many road accidents and fatalities, we believe that the driving with alcohol infringement penalties are not tough enough. We would add mandatory blood alcohol testing when a motor vehicle is pulled over by a police officer for any offence or suspicion of an offence. Pursuant to Recommendation 8 of the Road Safety Task Force, where education is highlighted, the County Liberal Party would use school-based constables to teach all years of school children at least once per term about seat belts. We would mandate all school buses having seat belts within 12 months, with two years of incentives.
We believe that extended driver training is extremely important for our young people and to encourage them to participate in something to become as skilled as possible while they are still young, we believe that the carrot and stick offer of incentive to purchase new vehicles with lower engine power is a positive step. Drivers between the ages of 16 and 23 who purchase a car less than seven years old with an engine capacity generating no more than 95 kW will be entitled to no stamp duty, no cost of registration for two years and no cost of third party insurance for two years. We would also reward young drivers with free licence renewal for P-platers who complete an incident-free probationary period.
While on the subject of road safety, demerits and infringements, where do cyclists fit into this? At the moment, young people have to wear a helmet or they receive an infringement whereas adults do not have to wear a helmet. Mum gets on the bike, and if Mum is not totally responsible, she does not wear a helmet, but she says to the kids: ‘You have to wear a helmet or else you will be in strife’. What sort of message do we send? It is contradictory because we are saying that your skull must be thicker once you grow up and it is not going to bounce as much, or it will not crack open as it does when you are a little child. Send a clear message to adults as well as children that to protect your head when you are riding a cycle - not a motorbike; that is already covered - you must wear a helmet.
In my experience, and I am sure the experience of other people here who have attended vehicle accidents that involve bicycles, those who have not been wearing a helmet and have been injured are not a pretty sight. I am not aware that government has addressed this issue yet, but I would be pleased to hear from the minister in her reply.
When helmets were introduced in the Northern Territory, there was a backlash from adults to say they did not want to wear them. I do not know exactly what happened at that time, but I do know that for the protection and safety of all people, everyone should be wearing a helmet when they are on the road. We would all agree that the cost of a well-fitted cyclist helmet makes the difference between life and death or serious disability. I am interested to know what the minister has to say on that.
The Country Liberal Party has some offers for the stick and carrot approach that I talked about earlier. I am quite wedded to the member for Nelson’s amendments. Have you introduced them yet?
Mr Wood: I will.
Mrs MILLER: You will. I am wedded to those because instead of trying to penalise people all the time, we should be looking for incentives to encourage people to change their behaviour. It will be interesting to see how the minister responds to those.
When this government introduced speed limits to the Territory after being so adamant that they would never do it, the reason was the road toll was excessively high and strong measures had to be put in place to address it. The argument that the speed limit would make a significant impact has not played out because already this year with the speed limit enforced, our road toll is higher than last year. That is a terrible tragedy for so many families. The government has the right motives in wanting to reduce the road toll; everyone in this House wants to see the road toll reduced. However, the measures they have put in place in the Northern Territory, especially the speed limits and demerit points system, have not and will not achieve the desired result. The concentration needs to be on young people, young men, and the offending of young drivers coupled with a focus on drink driving, which is the real killer in the Northern Territory.
This morning, I was coming in from Casuarina along the main road, and it was …
Ms Lawrie: Bagot Road or the Stuart Highway?
Mrs MILLER: Bagot Road. It was interesting to note that I was in a flow of traffic and I was doing the speed limit. I am very careful; it would not look good for the shadow minister for Transport to receive a fine. I am very conscious of how I travel. This morning, I was travelling at the speed limit. The flow of traffic was steady coming in on Trower Road, quite steady, but I was the only one doing the speed limit.
I am concerned that the demerit points system is going to penalise people who are going about their work, getting from home to their place to work, who may be going 82 km/h 83 km/h or 84 km/h and who will be penalised, and could actually be penalised quite a few times because they are in a flow of traffic. It is fantasy to think that all traffic is going to slow down and be compliant by driving at 80 km/h because, generally speaking, they will not.
You are going to incur the wrath of many Territorians on our roads who drive safely, who are only travelling 2 km/h, 3 km/h, or 4 km/h over the speed limit. They are not causing any trouble; they are getting to work quite safely. I was probably the pain on the road doing to 80 km/h in that zone and 70 km/h in the 70 km/h zone because everyone was going past me. That means government would have picked up quite a bit of money and there would have been quite a few demerit points allocated. That would not have been received very well by good, law-abiding citizens. You will find that you will have some very upset and annoyed people. That is one example.
Another one is delivery truck drivers and taxis, passenger-carrying vehicles, taking people from A to B, which can do up to 4 km/h over the limit. When you are talking to someone in the back seat or concentrating on the road, you could be going 2 km/h or 3 km/h over and, all of a sudden, you are going to get whacked with a demerit point. It will not take long for a cab driver to be whacked with a lot of demerit points and lose his licence. There are quite a few people out there who are not very happy with this because it could very well affect their living ...
Mr Natt: Come on, Fay.
Mrs MILLER: I am sorry, but it is a reality. The member for Drysdale smirks. He comes from South Australia where there is a demerit points system, and he knows that the findings of the research I have cited are true. I see it on the roads when I am down there myself, and it certainly has not saved lives. As a matter of fact, it has not made any difference to the number of lives that have been saved. That was the sole reason for introducing demerit points in the Northern Territory, so we would become a nanny state just like the rest of Australia. That is the sole reason. It certainly has not been introduced to save lives.
Madam Speaker, the Country Liberal Party does not support this legislation.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I do not support the demerit points amendment bill for different reasons. It is not that I am suggesting that we should not be strict with people on the road. I remember John Maley, my predecessor at Litchfield Shire Council, once saying: ‘Do not introduce legislation that you do not need to introduce’. In other words, do not duplicate legislation. That is the direction from which I come in this debate. I notice that on page 52 of the road safety report it says:
- Demerit point systems form part of an integrated approach to road safety sanctions, enforcement and education efforts in other jurisdictions. It is therefore not possible to separate the impact of a demerit point system on road safety results.
The assumption by government is that by making it into a package, it will help, but even the road safety report people say they cannot really prove that. It sounds like a good idea and other states reckon it is great, but when it is boiled down and analysed, there is no proof that it has made life better than existing legislation. That is my argument.
Another area that concerns me is that we are going to introduce this new scheme of administration and bureaucracy to run a demerit points system. When you read what the minister said in the second reading and what is repeated in the road safety report, there are probably 37 000 drivers, roughly 30% of all drivers, who are likely to receive a demerit point in three years, and I presume that there are three years in a term. That means we have roughly 120 000 drivers who are licensed. Then you said it is anticipated that only 1% or 2% of the 37 000 drivers are likely to receive enough demerit points to have their licence suspended under the system, which works out to be a minimum of 370 people. That means that we have 119 600, and I am using general figures to illustrate this, good drivers who will now come under a system which is aimed to reform the 370 drivers we estimate are the reason for this legislation.
If that is not a whopping big sledge hammer to crack a little peanut, I will eat my hat. Are we introducing legislation that far outweighs what we are trying to do? Why not, for instance, use existing laws? If you drink drive twice over 0.05, there is automatic disqualification. Of course, if you do it again, you are disqualified again. That is not much different from demerit points. You are going to be disqualified. I know there is an answer to this, but it does look funny in the table where you give three demerit points for over the limit, and you give another three points for over the limit. By that time you are disqualified under the existing regime, but under the demerit points system, you do not have enough points to be disqualified. I know that the two run parallel, but it seems to send the wrong signal.
Why can’t we use existing laws to crack down on those people? Speeding: your demerit points system says over 30 km/h and up to 45 km/h over the limit, and that is fairly serious speeding, four demerit points; over 45 km/h above the speed limit, six demerit points. Why don you not have a law that says if you do it once, twice or three times, you are disqualified? The essence of what you are trying to do is to get those people off the road.
You will not catch the people who could not care two hoots about whether they are disqualified or not because they are the people who drive without a licence. Demerit points or no demerit points, you are not going to make any difference to them. You have to look at something the CLP is putting as a possibility: you physically take their car away from them if that has to be the case. If someone is caught driving without registration several times, that may be the only option because demerit points are not going to save you from that.
The same applies to unregistered vehicles. If they are time and time again not registered, that means the person driving the car could not care two hoots about existing legislation. They are not going to care about demerit points, so I do not think demerit points will change that. You have to have some other laws, whether it is that your vehicle is impounded if you drive a vehicle three months out of registration and you do it a couple of times. That is the only way because you are not going to change people’s habits with this law or the previous law. They have shown they are not interested.
On the issue of seat belts, I was talking to an ex-traffic policeman from the Northern Territory who has now moved south and was back recently for the Darwin Cup. He said no matter what you say about accidents, the big problem with people dying is they were not wearing seat belts, whether it is alcohol or speeding or what. He said it was seat belts. Again, if we found people who were caught not wearing their seat belt three times and they were given disqualification, should that be the way to go? I am concerned that in your demerit points system, you take three points from a driver who fails to wear a seat belt, you take another three points from the driver if he fails to ensure children or young people wear a seat belt but, when it comes to an adult passenger, there is nothing. I understand there are some issues such as if that is my mother and she refuses to wear the seat belt. However, it may be the case that the driver still has a duty. You cannot fly in an aeroplane without wearing seat belts when requested. Maybe, considering that people not wearing seatbelts is one of the prime reasons people are killed in accidents, if we are going to have this demerit points system, there should be some consistency.
When you look at the penalties that exist for failing to wear a seat belt, they are equal except for a child. If a driver fails to wear a seat belt, the present penalty is $200. If an adult passenger fails to wear a seat belt, it is $200. The driver is fined $240 if a child does not wear a seat belt. There is an equivalent fine for an adult passenger not wearing a seat belt, but there are no demerit points for the driver. That is inconsistent.
Also inconsistent is for some reason, and it is populist legislation, if you are have hand-held mobile at your ear, you attract demerit points. Why are we picking on hand-held mobiles? You could have a two-way radio, which a lot of people have. You hold it in your hand to talk to it. You could be changing a cassette or CD in your car. You could be conversing with a passenger, not keeping your mind on what is happening, which is one of the problems of talking on mobile phones. Why have we not looked at driving without due care instead of being so specific?
No one likes to see people with their phone held to their ear, and everyone toots at them because they are going 10 km/h slower because they have forgotten what speed they are travelling at, or they are driving around the corner one handed and they have not changed gear so the car starts to shake. Yes, it is a bit of a nuisance, but what is the difference between that and people changing the cassette? I came across a vehicle upside down in water. The driver and his daughter were lucky they had their seatbelts on; they were suspended. The driver drove off the road simply because he was trying to change the cassette in the car and took his eyes off the road. This legislation is a little too specific. If you are going to have demerit points, they should apply to driving without due care.
One thing that worries me is that we are going to have 23 demerit point categories in the regulations. Once they are in the regulations, the minister can just add to them without any debate in this parliament. We could end up like New South Wales in which, if anyone has had a look at their system, if you are on 11 and your tail light happens to be broken, you could get a demerit point of one and you are over. I give the government a pat on the back in relation to this: at least if you are going to have demerit points, most of the offences are pretty sensible. You have stuck with the serious ones, and I will be careful of what I say here, the minor ones by which people in New South Wales can lose their licence. That is one good thing about these categories for demerit points.
If you were going down this path of having demerit points, you could argue you are only adding to them. Failing to give way at a children’s crossing, I would have thought, would attract a penalty because children are the ones who are most at risk. That is why you penalise the driver for having a child in a vehicle not wearing a seatbelt. Again, I am not saying that that is the way we go because you could do that with existing legislation: punish the people who are repeat offenders by disqualifying them. If they drive while they are disqualified, introduce tougher legislation like impounding their vehicle.
Another thing that worries me, which is purely governments being carried away, is doubling demerit point penalties at holiday times. When Christmas or Picnic Day or whatever comes around, for some reason everyone is more at risk. I do not know, it just sounds like that is New South Wales. They might say it is terrific; people down there might be immune to all that. I do not really want to go down that path. If we have the legislation and people break the law, are fined or taken off the road. I am worried that it is the thin edge of the wedge; once we start going down the demerit points system path, we will end up like the other states. I really do not want to end up like New South Wales. They certainly have overkill, which is perhaps a poorly chosen word. I will put it this way: they have excessive demerit points.
This second last issue I would like to raise, and I know that it probably will not gain much support, is when people lose their demerit points in rural areas. In many ways, they are doubly penalised. I am sure you will say, minister, that they know the rules and should not break them, and that is fair enough, but if you have a very poor bus service or none or hardly have a bicycle path worth looking at, if you lose your licence in the rural area, you have a hard time getting to work. I understand you will say: ‘Yes, well you should not have lost your licence’. The difference is if you lose your licence in the city, you can get on a bike or on a bus.
I do not know the way around it unless you can give people an exemption to only go to work and back, a bit like home detention. You can only say: ‘That is it, you cannot drive anywhere else’. People in the rural area have raised that issue with me, and I fully understand the argument that they should not have done it, so too bad. However, the problem is that they are doubly penalised simply because they have no other options of getting to work, at least not safe options.
The last thing is more in the form of a question about education. I thank the government for the briefing yesterday. I gather this legislation will come into effect on 1 September, not far away. People have forgotten about this until I remind them it is coming up in this sitting of parliament. You are going to hit them with a big surprise, demerit points. I am interested to know what education program you will have for motorists in the Northern Territory, because it needs explaining. Even though I do my best, I have trouble trying to work out when the demerit points system starts, when the three years commence and when you lose what you already gained. It is a little tricky reading that in the paper. I am sure you can come up with a diagram of what the government means when your time is completed so all your previous demerit points are wiped.
The reason I have an amendment, which I will speak to, is that we focus too much on penalising people. We are always saying: ‘If you do this, you will get that; you do this, you get that’. This is a very good opportunity to support my amendment, which is a 10% discount on one vehicle registration. People might say that is a lot of money for the government, but most of the money we would be losing would be the third party insurance, which is part of your registration fee. If you can encourage people to drive safely, in theory you should have fewer accidents; if you have fewer accidents you have fewer injuries so you have less cost to insurance companies in the form of payouts. If that is the case, surely this is cost effective.
I ask the government to support the amendment. I know that is very unlikely, but I say to the government: at least consider it at a later stage if you do not consider it now. If you want to sell this, and you like selling things, especially policies that are not the most popular, throw in a carrot. This is the carrot. Say to people: ‘We will give you a 10% discount if you do not have any demerit points over three years and, if you do it with the next three years you get another 10%, and if you do it in the next three years you get another 10%, up to 60%’. The government still gets some income. You might be a bit old by then, but you still get your income. If you have a demerit point in that period, you go back to scratch and start over again.
That is a good way of encouraging people without saying: ‘You will lose your licence or you will get a fine’. I hope the government will support it. If they cannot support it, they might support the principle behind what I am trying to do and perhaps come back with a similar proposal. I will certainly be willing to look at it and people would be pleased because it will show the government at least is looking at alternative ways of doing things, not just using the New South Wales model.
Madam Speaker, I do not support the bill, and not necessarily for the same reasons as the CLP. I am saying, yes, we should crack down on people who offend driving laws. We can do it using existing laws. The few people who are being targeted are not enough to warrant such a huge change in the administration, the bureautic processes, that this will require. We can do it as we have it. I remember John Maley for one thing: saying if you do not need legislation, do not introduce it. This is a perfect case of how we can do what we are trying to achieve with what we have already.
Debate adjourned.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Closing the Gap of Indigenous Disadvantage
Closing the Gap of Indigenous Disadvantage
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, the most difficult question facing the Northern Territory government remains today as it has done since self-government: how do we close the huge disadvantage gaps that exist between indigenous and non-indigenous Territorians? I believe everyone here accepts that the gaps are huge. The statistics are well known and very confronting and across the board. While there may be levels of disagreement about how we change things, we all agree it must be done.
Yesterday, I announced a plan to end indigenous disadvantage. We have called it Closing the Gap of Indigenous Disadvantage - A Generational Plan of Action. It is a complex and thorough proposal. It outlines a way forward for Aboriginal Territorians in particular and, ultimately, a way forward for all of us. Closing the Gap generates a $286m commitment from the Territory budget. It outlines the creation of more than 220 new positions. If we are going to substantially affect the disadvantaged we need more educators, more people to help with law enforcement, and more health professionals.
Closing the Gap delivers a major legislative reform package. It reaches out to the federal government to join us in working with Aboriginal Territorians to implement the plan. Closing the Gap also acknowledges and accepts the need for a meaningful engagement with Aboriginal people, and for Aboriginal people to respond by accepting responsibility to be part of the change.
Closing the Gap also contains the Northern Territory government’s response to the Wild/Anderson report into the protection of Aboriginal children from sexual abuse. We have addressed all recommendations of the report and, in many instances, we have gone well beyond the recommendations of the report. But Closing the Gap is much more than our response to the Wild/Anderson report; it is the most comprehensive response aimed at addressing indigenous disadvantage ever produced by a Northern Territory government. Government accepts that while much has been done, we have a backlog of disadvantage that has to be bridged. We have to take a giant stride to bring about change.
We are proud of the fact that, in education, we have employed 110 additional teaching positions above formulae aimed directly at the bush and the regions. This government brought proper secondary education to the bush with the first students graduating their NTCE in their community in 2003 in Kalkarindji. New secondary schools have been built in Wadeye, Minyerri, Kalkarindji, Maningrida, Shepherdson College and Papunya. In addition to these new schools, secondary education has now rolled out to a further 22 schools across the remote Territory.
The government has introduced an indigenous employment strategy in the public sector which has resulted in a significant increase in numbers in the public sector. In 2001 there were around 700 indigenous people employed in the public sector. Today there are over 1150; a 64% increase. We have employed 318 new nurses since we came to office.
The life expectancy of indigenous women has been extended by three years to 68 years. The indigenous infant mortality rate has fallen by 36%. We have attacked chronic diseases with expanded kidney dialysis to the regions and in remote areas. We have built 479 houses for remote indigenous Territorians, and recently announced a $100m expansion of the housing program for communities.
This government has increased police numbers by 200, which includes implementing the specialist teams and task forces such as a sexual assault team and the Child Abuse Task Force. There has been significant new legislation to give the police and justice system the tools to tackle antisocial behaviour, including drug courts and alcohol courts, drug house legislation, dry area legislation and private premises legislation.
This is the first government to seriously tackle alcohol abuse. We have put into place an Alcohol Framework and are progressively rolling out local area alcohol management plans. These plans are showing signs of success. Groote Eylandt has seen a drop of around 70% in crime and antisocial behaviour, and in Alice Springs there has been significant recorded drops in alcohol use in the first quarter of the year.
Madam Speaker, I could go on. We have arrested the declining investment in Aboriginal society, and Closing the Gap takes that investment to a new level.
This package does rely on Aboriginal Territorians stepping forward and seizing the opportunities that will flow from the Territory government and the federal government’s increased investment. We must move forward together to prevent child abuse, to provide education and to ensure meaningful employment and a richly rewarding life.
Indigenous life and culture has much to offer all Territorians. However, we will have gained nothing and it will make no sense if we simply charge in and tell people what is good for them. This is the huge task that faces us: we must re-educate and re-equip a whole generation. We have to lift every social and economic measure and make the indigenous outcomes the same to finally ensure there is no difference between being a black or white Territorian. We must do it together, we must do it in partnership but, Madam Speaker, we must do it.
It is important to say, at this stage, that no one holds any particular moral high ground when it comes to child abuse; we all abhor it. It is a scourge when a society does not properly care for its children. It is also important in this debate that we acknowledge that the problem of child abuse does not belong to the indigenous community alone. It occurs across Australia, and we should and must do all we can to prevent it.
The Territory is unique, we all know that, for many reasons: our climate, our pristine environment and our people are a special mix. We must work to create a society where diversity is valued and we are all proud of living with and beside a culture that is 60 000 years old and has global recognition that helps define the Territory.
Before I address the underlying causes of indigenous disadvantage and our plans to address them, I want to talk about the recent federal government intervention into indigenous affairs in the Territory. The political rhetoric that minister Brough has wrapped the intervention in is both unwelcome and unnecessary, particularly when the breadth of cooperation that has previously existed between the two governments is considered. Minister Brough’s high-handed actions are probably best highlighted by the fact that he has had to apologise recently to the people of Yirrkala for saying they all lived in a kava-induced fog. Broad, sweeping, inaccurate generalisations help no one in this debate.
In April 2005, the Territory and federal governments signed the Overarching Agreement on Indigenous Affairs. In his speech at the signing, the Prime Minister said:
- It’s a good news day, this for indigenous Australians in the Northern Territory, and it is an example I hope other governments emulate ...
The two governments entered bilateral agreements on affordable indigenous housing, strengthening the indigenous arts sector and establishing a strong local government at the time of signing. Since the signing, boosting indigenous employment and economic development and Healthy Country, Healthy People were added as recently as September 2006. As well, officers have been working on additional schedules aimed at strategic interventions in priority communities, safer families and children, education and training, child health and wellbeing and youth. The most recent review of the overarching agreement by officials of both governments declared it to be a positive arrangement that was producing results. I sincerely hope that cooperation and negotiation will, once again, show how our governments best work together to achieve results for indigenous Territorians.
Our sense is that when the election frenzy subsides, we will again be able to move forward in an atmosphere free of name calling and finger pointing. In the stated objectives of the intervention, our position is clear: we agreed with an increased police presence and, of course, welcomed it. We agreed with more childcare workers, further alcohol controls, pornography control and welfare reform that encourages school attendance.
However, we do not see how the compulsory acquisition of land helps, especially when the federal government knew we were close to negotiating agreements on leasing for housing with Territory land councils. We do not see how the removal of permits helps, a view supported by Aboriginal Territorians and Northern Territory police. We cannot see how disempowering indigenous leadership helps, and we cannot see how abolishing the CDEP program where there is no labour market helps support a work ethic.
I now want to turn to our plan of action in Closing the Gap. As I have said, our plan will address the underlying causes that lead to the gaps in outcomes and set up the environment that has led to the abuse of children as outlined in the Wild/Anderson report. This plan addresses 97 recommendations of the report, as well as providing a way forward that begins to close the gap of indigenous disadvantage. In addition to responding to the Wild/Anderson report, Closing the Gap takes its lead by identifying measurable targets from those established by the Productivity Commission in their report called Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage. This body of work by that reputable organisation shows that to make a real change, effort must be focused on housing, education, jobs and partnerships.
Our plan sets out firm targets for achievement of measurable results at five, 10 and 20 years, with the expectation that children born at that time will have the same future to look forward to whether they are indigenous or non-indigenous. We are committing significant resources, more than $286m over five years and more than 220 new staff, as well as providing a suite of legislative changes to ensure they have a good framework to be effective.
The government will introduce the Care and Protection of Children Bill into the Legislative Assembly at this sitting to replace the Community Welfare Act and to provide for the Children’s Commissioner and other child protection measures. We will introduce the Local Government Amendment Bill to allow for transition to new local government arrangements, introduce the Local Government Amendment Bill (No 2) and the revised Local Government Act in late 2007 to embed the new local government arrangements. We will see a roll-out of dry areas under the amendments passed to the Liquor Act in 2006, commencing with Alice Springs on 1 August this year, and progressing to other areas during 2007. In this session, we will introduce amendments to the Liquor Act to provide power to the Racing, Gaming and Licensing Minister to implement urgent liquor supply measures, alcohol restrictions in town camps and provide power to police to search vehicles. We will pass the Evidence of Children Amendment Bill to provide greater protection for child victims and witnesses, and introduce amendments to the Domestic Violence Act later in 2007 to improve its effectiveness in remote communities.
Aside from the legislative action, Closing the Gap addresses seven strategic areas for action: safety, including child protection; health; housing; education; jobs; culture; and a better way of doing business. Key expenditure includes $79.36m for child protection; $38.61m to implement the Remote Area Policing strategy, community justice and other safety measures; $10.11m for alcohol and drug management; $23.4m to achieve better health outcomes; $42.32m for housing in indigenous communities; $70.68m towards education; $13m to improve indigenous employment and economic development; and $8.95m towards better cross-cultural understanding and engagement in service delivery. We will create more than 220 new positions, employing more police officers, educators and health professionals.
Safety is the bedrock for people to be able to engage with education and work and plan for the future. We will build personal and community safety through a strong child protection system, effective alcohol and drug management, adequate policing, youth development and youth support programs, and the engagement of the community in developing local solutions to crime and family violence. There will be 10 additional school counsellors, a permanent child abuse task force of 23 FACS staff and 24 police alongside expanded sexual assault referral centres.
On top of this, we will implement a remote policing strategy, including 16 new police. We will put in place 10 more community courts, employ 10 more community corrections officers, develop indigenous family violence programs, recruit eight additional alcohol compliance inspectors and implement pornography and gambling education programs.
In health, we will provide the opportunity for a healthy lifestyle through a focus on early childhood health and development, preventative health, sporting and recreational activities and primary health care programs. Through integrated family and children centres in remote communities, we will deliver expanded antenatal and maternal care programs, and deliver programs that strengthen development and learning in early childhood. We will expand alcohol and drug rehabilitation services in remote communities. Primary health care will receive expanded programs targeting hearing loss and preventable chronic disease. We will continue working with the Australian government and the Aboriginal community controlled health sector to further develop and fund a primary health care strategy and improve service delivery system across the Northern Territory.
Providing families with safe, affordable or appropriate housing and access to essential services, including power, water and sewerage is critical. I identified it as a Territory government priority from early in our administration. Because the effort required is so large in dollar terms, the primary responsibility for funding in this area must be the Australian government. We have reason to believe they are significantly increasing their effort. The Northern Territory government has already made a commitment of $100m over five years towards remote housing. We have announced the roll-out of the Territory Housing management framework across the Territory, and we will be investing $117.3m for repairs and maintenance, management and related initiatives. In addition to these efforts, we will work in partnership with the Australian government to address the backlog in remote indigenous housing, and we will provide government employee housing in remote areas to the value of $42.32m.
In education, we need to provide children with a good start to life through preschool and early education programs in preparation for school, and access to high-quality primary, secondary and tertiary education. We will provide six additional mobile preschools, recruit 47 additional teachers and assistants; build 15 additional classrooms; establish a school attendance team to track school attendance; implement a ‘value of schooling’ education campaign; upgrade two homeland learning centres to small schools; upgrade 15 community education centres; improve IT resources for staff and students; provide regional hostels for senior studies; and develop partnership programs to improve student engagement and community involvement.
Jobs provide the sustainability factor for all other reforms. We need to provide adults with opportunities through supporting the provision of local jobs to local people; increasing indigenous employment in our Northern Territory Public Sector; enhancing literacy, numeracy and vocational skills; and supporting economic activity in the bush.
We will work with the Australian government to: transition CDEP jobs supporting Northern Territory government and local government services to mainstream Northern Territory Public Sector positions; increase indigenous employment in the Northern Territory Public Sector through recruitment policies, job redesign, mentoring and support and skills training; support the development of businesses for indigenous people building on the work of the Indigenous Business Development program, and develop other initiatives; identify those jobs within the 1500 existing jobs in community that are suitable for transition to local employment, and assist transition to local employment through training and mentoring; make indigenous employment a focus of government procurement policy; and use current and future indigenous housing construction programs and capital work programs to facilitate opportunities for training and employment of local indigenous people.
Another one of the key areas is culture. We recognise the unique importance of cultural identity for indigenous people and for the Territory, and want to develop an environment of mutual respect through cross-cultural awareness, communication and engagement. We will expand indigenous cultural programs in Northern Territory government schools; implement cross-cultural programs in the Northern Territory Public Sector; and implement a whole-of-government indigenous communication strategy to ensure indigenous people are aware of government actions and have an understanding of policies that will affect them.
To achieve our goals we need to find a better way of doing business. We will work together with indigenous Territorians to ensure that they are engaged in policy and service delivery in areas affecting them. We will help ensure indigenous Territorians are committed to meeting their obligations and responsibilities in shaping and creating a better future for their children. To ensure this we will establish an Indigenous Affairs Advisory Council advising the Chief Minister; implement local government reform across the Territory to create nine new shires and four existing municipal councils replacing 60-plus smaller community government councils, many of which are regularly in a state of collapse; and establish local community boards to allow community representation and involvement in local government and to promote indigenous leadership and provide the basis for indigenous people to meet their obligations to help shape a better future for their children.
This is a big package for the Northern Territory, but even with this increased commitment we will still need the full support of the federal government to achieve real change. In this package, we have identified those areas of assistance that will be our priority areas. I do not intend to go over them in detail now, but they will, obviously, include housing, community safety, the long-term retention of 50 police, education, boarding schools in the bush, resourcing for English as a Second Language and filling the gap in primary health care.
My message to the Commonwealth from day one of the intervention has been to develop long-term plans, and these are evident in my statement today. Investment today will lead to lower costs in health, prisons and policing over time, and deliver us a stronger economy where the indigenous population is seen as an economic asset rather than a cost. This package is aimed at the bush, but it will have a strong effect in urban communities. By getting it right in the bush, we will ease the problems of antisocial behaviour in the towns and cities. We will also ease the pressure on services such as the hospitals, and that is good for everyone.
Closing the Gap is a far-reaching and comprehensive plan of action. It is designed for the long term. It has addressed all the recommendations of the Wild/Anderson inquiry and report, but it intentionally goes further. Closing the Gap provides measurable targets over five, 10 and 20 years.
I conclude by repeating the vision: by 2030, every baby born in the Territory will have equal opportunity in life, a vision we all endorse and must make real. I invite members opposite and all Territorians to join in this challenging but essential work, and I urge you to support Closing the Gap.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, let me say at the outset that I, like every other Territorian, support better housing, better health services and better education outcomes in the bush. I also strongly support any person’s, organisation’s or government’s attempts to improve all of these issues for Aboriginal Territorians. Put simply, I support improvements in the lives of Aboriginal men, women and children who live in our remote communities.
I have to say, however, that much of the report the subject of this debate falls short. Had education, health, housing and so on been within the inquiry’s terms of reference, then I would applaud and congratulate the authors of the report. However, the report was about child sexual abuse, and it and many of the recommendations fall short, and in some instances a long way short, of providing a clear direction to government. As a result, the government’s response falls short accordingly.
I will go through many parts of the report and comment where necessary, although time will prevent me from going into the level of detail that I would like. I want to go through the report because government’s response focuses on it, even though the Chief Minister says that the government’s response goes beyond it. The fact is the report underpins government’s response. The government has addressed the recommendations, which the Chief Minister has said.
I obtained an independent analysis of the report from Dr Annie Cossins from the University of New South Wales, a leading expert on child abuse. I did so because, after reading the report, I had a number of concerns and misgivings about many of its recommendations. I am pleased I obtained the analysis. In essence, the author of the report I commissioned was critical of a number of recommendations, about 20 to 30. My comments today include much of what Dr Cossins concluded. However, before going through our respective assessments, and in that I include my own, it is important for me to list, albeit in a summarised version, her comments.
Dr Cossins concluded that some of the recommendations were not focused on particular outcomes or objectives; that much of the report had not conducted an up-to-date literature search on the profiles of sex offenders and the causes of child sexual abuse; and that there was a failure in the report to make any concrete recommendations to address barriers associated with prosecuting child sex offences. She observed that one of the recommendations had not been well thought out or researched; and she was critical of some recommendations on the basis that they should have been the subject of a research project by suitably qualified people. She had considerable doubts about the purpose, goals and practicality of other recommendations.
I propose to go through much of the report. Commencing on page 6, the authors said and I quote:
- We will, no doubt, receive some criticism for appearing to stray well beyond that limited brief.
They did stray, and significantly so. While everyone is concerned about the range of issues affecting indigenous Territorians, the brief of the inquiry was very specific and some criticism is warranted for straying a long way beyond it. In relation to the terms of reference, I question whether the authors did, in fact, undertake an examination of ‘the extent and nature of’ sexual abuse in communities. It does not appear as though they did. While the authors considered some of the ‘factors contributing to sexual abuse’, they covered a number of areas but did not give any consideration to the gender or power imbalance factor. There is remarkably little in the way of analysis of the causes of sexual abuse of children.
The summary in Chapter 3 suggests that the authors have fallen a long way short in meeting their own terms of reference. There is really nothing that goes to an examination of the causes of child sexual abuse. The authors were asked to ‘identify barriers and issues associated with the provision of effective responses to and protecting against sexual abuse of Aboriginal children’. They did not address the culture of fear and intimidation as described by Dr Nanette Rogers in her Lateline interview in May last year, nor did they discuss how kinship obligations may play out in these cases. The authors did not produce the effective responses they were asked to in the terms of reference. Indeed, some of the responses must be seriously questioned as to their value and effectiveness.
The authors were also required to consider the practices, procedures and resources of NT government agencies. It does not appear that there has been any detailed consideration of the resources of the government.
In Chapter 4, the inquiry has contributed very little in terms of its task. It seems to have reframed the task and sought ways to deal with all problems being experienced by Aboriginal communities. This means that nothing is offered for those children presently being abused. No one would argue that the wider problems must be resolved. It is a great shame, however, that the original purpose has, for all intents and purposes, been abandoned.
I note in Question Time today the Chief Minister said that she was disappointed with some parts of the report. The Chief Minister had great confidence in the report and its authors from the outset. That seems to have shifted.
Throughout the report, there is no gender analysis. There are numerous references to men who were sexually abused as children going on to abuse as men. However, the authors refer to the fact that more girls are sexually abused than boys, but fail to comment on, let alone examine, why it is that most of the girls who were abused do not go on to sexually abuse children.
On page 121 under the heading Inter-generational Sexual Abuse of Children, the authors give one example of a man who ultimately self-reported that he himself had been abused. The authors seem to accept that it amounts to some level of excuse or, failing that, an inevitability that where men have been abused, they go on to become abusers. The fundamental issue is that most victims of sexual assault are girls who do not go on to become offenders themselves. It was disappointing, to say the least, that the authors completely failed to examine this issue. This failure has meant, in so many respects, a significantly flawed report.
At page 16 the authors said:
- The literature convinces us that neglect leads to physical and emotional abuse and then, as we have said, in worse case scenarios, to sexual abuse.
Where is the literature that, in essence, says that neglect leads on a predictable pathway to sexual abuse? There are plenty of parents who neglect their children, but they do not sexually abuse them. This kind of generalisation is highly questionable. It is more accurate to say that neglect and physical and emotional abuse make children vulnerable, but to say that it leads to sexual abuse is incorrect.
At page 16 the authors discuss alcohol, and the figures are well known. I note, however, a concern that some would have, namely that not everyone who is an alcoholic abuses their children, whether they are indigenous or non-indigenous. I also note that children are sitting around watching their parents who are neglecting them while they are getting drunk. These parallels are making children vulnerable to sexual abuse because they are not being looked after. Such abuse, however, is not a logical consequence of having an alcoholic parent.
In addition, when these authors and others refer to the scourge of alcoholism, it has to be remembered that some Aboriginal women are also sitting around in river beds or out in the communities getting drunk, and they do not sexually abuse children. There is an overemphasis on alcohol as the cause for sexual abuse. Sober men commit acts of violence and sexually abuse children. The authors have not dealt with this at all. This approach to looking at the problem of sexual abuse is simplistic at best. I am concerned that the government has adopted a similar response.
On page 40, the authors referred to the Territory’s large land mass and small settlements in some parts of the country. They went on to say:
- It is a young population often beset with a range of social and environment problems. It is not surprising, therefore, that the rates of sexual abuse … are among the highest in the country.
It does not follow that people who live in remote places and who have social and environment problems abuse their children or are more likely to do so. Australia’s history shows very clearly that remoteness from major centres has been experienced over generations by many families. There has never been a suggestion that this and some of the problems that it brings are associated with child sexual abuse. One wonders, therefore, why the authors did not include figures in places like Darfur in the Sudan.
On page 43 of the report, after a number of definitions of sexual abuse have been provided, the authors stated:
- Further, despite legal definitions of childhood, it should be recognised that in Aboriginal culture, post-pubescent children (from as young as 11 to 14 years) are often considered to be adults.
This is an irrelevant and unnecessary comment. The argument is an old one and it has become trite. Furthermore, the law on the issue is well settled. The only conclusion that can be drawn from the inclusion of this in the report is that Aboriginal girls aged between 11 and 14 do not have the same legal rights as non-Aboriginal girls of the same age.
At page 43 under the heading of Family Violence, the authors say:
- … ‘domestic violence’ is gender-neutral …
In the absence of data provided, one is compelled to ask how many men have applied for restraining orders in the last five years at the Courts of Summary Jurisdiction in the Northern Territory. There are, and will continue to be, problems in using the terms ‘family violence’, ‘domestic violence’ and ‘child abuse’ without adequate definitions. Further, these terms on occasion in the report are used interchangeably, which was unhelpful and confusing. At page 43, the authors placed great value on the term ‘family violence’ and said it would be used to describe a range of violence that may exist within a family. The authors are all over the shop in their definition selection, and one wonders why they had such difficulty with this basic point. The authors appear to have adopted about seven definitions for sexual abuse.
At pages 44 and 46, the authors detailed the meetings held, and a list of the meetings is contained on page 308. The authors seem to have met with many individual groups, but there is no evidence they met with children. If they did, where, how many, what were their ages, and what did they say? It is extraordinary that a report of this nature could be produced absent the views of young people. Moreover, while the authors seem to find it legitimate to seek to hammer home the point ‘that in Aboriginal culture post-pubescent children’ etcetera, no attempt was made to consult the same girls.
Language and culture issues are discussed on pages 50 and 51 of the report. The authors said:
- It is vital that the government … ensure ongoing strategies for dealing with both the ‘language barrier’ and ‘cultural gap’. This is a crucial step towards seriously tackling issues such as sexual abuse of children.
It is very unlikely that the language barriers and cultural gaps are causing child sexual abuse, and the authors do not provide any evidence that this is the case, yet they assert that these barriers must be overcome in order to stop child sexual abuse. I compare this with previous references to sexual abuse being ‘learnt behaviour’ at page 58. Put simply, the authors maintained that Aboriginal people have learnt sexual abuse, but that the only way it can be overcome is by getting rid of cultural and language barriers. These kinds of assertions are illogical.
Notwithstanding this inconsistency, the authors suggested throughout the report that Aboriginal people are part of the way forward. It is not sensible to propose that Aboriginal people are at once overwhelmed and so disempowered that they are unable to protect their children, and then to say at the same time that they have knowledge and ideas about the way forward. I simply note this internal inconstancy in the report.
At page 58, the authors said:
A constant theme from both Aboriginal men and women during consultations was that they felt deeply offended by the way the media and some politicians and commentators had spoken about them and their culture. This had, in effect, potentially created a further barrier to addressing the issue of child sex abuse.
For the authors to assert that media coverage and commentary has caused offence to the extent that it amounted to a barrier to dealing with sexual abuse is astonishing. Surely, comments made by media, politicians and commentators cannot be used as an excuse or barrier to addressing child sexual abuse. If so, the authors are not only apparently accepting of this, but unquestioning about such a response from Aboriginal people.
At page 60 of the report, the authors assert:
- … many of the Aboriginal people the inquiry spoke with, saw the history of colonisation, non-Aboriginal people and the non-Aboriginal ‘system’ as responsible for the present child sex abuse problems.
This raises a number of questions but the obvious one is: how can this be so, given the language barriers described earlier in the report? I use just one example at page 51 where it said that it was a common theme that many Aboriginal people did not understand the mainstream law and many mainstream concepts. Also, it was asserted in the report that some people did not know what child and sexual abuse was. How then, can the authors assert that these very same people talked about the history of colonisation?
At page 62, the authors referred to the existence of various social issues that may, according to them, encourage offending. Among those listed was ‘inadequate overcrowded housing’. This kind of nonsense has to be tackled head on. First, many Australians live in overcrowded housing but do not sexually abuse children. Second, most sexual offences happen away from witnesses. Indeed, this partly explains why convictions for sexual offences are notoriously difficult; there are rarely any witnesses. In remote areas many, if not most, sexual assaults occur under a tree or in the back of a Toyota, not in overcrowded housing. If there is overcrowding, then what that means is that there are likely to be lots of people in a room where a child is sleeping. In turn, it makes it harder to sexually abuse a child. No one wants to see overcrowded housing, indeed, more and adequate housing is necessary, but it cannot be accepted, nor should it, that inadequate, overcrowded housing encourages offending. I note with great interest that there is no evidence in the report to support the assertion in any event.
Finally, it could be argued that by claiming that overcrowding and other social ills encourages offending amounts to excusing Aboriginal men who sexually abuse children. A more thoughtful assessment is essential. At page 65, the authors outline a story regarding a 17-year-old boy showing 10 younger children degrading and depraved pornography and said that one of the children:
- … became an offender in a serious rape and murder of a teenage girl.
I ask the question: are there serious rapes and non-serious rapes? Why did the authors see fit to suggest that there was some difference between a serious rape and a non-serious rape?
On pages 70 and 71, the authors discuss traditional marriages. Why is this included in a report about child sexual abuse? There seems to be a widespread justification for traditional marriages which include men having sex with girls who are under 16 years of age. Such discussion is not appropriate in any event in this context because the law is the law and the authors know that, whether they accept it or not.
On page 71, there is discussion about Sub-Cultural Traditional Marriages. It lists examples where young girls were in relationships with much older men. The authors said that they were told that the conduct is against Aboriginal law but the elders are powerless to stop it. This is at odds with other references in the report to the significant role the elders will, must and should play in making the community safe for children. If the elders are powerless to stop this then, surely, it follows that they are powerless to stop the sexual abuse of children. Once again, this is one of the very many inconsistencies contained in the report.
On page 73, in relation to child discipline, the authors called on the government, in consultation with Aboriginal people, to develop in relation to discipline of children strategies to inform Aboriginal communities about their rights and responsibilities in relation to using physical correction ‘that is reasonable in the circumstances’. It is an astonishing thing to suggest that a concept such as ‘reasonable in the circumstances’ could be understood by the many Aboriginal people who, the authors said at page 51, did not understand the mainstream law and many mainstream concepts, and that, according to them, many Aboriginal communities were unclear on what child sexual abuse was. The suggestion, in light of what the authors contend are the facts, are at odds. Put simply, if communities and the people who live in them, according to the authors, can barely understand a concept such as ‘do not have sex with children’ one wonders why it is that the authors claim that they are able to understand the concept of ‘reasonable in the circumstances’ and ‘physical correction’.
On page 74, the authors remarked:
- … a particular point of confusion was the legal definition of ‘age of consent’ ...
Given that it is overwhelmingly the case that Aboriginal men, not women, sexually abuse children, this assertion must be criticised for failing to provide any explanation or analysis. Surely, they do not contend that Aboriginal women are confused about this. Aboriginal women have been concerned for a long time about the sexual abuse of children. They must, therefore, understand what it is. Second, how can the authors say that Aboriginal people have a problem with the age of consent when one considers that children as young as one, two and three are sexually abused? Do the authors seriously assert that Aboriginal men in communities who have sex with three-year-olds do so simply because they do not understand the age of consent? It is both absurd and insulting to Aboriginal people.
Under the heading ‘Failure or reluctance to report’ on page 76, the authors have referred to, and apparently approve of, a quote from a person in Katherine who said:
- We need education in the community so people can recognise the signs and if they do have a suspicion then take it to the Law and Justice Committee.
On page 77, a person is quoted in relation to reporting abuse to police. The person said:
One way to address this was to have an independent venue that people were comfortable confiding in and where they could consult about their options before going to the police.
On page 77 under the heading ‘Feelings of Shame,’ the authors said:
- The recent media attention on an Aboriginal community has left that community shamed and angry and it would be reasonable to suggest that decisions to report in the future will be tainted by this experience.
This is a concerning conclusion for the authors to have arrived at. There are, however, three significant points to make here. First, any family would feel shamed and angry after sexual abuse of a child has surfaced. That should not, however, mean that in the non-Aboriginal community or the Aboriginal community that this would or should prevent a report being made. Second, on what basis do the authors conclude that the particular community in question, as is the clear inference, would be reluctant to report further instances of sexual abuse? Third, if an Aboriginal community did not report sexual abuse for reasons suggested by the authors, then Territorians could legitimately ask whether it is reasonable to provide the support and funding that the Aboriginal community requires to overcome the problems, and whether, in fact, they were committed to addressing child sexual abuse. That said, it was an irresponsible comment to make and insults Aboriginal people by suggesting that they would put their feelings of anger and shame above the needs of their children.
I note that many of the people with whom the authors spoke produced countless reasons for why it is that adults do not help children. I found that deeply concerning. In relation to leadership, it was interesting that one page of the report dealt with that issue. It is also interesting to note that on that single page there is no discussion about leadership from either Aboriginal men or women.
On page 84, the authors note what COAG has agreed upon in relation to the low rate of school attendance and what actually is required. Why have the authors strayed into this area when there is no explanation or reason proffered about the links between truancy and child sexual abuse?
On page 89, under the heading ‘Screening for child-related employment,’ the authors referred to the forthcoming bill to replace the Community Welfare Act and advised that it includes a provision that requires:
- … people working with children (including in a voluntary capacity) to have been issued a clearance notice by a Screening Authority.
The authors noted, and apparently condone, an exemption from this requirement which excludes voluntary workers in an educational institution. The reason provided is that it is apparently due to
- … community concern expressed during consultations, that screening of close family members in these services is an unnecessary burden and they impact on the availability of valued volunteers.
This means, and I look forward to looking at the bill in detail, that there will be screening for people who are employed to work with children, but that some of those who are volunteers will be exempt. That has to be considered absurd in anyone’s language.
On page 91, the authors discussed the creation of a child death review and prevention committee. They exist in other jurisdictions and they review deaths on a case-by-case basis. However, the authors made a number of additional suggestions, one of which is that the committee conduct research. This would be unusual and, based on other jurisdictions, could be said not to properly be the role of such a committee. I look forward to looking at the Care and Protection of Children Bill to see whether it contains those details of the child death review and prevention committee. I support the establishment of such a committee, but only in relation to those children who die as a result of injuries from child abuse and neglect.
On page 91 the authors stated:
- Few submissions considered refinements to the present operations of the NT Courts as a means of improving the protection of children and young people.
That does not, in my view, absolve the inquiry from making recommendations in relation to this important area. The failure to do so could be seen as an opportunity lost. I note that the Attorney-General has announced various measures. I look forward to considering those in due course. One such opportunity that was lost was the establishment of a specialist sexual offences court.
The authors recommended that FACS and police undertake greater liaison with family or clan groups including the conduct of post-case debriefings and utilising trained community brokers where appropriate. Such a suggestion raises a number of problems, given the privacy and confidentiality issues and relationship and kin difficulties. Indeed, such a recommendation may be inappropriate. Much more thought needs to be given to it before such measures become normal practice.
At page 99, the authors referred to:
- The failure to share information appropriately, consistently, reliably and in a timely manner …
The difficulty is that they do not say who is failing to share the information. There are a number of anecdotal explanations, but for anyone with responsibility for implementing the report’s recommendations, there is no useful information about what particular problems arise from and what the results are of the failure to share information. Additionally, the authors failed to articulate how exactly it is that sharing information would protect children. They should have done so if the intention was to, for example, change professional practice.
At page 100, the authors use the term ‘strict confidentiality’. What is the difference between strict confidentiality and confidentiality? Is there a sliding scale? We do not know. Also at page 100, the authors said:
communities need accurate information in order to take appropriate decisions and actions to keep children safe.
They went on to say:
- … (FACS) could further improve its partnership with communities by ensuring it take the time to actively engage and communicate with the community - family and clan groups - during and after conducting investigations.
It is not the case that communities need to be included in investigations for child sexual abuse. In fact, apart from privacy and confidentiality considerations, children may well be put at risk if communities are involved. Ordinarily, many people are spoken with in the course of investigations, but the suggestion that the whole community needs to be involved borders on the absurd. Is the street or neighbourhood involved in investigations involving children in urban areas? No, and there are very good reasons for that. Put simply, just because people who are the subject of a report are Aboriginal and live in the bush, it does not mean that they are not entitled to the same privacy and confidentiality provisions that exist for others.
The authors also suggested feedback about child abuse investigations be provided to:
- … authorised urban and remote health centres, Aboriginal community controlled health services, family support NGOs …
The authors have apparently not even entertained the possibility that some members of Aboriginal controlled organisations may be the alleged perpetrators or family member of an alleged perpetrator, let alone any risks to a child or its family members that may ensue as a result of the feedback being given inappropriately in the course of or even after an investigation.
At page 101, there was a disturbing comment by the authors who said that they were told during the consultation that:
- … when investigating and acting on child sexual abuse, it was best to go through the ‘right people’, ie the right people within the alleged offender’s clan or family group.
They went on to say:
- This was because, under Aboriginal law, it is for each family group to decide how to deal with a breach of the law by or against one of their kin. The creation of employment for local Aboriginal people as ‘community brokers’, to facilitate FACS effective access to community members and ‘the right people’, has been widely supported in the submission and the consultation process.
If it is the case that such people are to be employed by FACS or others for the purposes of encouraging those investigating reports of child sexual abuse to go through the right people, then this is an outrageous and offensive recommendation and one that has little regard for the existing laws of the Northern Territory. It is concerning that the authors said:
- Further, the Inquiry is of the view that acting through those structures is an important and vital ingredient for achieving successful outcomes…
The terms of this recommendation, and much that precedes and follows it, seem oriented to establishing a separate legal policy framework for Aboriginal people in remote communities. Clearly, the inquiry has expressed its own view about the propriety of giving information to family and clan groups which are, arguably, ‘the right people’. If they were dealing with non-Aboriginal Territorians in the suburbs, it would be like advising everyone else in the street about an investigation and thinking that neighbours have a legitimate interest. These parts of the report are remarkably offensive.
At page 111, there is a reference to CAT, the Child Abuse Task Force, being involved in:
… most of the high-profile sexual abuse cases that have occurred in the Territory since mid to late 2006.
I ask why they are talking about high profile cases, and to which ones are they referring. No explanation has been provided. The authors referred to the Child Abuse Task Force, but did not seem to direct their minds as to whether it should be established in Alice Springs or other centres. I believe that the government has suggested that CAT will be located in other centres, and that is welcomed.
Mrs MILLER: Madam Speaker, I move an extension of time for the Leader of the Opposition pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker and member for Katherine. At page 112, the authors asserted:
- Aboriginal people, including their children, are naturally suspicious of Police …
I disagree with that statement, as do police officers. The authors provided no evidence to support the statement, and no explanation of why Aboriginal children are, according to them, naturally suspicious of police. It is asserted as though it were fact. In some communities, amid all of the violence and the dysfunction, the local copper has been a lifeline and is invariably the one person a child can trust. Also, there are Aboriginal police officers and ACPOs. I note in addition that, in very recent times, many police officers have been welcomed with open arms by a number of Aboriginal communities.
The authors went on to assert that, as a result of this suspicion:
- What is more, the outcomes achieved in many cases of sexual assault do not justify the risks undertaken - in local and cultural terms - in apparently going against community mors.
This needs further explanation. What exactly are the risks? What exactly are the authors saying? Surely, they are not suggesting that people need to assess any form of risk before they report suspected child abuse. If so, it is not good enough when dealing with child sexual abuse. Further, it makes a complete nonsense of some of the other discussion and recommendations about cultural barriers and going through the right people and so on.
On page 113, the authors quoted from the police submission in relation to the Child Abuse Task Force and said:
- … it is not yet clear how effective the work of the CAT will be.
Since the report, the government has announced that the CAT will be permanent. If so, we are compelled to ask: has CAT been evaluated? If so, what were the results? If it was not evaluated, why not? Will it be? How, when and by whom?
At page 119, the authors appear to quote extensively from the Asche report in 1999. In what appears to be a quote, or at least quoted with approval by the authors, is a reference to the fact that judges and magistrates should not undertake specialist training because it would be abhorrent. This is at odds with work undertaken elsewhere in this country, and the relatively recent New South Wales report which strongly recommends training for judges and magistrates. Training of judges and magistrates is not new and has taken place in other jurisdictions. What is so different about judges and magistrates in the Territory that they would not be able or willing to learn about subjects that would assist them in fulfilling their responsibilities?
At page 112, there is a reference to the Witness Assistance Service and how assistance to children:
- … increases the chances of convicting an offender.
I understand that no increases in convictions at trial have been shown to arise from the Witness Assistance Service. Evidence shows that children are more comfortable and tend to be better at giving their evidence if they use the vulnerable witness facilities. However, on some occasions, while this may lead to a plea of guilty, it is not the case that the Witness Assistance Service actually ensures an increased conviction rate at trial.
At page 120, there is a reference to increasing, ‘awareness and feeling’. There is also a reference to the community needing to be told how and why the mainstream law has been imposed on members of that community. This is troubling. It logically follows that the community has to be advised on why it was that action has been taken against a perpetrator. Again, there are issues about privacy and confidentiality. In the wider community, people are not generally given private information. It must be questioned why Aboriginal communities should be treated so differently, and which child victims in particular should have their rights to privacy and confidentiality overridden. Presently, it is an offence to identify the child who is the subject of a child protection investigation.
In relation to recommendation 33, which suggests:
- That, following the conclusion of a prosecution…a full de-briefing take place in the relevant community…with all issues emerging during the complaint and prosecution process.
- The aim of this … would be to achieve, as far as possible, healing and reconciliation in the community. The CAT to be responsible for arranging such de-briefing in conjunction with a Witness Assistance Service officer and the local community justice group.
This is impractical and undesirable, as witness assistance officers are not employed to embark on ‘healing and reconciliation’ in the community. The recommendation shows a level of ignorance about the Witness Assistance Service and what their officers actually do. Further, what is meant by ‘healing and reconciliation’? I put to myself that I no longer wonder why so few cases of child abuse in so many communities are reported. I am compelled to ask: does anyone care more about what happens to children than adults?
Furthermore, it is an ill-considered recommendation and one that, once again, overlooks privacy and confidentiality issues. It is not appropriate to arrange for a whole lot of people, whether they be NGOs or public servants, to go into communities and tell people there everything that has happened in a child abuse case. This may, indeed, breach legislative requirements as well as FACS policy guidelines. It does not contemplate the possibility that perpetrators or family members may be members of the community justice group, and it completely misses one of the points raised by Dr Nannette Rogers about the fear and intimidation that exists in communities, and the clear and present relevance of kinship issues and how they play out in the communities.
At page 125, there is a reference to an allegation being a:
… powerful tool in the hands of a mischievous complainant.
Surely, the authors are not suggesting that a child, having made an allegation of sexual abuse, has in his or her mind the outcome that the person might be removed from the community. This is a draconian view. That it has been given additional currency and approval by the authors is disappointing. Some people who have worked in this area for years, rather than months, have sought to have such views relegated to the past where they belong. I note that under proposals announced recently in relation to domestic violence, there is an intention to remove perpetrators from the community. I hope that the authors and others do not raise the draconian view that this could be ‘a powerful tool in the hands of a mischievous complainant’. I feel certain that the Attorney-General would not do so.
Madam Speaker, there is so much more in this report which I have read from cover to cover but, in the context of this debate, time is against me and I cannot get to them all. However, these are some of the issues. These are some of the reasons why the report fell short. I am sad about that; I know a lot of other people are sad about it. It is not just me who is critical; it is Dr Annie Cossins and I note that others are critical. Government has, I believe, received representations containing criticisms as well.
In June last year, the Chief Minister said:
- We’ve got to be able to break through the fear and the shame and the silence we see about child sex abuse in our communities, and what I am announcing today is an inquiry to show us how to do just that.
Amongst some of the measures that we would implement would be the establishment of specialist sexual offences courts. This will address the low conviction rates for sexual offences. We would provide specialist training and make it compulsory for judges and magistrates. We would remove perpetrators from the communities, as is proposed under the Domestic Violence Act, an idea that I talked about in 2004. However in order to do that, policing is critical.
We support mandatory reporting of domestic violence. We would abolish committal proceedings in line with the uniform Evidence Act. I was very pleased, indeed, to hear the Attorney-General say that he would do so. We would also fast-track all prosecutions for sexual offences. We would upgrade the vulnerable witness room at Alice Springs as a matter of urgency. We would assess the viability of establishing one-stop shops as recommended by Dr Cossins, which would include forensic examinations by trained doctors, nurses, counselling services, legal advice and so on. In remote areas, we would consider the viability of the establishment of mobile units which would go on circuit to so many communities.
We would establish specialist teams such as child abuse teams in regional areas that would co-opt specialists for particular purposes. We would also inquire into the usefulness or otherwise of therapeutic intervention, namely sex offender programs, because the report was short in that area as well. They are some of the things we would do. This is, I think, an opportunity lost.
Madam Speaker, these are just some of my comments in relation to the report to be read, no doubt, by others in due course.
Mr STIRLING (Justice and Attorney-General): Mr Deputy Speaker, I support the Chief Minister’s statement on Closing the Gap, the Northern Territory’s indigenous plan of action. There is no doubt that it is a significant moment in Territory history.
I want to touch on what the Leader of the Opposition had to say. I thought hers was an absolutely extraordinary contribution in response to the Chief Minister’s statement on Closing the Gap of Indigenous Disadvantage – a Generational Plan of Action. Earlier today, the Leader of the Opposition made a point in debate on the bill that the title of the bill did not reflect all of the amendments contained within it. Yet this afternoon, we have a Ministerial Statement from the Chief Minister on Closing the Gap of Indigenous Disadvantage – A Generational Plan of Action, in which the Chief Minister has outlined in an overview and some detail the government’s response not just to Little Children are Sacred, but moving on from the report and addressing indigenous disadvantage over the longer term. The Leader of the Opposition, in response: what does she give us? Thirty-five, nearly 40, minutes of critique on the Little Children are Sacred report. She never mentioned Closing the Gap. She never said or indicated support or otherwise for the government’s proposals as outlined by the Chief Minister. She never put, until the last 30 or 40 seconds when she was well past time and she had to have an extension, what in fact the opposition might do in any of these areas.
The government has moved on from the report; we made that clear. The Chief Minister made that clear in putting the response that she has. As I said, only in the last 30 to 40 seconds did the Opposition Leader mention that they would bring in specialist courts, removal of perpetrators, training of magistrates, judges, upgrading of facilities for vulnerable witnesses and so on. Why did we get this critique, a 35- or 40-minute critique of Little Children are Sacred, when the real debate, the title of the debate, is about Closing the Gap of Indigenous Disadvantage? It is because the Leader of the Opposition contracted an expert in this area of child abuse. That person was contracted and paid to do a body of work around Little Children are Sacred.
I do not know what the Leader of the Opposition paid for that work, but she was not going to waste a cent of it. She was not going to waste a cent of it because she gave us word by word, blow by blow, almost 40 minutes of a critique of Little Children are Sacred prepared by a professional consultant and paid for by the Leader of the Opposition. They had a crack on ABC radio the other day. The consultant had a go and I thought her remarks were pretty objective actually, particularly her attacks on the federal government and their intervention and its seriousness or otherwise. I thought it was pretty good. I do not know what the Leader of the Opposition paid her to make those sorts of remarks, but that was the sort of genuine commentary this expert was making.
We had the ludicrous situation today where we had, as a title for a Ministerial Statement, Closing the Gap on Indigenous Disadvantage – a Generational Plan of Action and we get in response a 35-minute critique of Little Children are Sacred. On page 97, a deficiency here and on page 98; she went almost page by page on deficiencies and weaknesses in the report according to the child sex abuse expert contracted by the Leader of the Opposition ...
Ms Carney: No. Wrong. Wrong.
Mr STIRLING: It indicates two things: laziness, absolute laziness, on the part of the Leader of the Opposition because she could not get herself across the information on Closing the Gap on Indigenous Disadvantage. She could not put any sort of argument from the opposition as to whether they agreed or disagreed with any of the responses of government ...
Ms Carney: Wrong. You just come to the same old line: you will be right, mate.
Mr STIRLING: We will go on, and Territorians will never know what the Leader of the Opposition and the CLP think of Closing the Gap of Indigenous Disadvantage, a Generational Plan of Action. She is upset that a bill might have contained a couple of amendments outside its title, and she has the temerity just a few hours later to come in and totally miss the point on the title of a major announcement.
I said we are in a significant moment in Territory history and the Chief Minister’s announcement is going to be one of the single most important policy addresses during my time in this Assembly. It is clear how the Territory directs its resources and expertise to combat indigenous disadvantage, systemic neglect, and child abuse and will determine the Territory’s direction for decades to come.
The Chief Minister’s statement included a massive commitment of $286m to lift indigenous Territorians to new era of health, safety, education and economic opportunities, and will form the basis of a quite fundamental change in how indigenous Territorians live their lives. It will directly and immediately affect one-third of the population but, just as importantly, its influence will soon be felt by all Territorians and will, indeed, affect the lives of children born 20 years from today.
The Chief Minister’s statement demonstrates powerfully and compellingly that we will no longer tacitly accept that some members of our community are destined to receive no education, be illiterate and innumerate, have no job prospects, be vulnerable to child abuse, violence and neglect, contract preventable but debilitating illnesses and, ultimately, die much younger just because they are indigenous.
We, as a government and a community, will no longer accept much higher levels of assault and murder, substance abuse and sexual violence within our indigenous communities. We will no longer accept indigenous children not going to school, not having a home, and not feeling safe and supported in their communities. The Wild/Anderson report has helped bring these issues to the forefront, and we are committed to fully addressing the recommendations to determine how best to protect indigenous children from abuse and violence. However, we are going much further.
The Martin government recognises that you cannot isolate and tackle one aspect of indigenous disadvantage and ignore the others. It is our opportunity and our challenge, which is why the government’s response is a comprehensive package of legislative reform, employment and economic engagement, urgent community and child safety improvements, health and substance abuse initiatives, active policing and an ambitious but achievable Territory-wide house building program. The package must stretch across all of these areas if we are to make a practical, sustainable and decisive difference in indigenous Territorians’ lives. However, indigenous Territorians themselves have also to play a central role inside this project. They must use this important structure provided by Closing the Gap. They must grasp their potential to shape the Territory’s future economic, social and cultural development
I am proud to set out my agency’s contributions to this plan of action. As Treasurer, I know we can only commit this level of funding because of our strong financial management of the economy over the past six years. As the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General, I have the opportunity to provide direct legal and governmental protection for indigenous Territorians. The sole test I have applied is whether my agency’s contributions will effect sustainable, beneficial, long-term change for indigenous children, their parents, families and their communities. It is a test which our reforms and some of the federal reforms pass, with the notable exceptions of their ill-considered land acquisition and permit system changes and removal of CDEP.
I will immediately bring forward a series of strong legislative reforms aimed at protecting indigenous women and children in their homes, the community and the criminal justice system. I am pleased we passed the Evidence of Children Amendment Bill today. These amendments, outlined in detail earlier, are specifically referred to in the report and will expand and improve existing court protection of children and vulnerable witnesses.
I have directed these protections must come into force as soon as possible. I expect them to be available in cases of sexual or serious violence offences involving children and adult victims of sexual offences within weeks. As recommended, the Department of Justice will commission a review of court procedures for vulnerable witnesses following 12 months of operation of these amendments.
I will also introduce reforms to the Bail Act in this sitting. The reforms pick up a recommendation in the report to ensure factors such as the child’s age and physical and emotional wellbeing are taken into account by a magistrate when determining whether to grant the alleged offender bail.
Again, the government has gone beyond the report because indigenous Territorians must have faith that the Territory’s justice system will protect them and their loved ones. That is why we will be reversing the current presumption in favour of bail for those charged with serious sexual offences, including all sexual offences against children. It is not a step we take lightly. It is based on evidence that many defendants attempt to intimidate victims into not testifying and allegedly commit further serious offences whilst on bail. I know from discussions with Community Corrections and police officers on the ground, MLAs with bush electorates, and community members that this is a particular problem in remote communities. I will set out the reforms in more detail when I introduce the bill.
Together, these legislative reforms are structured to increase reporting, charging and successful prosecutions of sexual offenders and child abusers. I have also prioritised and will seek to introduce in October a major overhaul of Domestic Violence Act. I do not consider the current act adequately protects the most vulnerable members of our society. Instead of tinkering around the edges, it is time we rebuilt protection against domestic and family violence from the ground up.
The new scheme will, therefore, include: allowing children to apply for domestic violence orders on their own behalf or through a representative if under 15; a presumption in favour of an applicant with children in her care remaining in a home and community; simplifying and standardising court orders and application procedures; ensuring defendants understand their legal obligations; creating personal violence restraining orders for people suffering from violence or abuse but not directly related to the perpetrator, such as unrelated community members; and allowing courts to include in their orders for perpetrators to attend rehabilitation and violence programs.
The second component of the Justice portfolio’s contribution to Closing the Gap will be to further boost focus on rehabilitation and crime prevention. We will establish extensive rehabilitation services for offenders, in particular support and supervision of adult and juvenile sex offenders, to help stop the cycle of reoffending. Government will achieve this by: developing comprehensive sex offender rehabilitation programs and adopting best practice programs for offenders who are also victims of sexual abuse, at a cost of $4.4m; expanding the Indigenous Family Violence Offender program currently operating in Central Australian Communities with funding of $5.2m; employing another 10 Corrections officers to provide support and monitoring of those on parole to complement the decision last year to boost funding for stronger supervision of offenders upon release into remote communities at a cost of $4.62 m; expanding the successful Elders Visiting Program from four to 12 communities, at a cost of $960 000 over five years; introducing the alcohol court in Katherine, Tennant Creek and Nhulunbuy with extra funding; and $1.24m for two specialist court clinicians.
I am pleased to announce the expansion of the successful Community Court program from three to 10 locations across the Territory at a cost of $2.1m. Community Courts have proved effective in increasing awareness and an understanding of the justice system within indigenous communities. By increasing community involvement in court processes, offenders are able to understand the harm they have caused to victims and their own families. Victim support will be enhanced with the expansion of the Witness Assistance Service to Katherine at a cost of $900 000.
The third Justice component of the plan of action is to educate indigenous Territorians regarding the risk, harms and legal restrictions on using pornographic material. The problem lies in the lack of cultural context in the material and little discretion on where and when it is shown in remote communities. Evidence from high profile sexual assault cases suggests that pornography has been watched by offenders prior to and during assaults. The Territory, therefore, supports and will enforce Commonwealth prohibition of such material in prescribed areas. In discussions with the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, the Commonwealth Attorney-General also undertook to look at the transmission of pornographic pay TV channels in certain locations. Workshops are being conducted across the Territory to prepare for this education program, which will have commenced by December this year. It complements Commonwealth law by addressing the potential impact on children from exposure to pornography, explaining the film and literature classification system, and setting out what materials now are illegal to possess in certain areas. Territory Police and Justice officers are also actively stepping up monitoring of illegal material, streamlining processes to shut down distribution post office boxes and prosecuting distributors who are often based interstate.
The legislative reforms and programs I have outlined will help to provide indigenous Territorians with safety, security and a clear way forward. I am proud be a minister in and Deputy Chief Minister of a government willing to work in partnership with indigenous Territorians to confront these challenges head on and devote substantial energy and resources for Closing the Gap. I commend the Chief Minister’s statement to the House. It is a pity we did not get some sort of a view from the opposition as to whether they supported it or not.
Mr McADAM (Local Government): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I welcome the announcement of the Chief Minister’s generational strategy, Closing the Gap. I was also perplexed in respect of the response by the Leader of the Opposition because, as the Deputy Chief Minister indicated, she spent a substantial amount of time effectively critiquing the report commissioned by this government and carried out by Rex Wild and Pat Anderson. It was a little disappointing that she did not take the opportunity to put a vision, a strategy which, in the long term, is going to alleviate many of the problems that impact or affect indigenous communities across the Northern Territory.
Over the last few months, most members in this House will be aware of how much has been said and written about the report commissioned by this government. Of course, most members will be aware it was the catalyst for the intervention of the Commonwealth government.
The Leader of the Opposition had an opportunity to put her position and make comment in respect of the Commonwealth government’s intervention but, more importantly, to come up with a strategic response. In the Northern Territory over a long period of time, parties, of whichever political persuasion, have taken it upon themselves to treat Aboriginal people as political footballs. Unfortunately, over the last few months, the Aboriginal people of the Northern Territory have been no different.
I call upon the Leader of the Opposition to engage with the indigenous community. Even though she may not wish to engage us in government, I urge her to engage in an open, frank and meaningful way; to look at ways and means of coming up with some real opportunities on these issues. This government has done that over the last five or six years. We cannot get everything right. The bottom line is that we have been sincere and committed in attempting to resolve and alleviate some of the issues which are occurring.
Returning to the statement in question, this strategy includes the Northern Territory government’s action to address indigenous disadvantage, and make real commitments to improve the inequality of life for indigenous Territorians. The real and long-term commitment shown in this strategy document is the dollars on the table. The clear targets for intervals of five, 10, 15 and 20 years show that the Martin government is committed to real achievements in the lives of indigenous Territorians immediately and in to the future. The plan addresses what is often referred to as the grassroots issues which are causing much of the disadvantage experienced by indigenous Territorians.
Government policy is addressing these grassroots issues of poor health and safety, inadequate housing, poor education and infrastructure and the lack of ongoing employment, which have historically been ad hoc, disconnected, and viewed only as short-term.
Such politically opportunist strategies have failed to make any significant positive impact on indigenous disadvantage. The longevity of the Northern Territory government’s commitment presented today, and the proposed improvements in the coordination of service delivery for indigenous Territorians across all areas of government will ensure tangible and lasting impacts of Closing the Gap.
Fundamental requirements for good governance and on-the-ground results are well thought through polices, focussed delivery plans and consistent efforts. Regrettably, these elements of good governance have been missing in relation to indigenous affairs in recent years as the Australian government has dabbled with constant redesign and changes in its plans and programs. This included the abolition of the only true indigenous representative model, the Aboriginal Torres Strait Islander Commission and its operational arm the Aboriginal Torres Strait Islander Services; establishment of the indigenous coordination centres; and the constant change and disruption to Australian government programs intended to address indigenous disadvantage. The key objective of many of these changes has been to mainstream service delivery. Until now, the changes do not appear to have made any significant advance in coordination, consistency of effort or on-the-ground improvements.
While the Australian government’s emergency response has again highlighted the level of indigenous disadvantage in the Territory, plans have clearly been made on the run and any long-term financial commitments are sadly lacking. In fact, many have been sceptical about the Prime Minister’s motives, particularly given the timing of the announcements and their withdrawal of funding to address many of these issues over the last decade. By contrast, this government has consistently acknowledged the seriousness of the issues faced by indigenous people across the Territory, particularly those in our remote communities.
This is not something we have only learned about recently. In October last year, well before the Little Children are Sacred report was released, the Chief Minister announced a package of measures, including real money on the table, to start to turn around the chronic and desperate situation that too many indigenous Territorians face. As part of the package, the Chief Minister announced an additional $100m over five years for housing in remote areas and that, in support of this significant increase in housing funding, Territory Housing would assume responsibility for existing remote housing programs.
The key objectives of the decision taken by this government last year were to deliver more housing at less cost, to manage housing better and support more indigenous employment, particularly in the areas of housing construction, tenancy management and maintenance. We know that this is, of course, just a beginning and that this investment on its own will not go anywhere near meeting the complete housing backlog we face. That is why, within Closing the Gap, we have identified an ambitious target of reducing unmet housing need by 20% over the next five years. To achieve this, we have asked the Australian government to work in partnership with us to construct 1000 houses in the next five years. This is only one-quarter of the estimated backlog of houses. However, delivering 1000 houses and related essential services will be the most significant single investment ever made by a government to meet the housing needs of indigenous Territorians.
Within 10 years, we aim to ensure that the difference between rates of indigenous and non-indigenous people hospitalised with diseases associated with poor environmental health will be halved. Looking further ahead, we aim that within 20 years, fewer than 10% of indigenous Territorians will live in overcrowded conditions, and rates of indigenous home ownership will have increased and, obviously, the rates of diseases associated with overcrowding will be comparable with those of the mainstream population.
Integral to our efforts will be to use innovative strategies to lower the cost of housing significantly. This includes exploring a range of manufacturing, transport and assembly options; using longer-term, larger and more targeted contracts of up to three to five years and to provide certainty for contractors, and time to absorb the overheads involved in setting up in communities and the front-end costs of training; increasing the focus on land servicing in the headworks in non-targeted communities in readiness for future construction activity; using local labour through employment and training programs; and taking a strategic repairs and maintenance approach which will complement and add to the various maintenance programs already in existence in remote communities.
While getting more houses on the ground is a key priority, we also need to make sure that we protect and better manage the houses we already have as well as the new ones we will build. This is why Territory Housing has been tasked with rolling out a new housing management system in remote areas which will bring the management of publicly funded housing in line with the standard that we expect in our urban centres. As the largest housing provider in the Northern Territory, Territory Housing is the only organisation equipped to transform how houses in remote areas are managed and maintained on the scale that we are talking about within the time frame that we need.
Because of the critical importance of these reforms in indigenous housing, it is imperative that I outline the key elements of our strategy. Tenancy management is to be supported centrally through systems, operational policies and a business strategy, but managed through a local community office of local Territory Housing or agency employees. Direct management arrangements will be put in place in most cases, but there will be flexibility for agency arrangements; for example, where an existing housing association has capability, capacity and a willingness to operate as an agent of Territory Housing.
Housing repairs and maintenance and some other housing-related services will, where appropriate, be purchased through new local government shires on a commercial basis. Local government shires may, in turn, contract out to other indigenous organisations to provide these services. The shires will have to perform against clear contract requirements in the same way as an existing housing maintenance contractor in urban areas operates. Performance requirements will include indigenous employment and training outcomes. In some cases, repairs and maintenance may be built into a broader contracting arrangement for delivery of housing infrastructure on a large scale in specific communities; for example, where it is considered that there are better employment and training opportunities for local indigenous people through this approach.
Increased funding on improved rental collection, better tenancy management, and government support will be allocated for repairs and maintenance to ensure that housing conditions are maintained at higher levels for a longer period. Life skill programs and Pride in Your Place initiatives will form a key part in the new management approach because we recognise that people need to be better able to maintain and manage their tenancies if we are to increase the life span of the assets and the health and wellbeing of residents.
We will be implementing a new rent framework for remote areas. My department is in the process of letting a tender for specialist advice to help in this critical task. Work will be guided by a steering committee, which will include community representatives to ensure we develop sensible, practical and affordable rent arrangements.
We have been working to begin these reforms from July 2008, commencing in some key communities and then rolling out across the Northern Territory over the next three to five years. We are, however, ready and willing to work with the Australian government’s emergency intervention approach to maximise opportunities for new Australian government investment and the benefit of a joint government approach to improving housing infrastructure. I expect we will need to be in a position to respond quickly to implement changes that are needed should the Australian government want to work in partnership in this critical area and build on the commitments we have already made.
In addition to reforms to remote community housing, this government has also recognised that with the increased government service activity detailed in this generational plan, government must ensure that we can attract skilled workers to ensure the success of these initiatives. We must consider incentives for both local and other employees to work in some of the most remote locations of the Northern Territory if we are to achieve real gains in improving the lives of people living in these communities.
In response to this need, the Martin government has committed $42.3m over five years for additional government employee housing. This will help us to attract high quality professionals to deliver key services such as police, education and health services.
Improved community capacity is a key priority for both the Australian and Northern Territory governments. In February this year, I detailed to the House the state of current local government in remote areas and the need for comprehensive structural reform of the sector. In particular, almost 50% of existing remote councils were unsustainable or, at the very best, in need of external monitoring and support. Most remote local governments found it increasingly difficult to attract and retain quality personnel to fill chief executive officer positions or other key positions. Few had access to the expertise needed to address the major problems they faced.
Australian government policies in relation to funding of small councils are also changing. Many of the existing councils will only be eligible for a minimum financial assistance grant by 2008-09 under the current Grants Commission distribution process. These funds will not be sufficient to allow councils to employ key staff and provide services to residents. These conditions make it very difficult to plan, fund and deliver local government services.
Improvements to local government community infrastructure create local economies and generate employment opportunities. This situation also stifles broader community development practices. In order to ensure that every Territorian is afforded the same functionality through sustainable local government, the Martin government has committed to local government reform to create a professional third tier of government across the Territory. We intend to create local authorities capable of delivering local government and other services with the full confidence of the Northern Territory and the Australian governments.
The Australian government has said that it supports the reforms and is providing important financial support for the reform process. We have jointly committed to improving local government in the Territory and this process will not be compromised by the emergency interventions. Rather, the long-term success of many interventions will, in turn, enhance local government. My department is working hard to implement a local government model that includes nine shire councils: the Tiwi Island Local Government Council that already exists; the Top End; West Arnhem; East Arnhem; Victoria River; Daly Shire; East Shire which is an area surrounding Katherine; the Barkly Shire; the Central Desert Shire; and the MacDonnell Shire. These will join our municipal councils in Darwin, Palmerston, Alice Springs, and in an expanded Katherine Town Council to see full incorporation of the Northern Territory for the first time.
The shires will be divided into wards with representatives from each ward or electorate to form the shire council. All councillors who represent the people living in the area of the ward will be advocates for local issues on the shire council and keep local residents informed about all important decisions and activities of the council.
These shire councils will provide greater reliability and consistency of services. Stable local government administrators, with highly-skilled managers working effectively with elected representatives, will ensure service delivery standards are maintained and funds are spent with greater accountability. Furthermore, the local community may request its shire council to establish a local board to provide local community advice to the elected members of the shire. Local boards will be integral to the governance and community engagement architecture of councils formed under the Local Government Act in the Northern Territory. Local boards will play an important role in promoting indigenous leadership through their links into the Chief Minister’s Indigenous Affairs Advisory Council. Closing the Gap allocates a new appropriation of $3m to facilitate the establishment and running of these boards.
Another important initiative identified in Closing the Gap is provision for the construction and/or upgrade of community infrastructure such as multipurpose community centres at a cost of $5m over five years.
These new investments will be applied to infrastructure projects identified by communities on a matching funds basis, including …
Ms LAWRIE: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move an extension of time to allow the minister to conclude his remarks pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr McADAM: … partnering with the Australian government and the private sector, thus levering at least a further $10m into community infrastructure development over the next five years. Historically, local government has been relied upon to deliver many government services on behalf of both the Australian and Northern Territory governments.
Increased government activity in remote areas in the form of new or expanded program services is likely to result in a greater role for local government as service providers, advocates and facilitators of programs at the local level. The enhanced ability of local government bodies to deliver services will better place new shires in negotiating agreements with central government agencies, forming enduring alliances and partnerships with businesses in the non-government sector and ensuring that quality services are provided on the ground.
A key priority of the Northern Territory government is to ensure that the major reforms in local government and housing management I have detailed will create more opportunities for local indigenous training and employment. Indigenous housing has traditionally presented great opportunities for training and employment, largely in the construction sector. Current housing reforms will ensure that this initiative, which is currently providing for the training of 40 apprentices per year, will expand. The development of indigenous building teams will provide ongoing employment for trained local people who contribute to the desperately needed skills trade pool in remote areas of the Northern Territory.
The new public housing model and the new local government shire model will create more opportunities for local employment and subsequent training. The Northern Territory government is committed to developing local work forces as an integral aspect of the development of the new shire arrangements which will include core functions such as community infrastructure, parks, local roads, etcetera; community environment standards such as waste, litter and weeds; community engagement; libraries; community events; administration; community information; corporate services; financial administration; human resource management systems and processes; agency services and other services delivered on a fee-for-service basis such as infrastructure maintenance and construction of roads, buildings, essential service contracts, aged care, childcare, disability services, community patrols, commercial stores, workshops and art centres. Other administrative functions such as post offices and Centrelink could also become an integral part of the new arrangements.
At present, there are approximately 3000 people in paid full-time positions within remote local councils. Approximately 1500, or more than half of these paid positions, are occupied by non-indigenous people. Both the Australian and Northern Territory governments are committed to greater employment of local people in our bush communities. Each shire plan will be required to develop an indigenous employment strategy to increase the number of jobs held by local indigenous people.
The Australian government has recently announced the progressive wind-up of CDEP in the Northern Territory. This will have a major impact on the livelihoods of indigenous people in remote areas who rely on CDEP organisations to provide services, jobs, training and enterprise development opportunities. The removal of CDEP without full consideration of the consequences and without well thought-out transition plans will have a dramatic and potentially soul-destroying impact on many remote communities. These impacts include: reduction or breakdown in essential and non-essential service delivery; financial stress for organisations currently dependent on CDEP for funding of jobs; subsequent follow-on impacts in a range of services currently subject to a hidden subsidy; breakdown in communications capacity, for example, the remote broadcasting sector, which is virtually entirely dependent on CDEP; breakdown or serious disruption to social services, including early childhood and youth programs, aged care and other projects supporting community wellbeing; impacts on family income; and depression among CDEP workers transferred from meaningful work to the chain-gang approach of work for the dole; loss of a sense of community ownership of projects and job design, exacerbating the sense that indigenous Territorians do not have the capacity to shape their own future; more control over people’s lives by dictating to them how, when and where they will work; the consequences of population drift to regional centres, again further impacting on the housing shortages in those centres; and overcrowding and antisocial behaviour.
The Territory government is continuing to urge the Australian government to fully understand the impact of the removal of CDEP and to implement a careful transitional arrangement to ensure remote indigenous Territorians have access to real training and employment opportunities. In particular, we will be negotiating with the Australian government to properly support the transition of 600 CDEP positions that support local government services into mainstream jobs.
Contrary to the Australian government’s hastily conceived, ill-considered, drastic knee-jerk reaction, the Territory government has presented a well thought out plan for constructive action to address indigenous disadvantage in the Territory, included in which is being able to engage closely with indigenous people. This plan aims at an outcome nothing short of significantly improving life for indigenous Territorians. I see a future for fellow indigenous Territorians where we will share the same health, education and employment outcomes as presently being experienced by the non-indigenous community. For the most part, the plight of disadvantaged Aboriginal people has continued to worsen and, despite improvements in some areas, we are yet to turn this around.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I am confident the initiatives outlined in the Chief Minister’s statement today will provide the framework from which indigenous Territorians’ livelihoods and community wellbeing can change for the better.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Child Protection): Mr Deputy Speaker, in supporting the Chief Minister’s statement, may I say that it comes at a critical point in the history of the Territory. What we do now and how we embrace the challenge of the next 20 years will affect the lives of all of us, not to mention those who will come after us.
This is about the future; a future in which we must close the gap. The gap must be closed for practical and moral reasons. In the next 20 years, more than 30 000 Aboriginal children will be born in the Northern Territory. It is as though we are holding those 30 000 lives in our hands today as we consider the actions we must take over two decades to ensure the outcomes we desperately need. It is those lives we must think of if we are to hold our heads high as a community in the Northern Territory.
The Wild/Anderson inquiry was a turning point. The inquiry, instituted by this government, answered the questions and made 97 recommendations to which this government is responding, and more. No one here pretends that this inquiry was the first to alert us to the issues of child protection on indigenous communities. As the Prime Minister knows full well, it was he who received urgent pleas to take action six years ago. He did nothing.
Since coming to government in 2001, this government has been alerted to the issue and has done much. Increased spending from around $8m a year under the CLP to $34m a year on child protection, is evidence of that. We recognise, and the Wild/Anderson report has been a stark reminder, that we need to do more, much more. It is also a stark reminder that we must take action for the long term. It is not something which can be done as part of an ill-planned, knee-jerk blitz in which a boots-on-the-ground philosophy masquerades as a solution in which the only thing on the horizon is a six-month window to the next election.
At the heart of the inquiry’s recommendations, and of our response is the absolute necessity of taking a long-term view over the problems we face. The scourge of child abuse cannot be defeated by one-dimensional quick fixes. It is not something which will be resolved by simple minded approaches to narrow problems. There is no simple shopping list of solutions. Any solutions must take a root and branch approach to tackling the broad living conditions our people experience. It is why we must approach this on generational terms, and we must take the long view.
In moving around the bush in the last two months talking to many hundreds of people whose lives have been so drastically affected by the federal intervention, a single fact stands out: people feel betrayed. Good, honest, caring members of our remote towns and communities spoke up at the inquiry. They spoke from their hearts and many spoke for the first time about their fears. The result has been that they have been flogged by distant, ideologically-driven politicians and bureaucrats, remote from the realities of our everyday lives.
Instead of compassion and understanding, and a working through of the ways and means of reaching mutual understandings and solutions, thousands of our parents and grandparents have been tarred by the same brush.
I have attending meetings made up of decent, caring fathers, uncles, brothers and grandfathers who feel that they have been universally branded as perpetrators, as child abusers. To see these men, who are undoubtedly innocent of the horrific charges being bandied about, reduced to helplessness and, in some cases, tears, speaks to me of widespread social damage, not of a decent approach to tackling child abuse.
I have attended meetings down south in which Aboriginal men have been universally condemned as uncaring, substance abusing, vicious molesters while Aboriginal women have been portrayed as hopelessly weak, pathetic creatures, incapable of caring for their families or their children.
This new McCarthyism has to stop, and stop now. It is why, for example, the federal government must immediately suspend its charge to abolish CDEP. The destruction of CDEP is not about creating real jobs; it is about branding all Aboriginal people of being incapable of handling money. It is about stigmatising all Aboriginal people as being hopeless drunks and gamblers. The abolition of CDEP is not about moving people from welfare to work, but of forcing people from work to welfare.
This betrayal by the federal government, felt so acutely by so many people, has not thus far, and I repeat thus far, done anything to save the children. That issue has been lost in the merry-go-round of vilification that has been adopted by so many federal politicians. It is why federal minister Brough believed that, last week, he could get away with dismissing his critics as living in ‘a fog of substance abuse’. That he was forced to apologise says little for him or his integrity. The very fact of his use of such McCarthyist tactics speaks volumes.
Let us face it: the Commonwealth survey teams have done nothing that the Commonwealth did not know about before. The Commonwealth has been working in partnership with Northern Territory government agencies from the days of the CLP 30 years ago to the present in defining what is out there and calculating the needs. Last December, the most recent CHINS, or Community Housing Infrastructure Needs Survey, into housing infrastructure, was completed; a joint Commonwealth-Territory program. The so-called survey is little more than window dressing. We know the results. They will tell us that for generations, Aboriginal Territorians have endured poor housing, poor health, low educational outcomes and fewer job prospects.
While not necessarily directly causal in relationships, these social factors, which the Commonwealth has known about for 30 years and which the current federal government has presided over for 11 years, have undoubtedly impacted on the incidence and severity of community and family violence, sexual abuse, and substance abuse.
That is why we are urging the Commonwealth to join us on the generational plan the Chief Minister has outlined today. It is why we have, in my portfolio, now brought the resources to bear on the problem from $8m under the CLP to a projected $50m a year. We do not reject recent Commonwealth interest in the area; we just want more than rhetoric and heavy-handed McCarthyism.
As I said, in the 26 minutes the Territory government got to appear in the Senate 10 days ago, and you can imagine 26 minutes to consider and respond to 500 pages of legislation, I said:
- No one owns a moral position that has greater prominence than any other. We all want to prevent child abuse.
In broad terms, the Northern Territory government has supported the federal government’s intervention where it directly targets child abuse. The Northern Territory government has been calling for increased federal government investment for indigenous Territorians since at least 2001. The Northern Territory government supports proposed changes to laws that allow access to pornography, additional police and additional medical resources. We welcome these things but since the federal government has announced its legislative follow-up to the intervention, the Northern Territory government has become increasingly concerned. Our government has made it clear from day one that it does not support the removal of the permit system or the compulsory acquisition of Aboriginal land. Neither of these measures directly target child abuse. The removal of the application of the Racial Discrimination Act is also a concern. The immediate abolition of the CDEP scheme is another area we believe needs much more consideration.
We have a remarkable opportunity before us, perhaps a once in a lifetime opportunity, so why would the federal government not want to consult and involve Aboriginal people in this intervention? Why seek to deliberately rush and exclude us? The Northern Territory government takes the issue of child abuse very seriously. We commissioned the Little Children are Sacred report, and I am concerned that the children we need to protect are being lost in this whole debate. It is not about leases and access to Aboriginal land; what started this is the need to protect children. Since the intervention and this legislation, the protection of the children we wrote about in that inquiry has been taken off the radar.
In my area of responsibility, there will be an additional $79.36m a year available for child protection. This will include the provision of a Children’s Commissioner, 10 child protection workers, 37 additional specialist Family and Children’s Services staff, 40 police, remote policing strategy and Child Abuse Task Force, four specialist alcohol rehabilitation workers, and 26 family violence support workers. However, as the Chief Minister pointed out yesterday, none of this will work without the active engagement of Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory.
I believe this will happen for the simple reason that it is the kind of thing Aboriginal Territorians have been looking for over many years. It is why we have seen the activism of so many Aboriginal Territorians on issues such as Night Patrols and substance abuse programs, with women’s centres, health services and schools. This activism must be rewarded, and the Closing the Gap generational plan for action is a vital step on the road to achieve measures of equality that have not been available in theTerritory at any stage before or post-self-government.
Child protection is a profoundly complex question for the children and the families involved, no less than for the state which, of necessity, has a role in its administration. It is an area in which the state is deliberately asked by the community to intervene and interfere with an institution that is customarily regarded as sacrosanct: the family. Violence, sexual abuse and neglect within the family have a variety of complex, interwoven origins including poverty, mental health issues, substance abuse and uneven power relationships between adults and children, women and men.
At times, the problems seem absolutely intractable. We are talking here of young people’s lives that will forever be touched by experience, often too horrible to contemplate, let alone comprehend. We are talking here of actions by one human against another that are often too hideous to think about, let alone forgive. The role of the state in child protection is that it is asked, even commanded, to actively intervene in the lives of members of our community. The judgment of the community is that some people are too vulnerable to do anything but rely on the state. The state is asked to make those choices in the name of child protection, including potentially taking children away from their families temporarily or permanently. The state is asked to care for our children, and very often our women, too, in less than perfect circumstances.
While we and our police and child protection workers, nurses, health workers, doctors and teachers try to do good, a fine line must be trodden. There are no glib, easy solutions, no quick fixes. Anyone in this place or beyond who tries to tell us otherwise is a complete fool. Anyone who thinks that a solution can be reached with just a bit of juggling of a budget here or there, or gaoling people for a longer term is kidding themselves because we are dealing with people who are damaged, sometimes horrifically, and every action and inaction can have consequences that are profoundly difficult to predict for those people. We are dealing with imperfect human beings in an imperfect world administered by an imperfect state. There are no simple solutions.
However, there is an overarching philosophy that must guide us, as legislators, and so many of the frontline workers in the field of child protection to whom I pay tribute to today; that is, no matter what positive outcomes we might hope to achieve, our guiding principle must be to do no further harm. We owe that to the children; the future and to the 30 000 Aboriginal children who will be born over the next 20 years.
As you know, there are not a lot of laughs in child protection. Not a day goes by without material crossing my desk that is testament to the evil that humans can do to each other, especially to our women and children. It often seems hopeless. Perhaps Malcolm Fraser was right in pointing out ‘life was not meant to be easy’. However, as Mr Fraser has also pointed out on a number of occasions the complete quotation comes from the Irish writer George Bernard Shaw who originally said: ‘Life is not meant to be easy, my child, but take courage, it can be delightful’.
Mr Deputy Speaker, let us do our utmost and best on both sides of this Assembly to take courage and hope, and let us create a society in which life for our kids can, indeed, be delightful.
Dr BURNS (Health): Mr Deputy Speaker, as anyone who has lived in the Territory for any length of time knows, and as the Chief Minister highlighted today, there is a huge disadvantage gap between indigenous and non-indigenous Territorians. This disadvantage ranges across just about every facet of life from educational outcomes to job opportunities, imprisonment and health outcomes right through to life expectancy.
It became obvious to me during my early days in the Territory, through my experiences with Aboriginal people, including a couple of stints living and working in Maningrida and spending a lot of time in communities across the Top End of the Northern Territory. These experiences made a considerable impact on me, as I noted in my maiden speech in this House on 17 October 2001. I will revisit some of the remarks I made then because they are relevant today:
- … I have also come to realise that it is a place of profound disadvantage for a significant section of our population, namely Aboriginal people. Along with many other issues we face, the issue of equity need to be properly addressed as we move forward together to realise the mighty economic, social and cultural potential of the Northern Territory.
…
In this speech I have spoken a lot about social justice and equity. Economic development must be underpinned by these principles. Nevertheless, without economic development, these principles are merely concepts. The Territory stands at the threshold of great economic developments. We are also faced with profound social issues. I will work hard to ensure that the Territory benefits from these crucial economic developments, while at the same time ensuring that issues relating to social disadvantage are effectively addressed.
I am proud to say that over the past six years, this government has committed more resources than any previous government to trying to reduce the extent of this disadvantage. I am proud to be part of this government for that very reason.
Today, with the statement before the House, we are detailing our comprehensive response to a comprehensive report by Rex Wild and Pat Anderson. We are also laying out the way forward in bridging the gap that exist between Aboriginal Territorians and non-Aboriginal Territorians. This is very important for us here and now, as it is for those in the future. What is happening today is something for future generations. This is very significant. As a government, we are standing by our commitment and inviting the Commonwealth government to work with us in an effective and engaged way to achieve the goals that all of us want to see.
The Little Children are Sacred report arising from the independent Inquiry into the Protection of Aboriginal Children from Sexual Abuse, which was commissioned by this government, highlighted not just the seriousness of sexual abuse, but the complexity of the issue. We are moving to address the recommendations of that report in a comprehensive and detailed fashion. We believe we need to go further and also tackle the broader issues at the heart of the long-term disadvantage suffered by indigenous Territorians.
You have heard today from the Chief Minister about our Closing the Gap initiative, the most comprehensive package to tackle indigenous disadvantage in the Territory’s history. The Chief Minister has outlined what will happen in the first five years of the 20-year generational plan. As part of the $286m to be spent in the first five years of Closing the Gap, an additional $23.4m will be directed to the improvement of the health outcomes for Aboriginal Territorians. We have increased overall spending on the health budget by 73% since coming to office in 2001. Some 58% of our health budget is being spent on Aboriginal Territorians who, as we know, represent some 30% of the Territory’s population. We realise, as a government, that we can do more and we are doing more. The fact that we are spending a significant proportion of our health budget on this one group of Territorians reflects the unfortunate reality of the health of Aboriginal people.
As Health minister, I am pleased to be able to say that we are now seeing some positive trends in Aboriginal health. For example, birth weights amongst Aboriginal children are increasing, as is the life expectancy of Aboriginal women, which has increased by some three years since 2001.
In 2004, this government introduced the Building Healthier Communities framework to set the directions for Health and Community Services over the next five years. We have already made significant progress in achieving positive outcomes through Building Healthier Communities, but there is much more that needs to be done in Aboriginal health. The $23.4m committed to health and wellbeing funding over the next five years as part of the Closing the Gap initiative will help us to make in-roads in this vital area.
This $23.4m will be directed to the following areas: $9.6m to establish integrated family and children’s centres on remote communities to deliver early childhood education and health programs; $8.8m to expand and implement programs targeting hearing loss and preventable chronic disease; $4.5m for sport and recreation programs and infrastructure in each shire; and $500 000 to expand alcohol rehabilitation and treatment services.
Just as importantly, this government recognises the role alcohol plays in so many of the problems affecting Aboriginal Territorians. While the previous government implemented the innovative Living with Alcohol strategy, it was a strategy primarily aimed at non-indigenous Territorians. I do not believe it was particularly effective in reducing harmful alcohol consumption amongst indigenous Territorians.
While we have already put in place significant initiatives to help reduce alcohol availability and consumption, such as alcohol management plans, I emphasise that this is such a vital area for Aboriginal people that we have moved to increase our capacity to do more. The extra $10.1m to be spent on alcohol and drug initiatives as part of the Closing the Gap package will help us give our alcohol management efforts more muscle.
Closing the Gap will reduce the supply of alcohol through various measures including: comprehensive supply restrictions; declaration of dry areas for public and private premises and remote areas; and increased police powers; recruitment of eight additional alcohol compliance inspectors across the Territory to ensure compliance with alcohol regulations, at a cost of $1.35m; recruitment of two court clinicians based in Darwin and Alice Springs to service the Katherine, Tennant Creek and Nhulunbuy regions at a cost of $1.245m; implement a licensing identification system in regional and remote takeaway outlets at a cost of $3.77m; expand the Return to Country program for Katherine, Alice Springs and Darwin at a cost of $250 000; implement regional alcohol management strategies initially in Alice Springs, Katherine, Tennant Creek, east and west Arnhem Land and Timber Creek at a cost of $2.5m; and a widespread alcohol education program detailing the negative impacts of alcohol and emphasising safe drinking levels and healthy alternatives to drinking at a cost of $1m.
Amendments to the Liquor Act passed in 2006 to declare dry areas commenced with Alice Springs on 1 August and is progressing to other areas throughout August. We will introduce amendments to the Liquor Act in the current sitting to give the minister the capacity to implement urgent liquor supply measures, introduce alcohol restrictions in various areas and provide power to the police to search vehicles.
The Little Children are Sacred report embraces the view that prevention is better than cure. The Northern Territory government strongly endorses the inquiry’s view that crisis intervention and responding to abuse after the fact will not prevent sexual abuse of children. We therefore strongly support Recommendation 40 seeking collaboration between the Northern Territory and Australian governments in consultation with Aboriginal people to develop a comprehensive long-term strategy to build a core service platform in Aboriginal communities including education and primary health care services.
Given the seriousness of this issue, I am pleased that progress has already been made on a number of the report’s health-related recommendations. Others are either in the process of being implemented or are the subject of intensive negotiation and planning with the Australian government. For example, we have implemented the Guidelines for Management of Sexual Health in Children and Young People, providing consistent protocols to health clinics across the Territory.
The Northern Territory government also strongly endorses Recommendation 42 of the report; that is there should be an increased focus on antenatal maternity support and health development support for children aged nought to five years. This recommendation is consistent with the Northern Territory government’s Building Healthier Communities framework, which committed us to giving kids a good start in life. This focus involves: the delivery of targeted support for pregnant women and for children in the first year of life; increasing the child health work force in remote communities; standardising the management of childhood illness; and strengthening child health monitoring and evaluation activities.
Additionally, the last few years have seen significant additional NT government funding for maternal and child health, including funding that commenced in 2002 of $2.2m for the remote area child health initiative, which will increase to $2.8m per annum in 2008-09. The child health initiative enabled the establishment of a maternal child and youth health team in 2004 which provides support and staff upskilling to remote health centres for child health programs. In addition, the Northern Territory government has provided an additional $400 000 per annum to employ four outreach midwives for remote communities whose primary role is to work with health centre staff to ensure high-quality antenatal care.
I am proud that this government, from its earliest days, has significantly boosted antenatal and early childhood health care, particularly targeted in remote communities. Today, I am pleased that we will further increase our investment in child and maternal health services as part of the Closing the Gap package.
There will be additional resources over five years totalling $9.6m to enhance delivery of antenatal care and maternal health programs, and to support the delivery of programs that strengthen the development and learning for nought to five-year-olds. This increased investment will contribute to building integrated childhood and family support services in regional and remote communities that strengthen families, prevent child sexual abuse and support vulnerable children.
Key elements of these health-related early childhood and maternal health initiatives include new rural and remote hospital discharge liaison positions to ensure that children arriving home after staying in hospital are well supported by community-based health services, and that their families are better able to provide appropriate follow-up care to the child. Other extra resources will include extra midwifery training places and additional midwifery trainers, increased antenatal education programs in urban and remote settings, more outreach midwives for remote communities and a pool of remote community-based child development workers to support social and learning programs for children aged less than five.
I am pleased to announce today that the Northern Territory government is further investing in programs to address chronic diseases such as diabetes, respiratory disease, kidney failure and hearing loss. The Territory has established world best practice approaches to prevention, early intervention and management of these chronic diseases.
An important element of our recently announced chronic disease-related investment is $4.5m over five years to provide sport and recreation officers, facilities and programs for each shire. Obviously, this is all about increasing physical activity. Evidence strongly links physical activity to healthier weight and, therefore, reduced chronic disease as well as, where someone has a chronic disease such as diabetes, better outcomes for that person. The Closing the Gap plan recognises that better detection in primary health care settings will increase demand on the acute sector. I am pleased that our Closing the Gap initiative also provides an additional $8.8m over five years to ensure timely specialist ear, nose and throat and physician services plus inpatient care on referral.
Finally, as the minister, it has been my privilege to see the dedication, hard work and professionalism shown not just by the maternal and child health nurses, but by all health practitioners and Aboriginal community leaders who work to support Aboriginal mothers and children. The additional funding I have announced today will greatly assist this ongoing and important work, as there is much to be done to improve the health of Aboriginal Territorians.
We know that alcohol is a major problem in the Northern Territory. Figures from 2004-05 show that per capita Territorians drink 17.6 litres of alcohol per year compared with the national average of 9.83 litres per person. This means we drink almost twice the amount of alcohol as other Australians. Figures from 2005-06 show that per capita the Katherine region has the Territory’s highest liquor consumption at 20 litres per person per year, Top Enders consume 17.3 litres per capita, the central region 16.3 litres and the Barkly region 14.7 litres.
Clearly, some Territorians are drinking too much, and we know that alcohol has a tragic impact, particularly on Aboriginal Territorians. The facts are stark. In 2004, more than 17% of Territorians were drinking alcohol at levels causing high risk of long-term harm. Nationally, 10% of the population engages in harmful drinking. Figures from 2005-06 show that more than 70% of our prison population has been incarcerated because of alcohol-related offences. We know that a large majority of the Territory’s prison population are Aboriginal. Apart from the health and social consequences, it has been well documented that alcohol is also a factor in child sexual abuse.
As a government, we have made a concerted effort over the past two years in particular to address the Territory’s long history of heavy drinking. However, the government’s just-announced Closing the Gap strategy will allow us to focus even more on the harm inflicted on Aboriginal Territorians by alcohol. Over the next five years, the Territory government will move to reduce the supply of alcohol through a range of measures including comprehensive supply restrictions and the declaration of dry areas in both public and private premises and remote areas.
As recommended in the Little Children are Sacred report, the government will continue to implement the Alcohol Framework as a matter of urgency. Our Closing the Gap plan will direct an initial $2.5m towards this initiative. A range of measures are also being put in place to address alcohol and antisocial behaviour. Alcohol reforms, giving the minister the power to determine alcohol supply restrictions, are being introduced and passed on urgency at this sitting. These reforms will increase police powers to allow random searches inside general restricted areas and remove the ability of licensed premises with a takeaway licence to book up other items, such as food.
There will be a roll-out of a licensing identification system, including the requirement to produce photographic ID to purchase alcohol in regional and remote takeaway outlets accessible to the public. Announcements have already been made in regard to initiatives to commence in Alice Springs and Katherine. This program will be given greater impetus under the Closing the Gap initiative, with $3.77m committed for licensing identification systems in regional and remote centres.
I will take some time to highlight the success that Groote Eylandt has experienced with their alcohol management plan. On 1 July 2005, a new alcohol management system commenced operation on Groote Eylandt and Bickerton Island. The system was approved by the Licensing Commission following extensive consultation with a range of key community stakeholders. It was also instigated and continues to be supported by the indigenous communities of both Groote Eylandt and Bickerton Island ...
Mr HENDERSON: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move an extension of time to allow my colleague the member for Johnston to conclude his remarks pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Dr BURNS: I thank my colleague. The major object of the system I have been outlining at Groote Eylandt and Bickerton Island was the introduction of permits for the purchase of takeaway liquor from either of Alyangula’s two licensed premises or to bring liquor into the Groote Eylandt restricted area.
In July 2007, the Menzies School of Health Research completed a formal evaluation of the management system. The evaluation has shown that since the introduction of the permit system, there has been a reduction in alcohol-related harm. Specifically, there has been a 52% decrease in property crimes in 2005-06 compared with the 2004-05 period. House break-ins had the largest decrease of 86%, commercial break-ins and motor vehicle thefts and other thefts decreased by more than 50%. Police call-outs for aggravated assaults fell by 67% in 2005-06 and this was the lowest of the past four years. The number of adults admitted to correctional centres from Groote Eylandt and Bickerton Island was also the lowest for four years, with figures 23% lower than for 2002 to 2004. The commencement of probation and parole or other conditional liberty orders fell by 42% from 2005 to 2006, reaching a four-year low. Work attendance improved amongst indigenous employees at the local mine. Absenteeism for indigenous employees dropped from 7.8% in 2004-05 to 2.4% in 2005-06.
Although difficult to quantify, all interviews highlighted that there has been a significant improvement in social function within the indigenous communities after the permit system was introduced. In particular, there was reduced violence and increased harmony reported, which was linked to an increased engagement in work or other productive activity such as hunting and artwork.
The Groote Eylandt management plan is an example of a community working together with government to achieve outstanding results from which we all benefit. I again congratulate all those involved in developing the plan and those involved in maintaining it, including the hard-working permit committee and the service providers such as licensing staff, police and health workers who have assisted in achieving these good results. I also commend the leadership of those communities who have also really got behind this plan.
Our alcohol management plans will complement significant supply and distribution reforms already in place such as dry areas legislation and the alcohol court, both initiatives of this government.
The Territory will support the Commonwealth’s alcohol ban on all Aboriginal land, noting that many indigenous communities have taken advantage of our pre-existing legislation and are declared dry already. As part of the Closing the Gap initiative, some $1.35m will be spent to engage an additional eight inspectors to increase the capacity of government to ensure compliance.
The Northern Territory government will introduce a new Liquor Act by the end of this year which will require licensing decisions to take into account the social impact of alcohol and minimise community harm. The reforms will also provide flexible mechanisms to deal quickly with harm when it arises. Under these changes to the Liquor Act - and I am not talking about the ones on urgency during this sitting; I am talking about ones proposed to be introduced into parliament towards the end of this year - current practice will be formalised whereby the Licensing Commission considers advice from police and the Department of Health and Community Service on liquor licence applications where submitted. That was a particular element I focused on as minister when I was new to both those portfolios. It is a really important way to go that the Licensing Commission takes advice and the view of police and Health and Community Services into account.
Government will require the Licensing Commission to consider community and child impact statements when so advised by police and the Department of Health and Community Services. The Department of Justice will develop a best practice model of community drinking club by June 2008, including the implementation of options. The Northern Territory government will undertake a widespread education as part of the campaign on the negative impact of alcohol and healthy alternatives to drinking. Under the Closing the Gap initiative, $1m will be spent on alcohol education. The education campaign will incorporate different strategies in order to increase knowledge in indigenous communities about the harms of alcohol and provide information which will lead to a change in drinking culture, including safe drinking levels, alternatives to alcohol consumption and moving to lower strength alcohol.
The Alcohol Court Act commenced operation in July 2006 and provides assessment and coerced treatment of offenders with an alcohol dependency where necessary. A court may make alcohol intervention orders a form of sentence that includes a period of imprisonment that may be fully or partially suspended, community-based treatment and supervision by Correctional Services. The court may also make prohibition orders to limit or prohibit the consumption of alcohol and require the offender to undertake specified treatment. The court may only deal with people charged with offences who are assessed as being alcohol-dependent. The court operates in Darwin and Alice Springs and is assisted by court clinicians who provide assessment for the court and monitor the progress of offenders subject to orders. As at 30 April 2007, 69 clients have been referred to the court; 84% of these people were indigenous; 46% of those referrals were eligible for the program; 21 failed the program; and 12 completed the program.
In addition to the wide-ranging reforms to alcohol licensing, the government will hire two new court clinicians to increase the capacity of the courts to deal with alcohol-related offending. A $1.24m commitment as part of Closing the Gap will mean the two clinicians will be based in Darwin and Alice Springs and will be able to service regional centres like Katherine, Nhulunbuy and Tennant Creek.
The Martin government is responding to the issues identified in the report around gambling by putting at least $1.25m over the next five years into ensuring that indigenous gambling issues form part of the body of research which Charles Darwin University is conducting as well as providing for the amelioration of gambling problems through expansion of current counselling and education services. As part of Closing the Gap, a further $250 000 will be spent to expand the Return to Country program. An expanded Return to Country program means people who might otherwise become trapped in the cycle of drinking and the many obvious problems that go with that life will have the capacity to access healthier lifestyle choices.
Mr Deputy Speaker, there are many challenges in trying to close the glaring disadvantage gap that exists between indigenous and non-indigenous Territorians. We are making progress, but there is more to do. I am confident the Closing the Gap package gives us improved capacity to tackle the challenges that lie in front of us. Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the statement to the House.
Ms LAWRIE (Infrastructure and Transport): Mr Deputy Speaker, I commend the Chief Minister for her statement today in the House, Closing the Gap - the Northern Territory Indigenous Plan of Action. It is both a comprehensive and extremely well thought-out response to the Wild/Anderson inquiry but, importantly, takes it further.
It takes the response of the government into a long-term generational strategy. The Chief Minister has been on the record asking the Commonwealth to participate in a national plan for a generational response to indigenous disadvantage right across Australia. The generational plan of action from the Northern Territory really does lay down a blueprint for action that the other states and the Commonwealth should pay heed to and join us in responding to.
Importantly, it does identify significant funding investment and resources. It was interesting in Question Time today to hear the carping and whining of the Leader of the Opposition. Her assumption was that the $286.43m from this Territory government was really some artful dodging and shifting of already committed funds. There was a look of surprise on her face when she discovered that all of the money announced in the Closing the Gap initiative is new money. These are new resources to tackle the significant disadvantage of indigenous Territorians.
It is a five-year plan of action. Importantly, it has targets sitting behind it that take us through the generational plan of action to the 10- and 20-year target phases. It is a critically important commitment by the Territory government to addressing the significant disadvantage of indigenous Territorians.
I have had responsibility for Family and Community Services previously, so I want to note that what the generational plan does is build on the actions of the government over previous years since the Martin government came to power in 2001. In the area of Family and Community Services, we need to focus on the important FACS budget. When the Martin Labor government came to power in 2001, the CLP budget for child protection was $7.9m. Currently, it is $35m. The announcements today add almost $80m for child protection initiatives. It is significant and unmatched by any other massive increase in funding by a government addressing indigenous child abuse or the broad area of child neglect, which is also critically important.
We are doing that off the back of having quadrupled the FACS budget, putting 71 additional staff into responding to notifications in the system and, importantly, creating the new initiative of the Child Abuse Task Force, which comprises police and FACS officers working side by side. The Martin Labor government also centralised an after-hours service. Prior to the Martin government, there was no after-hours child abuse service. Basically, the CLP seemed to think that abuse and neglect did not happen at night or beyond 5 pm, obviously nonsense policy.
Also important is that reforms in the past few years have included boosting remote teams and the agency’s capacity to work with remote communities and to respond to those remote notifications.
The improved intake of FACS has seen a range of intelligence regarding serious child abuse matters coming into the intake team and being dealt with collaboratively by FACS and police officers. These are highly skilled professionals, there to assess every report of child abuse from the public and decide what appropriate action to take. Calls to the 1800 700 250 child abuse hotline are answered by the central intake team 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
In addition, we have improved the Sexual Assault Referral Centre, providing an extra $480 000 to expand the SARC service to meet increasing demand. We have seen an extra three staff come into this area. New premises in Alice Springs are in the process of being negotiated with appropriate increases in budget for operational costs like extra SARC doctors, training of the doctors, counsellors and additional travel costs.
The area of specialist care, a new service and initiative of the Martin Labor government will build on these reforms. It provides enhanced educational, social and development outcomes for young people who are in the care of the minister. With the child protection reforms, in terms of legislation, they will soon be in the care of the CEO of the department. This is a critically important area. We are seeing increasing numbers of complex care requirements in the care of children coming into our system. We are seeing increasing numbers of sibling groups coming into our care, as well as increasing numbers of babies. Sometimes, it is very difficult to find the appropriate foster care arrangements for the most complex cases. We have had some 21 children in the specialist care program. They are being managed holistically in a range of their care needs and support. It is fantastic to see in the initiatives in Closing the Gap funding to build on the specialist care program to be able to provide the higher level and holistic care package for increasing numbers of children requiring intensive care.
We have seen some joint initiatives between police and FACS. One that is still in its infancy, but for which I have great hope, is the Peace at Home initiative in the Katherine region, which is again a co-location of police and FACS child protection workers to work together to reduce family violence and decrease child abuse, especially in our indigenous families in the communities around Katherine. This is another example of how we are working in partnership across government to respond to child abuse.
Home Strength is a new intensive family preservation service that has been operating in Darwin for some time now. Again, this is an initiative of the Martin government. It assists families whose children are at risk of either abuse or neglect. It is getting in at that preventative end, trying to assist the families so that we are not in the position of having to remove the children. This is always and should be a last resort for child protection agencies; that is, the families are dysfunctional, but there is no immediate risk to the care of the children. However, there are critical needs for intensive support in those families to ensure that the children’s safety is guaranteed and to give the tools to the family to reduce the poverty and disadvantage in which that family are living and the poor decision-making that comes as a result of those circumstances. Therefore, Home Strength is a critically important service in our urban area for families.
Safe Families is a similar program developed with elders at Tangentyere Council in Alice Springs. Again, it works to prevent family breakdown. It works to identify safe family placements for children who may have been taken into care and, if safe placements cannot be identified, children can be placed in a house where they are cared for until they can be returned to the family or to the extended family with that intensive family support model underpinning the Safe Families program. I want to thank the hard-working staff of Tangentyere. They are doing a fantastic job in the town camps with the Safe Families program.
The Closing the Gap policy absolutely builds on these achievements. I have wholehearted support for the Chief Minister’s statement and for the work that the member for Arafura will undertake as Minister for Child Protection and minister with FACS responsibility. The funding and resources that have been announced as part of Closing the Gap will underpin a robust range of responses to protect children right across the spectrum of their needs, not just the percentage that are sexual abuse cases. Horrendous as they are, they are the smallest percentage within the child protection system. Really, we need to put in resources to build the whole continuum of child protection, which is prevention, and critically important prevention, with assistance of families in crisis, assistance of the neglect cases and responses to those neglect cases as well as the physical and emotional abuse and the most horrific end of the spectrum, which is sexual abuse.
I turn to the agencies for which I have responsibility and first, Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage, and Parks and Wildlife. The Northern Territory government has, for quite a while, recognised that long-term solutions to indigenous disadvantage requires serious initiatives across all areas of government activity. Important steps have been taken in the Natural Resources and Environment portfolio long before the delivery of this report to which we are responding today. The commitment to make a real difference by creating opportunities for indigenous employment and enterprise has been reinforced by both the Wild/Anderson report and the government’s responses in Closing the Gap.
As well as the very tangible material benefits that resource management programs can bring, those efforts are also important demonstrations of respect for indigenous culture and the skills that indigenous people bring to roles critical for the future development of the Northern Territory. The many essential contributions that indigenous people already make to protection and management of the Territory’s natural and cultural assets must be better recognised and rewarded through employment and other economic opportunities.
To make this happen, the Department of Natural Resources, Environment and the Arts has been working with many indigenous communities to build in management of land and sea as a core contribution to regional development and the protection of natural and cultural values, values that are important to both indigenous and non-indigenous people. Some of the most important initiatives are that in addition to the important symbolism of formal recognition of rights and responsibilities in management of land and resources through equitable participation in planning and management, new jobs have been created and traditional owners have been employed. Training has also been provided to indigenous people so they take up future opportunities as either park rangers within the department or develop contracting capacity for work in parks or adjacent land. Indigenous enterprise in commercial parks and land management activities are emerging and groups from Hermannsburg, Watarrka outstation, Amoonguna, Tennant Creek, Timber Creek, Binjari and Katherine have been engaged in contract arrangements to work on parks.
In addition, the department is expanding its support for indigenous protected areas and the efforts of community-based ranger groups. Building on a successful model which commenced with the Dhimurru Land Management Aboriginal Corporation in Nhulunbuy, the department is locating experienced staff for communities to assist in the implementation of plans of management for indigenous protected areas. A senior ranger will be placed with the Yirralka Rangers at the Laynhapuy Homelands in north-east Arnhem, and a senior female ranger will be placed with the Anindilyakwa Land Council to facilitate the development of an indigenous female ranger program on Groote Eylandt.
The department provides assistance through the support for applications for Australian government funding. We also provide technical advice and assistance for the development of management plans for proposed indigenous protected areas, and we are supporting junior ranger programs that, in addition to engaging youth, help to build the pathways to jobs in formal paths and other indigenous ranger groups.
NRETA is maintaining its support for the recording of indigenous languages and knowledge that underpins the development of new economic opportunities in resource management and use. A potentially important area of growth in remote employment is providing environmental services to both the government and private sector. Large companies are seeking opportunities to purchase environmental services such as mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions and biodiversity credits. Opportunities are expected to increase with a proposed establishment of an Australian carbon trading market.
The Territory government broke entirely new ground in facilitating a major $20m contract between indigenous people in Western Arnhem Land and Darwin liquefied natural gas with ConocoPhillips. By skilful management of fire, indigenous land managers have reduced carbon emissions from savannah fires, and the company has paid to support that work as part of their offsets program. Other companies have shown interest in participating in similar projects.
To build on this success, NRETA is conducting research to refine methods and build capacity to take up new opportunities in other parts of northern Australia. NRETA also supports the work of both the Desert Knowledge and Tropical Savannahs Management Cooperative Research Centres in their studies of enterprise opportunities based on the use of native plants and animals. All of these opportunities and others have been promoted to the Australian government in bilateral negotiations.
The Northern Territory government seeks a Healthy Country, Healthy People schedule to the Overarching Agreement on Indigenous Affairs; Australian government support to greatly accelerate access to opportunities for indigenous environmental businesses that will contribute to both Territory and federal goals in regional development; improvements in biosecurity and conservation of our natural and cultural values. The title of the schedule represents much more than a catchy phrase. Recent studies involving collaborations between NRETA and Charles Darwin University have shown that participants in Working on Country programs enjoy better physical health, including reduced incidence of diabetes and cardiovascular disease than non-participants living in the same settings, whether on an outstation or in a larger community.
The benefits of the programs I have outlined extend well beyond immediate improvements in the wellbeing of participants and their families. They make a critical contribution to the promotion of justifiable pride in indigenous culture, and wider recognition of the essential contributions its members make to Territory society. Indigenous society has demonstrated great strength and resilience throughout its history. The Northern Territory government is committed to using every means available to support indigenous people to overcome disadvantage and take prominent roles in the shaping of the Territory.
In regional development and opportunities to improve the disadvantage of indigenous Territorians, you cannot go past the work done by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure. Without infrastructure provision from the government, largely, we do not see benefits flowing to the bush.
Roads, roads, and roads sum up a lot of the need in the bush. This has always been one of the largest issues and is consistently raised with Cabinet members and local members when we are in the bush. Better roads basically lead to better economic, social and health outcomes. Only 23% of the Territory’s road network is sealed. It is an understatement to say that we need the collaboration of the Commonwealth government to drastically improve the roads budgets of the Territory to provide real economic outcomes and benefits to indigenous communities across the Northern Territory. It is unacceptable to have a road network with only 23% sealed.
In recognition of this, the Territory government put in place a record $180m roads budget this financial year to try to address some of the disadvantage to our road network. Importantly, we have increased the repairs and maintenance program by $7.5m this year, but with an ongoing commitment of tens of millions of dollars into future years. Yes, there are some big road projects. The Victoria Highway is a significant road project, but just as important are the road projects such as the Mereenie Loop that will provide far better road conditions to a range of communities in Central Australia and provide tourism opportunities that flow from better access.
In addition, there is a range of capital work which is critical to our indigenous communities and it will underpin the economic growth that Closing the Gap identifies as a great need. You cannot address indigenous disadvantage without, obviously, addressing the need to have jobs in the bush.
In the area of aerodromes and barge landings, the Budget 2007-08 allocations are significant. The repairs and maintenance program for aerodromes has increased to $1.96m, and minor new works for these aerodromes is $1.15m. In addition, there is a capital works program of some $2.43m. It is interesting when you attend the National Transport Ministers’ Council that the southern ministers argue about the Commonwealth failing to fund their aerodromes appropriately. It is the Territory government which funds the aerodromes’ upkeep across the Territory, something which is starkly different from our southern counterparts. Critical also to those coastal communities are barge landings. The repairs and maintenance program has increased to some $82 000 in this current budget.
People underestimate the importance of planning appropriately the roll-out of improved infrastructure across the bush. The Martin Labor government has always had, integral to its budget, incremental annual increases driving the improvement of infrastructure into the bush. I welcome the generational plan of action. There are some significant opportunities for Territorians within it. It addresses a gap which has existed throughout the history of the Territory, and one which governments should not ignore. The plan of action sets down ambitious but achievable targets for the next five, 10 and 20 years.
I commend the Chief Minister for the boldness of her statement and the commitment of the government. I commend my Cabinet colleagues for the work which I know each of us and the agencies have done to respond comprehensively to the Wild/Anderson report and, importantly, take those initiatives much further to provide for this generational plan of action. I commend all the bush members of the parliament. They have been outspoken advocates for Territorians living in disadvantage. They have been absolutely clear in their focus of the areas of need and how government can, should and must address that need.
Closing the Gap targets the core areas which members of this parliament who have bush electorates have identified and articulated. I look forward to going out to the communities and talking them about the opportunities contained within Closing the Gap.
Debate adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Madam SPEAKER: Before I call on the new member Greatorex, I advise honourable members that I have approved the radio broadcast of the member for Greatorex’s first speech.
I also want to acknowledge the presence in the gallery of family and friends of the member for Greatorex and, on behalf of honourable members, extend to you a warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I ask we extend the usual courtesies to the member for Greatorex during his first speech. I call on the member for Greatorex.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, my success in the 28 July by-election would not have been possible without the support and encouragement of many people: my party, of course, my colleagues and my family and friends. A lot of hard work went into achieving the result. However, it is a lot more than just a one-man show.
Whilst time prohibits me from thanking everyone who contributed to the success individually, there are a few I want to mention. First, the Leader of the Opposition for the support and guidance she provided to me throughout the course of the campaign; the whole of the Alice Springs Branch of the Country Liberal Party for their tireless efforts throughout the campaign; and three women particularly who I want to thank, who worked every single day throughout the course of the campaign and on polling day. It was a seven-day-a-week job in the campaign office and, of course, on polling day. They are Francoise, Donna, and Karen.
I especially want to thank my fiance, Elara, who is here today. She has not only been 100% supportive of me throughout the course of the campaign and the election, but also planning our wedding for 1 September. I have a sneaking suspicion she was probably happy that I was otherwise occupied for that. We have a lot on our plate over the next few weeks.
I thank my guests who are here: my mum from Brisbane, Elara, and a long-time friend, Neil, who have come from Alice Springs and Brisbane to be here today for my swearing-in and this maiden speech.
I extend a thank you to the Legislative Assembly, the Clerk and his staff, for the help they have given me in settling into this job. Of course, it can be quite a daunting process, and I make no secret that it is quite daunting. I am grateful for the help from Legislative Assembly staff, the Clerk and Madam Speaker, for the efforts that you have shown to me and making my family feel welcome. I very much appreciate it.
Of course, my background is commercial radio. Some members in the House perhaps might be aware of that and the program I conducted on Radio 8HA in Alice Springs. I thank those who loyally listened to that show over many years, some who have become quite good friends. The staff and management of Radio 8HA deserve a special mention, and everyone who contributed to the program over the last three years. They have helped make it one of the most unique and successful radio programs in the short history of commercial radio in the NT. It is worth remembering that there are only four commercial radio stations in the Northern Territory: two here in Darwin; and two in Alice Springs. We are small but elite group, you might say.
Of course, I thank the people of Greatorex. Obviously, not everyone voted for me and the Country Liberal Party, but I do promise, and I made this promise on election night, to work hard for every single person in the electorate.
Madam Speaker, I enter this parliament with a great sense of humility and responsibility. Greatorex is one of the newest seats in the Northern Territory, formerly known as Sadadeen and previously held by Denis Collins and my immediate predecessor, Dr Richard Lim. It was named after Tony Greatorex who was a war hero and Rat of Tobruk. It is a great honour to serve an electorate named after someone who was part of such a legendary Australian group as those of the 9th Division of the Australian Army. The Rats of Tobruk were led by Lieutenant-General Sir Leslie Morshead in a fierce 242-day battle against the famous General Rommel and the Rats of Tobruk made a remarkable contribution to the outcome of World War II.
Tony Greatorex represented Central Australia in the old Legislative Council prior to 1974 and was President of that council from 1969 to 1974. Therefore, it is with a great sense of history that I take on this role as the member for Greatorex. Tony Greatorex was a big figure in Alice Springs and the Northern Territory and a great Australian. His memory is certainly not lost today.
I was born and raised in Queensland. My first taste of the Northern Territory was in 1984 when our family visited my brother who was stationed in Darwin with the Royal Australian Air Force in the days before 75 Squadron were stationed at RAAF Tindal. Some might remember the days of the graceful but noisy Mirage fighter that used to be a daily part of life in the Top End. Those were the days when SKYCITY Casino was called the Diamond Beach Casino. In fact, I think it only had been operating for about a year or so. Parliament sat across from this building. There was the famous old Darwin Airport and police vehicles were made up of four-wheel drives with green canvas canopies. I had never seen anything like it.
During that trip, we visited Katherine, Jabiru, Kakadu, major attractions like Adelaide River War Cemetery, the fish feeding in Darwin, Katherine Gorge and the Old Darwin Gaol. When I returned to Brisbane after that trip, I felt I had a real taste of life in the Territory. I thought I had become a frontier man. It never occurred to me that there were still about a million square kilometres of the Northern Territory that I had not even considered.
It was not until a few years later that I stumbled across a book by Keith Willey called Tales of the Big Country and Boss Drover. It tells the story of a famous drover and Centralian called Max Savage. It described his life in Alice Springs and Central Australia. In fact, some of Max’s family live in Alice Springs today. The book dealt with the early days of Alice, and by ‘early days’, I mean 1930s and 1940s. There were many characters of the region, like Walkie Talkie Nelson and Talking Tex Tyrell, and their famous talking competition that took place at the old Stuart Arms Hotel, which nowadays is the Alice Plaza.
There were men like Nat Buchanan, or Paraway as he was known to local Aborigines. He still holds the record for driving 20 000 head of cattle from the Kimberley through the Northern Territory and into the Queensland sale yards in the 1880s. Driving 20 000 head was no mean feat long before fences and road trains, as Ted Egan would eventually sing in a tribute to old Paraway.
There were people like Uncle Ly Underdown, Jock Nelson, Mona Minahan, Albert Namatjira, Olive Pink, of course, Reg Harris and the mighty Hayes family, great pioneers from the heart of Australia, in the days before airconditioning and swimming pools; survivors and legends of a simple life in such a wild environment.
It was stories like this I was able to take away from that book by Keith Willey that compelled me to pursue a life in Central Australia and the Northern Territory, although I was unaware of what modern day Alice would be like, or even if a city slicker like myself could even survive in remote Australia. That was only seven years ago and, since arriving, the opportunities that have come my way in that short period of time are ones that just would not be possible in larger, more populated areas of Australia. The opportunity to enter this parliament is a glowing example.
The Territory is a grand place for opportunity. People from all walks of life and all cultures have access to opportunities like no other place. Whatever your chosen or desired profession, you can attain levels of success in the Northern Territory that you might have thought impossible elsewhere.
Madam Speaker, 2008 celebrates the 30th anniversary of self-government for the Northern Territory. It is with a great sense of pride and humility that I will be in this Chamber as a member of the Northern Territory parliament to celebrate and commemorate that milestone. Many members have served the Northern Territory through their parliamentary commitments over the last 30 years, and 24 of those members are in this House right now. There is a good chance that the names of all those who have held office since 1 July 1978 will be remembered by many a long-term resident of the Northern Territory.
It is one of the great paradoxes of the Northern Territory that despite the sheer size and the vast land mass, Territorians are still able to maintain an intimacy and familiarity with each other. We all know someone who knows someone from every far corner of the Northern Territory; it is the epitome of a close knit community.
The task ahead of me is, without question, a large one. While not insurmountable, it will come with its challenges. Under the current political climate, as a new member, perhaps I have a lot more responsibility; more, perhaps, than is traditionally expected when one arrives for the first time. I refer to a letter given to me after my familiarisation by the Clerk during my introduction to Parliament House, and I quote:
- One of the difficulties facing a new member at the start of a parliamentary career is working out what the job is...There are no relevant or convenient job descriptions.
The range of tasks which a member could do, would do, feels they should do or is expected to do is beyond the capacity of any individual.
They were restful words from the Clerk for a newcomer entering this parliament for the fist time.
Addressing the wants and needs of the people of Greatorex, Alice Springs and the Northern Territory is a big job. It comes with expectations. It requires discipline, common sense, levels of pragmatism, compassion, an element of leadership and, of course, the desire to want to do it. One of the great lessons in life, I believe, is that you get out what you put in. The reward for effort is only matched by the effort itself.
Madam Speaker, in conclusion, I thank everyone who has helped me attain this position as the member of Greatorex, everyone who contributed to my campaign, and for the support of my family and friends. I dedicate this parliamentary career to the people of Greatorex, Alice Springs, and the Northern Territory and will strive to deliver results for those who put me here.
Mr NATT (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I wish to recognise a young local hero. For those who read the headlines of Saturday’s Northern Territory News, you will have read ‘Boy Hero Saves Crash Victim’.
The boy in question is a school boy by the name of Max Johnson who is 13 years of age and attends Palmerston High School where he is currently doing Year 8. He also lives in my electorate of Drysdale with his mum, Melissa. I congratulate Max on his outstanding deed last week. It was great to see someone take on the responsibility of dealing with an emergency the way Max did.
Last Wednesday, he was riding his bike to school and found a young male lying unconscious and bleeding in a ditch after falling off his bike. Max woke the injured boy and got him to his house, then rang his mum and an ambulance. He laid him on the couch and tried to keep his temperature down by putting a packet of frozen peas on his forehead. The young lad kept falling asleep, and Max kept waking him to ensure he was conscious during the ordeal. Max remained calm throughout the entire episode, and I understand the young injured boy is in Royal Darwin Hospital with head injuries.
Young Max showed responsibility beyond his years and, in these days of uncertainty and the shaping of times ahead for many of our troubled youth, Max is a wonderful example of the capabilities of our youths in extreme circumstances.
I congratulate Max on his wonderful effort to help this injured young boy, and wish him all the best. I am sure he will be appropriately recognised in the not-too-distant future. Well done, Max.
Over the last four or five days in Palmerston, we have had a person of note visit. I speak of the NASA astronaut, James Reilly II. He has visited schools and talked with students about his experiences in outer space, and has been inspiring young people to dream big.
Space travel, as we all know, is fascinating and intriguing for many of our population, be they old or young. I am one who has taken a keen interest in space travel and the results achieved by missions undertaken over many years since man first walked on the moon. In my high school days, we all congregated at a friend’s place and watched the walk on the moon on black and white television one afternoon in the late 1960s, which is going back a few years.
Jim Reilly recently completed his mission, on 22 June, to the international space station in the STS-117 Atlantis. To have a gentleman of this calibre and experience visit Darwin is a real coup. He has spoken to more than 1000 Palmerston students during his visit, and they have been delighted to have the opportunity to pose their questions and satisfy their insatiable quest for knowledge on outer space.
The Palmerston City Council and Mayor Robert MacLeod have hosted a number of activities including receptions and meetings with stakeholders to discuss the potential of the proposal to establish a space school for Palmerston. The program aims to gather some of Australia’s leading intellectual, enthusiastic and intuitive young students and, hopefully, guide them on to a path to become the scientists, engineers or technologists of tomorrow. The school would also be there to provide bright young secondary students with motivational programs to raise awareness of science and space. Such programs also encourage students to follow disciplines and careers in science technology and engineering, and to expand the knowledge and professional skills of educators in the space science. It also enables students with similar interests in space and science to interact with each other.
The State Space schools are conducted specifically for school students between 15 and 17 years of age who have demonstrated a keen interest and aptitude for space science-related subjects. It will capture around 40 students and five teachers and it is run over a five-day period as part of an annual inhouse program. The program includes leading experts lecturing in fields of space and space science, and this occasionally includes visits from NASA leading astronauts. There are hands-on activities like building and launching model rockets, astronomy lessons and problem solving and team building, and there are many visits to science and technology centres and university research facilities.
It is a wonderful program for our aspiring space cadets and budding scientists, technicians and engineers. I congratulate the Palmerston City Council, especially Robert MacLeod, for the initiative taken to organise James’ visit to Palmerston and Darwin. Most of all, I thank James Reilly II for visiting the Territory and enlightening us on his exciting travel in outer space.
Cazalys Palmerston Club is a very strong and active club within the Palmerston community. I became involved a few years ago now in my previous life as the General Manager of AFLNT, when the then president, Ray Norman, and Danny Masters, one of the committee men, were trying to set up the club to assist not only the AFLNT and its clubs, but a number of sporting clubs in and around the Palmerston area. It was an initiative undertaken by Peter La Pira, the owner of the club. Peter approached the NTFL Board to see whether they would like to become involved with the club. Obviously, in my capacity as the General Manager of the AFLNT at the time, I visited and attended several of the board meetings.
The club, over time, has grown extensively from one that was struggling financially earlier on but, through good management and board practices, the club has really grown into a strong community centre and now distributes some fantastic sums of money to sporting organisations and clubs in and around the Palmerston area.
On Monday, 13 August, a reception was held for the distribution of the half-yearly proceeds to some of these local clubs. Seven years ago, when I first started in the Northern Territory with the AFLNT, $15 000 was distributed between the AFLNT, the NTFL clubs and several community sporting clubs. Last Monday, $40 000 was given to the AFLNT and $170 000 was distributed amongst the local sporting clubs. It goes to show how well the club has been managed over the years. To give such sums of money to community sporting clubs is an absolute credit to the club and the people involved with the club.
I congratulate everyone involved, Noel Fahey, the general manager, and his staff. They have done a wonderful job and I know the netball, cricket, softball, Rugby League, eight ball and hockey clubs have all benefited greatly from it as, of course, has the AFLNT, as I said.
Cazalys has also been recognised for its commitment to Palmerston. It won the prestigious Australian Hotel Association Best Club Community Service Award for 2007. It is terrific to see the club blossom and go ahead in leaps and bounds to ensure that local clubs benefit from their contribution. Well done to everyone involved.
In closing, I acknowledge a milestone reached by a gentleman with whom I was involved at AFLNT. I refer to the former Territory Thunder Coach, Damien Hale. Damien has just retired from the position to pursue a career in federal politics. His coaching career has spanned 20 years and, in the last three, he has served as the Northern Territory Thunder Coach. He is probably hailed as the Territory’s most successful AFL coach of the modern era. I must say that my involvement with the AFLNT with Damien was an absolute delight. He is a bit of a character and has a terrific sense of humour but, at the end of the day, he was there for football and he would fit in with whatever the AFLNT had in mind at the time to ensure that football prospered in the Northern Territory.
Damien coached St Mary’s to, I think, three premierships over the last couple of years before he took on the role of Territory Thunder Coach. He played for St Mary’s in the late 1980s and through the 1990s. He played in premiership teams under the great coach John Taylor.
Damien has relinquished the job to, as I said, turn his full attention to the task of winning the federal seat of Solomon for the Labor Party. I know that the enthusiasm he has shown in football will be put into his campaign effort. Damien is a very skills-oriented coach, very skills-motivated, and is a great educator in the game. He has a wonderful knowledge of the modern game and has adapted to its changes and challenges. Those changes and challenges have come in leaps and bounds since I played. It is great to see a person whose skill and ability adapts with the game and achieves some wonderful results.
He has terrific rapport with the players, which I noticed from the word go. I guess it is his open and amenable approachability. He has worked fantastically well with both indigenous and non-indigenous players, and he seems to have the ability to get the best out of anyone he coaches. He has a great outlook on the game and, as I said, his good humour and understanding of the way the game is played nowadays has stood him in good stead.
He has had wonderful support from Jenny, his wife, and his family. I know his mum and dad have been a wonderful support for him over many years. I know that Bob and Bev have been terrific for him over those years. I congratulate Damien on a wonderful job well done with Territory Thunder. I know he will be sadly missed. To try to replace someone of that calibre from within the Territory is terribly difficult. I wish him all the best with his campaign.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, at Question Time today, I raised the issue of the Youth Justice Act and the frustration that some small business owners have when their businesses are broken into. In early May, a number of juveniles broke into local businesses, destroyed stock, damaged the premises, they suffered loss of business and had to pursue insurance claims, which immediately put up their premiums.
It is very frustrating for business people when this occurs. I understand the philosophy of the Juvenile Diversion Scheme to stop young people from going to court and trying to get a resolution before they do so. However, the whole process has dragged on for nearly four months, and the business people concerned are extremely frustrated about the process. That is why I raised it with the Attorney-General. He should be looking at the process to make it more streamlined.
It seems to be the case that the victims are the ones who are not being listened to, with the emphasis being on the offenders. If there was a little more of a shock to this, perhaps the offenders would realise the damage they have done. As regards compensation, the Youth Justice Act talks about the offender paying but, of course, when you are a 10-year-old or 11-year-old, you do not have the means. That is why I have suggested to the Attorney-General he needs to amend the legislation to ensure that parents or guardians are responsible for the damage that occurs, and the costs incurred by the proprietor that they cannot recover. It is one of those things that I am sure many people throughout the Territory have experienced: the break-ins by these young kids who really do not care. This particular incident happened at 5 am when they should have been at home. It is asked over and over again: where were the parents? It would be a wake-up call for their parents if the parents suddenly had to start paying bills for the damage that their children had done.
In his reply, the Attorney-General said he would follow up. It is really important that he does so that people believe justice is happening and that it is just not one of those mickey mouse processes that never seems to get a result.
While I am on my feet, I congratulate the new member for Greatorex. He is going to enjoy his time in this House. It is exciting, as most of us felt when we first entered parliament. The by-election for Greatorex brought out some very exciting times for Independents in Alice Springs. I acknowledge the presence in the gallery of Mr Paul Herrick and his campaign manager, Mr Anthony Yoffa, who fought a good fight over a very short, fast two weeks. As we all know, Let’s Fire Up Alice was the campaign slogan. I noticed the paper the other day said: ‘the embers are still glowing’. I am not quite sure what that means, but we shall wait and see.
It also brings out some ugly sides of politics, which is a sad thing for Independents. The major parties are so strong and the amount of money they can pour into a campaign illustrates the strength of parties. The CLP poured in a lot of money and resources into the campaign in Alice Springs. It was interesting; sometimes we do get the nasty bits. I noticed this brochure from the ALP’s Jo Nixon, which said: ‘Why we’re supporting Jo Nixon’ and had Andrew Maloney’s photo. That brought an instant result from the CLP because Andrew Maloney was a very strong CLP supporter. Interestingly enough, there were some rather vicious letters in the paper condemning Andrew because he said: ‘I am going to stand up for this person’. It happens that people can change their points of view, and we have to respect that, as we all might like to do at different stages.
I remind the House that, yes, I was a CLP member at one stage. Before that, I was a member of the National Party. Now I am an Independent ...
Mr Henderson: What about the Labor Party, Loraine?
Mrs BRAHAM: No, I have not done that yet.
Mr Henderson: We are very friendly.
Mrs BRAHAM: I think it is too late.
The thing I admired about Andrew Maloney was he was the only CLP person who rang me after the 2005 election and congratulated me, the only CLP person who did it. He also said: ‘Thank you for a clean campaign’. I could certainly have run more of a dirty campaign at the time because, obviously, the CLP candidate was not exactly free of a nasty side. We could have spread around ‘CLP man punched in nightclub’. We know how that all came about. The gentleman concerned, unfortunately, had done the wrong thing by a young wife of five months, and the family and friends of his young wife were quite distraught. It reflects part of his character. I was pleased that he did not get to represent Braitling because, if you cannot trust someone, how can they be trusted torepresent people?
I thank Andrew Maloney for ringing me and saying that. I do not think I have ever had anyone else from the CLP congratulate me. In fact, I need to remind the CLP that they are the ones who dumped me; I did not dump them. Sometimes, their attitude seems to be that they have the anger at me whereas, I guess, if anyone should be angry, it certainly should be me, not them.
The other interesting part of the campaign was that it brought together a group of people who were not really attached until they became a campaign group for an Independent. Through that process of working together, they showed how unity can bring loyalty and commitment. I am certainly hoping that in the general election campaign in 2008 or 2009, whatever the government decides, we will be able to have that strong band of people to back an Independent, as they have done for Mr Herrick in the campaign he has just run. It is not easy to put yourself up to the general public. It is not easy to say ‘vote for me’. It is even harder when they say: ‘No, I will not; I am going to vote for a party’. All I say to Paul is that you know the votes you did get were for you, not a party. That is a very important thing.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, there are interesting times ahead. We are already calculating when the government is going to go to the next election. I reckon not for a little while because things are not going too well for them at the moment, and they will need to get over the federal government election. However, it is going to be probably one of the most interesting elections that the Territory has had because there will be a lot of people out there. Certainly, a lot of people have said to me: ‘We need another party. We need the Liberals to come in and take over because there is just not the strength on the ground for the CLP any more’. Perhaps they need to change their image and we need to see that.
Having said that, there is also a feeling out there that the Independents can join forces and make a difference. I remember what Peter Murphy said in one of his articles; that the Independents are more effective as an opposition than the opposition themselves in this House at the moment. Today’s Question Time was a great example of that. Both parties were hammering how many dollars were being spent on what, but they forgot that what we should have been talking about is the outcomes we intend to get out of this whole process at the moment. So, interesting times ahead; I look forward to the next election not as a candidate, but from behind the scenes.
Mr HAMPTON (Stuart): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to acknowledge three constituents from the Yuendumu community who recently received their Order of Australia Medals. We had the ceremony at Yuendumu on Thursday 16 August, only last week, which was also attended by the Administrator of the Northern Territory, Mr Ted Egan. It was truly a remarkable event. The three worthy recipients of the Order of Australia Medal were Mr Andrew Stojanovski, affectionately known as Yakajirri, his Aboriginal name, and Mrs Peggy Nampijinpa Brown, my grandmother, and Mr John Japangardi Miller, my grandfather, all worthy recipients of the medal.
I would like to read out the acceptance speech from Mr Stojanovski. It gives a good summary of what the Mt Theo program is all about. It is particularly relevant in the situation we find ourselves in today with the intervention from Canberra and our Chief Minister’s statement today on Closing the Gap. I quote the letter:
- I want to begin by acknowledging that this is Aboriginal land. I would like to thank the traditional owners and all the Anmatjere and Warlpiri people for welcoming my family here today.
While this award is an honour for the Mt Theo program, we accept this award for the whole community because everyone here helped make what we did possible.
Fourteen years ago, in this very place, at the meeting that started this program, Peter Toyne said: ‘The problem of petrol sniffing will not be fixed if either Yapa look to Kardiya to fix it, or if Kardiya say its just family business for Yapa’. He said: ‘‘We will only fix this problem if the whole community decides to work together’.
I look around today and feel proud knowing that this is what has happened. I see too many Yapa and Kardiya friends here today. All the friends who made this great thing happen. Yapa from here, Kardiya from here, and our supporters from town.
When I sit down south, where I live now, I hear stories on the TV about the problems on Aboriginal communities. About John Howard sending in the Army. And I wonder about Yuendumu. Because Yuendumu is the place that has proved it can solve its own problems. Yuendumu is the place that did not give up.
When I left here I worked with whitefella petrol sniffers and young people down south. But what I saw there made me very sad. The whitefella professionals there and government workers told me there was nothing you could do to save petrol sniffers. ‘Haven’t you got some place you can send them to get them better?’, I asked. They had no place to send those young people. They had no Mt Theo. So they just gave up on those young people.
Well, I growled at those whitefellas for that. I said: ‘I am from Mt Theo and we don’t give up on young people. We don’t let them die.’ Those people down south asked me about Yuendumu and what it’s like. I tell that I see Yuendumu as a place of hope. And I pray that the light of hope from Mt Theo, and from what the young people are doing now with Jaru Pirrjirdi, shines out across the landscape, so that others can see proof of what can happen, of what Yapa people can do. Of what Yuendumu has done.
You should all be proud because you are all part of this. The Order of Australia is one of the highest honours that our nation gives its citizens. I am happy that the Mt Theo program and Yuendumu community have been recognised in this way. But for me personally, a far greater honour has been for me to live here and have Yapa as my friends. As a white Australian I feel very privileged to have Aboriginal people who are my friends. Who have given me a skin name, an Aboriginal name, a true Australian name. That’s a real Australian honour.
I want to thank all the Warlpiri and Anmatjere people for becoming my friends here, especially Peggy and Hooker Creek. I’m not sure that I have taught anyone here anything. I did not come here as a teacher, but as a learner, and Yapa have taught me much. But what I am sure of is that together with you people I have been part of a great cause. A cause that is more important than money or Toyotas or greed. A cause that is about love, about saving lives of young people, about respect for Yapa culture, about caring for each other. It is a cause that never gives up.
Andrew Stojanovski OAM
16 August 2007
As I said, the investiture of those three great Territorians and Australians was a great event, a remarkable event. It was my pleasure to be there to witness that. It was a great turnout by the community. There were kids from school singing songs and, as Andrew said, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people attended and paid their respects and recognition to three great Territorians.
Without detracting too much from the celebrations that day, there were a lot of people who approached me as their local member, sad and upset with comments which were made in the Senate by Senator Bill Heffernan about the program at Mt Theo. I would just like to read another letter of response from the Mt Theo mob as they have asked me, as their local member to do:
- The Mt Theo program…is deeply saddened by accusations made by Senator Heffernan in parliament on Tuesday, 14 August 2007. The Senator alleged that one of the managers had been ‘having sex with all the children’ at Mt Theo outstation during their rehabilitation from petrol sniffing. We are distressed that the Senator would make such damning, unsubstantiated comments, stated as fact under parliamentary privilege. Mt Theo categorically denies this allegation.
It is even more offensive in the light of the fact that on Thursday, 16 August, Mt Theo founders, Peggy Nampijinpa Brown, Johnny Japangardi Miller and Andrew Stojanovski received the highest honour conferred on Australian citizens, the Order of Australia Medal, for their work with young petrol sniffers through the Mt Theo program.
The Mt Theo program has been repeatedly hailed as an outstanding and unrivalled success in its efforts to fight substance misuse and promote hope and meaning for young Warlpiri youth. Furthermore, we are acknowledged as a model of excellence in community-initiated solutions in two recent inquiries: Beyond Petrol Sniffing: Renewing Hope for Indigenous Communities (June 2006) and the Little Children are Sacred report (June 2007). Our representatives have travelled internationally to represent the Australian government as an innovative and successful approach to substance misuse.
In June 2006, at the tabling of Beyond Petrol Sniffing: Renewing Hope for Indigenous Communities, Senator Heffernan publicly congratulated Mt Theo staff present on their hard work and the success of the program, and held a subsequent meeting with them where he reiterated his praise for the program and made no mention of the claims he has now made in parliament.
We are at a loss as to why the senator would not formally raise this grave issue with the Mt Theo program prior to using parliamentary privilege in such a defamatory manner. Such a discussion would have saved the Senator the embarrassment of making false accusations of such an inflammatory nature and casting an undeserved cloud over 13 years of extraordinary community commitment to the safety and wellbeing of young Warlpiri people.
The Mt Theo program calls for an apology from Senator Heffernan.
That was a letter in response from Petty Brown, OAM, one of the founders of the Mt Theo program; Johnny Miller OAM, a co-founder; Andrew Stojanovski OAM, founding manager; Enid Gallagher, the Chairperson; Warren Williams, Chairperson; and Susie Low, the Manager.
Mr Deputy Speaker, we heard today that the Chief Minister made a landmark announcement in Closing the Gap. Over the last 10 weeks, I have been out and about and I will be speaking in support of the statement tomorrow. One of the places I did visit over the past nine weeks was Batchelor Institute. I had a good discussion there with students about the intervention, about my role as an indigenous person in the Territory and as a member of parliament. The students have also asked me to read a letter and have it put on the public record. It is a letter they wrote to the minister, Mal Brough:
- Dear Minister Brough,
We are a group of student Indigenous Education Workers living and working in Central Australia. We want you to talk to us
We want:
If you already have plans to do these, could you please advise us of your strategies? We are currently studying Children at Risk. We are very aware of the problems relating to alcohol and pornography through our family and community experiences. We recently attended a forum held by the NT Department of Justice on ‘The Community Education Campaign’ to tackle pornography and child abuse in communities and families.
Some of us have experienced first-hand the presence of the task force, currently visiting communities. We are very concerned about the lack of real information made available to the people on communities. This has caused widespread fear and confusion. We know that some families fled in fear during the day only to return under the cover of darkness.
Indigenous experience of the police and armed forces in communities is extremely negative. We wonder do the police and soldiers realise the burden of past abuse they are carrying. Sending armed forces is counter-productive.
The blame seems to be put on the whole community and that makes us feel angry, as if we are all part of the problem. We believe we can be part of the solution. We want to be involved, as people on the ground, to offer practical solutions. We are already doing this through our work in schools, families and communities.
We want the NT and federal governments to use the massive funding available and the new legislation to provide long-term support for programs rather than the stop-start approach which has ruined many projects.
We request a positive response to our concerns with the hope that these issues will be considered at many levels.
That was signed by Enid Gallagher from Yuendumu; Joan Pracy from Katherine, Melardella Gibuma, she did not say from where, unfortunately; Shiela Rose; Lena Williams; Shannon Mununggurr; and Petrina Slater, just some of the students from Batchelor.
I will close by saying that I understand Senator Heffernan has not formally apologised to the Mt Theo program or to the Yuendumu community, so people out there are still waiting for some sort of apology from him. I am also interested in seeing what response from Mal Brough the students from Batchelor get to their letter.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight I wish to discuss a matter that has received some media in recent times. The issue arises out of the procedural fairness extended to the new owners of the Tiwi Supermarket in Darwin’s northern suburbs. It deals with the transfer of the business at the leased premises known as the Tiwi Supermarket. The issue is a matter of timing, basically. The vendor in that transaction was Jannie Mathers and her husband, and the purchasers were Mr and Mrs Gray.
A little about Mr and Mrs Gray: they decided, in the later stages of their careers, to move to the Northern Territory because their daughter is here and they thought it would be to relocate and invest in a business so that they could be gainfully employed and close to their daughter who works at the Darwin hospital. Their experiences as a result, which I will proceed to explain, have caused them a huge amount of grief and loss of faith in the dream they once had of moving to the Northern Territory.
To cut a long story short, the purchasers agreed to take on the shop in December 2006. The agreement was a verbal contract, unusual for this day and age, but perfectly legal. It is clear from the outset that both parties considered themselves bound by their words. I have met both parties and I can verify that they are people who trusted each other, whatever others may say.
Sadly, in this case, Mrs Mather’s performance as a licensee has been chequered, to say the least. She has been responsible for several breaches of the terms of her liquor licence and the most recent suspension was for 56 days, the longest suspension in the history of the Territory. Nevertheless, the licence itself was active at the time the money was handed over by the Grays on 19 April this year. The date, 19 April, is significant. It is important to remember this date because it is facts that surround the transfer of property and this liquor licence that go to the heart of this issue: procedural fairness and injustice.
On 16 March 2007, the Licensing Commission received a complaint about a boy buying liquor at the Tiwi shops. Clearly, this was a further and serious breach by the licensee, Mrs Mather. This is not in dispute; indeed, there are no facts in this whole matter that are in dispute.
What also is clear is that on the 26 and 30 March 2007, the purchasers, the Grays, contacted the Licensing Commission about transferring the licence. During these contacts, as the Licensing Commission said, the Grays were informed, but not in writing, to exercise caution when purchasing the property. It also said that the Grays were advised by commission staff to seek legal advice, though not in writing. What the Grays were not told was that there was a new investigation afoot. They were certainly made aware of the old breaches against the licence, but there was no indication there was an investigation afoot.
On 20 April, one day after the money to buy the store was transferred to the vendor, the vendor was advised for the first time that there had been a complaint against her licence. It was clear the Licensing Commission knew of her intention to sell the property. It is also clear they knowingly withheld information about the new complaint. All the while, the Grays were dealing with the Licensing Commission which knew, but did not advise them as purchaser.
Although there is a policy that licences are not transferred while there are outstanding matters, and that liquor licences are separate parts of the supermarket to which they are attached and, therefore, treated quite independently by the Liquor Commissioner, I harbour grave concerns about the decisions to withhold this vitally important information from the potential purchaser, while also keeping the vendor in the dark until after the premises were sold. There may be actions available to the purchaser against the vendor to recover damages because of an implied term in the contract of sale, which is a possibility technically. Practically, the implied term was that a liquor licence came with the deal. However, the purchaser simply cannot afford to pursue such a matter and because the purchase was complete before the vendor was aware of the latest complaint, she could hardly be held to be culpable in her actions. She was not formally advised until after the sale was completed.
The commissioner was also mindful of the issue because it is addressed in the decision. However, the commissioner anticipated the decision to cancel the licence would lead to action in another forum. It will not. There will be no court case because the purchasers simply cannot afford it. There cannot be another licence issued because the minister has declared a moratorium so they are snookered. The purchasers, therefore, are damned because of timing and an arbitrary and indifferent decision by the Liquor Commissioner.
The only person in this arrangement who was in a position to see what was about to happen was the Liquor Commissioner. It was his office which was aware of the complaint and of the impending sale of the premises. Neither the vendor nor the purchaser were aware that this was about to occur. Whilst it is true that the decision by the purchasers to go ahead without a written contract is foolhardy, there was no culpability on their part. Also, the vendor was utterly unaware of the complaint until after the purchase was completed. The Liquor Commissioner’s reported response regarding the reason the decision was made - that licensees should not think they can walk away from their responsibilities by selling the licence - is absurd.
It appears the intent is to punish the licence for its failings; it is because there has been a breach of the licence. Therefore, the Liquor Commissioner has deemed fit to punish the licence. As the commissioner so rightly points out, it is not the commission’s job to punish, it is their job to administer the licences. How then, does the commissioner explain this statement in his decision?:
- This perception of a lack of real penalty is not in the public interest.
What is in the public interest is an administrative process which does not set people up to fail. If the commissioner was aware of the potential for an injustice, why would he let circumstances unfold in which the injustice became inevitable? Government has made it clear that they want to rein in liquor licences. The commissioner is clearly under instructions, despite his reported independence, to do so. I understand the problems of alcohol in this community, however to have allowed this situation to unfold and make an innocent third party, which is the saddest part of all this, the scapegoat is not in the interest of good governance or fairness.
The subsequent indifference displayed in this issue is also of concern. The commissioner had a duty to inform the offending licensee of the complaint. Just doing the right thing would have helped alleviate immense grief and terrible disappointment from a couple who had made a decision to move to the Territory. They could have made them aware of that complaint and that could have been done prior to the sale of the property. I ask that this matter be re-visited in one fashion or another. There is no capacity for the purchaser to sue despite the commissioner’s assumption that this would occur.
I understand that the purchasers, the moment that they heard the nature of the complaint, immediately moved to deal with the person who had caused that problem. They have done all they can. The person who had held responsibility for the licence whilst the breach occurred now has been paid for that business and lives elsewhere but, upon hearing this, has become so aggrieved that they immediately came back because they feel, quite rightly, that they have let down the purchaser, the Grays. They were unaware while the contract was being negotiated that this was afoot. The only person, as I have said, who was aware of the whole story unfolding, is the commissioner
I understand that the Grays have made representation to their local member, the member for Casuarina. I urge the member for Casuarina to take this issue of procedural unfairness and administrative neglect, I call it, seriously and intervene as far as possible in the interests of what is right. I ask the minister to take personal note of the story behind this. You might be able to derive some slight comfort from entertaining legal arguments on procedural matters, but look at the people behind this. The ones who have caused no fault whatsoever are the ones who are bearing the penalty, and that is not right. That may be administratively tidy, but it is improper and unfair.
I ask the minister to find some way of intervening in the interest of what is right for a good couple whose only fault is that they shook hands and believed that their word was their bond. They have been left to carry a terrible load. They say, as a result of this episode, they may not be able to continue. They are the ones who are left to bear the burden. I ask the minister to please spend some time with them, learn of their story, and see what he, as a minister, can do to do the right thing for the Grays.
Ms SACILOTTO (Port Darwin): Mr Deputy Speaker, it has been a very busy Dry Season month in the electorate of Port Darwin. I will start by talking about the 100 years of scouting, the anniversary and the birthday of scouting. His Honour the Administrator, Mr Ted Egan, Chris Doige and around 150 other people gathered for the sunrise on the Esplanade on 1 August, including the Darwin 1st Sea Scouts, of whom my son, Luca, is a member. It was a fantastic gathering. The Kiwanis provided everyone with a hot cooked breakfast and did a fantastic job. Everyone enjoyed it. There was quite a bit of history and very interesting commentary about the father of scouting, Sir Baden-Powell. It was a good morning and set the scene for the other events in relation to the 100 years of scouting celebrations.
On 3 August 2007, Larrakeyah Primary School hosted a special assembly in celebration of the opening of the new shade structure over the basketball courts. I thank the principal, Mr Graham Chadwick, and the hard-working staff and parent committee for including me in this special event. I was particularly proud to present achievement awards to many of the junior primary students.
On 4 August 2007, the Turf Club Gala Ball was a fantastic event. SKYCITY’s Andrew Wilson and Manuel Cruze and their fantastic and professional staff should be commended for the spectacular and well-managed massive event, in the order of almost 3000 people. There was groovy entertainment provided by 1970s/1980s rock idol, Leo Sayer. I believe I speak on behalf of all attendees when I say it was a great night.
On 6 August, the Carlton Draught Darwin Cup races were a fantastic day. I thank and congratulate Foster’s Australia for their support of this very important event on the NT sporting and social calendar. I particularly thank the NT Foster’s team led by Mr Lincoln Jenkin, Mr Des Friedrich, the CEO of Darwin Turf Club, the committee and fabulous staff for looking after everyone so well.
On 7 August, I was pleased to attend the opening of the new premises and the launch of LifeLine. The new premises are in Shepherd Street in my electorate. I extend my sincere appreciation to Patron, Ms Nerys Evans and Shani Darby and the board for hosting the event. It was a big move for the organisation. They are to be commended for the fantastic service they provide, which is well used by many Territorians.
As members will know, August is Seniors Month. There have been a huge number of events for or by seniors so that the community embraces enjoying seniors. The highlight has been the Seniors Morning Tea at Parliament House hosted by the Speaker, the member for Nightcliff. It was a fantastic morning tea and the place was packed. Some of my constituents who attended included Mr Jack Haritos, Mr Christadoulou, Mr Bob Beadman, Mr Brian Hilder, Mr John Whyte, Mr Cyril and Mrs Pauline Young and Ms Greata Quong. Unfortunately, Ms Josephine Lee was unable to attend.
Other events for Seniors Month have been fantastic and are ongoing until the end of the month. There are many people trying things they have not tried in the past, which is a fantastic part of Seniors Month because people get out of their comfort zones and have a fantastic time. Some of the other events I have attended recently included Christmas in July, hosted by the National Seniors and put together by Mr Cyril Young. It was a fantastic event. I could not believe that I could find my Christmas hat in July, but I did manage to find it. I had a great night. We sang Australian Christmas carols and enjoyed a beautiful feast prepared by the Darwin Palms Resort. They were fantastic hosts. The meal was lovely and the company was even better. I enjoyed that event.
I am looking forward to 25 August, which is the National Seniors Race Day at the Darwin Turf Club. This will be my third National Seniors Race Day. On the first race day, the horses could not get started because the ambulance did not arrive, but we had a fantastic day. Last year was bigger and better, and I believe this year is a sell-out and has been for a couple of weeks. Congratulations to Cyril Young and the team at National Seniors for launching such a great event, which is growing in popularity and is a testament to how much fun people have because they keep coming back and bringing their friends. We might need to take over the whole place next year.
On 11 and 12 August was the Tropical Garden Spectacular at the George Brown Botanic Gardens. It was a fantastic two days. This was my second year of hosting a stall at the Spectacular. It was great to talk to a lot of people. Even though many of my constituents live in apartment complexes, they were at the Garden Spectacular because it is fantastic, even for people with small or balcony gardens. I spoke to a lot of people over the days and we discussed many issues. I am sure there will be some very good ideas to come from those conversations.
We participated in the Gardening Olympics. On my team were the members for Brennan, Sanderson and Macdonnell. We were pitched against the member for Nelson’s team. Unfortunately, apparently he pipped us at the post again with his Chicko-seum, which was an amphitheatre for chickens. Normally, he has contraband, such as cut-out chickens and windmills and the like. We made a mammoth effort. We broke a couple of giant pavers, almost on our feet, and enjoyed the day. It was fantastic. There were many gardens after that which were a lot better than ours and the member for Nelson’s.
The Tropical Garden Spectacular’s main organisers were Simon Smith and Jayne Dellow. They were fantastic, running around the whole day, very enthusiastic and very hard workers. I commend them for their efforts and say that it was bigger and better than last year. I am sure it will be bigger and better next year. I plan to be involved again next year, as I really enjoy the weekend, particularly competing in the Gardening Olympics. Next year, I am going to give it my best shot to try and knock off the member for Nelson and be victorious in the Gardening Olympics, at least between the two of us. It has to be one in four.
I will close tonight on a sad note. On 20 August, I attended the funeral of the member for Arnhem’s mother, Limandabina Charlie, who passed away on 3 August this year. She was a loving mother and grandmother and strong Garrawa and Yanyuwa elder. I extend my condolences to Patrick, Barbara, Selina, Allan and Kelvin. It was a very sad occasion. It was a huge tribute to the person she was, because the whole community attended the event and there was a lot of sorrow.
I was humbled to be a part of that at the invitation of the member for Arnhem because Maisie, as I know her, was a very friendly and welcoming woman. Only after meeting her a couple of times, the standard welcome was a big hug and a kiss on the cheek and ‘Hello, my sister’. Hers was a really friendly face. She was always with family. Her family adored her, which was very evident at the ceremony where her family, her children and her grandchildren, spoke. There were a lot of people there, very sad, but with fantastic memories of a loving mother. Once again, I convey my sympathy to all the family and all of the people who knew this wonderful woman. May she rest in peace.
Mr BURKE (Brennan): Mr Deputy Speaker, I add my condolences to the member for Arnhem for the passing of her mother, Limandabina Charlie, who was a loving mother and grandmother, strong Garrawa and Yanyuwa elder. She was born on 16 February 1953 and, sadly, passed away on 3 August this year. She was born at Manangoora Station, the second eldest child of Jerry and Bella Charlie who are now deceased. She had four brothers and five sisters. She grew up at Manangoora and Sharka Point. She would travel up and down the McArthur River and the islands in a dugout canoe with her uncle and auntie, Tyson and Rosie, and her big brother, Danny. She then went back to live with her parents when they moved to Brunette Downs, where she went to school.
They moved to Gallipoli and Alexandria Stations with her grandfather, Tommy Peters. In Borroloola, the Pattemores were her teachers. When she was about 16, she worked for Mr and Mrs Festing as a housemaid with her cousin, Chloe Mulholland, and Mavis’ sister, also now deceased. She became the first Aboriginal teacher’s aide in Borroloola. She had her first son, Patrick, in 1967, followed by Barbara, Selina, Allan and Kelvin.
She went to live in Brisbane and Alice Springs with Barbara’s dad when Barbara was a child. Then, when Limandabina came back, she lived in Borroloola and worked at the shops. She moved to Robinson River when Selina and Allan were young. Selina stayed with Auntie Maureen in Borroloola and Allan went with her to Robinson. She lived with Kelvin’s dad, now deceased, and they moved around the Gulf country and to Benmarra. They then came back to Borroloola for Kelvin’s schooling. While they were in Borroloola, they became members of the AIM church.
Limandabina studied at Batchelor as a linguist and translated the Garrawa dictionary. She also studied at Darwin Bible College when Esther and Rhonda were there. Limandabina moved to Darwin in 1998 where she lived in Palmerston and cared for nieces and nephews: Caitlin, Leandra, Joel, Kaleb, Dwayne, Gareth and Clint. The house became a warm and welcoming one for the Borroloola families.
Sadly, in 2004, she was affected with kidney disease which meant she had to have dialysis treatment three days per week. On 3 August, after one of her dialysis treatments, she came home to her house and passed away.
As well as being the mother of a friend, Limandabina was a friend to me. As the member for Port Darwin has already said, she always greeted you with a hug and a kiss. She lived in Palmerston as I said, and was, in fact, a constituent of mine as well. Having door knocked the area a number of times, I can certainly say that her house was always full of love and family.
My family’s heartfelt condolences go out to Barbara and all the families and the community affected by this lady’s passing. I was honoured and privileged to attend the smoking ceremony at the house. Sharon, my wife, came with me as well. It was a very sad occasion for everyone. However from the privileged times I was able to have talking to her, she would have preferred us to think about the wonderful times that people shared with her and the wonderful and strong lady that she was. She was certainly generous in all manner of the word - generous in her love, her patience and her kindness - and a lady with a great deal of passion and pride in her community and her family.
I thank all of her family for being generous with me and sharing their times with me. I apologise to them that I was not able to attend the funeral in Borroloola this week. My family and I share the great loss that they feel.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016