2007-11-27
Madam Speaker Aagaard took the Chair at 10 am.
Ms LAWRIE (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I table the Administrative Arrangements Order dated 26 November 2007 setting out the administrative arrangements of government and ministerial portfolio arrangements.
Madam Speaker, the ministry and ministerial officers are as follow:
I advise that other office holders are:
Ms LAWRIE (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I advise the Assembly that the following ministers will have carriage of government business, orders of the day as follows:
Ms LAWRIE (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the member for Wanguri be discharged from the service of the Standing Orders Committee and the member for Karama be appointed in his stead.
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received from the Chairman of Committees, the member for Daly, his resignation from that position. As such, it is necessary for the Assembly to appoint a member to be Chairman of Committees and Deputy Speaker.
Prior to calling for nominations, I advise honourable members of the relevant provisions of standing orders relating to the appointment of a Chairman of Committees and Deputy Speaker. When a motion for a member to be appointed Chairman of Committees and Deputy Speaker of the Assembly is moved and seconded, I will ask if there is any further nomination for a Chairman of Committees. If no further nomination is moved, the time for motions will have expired and no member may address the Assembly. The member’s name will be declared appointed Chairman of Committees and Deputy Speaker.
If a further nomination or nominations are moved and seconded, I will then say that the time for motions has expired. Debate relevant to the election may ensue; no member shall speak for more than five minutes. At the conclusion of debate, the bells shall be rung as for a division and the Assembly will proceed to a ballot. I call for nominations.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I propose to the Assembly for its Chairman of Committees and Deputy Speaker the member for Goyder, Mr Ted Warren, and move that the member for Goyder be appointed Chairman of Committees and Deputy Speaker of this Assembly.
Madam SPEAKER: Is the nomination seconded?
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Deputy Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I second the motion.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Goyder, do you accept the nomination?
Mr WARREN (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I accept the nomination.
Madam SPEAKER: Are there any further motions?
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, I nominate the member for Brennan, Mr James Burke, for the position.
Madam SPEAKER: Is the nomination seconded?
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I second the nomination.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Brennan, do you accept the nomination?
Mr BURKE (Brennan): No, I am unable to, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Are there any further nominations? There being no further nominations, I extend my congratulations to the member for Goyder as the Chairman of Committees.
Mr WARREN (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I thank the Assembly and wish to express my appreciation for bestowing me with this great honour. It is a great privilege.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received from His Honour the Administrator Message No 24 notifying assent to bills passed in the October 2007 sitting of the Assembly.
Mr McADAM (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 134 petitions requesting that Maningrida has the services of a permanent veterinarian. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of standing orders.
Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
Mr WOOD (Nelson)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 4810 petitioners relating to the amalgamation of councils.
Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to, petition read.
Mr CLERK: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 100A, I inform honourable members of a response to Petition No 66 has been received and circulated to honourable members. A copy of the response will be provided to the member who tabled the petition for distribution to petitioners.
Mr VATSKALIS (Business and Economic Development): Madam Speaker, one of the major events of the business calendar is October Business Month, which, again, was a very successful event. October Business Month commenced in Alice Springs and Darwin by one of our keynote speakers, Peter Switzer, on Tuesday, 2 October 2007. Rob Hartnett was a keynote presenter in Katherine on Saturday, 6 October and in Tennant Creek on Monday, 8 October. Peter is the country's foremost expert on best businesses in Australia and hosts Talking Business on Qantas’ Radio Q. Rob Hartnett is the author of Small Business, Big Opportunity.
The month could not happen without the valuable support of partners, media and the sponsors. Thank you to our Platinum sponsors: Sensis, which has supported October Business Month for the past nine years; the National Australia Bank; and Dot-auDA, the Australian Domain Name Administrator. Thank you also to the Silver sponsors: the Australian Taxation Office; AusIndustry; Drake International; Morgan Buckley Lawyers; Trade Tools Direct; Hewlett Packard; Dolphin Software; and Trade Building Supplies. Thanks to media associates: Southern Cross Television; Mix FM 104.9; 8HA and SUNFM in Alice Springs; and the Northern Territory News. Thank you also to the partners of October Business Month for conducting events throughout the month. Many of the partners have been supporting October Business Month for years and their involvement is greatly appreciated.
The business community is once again supporting events throughout the Territory. Attendance at the launches comprised 169 in Alice Springs, 40 in Tennant Creek, 71 in Katherine and 302 in Darwin.
Other key speakers during the month were: Steve Tighe, consumer foresight specialist and Director of Chasing Sunrises; and back due to strong demand from October Business Month 2006, Craig Rispin, a business futurist, trends tracker, technology guru and innovation expert.
This is the 13th year that October Business Month has been conducted in the Territory. October Business Month has delivered 108 events with some 4345 attendees across the Territory. Overall satisfaction levels for October Business month remain high. For example, 90% of survey respondents attending Northern Territory government events learn something new that could be applied in their business, and 78%, and I quote:
My Department of Business, Economic and Regional Development also provides many valuable services to the business community throughout the Territory. The very successful Territory Business Centres are based in all major regional centres and are the government’s one-stop shop for business, providing information and advice on all aspects of doing business with the Territory government.
Territory Business Centres had approximately one million client contacts and received over $2m dollars in Northern Territory government revenue on behalf of Northern Territory departments. My department also delivers important services to business in providing information and assistance to employers in skilled migration matters and officers promote the Northern Territory around the world as a place to live and work. Programs such as Business Growth, Upskilling and Small Business workshops, all either delivered or supported by my department, play an important role in building the capability of local businesses to participate in the economic growth the Territory is experiencing.
The recently released Sensis report said that Territory businesses appreciate the ongoing consultation, training programs and sensible initiatives offered by this government.
October Business month is an important part of delivering services to the business community and is a lot of work. I commend my department for putting together such a professional and exciting program of events. They just keep getting better.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his report. He is right; October Business Month is an important month and one I think all of us can say with confidence that it is looked forward to by those in the business community. There are a range of activities all around the Territory. They are invariably successful. October Business Month has been celebrated for many years across both CLP and Labor governments, and rightly so because we are a can-do place in the Northern Territory. We meet with business owners every day of the week and they tell us about the challenges and the rewards that come with business; taking risks and aiming for perfection in the product they deliver and the way they conduct themselves in the workforce.
There are challenges on the horizon, and I am sure the minister is aware of this, given recent commentary about what is likely to happen, according to some commentators, in the US. It is claimed by some commentators that they are about to enter a recession or bagel, if you are a West Wing fan like me. So if the US economy is looking towards heading into a bagel, then that creates real challenges for all governments in this country and, most importantly, challenges for all business owners in this country.
Many businesses in the Territory, Darwin in particular, are concerned about a Rudd Labor government. I do not propose to get into political sledging on this, but I know there are many people who are anxiously and keenly waiting to see whether Kevin Rudd follows through on what he has promised and how. It will require careful management not just from the new Prime Minister, but from the new Chief Minister and the Northern Territory government.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, your time has expired. Minister in closing.
Mr VATSKALIS (Business and Economic Development): Madam Speaker, I agree with the Leader of the Opposition. October Business Month is an important event for business in the Northern Territory and I agree that Northern Territory businesses have extra challenges because of the distance factor and our small economy.
I also agree that when the American economy sneezes, the rest of the world used to catch a cold. Things have changed quite a lot recently. I think if the Chinese economy sneezes, the rest of the world might catch pneumonia. There are challenges and we are working very closely with the business community to address these. I am pretty confidant the new Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, will deliver his promises. He made promises and he has delivered to date and he continues to deliver. We are very keen to work closely with him to promote the Territory, especially in the areas of defence and defence support, and to promote the Territory resources sector.
China Business Delegation
Mr NATT (Mines and Energy): Madam Speaker, I rise to inform the House that I last week returned from China where a delegation of departmental officers, industry partners and I undertook a series of meetings and presentations designed to promote the competitive position of the Northern Territory as a preferred location for exploration and mining investment.
The visit followed up contacts made last year when I led our first delegation to China to attend China Mining 2006. This year, the Northern Territory was the only Australian jurisdiction with a minister present. This gave us a considerable advantage. I gave a keynote address at the Australia-China Mining Seminar and the Australian session of the China Mining Congress.
Madam Speaker, during this visit I had nine meetings with a range of major Chinese companies including: Sinosteel, CITIC and the Anhui Department of Land and Resources. New contacts were made with the Stone Group, the Zing Yee Group, CITIC Dameng and Baosteel.
We discussed how to do business in the Territory, described the geoscience data available and explained the process of obtaining exploration licences. We also outlined different options open to them to work with existing mining and exploration companies already working in the Territory. I cannot emphasise strongly enough the value and importance of these face-to-face meetings and the benefits they bring. The delegation was a huge success and I have no doubt the impacts will be felt almost immediately and certainly into the future.
While in China, we had a very busy schedule. As mentioned, I gave a keynote address at the Australia China Investment Seminar, which is a forum run by the Australian Embassy. It attracted over 200 delegates from 150 companies. We also attended China Mining 2007 at which we had booth within the Australian display. At this congress, I delivered the Australian address, which had a particular emphasis on the Northern Territory and was very well received by a range of Chinese investors and mining company executives.
For the first time, the Territory ran its own seminar hosted by the China Chamber of Commerce, Metals and Minerals, known as the CCCMC, and sponsored by GHD. The seminar commenced with the signing of a Cooperation Agreement with the CCCMC and then involved a series of speakers who outlined investment and exploration opportunities in the Territory. A special dinner was then held to celebrate the signing.
We also attended a dinner held for the signing of the Cooperation Agreement with the China Mining Association. This event was notable because it was attended by Deputy Minister Li Yuan, Minister for Lands and Resources for the People’s Republic of China.
The trip to China was significant for a number of reasons. First, it vindicates our focus on China by the China Investment Attraction Strategy that is part of our main exploration attraction program Bringing Forward Discovery. No other Australian jurisdiction has such a focus on major mining-related events. I was the only Australian minister present and that is highly significant to the Chinese. Now it is a matter of levering this advantage. We delivered our message about the Territory to over 3000 people over five events. Two Cooperation Agreements were signed with the CCCMC and CMA.
Three strategic partners sponsored the Territory seminars and dinners, and I thank Clayton Utz, Minter Ellison and GHD for their support. As an immediate result of our visit, four Chinese companies have expressed interest in visiting Darwin.
During our visit, we promoted 11 projects to Chinese investors and distributed over 200 sales kits. Does the Chinese mining and investment sector know about the Northern Territory of Australia? The answer is now an emphatic yes. Apart from the speeches, dinners, meetings and seminars, the signing of the Cooperation Agreements made the front page of China Mining News, the largest mining-specific publication in China.
Madam Speaker, I have no doubt that we will see more Chinese companies looking to explore and invest in the Territory as well as more partnerships between companies already in the Territory and Chinese investors. Our China strategy is working. Now it is a matter of continuing the dialogue begun last year and built on in the contacts made during this visit. Working with China is all about relationships and I am pleased to say that the Territory now enjoys an excellent relationship which is destined to yield positive results for years to come.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, I rise in my capacity as shadow minister for Asian Relations and Trade. The opposition welcomes this report and supports what was outlined in the report. Many of the measures that have been described, the achievements and the meetings, are to be commended. These strategies are essential for the Northern Territory to focus our efforts and work in a strategic way to capitalise on our regional advantage.
In no way would the opportunity and honour given to me to work in Taiwan, in the 3 to 4 weeks I was away, would work against any of the efforts and strategies the minister outlined. Rather, it would enhance it.
I must say some of the comments that were raised from the Northern Territory, which did receive a hearing and some unfavourable response in Taiwan, were disappointing. I will put that aside because the more important issues are that 60% of investment in China comes from Taiwan, seed capital and expertise, so in no way would engagement in the region with China or Taiwan be contradictory.
What you have outlined, minister, is genuinely supported and you and the department are to be commended for the work done in advancing this strategy. You have the full support of the opposition.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his report. I hope the minister can give us a far more detailed statement at some time about this delegation so we can have more detail. It is important that the minister went to China. As he said, it is important to meet people face-to-face; that is the way you build relationships.
The Territory is a major mining area in Australia not only for the minerals it produces now, but for minerals it might produce in the future. I am interested to know whether the minister discussed energy requirements, and I am referring specifically to their requirements for both gas and uranium. We are a major producer of uranium and there are many companies now exploring for it. I am interested to know the government’s policy on developing ties with China in relation to the export of uranium and whether there is the possibility of gas being exported to China. Our previous Chief Minister was big on gas. It is something that we are producing, but I am interested to hear whether we see opportunities in China for the expansion of gas.
I congratulate the minister on his trip to China. As I said, I would like to hear a little more detail and I would like to know whether uranium and gas were discussed.
Mr NATT (Mines and Energy): Madam Speaker, I thank both members for their support. I am sure a more detailed report will be tabled at a later date. I can foreshadow that details from many of the meetings we had will provide some of the information you are looking for.
It is interesting to note that the CCCMC and the CMA have over 4000 members, either mining companies or suppliers to mines. The two signings were fantastic for the Territory. Our website is actually on their web page so their members can make contact with our department at any time.
While I am on my feet, I particularly thank the Mines team which put everything together for the delegation. It was a terrific trip. The contacts that were made were fantastic and they are going to be of great value to the Territory. I thank Lisa Mutch and Gua Guan Hua, who did a lot of our interpreting and set up many of our meetings. Their work was invaluable. I also thank Ian Scrimgeour who backed them up, and John Carroll for his support throughout the trip.
Dr BURNS (Health): Madam Speaker, renal disease in the Northern Territory is a high support activity and a key driver increasing health care costs.
Haemodialysis makes up 35% of all hospital separations and is increasing at a rate of 12% to 14% per annum. The majority of Territorians with renal disease are indigenous from remote communities who are required to relocate to urban areas for treatment and commencement of dialysis. Few are able to return to their home communities on a permanent basis. The move to urban areas also increases the demand for accommodation and social services.
Improvements in the identification and management of people with early renal disease, and the life expectancy of people on renal replacement therapy, has resulted in expanded services across the Territory.
In 2001, there was a large gap in the survival rates of people on renal dialysis against national benchmarks and, through our improved services, we have closed that gap. In 2002, this government recognised that renal services had difficulty in delivering services and lacked the capacity to cater for the yearly growth so significant capital and recurrent funding has been invested, bringing NT renal services into line with national standards. New satellite services have been established in Tennant Creek and Palmerston. Further capital and recurrent funding in 2004 established the self-care community-based haemodialysis program and has resulted in the employment of more nurses, allied health professionals and renal positions.
Since 2004, $8m in capital and $7.85m in recurrent funding has been invested, bringing the total renal budget for 2007-08 to $23m. There are currently 363 people on dialysis in the Territory with most of them receiving haemodialysis treatment in urban or regional satellite centres. There is a growing population of patients on self-care dialysis, with 40 people undertaking peritoneal dialysis and 12 people on self-care haemodialysis in their own home or community. We are participating in local and national research in kidney disease to identify ways to stem the progression of that disease. This includes research on precursors and genetic elements and auditing current disease management.
In this last year, we have spent $1.84m in establishing a dedicated dialysis in-centre facility in Alice Springs Hospital, $1m towards refurbishing and extending the Flynn Drive Renal Unit and we have established a self-care training facility there. In planning for the future, we have approved additional capital investment of $10.5m for necessary infrastructure to cater for the increase of people requiring renal replacement therapy.
This capital investment has been accompanied by significant recurrent investment of $7.1m for:
We are also testing renal industry ability and capacity to manage a complete satellite service and all inclusive costs. In addition, we are working collaboratively with other governments to better manage people with renal disease. Negotiations with the Australian government have resulted in four primary health nurses based in Aboriginal medical services and recurrent funding for three nurses with the Preventable Chronic Disease Unit, funding of $1.9m for six relocatable facilities in remote communities for self-care dialysis and a project officer to assist with the expansion of the self-care service. The Western Australian government has directed funding from their Medical Specialist Outreach Assistance Program to the Northern Territory to improve primary care and chronic disease management to Western Australian communities.
Our renal services have been recognised by the recent Prime Minister’s Award for Public Sector Management and the Northern Territory Renal Service Clinical Reference Group was awarded a commendation. These awards together with the achievements in renal research and our government’s increased investment into renal services underline our ongoing commitment to this vital area.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his report. I have recently had a couple of tours of the hospitals, thanks to the minister who organised them. I toured Alice Springs and Katherine Hospitals and Royal Darwin Hospital. I still have Tennant Creek and Gove to go.
The Dialysis Unit was one that stood out. The staff are extremely dedicated. It is great to hear the investment in renal dialysis. Earlier in the year, I went to a kidney dinner for Central Australia where various clinicians talked about problems with renal dialysis, kidney failure and such. While treatment seems to be advancing, the numbers do not seem to be decreasing at such a rapid amount. It is a big issue. They are having two sessions a day at Flynn Drive and the Alice Springs and Darwin hospitals, so it a big commitment. It is great to hear of the investment by the government. Hopefully, it will go a long way to addressing the problem.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I, too, am pleased to see the government has put such a great effort into addressing this unfortunate problem.
Let us not forget, minister, that you should be addressing the cause of the problem and trying to prevent continuing renal failure in so many of our people. Topsy Smith recently opened their extensions in Alice Springs for renal patients. Yeperenye Hostel will have additional places being opened very shortly. This is good. We are addressing it. I must congratulate Kintore, which undertook fundraising with their art money to establish their own renal unit so that people did not have to leave home to seek treatment. That is what comes out loud and clear. Even though these hostels do a great job, we must remember that they have to take themselves away from their family and this is where a lot of loneliness occurs for these patients.
We need to concentrate not just on promoting the services that are badly needed, but concentrate on the causes of renal failure. We need to improve lifestyle, education, public awareness and health awareness.
The member for Stuart mentioned the fact that there will be a feasibility study at Yuendumu and Lajamanu in the future. That will be great because we are seeing the spread of services across the Territory, particularly in Central Australia where we have such a high incidence of renal failure. It is great that communities are taking it on themselves. They are making efforts to ensure they have services available for the people. Let us not forget, minister, that we need to concentrate on making sure their lifestyle is better so we can prevent renal failure.
Dr BURNS (Health): Madam Speaker, I welcome the contribution by both members opposite. The member for Braitling is right: it is important to focus on prevention. We know that renal disease has complex causes which start in early childhood. That is why this government has invested very solidly in maternal and child health, extra resources, and that is why we are very keen to work with the Australian government on the intervention in terms of the commitment to health for prevention.
The member for Braitling was right to pay tribute to the people of Kintore for the way in which they raised money from art to support renal dialysis. Without digging the spurs in, I pay tribute to the former Health minister, Peter Toyne, who is very much a part of that. It is refreshing to hear the change of view from the other side about satellite renal dialysis because the former government was opposed to it.
I want to work cooperatively with members on the other side. This is a vital issue, particularly for indigenous Territorians. Ours is a government that is serious about addressing causes in childhood, housing and education to redress and close the gap that we all know exists.
Mr McADAM (Housing): Madam Speaker, I rise to update the House on progress implementing our plans for real improvements in housing for indigenous people living in the more remote parts of the Territory.
We are living in times of change; I see these signs as an opportunity for us to do more and to do better and I look forward to submitting our commitment and cooperation for long term improvements in housing to Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and the new federal Labor government.
This government is committed to working in partnership with the Commonwealth to improve housing for indigenous people living in remote areas. Big changes are needed for housing in the bush, and I have previously set out an agenda for strong reforms based on an overarching sustainable housing framework for the whole of the Northern Territory.
Our persistence has been rewarded in securing record Commonwealth investment in housing for indigenous people living in remote communities. We won the lion’s share of the Australian Remote Indigenous Accommodation program, the Commonwealth’s $1.6bn pool for remote housing across the nation. This was no mean feat. The Territory government has acted resolutely to secure increased resources for remote housing for many years. An agreement struck with the Commonwealth in late September will see an aggregate of almost $950m invested in housing related initiatives in the bush over the next few years. This figure takes in the Territory government’s investment of $100m in remote housing over and above our existing commitments.
We will also invest a further $42m into housing for government employees under Closing the Gap. This work will underpin the delivery of important services in the bush. Our overarching objectives are to increase housing supply and improve housing services into remote communities with a view to improving the lives of indigenous Territorians. Work under this new agreement will do much to effect positive change in the areas of housing, employment, education and training, and the health and wellbeing of indigenous Territorians.
There is so much at stake in the bush. I truly believe that improved housing can underpin improvements across the board in remote communities. With so much money on the table, the challenge now is to maximise outcomes and create sustainability within the housing system through economies of scale and robust management systems and, ultimately, to put more houses on the ground at a reduced cost. A further imperative is to generate sustained training and job opportunities for indigenous people. Our long-term planning is conducive to real employment outcomes. This will come through apprenticeships and employment in the building sector, long-term jobs through the maintenance of housing stock and through the expansion of a public housing framework to remote areas.
We need a single, flexible housing system that has a critical mass and capacity to deliver on what is needed in both urban areas and the bush. As I said, the key planks to the Territory’s remote housing reforms are: creating sustainability within the housing system through economies of scale and management systems; getting more dollars; getting more housing for the indigenous dollar; and the creation of real jobs and apprenticeships. Our investment in life skill programs totalling $1.62m this financial year will mesh with this government’s support of our managed accommodation models to create a dynamic and accessible housing system.
Over the past 18 months, the Territory government has been engaging with the private sector, including builders, construction companies and indigenous organisations to drive down the cost of housing construction in the bush. Remote indigenous housing, housing for government employees and industry, and public housing in regional areas will also be drawn together. Housing management and capital development will help to power regional economies. This goes hand in hand with the reforms of local government in the Territory.
Jointly, these reforms will deliver better livelihoods and more sustainable economies for people in the bush. Each outcome I have mentioned is ambitious in itself. The full complement of objectives can be met through innovative contracting methodologies which draw organisations and companies together in a partnership premised on each party bringing particular capabilities - construction, design, training and community engagement - to the table. People living in these communities will occupy an important place at the table. We are out there on the ground working with the Commonwealth, stakeholders, the private sector and communities to achieve these goals.
The new funding agreement is not a panacea for the remote housing shortfall. It is a great start, but there is more to be done. The agreement is, as I am sure everyone will recognise, an important and historic move towards addressing indigenous housing disadvantage. As I said earlier, I look forward to working with the Rudd Labor government.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired. The overall time for ministerial reports has expired.
Reports noted pursuant to standing orders.
Continued from 29 August 2007.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, it is the intention of the opposition to provide support for this reform bill.
We appreciate the briefing on what appears, on the face of it, to be a complicated matter. Often these issues are difficult to understand and the briefing clarified many matters. We understand the broad intent of the legislation, which is primarily to establish equity flowing from an enterprise negotiation of 2004-05. If those negotiations were conducted and that was the decision, then it is only right that these reforms should be implemented in the interests of the provision of equity.
There are a range of complicated flow-on consequences of those decisions and how they are woven through the act to bring about changes. That is what often daunts someone who wants to have a look at these things and thinks: ‘My goodness! What is this?’ Concepts such as superannuation, how it is funded and the wording of such can be difficult for a novice.
I look forward to learning who will, ultimately, be the Treasurer because it is a very interesting area to work in and quite taxing on the mind to grasp some of these important concepts.
Those things aside and broadly speaking, I reinforce that the opposition supports the bill, noting that it provides some clarification on investment returns applied to NTGPASS, and taking the opportunity to make some minor amendments to modernise and simplify terminology, which is always a good thing.
Those things said, it is important to take this opportunity to draw attention to the superannuation liability. This is something that cannot be ignored; it must always be front and centre in considerations as we manage the economy, manage the books. We do not just manage it so it looks tidy today; we are managing those things into the future. Today, we are providing a legacy for tomorrow. I am sure the person acting in the role of Treasurer today will recognise the importance of the superannuation which is unfunded. There is a cost to these changes. There is a cost to government. That is a cost that falls upon government today, but is a cost that will not necessarily be paid today. It is the management thereof that is required today so that we are in a position in the future to be able to manage such liabilities.
From my understanding, this will potentially add a cost to government. We have a government here, but there will be governments coming and going. Into the future, it will add a cost of upwards of $35m. That is one of the additional costs of this. I am not criticising that, but we need to draw attention to it. The reason we draw attention to it is that the issue of superannuation liability has compounded and increased over time in a manner which was not predicted when this government came to office.
Before we get sensitive, and I always take time to couch my comments in these terms so that we do not get defensive and personal about these things, there are factors at play that are beyond the control, believe it or not, of the current government. It is your responsibility to manage those as best you can. The truth is that the superannuation liability has increased significantly under this government.
There are reasons for it, which was brought out during estimates. One that caught the attention of our illustrious media commentators was the demise of an actuary. Whether that is the cause for the significant increase is academic. The fact is the liability has increased and there are factors that have caused that to occur. I am sure members are all tuned in and taking notice, particularly the new ministers because they will be a part of these deliberations. There are serious and very profound responsibilities in managing today to leave a legacy for tomorrow so that you can retire with some grace rather than just cruise off into the sunset and say: ‘I was a minister once’. There are serious matters to attend to.
For the information of those new to Cabinet, you may not have seen this. Perhaps you have and had it explained away. It is difficult to explain away, but these are the realities. Consider it as a business. Consider it as your own personal responsibility, something you will be held accountable for, which might change the colour of your thinking. In Budget Paper No 2 in 2003-04, the superannuation liability was $1.4bn. Then there were some calibrations undertaken to project what that may be in 2006-07. At that time, the projection was $1.466bn. Looking from 2002-03, Treasurer Stirling projected ahead to 2006-07 and saw that there would be an increase from $1.408bn to $1.466bn. They are big numbers but it is serious business.
What in fact happened was rather than the projection falling close to the mark, it fell way beneath the mark, and the liability in 2006-07 was not $1.466bn. It was $2.087bn, a massive increase on what was projected. I draw attention to this not because I am suggesting the bill doesn’t go through. It is my role in opposition to draw attention to aspects of these fiscal matters that will require the attention of government whilst they have the reins of power. They must recognise that these decisions will increase the superannuation liability and the projected increase of the superannuation liability was insufficient and the difference between $1.46bn and $2.87bn is a massive increase. Potentially, it will increase as a flow-on consequence of this bill today.
I only raise those matters, as I said, for the public record so that we are mindful of the other matters that hang around this whole area so that we can ensure that we are responsible to address these core matters.
Notwithstanding that, I acknowledge behind every superannuation entitlement of whatever formal construction, there are hard-working, dedicated people who have invested deeply in the Northern Territory, and they have these entitlements which will benefit them and their families. I wish each one of them all the very best in recognition for the support that you have given to the Northern Territory. I conclude with that recognition of the people who stand behind these superannuation funds and commend them for their achievement and hard work for the Northern Territory to take the Territory forward. May you leave a legacy that is greater than the monetary cost, which is within the Northern Territory in our institutions and people. The opposition supports the bill.
Ms LAWRIE (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Blain for his support for this very important legislation, which fundamentally provides equity for our public servants for superannuation benefits in the event of death and disability.
This important reform for our hard-working Northern Territory public servants will provide benefits for many who have served the Territory for a very long period of time. We all acknowledge the work they do. This government recognises that they deserve fair and equitable benefits when they retire or if they are unfortunately struck down with a permanent illness or injury.
With that in mind, the purpose of the bill is to establish a death and invalidity scheme for Northern Territory public sector employees, executive contract officers and members of parliament in choice of fund for superannuation arrangements. Some NT public servants already enjoy this benefit and they are in the NTGPASS scheme which was closed in 1999. This is really about providing equity for public servants who have come in to serve the public since 1999.
We have members of NTGPASS who have been in the scheme with these benefits, we have the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme members who have been in the scheme with these benefits and we have, of course, members of this parliament who have had inequity. They have been in the Legislative Assembly Members Superannuation Scheme, the scheme we know as LAMSS. We have already enjoyed these benefits, but this bill provides for a new superannuation product for members of NTGPASS. It also provides minor amendments to existing superannuation legislation. Importantly, it wraps up and provides the same benefit of superannuation death and invalidity payment provisions for all of our public service employees, but also for, and reasonably so, members who serve the public on executive contracts and members in this Chamber who serve the public. It is a fair and robust scheme.
I acknowledge that the member for Blain had a very detailed briefing from Treasury advisers. I received the same briefing, member for Blain, and I agree that it is a highly complex area of law, but I have some background in superannuation from a previous existence and that has helped me get through that briefing. Otherwise, I probably would have found it extremely hard going.
I can say that Treasury is very aware of the issue of liability. We have had some actuarial reviews into the liability issue. We have an estimate of the worse case scenario. If everyone was to draw down on the scheme if we had a catastrophic disaster, and this will never be the case, but if all of our public servants died …
Mr Mills: Come on!
Ms LAWRIE: That is a worse case scenario …
Mr Mills: What would that figure be?
Ms LAWRIE: We would have to pay around, worse case scenario, about $35m. If every single public servant who would benefit from this new legislation died tomorrow, which we know will not happen, we have $35m available within Treasury funds to be able to cover it. So worse case scenario: if John Howard had been elected and we had a nuclear power plant in Darwin at East Point, the worse case scenario is $35m.
We certainly have the capability in our budget to deal with the liability. As the member for Blain said, we have had some change in superannuation, we have had various budget reviews and we have seen the projected liability increase significantly. The former Treasurer was very astute in increasing the funding set aside in the conditions of service reserve to cover our increasing liability. We are very aware of increasing liability, but we have also been increasing funds into the conditions of service reserve to cover increasing liability. I am very confident with the astute Under Treasurer and the astute staff of Treasury in terms of their advice to government each budget time that we are very aware of our superannuation liability. I have sat in a few Budget Cabinets now and it is a point of discussion at each one. We certainly make sure we cover our superannuation liability and the conditions of service of our public servants, as we should and as any reasonable government would.
I can advise the member for Blain that, yes, superannuation liabilities have increased. That was due to a regular review of liabilities, government has been very open and transparent about this rise, which was due largely to improving mortality rates. The government is committed to ensuring superannuation liabilities are met and is funding our conditions of service reserves accordingly.
I congratulate the staff of Treasury for this very good legislation. It came out of EBA negotiations in 2004-05. We have had some interim measures in place since those negotiations. This legislation will be warmly received by our public servants in providing equity in the workplace, and equity in this parliamentary Chamber. I congratulate Treasury officials Kathy Clayden and Keith Fernandez for their work in delivering this legislation.
Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Ms LAWRIE (Leader of Government Business)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 18 October 2007.
Mr KNIGHT (Daly): Madam Speaker, I am delighted to rise today to support the minister’s statement on alcohol. We have talked previously in this House about the problems with alcohol misuse and its irresponsible use, and the subsequent problems which occur through our society, significantly in the Northern Territory but not exclusively. The problems of alcohol permeate the rest of the nation and internationally. As elected members to the Northern Territory parliament, it is our duty to try to address problems of excessive alcohol abuse and we certainly have challenges before us.
As the minister highlighted in his statement, the Northern Territory has some of the highest rates of alcohol consumption in Australia. The average is 17.3 litres per person per annum recorded in 2005-06. That compares with the national average of 10 litres per person, which is an incredible amount.
When you understand that regions such as the Barkly and Central Australia are below the Territory average, you can see that places like Katherine have one of the highest rates of alcohol consumption in Australia. About 20 litres of pure alcohol per person per year is an incredible amount. The member for Katherine and I lived in Katherine during the financial year 2005-06, and I do not believe we each consumed 20 litres of alcohol. Many other people did not, either, so it is an incredible thought that there are people out there consuming more than 20 litres of pure alcohol per year to bring it to an average of 20.
There are certainly many problems within that community. We are intimately aware of them, having lived there for many years. There are subsequent problems that we see and some we do not see, such as what goes on in the middle of the night in quieter, secluded places. Support agencies such as police and health see the end result of those things. Domestic violence shelters see it. It all comes from the abuse of alcohol.
There is much going on in Katherine and I compliment the minister for his ongoing engagement with the Katherine community. He was there recently to engage with the community about alcohol-related issues. I congratulate the minister for his strong stance on trying to curb the levels of alcohol consumption in that community. It is something that has not happened overnight. It has gone on for many years, and it ebbs and flows with different conditions out bush and within the community itself. I am delighted that the minister has taken a keen interest and is very firmly fixed on reducing the level of alcohol consumption.
It is about behaviour. There are a great many people I know who drink excessive amounts of alcohol. Outwardly, they do not seem to hurt too many people but, ultimately, health-wise it is not good for you. What happens to those people who outwardly cannot handle their alcohol is they turn into fighters and end up getting run over. The number of people knocked down in the main street in Katherine has been horrific. People have been run over whilst sleeping on side roads and driveways. It is very sad for the families and the individuals, but is a regular occurrence.
I am delighted to be kept abreast of the initiatives in the Katherine, including the Katherine Alcohol Management Plan. The Katherine Town Council must be complimented for their strong stance in applying for declaration as a Dry community, which has been successful. There is an initiative from the minister in the form of an alcohol swipe card. I support that. I congratulate the member for Katherine for her ongoing support for the alcohol management plan. We have seen the results of the same initiative on Groote Eylandt.
There is a new sobering-up shelter. The local publicans introduced an Alcohol Accord which, coupled with the alcohol swipe card, will be an effective accord, given the capabilities of technology. There is more work being done on the public safety model including Return to Country. Short-term accommodation is increasing as a problem within Katherine because of various things going on around the bush. The establishment of an alcohol court is welcome there, as is the appointment of Indigenous Liaison Officers to look into domestic violence.
The Venndale rehabilitation block has had a bit of a chequered history, not necessarily because of any issues to do with the Northern Territory government or even the federal government. It has been a management issue which is approaching resolution. We look forward to that facility being available for rehabilitation services. It may need to be expanded. We shall just have to wait to see how things go.
The Alcohol Supply Plan was released, and it is a tough plan. We have a big issue in Katherine and we need to take significant measures to curb the problem. As I highlighted earlier, the minister has not been backward in coming forward about the problems. He has been engaging with the publicans, the community and community leaders about what he would like to do. I am sure he is open-minded about local initiatives. I certainly think everyone in Katherine will be delighted with the results.
Around Katherine, there are other communities such as Timber Creek, Pine Creek and Mataranka. Emerging very significantly in Mataranka from the Community Cabinet visit was the issue of antisocial behaviour associated with alcohol. It was something the Cabinet ministers heard very loud and clear. I hope there is a roll-out of the Katherine Alcohol Management Plan, supply and management plans around Mataranka specifically. I know many people from the Roper go into Mataranka, and it is a real issue for not only the families of those individuals who come in from Ngukurr or Minyerri, but also for the people who live permanently in Mataranka who, on a pay day, padlock their house, grab their swag and go and camp in the bush because they are too scared of the drunks. That is what we need to be thinking about: those people, those mothers, those children who are scared to death of payday because of the behaviour that ensues. The rights of women and children come before the rights of individuals. Alcohol is a privilege, not a right. You do not have the right to disrupt other people’s lives. Most of us enjoy a nice quiet drink to relax, but when we start to interfere with other people’s lives, it certainly becomes an issue.
Other initiatives that have been proposed in the Territory recently have been interesting. The intervention of the federal coalition government into indigenous communities has been one of the most significant things in the Northern Territory’s history. A range of initiatives were proposed, several of them arising from alcohol and, for the wider Territory community, the $100 takeaway provision was an interesting one. It was widely rorted and continues to be rorted. It is ineffective. It will do nothing to stop grog running or curb excessive alcohol consumption in the bush. This government has continually said that we will support the measures that work, but we will not support measures that do not work. The $100 takeaway provision is a measure that does not work and will never work. We do not support it and we look forward to the new federal Labor government winding that back and looking at measures that will work.
The widespread alcohol ban across land trusts has been ineffective, widely rorted, continues to be rorted and, from my experience, since the intervention up until last Saturday when I was out there, people were still running grog in, doing whatever they like because they see it as another measure that they have not been engaged in and are going to get around. The only way forward with curbing alcohol abuse out bush is by engaging with the communities. I look forward to having a federal Labor government which will move towards engaging with those communities. Once you get communities onside about a particular issue, such as alcohol, you will have allies in curbing the problem. Instead of having one police officer for an eight hour shift, you end up with a whole community, eyes and ears open 24 hours a day, looking at who is coming in, what is going on, and they become your allies in curbing that problem.
There is a mood for change. There is certainly a mood to tackle this problem. Everyone, even drinkers, can see the problems occurring within their own lives and their families’ lives. They can see how their communities have been decimated by alcohol.
Madam Speaker, I will wind up by reiterating comments I have made previously in this House: alcohol is a symptom. Alcohol is a symptom of a deeper problem. It is medication. It is people self-medicating for lives in crisis. That must be our primary goal. We need to curb what we can today with various measures to help people get back on track, but we need to look at the deeper issues of why people are drinking, how we can help them get back on track to support their individual lives, make them productive members of their own family, for their children’s sake and for their community’s sake.
There are bountiful opportunities on Aboriginal land and within communities. Many of us in this House know communities which oppose excessive alcohol consumption and those communities are very successful because they have a great deal of cohesion. Not only do they have alcohol under control, they have drugs and indolence under control, they have people working, they have respect for themselves and for what is going on in their community.
That is where we have to head. Yes, we need to implement measures to curb excessive alcohol consumption, but we need to work strongly with restoring those lives and Closing the Gap is one of those ways. I am looking forward to working with the federal Labor government, and not to buck pass in these areas of indigenous affairs and substance abuse. We have a Labor government in the Territory and federally. We will not be buck passing. We will be sitting down in consultation and working very effectively together to curb these problems. We will all be judged on the outcomes, not by what we say or how much money we pump into it or what policies we develop. We will be judged on the outcomes. It will be testament to this government, the federal Rudd government and we as individual members.
I thank the minister for his statement. I look forward to working with him in the Katherine region and beyond. We certainly have a task before us, but the opportunity that now exists with a change of federal government will be a unique opportunity that we need to grasp with both hands.
Ms McCARTHY (Arnhem): Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the minister’s statement on alcohol. For constituents across Arnhem Land, the one area that I speak quite often about is Groote Eylandt. In particular, the minister highlighted the success of the alcohol management plan on Groote Eylandt. It has been a success that communities across the Northern Territory have been looking at. In fact, the Substance Abuse committee led by the member for Macdonnell visited Groote Eylandt to have a look at why the alcohol management plan was so successful. It comes down to this: communities and organisations coming together.
In this case, it was the Anindilyakwa Land Council, the communities of Umbakumba, Angurugu and Bickerton and, most importantly, Alyangula. The township of Alyangula and the mining company, GEMCO, worked with local people because there was a real understanding that alcohol had a profound impact on not only the way of life of families on Groote Eylandt, but also on the workforce of GEMCO. It took a number of years. It had to take this long. That is why when our government looks at alcohol management plans across the Northern Territory, we recognise that it has to be about perseverance with alcohol because alcohol does have a dramatic and drastic impact on families, in particular in our communities. We look at Groote Eylandt and say the alcohol management plan on Groote Eylandt is an incredible success, a success that can be mirrored in other communities.
When the Substance Abuse committee went to Groote Eylandt, they had an opportunity to hear from the Anindilyakwa Land Council members who spoke about the need for Aboriginal people to be a vital part of any alcohol management plan because the impact of alcohol is largely felt in Aboriginal communities. When this recognition was understood and respected, it made it a huge impact on where the discussions were going to go about what kind of permit system would take place on Groote Eylandt.
The community had to go through a number of different ideas about the permit system, and that was because some ideas were too harsh and some were perhaps not strong enough, but they persevered. It took well over two years because each of the groups had to work out what they were trying to achieve. The people at Angurugu were concerned that it could be a race-based decision. People in Umbakumba were concerned because they said: ‘We have the strong women here who allow the grog in only on Fridays. We allow only a carton of beer to come in, and then when it gets out of hand, we will stop it.’ Umbakumba people knew that it had to be a wider community feeling because people were going from Umbakumba into Alyangula, so this understanding of how all the communities could work together was crucial to it. When the minister talked about the Alcohol Framework and alcohol management plans for different parts of the Northern Territory, it is crucial that organisations and community groups talk about it. That is what happened on Groote Eylandt and is now happening in other areas such as Alice Springs, Katherine and Tennant Creek.
We have seen the impact of alcohol abuse on families. In his statement, the minister highlighted the profound detrimental impact it has on the health and wellbeing of individuals, but in particular on children. The issues of domestic or any kind of violence against the person and the issue of crime are all behind the concerns the minister highlighted in his statement with regards to the harmful effects of alcohol.
There is data by the Menzies School of Health Research and others around the nation that shows that if we do not make a concerted attempt as a society, not only across the Northern Territory but, indeed, Australia, to deal with the harmful effects of alcohol, we have to ask ourselves: what sort of future are we looking at and what kind of society are we building?
In Arnhem Land, the profound impact of the Commonwealth intervention on the alcohol permit system is being felt already. Our government has been supportive of wanting to work through the issues of the alcohol situation because both levels of government, and particularly, at the time, the former Howard government and now the Rudd government, know that alcohol is a crucial issue that we have to deal with. We have seen the impact of the $99 laws in Darwin in particular, where the law is largely being felt strongly and many people are not happy about. It is heartening to know that our government is going to speak with the Rudd Labor government about that law. The issue is how we deal with alcohol in the sense of maturity and recognising that just because we have this massive problem across the Northern Territory in our remote communities, we must have a different approach to each of the places. As the minister said, there is not a one-size-fits-all solution.
I will tell some stories about what women, in particular, have said in places like Ngukurr. The member for Daly mentioned Minyerri and some of the communities that find themselves at Mataranka. The women tell me all the time when I go out to Hudson Downs, Jilkminggan and Ngukurr that they do have concerns when people stop off at Mataranka. What they have been telling me of late, in particular the last couple of months, is that there has been a noticeable change in regard to alcohol coming into the community, and that has to do with the Commonwealth intervention, the fact that we are looking at the policing and alcohol restrictions to our communities.
Another issue is that the women speak of how there needs to be more support for family members to rehabilitate because, for many of the families, people have a real addiction to grog and it has become a 24/7 way of life. What the women in Minyerri have told me is that family members go into Katherine and they might not see them for a while. They are left in Minyerri looking after children or grandchildren whose parents are not around. We know this story; we hear it all the time.
I feel incredibly proud to work with a Northern Territory government that is committed to wanting to see changes in indigenous affairs across the Northern Territory. I look forward to when Chief Minister Henderson can go to Canberra to speak with the Prime Minister about the intervention and the impacts that it is having in our communities. I have seen firsthand in places like Barunga, Beswick, Manyallaluk how they have lost CDEP. Families are starting to ask themselves: ‘What is going on in our area?’
I digress a little here to express to parliament that while we are dealing with alcohol, we have lifestyle issues. With less money, how are people going to live better lives? Our statistics show that we have health issues with substance abuse in our communities. We must persevere in wanting to help individuals in those communities to overcome a lot of the health and other problems related to substance abuse.
I am from in the Gulf region and Borroloola. The closure of the pub has had a significant impact on the lives of people. The pub has been closed for well over a year. It has been a very responsible decision for that pub to be closed in order to give the community a chance to grow, to rest, for children to have food and for families to be able to sleep at night without having riots and fights going on well into the early hours of the morning. There has been a dramatic impact on the way of life for people since the closure of the pub in Borroloola.
I am very pleased to be working within a government that is determined to tackle the issues of alcohol. I look forward to providing to the House more details on how the Groote Eylandt permit system is going, and to giving feedback on the alcohol management plans for the Katherine region which affect a lot of my communities in south-east Arnhem Land.
I am very interested to discuss with my colleagues in other parts of the Territory, and in particular Central Australia, to see how it is going. At the end of the day, the crucial issue is that it does not matter who you are or where you live, every child must have an equal opportunity to grow up in an environment where they are safe, they have a home and food, education and health available to them. I commend the minister’s statement to the House.
Mr HAMPTON (Stuart): Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the minister’s statement on alcohol policy and I thank the minister for it.
As he said, this is his first statement on the issue and over the last few months, it has become even more of an issue nationally. We have seen the federal government intervention in the past few months and our own government’s Closing the Gap response to the Little Children are Sacred report. At the core of all this has been the need to address the serious issue of alcohol abuse in our community.
After listening to my colleagues, the members for Daly and Arnhem, it is great to be a part of a government that truly reflects and represents the breadth of the Northern Territory. The member for Daly talked about the experience in Katherine, and the member for Arnhem about the experience on Groote Eylandt and through Arnhem Land. It is fantastic to be able to sit alongside colleagues who can speak strongly of the experiences in their electorate.
In my electorate, not only over the past few months that we have seen the intervention roll out through the communities, but through my own life experience, the issue of alcohol has certainly touched me and my family in many ways, certainly in personal levels within my own family, and I am sure it has touched many of other lives in this Assembly. The issue of alcohol does hit home. I am glad that this government is not walking away from the social challenge we face. The government is, through Closing the Gap, addressing not only that issue but the broader issues that underlie and result in alcohol abuse in our community. Closing the Gap is a five year commitment, a real commitment to the bush that will assist in dealing with alcohol abuse. There $10.1m for alcohol and drug management. The member for Arnhem touched on the need for more rehabilitation programs and services and I support her call, particularly for Central Australia.
The Mt Theo Substance Abuse program has, for many years, had to deal with the problem of petrol sniffing. Over recent times they have also been dealing with other issues such as cannabis abuse and assisting young people coming through the court and justice systems, often as a result of alcohol. Mt Theo is one of those success programs that we need to continue to support, particularly in assisting young people who often find themselves in towns like Alice Springs on the wrong side of the law and caught up in that environment, unfortunately, with alcohol abuse.
Another success in my electorate is the Kalkarindji community social club. Over the last five or six years I have been going to Kalkarindji and Daguragu, I have always found the social club is successful because of the strong leadership of the community. It is run by the community. You go there at night and you see local people working on the gate, serving the alcohol. It is well managed, but the success is due to strong leadership by the community. It is linked in with jobs. It is a workers club. You have to be a worker on the community if you are going to be a member, and it is linked to school attendance. So if you have missed a day at work or your kids have missed a day at school, you do not get into the club that night to have a beer or two. That incentive, which has come from their own community, is a strong one. It is a privilege, not a right, to be able to go to that club and have a beer and have a social gathering after a day at work.
If we look across the Territory, there are pros and cons for wanting to get these social clubs onto communities. If there is ever one model that we should all closely look at and find out why it is working so strongly, it is the social club at Kalkarindji. I am very proud to say that it is run very well by the local community themselves, council members. They have put in some very strict rules and they are strong enough to enforce those rules to their own family members and community. If you do not work, you do not go there that night and it is linked to school attendance. It is a very successful model for a community in the Northern Territory managing alcohol in their own community.
In the last three months, as I said, the big impact has been the intervention, but the consistent message I am getting, particularly from the women, is that the alcohol measures that this government has introduced into places like Alice Springs are welcome. It has brought about respite for many of the women in the communities. Having police there is also important. When we talk about stopping the rivers of grog, we need to support that with other measures such as police. They are two areas that we need to continue. It is certainly an area I will be pushing with the new federal government. We need to continue the alcohol measures out there and I welcome the minister’s statement and those measures.
As we have said, we support these measures. They are long term, practical and they are really going to protect our children. As the member for Daly said, these measures are aimed at protecting women and children, but there are broader issues for the men as well. Two elements of the intervention introduced to places like Alice Springs, alcohol restrictions and police, are very strongly supported by women particularly in my community, along with the Centrelink payments. We need to continue those three measures. That is the key message I am getting from my electorate.
Another issue with which I am continually faced in my electorate is roadhouses. There are places such as Top Springs and Ti Tree Roadhouse that are continually raised with me by constituents. If we are talking about alcohol management plans rolling out across the Territory it is important that those management plans are put together by communities on a case-by-case basis. Every community is different. They have different issues, but in some places, the issues of roadhouses and take-away sales need to be addressed as well. I look forward to the minister speaking about what changes are proposed for alcohol sales from roadhouses. There is an impact on our road statistics, particularly fatalities and alcohol-related accidents. The community of Lajamanu, for example, has been severely impacted by fatal road accidents along the road coming from Top Springs and Katherine. The impact of alcohol on our road fatalities needs to be addressed, including roadhouses.
The underlying issue we need to address is secondary education in the bush. If we are talking seriously about stopping the rivers of grog, we need to get to the underlying issues of why people are drinking and moving into town. We need more secondary education facilities and programs in the bush so those young people coming through primary school education have a pathway. Often, people have a sense of hopelessness. When your kid goes to primary school, what is there for them after that? What is the next step in terms of their life in a community?
That is an issue about which I have spoken at length with minister for Education in addition to employment and training aspects. In my electorate, we have Ti Tree, which is well known for horticulture, and we have the Tanami region with its mining sector. If we do not seriously address tapping into the economic development opportunities that already exist and opening the doors for young people through secondary education, employment and training, we will continually be challenged by the scourge of alcohol abuse.
We need to look at economic development projects. We need to support projects getting off the ground by providing infrastructure in the bush. We need to provide seed funding from the federal government to support economic development in the bush. If we do not provide the infrastructure, the seed funding to get some of these things off the ground, we are going to be challenged by young people continuously moving to and from town.
One example is the cattle project at Willowra. They have an agreement with the Loves Creek pastoral lease agisting cattle, but there is a serious need for support. I take this opportunity to bring this to the attention of the House. They need support to get that cattle project to the next stage. There are plenty of young blokes there who want to work in the cattle industry, and there are many experienced old men. If there is one area we can get our men working, it is the cattle industry, getting them involved in that industry again. This is an opportunity to say we need more money in the bush for infrastructure to assist economic development projects and employment and training opportunities. Creating real jobs is a term that we are using a lot at the moment. If we are going to create real jobs, let’s support economic projects in the bush; dollars for infrastructure and seed funding to get it off the ground.
They are the underlying issues that underpin the alcohol problems that we confront as a government and as a nation. I am proud to be a member of this government because we are not walking away from tackling this issue. I am proud that we have colleagues who represent the length and breadth of the Territory, every bush community in the Territory. Over the past few weeks, support has come out clearly for what we are doing. The message is there. People support what we are doing in tackling the abuse of alcohol.
In my home community, Alice Springs, we have established the Alcohol Reference Panel. That panel represents the community of Alice Springs. There are many well respected people on the panel with much experience and they are providing good advice to our minister and Chief Minister. I congratulate them on their work and advice. We have had Dry Town legislation since August, and we have the alcohol measures through the Commonwealth intervention and our own government. I was a bit sceptical about the Dry Town legislation because I thought many people in the community had put too much emphasis on it. Many people saw that as a panacea to this sickness, and it is not. Really, the cure for this is the people.
We can have programs or legislation like dry towns, we can amend or reform alcohol policy, but unless the community grabs it with both hands and works together with government, it won’t work. We can put up policy reforms, but it is the community that we have to bring with us. If we do not manage to do that, then it will not matter. We can have a Dry Town, but people will always find ways around it and that is what we are finding. We need to support the police. I have talked to quite a number of police officers. They are struggling with the Dry Town legislation. It has shifted the problem. That is something that we need to work with the police on and with the community. We need to work together. There were many expectations from the Dry Town legislation and, although we have to give it time, we are finding that it is not going to fix all our problems. We have to work together in the long term if we are going to have any success.
I acknowledge the work that my colleague, the member for Macdonnell, has done on the Substance Abuse committee. The title of the report has very relevant heading: Confronting the Confusion and the Disconnection. That sums it all up. We are talking about the abuse of alcohol. We can look at all the statistics, which I am sure we will, but if we do not connect with the bush, with the Aboriginal people of the Territory, we will continually be talking about this issue in this House. The recommendations in the report need to be seriously addressed by our government. I support my colleague and the committee in the work they have done.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, before I make my comments, I wish to dedicate what I say to every person across our Territory who has had a drinking problem and has decided to stop drinking and manage their alcohol. I draw my inspiration from people I have met across the Territory who have demonstrated, by their own personal, difficult decision, to say no to alcohol and to live a different life. We need to spend more time understanding how it is that they have been able to draw upon deep resources to make such decisions, and the inspiration that they provide to their communities.
Without an understanding of that element, all this talk about policies, directions, incentives and initiatives will come to nothing. We put our faith in the wrong place if we put our faith in policies, a request for and a desire for increased funding and, therefore, the problems will possibly go away. How much more funding will be required? You never know. It is an endless argument.
The truth is, as the member for Stuart, pointed out towards the end of his comments, that a proposal or plan to make a community dry caused concern until the recognition that people involved in that community had some personal buy-in. Without that, there is no real change. We may feel that a difference has been made because it sounds good and looks good and it has been resourced, but, in fact, nothing happens until people make a decision to do something. That is, the individual people.
A proposition was put in this Chamber some time ago, and I still wrestle with it, that if we individually and personally cannot come to a place where we can choose to work together to resolve this most important issue, we are only dreaming if we think we can effect real change in places remote from this parliament. If we, individually and personally, cannot look at our own drinking and make a decision on our own consumption levels, we are just playing games and going through the motions. We are mere politicians, not community leaders. We live in a social network. Yes, all right, member for Johnston, I can see you are preparing there for a little shot. This applies to us all equally …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Blain is inferring something that exists only in his imagination. I do not know what he is talking about. He should just get on with what he has to say.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Member for Blain, direct your comments through the Chair.
Mr MILLS: Absolutely. If the honourable member does not know what I was inferring, then I am happy to describe it, but I will not because these matters are far more important and weighty than frivolous issues.
We all live in social networks, every one of us. We are not disconnected from it because we were elected to parliament and sit on brown leather chairs. We are parts of social networks. We have families, friends and associates. We all know the effect that alcohol has in our own social networks. It is not an easy matter to properly understand or contend with until we look it in the face.
If we cannot really come to terms with it in our own social network, how is it that we put this faith in policy? We really have to look at it clearly, honestly and personally. I will draw upon the minister’s own words. I am not advocating wowserism, not at all. It is a recognition that the heart of this matter relies upon the need to have an individual understand their personal responsibility in this. If policy does not activate, stimulate and strengthen personal responsibility, then we will go on year after year, parliament after parliament, constructing responses to this and being a little disappointed. There will be some initial results that may be positive and we can make something of that but, ultimately, we could well be saddened.
I conclude this part with recognition of the inspiring people who have, in the face of difficult circumstances across communities in the Northern Territory, and people that I have known made a decision to stop drinking. I remember as a kid, one of the shearers who worked in the shearing team that always worked in our property was known to be an alcoholic. He was a good shearer and a well-loved man, but we knew he had a problem with alcohol, and a serious one at that. He managed it reasonably well. He made a decision one year that he was going to stand up against alcohol and he became a reformed alcoholic. I remember everyone speaking with great admiration for the courage that this man had shown. That stuck with me. If you live in a social network and you have seen the effects of alcohol, the immense courage that is required to say no, particularly if you are vulnerable to alcohol, is an extraordinary thing. I would like to see more effort made to understand and to celebrate those who make such decisions because that is the secret of it. It is not a policy as much as it is personal courage and the support and recognition that they receive. That is the key. If we cannot effect or advance that in our discussions, we really are playing politics.
The landscape has changed. I can see it in the moderated comments by members opposite now their whipping boy has gone. John Howard is no longer here and Mal Brough has gone. Now the reality is going to start settling in that it was an easy matter to deal with when we were sitting behind our arguments with an intent to score a political point or to manoeuvre this argument to a place of political advantage. Those people have gone now. Whether you were aware of that or not, the effect was plain for anyone who was objective and could see that there was some influence brought to bear upon this whole debate which was most distressing. The whipping boy has gone. You can get over that. You do not have to worry about over-inflated comments that relate to the person behind the policy and the obvious faults that you have found. That has all finished; that era has gone. Strip that away and put it in the rubbish tip where it belongs.
We are left with a new government and, of course, you will read good intent behind every endeavour of that government. I hope not. I hope you will still be honest because what we need to see are the people we are trying to effect positive changes for, to assist them. I urge that kind of analysis and consideration so that we do advance and progress. There are some great initiatives in here, but they need the right energy behind them if they are going to effect any positive change.
The opposition has not provided any fundamental criticisms of this. We provide support; we want this to move forward. I urge that we strip out of it anything that is superficial, pseudo-political or ideological because we have to get down to grassroots, which is people themselves. Can we make a difference?
With the right attitude, approach and energy, you can. You can have the best policy in the world and the wrong intent and it will be a disaster. You can have the worst policy in the world and the right intent and you could make a magnificent difference. The policy itself is not the issue; it is the attitude that you bring to bear upon the issue itself. That is the core. It is a serious matter. I know we are all concerned and we have all seen it. The core of it is the individual and helping them to make that decision. It is not communities; it is people who form a community, individuals, families, men and women who make a decision, young people. I do not know how that could be changed. I grew up in the wheat belt in Western Australia. It was a deeply entrenched culture. All you did on the weekends was get drunk. It was a part of your social culture. It was a very difficult thing to contend with and it was an awful environment.
That happens all across our community. It is not just in the wheat belt. My son works in the cattle industry. He tells me the same stories. It is a deeply entrenched culture. How do you get a young man to say no in the face of that pressure, the advertising washing over them? That is what we are dealing with. It is a powerful battle we are in and we need to have the correct attitude behind the policy. It is not an argument about the policy. Something deep is required.
I have developed good links with my son because I want to provide him with honest support in what he and all his mates are going through. They are a part of a culture. Bundy is the drink. He has had some experiences. I am speaking personally because this is a personal issue. It is not a political issue; it is a personal issue for all of us. We live in this culture. We live in this environment. We all have to contend with it and respond accordingly.
With those comments, support is provided. The words I have used and the intent behind them is the sort of support that I will provide and that the opposition does provide. Otherwise, the old Bee Gees song will be perhaps the refrain to all of this: It’s Only Words. We need more than words. I acknowledge the speeches that have been made and I know that sitting behind those words is concern. We are all concerned. That concern must drive very serious action.
In concluding, I urge the Minister for Alcohol Policy to please do whatever he can for the proprietor at Tiwi Shopping Centre.
Dr Burns: Say again.
Mr MILLS: It is not relevant to the statement, but it is the Tiwi Supermarket. I urge the minister to do what can be done in the interests of justice in that matter. It is a matter of real concern. The issue of alcohol in the suburbs is one, but there must be a response that can be provided in that situation that brings about justice. I urge the minister and the new Cabinet to revisit that issue. It is an issue that distresses me, as I know it distresses the minister, or I assume it does, but I know you well enough to know that it would as well.
Will we see a decrease? I do not propose that we should think of it in terms of standing in a place where we build a dam to stop the rivers flowing. In reality, what causes those rivers to flow is the desire for consumption. Hopefully we can address not just the supply, but the demand. May we reduce demand for alcohol within the heart of our community and understand the real reasons why people drink to excess. Let us not look at the river, but why the river flows. What creates that demand? Why do people want to drink that much? What is wrong?
I walked through the streets of Taipei. I was amazed to see a community that lives with alcohol. They do not have exotic policies; they have moderate behaviour. It is an individual responsibility. You could go into any shopping centre or corner store and buy alcohol. Did I see any drunkenness in the streets? Absolutely not. Did I see any aggression? None at all. People could responsibly use alcohol and they used it modestly. That was not as a result of a policy externally imposed; it was because of the culture of that society. That is the secret. How do you achieve that?
With those words, the support is there, minister, for this statement. I hope that some challenges have been gleaned from what I have said and will be responded to in the right spirit. I leave you with this final challenge: if we really cannot come to a place where we can work together on this and turn down the political and personal differences, we are dreaming if we think we are going to effect change. If we cannot effect cultural change, then we are going to impose by means of policy cultural change external to here. It starts here and it starts with the individual.
Debate suspended.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Parliament House tour program visitors. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Continued from earlier this day.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I rise to respond to the statement by the Minister for Alcohol Policy.
It was coincidental that he delivered the statement on the same day the Substance Abuse in the Community committee tabled its report. I hope the minister in his summing up will give us an indication whether he will support the recommendations of that committee. It was a bipartisan report and it had some good recommendations.
I have listened to comments by other members today, but in the first part of your statement, you said:
There are many people who cannot enjoy a drink with their family and friends in their own homes. It is as simple as that. If they could, they would not be abusing it the way they do. Many people in the Territory are forced to binge drink, to drink in public places, and to pay exorbitant prices by grog runners who take grog into restricted areas. If the minister really believes that Territorians have the right to drink with family and friends in their own homes, then he should be doing something about it. That many of our people cannot drink in their own homes or communities forces them into towns and other areas where they do not have the social means to drink in an appropriate way.
It was interesting to hear the member for Stuart talk about what is happening at Kalkarindji. He is right. Having social clubs on communities can work. The member for Arnhem said that it can work with the right controls, atmosphere and leadership. Until we find a solution to this, you are going to find alcohol abuse continues in our regional centres because we force this upon people. I do not drink in a pub, but that is the only place many of our people can drink.
What is happening with the federal intervention is absurd. People in our town camps like Walter Shaw, who has a job, goes home at the end of the day like all of us, but cannot drink. He cannot drink a beer in his house in the town camp. That is discriminating against people so much that it becomes absurd. We have to, somewhere along the way, say that restrictions are not working. They have not worked for many years and they are, if anything, forcing more unpleasant situations.
Alice Springs is meant to be a Dry Town, but let us not kid ourselves. It is not a Dry Town. We have had problems with drinkers in our car park behind the building where I work. There have been problems with people drinking in the cemetery because it is an out-of-sight place. Many itinerants buy alcohol because they are allowed to buy alcohol, and all sorts of impositions like giving a name, address and where you are going to drink it if it is $100 or more, are not solving the problem. We hear it over and over again: restrictions, restrictions, restrictions. Restrictions alone are not the answer.
I was looking through the minister’s statement to see what strategies he will implement. He talked about alcohol management plans, but he realises that one size does not fit all. What might solve a problem in one community will not solve it in others. All dry areas legislation has done is create a problem for many people. I understand the anger and the frustration of the women who demonstrated in Alice Springs a week or so ago. I understand why they are standing up and saying: ‘We do not want grog. Let us have a couple of alcohol-free days’. They are ones who are suffering from what is a continuum of bad policy premised on restrictions fixing it. Quite frankly, restrictions do not. I understand and sympathise because they are the ones who go to the funerals, they are the ones who are bashed, they are the ones who see their families destroyed, they are the ones who see the houses where they are supposed to live destroyed.
I can sympathise with them, but sympathy is not enough. You can say we will put more restrictions on people in the town, but that is not enough. Somewhere along the way, we have to use a little bit of common sense. If indigenous people, who are the majority of our poor drinkers, if I can use that expression, are allowed to drink then, for goodness sake, let them drink in the right way. Let us not keep putting them in a situation where they do not have the means to drink appropriately. Sure, there are places around the Territory where you do see good drinking environments. Unfortunately, too often we see the bad side of alcohol abuse.
It is interesting to hear the Mayor of Coober Pedy say that so many hundreds of people from the Centre have gone to Coober Pedy to escape the alcohol restrictions. Let us look at the reverse: we have had people from Pitjantjatjara lands coming to Alice Springs to drink for years. All that demonstrates is that people will move. You are not going to solve the problem. They will just go somewhere else where they can drink. If the use of alcohol is being abused, let us address that and let us not start trying to patch it up by imposing restrictions, restrictions, restrictions.
I know the government did not like it when I said if you are going to have a grog-free day, make it Territory-wide. If you are a tourist in the Territory, you must be utterly confused because there are so many different rules and hours from centre to centre. Darwin is much more liberal in its drinking laws and the way you can purchase alcohol than Alice Springs. That causes confusion. If you are going to have these rules of restrictions of hours, quantity, ID, do it right throughout the Territory. I understand that would not be the way government would want to go because government would see that was disadvantaging the capital city. Realistically, Darwin has problems the same has other communities. We cannot keep turning a blind eye to the fact that we need to take an holistic approach.
It is interesting that when the Living With Alcohol program was implemented by Marshall Perron so many years ago, it was based on a three-pronged strategy involving education, controls on availability, and expanded treatment and rehabilitation services. This government is concentrating on controls on availability. That seems to be the major focus. I have not seen anything in the form of education. Perhaps the minister can enlighten us about that. In respect of expanded treatment and rehabilitation services, they are limited.
People may look back and say: ‘We can no longer impose the Living With Alcohol levy’. However, it did, in fact, give hope. It was a bucket of money dedicated just to that program. You will find in the papers that there was a great deal of reform. Marshall Perron probably took a lot of flack when he introduced it, but it did last for many years and it did seem to have results.
We are all very good at saying what we think, but what the government should be doing is to start looking at preventing the problem before it occurs. We have to see if, somehow or other, we can make life good in communities. As the minister said, alcohol is an important part of the Territory lifestyle. If we want to make it part of the Territory lifestyle in remote communities, let us start addressing it. Let us not keep avoiding what is obvious.
The minister talked about committing millions of dollars over five years, and I believe it was $3.77m over the next five years, to roll out an identification system in regional and remote areas. That is over $3m for an identification system. Would that $3m be better off being spent establishing social clubs or jobs in communities rather than introducing the system of ID? I find it offensive that I have to show photo ID to get a bottle of wine. It is going to be offensive to our tourists. It is already offensive to many seniors who do not have photo ID. It has been suggested they go to the Motor Vehicle Registry for photo ID that teenagers get so they can go into clubs.
There are many seniors who do not have a licence, but they are entitled to have a drink the same as you and me. Tourists do not walk around with their passport in their pocket, so they will not have photo ID and will not be able to purchase alcohol. It is very frustrating to live in Alice Springs. We seem to be the target of the Territory and federal governments’ intervention and restrictions. We seem to be the town that is condemned most of all as having such a large alcohol problem. I am not suggesting for one minute that we do not, but we are not the only place in the Territory that has a problem. We have been forced to have people come into a regional centre for all sorts of good reasons. It might be sport, health or shopping. Then, of course, there is the alcohol trap they might fall into.
It is interesting that Centrelink has introduced this quarantine of welfare benefits. They offer a service in Alice Springs at the moment on a Saturday morning. You can go to a caravan outside the hospital and get a voucher for one of the supermarkets where your money has been quarantined for people to go shopping. This seems to me to be absurd because all it is doing is forcing people away from their communities into regional centres. I am quite sure that was not the intention. The more you force people out of the communities - and when I say ‘force’, I am not talking about the ones who go for all the right reasons - you are going to create a situation that is unhealthy for them. It is unsafe for them and it is detrimental to residents of the town who do not drink.
When the minister closes, perhaps he could tell us some of the things he is going to do to prevent what has happened with this alcohol abuse. For example, how will he get people to enjoy their lives without having to resort to alcohol and drug abuse? There has to be a better style of life. Most of us enjoy a good life and we probably enjoy a drink at the end of the day. For a large group of people, that is impossible. We have created this unnatural situation, and you see it continuously in Alice Springs. You see people with a trolley and their carton of beer and you know they are going off behind a hill. It is a bit like the poor old taxi and minibus drivers who say: ‘It is not illegal for us to take these people through the grog shops. We take them through, but then where do we take them? We can’t take them to a town camp because we know that is illegal. We can’t take them to a park because we know that is illegal’. I have been told on many occasions, they drop them off close to a hill so they walk up behind the hill to drink the alcohol. The minibus driver must know that he is doing something quite illegal. About the only place he can really drop people off is a private home.
We have created a bad situation, whether we like to admit it or not. We have created a situation where we have put people into this situation of saying: ‘Yes, you can buy it, but no, you cannot drink it’. You cannot take it home to your community, you cannot take it out bush, you cannot take it into a town camp, you cannot take it into public housing.
I commend the Minister for Housing because the ‘no grog’ signs on public housing are working. We have evidence of that in the Larapinta area, and I am pleased that is so, but it is still not solving the problem. It is not assisting people to learn to live with alcohol. Minister, perhaps you could rethink the ID system and the $3m you are allocating to that and put it somewhere else.
We need to change this culture of drinking that seems to be embedded in our society. We should not be putting restrictions on people who do not abuse alcohol. Education should be started in school, and not just in the regions. We talk about the lack of teachers in community schools. Let us face it: teachers in community schools have an enormous task. They are not just teachers; they are social workers and nutritionists among other things. We need to get the message into schools about the damage alcohol will do to health, family life and the people with whom you normally associate.
I gathered from the minister’s statement that the answer is large sums of money. Quite frankly, that is not the answer. A better quality of life is the answer. The answer is better health, housing and education. I do not think we will ever see an improvement while we continue to go down the path of restrictions because it has become quite apparent that they have not worked and we need to think again.
Minister, you have not had this portfolio for long and this was your first statement. Instead of concentrating on all the bad things when you are closing, perhaps you could give us some insight into what you think might address the problem. We always seem to be fixing things after they have happened. I would much rather hear you talking about how the problem can be curbed or eliminated. Sure, we have some good programs around, but one size does not fit all. You said that in the statement. We have to allow for different regions, different towns and the fact that Darwin is the capital of the Northern Territory. However, whenever you impose restrictions, you are aiming at the minority instead of the majority. It is the majority who feel the restrictions most of all. I trust the minister will report back to us six or 12 months.
I have never supported dry towns because I do not think it stops people from drinking. We seem to go through patches where sometimes it is good and sometimes bad. We should not have to show ID. This is, for goodness sake, a free country. We seem to be so tied up with regulations and rules that I wonder whether it is a free country. You have to start educating people so that they have the right to drink in their own homes the same as people in this House do.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, since I was elected to parliament we have spoken about this issue. I am not sure whether anything has changed. I wonder whether we are advancing or going backwards on this issue. Things have changed since the minister made his statement because we have had a change in the federal government. I will be interested to see whether that change makes any difference to alcohol policy arising from the intervention.
The policy of the $100 limit and proof of ID were not very well conceived. Whilst there may have been good intentions, whoever thought of that scheme obviously did not put a lot of thought into it because it simply does not work.
Be that as it may, the Little Children are Sacred report highlighted the fact that alcohol is an issue. The intervention has highlighted that as well. Often in this parliament, the emphasis is on indigenous issues in relation to alcohol. Minister, in your statement, you spoke about the Territory lifestyle and the member for Braitling just talked about the culture of drinking. Is the culture of drinking part of our lifestyle that we accept as the norm? As a non-drinker, people could ask: ‘How would you know?’ As I have said in this parliament before, I have seen too much of the effects of alcohol. Unfortunately, most of that is in the indigenous community.
However, I see in the non-indigenous community the long-term effects of excessive drinking. Perhaps with indigenous society the effect is a lot shorter because their lifespan is a lot shorter in many cases. I have lost three of my wife’s immediate relations, one about two weeks ago. I have no doubt that whilst alcohol may not have been the reason they died, it would have been a determining factor in the shortness of their life. Because I am not a drinker, I can see the issue from a different perspective.
About 20 years ago, I received assistance from the government in promoting an alcohol campaign tagged ‘Think before you drink’. The area we are not willing to look at is advertising, the way alcohol is promoted, and the notion that drunkenness is an acceptable way of life. People laugh it off. They go to a party to get drunk. Many non-indigenous people think that that is the way to have a party. What do you think indigenous people think? That is the way they do it as well. Whilst we might criticise the manner in which many indigenous people abuse alcohol, who are they copying? They did not bring alcohol here; it was brought here by us, the non-indigenous group. Unfortunately, some of the ways we deal with illegal drugs leave a lot to be desired.
A lot of that is not just through contact with other people, but through the forum of advertising. There is no doubt that the alcohol industry is a very powerful industry. It has a long association with sport in Australia. You cannot tell me you will watch the cricket right through this season and you will not see alcohol ads time and time again. I have a Boonie and a Botha doll sitting on my desk, brought to you by VB. For me it is a bit of fun, but of course it is promoting alcohol.
The Minister for Mines and Energy well knows, as the ex-manager of AFLNT, how much AFLNT relies on alcohol sponsorship. I have said before that it is a shame, and I have been criticised for saying this, that full-strength alcohol is sold at the football. I give one of the local football clubs a hand selling hamburgers, and I am usually invited to watch the footy in the last quarter by which time many people are in a state, especially indigenous people. In some ways, it breaks my heart that people are in such a condition that they are vulnerable to both sexual and physical attacks. They are at the football, they have lost their sense of responsibility and control, and it is a shame to see people in that state. Whereas we go to the football to enjoy a game of footy, some people go to get drunk. Again, the two things go hand in hand: sport and alcohol. The catalyst for that, of course, is advertising. Advertising is prominent in most sporting venues in the Territory. Who sponsors the Darwin Cup? Who has a big marquee where people have free alcohol?
A member: Toyota.
Mr WOOD: No, not Toyota. Their feeling is different from what you get from Carlton United. I am not saying that they should not be involved in sport, but we do have another legal drug called tobacco. There is a difference with government policy trying to reduce the use of tobacco, a legal drug. What did we do? We banned all advertising, we have packets with blood and guts all over them, warnings that this will kill you and if you are pregnant, this will hurt the baby. We have hammered the tobacco industry. We have taxed them, and taxed them very heavily, and rightly so, but it is remains a legal drug.
Compare that with what we have done with the other legal drug, alcohol. We might have restricted who can drink it. You might have to have ID if you are under 18. I am pushing to find out the restrictions. You cannot drive with too much of it in your blood. If you compare alcohol and tobacco, and I ask: ‘Which is the most dangerous drug to society?’, surely it is alcohol. How many driving accidents have been caused by smoking? How many divorces have been caused by smoking? There may be a few, but I do not think there are too many of them. How much violence has been caused by smoking? Very little. How much by alcohol? The police say about 80% of people in gaol are in there because of violent crimes caused by alcohol.
What do we do when it comes to advertising? We do not put many controls on advertising alcohol. We encourage it. We do not put restrictions on alcohol advertising. It is about time we assessed where we are going. The industry knows that it can provide lots of money to those sporting groups and events that would not be able to host the event without that sponsorship. There is reluctance by the greater sporting community to say: ‘No, no. We are not going to have that sponsorship’.
We know what happens if you do not accept sponsorship. A classic example, and the member for Katherine has mentioned it, is the Katherine football association banning alcohol at the football.
Imparja, many years ago, had a policy of not advertising alcohol. Where did that lead them? It led them down the garden path of not having much money because now they advertise alcohol. The reality is the industry is extremely powerful. It is able to promote its way by offering large sums of money to sporting groups. Do anything about it? No, it is regarded as okay. Do we do anything about tobacco? ‘Oh, terrible, terrible. Tobacco is terrible so let us ban that and make it is as hard as possible for people to smoke’. So we should, but it seems to me that we are bit selective about which drugs we do and don’t support.
Minister, there are many other issues related to what we are talking about today. The member for Braitling raised some issues. I have been through the issues of employment and health many times. The new Deputy Chief Minister talked about scrapping CDEP. I am on record as saying I approve of the scrapping of CDEP, but with the proviso that full jobs are given to Aboriginal people. I do not even like the name CDEP; I do not like work for the dole. Any government worth its salt should support Aboriginal people living on communities in isolated areas and should provide full-time work for all those people. There should not be any unemployment. There is no need for unemployment. I know first-hand that you can provide work for people. As mentioned in the Little Children are Sacred report, employment is the most important factor when it comes to trying to do something about this.
It is no good having good housing or sending kids to school if there are no jobs. We need full employment. I say to the new Rudd government, as I have said previously: do a type of Marshall Plan; say that we will give full employment to all those people who want a job on those communities. Do not let them have jobs where for half the day they work and half the day, they do not. If they want to do that, that it is fine. I am not saying people should not be allowed to do that either, but if they want to do a full day’s work for reasonable pay, let us provide them with that ability, which will help. It will not solve the alcohol problem, but at least it will give people a goal in life rather than sitting around doing nothing waiting for the canteen to open.
Minister, I am not going to go any further. This debate has many facets, as you know, but it is time that we looked at the issue of whether drunkenness should be part of our Territory lifestyle. Is that the culture and lifestyle that we really want? Is that good? Are people doing themselves long-term harm? What are we teaching indigenous people, that getting drunk all the time is okay? I am not sure that is the way we should be going. We also need to look at giving sporting groups funds to replace the sponsorship by alcohol companies. That is something the government should be looking at.
I hope that there is some way we can get money out of the alcohol industry. We had the Living With Alcohol program. You may be able to talk to the federal government and say: ‘If sporting groups want funding and we need to replace it, why cannot we get that from a pool of money that has come from a form of taxation on alcohol?’ The taxation goes to Canberra, of course, but if we had a pool of money that would substitute the need for sponsorship from alcohol companies, so be it.
I remember going to Milikapiti on Melville Island when I was football umpiring. This was in the days when the football grounds went up at an angle about 15, so if you ever wanted to win a match, you had to hope the wind was blowing downhill because whoever was playing uphill had Buckley’s chance of ever scoring anything. There was a big scoreboard, and guess what was underneath it. Alcohol signs, advertising. This was back in the 1970s. Even then, they knew where to target.
If communities make the decision that they would not like to advertise alcohol, and sporting groups say they do not want to advertise alcohol, there should be some way government can find a pool of funds that comes from the alcohol industry so that they can run their sport without the need for that kind of sponsorship, it would be a positive thing. If we can reduce the advertising of tobacco, someone please tell me why we should not do it for alcohol.
Dr BURNS (Alcohol Policy): Madam Speaker, this is one of the most constructive debates in the Assembly since I have been here. I certainly appreciate the support of members across the spectrum.
There has been general agreement about the devastating harm caused by alcohol abuse in the Northern Territory and its social impacts and financial cost. Many speakers in the debate have recognised the problems associated with alcohol abuse will not be solved overnight and will require substantial financial resources and leadership.
I was very heartened that speakers on all sides pledged their support for the government’s efforts to challenge alcohol abuse including the introduction of Dry Towns and alcohol management plans. There were some caveats. The member for Braitling expressed her reservations about Dry Towns and a number of members have issued challenges to me as Alcohol minister and to the government in general. I have listened very carefully to those challenges; some of them are quite substantial and well worth considering.
Much of the progress that we have made on alcohol issues in the Territory over the last few years has been under the leadership of our former Chief Minister, Clare Martin, and Deputy Chief Minister, Syd Stirling, who was the minister with carriage of this area for some time. Much of the work was done in Alice Springs in particular.
There has been a Territory Alcohol Framework that has been built up, initiatives from the Alcohol Task Force, liquor supply plans and public dry areas in Alice Springs. The former Chief Minister was also the architect of the Closing the Gap program to address Aboriginal disadvantage in the Territory. We all give a commitment that we will focus on that and we will see it through.
I turn now to some of the specific points made in the debate. The Leader of the Opposition talked about the serious issue of alcohol abuse in terms of budgetary implications for health, law and order and housing. That is certainly true. The Leader of the Opposition also gave in principle support to the Alice Springs Dry Town initiative and said that the early indications are encouraging and that there is community support behind it at the moment. The Leader of the Opposition also said that it would require ongoing maintenance and vigilance.
The Leader of the Opposition talked, as did other speakers, about the need for an overarching alcohol policy for the whole of the Territory, but one that needs to be flexible enough to meet the needs of individual communities. As a government, we have not subscribed to the one-size-fits-all approach. We want a region by region approach to alcohol issues.
The Leader of the Opposition requested details of hospital admissions in Alice Springs for men and women. From memory, she said she believed that whilst alcohol-related admissions for men had been decreasing with time, admissions for women had remained static. The Leader of the Opposition was quite correct. However, the figures I have, which I table, don’t go into 2007. I hope that there would be a significant reduction in those figures for women in 2007. That remains a challenge for us, not only in 2007 but ongoing in 2008 and further years.
The Leader of the Opposition asked me to indicate my position on closing takeaway outlets for one day, particularly in Alice Springs. The same issue has been raised in relation to Katherine. I have stated my position a number of times publicly: closing takeaways for one day a week is an option. At this stage, we are evaluating the measures in Alice Springs to date. We are having them evaluated independently and, as part of that evaluation, we are looking at what happened with Thirsty Thursday in Tennant Creek. There seem to be differing opinions about the value of Thirsty Thursday in Tennant Creek. Along with the independent evaluation of the effects in Alice Springs of the measures that have been taken so far, we have asked the independent team to look at Thirsty Thursday and report to the Alcohol Reference Group which meets in Alice Springs. At this stage, it is an option, along with a range of other options that have been suggested for Alice Springs and Katherine, but at this stage we want to keep the community with us.
The Leader of the Opposition said that we have had community support in Alice Springs. I know that there have been differing opinions, but overall the community of Alice Springs has acknowledged that steps need to be taken. Similarly with Katherine; the community acknowledged that steps need to be taken.
I think it was the member for Stuart who talked about some of the unforseen effects of Dry Town status. I agree with that. There is no one simple solution to this problem, but we have to try different options. Where those options are not working, we have to be honest enough to say: ‘Okay, that’s not working’ or ‘We need to take further steps in this direction’. We need to be flexible on this issue. We need to engage with and hear the voices of communities. They are not always going to speak with one voice. In Alice Springs, Aboriginal organisations are putting forward very strong viewpoints. Police have the responsibility of administering rules and new laws. We have the tourism and hospitality industry in Alice Springs, which has a role and a livelihood. We have to balance all these competing priorities, but we have to be strong at the same time. This is a government that is prepared to be strong about alcohol issues. We have to be and I appreciate the support from all sides of the Chamber.
Mrs Braham: Do not become too focused in …
Dr BURNS: Yes, I hear what you say, member for Braitling. Finally, the Leader of the Opposition wished the government well in tackling those issues. We will be looking for further support from the opposition and Independents on this issue.
The member for Nhulunbuy also talked about the Living With Alcohol program. Everyone in this Chamber who had anything to do with the Living With Alcohol program acknowledges that it was a strong success. Unfortunately, it fell victim to a High Court challenge, was taken away and has not returned. There have been suggestions about hypothecation of revenue from alcohol sales in some ways to re-invigorate the Living with Alcohol program.
As the former Treasurer outlined when he responded to this, he does not believe that it is possible. I believe we have to revisit the Living With Alcohol program. Even though it was some time ago when it was implemented, we have to look at those elements that were working and breathe new life into them. We might not get the same funding or the same mechanism for funding as we had before, but there is goodwill on the part of this government to invest in programs to address alcohol issues. I believe that there will be a similar will within the new federal government to do likewise. That is what we have to aim at.
The new Chief Minister is going to Canberra to talk to the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd. This will be an issue that will be raised by our Chief Minister. We need to invest in this area in a whole range of ways.
The member for Nhulunbuy talked about the approach in Groote Eylandt, as the member for Arnhem did, which has been a very successful program. As the member for Arnhem said, there was lots of consultation, it was a work in progress; it was an evolution where different interests were accommodated. It has been very successful. It is model we have to look at. The Substance Abuse committee chaired by the member for Macdonnell has looked at it, as have many others, to see whether it can be transposed elsewhere.
The member for Nhulunbuy contrasted that approach with the approach of the former Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Mal Brough. He had the one-size-fits-all approach. The member for Nhulunbuy talked about how the laws destroyed the Gove Bush Classic and Gove Beach Volleyball events, which were community events to raise money, events people had a lot of fun with but, unfortunately, fell victim to the one-size-fits-all approach.
As a number of speakers have outlined, what we need to do is look at these laws and see where we need to continue to apply them in a sensible, consultative way, and at the aspects which disadvantage individuals and communities. I am certainly supportive of that approach. It is a hard question. The member for Braitling raised the issue of individuals within certain communities who may want to drink, and she believes they have a right to drink. At one level we agree with that, but at another level, you have to have a balance between an individual’s right and the wellbeing of the community. That is the hard part that we have to work through in the coming months. There are arguments on both sides. Instead of having a one-size-fits-all approach, we need to look at flexible, fair ways to address these issues.
As Attorney-General, the member for Nhulunbuy talked about the importance of alcohol courts in the Northern Territory to be able to help those who have a drinking problem, are continually interacting with the law and are a danger and nuisance to themselves, their families and the communities in which they live. What we have to do with the alcohol courts is provide rehabilitation options for those people, to take them out of circulation so they cannot do any more harm to themselves and others around them.
The member for Greatorex talked about a lack of law and order in Alice Springs. That has certainly been an area of interest to him before he entered parliament and remains so now that he is in parliament. He is representing views of certain sections of the Alice Springs community, but the feedback that I have had is that since the police have had a number of operations and a number of alcohol measures have come into place, Alice Springs is a much safer place and people are feeling a lot safer. That is not to say that it cannot get better or we cannot make more progress.
The member for Greatorex talked about alcohol abuse being the root cause of antisocial behaviour in Alice Springs and complimented the government on taking a positive step to create the portfolio of Alcohol Policy. He, along with other but not all speakers, believes that Dry Town status seems to have addressed some of the issues. He talked about guidelines for communities to formulate their alcohol management plans. He also spoke about the increasing number of complaints he was receiving from residents about antisocial behaviour in public housing. The Minister for Housing addressed this issue in his contribution. He told us that 214 households across the Territory have sought to have their homes declared dry, and 204 of these families are tenants in public housing.
Like many others, I have seen those signs in various places. In fact, I was out doorknocking the other day and unfortunately the residents were not home, but a family in public housing had big sign up and there were certainly no complaints from any of the neighbours in that street about unruly behaviour from that house. It is a strategy that is working. The strategy was introduced to empower people to take the step. People are taking the step and it is having a positive effect.
The Minister for Local Government and Housing talked about how heavy drinking contributes to poor attendance at work, homelessness, antisocial behaviour, violence, illness and debt. He referred to the Little Children are Sacred Report and how important the message from that is. His words were: ‘Alcohol is ripping out the fabric of indigenous communities’. That was something that the members for Arnhem and Stuart and others have said during this debate.
The Minister for Local Government and Housing also foreshadowed that the government is planning to declare common areas of at-risk public housing complexes across the Territory as restricted premises and those dry areas will be closely monitored by security patrols and police. That is a further step being contemplated by the government to address some of the issues in public housing. Members with public housing complexes in their electorates often receive complaints about this sort of behaviour. This is a commonsense approach to address some of those issues.
The member for Katherine gave a very thoughtful contribution to this debate, from the perspective of Katherine. She is the local member and said abuse and misuse of alcohol has been a problem for Katherine in the last two decades. It is not something new, but everyone would agree that it has probably been getting worse over the years. We have to be honest enough to recognise that.
When I first came to the Territory in 1979, I was living out bush and it was rare for Aboriginal people to come to the bigger towns. They used to come for the Umpires Carnival and a couple of other things, a bit of footy, but apart from that, people just did not come. However, over time, it has occurred for various reasons and we could probably speak for hours about the complexity of reasons for it. However, it has occurred and it is a problem.
The member for Katherine acknowledged that measures needed to be taken in Katherine. Measures are being taken in Katherine, and she was very supportive of those measures. As minister, I want to engage with the member for Katherine. I am planning to sit down with her to talk about those measures and have her input. She is aware, of course, that alcohol consumption in Katherine is particularly high. She visited Port Augusta last year and is a great fan of Dry Town. She supports the town of Katherine being dry and restricted trading hours and that, too, is very positive. She also supports a Territory-wide ID system for takeaway liquor sales and guidelines for alcohol management plans.
The member for Katherine asked some very important questions about the Venndale Detoxification Centre or rehab centre, as I call it. This is a very important question. When I attended the Alcohol Reference Group in Katherine last week, this was exactly the issue that was raised. As I understand it, there is Commonwealth funding involved. Unfortunately for Venndale in particular and rehabilitation across the Territory generally, that money has not been forthcoming. It may have been tied up during the caretaker mode of the six-week election period. We were told, just prior to the election being called, that the money was close. Now that the dust has settled on the federal election, I will be writing to the new federal minister and the minister for FACS because they have portfolio carriage of this area of rehabilitation.
The alcohol court is going into Katherine early next year. With Dry Town status and the ID system, we must have rehab facilities very close to running. We must have a very clear plan for them. It is a very important issue that you raised, member for Katherine, and one that I will certainly be following up on.
That takes us to where we left off in the last sitting, so I will have to go to my hand written notes now.
The member for Daly talked about the high level of per capita consumption of alcohol in Katherine. He said that although the average was very high, it is really not an indication of how much some people are drinking. I think he used the example, if it is something like 17 litres of pure alcohol per person per year, and he does not drink much and the member for Katherine does not drink much, that must mean that there are some people who a drinking a hell of a lot. That is right and it is scary to think what some people are drinking per year or even per day.
Together with other speakers, the member for Daly talked about alcohol being a root cause of many of the problems that we face within the Territory. He talked about my engagement as minister with the Alcohol Reference Group and I foreshadow to that group that I will keep very close contact with them. I am not able to get down for the next meeting, but I said I will try to be available on telephone for that meeting to keep very close to developments down there.
Like the member for Katherine, he also raised the importance of the Venndale rehab facility and he raised issues in some of their regions around Katherine for which we need to have a regional approach. This is what we are trying to do, but we need to keep an eye on the attendant effects of whatever measures have been taken, either by the Commonwealth intervention or by Dry Town initiatives, and we need to be very focused on that. There are a lot of unintended effects of this.
The member for Daly talked about issues arising from the intervention and the deeper problems that drive people to abuse alcohol and the need to address them. The intent of both Closing the Gap and the federal intervention was to address those issues, but we need to take stock of where we are and how we can work closer together to get the outcome that we all desire.
The member for Arnhem talked at some length about the Groote Eylandt experience and success, and how that was an evolving process to arrive at something that worked. That is a big lesson for us all, as I said.
She said at the heart of the Commonwealth intervention, alcohol formed a crucial issue. I certainly agree with that, member for Arnhem. As other speakers did, she raised the issue of what she was hearing from constituents, particularly women, as a result of the Commonwealth intervention, there being a greater focus within the community about excluding or better controlling drinkers, and the positive feedback she has had as a local member. That is very important. She, too, said there should be more support for rehabilitation. I mentioned the $15m-odd that the Commonwealth flagged some time ago. We have to find out where that is and we have to use that to further build rehab services across the Northern Territory.
The member for Arnhem also talked about the closure of the Borroloola pub. I am certainly in agreement with her about that. As she is aware, there is a hearing on this matter before the Liquor Commission and I would like to have further conversations with the member for Arnhem as I have with the local member, the member for Barkly, on this. I know the member for Arnhem has very close links and visits the area often. We have to think what is going to happen in the future with the Borroloola pub, but that is something that is before the Liquor Commission, which is an autonomous body. However, we need a sensible way forward on the matter. I thank the member for Arnhem for her contribution.
The member for Stuart talked about the challenges of addressing the serious issue of alcohol abuse across the Territory. He reflected that it is great to be part of a government with members across the length and breadth of the Territory who can provide feedback and take the concerns and positives of their constituents to government. This is a challenge for us as government. We are moving forward, there are great challenges there. There has been a change of government in Canberra and we all need to work together to recognise the differences across the Territory. It is not surprising if there are different messages coming out of different electorates across our great Territory. It is not surprising if we find things, as we did in Groote Eylandt, that are really working successfully while in other areas, the same things might not be working all that well. It is not a one-size-fits-all approach. We have to be flexible and listen to the needs of our local communities.
The member for Stuart also talked about the importance of rehabilitation and mentioned the Brown family at Mt Theo. They have had quite a successful program for a long time. The member for Stuart, with Mt Theo being in his electorate, is advocating for more resources for Mt Theo.
He also raised the issue of social clubs and how, in some areas, having a social club where people can have a drink within certain rules could be a way forward. At Kalkarindji, I know the club has been very successful. It has very strict rules about attendance at school and work. It has its opening hours that do not encroach on the working day and I have heard that is a club that operates well.
That goes to what the member for Braitling talked about with people only being able to go to a hotel to drink, which might not be the most desirable place for people to have a drink. We need to look at new models where people can learn to drink and can drink in a safe, controlled environment rather than buy take away, go somewhere, get drunk and all the trouble starts. I call it the demons coming out of the bottle.
He talked about some of his reservations about Dry Town status for Alice Springs. I would like to engage him further in conversation about that. I also emphasise the importance of stopping the rivers of grog and turning down the tap.
He also talked about the Willowra cattle project and I know he will be talking to the minister for Primary Industry and the minister for Regional Development about that project. It sounds very exciting and there is no doubt that employment is a pivotal issue that takes away the desire of people to get blind drunk all the time. If they have something in their life, meaningful and constructive activity, people are a lot happier in themselves.
He raised the issue of the problems with policing the Dry Town and that is something that will be part of the evaluation of the Dry Town project.
The member for Blain talked about a very important issue. He said you can have all the policies in the world, but it comes down to some degree to individual choice. I can see where he is going with his argument; individual choice about people wanting to drink or people with a drinking problem saying: ‘That is it! I am not able to drink. I am giving up drinking’. That is a personal choice. Personal responsibility is a very important element in …
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, I move that the minister be granted an extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 77 in order to conclude his remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Dr BURNS: I thank my colleagues for allowing me to finish these remarks because it is an important statement.
The member for Blain talked about the importance of attitude and individual responsibility, and I certainly agree that a lot of it comes down to individual responsibility. There is a framework of thinking about alcohol issues that I learnt when I was studying this issue as part of my PhD. It is called ‘The drug, the set and the setting’. Each of those things impacts on the way that people drink. It comes down to the type of drug, which, in this case is alcohol; the set, whether it is a raucous bar or a quiet drink at home or the people you have been drinking with; and the setting, which I mentioned before. There are many factors that impact on the way that people drink, and we need to understand those complexities.
The member for Braitling asked why my statement was presented on the same day as the Substance Abuse committee report. I suppose that was an accident of fate in a way. As you know, committees work to some degree independently of government. However, I do not see it as being a disjunction. The work of the committee is really exciting. They have proposed some very important ideas, which government will take on board, examine and work through and that will inform the ongoing work that has happened to date that I have reported on in my statement, so I do not really see it as a disjunction.
She also talked about the intervention and its attendant problems. She talked about the importance of appropriate drinking places, which I have mentioned in relation to the member for Stuart’s contribution to this debate, and that is very important.
We have to be open to different ideas because it is going to take a multitude of strategies to address this issue. As I foreshadowed in my statement, we have to start working on this culture of drinking, we have to break it down and we have to change it. Going back to the Living With Alcohol program, there were elements of that program which really set the course in terms of doing that. We have to rely on our agencies, like Health, Education and other agencies to actually inform that process and we need to take a fresh approach to breaking down the culture of hard drinking in the Northern Territory. I agree with the member for Braitling that we need to address problems before they arise and take a proactive approach rather than restricting and moving after the event.
Finally, the member for Nelson talked about the change of federal government and asked whether there was going to be a change of policy on the part of the Northern Territory government. I will reiterate our position on the alcohol elements of the intervention. Most of it, we support, but we want to see more flexibility. We want to see more consultation and more flexibility. I believe we all want to get to the same place, and that is where we will negotiate with the new federal government, something we could not really do with minister Brough. He was not interested in negotiating or consulting, but I know that the new Rudd Labor government will. More importantly, we want to negotiate with our communities at a local level and be flexible, not have a one-size-fits-all approach. The impetus is there. I acknowledge that the federal intervention has been an important thing in our history. It has moved things further, but this was a government that was taking things further anyway. We want to move further, we want to address this issue, and I believe everyone in this House does.
The member for Nelson also talked about the culture of drinking in the Northern Territory and how important it is to change that. He talked about the impact on his close family and some of the tragedy there. He talked about the nexus between sport and alcohol. There are some programs, the Good Sports program is one, around that are trying to change the culture of binge drinking around sporting clubs that none of us want to see.
He talked about a comparison, particularly in advertising and other restrictions between alcohol and tobacco. I could talk about that for an hour, but I do not have an hour. It is a very important issue that the member for Nelson raised, and I have some ideas that I would like to share with him.
He also talked about the importance of work in being a protective factor, which is probably the best way to put it, to prevent people from losing their way and becoming addicted to alcohol. I agree with that, but I do not think scrapping CDEP is the way to address it. In my book, there were some governance issues with CDEP. In different locations, there were issues that needed to be looked at in respect of its effectiveness. However, to just take it away holus-bolus is not the way to go. So far, that has been counterproductive and is part of the reason why there has been an influx of people from remote communities into Darwin and other centres, as we warned before the intervention was executed.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to wrap up by saying that I appreciate the support members have given the statement and the way in which they have recognised the importance of alcohol issues in the Territory. I want to move forward on alcohol, particularly breaking the culture of alcohol in the Territory.
As minister, I am placing on the record once again that there is no silver bullet for this. We need to be flexible in our approach, try different approaches, but we need to bring our communities with us. That is where the Alcohol Reference Groups in places like Alice Springs and Katherine are very important. I was interested to hear the member for Stuart talk about roadhouses. That is something I want to engage with him about. We have done a lot, but there is much more to do. I commend my statement to the House.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
Continued from 18 October 2007.
Dr BURNS (Alcohol Policy): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise again talk about alcohol issues. I foreshadowed during the wrap of my statement, I do not see the two as mutually exclusive. I do not see the two as competing with one another. Moreover, I see this very important report from a parliamentary committee as informing our alcohol policy as we move forward.
To some degree, my statement looked at where we have been and, to some extent, where we are going. This report really puts a whole range of fresh ideas on the table. It is appropriate that I speak specifically about the report to give it the importance and attention that it deserves.
The report was tabled by my colleague, the member for Macdonnell, in the October sitting. I congratulate her as committee Chair, together with her fellow committee members for their report. Anyone who cares to read this report, with its 15 recommendations, will acknowledge just how frank a portrayal this is of the problems of substance abuse afflicting Aboriginal communities across the Territory.
Anyone who has been in the Territory for any reasonable period of time will recognise there is a major problem with substance abuse in the bush, and it is not limited to any particular substance. Sadly, it does not come as a surprise that the committee found alcohol, ganja and petrol are the substances causing the bulk of the problem.
This report draws together all that we have known and perhaps suspected over the years about substance abuse in the bush and very much lays it on the line. The member for Macdonnell has, for years, been at close quarters with the harms that she and her committee have reported on. The depth of her understanding about the realities of the situation on the ground is unquestionable, and was obvious when she spoke to the House in October.
As harsh as these realities might be, the member for Macdonnell also conveyed the second, and I believe equally important, message to the House in October. As she said, this report contains a twofold message: it is not just about the terrible harms, but also the good things that are being done. As both Minister for Alcohol Policy and Minister for Health, I draw hope from the optimism reflected by the member for Macdonnell and the committee report.
There are good people in communities across the Territory working to maintain normality in the face of calamity. In addition to the efforts of these good people, it is important that we do not lose sight of the fact that government agencies are directing considerable and coordinated effort towards the kinds of problems highlighted in this report. As a government, we recognise the magnitude and complexity of the challenge while accepting we can always improve on our service delivery.
As our plans evolve it is vital that we maintain close links with the people on the ground, non-government agencies, and particularly Aboriginal groups, and it is important that our overall effort is supported by the Australian government. We will achieve the best possible results through solid partnerships.
I take the point made by the member for Macdonnell when she referred to the confusion existing between the Territory’s indigenous and non-indigenous cultures when it comes to tackling issues of substance abuse. I recognise that such confusion will at times arise. It is only through genuine commitment to ongoing partnerships between service providers and Aboriginal communities that we can resolve such impediments.
The Territory has responded to the broader problems of our Aboriginal communities, including substance abuse, through our five year, $286m Closing the Gap of Indigenous Disadvantage plan. Our five year commitment under Closing the Gap includes: $79.36m for child protection; $38.6m to implement the remote area policing strategy, Safer Communities and other safety measures; $10.1m for alcohol and drug management; $23.4m for better health outcomes; $42.3m for housing in indigenous communities; $70.68m towards education; $30m to improve indigenous employment and economic development; and $8.95m towards better cross-cultural understanding and engagement in service delivery.
The Closing the Gap strategy recognises that more than 17% of Territorians drink at levels likely to cause long-term harm. More than 70% of the inmates of our Territory prisons are there as a result of alcohol-related offences and, of course, we know that the vast majority of inmates in Territory gaols are Aboriginal.
In an effort to address the level of alcohol abuse among Aboriginal Territorians, Closing the Gap committed the government over the next five years to: 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 increasing police powers; recruit an extra eight Liquor Inspectors across the Territory to ensure compliance with alcohol regulations at a cost of $1.35m; recruit two clinicians to be based in Darwin and Alice Springs to service the Katherine, Tennant Creek and Nhulunbuy regions at a cost of $1.24m; implement a licensing system in regional and remote takeaway outlets at a cost of more than $3m; expand the Return to Country program for Darwin, Alice Springs and Katherine at a cost of $250 000; implement regional alcohol management strategies initially in Alice Springs, Katherine, Timber Creek, East and West Arnhem Land and Tennant Creek; implement a widespread alcohol education program at a cost of $1m; use amendments to the Liquor Act to declare dry areas across the Northern Territory starting with Alice Springs; provide power to the Racing, Gaming and Licensing minister to implement urgent liquor supply measures; introduce alcohol restrictions in town camps; and provide police with power to search vehicles suspected of grog running.
There has already been significant progress in relation to a number of these initiatives that I have just outlined. These measures will complement a range of ongoing government strategies designed to reduce the impact of substance abuse on Aboriginal Territorians.
I turn to some of the specifics of the report. The committee’s first recommendation is an important one as it relates to coordination between Northern Territory government agencies. As a government, we are well aware of the challenges in this area and acknowledge that while we continue to strive for the closest possible coordination between agencies there is still more to be done.
An Interdepartmental Committee on Alcohol, Substance Abuse and Antisocial Behaviour is in the process of being established. It will be made up of senior officers from Police, Health and Community Services, Department of Chief Minister and Local Government, Housing and Sport. It will oversee the development and implementation of strategies across government agencies. In addition, we are currently completing a review of the alcohol-related capacities with the Department of Justice to ensure it continues to be suitably structured and resourced to respond to the demands and strategic approaches including a role in whole-of-government coordination.
If I may digress, I initiated this review of Racing, Gaming and Licensing because given the Commonwealth intervention, the increased focus on alcohol issues within our community, the fact that there is now a Minister for Alcohol Policy, Racing, Gaming and Licensing has risen to that challenge very successfully, but there needs to be a very close look at how we move forward. This is a crucial area for government. I commissioned this review, which will look at the capacity of Racing, Gaming and Licensing, particularly in the policy areas. It will look at some of the regulatory areas as well. The panel will be closely consulting with interested parties such as the Liquor Commission with whom they work closely, the hospitality industry, police, health and other agencies. Moving towards the new Liquor Act to go out to consultation next year, we want to ensure that we have an agency that is able to move with this new Liquor Act which will be more comprehensive in its approach to liquor and licensing issues that we have seen in the Northern Territory before. I wanted to put that on the record.
I also want to put on the record my deep appreciation for the officers who work in Racing, Gaming and Licensing, particularly Elizabeth Morris who heads up that area. With the Commonwealth intervention, she has been flat strap, working seven days a week along with Brenda Monahan and many others in that agency. There has been a mountain of work for them to get across. There has been incredible detail. They have been liaising with the Commonwealth in very difficult circumstances. They were very successful and I commend them for it, but now is the time to look at where we are going and what the resources and structures need to be within that crucial area.
The committee recommends that consistent with the National Drug Strategy a coordinated approach to substance abuse to be adopted by relevant government agencies with balanced initiatives on supply reduction, demand reduction and harm minimisation across all substances of abuse. It is important to note that there is currently a coordinated approach in place to develop, implement and evaluate strategies consistent with the National Drug Strategy 2004-2009 and elements of supply reduction, demand reduction and harm minimisation.
We also have in place the Northern Territory Police Remote Community Drug Desk, which continues to play a vital role in the battle against drugs in remote communities. As a former Police minister, I am pleased to see that the unit continues to achieve success with a significant number of arrests and summonses for drug trafficking offences. This success is vital to the wellbeing of many bush communities.
As is noted in the report, evidence suggests that cannabis is widespread in Aboriginal communities. The report also says that cannabis use is producing significant psychological and psychiatric harm and compounds the negative effects of poverty and unemployment. There also appears to be a strong link between cannabis use and suicide among Aboriginal people. In addition to the initiatives by the NT Police Remote Community Drug Desk, the Territory is continuing to develop an agency level partnership through the Department of Justice and Northern Territory Police through our alcohol courts and pre-court diversions. In 2005, our Alcohol and Other Drugs service identified service priorities in each region of the Territory on which we continue to act.
I have touched briefly on our plans for regional alcohol management plans. The process for the development and implementation of these alcohol management plans in each of the regional centres is and will continue to be advanced through a coordinated and consultative approach. Strategies identified are intended to address local concerns within existing resources where possible, however, longer term strategies that require ongoing or additional resources are always taken into consideration.
I am all about making connections with local communities and groups and taking the disconnection away. We have to make the connection, we have to engage, we have to understand what people are telling us and we have to move forward. Everyone wants to move forward and we cannot afford to have this disconnection any longer.
Each alcohol management plan is required to address key local issues under the elements of supply reduction, demand reduction and harm minimisation. Our alcohol management plans are based on three key strategies: reducing supply, harm and demand. The plans will evolve over time to meet changing circumstances and community needs and demands. Progress on the development of alcohol management plans varies across the Territory. Alice Springs now has public dry areas and new takeaway provisions in effect since 1 August 2007. Anecdotal evidence suggests a reduction in alcohol problems in Alice, including a 10% reduction in takeaway sales, 14% reduction in personal crime, 47% in sobering up shelter admissions, and 21% fewer admissions to hospital emergency departments.
For the Leader of the Opposition, I did table earlier today a document which I hope answers your questions about admissions to Alice Springs Hospital.
Ms Carney: Yes. Thank you.
Dr BURNS: The success of our efforts in Alice Springs suggests that we are heading in the right direction, but our approach must remain responsive and flexible because the nature of alcohol-related problems will continue to change.
Plans are also being developed for Katherine and Tennant Creek. Work is also progressing on the development of alcohol management plans for Palmerston, Timber Creek and Jabiru.
The committee visited Groote Eylandt and had a chance to view first hand the success of the permit system. This is a classic case of an alcohol strategy tailored specifically to respond to local circumstances and one which was developed in close consultation with the local community. The results speak for themselves. There has been a dramatic reduction in alcohol-related problems following the introduction of the permit system that allows takeaway sales to be monitored and managed.
A recent evaluation by the Menzies School of Health Research found the system on Groote Eylandt had resulted in 75% fewer cases of public drunkenness; a decline in apprehensions without arrest from 90 to 11; 52% less property crime; a 60% reduction in incidents of disturbance; a 67% drop in the number of police callouts for aggravated assault; and absenteeism for indigenous employees at the GEMCO mine dropped from 7.8% to 2.4%.
As I said earlier today, this is an example of an alcohol management plan that actually makes a connection. There was no disconnection in this plan. There was engagement, and the results are startling. These dramatic, positive results really underline what the committee’s report is aiming for. It is all about engagement and getting people to understand and support these measures.
As we move to restrict access to alcohol in certain regions, we must also acknowledge that some people will move from these areas to places where alcohol is more readily available. For instance, we are already hearing reports of people moving from Alice Springs to South Australia because of alcohol restrictions, most notably following the recent Dry Town declaration. The extent of the impact of the movement of people is being monitored by stakeholder agencies including Health and Community Services, NT Police, Local Government, Housing and Sport and the Department of Justice.
One of the keys to ensuring the best informed response to issues like substance abuse is effective data collection. Ensuring increased interaction between government agencies, non-government service providers and community organisations will produce timely and accurate collection and reporting of key statistical information on substance misuse trends. This data will be vital in our future efforts to address substance abuse, not just in our bush communities, but right across the Territory.
With the new Liquor Act coming out for consultation for next year, one of the things that I am keen to see embedded in that act is a wider look by the Liquor Commission on alcohol-related harm within a community. If a licence is given, it is not given on the strict rules that apply now, but there is a wider look at the potential harms that the licence or its renewal might cause. An effective way to make those decisions for the Liquor Commission is to have access to accurate data.
Currently, unfortunately, there is a mixture of data. If someone presents to the Accident and Emergency department of a regional hospital and they have been the victim of an assault by someone who is drunk, that might not necessary be recorded as being alcohol-related. It is a bit patchy, and I am very keen for the Health department, in particular, to make an effort to collect top quality data so that the Liquor Commission can make effective and reasonable decisions based on solid data.
The committee’s report has recommended a tax on alcohol. Of course, additional taxes and levies on alcohol are the sole province of the Commonwealth government. To date, the Australian Treasurer has shown absolutely no interest in looking at the issue of alcohol taxation reform. While the federal assistant Health minister did establish a working party of Commonwealth and Northern Territory government officers in early 2007 to explore the feasibility of introducing a floor price for alcohol, only preliminary work has occurred and the group has not met since the middle of the year. That is an issue that needs to be addressed.
The tragic picture portrayed via the pages of the committee’s report is, of course, a by-product of an even bigger social problem. Aboriginal Territorians living in the bush are suffering poor health outcomes, inadequate housing, inadequate education and high unemployment. This situation is not a problem unique to the Northern Territory, but one affecting Aboriginal people in most states of the Commonwealth. I argue that the degree and numbers of people affected in the Northern Territory far exceed other areas of Australia, which may share the same problems. However, we have a tragic picture right across the Territory and one that needs to be addressed.
The Australian government has acknowledged the extent of the challenges facing the Territory through its intervention. While the intervention has, for the present, turned the spotlight on the realities of day-to-day life in our bush communities and town camps, I know this House recognises there is no quick fix for the difficulties confronting Aboriginal Territorians or, in fact, Aboriginal Australians. The problems are long-standing, deeply ingrained and tightly enmeshed and they lie at the heart of much of the confusion and disconnection outlined in the committee’s report.
However, I am also of the view that, as difficult as the circumstances confronting many communities might be, there must also be a focus on individual responsibility, particularly in relation to substance abuse. Unless people accept responsibility for their choices and actions and show a willingness to make a change to their own lives, progress in addressing substance abuse will be limited, but we need to give them the support to be able to do that. Nevertheless, I accept that, as a government, we must continue to work towards improving our response to substance abuse by Aboriginal Territorians. We must do all in our power to minimise any confusion on the ground, because we can only achieve the best possible results in the battle against substance abuse when indigenous Territorians are properly and fully engaged in the process. In short, we must work to ensure our efforts are being directed in the most readily understood and culturally appropriate manner.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I have tried to cover the report extensively. I commend the committee for their report. There are some fantastic ideas and work there, and we need to be incorporating that in our policy across all portfolio areas that are pertinent to reduce alcohol related harm within the Northern Territory. I commend the committee’s report to the House.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Mr Deputy Speaker, the opportunity to speak to this report is one that I hold in a very special place because as a member of this committee, the work we undertook in dealing with our terms of reference was, without over stating it, the most significant experience I have had as a parliamentarian and as a Territorian who has been given the honour of responsibility in this Chamber.
All of us, myself included, had our own ideas and views. It was not until I had the opportunity to visit the communities, sit, listen and assess the situation on the ground from different people with varying types of feedback that I feel I am now qualified to speak with some greater authority and certainly with greater conviction on matters of profound importance.
I will say it again, and I think I have woven into every opportunity that I have had to speak in this place, unless we can forge a real response to the challenges that we speak about so often, a real response that effects measurable, real, noticeable change in families that are vulnerable, we have done nothing to be proud of.
To my fellow committee members, it was an honour to be alongside you as we travelled throughout the Territory. Our Chair, the member for Macdonnell, our Deputy Chair, the member for Port Darwin, and the members for Braitling, Daly, Katherine and I had a learning journey that affected each of us.
I must acknowledge the wonderful support that we received from the Secretary, Pat Hancock; Dr Brian Lloyd, our research officer; Kellie Trout, our research administrative assistant; and Kim Cowcher, our committee support assistant. Pat and Brian, who were with us right from the beginning, shared this journey and some of the moving challenges that we were presented with, most memorably for me at Wadeye.
It is the human story that sits beneath this that is the true motivation. If our motivation is ideology or doing the right thing politically, it will be insufficient to make the difference. The problem that we encountered, being that idea that there is disconnection and confusion, arises from the anchor of our activities in many cases being in the wrong place. It has been organisational in its objective to meet the needs of an organisation, perhaps to meet the needs or demands or the influence of an ideological approach, or perhaps it is just an ill-informed approach garnered from a focus group, I do not know. The anchor for our response will determine the quality of our response. What members found was that if the anchor of our response, the root of our response, is with the families, with the men, women and children, if it is a response to them, then the response will be powerful.
That is how I see that we have as a result of the root being in different places and not directly on the person, we have as a result confusion and disconnection. The disconnection is from people. There might be a connection from idea to idea, policy to policy, agency to agency, but it has to connect to people, the people about whom the whole exercise is about and the core issue.
It was eye opening. The most important aspect of it for me was that it is not a case for disillusionment or discouragement - quite the opposite. We all know that there is a problem. We have spoken about it so many times in this Chamber. I feel as though every second speech I give in this Chamber is a response to this matter. Effectively as a result of the experience that I have had through being a member of this committee, my language has changed. My understanding has increased, and my responsibility now weighs heavily, but I have been buoyed.
I think members of the committee would share this sentiment: there is cause for hope. There is cause for confidence because we saw in each of those communities, even the ones where we did not expect to see it, cause for hope. We saw it written in the faces of courageous men and women who had made decisions in the face of quite terrible odds and circumstances that are beyond the experience of many people, certainly in this Chamber.
Visiting these places was a privilege. As we have spoken of Groote Eylandt, we should not quickly visit that place and take away the good news without recognising why there is good news there. At the heart of the experience that community has gone through is the challenge that sits behind the report. If we talk about confronting the confusion and disconnection, it cannot be confronted with a quickly formed position. The counterfeit cannot contend with the real thing. We saw the real thing in Groote Eylandt, and that was people who had the vision woven deeply into them. They had not subscribed to an idea and conformed to a plan or policy; the plan and policy became a part of them. That is the key.
Once the idea, the purpose of the whole exercise, becomes a part of the community in the lives of the language of the people, then you can have change. It is too tempting to say: ‘Oh, that seems to work’, grab the whole structure and plant it in another place. You cannot plant it in another place and expect the same results if it is not planted in the lives of the people. We saw that in Groote Eylandt. I would urge great caution before people grab what has happened in Groote Eylandt and plant it all over the place.
Why is it successful in Groote Eylandt? How is it that it is a part of the people there? It is because they persevered with it. They battled, they fought, they argued, they compromised until they came to a place where they could all agree on it. They travelled a difficult journey. That is the difficult part of this. Policy was the business they discussed, but it was personal decisions, giving and taking, working hard, battling until they finally came to a position they could agree on. It is the journey itself that produced the results, not the magical policy. We would like to go in and just pick that up because it seems to work and put it over there. It is a bit like seeing a beautiful plant, breaking it off the bush and thinking it will continue to be beautiful. In a moment it will wilt unless it is connected to the plant, the tree, the roots, and the roots go deep. That is the challenge, and that challenge stands there and speaks to us.
We have tried to say on many occasions that is the heart of this. That is what will confront confusion and disconnection, when we have the courage to push through some of the political temptations that we have for short-term solutions, or we fall prey to crafting our response to attack a certain approach because it comes from a political opponent and not see through it and to see what the heart of it is. The heart of it is: why is it that people want to drink so much? Why is it they want to abuse substances? Why? The sort of strength that you need to answer that question I found in Groote Eylandt and I found the demand for a proper response in the faces of the people we met at Wadeye.
I was deeply concerned by the discussions that we had, as reported in the report of service providers, who seemed to be individually working very hard within a particular paradigm. It is in a fragmented context when people are undertaking individual enterprises and exercises that are borne out of an organisational approach. It is not too difficult to see that its organisational objectives that are met, which are not the purpose of the exercise. Real power is released when we start connecting with people.
A question I asked at one stage when I was trying to work out why we were not completely satisfied with the approach, and it is summed up in this, and the challenge fits with me as well: when you have a briefing on a coordinated approach of policy implementation within a particular area and you have all the language surrounding the description of an initiative or an approach, after a while you start to think it is all about the initiative, the approach, the resources that are required, if only you had $100 000 or another person then we would be able to do this, that and the other, and I wondered whether anyone in that group who were delivering programs, or describing a program that could be delivered if only they had the resources, how many of them spoke the language of the people that they were wanting to effect positive changes for. None of them. Contained therein is the issue.
It is not an easy thing to learn another language, particularly for a European Australian. We have grown up with this stupid idea that we are monolingual and everyone has to learn our language. The greatest respect is paid when you make the effort to learn someone else’s language. Once you have learned that language, you have the capacity to connect. That breaks the disconnect and that will help erode the confusion. Making the effort to learn the language should be a part of the program, genuine cross-cultural training so you really know the mind of the other. It is that sort of approach we need to take. Otherwise we are not connecting with people; we are embarking on exercises that are organisational in their nature that may allow us to tick organisational boxes but, sadly, will condemn us at a later stage in the lives of those who leave us too early.
I urge members to read contributions to this debate carefully, particularly from those who were a part of this exercise. My comments largely refer to an attitude or approach that under-girds a framework. It came up again, just as the member for Johnston made reference to the Living With Alcohol framework. I have heard in this place in recent times: ‘Yes, but we do not want a one-size-fits-all’, so we will have different little responses, basically borne out of the exciting thing that happened over here. We will plant it there and cut a bit off here and implement it there, chuck a bit of resourcing in, issue a media release and we have had a response. I urge those who have the reins of power now to revisit that issue of a comprehensive overarching framework that is properly coordinated.
I heard the Chief Minister today saying there are only 2400 people. Isn’t this a wonderful opportunity for us all to subscribe to some core principles as a whole community and begin to work based on a unified approach? It does not mean the response in every particular community is identical, but it should be based on exactly the same principles, an overarching framework that we can understand and articulate which is reinforced through education, harm reduction approaches, legal approaches and rehabilitation. The same principles are being echoed again and again.
The Living With Alcohol framework has been mentioned in this debate in this Chamber. We learnt it provided a cohesive approach, consistency, and that centre point of coordination that drove real outcomes.
Whether that is the approach or not, it was clear when we agreed that confronting the confusion and disconnection largely arises from lack of coordination and cohesion with the approach. We are all saying similar things in response to a clear problem, but there is no proper central coordination. There is no central theme that we can all understand. The agencies are working, many times, against the interests of the community and resources are, therefore, being wasted. The purpose of resources is to effect a positive change in a family, a community, people who most need it.
There are some underlying challenges in this report, and they are not challenges that have been provocatively placed; they are a sincere response to the things that were seen. When we visited these places, we spoke to quietly-spoken people who have taken responsibility for some serious challenges in their community. It is that simple language, core message, plain vision, unified principles that will guide our response and so that we are all in it together. We are not doing something for those poor people over there and we are okay. We are all in it. That is what a previous approach showed. We heard again and again that there was an approach taken, a coordinated, consistent, cohesive response that was proposed, developed and implemented in the Territory that captured the attention of the nation. It is absolutely clear that we need a similar response from the hearings that we conducted with practitioners as well as those who are receiving services.
Once again, I thank my colleagues from this committee. This has made the difference to my time in this parliament. The challenges that I personally faced will stay with me and I only hope that I can live up to the challenges and make some difference as a result of what I have seen by being on this committee. I commend this report to honourable members. I urge you to weigh carefully the challenges that are woven into it because it reports on people, real people, fellow Territorians who need our leadership.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Family and Community Services): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to speak in support the Substance Abuse report. I have a deep personal interest in this issue. The member for Macdonnell’s report covers a wide range of substance abuse and many speakers before me, including the Minister for Alcohol Policy, have talked about the ravages of alcohol. We have also heard, from previous reports, about marijuana and the impact of other illicit drugs on people.
I want to focus on one element of that, which is the abuse of volatile substances and in particular petrol sniffing. Petrol sniffing had been a scourge of many of our communities for many years. It was destroying our children, debilitating indigenous communities, and leading to crime and antisocial behaviour in our towns. I was the Chair of the Select Committee on Substance Abuse which presented an interim report to parliament in February 2003. That report identified the unacceptable levels of harm resulting from petrol sniffing. It identified that there were 30 remote communities particularly affected by sniffing and that there were an estimated 350 chronic sniffers, many of whom had suffered permanent brain damage. The emotional and financial cost to communities was severe and avoidable. This dire situation needed powerful action to end the tragedies.
In 2005, we saw the introduction of the biggest initiative in fighting substance abuse seen in the Northern Territory with the introduction of the Violate Substance Abuse Prevention Act. This act banned volatile substance inhalation; it enacted police powers to seize inhalants such as petrol, glue and paint where they are being abused; gave police powers to apprehend the people under the influence of volatile substances, and to take them to a place of safety; and gave courts the capacity to order compulsory treatment programs for serial substance abusers.
The legislation banned petrol sniffing but did not criminalise it. Prison sentences were not part of the deal; instead, the act introduced a strong emphasis on prevention and the rehabilitation and treatment of those affected by inhalant misuse. Communities themselves would continue to play a key role in defining, developing and implementing volatile substance abuse prevention and treatment programs. In many communities, traditional family-based programs and approaches had no legal status. The new act gave that legislative base while ensuring that community control remained at the core of the solution.
Services in Darwin and Alice Springs were established, including safe houses in urban areas and outstations in remote areas. The services are family-focused and work intensively one-on-one with affected young people. They provide a range of life skills, educational and recreational programs, and continue to work with young people once they return to their family and community.
Madam Speaker, this legislation and the services it introduced was ground breaking, a first in Australia. It was certainly an initiative about saving our kids. It was about keeping them alive and keeping them healthy. In doing so, we are helping the whole community and reducing crime and antisocial behaviour. Since the act was implemented, some communities with a more entrenched chronic sniffing problem have relied on the compulsory treatment provisions as an immediate response. Others have used a management plan process in the search and seizure approach to prevent the escalation of petrol sniffing in their communities.
The act has now been in operation for nearly two years and has had some very positive outcomes: 96 people have been referred for assessment under the compulsory treatment provisions; six communities have a declared management area, one in the Top End and five in Central Australia; one community close to the member for Macdonnell’s heart, Papunya, has an approved management plan in effect; 14 other communities have applied for a declaration of community management areas; two-thirds of residential services have been funded to support the legislation.
In Darwin, CAPS provides eight beds for VSA clients and, since 2006, has treated 48 clients. In Alice Springs, the Drug and Alcohol Services Association is providing adult residential services for up to 10 clients. In July of this year, the expanded facility of Aranda House was opened, which is a great facility for the Centre. The vacated facility in Schwartz Crescent will become the site for a new youth residential service to be operated by Bush Mob. This will provide accommodation for 11 young people affected by volatile substance abuse, and there are outstation programs for petrol sniffing at Ilpurla and Mt Theo.
When tabling the select committee report, the member for Macdonnell spoke about the terrible harm caused by substance abuse and the terrible price paid by communities, but she also spoke about the good things that are happening to address the issue. I was listening to the member for Blain when he was talking about what he saw in his travels. The more we are exposed, the more we see the ravages of grog and substance abuse in our communities.
The member for Braitling talked about the need to put wet canteens on communities. That was the big disgrace with the intervention; it was going to impose wet canteens on communities which did not want wet canteens because they had lost many young lives because of the scourge of petrol sniffing. Many families saw loved ones return to the communities in a wooden box. No one wants to see that. People do not want to continually be bearing the cycle of grief in our communities every day.
During the election campaign, I was at Maningrida and there were five funerals held in one day. Those funerals were for family members who had been living in Darwin and, because of alcohol, and were being taken back to their communities. It is an horrific problem. It is complex. I know prohibition does not work and I have always said that. I fully support my colleague, the member for Johnston, the Health minister, who stressed the need to look at harm minimisation. I have always said that. I know prohibition does not work, but we do have to look what is a multi-pronged strategy for dealing with a very complex issue.
The member for Macdonnell and the committee have done a fantastic job. We need to continually point out the impact of substance abuse on individuals, families and communities. It needs to be addressed.
The member for Blain said we need to get non-government organisations and our agencies talking. Places like Wadeye need better coordination so that children and women particularly who suffer the violence can be protected. The end result is that we should not have to continually see indigenous people at the top of every cohort, particularly Health where the rate of chronic illness is alarming, yet most of them are preventable. We should be able to reverse that. One lives in hope that all the programs and initiatives we have and the work that we need to do with the federal government will ensure that any financial commitment is targeted and strategic. We need to look at how those areas can make a difference, particularly to women and children, but families and communities, and that we will one day see an end the constant grieving cycle that we see in many of our remote communities.
We only have to look at Darwin to see the impact of alcohol when a lot of our mob leave the communities and come into town. During the recent election campaign, I noticed nearly 200 people missing from my electorate, many of whom I see around Darwin. That has been one of the impacts of the intervention. People have been afraid and they have moved in. We have to try to reverse that and get people to go home and be engaged in employment and other activities on their community and to get away from the grog that is killing them.
I often had a joke with Mark Sweet, the head of Telstra, when they were rolling out the 3G network in our communities by saying: ‘Forget about Telstra coming up with 3Gs. Our communities have already thought of that’, because a constant joke in a lot of our communities is the big 3Gs: grog, ganga and gambling. If we do not deal with this stuff now, we are going to lose another generation and we will see that cycle continue. As well as substance abuse, we have to be brave enough to look at child school attendance and poverty in our communities, we have to be honest and look at the underlying issues with gambling and its associated problems.
I commend the member for Macdonnell and the Select Committee on Substance Abuse in the Community. They had a look at many communities. Previously, as the Chair of the select committee, I had the good fortune of working with Pat Hancock and many of the staff. They do a fantastic job of supporting members and I know that the member for Macdonnell certainly enjoyed that. I welcome the report.
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I thank the Deputy Chief Minister and the Health minister for their positive contributions on the report and thank my parliamentary colleagues on the committee.
It has really been an eye opener for those people who have not experienced substance abuse and poverty that come together in communities and the lack of school attendance. It has also been an eye opener for many of the committee members to see the good things that people are doing on these communities.
Before I conclude my remarks on the report, I take this opportunity to say a very special thank you to Pat Hancock for her commitment to the committee, to Brian and the other secretariat staff because without their support, the committee cannot do anything. They are a group of people who bring us together and keep us focused on our terms of reference and make sure that good reports such as this are tabled to direct to parliament and government, hopefully, to good policies to overcome these problems.
As Chair of the Select Committee on Substance Abuse in the Community, I want to make some closing remarks on the tabling debate arising from its report Overcoming the Confusion and Disconnection. I thank other members who contributed to the debate, the members for Katherine, Daly, Braitling, Port Darwin and Blain. I also note the statement on Alcohol Policy made by the Minister for Health. We as a committee welcome the seriousness with which alcohol is being addressed in the Territory and we look forward to more opportunities for progress on this critical issue.
In my tabling statement, I made a number of points. I will remind my fellow members of what I said. When I opened the debate, I warned against the temptation for us all to be alarmed at the situation on substance abuse in remote communities and then do nothing. In fact, what the report shows is that we can do something. As the report suggests, a combination of rehabilitation, reduction of supply and recreation form a killer combination and providing consistent funding for these measures offers the promise of better results in the future.
I also emphasised the importance of community responsibility, community engagement and community negotiation. The report clearly shows that these are essential elements of successful, sustainable interventions on substance abuse. Although we may at times become discouraged by the scale of problems people face in remote communities, we have a body of good practice and a bunch of good people in place doing good things.
The Ilpurla Rehabilitation Centre is one and Mt Theo is another. We have so many committed people who want to help their own people be successful and overcome the problems of substance abuse. The report shows we can do more to support them in their good work. Wonderful things happen when substance abuse is halted. There is space to think about other challenges, get kids to school, preventative measures and alcohol management plans. The alcohol management plan at Groote Eylandt is a great example of this. With positive approaches such as these, communities can look to the future with more optimism.
I will now consider the contributions of my committee colleagues to the debate. The points they have made are worth highlighting. As the member for Katherine suggested in her speech during the tabling debate, the select committee has been notable for its bipartisan approach. There has been a high level of cooperation amongst members, and a sincere commitment to workable and sustainable outcomes. I agree with the member for Katherine that the Groote Eylandt hearings were inspiring. As she said, the committee was surprised by how much work had been going on that we were not aware of, and we were relieved to see such happy community members due to the work they had done.
I want to go back to what the member for Blain said earlier: not one size fits all. One of the things we have seen with the Groote Eylandt plan was that it grew out of the people of Groote, indigenous and non-indigenous people. Its leaves reached out to other residents so it was a tree that grew out of that community and bore the fruit for everyone in that community. They are the kind of initiatives that we want to see and we want them driven by people in the community.
As the member for Katherine suggested, we all saw, as a committee, the challenges and the difficulties of housing shortages and the multi-stranded nature of the problems in housing, education, health and employment that all add to the problems of substance abuse. This is why coordination has been such an important part of the committee’s recommendations in this instance.
The member for Daly reminded members of the regional focus of the committee’s inquiry, the constraints between communities to the west and east of Alice Springs, and the sense that some communities are so much better at managing and containing substance abuse. As a committee, we thought it was important to identify why this is so and whether there were things in strong communities that can be spread among others.
The member for Daly also emphasised the importance of looking at cases of substance abuse and not blaming the victim. He also noted the importance of education campaigns and highlighted how they rely on adequate levels of education for community members. As for the committee as a whole, the member for Daly underscored the importance of community involvement and ownership and the importance of our recommendations that community audits be employed to draw on the strength of communities in tackling these problems.
When the member for Braitling spoke, she highlighted, with some justification, our report as a strong, intelligent report. She also talked about how confronting it can be to go into communities and hear people tell it as it is. When things are tough, it is true that this can be hard. We are grateful to people in the communities for their honesty and commitment in sharing their stories. That is one thing about indigenous people in communities: they have become overburdened with so many problems such as overcrowding, poor health, poor education and poor roads. There is no respite in a community for people to do anything because it is just problem after problem. As a government, we have to work in a coordinated fashion with true consultation and real partnership with these people to overcome some of these problems.
The member for Braitling emphasised the key importance of adopting a coordinated approach and reform of the funding process. She also underscored the importance of raising funds from specific resources dedicated to harm reduction and preventative measures and the importance of there being a coordinated body for alcohol policy.
The committee as a whole came to the view, as suggested by the member for Braitling, that recreation was an important part of the substance abuse equation. It is critical that it receives sufficient emphasis and that it be properly resourced. The committee saw many good programs, and putting more resources into this would be consistent with a greater emphasis on prevention that the committee would like to see in the overall approach to substance abuse.
The member for Port Darwin, in her contribution, reminded us again of the good news that we found over the course of our inquiry. We saw so many strong, inspiring people and programs at Docker River, Mt Theo, Harts Range, Larapinta Learning Centre and Groote Eylandt amongst others. It is true that we have a strong base of good practice and established programs all over to do good things in the field of substance abuse. We need to make sure we get in behind them in the best way possible to provide sufficient support for them so that they can make a significant difference to the situation across the Territory that has been responsible for great harm over the years.
Madam Speaker, in the opening moments of my speech today, I highlighted the seriousness of alcohol issues in the Territory. In closing, I want to return to this theme and to talk a little about the changes happening now. We all know the important things that have happened in respect of alcohol in the Northern Territory over the last six months. We are also welcoming in a new federal government and, unusually, we will have Labor governments in both the Commonwealth and Territory. I see this as a unique opportunity to continue the good work on alcohol and helping people in the communities in partnership with the Rudd Labor government.
I am sure that this is a one-in-a-lifetime opportunity, as I said about the intervention. The intervention for Aboriginal people is a one-in-a-lifetime opportunity to make things better and it should not be about whether we are a Labor government and there being a federal Coalition government. It is about us having compassion and a human element to do something as human beings for other human beings. As human beings, we need to get things right for indigenous people in this country.
I am sure that the other members of the committee will agree with me when I ask all members not only to register the fundamental importance of these matters, but also to ensure that the needs of remote communities not be forgotten among all the present changes, federal and Territory, in which we find ourselves.
Let us keep this on the agenda and see it through. We have made some good beginnings and following through must be a central part of what we do from now on both as a Territory and in partnership with the Commonwealth.
I want to end by saying that this has been a hard journey, a journey that comes to an end as we deliver our report to this House. I hope it is not a journey that is forgotten by this parliament and that members of government do something and listen to the recommendations of the committee.
I hear many people talking about the intervention, saying that there are good and bad things about it, but when there is a national crisis and emergency, it means that things are bad. We know that things are bad in our communities. We attend the funerals. We know that our children are being raped. We know that our women are being violated and it takes guts for someone to do something. That has been shown by the introduction of the intervention.
It is up to us as a society now not to normalise that behaviour and make sure that we work in partnership and do not forget the things in the Little Children are Sacred report. We must help these people overcome the problems of alcoholism and drugs. I saw with great interest in the Centralian Advocate only a week ago on the front page that 60% of our kids are now on marijuana, ganja, and that is another focus that we are going to have.
In closing, I thank my fellow committee members and to the committee secretariat. I hope as I stand here in front of you in this parliament that government does take notice of the recommendations of this report.
Members: Hear, hear!
Motion agreed to; report noted.
Mr VATSKALIS (Defence Support): Madam Speaker, I rise to deliver a statement that recognises the valuable contribution Defence makes to the Northern Territory economy and community, and to report on an important initiative of the Northern Territory government and the Northern Territory branch of the Australian Industry and Defence Network, AIDN-NT: the implementation of the Defence Support Industry Development Strategy.
Defence has played an important role in the development of the Northern Territory since the establishment of Fort Dundas on Melville Island in 1824. To date, around 10% of all Australian permanent Defence force personnel are based in the Northern Territory. Almost 13 000 Defence personnel and families reside in the Northern Territory, making up about 6% of our population.
Defence personnel posted to the Northern Territory often deliver an added bonus to our community. Their wives, husbands and partners represent an important part of our community and workforce. They often bring skills and experience eagerly sought by industry, the public service and non-government organisations. They include teachers, nurses, childcare workers, shop assistants, secretaries, small business owners, skilled tradespeople and the list goes on. They all enjoy the Territory lifestyle while importantly contributing to the growth of the Northern Territory’s economy and population.
Defence recurrent expenditure in the Northern Territory in 2005-06 totalled $954m. Close to 50% of this comprised salaries paid to Defence personnel. The flow on effect of Defence salaries as private consumption expenditure continues to be an important contributor to the Territory’s economic turnover.
Defence, of course, is also an important contributor to the regional economies of the Northern Territory. Pine Gap in Alice Springs accounts for about 12% of the local population, while Katherine receives about $20m into its economy from the RAAF presence at Tindal each year.
Defence also contributes to other regions and indigenous communities through the operation of NORFORCE, which I understand is the largest employer of indigenous people in the Territory. Also we are advised by the Navy that Darwin is the busiest naval port in Australia. On average, Darwin hosts over 60 visits by major naval vessels per year. While in port, the crews spend their money on a diverse range of items and activities spread across the economy. These include accommodation, meals, drinks, tours, transport, clothing, tourist gifts, computer hardware and software, audio and video hardware, and music and video discs.
Our construction industry in particular has benefited from the diverse presence in the Northern Territory over the past 12 years since the ‘Army Presence in the North’ project started in earnest.
Defence has recently outlined his plans to spend an estimated $250m over the next five years on infrastructure developments and refurbishments at the RAAF Bases at Darwin and Tindal and the Army base at Robertson Barracks. Over and above this, the project called Single Living Environment and Accommodation Precinct will see the construction or refurbishment of 3535 living-in accommodation units for single personnel Australia-wide at an estimated cost of $1.2bn. Some 918 of these units to be upgraded are allocated at Larrakeyah Barracks and Robertson Barracks.
The Defence Housing Authority is also a major contributor to the economy, managing over 2200 properties in the Northern Territory. New housing developments at Lyons and Muirhead are groundbreaking initiatives, with over $170m invested by the Defence Housing Authority in Lyons alone.
Aside from Defence spending on infrastructure, Defence is making considerable investment in equipment and the sustainment of that equipment. The Defence Materiel Organisation, known as the DMO, is planning to spend $100bn on the acquisition of equipment such as new artillery and sustainment of such equipment over the coming decade.
For our local Defence support businesses to capture contracts and opportunities to participate in Defence-related projects, they need to understand the environment in which they operate and ensure they have the credentials, capability and capacity required and, importantly, be well networked with decision makers within Defence and its prime contractors.
The Defence industry environment is a complex one. It is an environment guided by a number of government strategies and policies. The Australian government’s Defence White Paper, Defence 2000: Our Future Defence Force, sets out the Australian government’s decisions about Australia’s strategic policy for the current decade. The 2000 White Paper has been a key determinant in the direction of Australia’s Defence forces.
Another plank of the Defence policy architecture is the Defence Capability Plan 2006-2016. This provides the Defence industry with guidance that enables broad business planning. It details the approved and planned major capital equipment proposals for that period. The Defence Capability Plan is an important point of reference for the Northern Territory government and local industry in that it describes future projects, their scope, the related through-life support requirements, major decision points and predicated values of projects of contracts.
The Defence and Industry Policy Statement 2007 is a more recent addition to the Defence policy architecture. It defines how a partnership between Defence and industry will determine Australia’s priority capabilities, the expectations of industry and the operating environment to be shaped. The policy details the key strategies that Defence and industry need to pursue over future years.
As I said earlier, the Defence industry operates in a complex environment and for our local industry to grow and align its capabilities to capture Defence-related work it must do so in an organised and strategic way.
Today I am pleased to table the Northern Territory Defence Support Industry Development Strategy 2007-2017, which was jointly released yesterday by the President of the Northern Territory branch of the Australian Industry and Defence Network, Mr Mark Smith, and the Northern Territory government. Establishing this strategy has been a joint initiative of AIDN-NT and the Northern Territory government and is a milestone event for government and the Defence support industry.
The strategy aims to identify industry development priorities to ensure that benefits and opportunities offered by the Defence presence in the Northern Territory are not lost, but are realised through the provision of high quality, reliable support to Defence. The strategy articulates the priorities and directions that the Northern Territory industry, with the support of the Northern Territory government, must address over the coming decade if it is to optimise its engagement in the Defence sector.
In developing this strategy, AIDN-NT and the Northern Territory government agreed on a vision and mission for industry which would guide the strategic directions. The vision and mission were developed incorporating input from consultation with industry and Defence and are consistent with those of government and AIDN-NT. The vision for the industry is:
The mission agreed by AIDN-NT and government is:
Both AIDN-NT and the government were conscious that the strategy needed to be consistent with and complementary to existing Defence and Defence industry policy, but must also be relevant to local industry. The strategy needed to capture the views and issues of the local industry, as well as prime contractors, Defence and other stakeholders. AIDN-NT and the government agreed to a strategy development process that would enable us to capture the broadest possible input. This included the engagement of an internationally renowned Defence industry consultant, Mr Peter Smith of BartonVale Technologies, who, in partnership with a local consultant, assisted in shaping the strategy and ensuring that key stakeholders were engaged and consulted throughout the process.
During April and May 2007, 500 copies of a discussion paper were distributed to stakeholders, informing them of the key issues related to the industry, inviting them to participate in the consultative process and provide input to the development of the strategy. The discussion paper and a more detailed background information paper were also placed on my Department of Business, Economic and Regional Development’s website, which received almost 1000 hits.
The strength of this industry development strategy lies in the level of the consultation undertaken, the level of input delivered by stakeholders and the consequential level of ownership by stakeholders. I should mention that comments received from the Minister for Defence, a number of professional organisations and industry commended the Northern Territory government and AIDN-NT on this initiative, and paid tribute to the quality of the consultative process and the substance of the discussion paper.
Consultative forums were held in Darwin, Katherine and Alice Springs and were attended by over 100 representatives from Defence and industry. I had the pleasure of attending one of these forums in Darwin and was encouraged by the level of interest shown by the large number of industry members present and the contributions that they made. In addition to these forums, the consultant also undertook face-to-face consultations with a number of local industry members to ensure all issues were canvassed and input captured.
AIDN-NT and the government recognise that while this is a strategy for the Northern Territory Defence support industry, it needed to reflect the views of Defence, which is the industry’s number one client, and those of the prime contractors. All of these are headquartered interstate. With the support of the consultant, face-to-face consultations were undertaken with Department of Defence officials in Canberra and chief executive officers of Defence prime contractors around Australia.
The consultations with key Defence officials included: Head of the Industry Division of the Defence Materiel Organisation, Mr Kerry Clarke; Director of Industry Police, Industry Division, Eddie Ho; Chief Operating Officer of the Defence Support Group, Ms Chris Bee; Director General Army Preparation, Brigadier Mick Slater; and Chief of Staff and Head of Strategic Programs, Defence Science and Technology, Mr Steve Pendry.
Consultations with prime contractors included: Chief Executive Officer, Defence Maritime Services, Mr Greg Hodge in Sydney; Chief Executive, Thales Australia, Mr Norm Gray, in Sydney; Executive General Manager, Tenix Defence Land Systems, Mr Ian Sharpe, also in Sydney; CEO, Australian Aerospace, Joseph Saporito, in Brisbane; Managing Director, General Dynamics Land Systems, Mark Diedrich in Melbourne; and Chief Executive, BAE Systems, Mr Jim McDowell in Adelaide.
Written submissions were also received from key stakeholders including: Lieutenant General David Hurley; Chief Capability Development Executive, Mr Roger Lough; Chief Defence Scientist, Defence Science and Technology Organisation; and Professor Helen Garnett, Vice-Chancellor, Charles Darwin University. This demonstrates that every effort was made to ensure a broad range of consultations were undertaken across the length and breadth of the industry.
While the preparation of this strategy has been a joint effort between industry and government, it is clearly a strategy which industry owns and can see its imprint. It is a strategy which industry has grasped, taken ownership of, and will now start to implement.
I thank all those who contributed their time and views to the preparation of this strategy. Without such input, the strategy would not be what it is: a foundation stone for the future development of the Northern Territory Defence support industry.
Prior to finalising the strategy, the outcomes of the consultation were reported to industry to test the validity of the assumptions and conclusions drawn from the input received from Defence and industry. That strategy was then provided to industry and the DMO for comment prior to final endorsement by the AIDN-NT executive and Northern Territory Cabinet. Again, this demonstrates the rigorous process followed by AIDN-NT and the government in developing this strategy and ensuring that best policy development practice has been followed.
During consultation, industry and Defence identified a number of areas that should be addressed and actioned as necessary in order to develop a growth industry. These have been coalesced into seven major points of focus, which are: workforce development; building business capability; linking industry to opportunity; profiling and promoting industry capability; developing strategic infrastructure; establishing strategic partnerships; and research and development. The strategy describes each point of focus and lists strategic directions that stakeholders believe important. The strategy also identifies those organisations that could contribute in a collaborative approach to achieving a successful outcome.
In developing the strategy, consideration was given to placing it within the existing policies and plans to which I referred earlier. In particular, the Defence and Industry Policy Statement 2007 has been an important touchstone for the development of the Northern Territory strategy.
During my meeting with the Minister for Defence in Canberra on 13 June 2007, we agreed on the importance of the integration of the two policy platforms and that the Northern Territory strategy would contribute to the outcomes sought by the national policy statement.
The issues described in the Defence and Industry Policy Statement bear many similarities to those identified during consultation for the Northern Territory strategy and the strategies detailed in the national policy will underpin the implementation of the Northern Territory Defence Support Industry Development Strategy.
This strategy also has links to the Northern Territory Economic Development Framework released in August 2006. The framework forms the basis for future economic and industry development in the Territory. It sets a clear direction for making decisions in the knowledge that Northern Territory stakeholders have a shared sense of direction. The framework’s vision is to build a prosperous, dynamic and sustainable economic future for the Territory. This Defence Support Industry Development Strategy aims to advance the vision through identifying and pursuing industry development priorities for the period 2007 to 2017.
I will now talk briefly of some of the key points of focus within the strategy and their importance to developing the industry. A major focus of the strategy is an issue familiar to all Territory business, and that is workforce development. Skills and labour shortages are a critical issue for industry across Australia. The Northern Territory and the Defence Support Industry are no exception, with strong demand from the resource sector for skills and labour common to both sectors. There are many definitions of ‘workforce development’. AIDN-NT and the Northern Territory government have chosen the following as a suitable definition for its purposes:
An estimated 12 000 new employees will be needed in the defence industry sector nationally over the next decade; 75% of these will be required in the trade areas and 25% need to be engineering or trade qualified project management personnel. While the Northern Territory requirement may only be a proportion of this, it will be a challenge to meet the demand. The Northern Territory government and AIDN-NT have initiatives already underway and are addressing workforce development issues.
The Department of Employment, Education and Training released Jobs Plan 3 in 2007. Jobs Plan 3 is a long-term strategy to create a highly skilled and flexible workforce and to maximise employment opportunities for all Territorians. The Northern Territory Occupational Shortage Employer Incentive Scheme is part of the Northern Territory government’s Jobs Plan 3 and provides a financial incentive for businesses in the private sector to employ additional apprentices and trainees in areas with identified occupational shortages.
The government also provides a financial bonus to apprentices and trainees to assist them to meet the cost of work gear, safety gear and other work-related costs in their first year. There is an additional bonus for those employed in an identified skills shortage area. In addition, the government’s Workready program provides students with an additional pathway to help them transition from school to work. Workready is a school-to-work transition program that aims to assist and encourage Year 11 and 12 school students to take part in structured vocational education and training, VET, that leads to school-based apprenticeships and hopefully an ongoing apprenticeship.
This is just a selection of initiatives with the Jobs Plan will support workers’ development the Northern Territory and which is providing a foundation for implementing workforce development strategic directions contained in the strategy. AIDN-NT has also recently launched its Defence Education and Learning program, which aims to improve the management and operational capabilities for the Northern Territory defence support industry.
Defence Education and Learning is providing nationally accredited training in project management and a range of topics related to tendering to Defence. It is an excellent initiative by AIDN-NT and, like Jobs Plan 3, contributes to the workforce development strategic directions of the strategy. If we are to build the capabilities of Northern Territory defence support businesses to compete with interstate suppliers for Defence work, to gain Defence approvals and to operate in accordance with Defence requirements, Building Business Capabilities should be one of the cornerstones of the industry development. This is the second point of focus in the strategy.
The arrival in the Territory of Network Centric Warfare systems, the Armidale Class Patrol Boats, Abrams tanks, Tiger helicopters and a variety of other new platforms bring new and highly complex technology. As the complexity of Defence platforms increases, so does the need for businesses to demonstrate their ability to support these platforms. Northern Territory businesses will need to develop key technical capabilities if they are to participate in the evolving technology layer delivered by prime contractors. However, business systems such as quality assurance, occupational health and safety, project management and reporting must also be developed to the required level.
I am pleased to advise that AIDN-NT and DBERD have again partnered, this time to initiate a visitation program for groups of local SMEs to visit selected Defence prime contractors and SME facilities interstate in order to gain a better perspective of the Defence support environment and the business systems and accreditations applied by prime contractors. Last week, the first of these delegations comprising five business representatives visited Defence prime contractors interstate. The delegation visited the General Dynamics Land System and Tenix Defence facilities in Adelaide, the Tenix Defence operations in Bandiana and the Thales Bushmaster manufacturing plant in Bendigo, Victoria. Importantly, the tour provided the opportunity for delegates to gain an understanding of what is required to participate in the supply chains of these prime contractors. Each Northern Territory delegate was also given the opportunity to promote their individual business capabilities to these prime contractors.
The delegation toured the facilities of each of these large national and multinational contractors to gain a better understanding of the infrastructure, equipment, systems and procedures that they employ in Defence-related contracts. Financial assistance of $10 000 was provided from the Industry Development Support Program to AIDN-NT to subsidise delegates’ travel and accommodation costs. DBERD, through its Territory Business Up-Skills program, provides workshops for business owners and managers to improve their business management skills and capabilities. The department has, in the past, provided training in tendering to Defence, developing a business profile and project management, specifically for the Defence support industry. The Department’s Business Growth Program also offers information, funding and development services to enhance business performance, profitability, employment levels and market penetration. These important programs will help build the business capabilities required and contribute to the success of the strategy.
The third point of focus in the strategy is about Linking Industry to Opportunity. Northern Territory SMEs are often unaware of the upcoming Defence opportunities. There is a need for Northern Territory Defence support businesses to be able to access information in relation to Defence projects and tender opportunities relevant to the Northern Territory quickly and easily to enable them to establish networks with primes or to cluster and tender in a timely manner. While there are a number of strategic directions detailed in the strategy, I can report that AIDN-NT has already implemented an Extranet for its members, which provides information relating to Defence contracts.
I would also like to acknowledge the work that the Business Access Office of the DMO, located in Winnellie, does in linking Northern Territory businesses to Defence contract opportunities.
Closely linked to this part of the strategy is the fourth focus, which is Profiling and Promoting Industry Capability. Keeping Defence and prime contractors constantly up to date with local capability will encourage them to think Northern Territory first when looking for support options. Prime contractors indicated during consultations that they want to be kept informed of Northern Territory Defence support capabilities and indicated a willingness to engage with Northern Territory SMEs.
In October, I participated in the Territory’s delegation to the Land Warfare Conference and Exhibition held in Adelaide. Organised by the Defence Science and Technology Organisation, this conference and the associated industry exhibition is the major annual event at which new Army equipment is exhibited and future land system projects are discussed.
DBERD hosted 10 business and industry delegates representing eight Northern Territory organisations as part of the Northern Territory Government and Industry Exhibit, which promoted out local industry capability that supports Defence. The Northern Territory delegates were given the opportunity to actively promote their individual capabilities to Defence and Defence prime contractors attending the conference. The feedback I received from a number of delegates is that the contacts and relationships they made have presented them with exciting opportunities for capturing new and valuable Defence related business in the future.
Participating in this delegation enabled me to meet with the chief executives and senior management teams of prime contractors and with Defence, to lobby for Defence related projects and activities to be undertaken in the Territory. AIDN-NT has also produced a capability profile brochure which was used extensively at the Land Warfare Conference and Exhibition to promote local industry capability.
Mounting Northern Territory exhibits at key Defence conferences is an example of the collaborative initiatives that government and industry must deliver in order to profile and promote Territory industry capability.
Developing Strategic Infrastructure is the fifth focus of the strategy. Members would be well aware of the Defence Support Hub being developed close to Robertson Barracks. The growing Defence presence in the Northern Territory is increasing demand for infrastructure to support that presence and related industry activities.
The Northern Territory government and industry are working at attracting infrastructure investment by the Commonwealth and the private sector, which will facilitate industry growth and enable industry to support Defence. The Defence Support Hub is a major initiative of the Northern Territory government to enable the Defence support industry to grow and align its capability to deliver support to armoured and non-armoured vehicles, artillery and other ADF platforms based at the barracks as well as support for such areas as simulators and network-centric warfare capabilities.
The sixth focus is Establishing Strategic Partnerships. Identifying and forming strategic partnerships with world class partners which can contribute to the long term, sustainable development of the Northern Territory Defence support industry will be fundamental to its growth. Many prime contractors have already seen the opportunities to partner with SMEs in the Northern Territory, growing their capability to support Defence locally without themselves making major capital investment. These partnerships also benefit SMEs, providing the opportunity to participate in large Defence contracts, access to new technologies and the opportunity to develop new skills, improve systems and their credentials.
The Northern Territory government and AIDN-NT have both established strategic partnerships with Defence and with the broader Defence support industry across Australia. The Northern Territory government, through its Defence Support division within DBERD, has developed close working relationships with a broad range of areas within the Defence organisation. These relationships are aimed at gaining a better understanding of the needs of Defence in the Northern Territory, the ways in which government and industry can support the Defence presence, and how local industry can become embedded in contracts and projects.
The government has developed strong relationships with many prime contractors through visiting their facilities interstate and hosting their visits to the Territory. It has also hosted visits by industry groups such as the Australian Industry Group Defence Council and the Australian Industry and Defence Network National Executive. AIDN-NT has established relationships with AIDN in other states in Australia and is continuing to grow its links with prime contractors and Defence.
The strategy identifies the need for local businesses to integrate themselves into the supply chains of Defence prime contractors. Mapping the supply chain opportunities associated with Territory-based Defence equipment will assist businesses in identifying which original equipment manufacturers or prime contractors they should form relationships with and they will be able to build upon the good working relationships that DBERD and AIDN have established.
Levering Research and Development Opportunities from the Defence Presence in the North is the last focus of the strategy. The Northern Territory’s unique geographical location and climatic conditions provide a unique opportunity to undertake research and development in relation to Defence people and equipment. Ranging from desert to tropical, these environments are considerable different from those experienced by Defence in the southern states, yet are generally similar to the environments in which personnel and equipment are deployed.
More high-tech equipment is either being based here or used in major Defence exercises in the Northern Territory. The arrival of platforms new to Australia and this environment, such as the Tiger Armed Reconnaissance helicopters and the Abrams tanks, provide opportunities for research and development in the Northern Territory. Currently, investment of resources into research and development is not significant in the Northern Territory Defence support industry, but there is potential for considerable growth. The strategy identifies ways in which industry, supported by government and Charles Darwin University, can capitalise on the opportunities ahead.
I spoke earlier about the value of the Defence presence and its contribution to the Northern Territory economy. The large Defence presence in the Northern Territory requires a high level of industry support for its operations. Adopting a more strategic approach to capture more Defence-related work locally will benefit local businesses, create new jobs and help grow the Northern Territory economy. Growing the capability and capacity of the Defence support industry in the Northern Territory will contribute to the capability of Defence as well as contribute to the sustainability and profitability of businesses.
While production of this strategy has been a joint industry and government initiative, this is truly an industry-owned strategy with high levels of senior industry guidance and input, and containing strategic directions endorsed by industry. I am encouraged by the level of industry ownership of the strategy and the eagerness of AIDN-NT to commence work on implementing its strategic directions. AIDN-NT has already commenced developing its action plans and has a clear vision of where it is heading and what needs to be done to get there. While the government and AIDN-NT have worked very closely on developing the strategy, the real challenge now lies ahead.
As I mentioned earlier, many people have contributed their time and ideas to the development of the priorities and directions contained within the strategy. The large number of industry, government, academic, union and Defence stakeholders who all contributed to its development now need to support its implementation.
It is clearly evident that the Northern Territory government recognises the importance of the Defence presence in the Northern Territory and the importance of supporting that presence. The government’s view is that Defence equipment based in the Northern Territory should be maintained in the Northern Territory. This strategy is a key component in the efforts of government and AIDN-NT to capture that work for growing local industry capability and capacity to provide the high level of support that Defence requires in order to carry out its operations here and deploy to overseas destinations.
The Northern Territory government supports the Northern Territory Defence Support Industry Development Strategy. I encourage all those with an interest in industry to also get behind it and support its implementation.
I commend AIDN-NT President, Mark Smith, who runs his own business, and Mr Andrew Jones, Executive Officer of AIDN-NT. I extend my thanks to my departmental staff, especially Mr Gareth James and Mr Peter Sims who, together with their colleagues in the Defence Support Unit, have spent long hours working with AIDN-NT to ensure this is a document we can all be proud of.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of this statement.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his statement. I welcome Mark Smith and colleagues to parliament tonight and congratulate you, in particular, and the government for this strategy.
The minister’s statement makes it reasonably difficult for the opposition to respond. We received the statement, as we ordinarily do, last night and we received the strategy as the minister got to his feet, which is normal parliamentary practice in this parliament, at least. There are no new gripes there. The difficulty is we have not seen the strategy, so it is very difficult for us to comment on it in a meaningful way.
Nevertheless, you will have noticed, as I am sure other members did, that, since I received the strategy I have been looking through it, and it certainly looks impressive. I note that others have commented on the strategy as per the minister’s statement and regard it as a good document. We are, in a sense, being asked to comment on something we have not seen so, in those circumstances, please accept our apology, if you like. We wish you all well and, in so many ways, it is difficult for us to comment on the strategy in any other meaningful way.
Having said that, the minister did raise some issues in his statement, and one in particular I will come to shortly. I thought it was worth going through those matters contained in the first few pages of the minister’s statement because I am not sure that the very important part that Defence plays in the Territory is entirely understood by everyone around the Territory. As the minister said on page one of his statement:
Defence personnel posted to the Northern Territory, as the minister said, bring with them a number of skills and attributes that build our community, build the Northern Territory, even before we get to the very obvious economic benefits that they bring as well.
I liked the way, frankly, in the statement, the minister said:
Indeed, they do. They are, as the minister said, teachers, nurses, childcare workers, shop assistants, secretaries, small business owners, skilled tradespeople and the list goes on. Appropriately, the minister referred to the flow-on effect of Defence salaries and the importance they play in our economy:
The Northern Territory does very well as a community from Defence, Defence personnel and Defence support. I am not sure that it is that the role it plays in the Territory is as well understood as it should be. Perhaps all of us have a role to play in that regard. In terms of the importance of Defence and associated industries to the Northern Territory we, with government, as you would expect, welcome it and embrace it. We, like government, believe that everything should be done to maximise the economic and other benefits that arise from the presence of defence the length and breadth of the Northern Territory.
In relation to the strategy, I make it very clear that the opposition wishes everyone involved well. I wonder whether the minister might undertake in his reply to report in 12 months to see how this has gone. Any strategy is only as good as its implementation. If it is not implemented well, efficiently and with the appropriated infrastructure, no strategy is going to work and all of us know that. I hope that the minister regards this as serious enough to report to members of the Assembly in 12 months time. That would certainly be worthwhile from our point of view so we can know how it is going.
Putting aside the strategy, this ministerial statement moves beyond the strategy and to other things. I am absolutely compelled to take issue with the minister in relation to his comments about the Defence Support Hub. I have done a bit of work on this and it is no coincidence that we are debating the statement today, which is the first day the new Chief Minister of the Northern Territory has a full day in the job. Why do I refer to the new Chief Minister? Because by media release dated 9 May 2005 and headed ‘Defence Support Hub for Darwin’, the minister in his normal self-serving way, said:
He went on:
He goes on and on. Nothing wrong with that; a statement of good intention, self-serving though it might be.
However, it goes on. The new Chief Minister, when he was the Minister for Defence Support, like his colleagues, was at pains to create the illusion that much is being done, evidenced by the prolific use of media releases and other government documents issued out of departments and the 5th floor of this building on a very regular basis. The then minister, now Chief Minister, did a couple of media interviews. He said he is talking to a number of the major prime contractors; he is representing, as he did when he talked with Daryl Manzie on 10 May 2005, that much work was being done because getting a defence support hub was very important. That was back in May 2005.
There are various references in parliament so we have been going along thinking: ‘Gee whiz, they are serious about this project’. There are various references in June 2005; February 2006; the new minister had a bit to say on 13 February 2007; more on 12 October 2006, and minister, you were the minister then, all talking about creating a defence support hub to turn:
The very clear picture that the minister and his colleagues wanted to create with the various media releases and reports in this place about the Defence hub is not only is it a good idea, and it is, but by jingoes, you are doing something. Time after time, you are flat out like lizards saying: ‘We are doing something’. Well, despite the Chief Minister assuring all and sundry, as he did by media release dated 14 February 2006, in the final paragraph and I quote:
I wonder where I have heard that before.
That was 14 February 2006.
It is a year or so later and the minister is still telling us that he is talking to people.
Ms Lawrie interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: I do not know what you know about this, member for Karama, but I wait with great excitement to hear what you are going to say.
Let us have a look at what was on the government intranet today, under the heading Creating Darwin’s Future: A Tropical Harbour City, which is a bit of government spin, we are used to that, but, by jingoes, have they spun themselves almost out of control. It talks, as ministers have, about the strategic importance of Darwin to the nation’s Defence activities and recognised for the growing presence of the Australian Defence Force in the north. Yes, you have all said that before. It says:
So what is it? 27 November 2007, and the ‘new’, much lauded by some in the Labor Party room, the new Chief Minister has been working on it since his first media release, and there might have been others, on 9 May 2005. If this is Labor’s new action man, he is not going to serve you well and he is not going to serve Territorians well. But, wait, there is more!
This document that was on the government intranet today was also included in the strategy. You would expect that to be so because this strategy is 2007 to 2017. It is futuristic. It does not, unlike government media releases saying I am going to do this and I am going to that represent to Territorians that indeed it is being done. This is 2007-2017. The authors of that document know that in future a Defence hub is going to be created, but not if you look on the NT government website. Here we have the picture, and I will table this, ‘proposed Defence support hub’ - and it has been proposed for a while? - and it has all the pictures and it has roads going up there and it has buildings. It is an enormous block, obviously, but on this picture it looks to be divided into other areas.
Mr Wood: It has magnetic ant hills.
Ms CARNEY: Yes, I know. I may come to that.
In any event, there is even a road to the right. All of the buildings are there, and you look and think: ‘Gee, that is fantastic’. However, a member of my office was asked to drive out to this site today, minister, and this is what he saw. I will table these as well. This picture of the road is, we are fairly certain, the road on this somewhat futuristic diagram. Not a lot happening there. Yes, that is the main thoroughfare of the Defence Support Hub, colleagues. That is a far cry from the picture contained on the NT government website. Here is another one, here is another, in fact, that is a better photo of the road and what a great photo it is, too.
In case you did not already know it, minister, my point is that you are led by a failed Police minister, a failed …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! The member well and truly knows that she cannot make those allegations denigrating a member of the Chamber without a substantiative motion.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw the last phrase.
Ms CARNEY: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, it is a sad day, is it not, when in this parliament, a member of parliament cannot say that a minister is a failed minister? I ask for your clarification on this point. What is it exactly, if I heard you correctly, that you want me to withdraw?
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The assertion that the minister was a failed minister. The Leader of Government Business is quite right: you cannot do that other than by way of substantive motion.
Ms CARNEY: Just so that I am clear …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would ask you again to withdraw it, please.
Ms CARNEY: Mr Deputy Speaker, in order I am clear about what it is you want me to do …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am asking you to withdraw the words ‘failed minister’.
Ms CARNEY: Mr Deputy Speaker …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am asking you to withdraw the words ‘failed minister’.
Ms CARNEY: Mr Deputy Speaker, I dissent from your ruling, and I will, accordingly …
Ms LAWRIE: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am happy for you to seek clarification so we do not hold members of the gallery up. If she really wants to work it out, then speak to the Clerk who is in the Chamber.
Ms CARNEY: Mr Deputy Speaker, I dissent from the ruling you have just made and ask that you act accordingly.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will seek advice from the Clerk. Leader of the Opposition, I have taken advice from the Clerk of the Court …
Ms CARNEY: Clerk of the Court?
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have taken advice from the Clerk of the Court, and your dissent will be noted. You may proceed with your speech. Your dissent will be dealt with in due course. I am asking you to proceed with your speech.
Ms CARNEY: If I may have a moment, and with your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, can I ask why it is that you do not allow me to formally dissent from your ruling?
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have allowed you to dissent from the ruling. I am just advising you that the Clerk has given me advice and it will be dealt with. I am asking that, while it is being dealt with, can you proceed with your speech?
Ms CARNEY: While it is being dealt with?
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, it is being dealt with.
Ms CARNEY: I cannot follow that.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: You have some documents you wanted to table. Do you want to table them?
Ms CARNEY: Yes, absolutely.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is leave granted?
Leave granted.
Ms CARNEY: In case you did not already know it, you are led by a failed Police minister. You are led by a man …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. That has been ruled on. There is a dissent motion to be considered by the Speaker on advice from the Clerk. The member should follow the decorum of the Chamber and proceed without repeating something that is currently under the consideration of the Speaker. I know she likes to play the person and not the issue, but really!
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, I ask you to withdraw that statement about the minister being a failed minister because it is currently being dealt with as part of the dissent consideration by the Clerk.
Ms CARNEY: Mr Deputy Speaker, this motion is a formal dissent from your ruling. It is a lack of confidence in your ruling and, by implication, in you in this instance, as Deputy Speaker.
Madam Speaker, I ask that the matter should be brought on formally, that the House divide, and that we resolve this matter before we can move forward because the expression ‘failed minister’ is surely allowed in this parliament. Madam Speaker, now that you are in the Chair, I hope that you …
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, I have to say that, unfortunately, I was not watching the proceedings, so I will have to arrange a Hansard rush, and I will make a ruling on the matter. I have no idea of what happened; I have just been asked to return. I will try to find out what happened, Leader of the Opposition, so I will make a commitment to deal with the issue as soon as possible.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: If you would not mind continuing ...
Ms CARNEY: I am happy to continue, Madam Speaker. My difficulty is I am pressing …
Madam SPEAKER: It was about a particular comment, was it?
Ms CARNEY: Yes. I am pressing what I regard as a right to refer to a minister as a ‘failed minister’. In that context, I am in the invidious position of not being able to move forward as a result of your inability to rule.
Madam SPEAKER: I have no idea of the context and things like that.
Ms CARNEY: Okay, perhaps could we try this, Madam Speaker …
Madam SPEAKER: Perhaps if I get some rushes from Hansard and, if you continue, that would be fine. Perhaps if you try not to use those sorts of comments in the meantime, while I am trying to work out what happened, Leader of the Opposition ...
Ms CARNEY: I am always happy to accommodate you, Madam Speaker, but I want to refer to the Chief Minister as a failed Police minister and failed in a number of other areas in relation to the very statement that is before us.
Madam SPEAKER: All right. Okay.
Ms CARNEY: So, you will appreciate my position, I am sure.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, Leader of the Opposition.
Ms CARNEY: Madam Speaker, I ask that the clock be stopped. Could we adjourn momentarily, Madam Speaker?
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, if it helps with the tone of the speech that the Leader of the Opposition wants to continue with, ‘I believe he is a failed minister’ is different from ‘he is a failed minister’. If she wants to keep up with the tone, ‘I believe he is failed minister’ is more appropriate.
Ms CARNEY: Madam Speaker, may I suggest the following …
Madam SPEAKER: I guess what you are saying, Leader of Government Business, is that, and I agree if it is a generalised thing, but I still have not seen the rushes. Leader of the Opposition, you wanted to say something?
Ms CARNEY: Madam Speaker, in the circumstances, I suggest that we adjourn so that you can see the rushes. I am unable to further my debate when I cannot use an expression as ruled by the Deputy Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: What I suggest is that we adjourn your speech and then you can have the balance of your time plus an extra 10 minutes, which would probably cover the amount and we go to another speaker while I get the rushes.
Ms CARNEY: So the issue will be resolved tonight?
Madam SPEAKER: Oh, yes. It will be resolved in the next half hour, but I need to see the rushes and make a considered decision.
Ms CARNEY: Yes. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: I suggest that you resume your seat and, once I have made a ruling on it, I will call you again. In the meantime, I will call the member for …
Ms LAWRIE: Just for clarification on that, Madam Speaker, I will seek advice from the Clerk regarding not being able to speak twice in the same debate. I do not want to preclude the Leader of the Opposition from resuming her speech. It is a question on a technicality, Madam Speaker. I will just be seeking clarification as to whether that can actually occur under the standing orders. I do not want to prevent the Leader of the Opposition from continuing her remarks if it could be deemed to be speaking twice in the same debate.
Madam SPEAKER: I said she can continue her remarks at a later time, and I will extend her time by 10 minutes. Member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his statement, which is very important. It is something close to my heart in the sense that I have the barracks sitting right in the middle of my electorate.
I do have to make one comment at the outset. You said:
That depends on your perspective. The Tiwis might say they were defending their land. The British might say they were defending the Tiwi land against the Portuguese or Dutch. It is a bit of a moot point as to whether the defence of our land started at that time, but it is a comment that is to some extent relevant to what we are talking about in relation to defence of the country.
Minister, I must admit that while you were delivering your speech, I tried to read this one. I wish you were able to deliver this because it is a lot easier to understand where you are coming from. If ever there was an argument for some screens in this Legislative Assembly, where you could describe exactly what you were talking about in this fairly dry document and you could turn it into this document and put it on the screen and we could talk to what you were proposing, it would be much easier to understand.
That is not to denigrate the importance of the statement. Defence is important to the nation. How we keep that defence capability up to scratch and in a state of preparedness is a most important function of the nation’s defence and if the Northern Territory can play a part in that, so it should.
The big issue is that we are up here with our Defence force facilities, but in the south are the facilities that maintain our equipment. That is why the tanks go on the railway line and other things go south. The question for government and industry, and I suppose that is what you are trying to do in this strategy, is: how do we either get Defence to move from having its servicing base down south to come to the Northern Territory? Obviously, this strategy is trying to do that. It is trying to develop the mechanisms for local industry to be able to service that industry if we can get it here. It is also looking at getting those service industries down south to come north and develop their industries closer to where the servicing is required. That is why the government has proposed the Northern Territory Defence Support Hub.
I do not know whether I need to say much because this document says it all. I would only be repeating what is already here. People who are interested in finding out what the government’s and industry’s vision is should get hold of this document because it is very clear as to what has happened. Obviously to achieve the vision, you have a strategy which is workforce development, building business capabilities, linking industry to opportunities, profiling and promoting business capability, developing strategic infrastructure, establishing strategic partnerships, and research and development. They are all very important aspects of the industry and they are well laid out in this document. If people do not want to read the whole document, there is a section on strategic direction, which makes it clear where the strategy is. There are some dot points, and it is well laid out. If people were talking to me about where we are going in relation to supporting our Defence industry in the Northern Territory, I do not think you could get a better document than this.
I do not know whether you can say in your summing up as to what your strategy is. I know you have been south and you have been speaking to various people. How far advanced are you in attracting these service industries to the north? I understand what the Leader of the Opposition was talking about when she spoke about the Defence hub. I know they are working on it mainly because there is a big electrical conduit being installed at present. If you are talking to the contractors, could you please ask them to fix up the trench on Wallaby Holtze Road? It needs to be repaired. They are obviously working on getting infrastructure to that Defence hub.
I do not have the photographs the Leader of the Opposition showed, but I know the minister for Planning this year in estimates …
Mr Vatskalis: They probably went to the wrong place.
Mr WOOD: I am not arguing about those photographs, but the minister for Planning, during the Estimates Committee, was given a black and white photograph of magnetic ant hills and I can tell you that the left-hand side of that photograph, about one-third of it, is in wetland, which surprises me. When you look at the requirements for development in the Litchfield Shire, there is a clause that says we should not be using those areas and we should not be filling them.
That section of the Defence hub has been poorly planned. I know we can fill wet land. That is what people do, but I think we can be a bit cleverer and work around the wet areas. We do not need square lines for everything. We can fit in with the geography of the land, and if it is wet, leave it wet as part of our wetlands of the Northern Territory and Darwin area, and use the dry land for the Defence hub.
I am in total support of the Defence hub. It is a great idea, but my objection has basically been that part of the land is not suitable for it and we should have left it alone. That is a minor but important complaint in the whole scheme of what we are trying to do.
I would be interested in hearing from the minister as to whether any industries, local or interstate, have put their hand up to go in the hub. Obviously, it is no good putting all this money into the infrastructure if no one is interested in coming here, so I am interested to hear whether we have people coming. If we do, what are intending to do? What is their relationship with the Army? I presume this is all based around Robertson Barracks.
I am also interested to know what discussions are being held between Robertson Barracks and the Defence Support Hub. How does that relationship work? Do you just tell someone to come or do you sit down with Robertson Barracks and have a strategy or working party that will link what is happening on Robertson Barracks with what is going to happen in the Defence Support Hub? I am presuming the Defence Support Hub is Northern Territory owned and, at the same time, we are dealing with a Commonwealth instrumentality in the Defence Force. I am interested to know how that connection works to make sure all this comes together.
This is a very timely statement and strategy. My impression, having been on the periphery of all this, is that it has taken a while for this to come together. There have been people talking about it and we have some contractors already doing work for the Defence industry, but this is bringing it all together as a strategy. It is vitally important that we work towards this because it is helping the economy. It means that our Defence Forces are efficient and ready and capable. In this day and age when we are sending our troops off overseas to Iraq, and that may finish soon, but to Afghanistan, Timor and other places, it is good that we as Territorians will now participate in doing that and we play our role as part of the nation’s support for its Defence industry and the forces.
Mr NATT (Mines and Energy): Madam Speaker, I support the statement delivered by the Minister for Defence Support on Growing Industry Capability to Support Defence in the Northern Territory.
Like the minister, I acknowledge the significant contribution that Defence makes to the Northern Territory’s community and its economy. The Northern Territory government has broadened and deepened the nature of the support services it provides the Defence Force support industry and Defence families.
Defence is one of the largest contributors to the Territory’s economy and the Northern Territory government is taking steps to help industry develop its capabilities and capacity to capture more Defence-related business. The Northern Territory Economic Framework, which was released in August 2006, sets a clear direction and it is making decisions in the knowledge that Northern Territory stakeholders have a shared sense of direction and vision in the area.
The Northern Territory government and the Australian Industry Defence Network NT, or AIDN-NT, have identified and pursued Defence support industry development priorities for the period of 2007 to 2017, and I commend the minister for releasing the development strategy for 2007 to 2017. It is a fantastic booklet, a great resource for the industry and provides a valuable strategy for local businesses that wish to sustain their capabilities within the realms of Defence force support. If there are new businesses around the place looking to get their finger in the pie, so to speak, it is a wonderful resource for them.
Industry and government are able to pursue economic benefits relating to major Defence-related projects currently under way. It is interesting to note that some of the economic development opportunities that are arising through the arrival of the First Aviation Regiment’s 17 new Tiger Reconnaissance helicopters, as well as the arrival of 41 Abrams M1A1 main battle tanks, the ongoing establishment of the fleet of 10 Armidale Class Patrol Boats and the Australian-US Joint Combined Training Centre Capabilities initiative, including the development of Bradshaw, which is out near Timber Creek, as the Army’s Field Training area.
The Northern Territory government and AIDN-NT are committed to helping industry build its capacity and capabilities. Issues have been identified that need to be addressed in order to formulate a Defence Support Industry Strategic Development Strategy. I commend Mark Smith, President of AIDN-NT, and the minister for putting this strategy together.
It is interesting to note some of the key points and statistics that were published in the Treasurer’s annual financial report indicate that the Defence presence in the Territory has more than doubled since the early 1990s, with the number of defence personnel and their families increasing from 6223 in June 1992 to an estimated 12 935 in June 2007. That has doubled in a matter of five years. Of the Australian total permanent Defence Force personnel, 10% are based in the Northern Territory. Recurrent Defence expenditure for the Australian government in the Territory totalled $954m in 2005-06. That is a considerable spend by the Australian government in the Territory on our armed forces.
Major Defence-related activities under way in the Territory include the $170m development of the new suburb of Lyons at Lee Point, and the recent acquisition of land adjacent to Lyons, which is now known as Muirhead. Defence activities nearing completion include the construction of the $82m Robertson Barracks 1st Aviation complex, and the $65m Bradshaw Field Training Area near Timber Creek, as I said. The Territory’s economy will benefit from local supply and support contracts from the Armidale class patrol boats, the Abrams tanks, Tiger helicopters and replacement of the field vehicles and trailers.
The Territory is an integral component of Australia’s security strategy by virtue of our location. Major Territory Defence sites are an integral component in the protection of Australia’s northern borders and will greatly benefit from the increase in capabilities that have been mentioned.
Defence will remain an important element of the Territory economy in the foreseeable future. It is interesting to note that we have a number of major Defence sites in the Territory; namely, Larrakeyah Barracks in Darwin; Robertson Barracks near Palmerston; HMAS Coonawarra which is based in Darwin also; RAAF Base Darwin; RAAF Base Tindal near Katherine; and the Joint Defence facility of Australia and the United States at Pine Gap near Alice Springs.
We really should not forget that Defence is an important contributor to the regional economies, particularly Katherine and Alice Springs, which enjoy the residence of RAAF Base Tindal and Pine Gap.
Defence also is an economic contributor to regional indigenous communities through the operation of NORFORCE and Defence exercises. Through the development of the strategy, the Northern Territory government and AIDN-NT are seeking to lever further economic development for the Defence presence in some of our Northern Territory regions.
Other Defence force sites include the Defence establishment at Berrimah, Bradshaw Field Training area near Timber Creek, as I mentioned earlier, Mt Bundy Field Training area near Mary River, the Delamere Bombing Range near Katherine, and the Jindalee operational radar network facility, which is near Alice Springs.
Defence delivers more than just dollars into our economy. I take this opportunity to recognise the contribution that Defence communities make to the Northern Territory and, in particular, to my electorate. As I said, almost 13 000 Defence personnel and their families reside in the Northern Territory. It is estimated that 5589 of these are Defence Force personnel, which means that around about 7500 are spouses and children who are active members of our community. They attend our schools, they work in small businesses, they work for charities and are employed in our public sector.
Let us not forget that they also have to have a bit of enjoyment and embrace our lifestyle. I know that many of them play sport. Through my time at the AFL, many Defence Force players donned the jumper every week to play for local clubs; and that is not confined to AFL - it is all sports. Let us not forget the recreational fishing sector. Many Defence Force people come here with a boat or, when they get here and discover that the fishing is good, and they purchase a boat, fishing tackle and gear and that contributes to our economy.
The partners or spouses of Defence members are often skilled and qualified people who are very welcome contributors to our workforce.
We recognise the importance the Defence presence makes to our community while noting that the Defence community is unique in its highly transient nature with large numbers moving into the Territory for two to three year periods. That is very noticeable in my electorate. I estimate that just over 25% of my electorate is comprised of Defence Force personnel. Often when I am door knocking, people have been here for their one or two years or just running into their three year stints and have to leave at the end of the year. The rollover process will take effect next month and many of the families that I have come to know in the two and a half years that I have been here will be leaving, but the rollover will occur and we will have new faces on the door steps when I start door knocking again in the not too distant future.
There is a range of challenges that each posting brings, such as new schools, finding childcare, spouses finding work and families establishing new networks. One of the big things that I find on the door steps is adapting to the weather in most cases. Many families come up from down south and find that the heat knocks them around considerably. Adapting to the weather, and especially the Build-Up and Wet Season because a lot the families do move into Darwin during December, is difficult. Families posted from Townsville are more used to our climatic conditions so they are not too bad, but I know a number of the families posted from New South Wales, South Australia and Victoria find it hard to adapt. However, once we get into a Dry Season, they become a little more at ease and enjoy the lifestyle.
Another big thing I find on door steps is familiarising themselves with the Northern Territory. Many of them have come from big cities and have a network of friends and families. Familiarising yourself with the Territory, the wide open spaces, the easy way to get around, they do find it well set up and well established and they feel that moving to the Territory puts them at a little bit more ease. They do not have the stress and strain of driving through heavy traffic every day and they do not have the stress and strain of their children on the streets in some of the bigger southern areas.
Something else I find on the door steps is that many of the women are trying to come to grips with their partners being overseas. Many of them are mothers with young children at either pre-school or school and it is difficult for them to settle into a new environment and to find all of the networks they need. It is pleasing to see that we are helping in that area with our Defence support.
Recognising these challenges and noting the significant value to the Northern Territory as a whole by the Defence community, the Northern Territory government made a commitment to create Defence Community Liaison functions. This role has now been implemented within the Department of Business, Economic and Regional Development and the officer concerned is actively engaged in the Defence Community Organisation, Defence Families Australia, and Defence Housing Australia to identify issues that the Northern Territory government may be able to help with and address in order to make postings to the Territory a smooth and enjoyable experience for Defence members and their families.
Durack Primary School has a very strong presence of Defence children. The Defence Force does provide a Defence Support Training Aide. I had the pleasure of working with Corinne Hunt who has just left the school and been replaced by Sue Wilson. Corinne has worked with Defence Force families over the last couple of years and has set up some wonderful contacts for mothers and children within the school, helping them, through the assistance of the Defence Community Organisation and Defence Families Australia, trying to organise their postings, helping them out with any issues they may have within the school or community and she has tried to make it as easy and as smooth as possible for many of those families coming into a new environment.
I commend the Durack Primary School for the work they do to help mothers and children settle in. It is a great little school with a great set-up and I can commend all the teachers for the work they do within the school. I have not had the pleasure of meeting Sue Wilson yet. Sue has only just started. She has replaced Corinne in the last couple of weeks. I understand that she has a Defence family background. Her husband has been in the Army for 25 years and she has two teenage girls, one in Year 11 and the other is working for Territory Housing. They seem to have settled into the Territory very well and I know that Sue has hit the ground running at Durack and has set up many meetings with students and mothers at the school. She continues Corinne’s good work by setting up the Friday morning cup of tea and scone before the children go to assembly. Many of the mothers drop their kids off at school, come into the staff room, have a cup of coffee and talk with the Defence Support Training Aide about different issues. They can also talk to other mothers who have been in Darwin for a couple of years. I commend the school for the work they do.
My electorate covers Winnellie, Berrimah and Pinelands, a huge industrial area, and of course, East Arm. A number of businesses have set up within those areas and they provide wonderful support for Defence Force strategies and help as best they can with some Defence projects. Some of the business opportunities and skills required are quite diverse. It would be interesting to see statistics on employment in Defence-related industry in the Territory. A preliminary estimate of value, including specialist and non-specialist support services, construction and Defence housing is around $600m and that was for the 2005-06 year. The diversity of some of the businesses is quite amazing. It ranges from logistic support, armoured vehicle maintenance, field vehicle and trailer maintenance, electronic systems design and development, communications systems support, radar systems operations, signals op monitoring, provision of aircraft for target towing and logistics, ship maintenance, repair and modification, underwater training systems, construction services right down to air-conditioning supply and supply of gases, waste disposal and shade cloth. The diversity is huge and many businesses in and around Darwin benefit greatly from Defence force maintenance work.
There are a couple of the businesses I would like to mention: Universal Engineering has a wonderful name. Steve Tilley is the Managing Director. He took over the company about 13 years ago and has managed to pick up a contract modifying Abrams tanks. The work that he has done in the company is recognised nationally to the point where two of his Northern Territory tradesmen were flown to Puckapunyal in Victoria to complete modifications on 16 Abrams tanks. That illustrates the skills shortage around Australia. With the diversity of skills we have in the Territory, for the Army to employ two of our tradesman in Puckapunyal to work on tanks is a great feather in the cap of Universal Engineering. They have modified 41 tanks in the Northern Territory and they have worked on 16 in Victoria, as I said earlier. The specialised work that is undertaken here is truly demonstrated by the work that Universal Engineering do.
Another interesting one is MTU Detroit Diesel. They convert Unimogs, which are Mercedes Benz 8-tonne 4WD trucks, the work horse of the Air Force Defence Squadron. It is primarily used for troop transport logistical purposes. MTU Detroit Diesel has secured a $9m contract over two years, which indicates there are some terrific contracts out there. We have some great skills in the Territory being utilised by the Defence Force, which is great to see.
The minister noted the important role Defence has played in the development of the Northern Territory since 1824. The Australian Defence Force presence in the Territory, its expanding role with numerous visits by foreign military and the growing strategic importance of Darwin as a mounting base all illustrate why Defence will continue to be a major contributor to the Territory’s economy and community in the foreseeable future. Darwin and Palmerston are strategically important bases for Defence, and the more we can do to assist Defence personnel and their families who are posted to the Territory, the better, because this will help make postings to the Territory an attractive option and further investment by Defence and Defence industry a logistical consequence.
Madam Speaker, I support the minister’s statement. I commend the work that AIDN-NT and the government have done in putting the Defence Support Industry Development Strategy together. I commend the statement to the House.
Mr BURKE (Brennan): Madam Speaker, I acknowledge the presence of Mr Peter Sims and Mr Mark Smith as well as Gareth James in the gallery. Thank you very much for coming along tonight. It is always good to be talking about Defence-related issues, given that so much of my electorate is made up of Defence personnel and their families.
As other speakers have already said, there is a long history in the Territory of a Defence presence, and the real acknowledgement of that came after or during World War II with Darwin’s bombing by the Japanese over a period of 18 months. Anyone who grew up here knows that Defence is an important part of life in the Top End and the NORFORCE Unit has a special place in the hearts of many Territorians. It is well known and I know that the Army, Air Force and Navy cadet units have a great representation of young people, particularly the RAAF Cadet Unit in Palmerston, which does some great things including, last year, fundraising to take a group of cadets to the Gallipoli Dawn Service, something they managed to fundraise themselves and I commend them for that.
One of the great changes in Defence policy was the relocation of so much of the effort to the northern parts of Australia. The unofficial policy was infamous prior to that of retreating to a point somewhere north of Sydney and defending from there down. It was the Hawke/Keating government which recognised that the major effort for Defence had to be the north because any threat to Australia was unlikely to come from the Antarctic, and therefore there was a great deal of work done in looking at the northern reaches of the country and an upgrade of many bases, both main bases and remote airfields and the like that could become operational very quickly.
To give an idea, and I know there have been some quotes already, but over all, the Defence budget has increased significantly since 1996 from $10.6bn to $22bn. That is a huge increase, yet still nowhere near what our allies, the United States, can manage to spend, but a significant amount nonetheless in anyone’s language.
I note from this document, The Northern Territory Defence Support Industry Development Strategy, that Defence expenditure attributed to the Territory has grown at an average of 11% per annum since 1995, when the Army relocation to Darwin began in real earnest. The Defence presence has grown from a just over 6200 personnel and families in 1992 to almost 13 000 in June 2007. Many of those families are based at Palmerston. The continued numbers increase at Robertson Barracks can be attested to by the increase in living accommodation that continues to be built on base. There was a page I found very interesting because until you see it listed, you do not fully appreciate the investment that the military has in the Northern Territory. Robertson Barracks on it own, without going to any of the equipment that is there, is a $1bn investment.
Then there are the various units, the ASLAV vehicles, the M113 armoured personnel carriers, the Bushmaster armoured personnel carrier, and the Leopard tank, which of course has now been replaced as the main battle tank by the Abrams, an awesome piece of equipment. One only has to be parked next to one of the trucks carrying one to appreciate its sheer size. It is a considerable leap forward in technology and capability on the Leopard tank, which was our main battle tank for so many years. It was a great war horse but, unfortunately, not one that can compete at all with the Abrams.
Of course, there is the armed reconnaissance helicopter squadron. I have seen a short DVD presentation on its capabilities and it defies belief. The manoeuvrability of the helicopter is amazing. I am sure it defies the laws of physics, to quote the character of Scotty from Star Trek. That is just some of the equipment that is or will be in the Northern Territory. That is without the FA-18s at Tindal, which we understand will be replaced by the joint strike fighter and, before that, the Super Hornet as the interim. All of these aircraft represent a significant investment by this country in Defence capabilities.
Many Territorians would be familiar with the sight of the patrol boats coming in to and out of Darwin, patrolling the northern waters and headquartered at HMAS Coonawarra.
As well as the fact that these are themselves pieces of equipment, within them they have a whole range of equipment: communications gear, computer gear, night sights and technologies which are all at the cutting edge of the different industries of which they are part. Robertson Barracks has an amazing network of computers, as I am sure every Defence base does. It is not just about being able to have those communications available when you can; it is ensuring their availability so there is a whole range of security issues, which is a separate industry, the security industry. By that I mean information security, not just physical security or security of assets.
I did see, having a look through this document, that one of the first ports of call was to try to define what ‘Defence Industry’ actually meant as it does take such an array of different professions, technical trades and the more obvious trades. If you go to Robertson Barracks, and you will find plumbers and electricians working there just the same as they do everywhere else in the community. All of this represents major opportunities for the Northern Territory.
As I mentioned, Defence capabilities use technology which are at the cutting edge of whichever field you are looking at. This means that the Northern Territory, if we can secure that business, has a great opportunity to expand its skill base. I saw, through this document, the need for a Skill Audit being identified:
This is vital. You need to know the point from which you are starting to be able to set the strategic directions for the future and looking at the skills you currently have because there are certainly Northern Territory small businesses which have already secured contracts in some areas of prime contractors, as I understand they are called within the Defence community, sub-contracting out to smaller contractors elements of the contracts they hold. I know there are already some Northern Territory businesses which have secured this.
I was talking last year to a couple of guys who ended up being sent to the US to learn more about some of the technologies being employed in the vehicles they were working on. They were benefiting personally from an increase in the skills they held from your more typical skills, and the business was benefiting from them having that overseas training and gaining that because they could advertise their business as having the capability of being able to provide the maintenance support of the particular vehicles which were being worked on. I know the type of vehicles that they were working on, but I am not sure whether the proprietor of the business would be too keen on that being talked about so I will err on the side of caution.
Beginning the process of a skills audit to build skills, finding out what our base level is, then looking to what opportunities exist, how we can build the skill base and then starting the process again to determine what further advanced skills that can be the building blocks for.
It was good to hear the recognition that this government’s Jobs Plan has had as part of that, we are up to Jobs Plan 3. The first Jobs Plan that this government initiated was the first of its type in the Territory. It was needed for some time and has been a resounding success, so much so that we are into the third version, Jobs Plan 3, and we are filling the gaps and shortages that exist.
I make this point: I can remember many years ago when the Howard government first came in at the federal level that union organisations and training organisations were warning that if the then new government carried out its plans to scrap the training initiatives that were in place when it came to power and had been put into place by the previous government, there would be a job shortage or a skills shortage in 10 to 15 years time. That is exactly what happened. There was a skills shortage because the training that was provided by the federal government was not scrapped, but went through a radical decrease in availability. Those observations 10 or 15 years ago were proved beyond doubt.
One of the other programs that gets a mention through this strategy document is the government’s Workready program. That is the school to work transition program aiming to assist and encourage Year 11 and 12 school students to take part in structured vocational education and training and leading to school based apprenticeships. I commend, once again, Palmerston High School for the work it does in its vocational training school-based apprenticeships.
It is constantly working to build partnerships with small business and large, wherever they can, to give their students the opportunities to try school-based apprenticeships and to take part in structured vocational education because much of work that becomes available out of the Defence industry is trade based. I note through the document that, and this comes from page 16, that the Defence and Industry Policy Statement 2007 states around 12 000 new employees will be needed in the Defence industry sector nationally over the next decade. Of these, 25% need to be engineering or tertiary qualified project management personnel and 75%, three quarters, the vast majority, are required in the trade areas.
The strategy makes the point that these ratios can be expected to apply to the Northern Territory Defence industry. Trade skills are vitally important and those base apprenticeships - and when I say ‘base’, I mean the basic building blocks that lead to those higher skills that are employed by Defence, Defence contractors and the prime contractors - provide the skills their employees need to work on incredibly complex equipment. I remember from my time at school, I am not sure if it is still the advertisement, but there was an advertisement run by the Air Force during recruiting times which showed an exploded view of an FA18 with systems represented through it and the by-line said something like: ‘When we are finished with you, you will know how to put this back together’. I know from the many friends I have in Defence just how complex the work they do is and just how important it is.
Of course, having the skills base is only part of the picture because you have to have the business capability and the Northern Territory government is working hard to assist business in building their capabilities so that they can successfully tender. Many people who run businesses have the skills pertinent to those businesses, not necessarily business management skills, and so the aid the Northern Territory government can provide in helping to assist with how to grow the business, how to manage business, how to have appropriate occupational health and safety systems in place which is often a requirement by the Department of Defence when looking at awarding contracts. Those mechanisms for business are very important.
I note I am running out of time. I could speak for a lot longer on this, but Madam Speaker, I do not need an extension of time. I commend the minister’s statement and will conclude my comments there.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, I seek leave to withdraw my point of order.
Madam SPEAKER: Is leave granted?
Ms CARNEY: No.
Madam SPEAKER: There being no objection, leave is granted.
Ms CARNEY: No! I said ‘no’, Madam Speaker. Division, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry. I did not hear that. If you said no, that is fine.
Ms LAWRIE: Do you want to divide when I am withdrawing a point of order?
Ms CARNEY: Withdraw it now? You should have had the Whip to do it at the outset.
Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry. Did you want to do anything else apart from that?
Ms LAWRIE: I was seeking leave to withdraw the point of order. Madam Speaker, I seek leave to suspend standing orders to allow me to withdraw my point of order.
Leave granted.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me withdrawing my point of order.
Madam SPEAKER: The question is that standing orders be suspended.
Ms CARNEY: No, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, with your indulgence, this is most unusual. You have indicated to members of this House that you were to rule. The fact that the Leader of Government Business has had an afterthought really does not change the fact that we want a ruling on this issue.
Madam SPEAKER: At this stage, we have only suspended standing orders in order for the minister to withdraw the point of order. I understand the minister wanted to make some comment in relation to her motion. I ask her to speak now and I will allow you to speak as well.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is very determined to focus on playing the person and playing politics. I am happy to allow her to do that. If she wants to continue to use the words ‘failed minister’ and play the person, she may do that. I withdraw my point of order.
Madam SPEAKER: I have sought advice from the Clerk regarding this matter. I am accepting the fact that the minister has withdrawn the point of order relating to the expression ‘failed minister’. That being the case, there is no point of order. I should say that, in your continuing remarks in your speech which is to come on for a further 10 minutes, I will allow the expression ‘a failed minister’.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. So just to make it abundantly clear, there will be no ruling on this because you have ruled in any event that the Deputy Speaker’s ruling is not upheld, as it were, correct?
Madam SPEAKER: Not at all. What I am saying is that because the point of order has been withdrawn, the Deputy Speaker was unable to make a ruling on it because it has been withdrawn.
Ms CARNEY: So we will have no ruling on his ruling? Correct?
Madam SPEAKER: I have also sought advice on that and, unfortunately, I am not allowed to make a ruling on it because that is not in the process. I am advising you that you are able to continue your speech if you wish at this point. You have 10 minutes and I will allow the use of that expression.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It was a dissent motion.
Madam SPEAKER: It was a dissent motion, but if the point of order has been withdrawn, there cannot be a dissenting motion because there is no point of order.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): You would like me to proceed?
Madam SPEAKER: If you wish to, you can continue.
Ms CARNEY: Madam Speaker, for the sake of the Parliamentary Record, I should talk about what has happened here tonight and the outrageous way in which the government, in a very clumsy, ill-conceived attempt to be difficult from the outset, has put you, with respect, Madam Speaker, in an impossible position. Hence, the repeated requests to me to accommodate the government so that we would not see a situation where, Madam Speaker, you would make a decision in terms of the Deputy Speaker’s ruling from which they anticipated, correctly, that we would then respectfully seek to dissent from your ruling had that eventuated, Madam Speaker.
The reason this is all very interesting is that the new Deputy Speaker made a mistake. The new Leader of Government Business made a mistake. The Speaker was placed in an impossible position where she might have had to rule that her Deputy Speaker did the wrong thing. That would have created dramas for government, and they would have to have decided whether they back the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker.
It is almost hysterical for members opposite, and particularly the Leader of Government Business, to suggest that the words ‘failed minister’ should not be used in this place. It is an outrageous proposition for any government minister to be so utterly defensive and pathetic to call a point of order when other members are describing their own as a ‘failed minister’.
Ms Lawrie interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: I would not be saying too much if I were you, Leader of Government Business, because your mouth has already got you into trouble. You are not unlike – no, I will not go there. It has already got you into trouble. Shoot first, ask questions later. You will suffer the consequences. You all will.
Madam Speaker, we are concerned about the hysterical, defensive way in which government members leap to their feet, put Madam Speaker in an impossible position and I do not propose to reflect on the Speaker, but words like ‘slippery’, ‘buggerlugs’, ‘bah!’, ‘hypocrite’, ‘bovver boy’, ‘cloth ears’ and ‘tone’ have been objected to by this government in the recent past.
For a government that collectively leads with its chin on almost everything, to be so hysterically obsessed with pithy little words like this shows members opposite for exactly what they are. They will say that this parliament is a place for debate. You would not know it when one considers the speed with which they leap to their feet in relation to things that, quite frankly, are absurdities.
Madam Speaker, that is why we wanted the ruling. We will do this every time you become so obsessed with your sense of image and egos that you create a situation in the parliament of the Northern Territory where certain words are used that in common parlance cannot, on any interpretation, be described as offensive, demeaning or inappropriate in any context are objected to. We will do it time after time after time.
Through you, Madam Speaker, and I direct it particularly to the Leader of the Government Business, I know she is upset she did not get the Deputy Leadership, but we ask her to focus on the job at hand. If what we have seen tonight, which would have to go close to being unprecedented, certainly since I have been a member of this parliament, is the level of incompetence from the new Leader of Government Business and the new leadership team, then God save our fellow Territorians.
This has been amateur hour. This has been the Labor Clampetts coming to town, sitting in this parliament and trying their best to make themselves look good. Well, you have not made yourselves look good. You have two new ministers who are a laughing stock. The Clampetts have been in office collectively since 2001, but, by God, the Clampetts have excelled in the last couple of days. Shame on you!
Returning to my response to the statement, where was I? I said to the new Minister for Defence Support that he is led by a failed minister, a failed minister of Police. He was the one who, for the most part, oversaw the rising rates in crime in the Northern Territory. He was a failed Police minister who did not deliver his own promise, Labor’s promise, of providing 200 extra police on the beat.
He is a failed Minister for Defence Support, and that is evidenced when people go back to what I said throughout my earlier contribution in response. He is a failed minister because he has been saying since 2005 that a defence hub would be really good and he was talking to a whole lot of people. He has failed because notwithstanding the picture on your government’s website of seemingly a little industrial village here under the heading ‘Proposed defence support hub’, all we have as at today is absolutely nothing.
We did not scour every centimetre of the block. If there is something there, tell us, but I note with great interest, minister, you spent, and you are a new person in this regard, surprisingly little time in your statement talking about the defence hub. One, two, three - yes, three paragraphs; immediately suspicious. Why did you not want to talk about that? Because even you know, through you, Madam Speaker, that your new leader is a failure. He is an absolute failure. Someone must have whipped this up, and then someone must have thought: ‘Oh! We have to protect Hendo; he hasn’t actually done anything’. Of course in the media interviews and releases, in particular of May 2005:
He has been speaking to people, Madam Speaker! This man is a gunna! He is gunna do this and he is gunna do that. He is a failure. I feel sorry for those in the Defence support industry that the minister has failed you and has failed Territory businesses along the way as he was the man who said that a defence hub would be terrific, as it would be, for Territory businesses.
I do not know how your vote has fallen, minister. We know you have all been working on it for 15 or 18 months or so, but you are led by a man who has excelled at saying at what he was gunna do, but not actually doing it. You are led by a man who failed to deliver the increased opportunities to Territory businesses that would flow from a hub as promised and as repeated by parrot-like since you took over this ministry. You are led by a man, a failed minister, a man who failed to advise this parliament or the public by media release in the event there were any difficulties. This is a guy who comes in here and says: ‘I am going to do this, and I am going to do that’. If there was an impediment, if there were a series of difficulties, then surely it was incumbent upon your new Chief Minister to outline to the parliament or indeed to the public through media release, what the problem were. But, no. So is it reasonable for us and others to think that the minister has failed? Absolutely. You cannot have it both ways.
You cannot go around issuing media releases, talking to journalists and saying: ‘I am going to do this, and I am going to be doing that’, putting little pictures on government websites, giving the very clear impression for those who have been interested in the discussion since at least May 2005 that something was happening and then have a statement brought on today in which it is abundantly clear that not much is happening.
This failed minister lacks courage and of course we know he lacks ticker because he had had the numbers for 15 to 18 months and he never challenged. What does that tell you about this failed minister who is now going to be your failed leader? Would it not have been interesting if he had issued a media release or put it on the government website saying: ‘I promised you this, but in fact, you do not have it’? Now, would that have been worthy of a media release? It would have been because those interested in the Defence Support Hub, might have wanted to know where things were up to. I note with great interest that the present minister has not provided anything in the way of an explanation in his statement.
If this Chief Minister, this new bloke, is going to do well for you people, then he is a failure. He is a failure before he even starts, and you guys had better look to number three on your ticket.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 18 October 2007
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, in assessing the intent of this legislation and looking in context at a growing workforce in the Northern Territory and legislation that has been in place since 1987, the existing act was established at a time when there were 71 000 employees. Today, there are nearly 180 000.
When we assess rising concern over safety in the workplace and the fact that this act that was established in 1987 has not received a comprehensive review, all of that is accepted and supported by opposition. The intent of it is to increase safety in the workplace. The means by which this is achieved warrants greater discussion. I say, however, though there is mention of stakeholder involvement, and notwithstanding there has been a lot on the public agenda since this was first put on the Parliamentary Record as a bill, I am concerned that we are progressing with a significant change in a context where stakeholders still have some reservations.
I am mindful that I have placed at relatively short notice some amendments and I do not like doing that at short notice, but I note that government has also circulated some amendments this afternoon of which, unfortunately, I have only just become aware. The issue is not so much the content or the nature of the amendments, but we are at a stage where it is clear that those stakeholders, those who are directly involved and affected by the implementation of this reform, still have many unsettled matters.
Minister, I thank you and pass on my appreciation to members of your department for provision of a briefing which outlined very well the context in which this reform is placed and the intent thereof, but I went away with a better understanding and certainly support for the objective, which is to increase and to improve safety practices in the workplace, but some concern. As a legislator, I feel there is much work still to be done.
To envisage, of course, with 19 members all in unity there, singing the same old song that, no matter what I say, it will pass. I know, as I heard right at the end of the briefing, that there are regulatory aspects of this which are still being worked on and they will follow this debate.
I understand that one of the initial reforms, being the amalgamation of all the safety regulatory activities into one body, makes organisational sense if we are looking at the clear objective of improving safety practices in the workplace. However, there are a number of matters that are activated in implementing such an organisational notion. It might suit the system itself to unify into one place, and there is a lot of merit and I have seen these sorts of things happen. When I was at university, there were umpteen universities and colleges in Western Australia. Now there are only a couple; they were all amalgamated into one. It made sense, but something was lost in those amalgamations. There is always a cost. They make great sense and it is an idea that is often met with great enthusiasm for those with the power to amalgamate and to bring things together and to craft a new vision.
I hope it does, but it requires the right attitude to ensure that the real objectives, which are improved safety in the workplace, are achieved because it is achieved not through organisation, but through people who are working in harmony with an objective. You have to make sure that those relationships are brought along. That is why I am concerned about the fact that it appears to me that there are still a number of unaddressed issues and concerns. From my insufficient, I would have to say, assessment of how this is bedding down in the workplace, I wish I had more time to visit a number of workplaces. In the stakeholder bodies to which I have spoken, there is awakening concern at the way this is being implemented and the fact that a lot of employers do not believe this is happening and many of them do not know the real implications of it.
One line sticks out to me in your second reading speech, and I agree with it:
That is a philosophy that has been woven into every speech that I have given. I am not an anti-unionist. I am not ideologically bound to say employers are good and unions are bad. We are not running a cartoon show here. These are matters that must be approached maturely. The culture of the workplace is going to be changed by this reform, and I hope that it is changed for the better, but in bringing about cultural change in the workplace, it has to be managed very carefully.
The amendments proposed by the opposition are in that context so that we can protect the workplace and establish an appropriate culture in the workplace to reinforce the objective. If we enhance the adversarial nature of the workplace by a clumsy implementation, by a lack of real connection to those who have different responsibilities, employer and employee, we may well retard our capacity to achieve better objectives in the workplace. It is based upon good relationships. The Territory, as the Chief Minister said a number of times this afternoon, has 204 000 people. Therefore, that provides us with the capacity to manage the establishment and development of good culture within our community, particularly in the workplace; the relationship between an employer and an employee. There are aspects of this legislation that would run against or diminish the capacity for developing a better working relationship because of the adversarial nature of some of the implementations.
Before we get excited, I have to restate because I am so accustomed to the reactionary response that the objective is totally agreed to. The need for reform is fine. The philosophical underpinning, I agree with. It is the careful managing of the implementation that will ensure that the cultural change that we desire is achieved.
According to the briefing and what I have read in the second reading speech and a little that I have picked up from stakeholders’ comments, by the amalgamation of all the safety regulatory activities into one body was to be based on contemporary practice - fine. That is what reform should take us to. Assuming, though, that contemporary practice is good practice because it is new does not always mean that it is the best. However, judging by the description of the team charged with the responsibility of assessing this bill and the proposal before us, I can only assume that that was weighed properly and it is contemporary practice that is achieving the best outcomes.
The second one is that the standards are clear. We have spoken about the need for standards to be clear flowing through all of our activities. That applies in education, too, it must be said. The capacity for compliance requirements also need to be very clear so that there is the removal of confusion. That is a good principle as well.
The third one is that it recognises the national commitment to OHS strategies; that there is a national move in a direction and that the Territory needs to respond to it. That is good. Probably this is agreeable, but it is a challenge that it is suitable for all industries. That is good, but that is where it is going to be a challenge. That is where I found some concern that some of the regulations that will sit beneath this bill, if passed, are still to be worked on, particularly in regards to the mining industry. That is a concern.
No one will disagree that we want to create and maintain a safe working environment, no one at all. We need cooperation. I am concerned that aspects of this implementation, the timing thereof, may place unnecessary challenges to the development of capacity for cooperation. No one disagrees that there needs to be an improvement and that can only be achieved through cooperation.
I understand and support the principle of independence, having proper resourcing for the agency and having the capacity to relate directly to the minister. They are suitable and necessary reforms.
The core problems that I find in this challenge directly the notion of the appropriate relationship in the workplace and respect for the proprietorial responsibilities and rights of an employer. I have a small business background, farming and working in the non-government school sector, and friends who work in small business. Responsibilities weigh so heavily upon an employer. Unless you have walked in those shoes and understood the weight of the responsibility, not just to make a buck as some who have been perpetually employees and standing from a distance perhaps looking at it through an ideological lens, there are ordinary folk out there from all levels of education who have taken enormous risks with their own capital and put it all on the line and had a dream, failed a couple of times perhaps and got up a small business. Then they have taken, expanded their responsibilities to further that dream and employed others and allowed them to be a part of it.
Perhaps some have had a different approach to life and different experience. They may have had a horrific experience and had horror bosses who have abused people and sucked the life out of them so that they can become rich and then discard workers. I have not really experienced that. I have trained young people, I have seen them in the workplace, I have seen them come and go, I have seen all sorts of conflicts and things like that but, generally, it is nothing so sinister other than people bedding into a new system. There are plenty of means to deal with inappropriate behaviour by an employer, but it is the elevation of the adversarial nature, that divide, that concerns me.
In the workplace, an employer with a number of workers receives some benefits, basic benefits, by organising a strategy within the workplace to monitor, maintain and improve OHS standards within the workplace. I understand with workers compensation, they receive some recognition of that kind of strategy being in place. It is an initiative they take. I do not have the view of employers that they only do it in their own interests. Most employers I know do it in the interests of their workers. They like their workers and they want to see them progress so they put these things in place to benefit all. There is a flow on benefit for the employees as well.
What we are seeing here, though, is the workplace electing its own representative independent of the employer. Perhaps even the employer already has a strategy in place and it appears to me there is going to be duplication. You are going to have the employer with his or her own strategy in place and then the legislation requires another committee with the election of a representative by the employees. It would be appropriate in respect of the workplace that the employer be directly involved in that and able to appoint the representative. After all, the employer who has taken the weight of the responsibility, has a clear benefit personally in the establishment of such strategies, and should be respected in their capacity to ensure that they have an adequate representative. Of course, they are not going to have a representative who is out of sync with the workplace otherwise that is obviously going to be a problem to them. That is a problem to start with.
The second is the access of the union into the workplace. It is a violation of basic rights of ownership in a sense in that if you are running a business that someone should come and speak to you and then in you go rather than have direct access into the workplace. I find that a difficult proposition.
If I, as a school principal, for example, taking the weight of responsibility for all that goes on in the school, had people who could come in and go and assess matters without me knowing about it, without any respect for the fact that I carry these burdens on a daily basis, and yet you feel as if there is another agency which is working against me will only further alienate the one who is carrying the direct responsibility. It is appropriate that there be a respectful relationship established through the approach of the union to at least come in through the front door in a sense, and that is the employer.
I see the amendment on the schedule which has been circulated and that goes some way to alleviating my concerns. If there is a genuine issue in the workplace which must be investigated, that is fine, but as the bill stands, the door is wide open for third parties to come into the workplace and investigate, to film, to measure and to check. That has the potential, particularly in the Territory, to create discord and not help establishing the right culture within the workplace.
Once again, the core of your second reading speech has that central principle, which is greater consultation between workers and employers making more effective OHS in the workplace. We have to protect that because implicit in these two areas is the implied message that employers are in need of close scrutiny and they must checked, they must be held in check, and you have the means now for them to be properly and carefully scrutinised. It is almost as though they are guilty until proven innocent. That is offensive. I know that many of those who have looked at this and carry the responsibility for employees find it insulting.
It is not going to be any step toward engendering the appropriate culture where there is greater cooperation and levels of trust within the workplace, where you can improve the culture and safety standards. It is the culture you need to change, and that is spoken of here. The core philosophy is there, but these measures will not enhance those endeavours.
The final matter, and it is a matter which has raised many eyebrows of those who understand these things, is the removal of basic rights and legal protection for employers. I note, too, that there is a late amendment circulating and I am looking forward to hearing more about that, but inherent in this is something quite extraordinary where the capacity for judgment to be passed upon an employer and the normal rights and protections appear to be removed. If we want to have better cooperation and improved outcomes, you have to establish and strengthen the notion of trust in the whole relationship.
I do not know what is in mind or where this came from. This is not the sort of world I want to operate in. I would like to see us here in the Northern Territory find a better way of achieving these objectives than these heavy-handed approaches which many fair-minded Territorians will find offensive.
I do not know where these ideas have come from. I can guess, knowing that the left faction of the Labor Party now rules the roost. Perhaps that is where it comes from, but there is something embedded in this that needs to be exposed and I think it is going to cause a problem for you, Chief Minister, if you do not make progressive moves to ensure greater capacity for trust in the workplace and respect for employers. There are plenty of measures in here we agree with. As I know from the Chamber of Commence, they are happy to go along with this, but there are a couple of elements that are quite difficult to take.
I urge you, minister, as we come to the stage of looking at these in the committee stage, to allow adequate debate and, hopefully, good sense will prevail in the interests of an enhanced and improved culture in the workplace that achieves the objectives, but based on trust and proper communication between employers and employees.
Mr BURKE (Brennan): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the bill. First, I would like to recognise that Mr Bernie Banton died this morning, a true campaigner for work safety. I hope that we recognise his life and contribution tomorrow with a minute’s silence. I know there is the business of the House, but I think it would be entirely appropriate to do something like that. Bernie Banton is a hero for raising awareness about dust diseases, a hero for raising the profile of dangerous workplaces and the need to be ever vigilant of them, a hero for betting and putting at risk everything he had, even his life, in order to do battle with a large multinational global conglomerate.
What did the executives of that conglomerate do when Bernie Banton first went in with his lawyer to seek compensation? If you go to the Andrew Denton website and look up the interview, you will find out that they laughed. They laughed at him. I do not know the exact words, but they basically told him he had Buckley’s. He had every right to be angry about that, and I will try to find some words, maybe tomorrow.
The whole thing about the diseases that Bernie Banton contracted from his employment was that his employer already knew that the working conditions to which they were subjecting Mr Bernie Banton would cause or could cause health problems. They did not warn their workforce, they did not provide their workforce with the tools to protect themselves, and they showed scant regard - scant regard - for the welfare of their workforce. This is a global conglomerate.
Well may it be said that these types of employers are in the minority. I hope they are. I think they are. However, when it comes to despicable behaviour, it can be perpetrated by the largest of companies as well as the smallest and everyone in between.
Laws dealing with workplace safety are designed, in some way, to attempt to cease such actions or lack of action and care by employers. This bill is a considerable step forward on the act and the law as it stands at the moment prior to passage of the bill.
I welcome the strengthening of NT WorkSafe because there is absolutely no reason why there should be a single death in a single workplace in this country. We have the means of stopping it. We have the technologies available, the practices are known and yet we have deaths in our workplaces here in the Territory, in every state and territory of this country, and in every western country in the world; places which attempt to provide safe workplaces because there are contraventions of even those laws. In places where there is no protection such as this bill attempts to provide, the problems are even greater, the social consequences even greater and the deaths even more numerous. This is the sort of thing that Bernie Banton made the last few years of his life his mission to try to be an advocate for.
Perhaps I see things through too ideological a paradigm, I do not know. Perhaps it is because I have been biased, having worked for a union, and having been in the old Industrial Relations Commission against employers who have had very little regard for the people I was there to represent, I do not know. I would love to suggest that we did not need adversarial mechanisms. I do not think adversarial mechanisms work in a number of instances. I will give one example, however. Within the Work Health Act and the workers compensation scheme, you have mandated a mediation at the start of the process. Shall I tell you what happens with monotonous regularity not just here in this jurisdiction, but others? You go along to try to mediate and you find the employer’s representative sitting there saying nothing, admitting nothing, conceding nothing, contributing nothing. You say: ‘This is an attempted mediation. What are you going to do?’ With monotonous regularity you hear: ‘We are only here because the legislation says we have to go through this mediation process. We just want it ticked off so we can head to court’.
Unfortunately, our culture relies quite heavily on adversarial processes. This Chamber is one; the courts are another. That is the reality. If someone can find a better mechanism, fine. I would love to be able to stand here and say: ‘Isn’t it great that every employer out there doesn’t need the threat of penalties, does not need legislation to mandate what is required for a safe workplace, that everyone would be reasonable and everyone would try to do their best to provide these things’. But it just ain’t so. It just ain’t so. Do some research and find out how many deaths there have been in the workplace this year alone, how many men and women do not go home to their families this year alone.
Strengthening laws on workplace safety, strengthening the body bringing everything together into one framework, I fully support anything that makes Northern Territory workplaces safer for Northern Territory workers. Do not think that from me focusing on this that I do not recognise there are employers who do try because there are, but many of them do not have the skills necessary to implement OHS regimes without assistance. Part of the role of NT WorkSafe is to provide assistance and that is to be commended. People who have formed their own small businesses or, if lucky enough, large businesses usually do so focused on the particular enterprise they are engaged in. For the personnel stuff, the filing stuff, the administrative side of things, many small business people engage others to assist them with. Health and safety is no different an area; it is highly specialised. There are volumes of OHS reports that fill compactus files because our knowledge of OHS is so far ahead of where it was even five years ago that there are continually updates.
One of the points of which I took particular note from the minister’s second reading speech was the better recognition of psychosocial injury, psychological injury. Psychological injury is, in my opinion, not very well recognised in the court environment. Enough studies have been done to show that those with physical and obvious injuries by and large receive greater compensation than those with purely psychological injury. Part of it is that you cannot really prove the extent of a psychological injury. You can prove the outward signs perhaps, but it is an injury which is so hard to really show the full extent of in many cases. I note that recognition is problematic and I understand that. Anyone who has been a personal injuries lawyer in the field of transport accidents or workers compensation or other personal injury areas knows how difficult psychological injury is. What is caused by the event in question? What is caused by something else?
However, as blunt a tool as the adversarial court system is, it is the one we have. It is the one we employ judges and tribunal members to assess. It is a very tough and, having said it is a blunt instrument, I know that those people who engage in trying to make the assessments with the assistance of medical practitioners or psychologists, with all the evidence they can, try to make the best assessments they can. The further analysis that will be done of this area I think is most welcome and I will be very interested in the results.
I welcome the increase in penalties for breaches of workplace safety law, the regulations, the act. These have been outstripped over time. They might have been relevant at one stage, but the passage of years without amendment, or full amendment of those penalties, has meant they have fallen behind and I very much welcome that increase in penalties because, unfortunately for some employers, the threat of the penalty is important. For many, it will not be. I have dealt with a number of employers who have willingly instigated safety measures because they understand that they are the ones who ultimately benefit from it. Safe workplaces tend to be happier workplaces and happier workplaces tend to be more productive workplaces.
Part of ensuring a safe workplace is to listen to the concerns of your workforce. When you have a smaller workforce and willingness, it is relatively easy to communicate with people and to listen to the concerns of your workforce and to act on those. As you grow, it is harder to do so. The mechanism of having workplace OHS officers is fantastic, having employees take on responsibility and undertake training to assist and be a point of reference for other colleagues is a step forward.
The member for Blain said something about being worried about having people come into the workplace, specifically mentioning union officials. The truth of the matter is it is the unions that often identify systemic failures across industries. It is the union activity which often forces industry as a whole to increase its standards. It is not about barging in unannounced, uninvited, going willy-nilly wherever you want. There are some very real limits, and there were before WorkChoices, about what union officials could do. Twenty-four hours notice was one; talking to employees during breaks was another, not interrupting the flow of work at all.
From personal experience, I can say that some employers have been very open and said: ‘Yes, as long as you do not disturb people from their work, talk to who you like where you like, but do not disturb the workplace’. All the officials I have worked with have done exactly that. There are situations at the other end of the scale where the employer will say: ‘There is your room. You sit in there. Whoever wants to talk to you has to see you there’, and they set that room up opposite the manager’s office, which puts off any person going to see the union official. That is a little mechanism that perhaps the member for Blain is not familiar with, but it is one used, again with some regularity, unfortunately. I am not taking this from other sources; I have seen it myself.
The right of a union official, someone who has had extensive training in occupational health and safety issues, someone who has quite a knowledge of the industry in which they are an official, someone who has no obligation anywhere other than to the employees of the workplace to have a right of entry, subject to the conditions I outlined, is commendable. There may be other conditions I have forgotten to mention.
The greater powers for the work and safety officers, and greater enforcement and greater resources for enforcement are welcome. I hope that we do not have, as we did recently, media outlets able to go round and, within five or 10 minutes, be videoing a dangerous practice on some worksite, whether it be construction, mining or anything. We have seen photos in the newspapers. I sat in my office when I was a union official watching a building go up opposite. The painter had his tin on the side, dipping his brush in, leaning over the edge of the wall to try to get to that difficult spot. No scaffolding, no safety net, no safety equipment, no safety harness, and that was on the fourth storey.
There is a real need for strong work safety legislation. This is an improvement on previous legislation. There will always be room for improvement and, through operation after this comes into force, I am sure there will be areas where we can do a little bit better. Work safety is a dynamic area which is always improving, but I am sure that the families of people who have been injured or killed in the workplace will thank this government for these improvements. I hope that it is a positive addition and part of the legacy of greater awareness of workplace safety, part of that legacy that Bernie Banton and people like him leave us.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member for Brennan. Notwithstanding whatever differences we might have on an ideological front, I thought much of what he had to say was valuable. In legislation like this, it is important to get the balance right. How many times have we said in this Chamber that we are all striving to get the balance right?
We will support the legislation, but we believe that there are points that should be made along the way that we would like government to consider when it regularly reviews and assesses legislation after its implementation, as a good government should. We make our points because we want government to take them into account. We know they are unwilling to change the legislation, but it is important in much the same way as the member for Brennan outlined his reasonably passionate belief that the bill is perfect, equally we will outline our reasonably passionate view as to why it is not.
In any event, let us be very clear on one thing: that is that the opposition supports legislation that is aimed at providing better and safer workplaces for hard-working Territorians. Who would not? It is a pretty simple concept. To the extent that the contents of the bill achieve those things, then we are pleased and they are, obviously, supportable.
However, what is not being prosecuted, for the want of a better word, by government either in the second reading speech or any of the contributions I have heard so far or, indeed, media releases, is other parts of the bill which, we believe, are concerning. The member for Brennan talked about the fact that there are some good employers and some not-so-good ones. Equally, there are some good workers and some not-so-good ones. Getting the balance right is important. We have great difficulty with changing the nature of the workplace in the Northern Territory to such an extent where the pendulum, in our view, has swung not all the way but too far in terms of making it difficult for employers. We would expect government to have difficulty with our points, but we make them nevertheless because we strongly believe that we should.
The bill allows for interference in the workplace which is unprecedented in the Northern Territory. I used to be the member of a union when I was a university student working some summer holidays. I do not have any ideological difficulties with unions. The member for Brennan was right: unions have achieved great things over the years. There is no doubt about that. They do assist decision-makers when they identify difficulties in the workplace. They also assist members of the union in that process.
However, we do not believe that the unprecedented change in the Territory that gives unions greater powers of entry in this bill, which are, in our view, greater than any jurisdiction in the country, are appropriate. The member for Blain talked about some of these things, but I propose to do so as well. The power of entry without notice and without grounds to enter a workplace to inspect a workplace for nominally OHS reasons is of concern. The bill contains powers that cannot be used in any other fashion, such as IR disputes. However, the experience in other jurisdictions has shown this not to be the case. These changes will have the effect, in our view, of blurring the lines between industrial relations and the work health issues that fundamentally change the nature of the Work Health Authority and create powers of investigation that are not extended to police who investigate serious crimes. I will come back to that, but I would like to have heard the member for Brennan, who is a lawyer and practised in the area, on that, but I will come back to it.
The authority under this legislation has changed substantially. Clauses 11 to 14 introduce powers of the Authority to demand sworn evidence. These powers currently do not exist. Currently, the Authority operates as an administrative body that oversees the inspectors. These powers to demand evidence include an offence of failing to provide the evidence requested. Presumably, this process is aimed to assist the investigation process but, essentially, will have the effect of creating a pre-trial hearing to determine whether a prosecution should proceed. The only reason that a person can refuse, based on our reading of the bill, is if they have had a reasonable excuse to fail to comply with the instruction. The right to silence that would normally be afforded in the court, would not be afforded as a reasonable excuse, and the right to avoid self-incrimination and therefore, the right to silence, is specifically overturned by dint of clause 94 whereas section 37(5) of the old act confirms this right. Is that not of some interest to the member for Brennan?
In the bill, it is proposed that it will become the Authority’s job to decide whether to proceed with prosecutions pursuant to the Work Health Act and I refer to clause 80. The police do not have the power to demand that people hand over information pertaining to their criminal investigations unless they have a warrant. Under the proposed bill, on our reading, the Authority and its investigators do have the power to demand information without a warrant. These are extraordinary powers of investigation.
If the Work Health Authority wants to investigate matters, it would be appropriate that they should have powers of investigation commensurate with police powers, that is, the right the obtain warrants or simply ask for the information.
The power to obtain warrants still exists in clause 69, but these new powers are over and above the standard powers. I am uncertain as to how a court would deal with evidence when the information has been obtained under threat of criminal sanction, and the information turned out to be self-incriminating or extracted in circumstances where the right to silence would normally operate. Is this not of interest to the member for Brennan?
In the past, admissions made under coercive circumstances have been ruled involuntary and therefore, inadmissible. There is a general principle in law that coercion should not be used to obtain admissions of guilt for obvious reasons. One of the fundamental tenets of our criminal legal is the right not to have to provide self-incriminating evidence. Is this not of interest to the member for Brennan?
The accuser must prove a wrong doing. Clause 94 specifically removes the right to remain silent on the grounds of self-incrimination. Contrast that with section 10 of the Evidence Act, which states:
Consequently, the Authority will be able to collect evidence outside the normal rules of evidence and make directions according to the evidence obtained, including making a decision to prosecute. If it makes, and I stress ‘if’, directions that are punitive in nature, then the government will have established a body that has the role of judge and jury within the executive. Is that not of interest to the member for Brennan and other members of government?
Employers, as we know, are not criminals, and they have their rights, just like everyone else. Their rights have been, on our reading of the legislation, stripped away by this instrument. If a union official walks into a workplace, decides that there is something to complain about, then the Authority becomes judge and jury.
Whilst this is, and it can, I think, be reasonably regarded as, relatively intrusive legislation, there are other issues of some concern. Specifically Parts 6 and 7, comprising clauses 64 to 74. They deal predominantly with incident notification and reportable incidents. These sections outline what a reportable incident is and powers of investigation by the Authority. The powers include the power to demand a site be left undisturbed as well as powers of entry and investigation. We do not have a problem with this as it mirrors existing powers in the old act, namely section 39, and if anything the bill defines the powers more comprehensively by being more specific in the nature of powers extended to investigators whereas the old act was more general. Nevertheless, the powers of investigation clarify many of the powers that an investigator would choose to use.
The fundamental change is the operation of clause 94 of the bill. Clause 94 specifically removes the right to remain silent on the grounds of self-incrimination. Clause 70 makes it a criminal offence not to comply with certain directions given by an investigator. Clause 72 creates a general power to demand information on oath by an investigator when the self-incrimination clause applies. Clause 73 makes it an offence to hinder or obstruct an officer in an investigation for which the offender could go to gaol for up to six months.
To put this into context, if a police officer had similar powers, he or she would be able to enter a place at any time without grounds simply to monitor compliance with the law and demand a person to provide whatever information the police officer required on oath, and if that person refused or failed to comply, including information that could incriminate that person, they would be committing a criminal offence. The only requirement is to give ‘reasonable notice’, whatever that means, pursuant to clause 67(2)(a). In our view, these are extraordinary powers of investigation.
Division 7, clauses 49 to 54, deals with union rights of entry into the workplace. There are currently no powers of union access to workplaces under the Work Health Act. In the Territory, the current Work Health Act caters for workplace governance by giving WorkSafe inspectors powers of inspection, an approach used in all jurisdictions, but also there is a requirement for health and safety committees.
Operation of the health and safety committees is governed by Section 44(a) to 44(g) of the current act. These committees must exist in any workplace of 20 or more workers. Not less than half of any such committee must be elected workers from the workplace. The committee is supposed to liaise with the employer about all matters pertaining to OHS issues in the workplace, and these are balanced and sensible approaches to OHS issues.
A person must be nominated by the committee to inspect a workplace from time to time, with the agreement of the employer, or on reasonable notice to the employer, if the workplace has not been inspected in the preceding 30 days. The committee must meet at least every three months, and there is a duty imposed upon the employer to furnish details and consult with the committee in relation to matters pertaining to OHS issues in the workplace.
These are reasonable and comprehensive, however the Workplace Health and Safety Bill provides for rights of entry that are extraordinary because of two new factors, first the issue of notice of entry and, secondly, grounds for entry. In relation to notice, the following only is required for a union official to enter the workplace with the exception of the requirement to give notice to inspect records because of the terms of the federal Workplace Relations Act under which there is no requirement for notification of entry. Under the proposed amendments, the only requirements are:
that the union official has an identity card issued by the Work Health Authority nominating him or her as on OH&S representative;
they must have members at the site or be a party to an award that governs the site which means that there need be no members there;
to comply with Commonwealth law;
which is very limited in this area for reasons I will not go into, but I am sure the drafters of legislation will understand them.
identify themselves to the apparent person in charge of the workplace;
whatever that means.
enter during work hours; and
must comply with the person who is in charge of the site that they then comply with OHS demands of the site.
Madam Speaker, for the purpose of the above, an ‘authorised purpose’ means:
to discuss OH&S issues with any member or potential member of a union;
to observe work practices; and
to investigate any suspected contravention of the act.
In relation to the second issue, namely grounds, we make the following points: in all other jurisdictions where this legislation operates, particularly in the jurisdictions where there is no requirement for notice, the union official must have some reasonable suspicion or reasonable grounds to enter the workplace because of a possible breach of OHS rules that the union official has become aware of. No such requirement exists in the proposed Northern Territory legislation. The Territory legislation is designed, on our reading of it, to allow carte blanche access to establish grounds with no notice.
There is no other equivalent or similar legislation in the country that combines the no notice/no grounds approach. This is of great concern to the opposition and I note to employer bodies. If memory serves me correctly, it was the Chamber of Commerce and the TCA which both came out and made their objections in relation to some parts of the bill well known.
I now turn to powers of investigation by unions. Once inside the workplace, the proposed legislation gives the power to unions to conduct investigations that include videoing, recording, measuring, interviewing workers, demanding the production of documents to take whatever extracts or copies they see fit other than personal health records of workers.
I do not propose to list what some might describe as a litany of cases and incidents that illustrate that this type of legislation has been abused in the past. There are instances in Western Australia, and I refer to the one in 1997 in which the Western Australian newspaper reported that a union official entered a work site and shut down a crane for three hours using the OHS powers to gain entry to the work site. There are a number of examples, and I am sure members opposite know them. I feel certain the member for Brennan would know them. The point is that as a consequence of making changes of this nature in this legislation, it has the ability to open up the workplace to abusive conduct, intimidatory conduct and a conduct that is offensive. We wonder why it is that the Labor government has chosen to do so.
Madam Speaker, there are a number of other issues, and I note that the member for Blain has talked about them and I do not propose to revisit much of what he said, but I refer to clause 93, which makes it an offence to discriminate against a worker because of their involvement in OHS issues, for example as a safety representative. That, of course, is quite reasonable. The offence carries a gaol penalty and, according to clause 93.4:
In short, the onus shifts immediately to the employer, or to put it in more simple language, guilty until proven innocent. Our view is that this stands and, indeed, I am sure the member for Brennan’s view would be, if pushed, that this is contrary to some pretty fundamental principles of law.
They are a sprinkling of issues. I should say for the purposes of the record that my pages are not numbered and I feel certain that I have missed a page. However, for the purposes of the debate, we have illustrated why it is that we are concerned, why it is that the Chamber of Commerce has expressed concern. All of us are committed to good legislation that achieves great outcomes, and let us be very clear about that, but we would not be doing our jobs properly if we did not, on the way through, as it were, highlight some of the issues.
I wrote a letter to some employers a week or so ago, and I will quote from parts of it:
In our view, and indeed, the view of others, so in reply, if government members are planning on saying we do not know what we are talking about, they can apply that to the Chamber of Commerce, the TCA and others who I am sure have been speaking to government about it, but the bill strips away, in our view and others, from employers legal protections enjoyed by the rest of the community. Individuals charged with serious criminal offences have, it can fairly be said, in some respects more rights than employers accused of breaching OHS rules. Our view is that these changes incorporated in the bill have been designed, in terms of the government’s spin department, to fly under the radar. For our part, we will continue, as we always do, our discussions with Territory businesses. We know that they are concerned and, in some cases, we know that there is resentment turning to anger. I should say in relation to those businesses and industries that they are committed to looking after their workers and are the first to agree to sensible and reasonable OHS changes.
I sought, in my contribution, to make some comparisons, although it has not been extensive, between the existing act and the new bill to show what we call the radical shift in the balance in workplaces in the Northern Territory. I would like to hear from the Chief Minister, and I note he has carriage of this legislation, his views on the Territory being the only jurisdiction where a union official can enter a workplace without having the grounds to do so and without notice. I am very interested to hear his views on the right to silence being suspended and the right to avoid self-incrimination also being suspended as a result of what can only be described as changes to what I, and I feel certain the member for Brennan, would have regarded as fundamental legal rights.
Madam Speaker, we have tried in a relatively thoughtful manner to outline our concerns. The member for Blain has some amendments. I am not optimistic of the government taking up those amendments, but you never know. One day we are going to get lucky, as the new Chief Minister did at 4.45 pm on Sunday. We look forward to the continuation of the debate and the government’s response to the proposed amendments.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Speaker, speaking after two lawyers, I feel a little inadequate. I come from a layman’s perspective, being a past small business operator, a past union member, a past non-union member in the workplace and having been approached by a number of constituents who have come to me with their concerns and reading comments from some small business people in Alice Springs.
I do not have the background knowledge that the previous two speakers have and I appreciate their contributions, although I have to say to the member for Brennan, he must have had a very miserable life before coming into parliament. What he had to say was so sad. Things cannot be that bad out there!
We all agree what we want most of all is a safe workplace, and that is the intent of this bill. There is no one in this House who will argue against that. We know there have been accidents and deaths, and any incident in the workplace where people are harmed is tragic. Let me just say to the member for Brennan: all the legislation and regulations in the world will not stop incidents happening for the simple reason that there are always human factors involved. Yes, we can try to introduce legislation that will help people be reassured that their workplace is safe, but we are never going to stop something happening.
I look back and think about the small contracting business that my husband ran before I came into this place. The employees enjoyed above award wages, flexible work hours to suit their family commitments, bonuses and the use of the firm’s equipment. It was a happy workplace and they were very productive because they did a lot of bush work. No, they did not want union representatives within their workplace because they felt they could cope quite well on their own in negotiating with a good employer. As the member for Blain said, it is not all bad out there. There are good employers and perhaps not-so-good employers in the same way as there are good employees and not-so-careful employees. We have to be realistic about this. I can understand the government, because of the huge workers compensation bill they have that has probably come about from incidents in the workplace, wanting to tighten it up and make it better.
The concern that was raised with me is the clause about union representation in this bill that is not in the current act. There are nervous Nellies out there who are saying: ‘Is this part of the Labor Party’s federal and territory agenda that now suddenly unionism is going to be high on the ladder for governments?’ Perhaps the minister can say why he felt it was necessary to include union representation and their roles in this bill when it is not in the current act. He will probably say: ‘It is because we are upgrading and making it better’.
It was raised with me that there was concern that unions could walk into the workplace at any stage unannounced and without notice. During the briefing I was reassured that the section covers that the representative must comply with recent obligations imposed by the Workplace Relations Act, which requires 24 hours notice of entry. That is reassuring in a way. This raised the question: ‘We are conforming with the Commonwealth act. Do we, as a territory, have the right to have IR laws?’ I raise that as a matter of interest because the Self-Government Act says we cannot, that as a territory we do not have the right handle our own IR laws. That is a federal matter. I think the advice from the minister will be that this is covered by the Commonwealth Workplace Relations Act anyway.
I am pleased with one of the amendments circulated today because at the briefing, the role of the union rep was raised, and I notice now that subclause 3(b) has been omitted. That subclause read:
The member for Brennan mentioned that and I do not think that is what the Workplace Relations Act is all about, that a union member can come in to observe the work practices. They come in on request. They come in to check out a particular incident. They do not come in just to stand around and have a look and see what is going on and checking out whether things are going right or wrong. I will support today’s amendment. I thank the officers who gave us the briefing for picking up on that suggestion.
We also raised the question of the right to remain silent. There was concern that it had been removed from this bill. I noticed that we have an amendment in respect of ‘the abrogation of privilege against self-incrimination’. I would like the minister to explain it more as we go through it, but it certainly allayed some of our fears that evidence could be used, whereas this amendment reads:
That is a good response to a concern that was raised and it shows, minister, that concerns raised by some of the groups have been addressed and we appreciate that very much.
Employers must pay for expenses for training for elected health and safety representatives was something else raised with us. Clause 42 is to the effect that a training obligation requires the employer on request of the workplace representative to allow them to attend approved training on full pay and to pay reasonable costs associated with attending the course.
Minister, you said in your second reading speech that the Northern Territory government will pay for initial training courses for representatives in businesses with 10 to 20 employees. That is good. You also said at page 5 of your second reading speech: ‘roving or shared representatives will be allowed for small businesses where they can collaborate on costs’. I cannot see provision in the bill for that to happen. Whether it will be in the guidelines that will be published, I am not sure. I seek your clarification on that. You mentioned it in the second reading speech, but where is it covered in the bill?
At our briefing, we were told there was to be consultation with stakeholders and that there will be guidelines issued for union representatives in the workplace before the bill is assented to. I believe they have not been drawn up yet. It would be worthwhile and useful for us to see those guidelines so that we know whether they allay some of the concerns that have been raised. I am not quite sure when they will be completed. Perhaps you can give us some indication of when that will happen.
There was concern about employees electing a representative if they wish to. It was not quite clear whether the employee has a say in who will be elected or not as the Health and Safety representative. There seemed to be duplication in some of the positions, but I think we are clear on that. I would like the minister to clarify that for us. I would like to be reassured that this bill is not going to impose too much upon small business. Big business, when they have such large operations, has an added obligation to employees, but I want to be reassured that employees also have a safety net and, where possible, we can avoid the accidents that happen.
Why are we having such a large amount of workers compensation paid out? I think you said workers compensation premiums cost Territory business $82m last year. That is a lot of money for one year, isn’t it? Perhaps you can explain why it is such a costly business. We have had in the past many workers compensation cases that seem to have dragged on for years. Has the process been made simpler within this bill? That is not directly related to the bill, but often, delays in resolution of cases bring a lot of stress and concern to families and sometime processes need to be streamlined.
I noticed the member for Blain has amendments. Perhaps we can look at them when we are going through the committee stage.
Mr Mills: Sure.
Mrs BRAHAM: It would have been helpful for us if you had put a little note explaining what they were about and where they were from.
Mr Mills: I did that in my speech.
Mrs BRAHAM: Yes, but you can understand where we are coming from because we were not totally sure.
I want to thank the small business people who did get in touch with me. They will be a little reassured by what we have heard tonight. The Chamber of Commerce, which has also been in touch, acknowledge that they are not going to win everything, but as long as they can win enough to make it a better situation for everyone, that is what it is all about. The word ‘balance’ was used in an earlier speech, and that is what we want.
Minister, I thank very much the officers for the briefing yesterday. I thank them also for taking on board some of the comments we made, and the fact they have responded. I look forward to your response.
Mr HENDERSON (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate. I thank the Leader of the Opposition because she said that the opposition will support this legislation, even though they will move some amendments which we will debate in the committee stage.
Fundamentally, this is the most major reform of this legislation in 20 years. It is long overdue and, as all members have said, this goes to the heart of providing a safer workplace in the Northern Territory, and Territory workplaces are fundamentally different in so many respects in 2007 than what they were.
I had just finished working in my trade in the Territory in 1985 before I moved into the IT industry. Workplaces were very different in the early 1980s. The human cost and scale of human tragedy of accidents in the workplace are exemplified by deaths in the workplace, which the member for Brennan talked about. Every worker in Australia should be absolutely confident when going to work every day that they are going to come home. I agree with the member for Brennan. We have the systems in place, we know what we are doing in the workplace, and every employer has a duty to provide a safe workplace, and every employee has a responsibility to work safely and to look after their fellow workers.
I will go through the comments by individual members, but first I want to say that this legislation is born out of a comprehensive review of all Occupational Health and Safety legislation throughout Australia, with a very explicit brief to the consultants who conducted the review that we wanted to update our legislation to be contemporary in Australia. A lot of the misapprehensions, for want of a better word, that employer organisations about the application of this legislation in the workplace has not been borne out in any way, shape, manner or form in other states where this legislation exists.
I have had a number of meetings with employer organisations over the last 12 months, as have officers of my department, to work these issues through and, fundamentally, we are very nearly there and aligned on the same page. There are a couple of issues which are still disputed, but that is more to do with a misunderstanding as to how this bill will work in practice.
The member for Blain talked about a cultural change in the workplace and that is absolutely what we are trying to engender in this bill. There was a lot of confusion when the draft bill was released for public comment about the powers the health and safety representatives would have and what they would do. Employer representatives who came to speak to me about 10 days ago about this bill said that employers spend a lot of money having occupational health and safety departments within their business, they train people and they are on the ground. Yes, many organisations typically do that. The bigger organisations that have the capacity and systems to put that sort of regime in place, but a lot of smaller businesses just do not have the capacity and systems to put a comprehensive employee occupational health and safety regime in place with dedicated staff on the ground looking to those issues.
This bill will apply in all workplaces in the Northern Territory. As I said to the employer organisation, it is all very right and proper that employer organisations have an absolute legal responsibility to provide a safe workplace, but the heart of this reform is to give ownership through employee-nominated health and safety representatives in the workplace. It is actually to give ownership to the employees in regards to safety in their workplace; they actually have a nominated represented who is working with the management, the occupational health and safety team if it is a bigger organisation, in a spirit of partnership to ensure there is a safe workplace and an extra pair of eyes and ears in the workplace, engaging in regular dialogue with their workmates.
That is the fundamental change here. It is not just an employer’s responsibility to provide a safe workplace; it is the employee’s responsibility to work safely. The introduction of health and safety representatives in the workplace is going to strengthen that culture amongst employees to work safely, because they will have ownership of that person and the responsibilities that they have in the workplace. They are in every other jurisdiction in Australia where the sky has not fallen in. Some of the fears about additional costs have not been borne out or impacted elsewhere in Australia.
We will go to the other concerns the employers had about union right of entry. This is a complex issue. We have just been through a federal election campaign that was very much a referendum on WorkChoices and workers’ rights in the workplace. There was a resounding public view. If you talk about the pendulum and where the balance was, the former Commonwealth Liberal government had gone too far in reducing the rights of workers in workplaces right across Australia. I notice that on the news tonight, the aspirants for the Liberal Party leadership are already saying that they had gone too far and they need to distance themselves from the Howard/Costello reform agenda.
I will explain the application. The member for Braitling was absolutely right. Under the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act, this parliament does not have any IR powers, and our IR regime is referred back to the Commonwealth Workplace Relations Act. So at the moment in the Northern Territory under Commonwealth law, unions do have the right of entry into the workplace to investigate a breach on IR grounds under section 747 of the Workplace Relations Act. The provisos are that the union must have a member of the union on-site, it must be in working hours, there must be 24 hours notice unless exempted by the Industrial Relations Commission, and no access to residential premises.
Currently under the Workplace Relations Act in the Northern Territory, unions have right of entry to hold discussions with employees pursuant to section 760 of the Workplace Relations Act where they have a member or an eligible member, that is that the employer employs under the award, who carries out work that is covered by an award or collective agreement that is binding on the union, only during working hours and only on a break and with 24 hours notice.
Employers and the employer associations say: ‘We have never had union right of entry in the Northern Territory’. That is wrong. Currently, under the Workplace Relations Act, unions do have right of entry to workplaces in the Northern Territory. What has not occurred in the Northern Territory is because we did not have a facilitation provision within our Work Health legislation, the Workplace Relations Act does allow provision for an investigation of a breach on occupational health and safety grounds under section 756, subject to enabling legislation in the state or territory. That is what we have never had in the Northern Territory. I do not believe, as the Leader of the Opposition said, that this is going to be a radical shift or a radical departure.
In relation to the Commonwealth Workplace Relations Act, which was amended extensively under the former federal government’s WorkChoices legislation, I did not hear any employer organisation saying that John Howard had gone too far, that this was a radical shift in terms of facilitating union right of entry. There has been a comprehensive misunderstanding by employer associations in the Northern Territory about what this bill actually provides for. It provides for access for union officials in regard to occupational health and safety-related issues that are allowed for under the Commonwealth Workplace Relations Act. So if this is a radical shift, then it would follow that those employer organisations would be railing against the Workplace Relations Act and I have never heard them do that.
So there has been a misunderstanding. This is not a radical departure from anywhere else in Australia. It is contemporary in nature and it goes to the very fact that unions can and do play a very constructive role working with members or eligible members and employers on improving safety in the workplace. Unions are not proscribed organisations in Australia. There has been a long tradition of allowing unions reasonable access to workplaces in Australia. All this legislation does is trigger the clauses in the Commonwealth Workplace Relations Act that allow them on site for occupational health and safety matters in the same way that the Commonwealth legislation allows them right of entry for IR powers.
The member for Brennan spoke about Bernie Banton who died this morning. I agree with the member for Brennan. Bernie has been a hero and a beacon for workers not only in Australia but throughout the world who have had to fight through the courts a terrible injustice that has been afflicted on Bernie and others like him by years of working in unsafe workplaces. It is an absolute scandal that massive multinational companies can tie up quite legitimate claims for compensation for years and years and years through the court system, waiting for people to die so they never have to pay compensation. Bernie died a national hero and it is a tragedy that he died in the circumstances that he did.
WorkSafe is going to be beefed up to facilitate this new regime across the Northern Territory and the member for Brennan said that the establishment of health and safety representatives in the workplace is a big improvement. I certainly think it is.
The Leader of the Opposition spoke at length. I do not know what she was reading from; I think it was a submission from one of the employer organisations that came to me early in the debate. We can get to the details of some of the issues she spoke about when we are debating amendments proposed by the opposition and proposed by me as the minister.
In regards to powers of the investigators, we have taken advice from DEET lawyers, the Department of Justice and Parliamentary Counsel on these matters. I am advised that they are appropriate and they are not extraordinary in the context of contemporary occupational health and safety legislation. The Leader of the Opposition stated that a registered union official can close down a site on occupational health and safety grounds. They explicitly cannot. Only a representative from WorkSafe NT has those powers. Again, she said this bill was a radical shift. This is contemporary legislation; it is not radical legislation. It is contemporary legislation and the sky has not fallen in elsewhere in Australia where it is in place.
The member for Braitling talked about the impact on small business. I was very wary of that when the consultant provided me with the initial report and the recommendation was that every workplace in the Northern Territory, where employees in the workplace wanted a formal health and safety representative, every employer had to provide for that. When we looked at what was happening in other jurisdictions, the Australian Capital Territory, Tasmania, the smaller states did not have the requirement where an employer had 10 employees or fewer. That covers, member for Braitling, around 85% of all employers in the Northern Territory. They can use this provision if they want to facilitate a health and safety representative, there is facilitative provision where they can elect to do so, but they cannot be required to do so under this legislation.
We will review this act in five years time. That will be one of the issues up for review, a requirement for smaller businesses being required to have health and safety representatives. The reason we took that call, as I said, was we are a small jurisdiction. The vast number of our businesses are small with fewer than 10 people. A large number of those are sole trading enterprises or only one or two people, where the owner of the business is working in the business right next door, doing the same tasks essentially as the employees and common sense prevails 99 times out of a 100 when people are working in a specific workplace with specific tasks, side by side. They normally work it out themselves. The impact on small businesses is not there because they are exempt from the requirement to have health and safety representatives if they employ fewer than 10 people, although they can elect to do so.
The member for Braitling talked about the sharing of costs. Clause 35 of the bill, Part 4 Division 3 states:
There is a requirement under the bill to share those costs if they elect to share health and safety representatives.
There has been an enormous amount of consultation go into this legislation over the last 12 months. I thank all the employee organisations, the unions that have had input, the employer organisations that have had input, our consultants who have done a great job, members of the department and my Senior Policy Advisor who has done an extraordinary amount of work in assisting with the consultation mechanisms that have led to this bill.
I am very confident that this bill will lead to safer workplaces in the Northern Territory. It will assist in improving a culture of safety in the workplace in the Northern Territory. I would like to leave my wrapping-up comments and speak from a summary from a publication for which I have great regard. It comes from Construction Connections, the TCA’s quarterly magazine, third quarter 2007, and includes comments from Mr Steve Margetic, one of the directors of one of the Territory’s largest construction companies, Sitzler Brothers. Mr Margetic is discussing OHS changes happening at the federal level and are reflected in this legislation:
I know that there are many employers who support these reforms. They know the greatest challenge that they have at the moment is attracting and maintaining a skilled workforce. If employees in this market can see that they have opportunities to work with an employer who has a strong work health safety focus in their workplace and an employer who does not, I know where the majority of those workers are going to go.
As parents, we all want our children, when they elect to go into the workplace, to have the confidence that they are going to go to an industry that is a safe one to work in. Everyone has to lift the bar. The majority of employers do the right thing; a minority does the wrong thing. We do need a culture change across the Northern Territory in Occupational Health and Safety in the workplace and I am very confident that this act will go a long way to facilitating that cultural change.
Motion agreed to; bills read a second time.
In committee:
Workplace Health and Safety Bill (Serial 123)
Clauses 1 to 4, by leave, taken together:
Mr MILLS: Mr Chairman, I move that amendment 27.1 so that the issue of who elects the health and safety representatives can be dealt with.
The bill before the House anticipates that the Health and Safety Committee itself elects the health and safety representative. This is a problem because such representatives usually already exist at the expense of the employer. It has been made clear to me that the most substantial work sites already have an employer-nominated representative and, indeed, larger firms employ such people exclusively for OHS purposes.
The purpose for this is that insurance companies place a premium discount on the presence of such representatives and consequently, employers bear the costs of such employment because it saves a considerable amount in insurance premiums. It is only fair that as it is the employer who pays the insurance premium and the cost of the training of such representatives, they should retain the choice of who should take up that position.
The first amendment in my schedule addresses these issues as it seeks to amend the bill so that it is the employers who select the representative. This is a matter of common sense because if the system in the bill is adopted, a situation will exist where an employer will have to pay for training, possibly twice over, if an unqualified person is elected to the position of health and safety representative.
Worse still, and considering the access this bill is attempting to give to unions, the capacity of an OHS representative to cross into areas of industrial relations is there because this bill in its entirety changes the nature of OHS as it has been practiced up to now in the Territory, therefore depriving the employer of the right to determine who their OHS representative is and deprives them of control of their workplace. It is incongruous to me that the bill determines that an employer still has all the common law liabilities and, in the next breath, removes the capacity of that employer to control the workplace for which the common law makes them responsible.
Mr Chairman, I seek support for the proposed amendment from this committee.
Mr HENDERSON: Mr Chairman, this goes to the fundamental policy shift that I talked about in my closing remarks in debate on the second reading.
The facilitation of health and safety representatives provided for by this legislation is really to empower ownership of health and safety issues in the workplace by employees in the workplace. The member for Blain said we already have legislation that provides for occupational health and safety committees. Yes, we do. By implication, the member for Blain is saying: ‘Why do we not just stay with the current provision under the current act that provides a requirement for occupational health and safety committees? They are working fine; we do not need to amend them. Most employers do the right thing by having occupational health and safety representatives in the workplace’. Well, the facts just do not reflect that, member for Blain, and it is not contemporary practice.
He talked about the costs of insurance premiums and discounts where you have health and safety committees in the workplace. The actual cost last year for workers’ compensation payments was $82m in the Northern Territory. As the member for Braitling said, that is a huge amount of money and averages around $6000 per annum per worker in the Northern Territory. It is an extraordinary amount of money. If the system, as provided for under existing legislation, was working well, I would hate to see something working badly. The cost to business in lost time and loss of productivity as a result: last year in the Northern Territory, there were 2949 compensation claims that came in at a value of $82m. That is absolutely extraordinary and is what is happening under the current legislation and the current culture of occupational health and safety in our workplaces provided for with committees.
Health and safety representatives elected by people in the workplace are going to be able to address immediate occupational health issues in their day-to-day work. They do not have to wait for a committee meeting to occur. The committee might only meet once a week. These health and safety representatives have powers under legislation. They are trained. They cannot exceed or abuse those powers because if they do, the accreditation is removed. The employer always has a right to request an officer from WorkSafe come in if they query the claim by the health and safety representative in the workplace.
Having health and safety representatives in the workplace allows for employees to take immediate action where there are imminent dangers becoming apparent in the workplace, without having to call on the employer to come down and do something about it, call a WorkSafe inspector in to do something about it, or wait for a committee to convene to discuss it with management.
We do not support the amendments as proposed by the member for Blain because they fundamentally seek to maintain the status quo. The status quo is not working, and that is borne out by the figure for workers compensation payments of $82m last year, and nearly 3000 Territorians injured in the workplace to such an extent that they claimed under workers compensation insurance.
Proposed amendment negatived.
Clauses 1 to 4, as printed, agreed to.
After Clause 32, Part 4, Divisions 2 and 3:
Mr MILLS: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 27.2, which deals with health and safety committees.
Amendment negatived.
Mr MILLS: Mr Chairman, I want to discuss Division 7, which relates to clauses 49 to 54. These clauses are about union access to the workplace. By way of amendment, I invite defeat of Division 7 in its entirety. This division is the most contentious of the bill. It introduces a union right of access to the workplace, any workplace, without notice and without grounds so the union can look into OHS issues.
There are currently no powers of union access to workplaces under the Work Health Act. In the Territory, the Work Health Act caters for workplace governance by giving WorkSafe inspectors powers of inspection, an approach used in all jurisdictions, but also there is a requirement for health and safety committees. The operation of the health and safety committees is governed by sections 44(a) and 44(g) of the current act. These committees must exist in any workplace of 20 or more workers and not less than half of any such committee must be elected workers from the workplace.
The committee is supposed to liaise with the employer about all matters pertaining to OHS issues in the workplace. A person must be nominated by the committee to inspect the workplace from time to time with the agreement of the employer or on reasonable notice to the employer if the workplace has not been inspected in the preceding 30 days.
The committee must meet at least every three months and there is a duty imposed upon the employer to furnish details and consult with the committee in relation to matters pertaining to OHS issues in the workplace. At a Commonwealth level, Part 15 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 deals with rights of entry by representative organisations into the workplace. Most of that part is dedicated to the operation of entry rights related to IR matters, nevertheless sections 755 to 759 are exclusively dedicated to entry rights for unions in relation to OHS issues.
The Workplace Relations Act 1996 is drafted to accommodate the operation of state level legislation relating to work health issues. The courts have ruled that the Commonwealth legislation was not written with the intent to cover the field, and so the operation of section 109 of the Constitution, Inconsistent State and Commonwealth legislation, that is the Commonwealth law shall prevail to the extent of the inconsistency, did not nullify the whole instrument.
If it were held that the Commonwealth instrument was intended to cover the field, the state legislation would have been completely nullified. However, that was not the intent of the Commonwealth when passing these sections in the Workplace Relations Act 1996. The effect is that state/Commonwealth inconsistency issues need to be dealt with on the case by case basis. This then allows for the capacity for visiting union officials to engage in jurisdiction shopping. In that case, the CFMEU had no powers to enter a workplace under the Workplace Relations Act so they used the local arm of an affiliate union to gain access to a workplace using the local OHS laws.
The proposed Territory Workplace Health and Safety Bill acknowledges this requirement in a note in the bill, pointing out that a union official exerting his or her authority is bound by Commonwealth legislation. The note refers to the requirement for a unionist who wants to inspect employee records and says that person must give 24 hours notice to the employer of the requirement to see the records. Because the Workplace Relations Act is not prescriptive in relation to OHS issues, the proposed amendments in the Workplace Health and Safety Bill provide for rights of entry that are extraordinary because of, first, the issue of notice, and secondly the grounds for entry.
With the exception of the requirement to give notice to inspect records, there is no requirement for notification of entry. Under the proposed amendments, the only requirements are the official has an identity card issued by the Work Health Authority, nominating him or her as an OHS representative; must have members at the site or be a party to an Award that governs the site; comply with Commonwealth law; identify themselves to the apparent to the person in charge of the work place; enter during work hours; and must comply with the person who is in charge of the site, that they comply with the OHS demands of the site. For that purpose, an ‘authorised purpose’ means to discuss OHS issues with any member or potential member of the union.
I note the amendment has been circulated and I would like to know when that is going to be dealt with. That is the second one to observe work practices and to investigate any suspected contravention of the act.
In all other jurisdictions where this legislation operates, particularly in the jurisdictions where there is no requirement for notice, the union official must have reasonable suspicion or reasonable grounds to enter the workplace because of the possible breach of OHS rules the union official has become aware of. No such requirement exists in the proposed NT legislation. The Territory legislation is designed to allow open access to establish grounds with no notice.
There is no other equivalent or similar legislation in the country that combines the no notice, no grounds approach. Once inside the workplace, the proposed legislation gives the power to unions to conduct investigations that include videoing, recording, measuring, interviewing workers, demanding the production of documents and taking whatever extracts or copies they see fit other than the personal health records of workers. In other jurisdictions, they have some form of arrangements for union access except for South Australia and Queensland. However, these powers of access are tempered with notice and/or grounds requirements. Businesses will hate the intrusion on their property with mines, in particular, the target of organisations.
These amendments blur the line between IR and OHS. Although the amendments make provision for the motivation to be restricted to OHS issues, the fact that unions can approach mere potential members makes this a union power grab. The government will try to paint anyone who resists the legislation as being uncaring about occupational health and safety.
Mr Chairman, this division has nothing to do with OHS and everything to do with an increasing of power to unions. We on this side of the house cannot and will not support these amendments to the bill.
Mr HENDERSON: Mr Chairman, I thought that I had dealt pretty comprehensively in my concluding remarks to the second reading debate about the issue of union right of entry. Listening to the inflated language used by the member for Blain, I urge him not to be so disingenuous about the impact of this legislation. It is not a Trojan horse for unions to carte blanche walk on to any work site in the Northern Territory as part of a recruitment campaign. The facilitation in these provisions under OHS powers prescribed in the Workplace Relations Act are to facilitate and allow unions to engage with members where they have award coverage, to provide for a mechanism to improving safety in the workplace. There are very clear delineations in regard to the Workplace Relations Act in what union officials can and cannot do.
The Workplace Relations Act details the arrangements for such entry, including permits and conditions, permitted activity whilst on site, notice requirements, etcetera. It also prohibits very explicitly misrepresentation regarding entry and activity on site, and this is where we go to the heart of what a union official can do whilst on a site. They cannot misrepresent the reasons they are there. There are, within the bill, mechanisms for disqualification from holding a health and safety representative or authorised union representative powers that have been made explicit in the bill and they will be enforced.
There are also provisions in the bill that there is a right to sue for damages in the event of a misuse of power that results in a loss or damage to a business, so a union is not going to allow some sort of rogue representative to use this legislation as a Trojan horse to create mayhem …
Mr Mills: It has happened before.
Mr HENDERSON: … in the workplace because that union exposes themselves to being sued for damages for that misuse of power.
The member for Blain says it has been used before and, in Queensland, where there have been a couple of instances, and I have had this debate with the Territory Construction Association, those union officials lost their accreditation. The legislation works. Where they misrepresented or abused the powers under the legislation, the system worked.
The hyperbole about the sky falling in over right of entry is just not there. The checks and balances are in the legislation. We are the only state that does not provide for right of entry for health and safety in the workplace. There is right of entry already for union officials under IR powers. I have never heard any employer organisation say to John Howard and Peter Costello: ‘You have to amend the Workplace Relations Act because it is a Trojan horse for union officials in the Northern Territory to enter into workplaces for IR powers to recruit members’. Come on! It really is quite a fallacious argument.
The member for Blain drew attention to the lack of a reasonable suspicion clause in the bill. I will quote from a letter that I sent to employer organisations about this because they raised it with me:
Amendment negatived.
Clause 53:
Mr HENDERSON: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 26.1 to omit subclause (3)(b). This issue was a point of contention raised by employer organisations. On further reflection of that representation, this amendment clarifies the grounds of entry by an authorised union representative.
The intention of the government is to provide for entry to workplaces by authorised union representatives on the same basis as is provided in other jurisdictions and in accordance with the federal government’s Workplace Relations Act. It was put to me by stakeholders that the grounds provided in subclause (3)(b), whilst conforming with the Workplace Relations Act, is not articulated in the same way in the legislation of other jurisdictions.
This was an issue of interpretation and legislative drafting. Whilst I do not agree that in practice, it represents any change from what happens in other jurisdictions. In the interests of clarifying the policy intention and promoting a cooperative approach to the development of guidance materials and regulations - as the member for Braitling said, there is a lot of work to be done on the regulations and guidance documents - to clarify the intent of the government, I have decided to remove that provision.
Mr MILLS: Mr Chairman, I welcome this concession by government. I question the origin, however, of the condition that was in the original bill. It indicates the concern arising not just from this side of parliament or a philosophical position, but a need to protect the issues of trust and cooperation within the workplace. This is a confirmation of what may sit behind the intent of the bill. I welcome it, and I see within your comments a concession and recognition of some of the matters that deeply concern those who carry the weight of responsibility who are small business operators in the Northern Territory.
We are not dealing with the multinationals, the horror stories that seem to grip the ideologues. We are talking about ordinary Territorians. This is the sort of thing that has deeply concerned ordinary folk who are taking responsibility in the workplace. It is welcome, but there is a tone that still operates within many aspects of this. It is not just philosophical matters; it is protecting the culture and the tone of the workplace so we can achieve the objectives.
By the way, there is no anti-union position here. It is the proper relationship between those who have responsibilities so that we can achieve the core objective. I welcome your concession.
Mr HENDERSON: Just responding, Mr Chairman, this was a drafting provision and goes to the issue of a when a hazard becomes a hazard in the continuum of events that lead to a hazard in the workplace. It goes to the issue where, whether it is the union member of someone on the site who is employed under award, is unsure about a work practice or part of a site is safe or unsafe. It probably has not reached the point where it is really unsafe yet; they cannot get clarification of it for a union official to be called to come in and assess the situation. That is where the word ‘observation’ came into it. I understand that could cause some concerns.
It was the way the legislation was drafted in picking up that hazards often do not appear overnight. There is a series of events that lead up to it. As it was put to me, we have had another look at it. We still believe that there is no fundamental change in the policy intent of the bill.
Removing the clause will enable a clarification in drafting the regulations around it. That is the explanation as to how those words appeared as they did in the bill. It was the way that the Parliamentary Counsel drafted the provision. I am pleased to have the support of the opposition for its removal.
Mrs BRAHAM: Mr Chairman, I also would like to make some remarks on this and thank the minister for omitting the subclause. It is common sense. As you say, you are going to review the legislation in five years or so and perhaps other areas will be reviewed.
Like the member for Blain, I am not anti-union in any way. I say that because my brother is a workplace union representative in a rather large establishment in Victoria. He would kill me if he thought I was disparaging some of the principles in which he has such belief.
Minister, we have to get that balance and I thank you for doing this because it does remove some of concerns.
Clause 53, as amended, agreed to.
Mr CHAIRMAN: As a point of clarification, we have jumped ahead here a little bit, so I am going back to clauses 5 to 52.
Clauses 5 to 52, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clauses 54 to 93, by leave, taken together.
Mr CHAIRMAN: We will deal with clause 93(4). Member for Blain.
Mr MILLS: Thank you. Clause 93(4) reads:
Any member hearing that would be concerned. This subclause is simply wrong. Clause 93 makes it an offence to discriminate against an employee for their functions as an OHS representative. We do not have a problem with that, but what is a problem is that the operation of subclause (4), which seeks to make people guilty until they prove themselves innocent. This clause carries a gaol penalty and, according to clause 93(4), the employer will have been presumed to have discriminated against the worker unless the employer proves on the balance of probabilities that they were innocent of the charge. The subclause provides that they need to prove on the balance of probabilities they are innocent. In short, they are guilty until proven innocent. This stands contrary to a fundamental rule of law that is captured by section 5 of the Criminal Code, which reads:
An extraordinary provision! We were talking about the core philosophy in the second reading speech, which was to have proper relations between employer and employee. What an extraordinary situation! I urge the Chief Minister to attend to this because any right thinking person who believes in justice must adhere to the presumption of innocence at all times. This subclause must be struck out.
Mr HENDERSON: Mr Chair, I suppose this goes to an issue of what is contemporary in this legislation. In the extreme circumstance, it provides protection for health and safety representatives in the workplace so they can raise concerns legitimately in the workplace either with the employer or with WorkSafe without fear of being discriminated against by the employer for raising those health and safety concerns.
There are two thresholds that apply to this clause of the legislation. Before we get to the reversal of the onus of proof, WorkSafe NT have to prove in a court of law the first threshold, which is that the employer discriminated against the employee on the basis of raising concerns about occupational health and safety in the workplace.
The first limb in a prosecution is for WorkSafe NT to prove in a court of law that the employer had discriminated against the employee. If the threshold of the bill is providing for health and safety representatives in the workplace who are trained, who are authorised by WorkSafe NT to go about their duties under the act in facilitating a safe workplace, they need to feel that they have absolute protection under the act to pursue their roles, which they are authorised to do under this legislation, without fear of being discriminated against. That is absolutely fundamental to the confidence for health and safety representatives to operate in the workplace.
I envisage that this provision would be triggered very rarely because, as I said, most employers do the right thing. Officers have to feel secure in their employment in order to be effective.
Member for Blain, you say that once the threshold of a court determining that the employer had discriminated, the employer has the burden of proof on the balance of probabilities to show that the OHS activity was not the predominant reason for the discrimination.
So the first thing that WorkSafe has to do is prove that the employee had been discriminated against and the employer then has to demonstrate to the court that OHS activity was not the predominant reason for the discrimination. If it was, then the penalties apply. This is not extraordinary, member for Blain. This reversal of the onus of proof for discrimination, once discrimination has been proved in a court, is in place in Victoria, New South Wales and South Australia and is scheduled to be in place in other jurisdictions. It is contemporary in nature. It does exist in other jurisdictions and I imagine that the clause would rarely be triggered, member for Blain, and I would contest that the fundamental objective of this act it to facilitate safe workplaces and health and safety representatives in the workplace absolutely have to feel secure in their employment in terms of raising concerns.
Most employers will not discriminate against employees in raising health and safety concerns, but those who do, where WorkSafe NT achieve a judgement in a court that discrimination has occurred in the workplace, those employers are going to have to demonstrate to the court that Occupational Health and Safety was not the predominant reason.
Mr MILLS: Chief Minister, I still cannot understand why the normal rule of law should not apply. You have this extraordinary situation couched in the language of the need to protect a worker, but you leave the employer completely exposed. Would a murderer have the same protection? Would someone committing a serious crime have the same protection? It appears they have greater protection than an employer who is required to prove innocence. You said today that there are 204 000 people in the Territory who are well connected; we know each other.
This sort of precedent, entering the culture of relations within our workplaces in the Northern Territory, is going to send a shiver up the spines of those who have responsibility, and it is the ones who take the responsibility are the ones who are going to feel this most. This is an extraordinary provision. Do you believe it is applicable to the Northern Territory? Is there an argument for its application in the Northern Territory? What sort of consultation have you engaged in that has seen acceptance of this provision in our community?
Mr HENDERSON: There has been extraordinary consultation on all of the reforms in this legislation, and I go to some of the words that the member for Blain was using, saying that this is extraordinary legislation and setting a precedent.
As I said, this provision is in place in Victoria, New South Wales, South Australia and other jurisdictions are moving to it. I am advised, as I said in my response earlier, that this provision would very rarely come into effect. Victoria has had this provision in its legislation since 2004, three years ago. There has only been one instance of an employer being prosecuted under this provision who had to demonstrate that OHS activity was not the predominant reason.
This is not about employers being terrified of their responsibilities in the Northern Territory. It is establishing a bar that health and safety representatives in the workplace have to feel secure in their employment.
It is for the authority, WorkSafe NT, in the first instance to prove in a court of law that discrimination has occurred. We have all sorts of antidiscrimination provisions, including the Anti-Discrimination Act. For people to feel free from discrimination, whether it is racial discrimination, gender based or in any other form, is fundamental in so much of our legal system. This is another definition that requires that employers do not discriminate against health and safety representatives in the very legitimate role they have in identifying safety issues in the workplace.
If an employee is discriminated against, that has to be proven in a court of law. This will occur very rarely. It has happened once in Victoria since 2004. It is not precedent. It is not extraordinary. It is contemporary legislation.
Mr Mills: For the Territory it is.
Mr HENDERSON: You say, member for Blain, ‘in the Territory it is’. A lot of your arguments all the way through these committee stages have gone to the fact that there should not be a provision in this bill and you have moved to strike it out, for health and safety representatives to be elected in the workplace and that the committee system works fine. Well, the committee system does not work fine.
There was $82m worth of workers compensation payments made last year. There were 3000 people injured to such an extent that they drew on workers compensation insurance. If you think about not only the cost in insurance premiums to employers, but the cost to a business in lost time and lack of productivity, this regime sets up a whole culture change. I deny it is extraordinary, sets a precedent or places an extraordinary burden on employers. It is contemporary legislation. It will be very rarely triggered and I see no reason that it would be triggered on an extensive basis in the Northern Territory. Those health and safety representatives have to feel secure in their employment.
Mr MILLS: You said, Chief Minister, that you have consulted extensively. Well, you can say you have consulted extensively, but can you name the employer groups that support this provision?
Mr HENDERSON: We have consulted with all of the major employer groups. In respect of who has supported what, this is extensive reform and we have had representation from employer and employee organisations. We have had an Occupational Health and Safety Reference Group which has combined individual enterprises as well as employer and employee organisations. We have had stakeholder groups from different sectors of industry. We have had written submissions from employer and employee organisations and individuals. I am not going to go through a huge matrix of who has supported which clause.
I can say that employee organisations, the union movement, do not have everything they wanted out of this bill. They wanted industrial manslaughter to be part of the bill and, as minister, I said no to that. The original penalties in the submission to the government from the consultant were right at the upper scheme of the penalty regimes throughout Australia. We have adjusted those penalty regimes to be in the middle of the pack. They were subterranean before. I think the maximum penalty for a death in the workplace was $150 000. That is subterranean! That was the value of a life in a prosecution under legislation today until this bill goes through and is assented to. That is totally unacceptable. There were other issues that employee organisations wanted to see in this bill to which we did not agree.
One of the concerns employer organisations raised on the requirement for health and safety representatives in the workplace was that it should not apply to very small businesses. We agreed to that. We agreed to making the penalty provisions middle of the road. We picked up the issue of observation practices in the workplace. We have agreed to fund training for health and safety representatives for businesses employing between 10 and 20 people.
Not everyone has what they wanted on either side of this debate. I am confident this legislation is contemporary in nature. I do not believe that it gives rise to huge concerns for employers. Most employers do the right thing, member for Blain. This provision exists in Victoria, New South Wales and South Australia and their skies have not fallen in. Employers have not stopped employing people in those jurisdictions. The economy is growing strongly in those jurisdictions and there has only been one prosecution in Victoria since 2004. I urge you, member for Blain, to look at the facts on how this is working elsewhere. You should not be scaremongering about how it will apply in the Northern Territory.
Mr MILLS: Just for my own edification, Chief Minister, can you explain to me where this principle is reversed anywhere else, where the accused must prove their innocence? Is there any other place where this occurs?
Mr HENDERSON: The premise of your question, member for Blain, is fundamentally wrong again. It is not that the accused has to demonstrate their innocence; the employer has already been found guilty of discrimination so a finding of guilt is already there. They are not accused of discriminating against the employee; there has already been a finding of guilt and once discrimination has been proved, under the legislation the employer has the burden of proof on the balance of probabilities to show the OHS activity was not the predominant reason for the discrimination that has already been proved, not alleged.
Mrs BRAHAM: Minister, my comment is that the wording is provocative. That is the problem with this clause. It says it will be ‘presumed’ that the employer did on the grounds alleged in the instrument of charge. It is presumed. That is what makes this clause so provocative. That is what the member for Blain is referring to. There is an assumption of guilt written into this clause that in common law is just not there.
Mr HENDERSON: I have answered this question and demonstrated that this is not extraordinary legislation. It does not set a precedent. It exists in Victoria, New South Wales and South Australia. I quote from the legislation:
That is the first limb. The first threshold that has to be passed is that the employer has to be found to have discriminated against a worker.
So they have to be found to have discriminated in the first instance. WorkSafe NT has to mount a successful prosecution and the employer has to be found to have discriminated. They are not accused at the point where it will be presumed:
Mrs BRAHAM: So he is guilty? It is that presumption.
Mr HENDERSON: They have already been found to have been guilty of discrimination. That is the first limb that has to be proved. To ensure that the prospective penalties do not flow from the discrimination being on grounds that occupational health and safety was the reason for the discrimination, the employer has to prove that the discrimination that has already been proved is not the predominant reason for the discrimination.
Mrs BRAHAM: I still think it is provocative.
Amendment negatived.
Clauses 54 to 93, as printed, agreed to.
Clause 94:
Mr MILLS: Mr Chair, I move that the whole of clause 94 be omitted from the bill. Clause 94 abrogates the right to silence relating to self-incrimination. It abrogates the privilege against self-incrimination. It is not an excuse for refusing or failing to answer a question or for refusing or failing to provide information as required under this bill, that the answer to the question or information would tend to incriminate the person subject to the requirement of an offence.
Of the powers granted in this legislation, many of which I harbour major reservations about, this is the most aggressive. The bill introduces powers of the Authority to demand sworn evidence. These powers currently do not exist. Currently, the Authority operates as an administrative body that overseas the inspectors. These powers to demand evidence include an offence of failing to provide the evidence requested.
Presumably, this process is aimed to assist the investigation process, but essentially will have the effect of creating a pre-trial hearing to determine whether or not a prosecution should proceed. The only reason that a person can refuse is if they have a reasonable excuse. The right to silence that would normally be afforded in a court will not be afforded as a reasonable excuse and the right to avoid self-incrimination and therefore, the right to silence, is specifically overturned.
It is proposed that it will become the Authority’s job to decide whether or not to proceed with prosecutions against the Work Health Act. The police do not have a power to demand that people hand over information pertaining to their criminal investigations. Under this bill, the Authority and its investigators have the power to demand information.
These are extraordinary powers of criminal investigation. If the Work Health Authority wants to investigate matters, it may be argued that they should be given power of investigation the same as police powers, which is the right to obtain warrants or simply ask for the information. The power to obtain warrants exists in clause 69, but these powers are over and above those.
It is uncertain how a court would deal with evidence when the information has been obtained under threat of criminal sanction and the information turned out to be self-incriminating. Statements made under coercive circumstances have been ruled involuntary and therefore inadmissible. There is a general principle in law that coercion should not be used to obtain admissions of guilt for fairly obvious reasons.
One of the fundamental tenets of our criminal legal system is the right not to have to provide self-incriminating evidence. The accuser must prove a wrongdoing. Clause 94 specifically removes the right to remain silent on the grounds of self-incrimination. Section 10 of the Evidence Act however, captures the long-held tenets of the law when it provides:
Consequently, the Authority will be able to collect evidence outside the normal rules of evidence and make directions according to the evidence obtained. If it makes directions that are punitive in nature, then the government will have exercised a body that has the role of a star chamber within the executive.
Therefore, the authority will have to act as the Licensing Commission does when it hears evidence insomuch as it may make rulings that deal with the proper administration of the Act. However, any ruling that could be seen to be punitive may be ultra vires.
This will lead to longer and more complicated litigation and will add a quasi-judicial level to criminal and civil processes because the effect of these changes will be to alter the Authority from a straightforward investigative body into a body that hears evidence, summonses witnesses and makes determinations on that approach. I urge that it be removed.
Mr HENDERSON: Mr Chairman, in order to expedite proceedings, the amendment that I will move to clause 94 will help clarify some of the concerns of the member for Blain.
This goes to the heart of one of the major failings in the current legislation. It was of significant concern for me when I became minister for this portfolio. In respect of quite a significant number of investigations into tragic deaths in the workplace that were underway where WorkSafe NT, under the existing legislation, did not have the powers to get access to information a company holds that could lead to the determination of what caused the accident, and therefore an assessment as to whether their was any culpability on behalf of the employer contributory to that accident. We had any number of cases that had been stalled for a long period of time because WorkSafe NT have very few powers under existing legislation to compel the provision of material, evidence and documents to determine the cause of an accident.
If we are looking at legislation that not only changes the culture of any workplace, provides for a greater level of ownership of safety in the workplace and a greater balance between the responsibilities of employers and employees, the fundamental objects of this legislation are to provide for safer workplaces. Part of that has to be that in instances of breaches occurring which lead to accidents, serious injury or death, the investigating authority must have the powers to determine the cause of the accident. If you cannot determine the cause of the accident, what led to the death of the employee, you cannot determine whether the employer was culpable and, more importantly, you cannot look at the systemic issues which may have failed to allow for improvements to be made to prevent other deaths.
I am not going to support the removal of this clause because it goes to the heart of determining the cause of an accident which has led to a serious injury or death in the workplace. We would be negligent as legislators to continue with current legislation which does provide for the cause of incidents which lead to death in the workplace never to be determined. Again, I am advised that legislation in New South Wales, Western Australia and Victoria has similar provisions. I will be moving an amendment to clarify this, but the clause has been rigorously tested by DEET Legal, Justice prosecuting counsel, and it goes to the heart of determining the cause of a serious accident and, tragically, death in the workplace.
I go to the tragedy of relatives who lose a loved one in the workplace and who never get closure by knowing what caused the death. I certainly do not support the deletion of this clause, and I believe the amendment I will move will deal with some of the concerns of the member for Blain.
Amendment negatived.
Mr HENDERSON: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 26.2 to insert a new paragraph at the end of the existing clause:
(b) proceedings in the nature of perjury.
This specific issue was raised with me by the Civil Contractors Association. They did not have any problems at all with the intent of the clause. They very clearly stated they did not have any problem at all with intent of the clause in respect of the Authority being able to secure the information from the employer to assist in an investigation to lead to a conclusion as to what caused the accident or injury in the workplace.
They had very real concerns that the way the clause was drafted could actually be detrimental to the object, meaning that people would not come forward with verbal information because it may incriminate them and lead to other civil or criminal proceedings.
We took those concerns back to Parliamentary Counsel and Justice. They could see that there was probably some potential for difficulty in interpretation by the courts. I have come back this evening with this amendment that very clearly states that the abrogation of the right to silence is intended to apply only to this legislation or proceedings for perjury under it. It cannot be applied for any other civil or criminal proceedings. I am advised that employer associations are now satisfied with this amendment and the clarity it provides.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 94, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill to be reported with amendments.
Law Reform (Work Health) Amendment Bill (Serial 124):
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill to be reported without amendment.
Bills reported; reports adopted.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the bills now be read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bills read a third time.
Ms LAWRIE (Leader of Government Business)(by leave): Madam Speaker, pursuant to section 28 of the Ombudsman (Northern Territory) Act I table the Annual Report for 2006-07 for the Ombudsman for the Northern Territory.
Ms LAWRIE (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Annual Report for 2006-07 for the Ombudsman for the Northern Territory be printed.
Motion agreed to.
Ms LAWRIE (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Annual Report for 2006-07 for the Ombudsman for the Northern Territory be noted.
The work of the Ombudsman’s Office has been detailed in the Ombudsman’s 2006-07 Annual Report. Notably, the report shows a decrease in inquiries, approaches and complaints made to the Ombudsman. The report outlines that this was the result of more effective and efficient internal complaints resolution procedures for government entities, statutory bodies and local government agencies. Not only has the Ombudsman and her staff worked to ensure compliance with their practice complaints resolution procedures but they have done so under budget, recording a surplus of $104 000.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the report and that I have leave to continue my remarks at a later hour.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
Ms LAWRIE (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I table the report of the Remuneration Tribunal and Determination No 2 of 2007 for members of the Legislative Assembly.
Ms LAWRIE (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the report.
Madam Speaker, it is a requirement of the Assembly Members and Statutory Officers (Remuneration and Other Entitlements) Act that any Tribunal determination is distributed to each person whose entitlements are affected by it, and that a copy of the determination is tabled in the Assembly within six sitting days of its receipt by the minister.
I am advised that copies of the determination have been distributed in accordance with the act. I am now tabling the determination consistent with the legislative requirement to do so.
Members will recall that at the time of the Tribunal’s 2006 Report and Determination, legal advice was obtained that the Tribunal did not have the power to determine the capacity entitlements set out in clause 7 of its determination, being entitlements dealing with office space, equipment and staff for electorate offices. For this reason, clause 7 was disallowed in the February sitting.
In place of the clause 7 provisions, the then Chief Minister tabled Administrative Arrangements in the Assembly reinstating those capacity provisions and providing the Speaker with the authority to receive requests from members in respect of those entitlements and to amend the entitlements as appropriate. To ensure transparency, the Speaker is required to notify any variations to those Administrative Arrangements to members within four weeks of approval. I note that no variations have been requested or made since these arrangements were put in place in February this year.
As you would expect then, the Tribunal has not included these particular capacity entitlements in its 2007 determination. In the meantime, the Tribunal received legal advice that other capacity entitlements were also beyond its power to determine and those matters have also been omitted from the 2007 determination.
In summary, the Tribunal notes in its report at page 6 that those matters which are outside this authority are travel entitlements except personal travel expenses, government-supplied motor vehicle or allowance, office space and equipment, communications and postage and childcare allowance.
The Tribunal goes on to note the entitlements which are within the Tribunal’s power to determine are additional salary of office, personal costs while travelling, any new personal allowances and general matters. Since the report has been finalised, further legal advice was sought as to whether electorate allowance is also within the power of the Tribunal to determine. The advice is that this allowance is within the power of the Tribunal to determine. Despite some uncertainty about this when the Tribunal was preparing its report, the Tribunal included the allowance within its determination quite validly as it turns out.
I turn now to entitlements and issues raised in the Tribunal’s 2007 report. Confirmation that electorate allowance is a form of personal remuneration addresses a doubt raised by the Tribunal in its report. This concerned the implications of any unspent portion of the allowance being seen as potential income otherwise than under an enactment as required by the Self-Government Act. I understand the Tribunal has now written to all members to advise it accepts the legal advice on this point and has no further reservations on this issue.
A new entitlement called a Travel Cost Allowance has been created in the 2007 determination. It is proposed to indemnify a member where, for example, accommodation for official travel is paid directly and therefore travel allowance is not paid. Given that a member is likely to incur other reasonable expenses while travelling in these circumstances, it is appropriate that these costs should also be met by government. The Travel Cost Allowance may then apply and may cover one or more of the following types of expenses: accommodation, meals, hire cars, taxis or ferries, and use of a member’s own car.
Two other new entitlements are a per kilometre allowance entitlement for authorised use of private cars, and a right to have the costs of hired transport reimbursed in certain circumstances and a resettlement allowance to apply to a member following the end of their term as an elected member in certain circumstances. Rates of travelling allowance have been increased generally in line with the amounts determined by the Commonwealth Remuneration Tribunal for federal politicians. In its report, the Tribunal queried whether wording in section 4(1)(c) of the Assembly Members and Statutory Officers (Remuneration and Other Entitlements) Act in relation to entitlements for members holding or occupying certain offices only enables the Tribunal to determine entitlements for holding that office rather than in relation to carrying out the functions of that office.
Legal advice has confirmed that the wording of this section of the Act does empower the Tribunal to fix entitlements in respect of the performance of the functions of the offices listed in that provision and no amendment of the act is required.
Finally, the Tribunal has made several recommendations in relation to legislation and the publication of determinations of member’s capacity benefits. Government will carefully examine these recommendations.
Madam Speaker, I would like to formally note that on 21 November, 2007 Mr Otto Alder retired from his appointment as Member of the Remuneration Tribunal after 10 years of dedicated work as the sole member of this body. I would like to place on record the government’s appreciation of the work he has done in this role not only in respect of MLA entitlements, but also in respect of the entitlements of magistrates, judges and members of Northern Territory government statutory bodies. I am sure all of my parliamentary colleagues join me in wishing Mr Alder the very best in his retirement. The new member of the Tribunal will be announced in the very near future.
I move that the Assembly take note of the report and seek leave to continue my remarks during debate on this report in the next sitting.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
Ms LAWRIE (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr NATT (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, it is that time of the year. The Christmas break is almost upon us and, my, how the time has flown. This year has been one of fulfilment for me, meaning that I have endeavoured to ensure my portfolios have contributed to the wellbeing of the Northern Territory and moved steadily forward. I am extremely pleased with my portfolios and the people within them, who include departmental staff and those on the ground throughout the Northern Territory including the producers, the mining people, the growers and so on.
I want to praise and thank several people who have supported me this year. First and foremost is my loving wife, Jette. She has been a fantastic sounding board and has always supported me. I thank her for her love, understanding and being there when times were somewhat testy and uncomfortable. Parliamentary life can be extremely demanding on your personal life and, at times, it can wear you down. Her comfort, support and understanding through these times is greatly appreciated and I thank her for being there. I am looking forward to having a couple of small breaks over Christmas and spending some down time with our son, Travis.
Lu and Des Friedrich, very close friends of ours, have been great support to both of us in the three or four years that they have been in the Territory. We have a great friendship, we love their company, and we look forward to doing the same over the Christmas break and into the New Year. I thank them for their support.
My Electorate Officer, Russell Wilson, has been a stalwart for me in Drysdale. His work rate is unquestionable and I thank him for his dedication to me and my constituents. Many of my constituents visit the office with issues, and I am always extremely confident knowing that Russell will follow up in my absence on all details that need to be addressed. He does a great job and I am extremely lucky to have someone of his calibre. I thank him for a fantastic year and I look forward to working with him again next year. It would be remiss of me not to thank his wonderful supportive partner, Ruth. Ruth is also a great supporter of mine and she, on most occasions, will be at Russell’s side working with him at our booth at the markets on Friday nights, at barbecues, electorate functions, or whatever. Ruth will always be there. I thank them both for their support during the year.
I pay tribute to my staff in my office on the fifth floor. Mark Hough, my Senior Advisor, cannot be thanked enough for his guidance and support throughout the year, and this year especially. Mark is also a close friend away from my working life and has always been very good to me and Jette. I thank him for his friendship, guidance and advice. I also acknowledge his partner, Jenny, who has been a good friend to Jette since we arrived in the Northern Territory. I thank Jenny for her understanding and friendship to us both. To the both of you, your friendship and support is highly appreciated.
Ray Clarke is my Primary Industry and Fisheries advisor. He has been a great support for me this year and his knowledge is unquestionable. He is well respected within the department and on the fifth floor, and I thank him for his guidance and back-up throughout the year. I know we have had some long hours some nights on different issues, but, well done, Ray. I thank you and I thank Fiona for her understanding on some of those late nights.
Colin Hallenstein is my Mines and Energy advisor. Life in the office would not be the same without Colin. He is always quick with a joke and a quip, and he is one of those guys who keeps a smile on our faces. He has a wonderful personality. He is also very well respected and highly thought of throughout the mining industry. I thank him for his guidance and support this year, which has been invaluable. Unfortunately, we are going to be sad in our office come 7 December because Colin is retiring. He wanted to retire a little earlier in the year, but I talked him into staying until the end. Colin, I thank you for staying on. Your friendship has been greatly appreciated as has your work in the office. I thank you and Lois for the support you have given me this year, and I look forward to continuing our friendship after your retirement. Good luck in your retirement, too.
Gemma Buxton, my previous Media Advisor, and my present Media Advisor, Edwin Edland, have both been diligent. They have undertaken extremely difficult workloads, and they are to be commended for the good work they do. Promoting the work undertaken in my departments is a real honour and they do it very well. I am lucky because I have some good news portfolios. Gemma and Edwin do some great work in promoting the work of my departments. I thank them for their efforts throughout the year.
Amanda Addison, my PA, has stepped up over the last couple of months and I thank her for doing that. Her work is highly valued, so is her infectious laugh. She is great to be around and I thank her for her support of me and the office staff in the last couple of months. I am sure that will continue into next year. More importantly, I thank her for keeping Jette company at times when her husband and I have been out on the road, or we have had late nights with our jobs. Most times I know she is keeping Jette company with a glass of wine in hand. I thank Amanda and her husband George.
Eunice de Ramos, Pui and Chantelle Barrett are three people who have been helping in my office throughout the year, and I thank them for their support and effort. It has not gone unnoticed and I thank them profusely for everything they have done and wish them well in their new roles.
I thank my government colleagues for their support, guidance and friendship. It has been a long, but good year and it was topped off last weekend with Saturday’s wonderful results on the federal front. Wasn’t that a sweet feeling! Again, I thank them for all they have done for me this year.
I thank my department Chief Executives for their dedication and efforts. With the command of their departments, their highly valued work does not go unnoticed. I thank them for all the hard work they do and the long hours they put in, ensuring that the DPIFM branch of the government performs well. I thank them all for their input.
Department personnel in Primary Industries, Fisheries and Mines and Energy do some outstanding work for the Northern Territory. A lot of it does go unnoticed and it is often not acknowledged in the way that it should be. However, they can rest assured that we all appreciate the effort that they put in. I thank them for their diligence and dedication to the department and the roles that they undertake. Believe me, you do make a difference and I am sure you will continue to do that into the future. I thank them all for their hard work.
To my close friends, constituents and supporters, I thank you for your continued support and assistance. I enjoy my work in the electorate and I look forward to doing the same next year and, hopefully, in the years to come.
In summing up, I wish all of the people I have mentioned a very merry Christmas and a happy and prosperous new year. Again, I thank them for all that they have done for me this year. I look forward to working with them next year.
In closing, Madam Speaker, I would like to mention one person who is a constituent of mine, who has recently been well recognised as an inventor. John Trott, who lives in Woolner in my electorate, came to my office in June to show me a little idea he was developing. His idea was simple and very innovative. Whilst suffering from a back injury, Mr Trott was inspired to get to work on an idea he had been mulling over for some time. In simple terms, Mr Trott has redesigned the shovel to accommodate an additional handle on the shaft to make gardening easier. He calls it the Ezy Lift shovel.
From my office, John was placed in contact with the office of minister Vatskalis, the Minister for Business and Economic Development and the Northern Territory government Business Development Unit, which went through a range of programs that the department offers, including the Northern Territory Research and Innovation Grant Program. As a result, we have a new Territory-made shovel designed to make gardening easier, which will be ready to hit the market early next year.
The Business and Economic Development Minister last week tested the new Ezy Lift shovel created by Mr Trott. Mr Vatskalis has said that the Territory is full of innovative people like Mr Trott, who are solving problems all the time. The Territory government supports these local businesses and entrepreneurs. John’s new design is fantastic and sure to be a winner with gardening enthusiasts everywhere. It is great to see Territorians lead the way when it comes to innovation.
Mr Trott received a $20 000 government grant to develop his shovel. His received one of 10 grants totalling $300 000 awarded by the government through the Northern Territory Research and Innovation Board.
He developed his unique Ezy Lift shovel out of the desire to dig in the garden following a back injury some years ago. The new shovel has been tested by Charles Darwin University and it shows some positive results, including 18.7% less stress to the back per shovel stroke so, over a period of doing quite a bit of shovelling of soil from the front garden to the back garden, it takes quite a bit of strain off the back.
Mr Trott is going to use his grant money to continue to develop his Ezy Lift, retro-lift handle, which is a variation of the Ezy Lift shovel and can be attached to an existing shovel. Mr Trott was provided with the specific information with regard to the options available to get his shovel to the market. I am pleased to say that the Territory government gets behind our innovators and supporters developers and innovations. I congratulate Mr Trott and wish him well with the further development on the Ezy Lift shovel.
Last but not least, in mid-October I was invited by Miss Emma Connelly, who is a student teacher at the Durack Primary School, to address her Year 3 class on the topic of politics. The class had been focusing on the three levels of government and their roles and responsibilities. My job was to discuss my role as MLA and a minister, and explain some of the responsibilities of the government and the other two levels of government. The children were armed with questions about specific responsibilities and were very keen, eager and interested learners. I had a lot of fun in the morning, sharing some of my knowledge and experiences with them. I thank the Durack School and Ms Emma Connelly for the opportunity to discuss an important topic. I must admit the enthusiasm of the kids and some of the questions they asked were quite daunting, not to mention testing at times. It goes to show that the level of education nowadays is fantastic and augers well for the kids in the future.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I rise to talk about three young Territorians doing great things in our community.
First, I would like to talk about a young Territorian called Claire Ryan. Claire Ryan is a young Alice Springs woman and a student at St Philip’s College who works hard to give the youth of Central Australia a voice, and works towards the betterment of many young people in and around Alice Springs. 2007 has been a great year for Claire. She has been a member of the Youth Minister’s Round Table and, just recently, was chosen to represent the Territory as a finalist in the National Public Speaking Competition.
The National Public Speaking Competition featured the topic and quote Australia in 2020 should be recognised as …. Claire’s response was:
This topic has been a true passion of Claire’s since she was a ‘Make Poverty History 07 Ambassador’ earlier this year. Claire strongly believes that Australia needs to accept the truth of poverty in our own country before trying to help others. She also believes that the Northern Territory should be accepting this harsh reality, as many Territorians live with poverty every day of their lives.
The National Public Speaking Competition held in Sydney recently comprised two parts; one prepared four-minute speech to a panel of judges and another three-minute impromptu speech. I am happy to advise members of the Legislative Assembly that although Claire did not win, participating in the National Public Speaking Competition was a great experience; one of which she can be extremely proud and one for which she received a great deal of publicity in Alice Springs several weeks ago. To be selected from a group of 50 000 applicants around the country is certainly an achievement in itself. I understand that Claire’s two speeches were well received and the impromptu speech was ‘What was the main thing you learned at school?’, to which Claire replied ‘to follow your intuition’. Of course, she added a number of other things to produce what I understand was a very impressive speech.
Throughout 2007, Claire was a member of the Youth Minister’s Round Table for Young Territorians and, as the only representative from Central Australia, she found the experience quite challenging. I met with Claire on several occasions and was happy to provide her with support and assurance along the way although she is such a confident young woman, she generally needs little assurance or reassurance. The Youth Round Table has given Claire a great opportunity to develop skills. It has also given her the encouragement and skills to empower herself and some in the community.
As a result of her involvement in the Youth Round Table, Claire Ryan is hopeful that she can begin a Central Australian Youth Advisory Committee based in Alice Springs. It is her hope that the committee will be diverse in range, cultures and opinions, and be a mechanism to provide feedback on issues surrounding youth to various councils and committees. This is an impressive aspiration for Claire and, given the range of issues facing our young people in Alice Springs, it is a welcome initiative.
Claire’s goals arising from the Youth Round Table have been to ensure that the youth of Alice Springs are given a voice and a chance to be heard on the Territory stage. Therefore, following a year on the Youth Round Table and with the proposed formation of the Central Australian Youth Advisory Committee, Claire is feeling confident that there is a strong foundation for the youth of Central Australia. As Claire’s term on the Youth Minister’s Round Table draws to a close, we are confident that this is just the beginning for Claire. To progress her ideas for the youth of Alice Springs, she has made arrangements for discussions with the Alice Springs Town Council. I am sure all members of the Assembly wish her well in her endeavours and her efforts to talk with members of council.
I feel certain that we will be hearing a great deal more about Claire Ryan as the years roll on. If Top End members do not know Claire, I am sure they will come across her in the not-too-distant future. She is an impressive young woman who is doing over and above, in my view, her bit for young people in Alice Springs.
I also talk, as I ordinarily do, about impressive people in my electorate. One impressive young person is Luke Smyth who is participating in an international service project which, for the want of a better description, is a humanitarian project. Luke’s project runs from 14 December 2007 to 6 January 2008 and involves the construction of a kitchen and dining room in Anandwan in Maharashtra in India. Anandwan is a small community which was set up in 1951 for the disabled and destitute. The kitchen and dining room will be for the use of the Anandwan choir which is for children and, interestingly, blind girls in particular, who live in that area because their families consider them to be a burden. The organisation is a crucial means by which these children can attain some self-esteem and confidence, and it provides them with an occupation and thus, a way to ease the burdens on their families.
Luke Smyth was selected earlier this year to be a member of the ‘07 Make Poverty History Road Trip’ to spread the message of the need for further contributions to foreign aid. To prepare for this, he attended training sessions where he learnt of the global extent of poverty, some of its root causes and proposals for its reduction and eradication. Luke believes that it is the responsibility of our youth to try to help those less fortunate. In supporting the Anandwan community, Luke is hoping to encourage more people to take action.
On behalf of all members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory, I wish Luke every success in his trip to India in the next couple of weeks and, particularly, in the construction of the kitchen and dining room in Anandwan, and hope that the choir will continue to provide children with self-esteem, confidence and means for future occupation.
Luke Smyth is yet another example of an impressive young person from Alice Springs. I have met Luke, spoke with him for some time and there is no doubt that he is an impressive young man, a St Philip’s student. It is wonderful as a local member to meet with so many young people, to invite them into your office, spend time and listen to them. To see the hope and optimism in their eyes is something that really gives all of us hope for our future and, on occasion, can be quite moving. As we all get older, we sit back and marvel at the energy and enthusiasm of these young people, and wish them the very best, as I am sure members of the Assembly wish Luke Smyth the best.
Another impressive young person in Alice Springs is Edward Tikoft. He is undertaking humanitarian aid activities over the Christmas break. Edward, who is also the college captain of St Philip’s College for 2007 and an active member of the school and greater community, is taking part in the Round Square International Service project set to take place in Ilbissl, 100 km south of Nairobi in Kenya. Edward, along with students from all over the world and with Kenyan students, will be contributing hands-on help to build a science laboratory for a boarding school for Masai girls. These Masai girls, if not actively in the education system, would be married off and be mothers at the time they are 13 so the value of the project is immense. Edward wants to be part of the service project in order to share life experiences with other young people while also engaging in life on the other side of the world and meeting new people, having fun and developing his personal ability to communicate with people who live so far away and to learn from them.
Edward believes that being of service to others in everyday life is an important virtue. He is very clear that if you do not go overseas to find yourself and, indeed, help others, then you are not trying hard enough. This project provides service on another scale and will, hopefully, prepare him for further service-related activities in the Northern Territory. Isn’t it wonderful when our young people go overseas? They do, in so many ways, find themselves. They meet with young people from other cultures and have what is invariably an invaluable and, in some cases, a life-changing experience.
In 2005, Edward was privileged enough to go on a long-term exchange to rural South Africa, and this opened his eyes to the effects of poverty in ways that he would never have expected. Edward is now motivated to do what he can to help out in a practical way. I am sure all members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory join with me in wishing Edward the very best for his forthcoming trip to Kenya. I look forward to hearing about his achievements in the future.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, we have a number of impressive young people in Alice Springs and Edward is yet another one of them. It really is a pleasure to talk about them, as we should, in the Northern Territory parliament. They should, even at their relatively young age, be very proud of their experiences to date and of their optimism for the future and, interestingly, their own determination to help others, whether they are at home in Alice Springs in the Northern Territory or Australia or, indeed, on the other side of the world.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, it is with considerable sadness that I speak tonight about the tragic passing of Vern Pech at Maningrida. Sadly, whilst at work on 17 October this year at 1 pm, Vern met with an unfortunate accident and died at the age of 64 years. Vern was a true Territorian, liked and respected by many people across the NT, a real character and someone with a great sense of humour.
Before I talk about Vern, his life and recount a few stories, some people call them ‘Verngettes’, or the ‘Word according to Vern’, I thank my colleagues who agreed that I deliver this eulogy for Vern in parliament. I am grateful to the member for Arafura, Marion Scrymgour, and the Minister for Essential Services, Kon Vatskalis, for allowing me the privilege of delivering a eulogy for my friend.
Furthermore, I am grateful to them for allowing me the honour of announcing tonight that the powerhouse at Maningrida will now be known as the ‘Vern Pech Power House’. As part of this eulogy, I will draw on biographical information put together for Vern’s funeral service by his sister, Betty Schelling, his nieces, Katherine, Julie and Michelle, and his good friend, Peter Thomas, and delivered by his niece, Katherine, at the service in Christ Church Lutheran Church, Murray Bridge, South Australia and read at his memorial service in Darwin. I thank those who have added their fond anecdotes and memories of Vern.
Vernon Karl Pech was born on 16 May 1943 at Booleroo Centre. He was the first son of August and Una Pech, nee Wegner. After completing his primary education at the Pine Creek School, Appila, Vern helped his father on their family farm. At the end of 1964, the family moved to Murray Bridge, where Vern’s parents retired on a 25 acre farmlet. In 1965, Vern did some relief work running the local community radio station, 5MU. For the following 10 years, he remained in Murray Bridge undertaking electrical work.
In 1975, shortly after Cyclone Tracy’s devastation, Vern bought a Land Rover and a small caravan and drove to Darwin looking for work. He found work here repairing electrical goods and, after some time, was offered a similar job out at Bathurst Island.
In 1983, Vern was offered a job as Essential Services Officer for the Power and Water Corporation at Maningrida in Arnhem Land. Apart from a relatively small break, he worked there for the next 25 years or so. The only break he took was a short-lived retirement in the 1990s when he was an investor in an emu farm, or an ‘emu motel’ as he called it. Everyone was really glad when he was lured out of retirement to return to Maningrida to his old job he loved so much.
In 2003, as Minister for Essential Services, I was proud to award Vern a certificate acknowledging his 25 years of service and recognising him as the longest-serving Essential Services Officer in the Territory. As we all know, keeping the power, water and sewerage working in a large remote community is a great challenge and essential to the wellbeing of the community. As we also know, it can be a very dangerous job. Tonight I pay tribute to all our Essential Services Officers, but I pay particular tribute to Vern. He was tireless, hard-working and reliable. The generators he maintained during his service were one of his passions, nicknaming them the ‘Rolls of the Rolls Royces’.
Vern also took many extra jobs around the community, including unloading of fuel and other supplies for the community from the shipping barge which could arrive at any hour of the day or night. More recently, Vern was acknowledged with a certificate of appreciation for cyclone pre-planning, preparation and recovery response for Cyclone Monica which swept through Maningrida in 2006 causing a lot of destruction. Vern always knew what to do in a cyclone to ensure his beloved generators kept going and other essential services kept functioning. At his memorial service, it was said that particularly during Cyclone Monica, Vern:
He led the recovery effort, particularly repairs to power lines and other infrastructure. Vern always strove for perfection in his work using his own special language, words like ‘perfecto mundo’ and ‘el schmicko’ when things were done to his satisfaction.
A note was read at Vern’s memorial service from Jo Killmister from Maningrida, who said that Vern would often give them ‘the word according to Vern’. All of us who knew Vern would agree he certainly had a lot of wisdom to impart.
I would like to table a photo of Vern Pech sent to me by Nerilie Wright from Mobile Enterprises, which captures the essence of Vern imparting ‘the word’. Madam Speaker, I seek leave to incorporate the e-mail which accompanied this photo into the Parliamentary Record.
Leave granted.
Dr BURNS: I am sure the e-mail from Nerilie Wright speaks on behalf of many people and highlights Vern’s friendliness and hospitality, as well as the high esteem in which he is held by many people. In a note read at the memorial service, Jo Killmister also spoke on behalf of many people when she said ‘Vern was an inspiration’, and drew some smiles amongst many of the Essential Services Officers who attended when she said that ‘Vern has gone to the big power house in the sky’.
Following Monica, Vern suffered a heart attack. No doubt, all his hard work caught up with him as a warning. He was planning to retire in 2008 and was looking forward to taking it easy. Vern was one of a kind. Like many long-term Territorians he was a bit different, but always felt at home in the Territory. In fact, we value people who are different. We call them characters, and Vern was certainly a character.
I know that Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people alike from Maningrida held Vern in the highest affection. I am told the whole town gathered on the road to the airport when his body left the town as a mark of respect and sadness. Peter Thomas, who was a very good friend of Vern, was in Maningrida a couple of weeks ago helping to collect Vern’s belongings. He reports that it was obvious how much Vern would be sadly missed by the locals as he was approached by them to have Vern’s home smoked. This was another sign of the high regard in which Vern was held by the community.
Vern’s humour and good nature will be remembered by his family, relatives and friends. Although he was born a South Aussie, Vern became a Territorian to the end. He is survived by his younger brother, David, elder sister, Betty Schelling, brother-in-law Mervyn and his three nieces and their families.
Many stories abound about Vern and I relate some of the ‘Verngettes’. A number of people remember Vern’s cooking ability. According to Jo Killmister, Vern’s ‘Super Sexy Pizza’ was legendary. Alan Clough, who lived in Maningrida in the 1990s, claimed Vern told him the recipe as follows:
Finishing the culinary theme, one of Vern’s favourite dishes was ‘Chicken a la Greasia’. Vern named it himself, not so much after any regional cooking style, but more because of his own unique deep frying technique.
At his memorial service, there was a note from the ‘Super Sexy Babes from Alice Springs’. These were the remote community billing girls from Power and Water. They really liked interacting with Vern and enjoyed his faxes and sense of humour. Like many others around the Territory, they were deeply saddened by Vern’s passing.
I have already mentioned that Vern enjoyed a drink, in moderation of course, and it seemed he was also a bit of a magician. At the memorial service, Johnny Walker, a long-term Maningrida resident, told the story of Vern’s ‘Tardis’. This was a drink cooler which Vern nicknamed his ‘Tardis’. Johnny Walker said that although it was only able to hold six coldies, he swore he saw Vern pull 10 coldies out of it on many occasions. That is why Johnny Walker thought Vern was a magician.
Vern was also a cat lover, although he probably would not admit it. A whole herd of them used to camp in his Land Cruiser. An eye witness reports that while driving to work one morning, Vern hurried past in the opposite direction in his old HJ45 Land Cruiser rushing to some emergency or other. Most of the pussy cat herd had managed to bail out of his truck where they had been sleeping. The witness recounts:
Vern was a qualified shotfirer, which means he could detonate explosions. He was also extremely proud that he was one of the qualified shotfirers in the NT with ‘Extravaganza’ on his ticket. This meant that Vern could put on ‘show quality’ firework displays. This was something he really loved doing, and something he was really famous for. There are many stories about Vern’s fireworks displays for the Maningrida community. One of Vern’s assistants recounts:
My own recollection of a big display of ‘leftovers’ put on by Vern in the Maningrida Council workshop yard on a cool Dry Season night. It coincided with a major Army exercise with Hercules transport aircraft approaching low and noisily, landing at the airport. As the fully-lit planes passed overhead and the Leopard tanks they disgorged clanked down the road, Vern’s incandescent display lit up the sky like giant flares. It reminded me of what Beirut must be like. Not a completely baseless thought, given the community politics of Maningrida at that particular time.
Probably the last word should be given to the kids of Maningrida who, along with everyone else, loved Vern and his fireworks. The time was New Year’s Eve and, after a Vern’s fireworks extravaganza, the kids sang out: ‘We love you Vern, we love you Vern, we love you Vern’. This was all the Maningrida kids singing out round the perimeter in appreciation of Vern and his fireworks. Rest in peace, Vern.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I have to say I thoroughly enjoyed hearing about Vern. I did not know Vern but, by gee, it is characters like him that give so much history and special character to the Territory. I wish I had known him. He must have been special because he came from South Australia. Some of us South Aussies do migrate to the Northern Territory and do not go back. I could never lay claim to being as adventuresome as Vern. I could not possibly have eaten what he ate; I have to say that. It is very adventurous and I think my husband might have tried something similar. I am sure Vern will be sorely missed. You could not help but miss a character like that.
Tonight I want to place on the record the achievements of some of my constituents in Katherine. There are over 9000 people living in the Katherine area and some of them have achieved remarkable outcomes in their chosen fields, whether it be sport, education, business or, in this instance, Pride of Australia nominations for 2007.
First, I acknowledge Don Lockley who, with his late wife, Nan, was a neighbour of Mike’s and mine for around eight years. They lived directly behind us and were fantastic neighbours. They were living there when the 1998 floods swept through their house to the height of, in the old measurement, 6’4”. Nan became ill the same year and, unfortunately, passed away. Don relocated to Darwin so we lost our lovely neighbours. I have to say that we really do miss having such wonderful people living behind us. Tonight I acknowledge Don for being nominated in the True Blue category of the Pride of Australia Award and for, ultimately, receiving the medal for 2007 at the award presentation on Tuesday, 9 October. Don won the medal for a lifetime of achievement in fostering Australian values and making Australia a better place to live.
Don and his wife, Nan, arrived in Darwin in 1957 when he was transferred with the Air Force Construction Squadron. Their son Leigh was born in Darwin in 1958. In 1961, Don was transferred to Sydney and their second son, Ian, was born that year. In 1965, Don and Nan were unhappy with raising their sons in Sydney and returned to Darwin, with Don being given the job of starting the YMCA. During his time at the helm of the YMCA, Don was responsible for the establishment of badminton, volleyball, judo, table tennis and the school holiday program. Around 1971, he became the Field Commissioner of NT Scouts, a position he held for about seven years.
In 1981, Don began working with NT Occupational Health and Safety. He and his wife and his family transferred to Katherine in 1986. In 1996, he was forcibly retired and he and Nan went on a six-month world trip, having a fantastic holiday of a lifetime.
Don moved to Darwin in 2001 and married Nemia from the Philippines whom he had met in 1999. In 2003, he was asked to return to Occupational Health and Safety and, in 2006, Don and Nemia returned to live in Katherine. Don is now 76 and still working full-time for NT WorkSafe. He is very active, a keen sportsman and plays bowls. While living in Darwin, he was still playing hockey each week, pretty good for a man of his age. Congratulations, Don, on receiving the Pride of Australia Medal 2007 in the True Blue category. It is a wonderful acknowledgment of the commitment that you have made to the Territory over many years.
Also from my electorate and nominated for Pride of Australia Awards were Christine Beane, Trevor Keatch and Dani Mattiuzzo. While these people did not receive the overall medal in their categories on the night, they were very worthy nominees and deserve all the accolades our community can give them.
Christine Beane is the reason so many children who go to the MacFarlane Primary School are very happy. Christine runs a breakfast program at the school which provides breakfast every school morning for around 75 children. This program is run in conjunction with the Smith Family Breakfast with a Mentor program. Each morning, a cheerful Christine, with the assistance of volunteers, supplies breakfast to children who attend MacFarlane Primary School, as well as other schools in Katherine East. She encourages the students and accompanying parents to have a chat while having their breakfast, to get to know other students and to get to know the teachers better. The program Christine runs has made a difference to the outcomes of the students in the classroom, with them being more alert and happier, which is a very important basis for learning. Well done, Christine.
I visited Christine’s program this year to see how things were going and to lend a hand. I had a great time talking to the students, their parents, and the teachers present. Not only are the students happy and ready to get on with their school day, there are other students who work voluntarily in the kitchen helping out, so the program has developed a real community spirit of caring and sharing. Christine’s nomination was in the Community Spirit Award category.
St John paramedic, Trevor Keatch, and Senior Constable Dani Mattiuzzo were nominated in the Bravery Award category and deserved a medal for their act of bravery which could have had a much more devastating outcome if not for their intervention. Constable Dani, as she is affectionately known by hundreds of Katherine school children and young people, was off duty and at the Katherine Oasis Shopping Centre. Outside the car park on the median strip of Katherine Terrace, a man was wielding a knife and threatening a woman who was lying on the ground bleeding. There were other people also at the location.
Dani went straight to the scene and attempted to calm the man, who continued to wield the knife. Trevor Keatch arrived at the scene shortly after and, while the man was distracted by Trevor, Dani Mattiuzzo managed to tackle the man to the ground and restrain him, while Trevor administered first aid to the injured woman. There is no doubt that the actions of both Dani and Trevor prevented further serious injury to the already injured woman on the ground and bystanders on the median strip, let alone what could have become a much nastier incident so close to a very busy shopping centre. Well done, Dani and Trevor; you deserve medals for your act of bravery in Katherine. In our eyes, you are heroes. Congratulations once again to Don Lockley, Christine Beane, Trevor Keatch and Dani Mattiuzzo.
On 29 October, I had the pleasure of attending a graduation ceremony at the Nitmiluk Tours office in Katherine for three graduates and a tourism award recipient. In September 2006, Nitmiluk Tours started its Indigenous Traineeship Program with seven trainees. In October 2007, three of those trainees completed their traineeship through studies with Charles Darwin University and their practical work experience at the Nitmiluk Gorge Centre which, of course, is located in the magnificent Nitmiluk Park. What a great location to have your work experience.
Don McGregor, Jaidine Fejo and Karen King have all graduated from Charles Darwin University with a Certificate II in Retail and Tourism. The traineeship presented a steep learning curve for all involved - trainees, supervisors, lecturers and management. The trainees who persevered and completed their studies are to be congratulated for their fortitude and determination.
Karen King is 19 years old, educated at the Katherine High School and has the support of her extended family in the region. Karen gave birth to a baby daughter in August this year and is currently on unpaid maternity leave.
Jaidine Fejo is 18 years old and also educated at the Katherine High School. Jaidine enjoys the support of a large family in the region. She is currently enjoying some time with her family and caring for some of the young children. She has been offered several positions and will contemplate her options in the near future. When I was talking to both Karen and Jaidine at the presentation awards, both indicated that they would like to travel and, fortunately, with the options that are open to them from their traineeships, they will be able to do that.
Don McGregor is in his mid-20s. He is from the southern Arnhem Land region and has worked in Kakadu as a ranger before joining Nitmiluk Tours. Don also completed Certificate III in Tourism and is currently studying for his Certificate IV with Charles Darwin University. Don researched cultural aspects of the Gorge region to enhance his river cruises. He plays the didgeridoo, demonstrates the use of various weapons and hunting tools, and tells his passengers the stories of the region, thus giving them a value-added experience. This led to a surge in requests for the cultural cruises on the river at the gorge and, from next season, Don’s research will be incorporated into every cruise by passing on his knowledge to all river men.
It was especially gratifying to witness these graduates receiving their certificates and to acknowledge their achievements. I have known both Karen and Jaidine since they were very young girls, so it was very special to see their commitment to training for their future. As Jawoyn Association spokesperson John Ah Kit said when he presented the awards:
John also said working through the paperwork to access these traineeships had been very difficult but it was worth it to see the company’s first graduates.
Another special presentation during the evening was to Marine Supervisor, Jamie Brookes. Nitmiluk Tours Managing Director, Wes Miller, presented Jamie with an award he had accepted on his behalf at the Australian Indigenous Tourism Conference held several weeks earlier in Broome. The Gnunkai Award in the individual category recognises the extraordinary personal and professional achievement and contribution by an individual over many years to Australian indigenous tourism. What makes it so very special is that the individual Gnunkai Award is not handed out every year; it is only given when there is an outstanding candidate, and Jamie is certainly that.
Jamie has worked for Nitmiluk tours for nine years since starting as a school leaver. He is now in charge of 16 tour guides and boats at Nitmiluk National Park, and has recently researched local indigenous culture to incorporate a cultural component in all tours on the gorge starting in April next year.
I have known Jamie since he was a very young boy and have watched him develop into a wonderful role model for others, especially his lovely young family. Jamie was also piloting the jet boat that Mike and I had the pleasure of experiencing several years ago. The jet boat trips in the gorge are only available when the river is very high, so there are limited days that it operates. The volume of water coming down the gorge is incredible and definitely requires a highly-trained and skilled operator handling the boat. When we had the opportunity to go on one of these jet boat tours, we were lucky to have Jamie in charge of our trip. It is something I will always remember. It was certainly exciting, as Jamie will well remember. I thoroughly enjoyed it.
Nitmiluk presently has two trainees, Larissa Manbulloo, who is continuing her studies in tourism and retail, and Cameron Kossack, who is three months into a three-year traineeship to become a qualified chef. He is under the supervision of Nitmiluk Tours Chef, Tony Williams, and will do two three-week training programs at the CDU Palmerston Campus next year. Nitmiluk Tours is hopeful that the traineeship will continue in future years, and I certainly endorse that.
In the days that followed this night of wonderful celebration of achievement, tragedy struck for both Wes Miller with the loss of his son-in-law and Jamie Brooks with the loss of his sister. Both of these deaths were young people, and I extend to Wes and Jamie and their respective families sincere and deepest sympathy from Mike and I. Our thoughts and prayers are with them all at this very difficult time.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight I conclude my report on my observations of community patrols in action on my recent trip to New Zealand.
I will briefly recap on my reasons for undertaking this study trip. For some time, my local Wulagi Neighbourhood Watch has been concerned about crime and antisocial behaviour in their community. Their concerns, like all of us, I am sure, extend beyond just their own suburb. Some very proactive members researched strategies to tackle crime in the community and made themselves aware of community patrolling in New Zealand. As a result of this research, Neighbourhood Watch members travelled to the Community Patrols Conference and Training Seminar in Invercargill, New Zealand, to observe and assess similar community-based patrols for the Northern Territory.
The members of Neighbourhood Watch Northern Territory delegation were: Sergeant Jeff Mosel, Executive Officer of Neighbourhood Watch NT; Mr Paul Wyatt, Acting Chair of Neighbourhood Watch NT and Area Coordinator of the local Neighbourhood Watch; and Mr Anthony Scott, owner of the Wulagi Supermarket; and Assistant Area Coordinator for Wulagi Neighbourhood Watch Wulagi. Both Sergeant Mosel and Mr Wyatt were funded to travel to New Zealand through Neighbourhood Watch Northern Territory and the Department of Justice, and Mr Scott received assistance from members of the community such as me, as well as a donation from Wulagi Neighbourhood Watch. As you can see, the community was very supportive of this trip.
This trip was very fruitful and Neighbourhood Watch Northern Territory reported directly back to the Chief Minister on what they had observed, and expressed a desire to trial a community patrol in the suburbs on Anula and Wulagi. They also organised for public meetings with members of community patrols New Zealand and the New Zealand Police who attended the 2007 Annual General Meeting of Neighbourhood Watch Northern Territory. I attended one such public meeting held at Casuarina Library.
The information provided to me from members of Neighbourhood Watch who attended the seminar in Invercargill, the clear in-principle support of the Police Commissioner and the Chief Minister and, might I add, my own interest in and support of this successful New Zealand idea to tackle crime in the community, were the drivers for me to undertake this study trip.
There are many tools in the community toolbox for tackling crime and antisocial behaviour, including our already successful Neighbourhood Watch networks. As community patrolling has been explained to me and others as really Neighbourhood Watch on wheels, I have every reason to believe that having an extra set of eyes and ears in the community to identify potential and actual criminal activity surely must lead to us having a safer and more secure community.
Because of this accepted view, I decided that I should look at community patrols from an organisational theory perspective and see how they work, both in their own structure and how they effectively networked with the community and police. I am hopeful that such knowledge might help in the successful establishment of a model that will suit both our community needs as well as the needs of those who so selflessly give up their time to assist their fellow citizens.
I now turn to the community patrols themselves. The structure of the patrols in each area is that they are volunteer organisations. The patrols that I had a look at in various sized towns were generally of about 20 to 40 people. The patrols themselves are always staffed by two people and they respond to a voluntary base station, not to a police base. The characteristics of the volunteers are that, in the main, the volunteers were 50-plus, and in nearly all the organisation there were 20% or 30% family members. They were related in either a marital situation of husband and wife, or perhaps it could have been mother/daughter, mother/son, father/daughter, father/son or some other relative. There was a smattering of younger people. When I observed this trend, I was advised that some younger people had become involved because they were thinking about entering the police force and this looked good on the CV. They were using that as a stepping stone to aid their recruitment into the New Zealand Police.
All community patrol volunteers need to undergo police checks. They do not accept quite a number of people who go through these checks for various reasons. However, it is mandatory before they are accepted, and they also go through a period of probation for some three to six months, depending on the management structure or team of the particular patrol. The management of the teams I am talking about is a loose configuration of people and each community patrol is an individual entity, although they do work to a board. It is a very loose configuration with a chair and a treasurer and, perhaps, some other executive officer who helps with the rosters. When it comes to the management of the team, people volunteer to go out on particular shifts. Generally speaking, depending on the patrols themselves, the shifts could be just one night a week or the patrols could do a couple of nights and use a couple of teams. They go out for about a three- to four-hour duration, probably from around 9 pm or 10 pm to midnight, 1 am or 2 am. Sometimes, they go out at different times during the weekend if there is a special event.
I noticed in some teams that there were clashes between members. I was advised that the executive got together and interviewed different people and deemed them to be unsuitable. Then, you might say, they managed them out of the team. However, as you can imagine, it is a voluntary organisation and there are no set rules and disciplines within the teams, so that was a bit of an issue. However, as they are not a defined organisation as such, it is hard to see any other way of managing it.
They resourced the teams with a vehicle, and most teams had personal identification; they had to have that. They had jackets which identified them as community patrol officers. The vehicle was a little Gemini-type car or a small four-cylinder sedan. I did not see, and heard no reports of, anything larger than that. It was only a two-person vehicle in which they carried a first aid kit.
The communications aspect within the vehicles was interesting. Some of the community patrols had mobile phones with a dedicated number back into the sergeant of police at the nearest police station, and some had a mobile phone given to them that they could use to call back to their base. A lot of the vehicles had police radios in them. When I queried that, it seemed that radios were fairly common around the place. The police network over there is not considered secure, and is actually prone to being listened into by all members of the public and the media. As a demonstration of this, on New Zealand news you will always find lots of camera crews at crime scenes because they listen to the police radio. They did not have any privacy issues as it seems like everyone else, unlike the Australian police network which, I understand, is digital and Australian police are not too keen on having people listening to their communications. For personal identification, you had to go in and out of police stations.
The fuel for the vehicles is paid for out of the pocket of the volunteers, it might be donated, or they could have money from a fund similar to the Community Benefit Fund. For office space, a number of police stations within the home cities that they worked in might dedicate space for them, although there are instances of where people are working from home where they will have a base station. There are issues of resourcing in the police station as well as in the home. Items such as filing cabinets, computers, and Internet all have to be paid for.
Some of the funding models in New Zealand are by private donation and some is from a statistical model. If the community patrol can demonstrate it is working and has done certain things - such as it might have spotted a number of drink drivers, it could have attended so many domestic violence situations, or might have called in so many antisocial behaviour incidents on the street - then they can stack that up and they will get a reward back from government for that.
Private donations can take the form of donations from different companies, but there seems to quid pro quo. I noticed in some areas where the funding was provided that the patrols actually patrolled those premises, so they acted as a fairly cheap private security firm. I also noticed that some of the patrols were made up of small business owners in town, so they patrolled their premises and others shops. Once again, it was a commercial-type arrangement.
For insurance of individuals in New Zealand, there is a universal insurance scheme. They advised me that there has never been an assault on an individual community patrol officer. I had no problem believing that as they do stay in the car; they do not actually get out of the vehicle and chase anything down. However, what I was concerned about is that there is no public liability insurance should a person injure themselves while working on a community patrol, which could preclude them from going to work the next day and incurring any lost wages. That was an issue.
For the tasking of patrols, the time is generally from late in the evening, 9 pm to 10 pm, and they generally do one patrol. Police intelligence will provide them, depending on the relationship they have with police stations, with pictures of people they are looking for or tell them hot spots to patrol. In some areas, the community patrols turn up at the shift change to be briefed by police on what is going on, and then they patrol those areas.
Community patrols have been involved in surveillance and apprehension-type programs tasked by the police. That is to say one community patrol I was with was sitting outside a gang’s premises, and I am talking about a bikie gang or organised crime gang, and taking down the numbers of plates of cars visiting. They also sit in car parks of clubs and look at the number of drinkers leaving the car park. They might, from listening to the radio, know where there is, say, youths with antisocial behaviour on their minds travelling through a suburb. They will keep following the youths until it is called in.
The frequency and duration of patrols is up to each individual patrol to set but, generally, it is at least one or two nights a week, Friday and Saturday night. Some communities have it going all the time. It is up to their resources and what they decide to do. The geographic span of the patrol activity is huge. To drive around Anula and Wulagi, well, you are pretty well around and about and outside the thing in, I would say, seven to eight minutes. Their geographic span of activity is that one patrol would cover all of the Darwin area and another patrol will cover all of the Palmerston area and go out into the rural area. I use those sizes to give you a feel of the area that these people cover in New Zealand.
All patrols are expected to fill out statistics and time sheets when they return to keep everyone informed, including the police, informed as to what they are doing. As you can see, there is quite a cost. There are a few liabilities and, as I said, they have universal insurance coverage in New Zealand so there are funding issues within the program.
We need to investigate funding models to investigate to ensure our volunteers are adequately supported. Should we fund this at a government level or should it be funded at a private level? At the government level, you could ensure continuity. At a private level, then you get into areas of undercutting security firms or, perhaps, dedicating resources to certain areas where a community patrol is going on more of a business patrol. That is something we need to look at.
There would need to be funding for vehicles. If individuals use their own, there are issues of compensation. Let us not forget that the model that we are looking at would be under the auspices of Neighbourhood Watch so we need to have a look at the relationship there. I certainly would not advocate that people are out of pocket for this so we need to have a look at that.
On the issue of communications, there might be difficulties with police radios and the privacy aspects of that. I am not too sure how that would work, but that is certainly something that we would need to look at. Public liability, as I said, is also an issue. Should someone on a community patrol have an accident, who is to be sued? Is it the individual who owns the car or, if it is a community- owned car, who bears the brunt if they have an unfortunate accident of hitting a car, going through a fence, hitting an animal or something of that nature? That needs to be resolved. Personal health and workers’ compensation insurance is also an issue in the event of people hurting themselves, and I am not talking about injury inflicted through crime, but in the course of getting out of the vehicle or walking around and something happens.
In respect of training and law, there were instances where I noticed that the people who were on community patrols did not know the law and could not interpret it correctly. That needs to be looked at. If they are out, one eye on the road, one eye on the potential perpetrator, driver safety training needs to be taken into account. There are issues of privacy because of the information they are gathering. There are issues of recognition of accredited patrols. In New Zealand, they are having real issues with other patrols commencing which are not under the community patrol banner, such as the Guardian Angels who are more proactive in their attitude to crime. That needs to be looked at, as does tasking from police.
In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, Neighbourhood Watch and community patrols are a great initiative. I welcome the concept of community patrols as a deterrent to crime and antisocial behaviour. However, I am cautious that we do not accidentally or inadvertently abuse the goodwill and livelihood of the volunteers who give their time and energy. If we as a community want volunteer patrols, we must be prepared to provide training, management, structures and support, the hardware and software and suitable levels of insurance to ensure that they do not suffer any loss or are open to legal action as a result of providing a valuable service to our community.
Motion agreed to, the Assembly adjourned.
GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATIVE ARRANGEMENTS
Ms LAWRIE (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I table the Administrative Arrangements Order dated 26 November 2007 setting out the administrative arrangements of government and ministerial portfolio arrangements.
Madam Speaker, the ministry and ministerial officers are as follow:
- • Paul Raymond Henderson - Chief Minister; Treasurer; Minister for Justice and Attorney-General; Minister for Police, Fire and Emergency Services; Minister for Asian Relations and Trade; Minister for the AustralAsia Railway; Minister for Indigenous Policy; Minister for Major Projects; Minister for Statehood; Minister for Employment, Education and Training; Minister for Tourism; Minister for Public Employment; and Minister for Multicultural Affairs;
I advise that other office holders are:
- • Ms Marion Scrymgour - Deputy Chief Minister; and
GOVERNMENT BUSINESS ARRANGEMENTS
Orders of the Day
Orders of the Day
Ms LAWRIE (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I advise the Assembly that the following ministers will have carriage of government business, orders of the day as follows:
- • Ms Lawrie - Superannuation Law Reform Bill 2007 (Serial 118); Domestic and Family Violence Bill 2007 (Serial 120); Bonaparte Gas Pipeline (Special Provisions) Bill 2007 (Serial 119); Justice Legislation Amendment Bill (No 2) 2007 (Serial 122); and Treasurer’s Annual Financial Report 2006-07; and
MOTION
Standing Orders Committee –
Change of Membership
Standing Orders Committee –
Change of Membership
Ms LAWRIE (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the member for Wanguri be discharged from the service of the Standing Orders Committee and the member for Karama be appointed in his stead.
Motion agreed to.
DEPUTY SPEAKER AND
CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES
Resignation and Election
CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES
Resignation and Election
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received from the Chairman of Committees, the member for Daly, his resignation from that position. As such, it is necessary for the Assembly to appoint a member to be Chairman of Committees and Deputy Speaker.
Prior to calling for nominations, I advise honourable members of the relevant provisions of standing orders relating to the appointment of a Chairman of Committees and Deputy Speaker. When a motion for a member to be appointed Chairman of Committees and Deputy Speaker of the Assembly is moved and seconded, I will ask if there is any further nomination for a Chairman of Committees. If no further nomination is moved, the time for motions will have expired and no member may address the Assembly. The member’s name will be declared appointed Chairman of Committees and Deputy Speaker.
If a further nomination or nominations are moved and seconded, I will then say that the time for motions has expired. Debate relevant to the election may ensue; no member shall speak for more than five minutes. At the conclusion of debate, the bells shall be rung as for a division and the Assembly will proceed to a ballot. I call for nominations.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I propose to the Assembly for its Chairman of Committees and Deputy Speaker the member for Goyder, Mr Ted Warren, and move that the member for Goyder be appointed Chairman of Committees and Deputy Speaker of this Assembly.
Madam SPEAKER: Is the nomination seconded?
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Deputy Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I second the motion.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Goyder, do you accept the nomination?
Mr WARREN (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I accept the nomination.
Madam SPEAKER: Are there any further motions?
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, I nominate the member for Brennan, Mr James Burke, for the position.
Madam SPEAKER: Is the nomination seconded?
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I second the nomination.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Brennan, do you accept the nomination?
Mr BURKE (Brennan): No, I am unable to, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Are there any further nominations? There being no further nominations, I extend my congratulations to the member for Goyder as the Chairman of Committees.
Mr WARREN (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I thank the Assembly and wish to express my appreciation for bestowing me with this great honour. It is a great privilege.
Members: Hear, hear!
MESSAGE FROM ADMINISTRATOR
Message No 24
Message No 24
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have received from His Honour the Administrator Message No 24 notifying assent to bills passed in the October 2007 sitting of the Assembly.
PETITION
Permanent Veterinarian in Maningrida
Permanent Veterinarian in Maningrida
Mr McADAM (Barkly): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 134 petitions requesting that Maningrida has the services of a permanent veterinarian. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of standing orders.
Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
- To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory:
We the undersigned are concerned for the welfare and wellbeing of the children in the community of Maningrida and acknowledge the link between their health and the health and welfare of the dogs in the community. Therefore, to improve the health of the community of Maningrida, your petitioners humbly pray that the Northern Territory government establish and maintain the services of a permanent veterinarian in Maningrida.
And your petitioners as in duty bound, will ever pray.
Amalgamation of Councils
Mr WOOD (Nelson)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 4810 petitioners relating to the amalgamation of councils.
Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to, petition read.
- We the undersigned request that the government stop the forced amalgamation of our councils now.
RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr CLERK: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 100A, I inform honourable members of a response to Petition No 66 has been received and circulated to honourable members. A copy of the response will be provided to the member who tabled the petition for distribution to petitioners.
- Petition No 66
Principal at Milyakburra School
Date Presented: 10 October 2007
Presented by: Ms Malarndirri McCarthy
Referred to: Minister for Employment, Education and Training
Date response due: 1 May 2008
Date response received: 19 November 2007
Date response presented: 27 November 2007
The petition read to the Legislative Assembly bore 74 signatures and called for the retention of Mrs Sue Whittnall as teaching principal of Milyakburra School and for her to continue to remain on Bickerton Island.
In the Northern Territory Public Services, selection is based on the merit principle. Merit is defined under section 3(2) of the Public Sector Employment and Management Act (PSEMA) as the ‘capacity of the person to perform particular duties, having regard to the person’s knowledge, skills, qualifications and experience and the potential for future development of the person in employment in the Public Sector.”
Merit is determined through a fair and transparent assessment process based on the stated principles of natural justice, human resource management and conduct. These guiding principles are found in the PSEMA, its regulations and associated employment instructions.
The position of teaching principal at the Milyakburra school was advertised on 24 August 2007. Mrs Whittnall was one of the applicants for the position. A selection panel was convened which included a representative from the Milyakburra School Council.
The selection process was finalised by the panel on 1 October 2007. Mrs Whittnall was formally notified on 2 October 2007 that she was unsuccessful in obtaining the position.
I understand the petitioners’ disappointment at Mrs Whittnall not being appointed to the teaching principal position at Milyakburra. However, my department has advised me that Mrs Whittnall was recently successful in her application for a transfer to a teaching position at the school. As a result, there is no barrier for her to remain on Bickerton Island and continue working at the school.
MINISTERIAL REPORTS
October Business Month
October Business Month
Mr VATSKALIS (Business and Economic Development): Madam Speaker, one of the major events of the business calendar is October Business Month, which, again, was a very successful event. October Business Month commenced in Alice Springs and Darwin by one of our keynote speakers, Peter Switzer, on Tuesday, 2 October 2007. Rob Hartnett was a keynote presenter in Katherine on Saturday, 6 October and in Tennant Creek on Monday, 8 October. Peter is the country's foremost expert on best businesses in Australia and hosts Talking Business on Qantas’ Radio Q. Rob Hartnett is the author of Small Business, Big Opportunity.
The month could not happen without the valuable support of partners, media and the sponsors. Thank you to our Platinum sponsors: Sensis, which has supported October Business Month for the past nine years; the National Australia Bank; and Dot-auDA, the Australian Domain Name Administrator. Thank you also to the Silver sponsors: the Australian Taxation Office; AusIndustry; Drake International; Morgan Buckley Lawyers; Trade Tools Direct; Hewlett Packard; Dolphin Software; and Trade Building Supplies. Thanks to media associates: Southern Cross Television; Mix FM 104.9; 8HA and SUNFM in Alice Springs; and the Northern Territory News. Thank you also to the partners of October Business Month for conducting events throughout the month. Many of the partners have been supporting October Business Month for years and their involvement is greatly appreciated.
The business community is once again supporting events throughout the Territory. Attendance at the launches comprised 169 in Alice Springs, 40 in Tennant Creek, 71 in Katherine and 302 in Darwin.
Other key speakers during the month were: Steve Tighe, consumer foresight specialist and Director of Chasing Sunrises; and back due to strong demand from October Business Month 2006, Craig Rispin, a business futurist, trends tracker, technology guru and innovation expert.
This is the 13th year that October Business Month has been conducted in the Territory. October Business Month has delivered 108 events with some 4345 attendees across the Territory. Overall satisfaction levels for October Business month remain high. For example, 90% of survey respondents attending Northern Territory government events learn something new that could be applied in their business, and 78%, and I quote:
- expect to improve or change some aspects of business structures.
My Department of Business, Economic and Regional Development also provides many valuable services to the business community throughout the Territory. The very successful Territory Business Centres are based in all major regional centres and are the government’s one-stop shop for business, providing information and advice on all aspects of doing business with the Territory government.
Territory Business Centres had approximately one million client contacts and received over $2m dollars in Northern Territory government revenue on behalf of Northern Territory departments. My department also delivers important services to business in providing information and assistance to employers in skilled migration matters and officers promote the Northern Territory around the world as a place to live and work. Programs such as Business Growth, Upskilling and Small Business workshops, all either delivered or supported by my department, play an important role in building the capability of local businesses to participate in the economic growth the Territory is experiencing.
The recently released Sensis report said that Territory businesses appreciate the ongoing consultation, training programs and sensible initiatives offered by this government.
October Business month is an important part of delivering services to the business community and is a lot of work. I commend my department for putting together such a professional and exciting program of events. They just keep getting better.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his report. He is right; October Business Month is an important month and one I think all of us can say with confidence that it is looked forward to by those in the business community. There are a range of activities all around the Territory. They are invariably successful. October Business Month has been celebrated for many years across both CLP and Labor governments, and rightly so because we are a can-do place in the Northern Territory. We meet with business owners every day of the week and they tell us about the challenges and the rewards that come with business; taking risks and aiming for perfection in the product they deliver and the way they conduct themselves in the workforce.
There are challenges on the horizon, and I am sure the minister is aware of this, given recent commentary about what is likely to happen, according to some commentators, in the US. It is claimed by some commentators that they are about to enter a recession or bagel, if you are a West Wing fan like me. So if the US economy is looking towards heading into a bagel, then that creates real challenges for all governments in this country and, most importantly, challenges for all business owners in this country.
Many businesses in the Territory, Darwin in particular, are concerned about a Rudd Labor government. I do not propose to get into political sledging on this, but I know there are many people who are anxiously and keenly waiting to see whether Kevin Rudd follows through on what he has promised and how. It will require careful management not just from the new Prime Minister, but from the new Chief Minister and the Northern Territory government.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, your time has expired. Minister in closing.
Mr VATSKALIS (Business and Economic Development): Madam Speaker, I agree with the Leader of the Opposition. October Business Month is an important event for business in the Northern Territory and I agree that Northern Territory businesses have extra challenges because of the distance factor and our small economy.
I also agree that when the American economy sneezes, the rest of the world used to catch a cold. Things have changed quite a lot recently. I think if the Chinese economy sneezes, the rest of the world might catch pneumonia. There are challenges and we are working very closely with the business community to address these. I am pretty confidant the new Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, will deliver his promises. He made promises and he has delivered to date and he continues to deliver. We are very keen to work closely with him to promote the Territory, especially in the areas of defence and defence support, and to promote the Territory resources sector.
China Business Delegation
Mr NATT (Mines and Energy): Madam Speaker, I rise to inform the House that I last week returned from China where a delegation of departmental officers, industry partners and I undertook a series of meetings and presentations designed to promote the competitive position of the Northern Territory as a preferred location for exploration and mining investment.
The visit followed up contacts made last year when I led our first delegation to China to attend China Mining 2006. This year, the Northern Territory was the only Australian jurisdiction with a minister present. This gave us a considerable advantage. I gave a keynote address at the Australia-China Mining Seminar and the Australian session of the China Mining Congress.
Madam Speaker, during this visit I had nine meetings with a range of major Chinese companies including: Sinosteel, CITIC and the Anhui Department of Land and Resources. New contacts were made with the Stone Group, the Zing Yee Group, CITIC Dameng and Baosteel.
We discussed how to do business in the Territory, described the geoscience data available and explained the process of obtaining exploration licences. We also outlined different options open to them to work with existing mining and exploration companies already working in the Territory. I cannot emphasise strongly enough the value and importance of these face-to-face meetings and the benefits they bring. The delegation was a huge success and I have no doubt the impacts will be felt almost immediately and certainly into the future.
While in China, we had a very busy schedule. As mentioned, I gave a keynote address at the Australia China Investment Seminar, which is a forum run by the Australian Embassy. It attracted over 200 delegates from 150 companies. We also attended China Mining 2007 at which we had booth within the Australian display. At this congress, I delivered the Australian address, which had a particular emphasis on the Northern Territory and was very well received by a range of Chinese investors and mining company executives.
For the first time, the Territory ran its own seminar hosted by the China Chamber of Commerce, Metals and Minerals, known as the CCCMC, and sponsored by GHD. The seminar commenced with the signing of a Cooperation Agreement with the CCCMC and then involved a series of speakers who outlined investment and exploration opportunities in the Territory. A special dinner was then held to celebrate the signing.
We also attended a dinner held for the signing of the Cooperation Agreement with the China Mining Association. This event was notable because it was attended by Deputy Minister Li Yuan, Minister for Lands and Resources for the People’s Republic of China.
The trip to China was significant for a number of reasons. First, it vindicates our focus on China by the China Investment Attraction Strategy that is part of our main exploration attraction program Bringing Forward Discovery. No other Australian jurisdiction has such a focus on major mining-related events. I was the only Australian minister present and that is highly significant to the Chinese. Now it is a matter of levering this advantage. We delivered our message about the Territory to over 3000 people over five events. Two Cooperation Agreements were signed with the CCCMC and CMA.
Three strategic partners sponsored the Territory seminars and dinners, and I thank Clayton Utz, Minter Ellison and GHD for their support. As an immediate result of our visit, four Chinese companies have expressed interest in visiting Darwin.
During our visit, we promoted 11 projects to Chinese investors and distributed over 200 sales kits. Does the Chinese mining and investment sector know about the Northern Territory of Australia? The answer is now an emphatic yes. Apart from the speeches, dinners, meetings and seminars, the signing of the Cooperation Agreements made the front page of China Mining News, the largest mining-specific publication in China.
Madam Speaker, I have no doubt that we will see more Chinese companies looking to explore and invest in the Territory as well as more partnerships between companies already in the Territory and Chinese investors. Our China strategy is working. Now it is a matter of continuing the dialogue begun last year and built on in the contacts made during this visit. Working with China is all about relationships and I am pleased to say that the Territory now enjoys an excellent relationship which is destined to yield positive results for years to come.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, I rise in my capacity as shadow minister for Asian Relations and Trade. The opposition welcomes this report and supports what was outlined in the report. Many of the measures that have been described, the achievements and the meetings, are to be commended. These strategies are essential for the Northern Territory to focus our efforts and work in a strategic way to capitalise on our regional advantage.
In no way would the opportunity and honour given to me to work in Taiwan, in the 3 to 4 weeks I was away, would work against any of the efforts and strategies the minister outlined. Rather, it would enhance it.
I must say some of the comments that were raised from the Northern Territory, which did receive a hearing and some unfavourable response in Taiwan, were disappointing. I will put that aside because the more important issues are that 60% of investment in China comes from Taiwan, seed capital and expertise, so in no way would engagement in the region with China or Taiwan be contradictory.
What you have outlined, minister, is genuinely supported and you and the department are to be commended for the work done in advancing this strategy. You have the full support of the opposition.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his report. I hope the minister can give us a far more detailed statement at some time about this delegation so we can have more detail. It is important that the minister went to China. As he said, it is important to meet people face-to-face; that is the way you build relationships.
The Territory is a major mining area in Australia not only for the minerals it produces now, but for minerals it might produce in the future. I am interested to know whether the minister discussed energy requirements, and I am referring specifically to their requirements for both gas and uranium. We are a major producer of uranium and there are many companies now exploring for it. I am interested to know the government’s policy on developing ties with China in relation to the export of uranium and whether there is the possibility of gas being exported to China. Our previous Chief Minister was big on gas. It is something that we are producing, but I am interested to hear whether we see opportunities in China for the expansion of gas.
I congratulate the minister on his trip to China. As I said, I would like to hear a little more detail and I would like to know whether uranium and gas were discussed.
Mr NATT (Mines and Energy): Madam Speaker, I thank both members for their support. I am sure a more detailed report will be tabled at a later date. I can foreshadow that details from many of the meetings we had will provide some of the information you are looking for.
It is interesting to note that the CCCMC and the CMA have over 4000 members, either mining companies or suppliers to mines. The two signings were fantastic for the Territory. Our website is actually on their web page so their members can make contact with our department at any time.
While I am on my feet, I particularly thank the Mines team which put everything together for the delegation. It was a terrific trip. The contacts that were made were fantastic and they are going to be of great value to the Territory. I thank Lisa Mutch and Gua Guan Hua, who did a lot of our interpreting and set up many of our meetings. Their work was invaluable. I also thank Ian Scrimgeour who backed them up, and John Carroll for his support throughout the trip.
Expansion of Renal Services
Dr BURNS (Health): Madam Speaker, renal disease in the Northern Territory is a high support activity and a key driver increasing health care costs.
Haemodialysis makes up 35% of all hospital separations and is increasing at a rate of 12% to 14% per annum. The majority of Territorians with renal disease are indigenous from remote communities who are required to relocate to urban areas for treatment and commencement of dialysis. Few are able to return to their home communities on a permanent basis. The move to urban areas also increases the demand for accommodation and social services.
Improvements in the identification and management of people with early renal disease, and the life expectancy of people on renal replacement therapy, has resulted in expanded services across the Territory.
In 2001, there was a large gap in the survival rates of people on renal dialysis against national benchmarks and, through our improved services, we have closed that gap. In 2002, this government recognised that renal services had difficulty in delivering services and lacked the capacity to cater for the yearly growth so significant capital and recurrent funding has been invested, bringing NT renal services into line with national standards. New satellite services have been established in Tennant Creek and Palmerston. Further capital and recurrent funding in 2004 established the self-care community-based haemodialysis program and has resulted in the employment of more nurses, allied health professionals and renal positions.
Since 2004, $8m in capital and $7.85m in recurrent funding has been invested, bringing the total renal budget for 2007-08 to $23m. There are currently 363 people on dialysis in the Territory with most of them receiving haemodialysis treatment in urban or regional satellite centres. There is a growing population of patients on self-care dialysis, with 40 people undertaking peritoneal dialysis and 12 people on self-care haemodialysis in their own home or community. We are participating in local and national research in kidney disease to identify ways to stem the progression of that disease. This includes research on precursors and genetic elements and auditing current disease management.
In this last year, we have spent $1.84m in establishing a dedicated dialysis in-centre facility in Alice Springs Hospital, $1m towards refurbishing and extending the Flynn Drive Renal Unit and we have established a self-care training facility there. In planning for the future, we have approved additional capital investment of $10.5m for necessary infrastructure to cater for the increase of people requiring renal replacement therapy.
This capital investment has been accompanied by significant recurrent investment of $7.1m for:
- • six additional Primary Health nurses with a chronic kidney disease case load;
We are also testing renal industry ability and capacity to manage a complete satellite service and all inclusive costs. In addition, we are working collaboratively with other governments to better manage people with renal disease. Negotiations with the Australian government have resulted in four primary health nurses based in Aboriginal medical services and recurrent funding for three nurses with the Preventable Chronic Disease Unit, funding of $1.9m for six relocatable facilities in remote communities for self-care dialysis and a project officer to assist with the expansion of the self-care service. The Western Australian government has directed funding from their Medical Specialist Outreach Assistance Program to the Northern Territory to improve primary care and chronic disease management to Western Australian communities.
Our renal services have been recognised by the recent Prime Minister’s Award for Public Sector Management and the Northern Territory Renal Service Clinical Reference Group was awarded a commendation. These awards together with the achievements in renal research and our government’s increased investment into renal services underline our ongoing commitment to this vital area.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his report. I have recently had a couple of tours of the hospitals, thanks to the minister who organised them. I toured Alice Springs and Katherine Hospitals and Royal Darwin Hospital. I still have Tennant Creek and Gove to go.
The Dialysis Unit was one that stood out. The staff are extremely dedicated. It is great to hear the investment in renal dialysis. Earlier in the year, I went to a kidney dinner for Central Australia where various clinicians talked about problems with renal dialysis, kidney failure and such. While treatment seems to be advancing, the numbers do not seem to be decreasing at such a rapid amount. It is a big issue. They are having two sessions a day at Flynn Drive and the Alice Springs and Darwin hospitals, so it a big commitment. It is great to hear of the investment by the government. Hopefully, it will go a long way to addressing the problem.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I, too, am pleased to see the government has put such a great effort into addressing this unfortunate problem.
Let us not forget, minister, that you should be addressing the cause of the problem and trying to prevent continuing renal failure in so many of our people. Topsy Smith recently opened their extensions in Alice Springs for renal patients. Yeperenye Hostel will have additional places being opened very shortly. This is good. We are addressing it. I must congratulate Kintore, which undertook fundraising with their art money to establish their own renal unit so that people did not have to leave home to seek treatment. That is what comes out loud and clear. Even though these hostels do a great job, we must remember that they have to take themselves away from their family and this is where a lot of loneliness occurs for these patients.
We need to concentrate not just on promoting the services that are badly needed, but concentrate on the causes of renal failure. We need to improve lifestyle, education, public awareness and health awareness.
The member for Stuart mentioned the fact that there will be a feasibility study at Yuendumu and Lajamanu in the future. That will be great because we are seeing the spread of services across the Territory, particularly in Central Australia where we have such a high incidence of renal failure. It is great that communities are taking it on themselves. They are making efforts to ensure they have services available for the people. Let us not forget, minister, that we need to concentrate on making sure their lifestyle is better so we can prevent renal failure.
Dr BURNS (Health): Madam Speaker, I welcome the contribution by both members opposite. The member for Braitling is right: it is important to focus on prevention. We know that renal disease has complex causes which start in early childhood. That is why this government has invested very solidly in maternal and child health, extra resources, and that is why we are very keen to work with the Australian government on the intervention in terms of the commitment to health for prevention.
The member for Braitling was right to pay tribute to the people of Kintore for the way in which they raised money from art to support renal dialysis. Without digging the spurs in, I pay tribute to the former Health minister, Peter Toyne, who is very much a part of that. It is refreshing to hear the change of view from the other side about satellite renal dialysis because the former government was opposed to it.
I want to work cooperatively with members on the other side. This is a vital issue, particularly for indigenous Territorians. Ours is a government that is serious about addressing causes in childhood, housing and education to redress and close the gap that we all know exists.
Remote Indigenous Housing
Mr McADAM (Housing): Madam Speaker, I rise to update the House on progress implementing our plans for real improvements in housing for indigenous people living in the more remote parts of the Territory.
We are living in times of change; I see these signs as an opportunity for us to do more and to do better and I look forward to submitting our commitment and cooperation for long term improvements in housing to Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and the new federal Labor government.
This government is committed to working in partnership with the Commonwealth to improve housing for indigenous people living in remote areas. Big changes are needed for housing in the bush, and I have previously set out an agenda for strong reforms based on an overarching sustainable housing framework for the whole of the Northern Territory.
Our persistence has been rewarded in securing record Commonwealth investment in housing for indigenous people living in remote communities. We won the lion’s share of the Australian Remote Indigenous Accommodation program, the Commonwealth’s $1.6bn pool for remote housing across the nation. This was no mean feat. The Territory government has acted resolutely to secure increased resources for remote housing for many years. An agreement struck with the Commonwealth in late September will see an aggregate of almost $950m invested in housing related initiatives in the bush over the next few years. This figure takes in the Territory government’s investment of $100m in remote housing over and above our existing commitments.
We will also invest a further $42m into housing for government employees under Closing the Gap. This work will underpin the delivery of important services in the bush. Our overarching objectives are to increase housing supply and improve housing services into remote communities with a view to improving the lives of indigenous Territorians. Work under this new agreement will do much to effect positive change in the areas of housing, employment, education and training, and the health and wellbeing of indigenous Territorians.
There is so much at stake in the bush. I truly believe that improved housing can underpin improvements across the board in remote communities. With so much money on the table, the challenge now is to maximise outcomes and create sustainability within the housing system through economies of scale and robust management systems and, ultimately, to put more houses on the ground at a reduced cost. A further imperative is to generate sustained training and job opportunities for indigenous people. Our long-term planning is conducive to real employment outcomes. This will come through apprenticeships and employment in the building sector, long-term jobs through the maintenance of housing stock and through the expansion of a public housing framework to remote areas.
We need a single, flexible housing system that has a critical mass and capacity to deliver on what is needed in both urban areas and the bush. As I said, the key planks to the Territory’s remote housing reforms are: creating sustainability within the housing system through economies of scale and management systems; getting more dollars; getting more housing for the indigenous dollar; and the creation of real jobs and apprenticeships. Our investment in life skill programs totalling $1.62m this financial year will mesh with this government’s support of our managed accommodation models to create a dynamic and accessible housing system.
Over the past 18 months, the Territory government has been engaging with the private sector, including builders, construction companies and indigenous organisations to drive down the cost of housing construction in the bush. Remote indigenous housing, housing for government employees and industry, and public housing in regional areas will also be drawn together. Housing management and capital development will help to power regional economies. This goes hand in hand with the reforms of local government in the Territory.
Jointly, these reforms will deliver better livelihoods and more sustainable economies for people in the bush. Each outcome I have mentioned is ambitious in itself. The full complement of objectives can be met through innovative contracting methodologies which draw organisations and companies together in a partnership premised on each party bringing particular capabilities - construction, design, training and community engagement - to the table. People living in these communities will occupy an important place at the table. We are out there on the ground working with the Commonwealth, stakeholders, the private sector and communities to achieve these goals.
The new funding agreement is not a panacea for the remote housing shortfall. It is a great start, but there is more to be done. The agreement is, as I am sure everyone will recognise, an important and historic move towards addressing indigenous housing disadvantage. As I said earlier, I look forward to working with the Rudd Labor government.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired. The overall time for ministerial reports has expired.
Reports noted pursuant to standing orders.
SUPERANNUATION LAW REFORM BILL
(Serial 118)
(Serial 118)
Continued from 29 August 2007.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, it is the intention of the opposition to provide support for this reform bill.
We appreciate the briefing on what appears, on the face of it, to be a complicated matter. Often these issues are difficult to understand and the briefing clarified many matters. We understand the broad intent of the legislation, which is primarily to establish equity flowing from an enterprise negotiation of 2004-05. If those negotiations were conducted and that was the decision, then it is only right that these reforms should be implemented in the interests of the provision of equity.
There are a range of complicated flow-on consequences of those decisions and how they are woven through the act to bring about changes. That is what often daunts someone who wants to have a look at these things and thinks: ‘My goodness! What is this?’ Concepts such as superannuation, how it is funded and the wording of such can be difficult for a novice.
I look forward to learning who will, ultimately, be the Treasurer because it is a very interesting area to work in and quite taxing on the mind to grasp some of these important concepts.
Those things aside and broadly speaking, I reinforce that the opposition supports the bill, noting that it provides some clarification on investment returns applied to NTGPASS, and taking the opportunity to make some minor amendments to modernise and simplify terminology, which is always a good thing.
Those things said, it is important to take this opportunity to draw attention to the superannuation liability. This is something that cannot be ignored; it must always be front and centre in considerations as we manage the economy, manage the books. We do not just manage it so it looks tidy today; we are managing those things into the future. Today, we are providing a legacy for tomorrow. I am sure the person acting in the role of Treasurer today will recognise the importance of the superannuation which is unfunded. There is a cost to these changes. There is a cost to government. That is a cost that falls upon government today, but is a cost that will not necessarily be paid today. It is the management thereof that is required today so that we are in a position in the future to be able to manage such liabilities.
From my understanding, this will potentially add a cost to government. We have a government here, but there will be governments coming and going. Into the future, it will add a cost of upwards of $35m. That is one of the additional costs of this. I am not criticising that, but we need to draw attention to it. The reason we draw attention to it is that the issue of superannuation liability has compounded and increased over time in a manner which was not predicted when this government came to office.
Before we get sensitive, and I always take time to couch my comments in these terms so that we do not get defensive and personal about these things, there are factors at play that are beyond the control, believe it or not, of the current government. It is your responsibility to manage those as best you can. The truth is that the superannuation liability has increased significantly under this government.
There are reasons for it, which was brought out during estimates. One that caught the attention of our illustrious media commentators was the demise of an actuary. Whether that is the cause for the significant increase is academic. The fact is the liability has increased and there are factors that have caused that to occur. I am sure members are all tuned in and taking notice, particularly the new ministers because they will be a part of these deliberations. There are serious and very profound responsibilities in managing today to leave a legacy for tomorrow so that you can retire with some grace rather than just cruise off into the sunset and say: ‘I was a minister once’. There are serious matters to attend to.
For the information of those new to Cabinet, you may not have seen this. Perhaps you have and had it explained away. It is difficult to explain away, but these are the realities. Consider it as a business. Consider it as your own personal responsibility, something you will be held accountable for, which might change the colour of your thinking. In Budget Paper No 2 in 2003-04, the superannuation liability was $1.4bn. Then there were some calibrations undertaken to project what that may be in 2006-07. At that time, the projection was $1.466bn. Looking from 2002-03, Treasurer Stirling projected ahead to 2006-07 and saw that there would be an increase from $1.408bn to $1.466bn. They are big numbers but it is serious business.
What in fact happened was rather than the projection falling close to the mark, it fell way beneath the mark, and the liability in 2006-07 was not $1.466bn. It was $2.087bn, a massive increase on what was projected. I draw attention to this not because I am suggesting the bill doesn’t go through. It is my role in opposition to draw attention to aspects of these fiscal matters that will require the attention of government whilst they have the reins of power. They must recognise that these decisions will increase the superannuation liability and the projected increase of the superannuation liability was insufficient and the difference between $1.46bn and $2.87bn is a massive increase. Potentially, it will increase as a flow-on consequence of this bill today.
I only raise those matters, as I said, for the public record so that we are mindful of the other matters that hang around this whole area so that we can ensure that we are responsible to address these core matters.
Notwithstanding that, I acknowledge behind every superannuation entitlement of whatever formal construction, there are hard-working, dedicated people who have invested deeply in the Northern Territory, and they have these entitlements which will benefit them and their families. I wish each one of them all the very best in recognition for the support that you have given to the Northern Territory. I conclude with that recognition of the people who stand behind these superannuation funds and commend them for their achievement and hard work for the Northern Territory to take the Territory forward. May you leave a legacy that is greater than the monetary cost, which is within the Northern Territory in our institutions and people. The opposition supports the bill.
Ms LAWRIE (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Blain for his support for this very important legislation, which fundamentally provides equity for our public servants for superannuation benefits in the event of death and disability.
This important reform for our hard-working Northern Territory public servants will provide benefits for many who have served the Territory for a very long period of time. We all acknowledge the work they do. This government recognises that they deserve fair and equitable benefits when they retire or if they are unfortunately struck down with a permanent illness or injury.
With that in mind, the purpose of the bill is to establish a death and invalidity scheme for Northern Territory public sector employees, executive contract officers and members of parliament in choice of fund for superannuation arrangements. Some NT public servants already enjoy this benefit and they are in the NTGPASS scheme which was closed in 1999. This is really about providing equity for public servants who have come in to serve the public since 1999.
We have members of NTGPASS who have been in the scheme with these benefits, we have the Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme members who have been in the scheme with these benefits and we have, of course, members of this parliament who have had inequity. They have been in the Legislative Assembly Members Superannuation Scheme, the scheme we know as LAMSS. We have already enjoyed these benefits, but this bill provides for a new superannuation product for members of NTGPASS. It also provides minor amendments to existing superannuation legislation. Importantly, it wraps up and provides the same benefit of superannuation death and invalidity payment provisions for all of our public service employees, but also for, and reasonably so, members who serve the public on executive contracts and members in this Chamber who serve the public. It is a fair and robust scheme.
I acknowledge that the member for Blain had a very detailed briefing from Treasury advisers. I received the same briefing, member for Blain, and I agree that it is a highly complex area of law, but I have some background in superannuation from a previous existence and that has helped me get through that briefing. Otherwise, I probably would have found it extremely hard going.
I can say that Treasury is very aware of the issue of liability. We have had some actuarial reviews into the liability issue. We have an estimate of the worse case scenario. If everyone was to draw down on the scheme if we had a catastrophic disaster, and this will never be the case, but if all of our public servants died …
Mr Mills: Come on!
Ms LAWRIE: That is a worse case scenario …
Mr Mills: What would that figure be?
Ms LAWRIE: We would have to pay around, worse case scenario, about $35m. If every single public servant who would benefit from this new legislation died tomorrow, which we know will not happen, we have $35m available within Treasury funds to be able to cover it. So worse case scenario: if John Howard had been elected and we had a nuclear power plant in Darwin at East Point, the worse case scenario is $35m.
We certainly have the capability in our budget to deal with the liability. As the member for Blain said, we have had some change in superannuation, we have had various budget reviews and we have seen the projected liability increase significantly. The former Treasurer was very astute in increasing the funding set aside in the conditions of service reserve to cover our increasing liability. We are very aware of increasing liability, but we have also been increasing funds into the conditions of service reserve to cover increasing liability. I am very confident with the astute Under Treasurer and the astute staff of Treasury in terms of their advice to government each budget time that we are very aware of our superannuation liability. I have sat in a few Budget Cabinets now and it is a point of discussion at each one. We certainly make sure we cover our superannuation liability and the conditions of service of our public servants, as we should and as any reasonable government would.
I can advise the member for Blain that, yes, superannuation liabilities have increased. That was due to a regular review of liabilities, government has been very open and transparent about this rise, which was due largely to improving mortality rates. The government is committed to ensuring superannuation liabilities are met and is funding our conditions of service reserves accordingly.
I congratulate the staff of Treasury for this very good legislation. It came out of EBA negotiations in 2004-05. We have had some interim measures in place since those negotiations. This legislation will be warmly received by our public servants in providing equity in the workplace, and equity in this parliamentary Chamber. I congratulate Treasury officials Kathy Clayden and Keith Fernandez for their work in delivering this legislation.
Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Ms LAWRIE (Leader of Government Business)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
MOTION
Note Statement – Alcohol Reforms
Note Statement – Alcohol Reforms
Continued from 18 October 2007.
Mr KNIGHT (Daly): Madam Speaker, I am delighted to rise today to support the minister’s statement on alcohol. We have talked previously in this House about the problems with alcohol misuse and its irresponsible use, and the subsequent problems which occur through our society, significantly in the Northern Territory but not exclusively. The problems of alcohol permeate the rest of the nation and internationally. As elected members to the Northern Territory parliament, it is our duty to try to address problems of excessive alcohol abuse and we certainly have challenges before us.
As the minister highlighted in his statement, the Northern Territory has some of the highest rates of alcohol consumption in Australia. The average is 17.3 litres per person per annum recorded in 2005-06. That compares with the national average of 10 litres per person, which is an incredible amount.
When you understand that regions such as the Barkly and Central Australia are below the Territory average, you can see that places like Katherine have one of the highest rates of alcohol consumption in Australia. About 20 litres of pure alcohol per person per year is an incredible amount. The member for Katherine and I lived in Katherine during the financial year 2005-06, and I do not believe we each consumed 20 litres of alcohol. Many other people did not, either, so it is an incredible thought that there are people out there consuming more than 20 litres of pure alcohol per year to bring it to an average of 20.
There are certainly many problems within that community. We are intimately aware of them, having lived there for many years. There are subsequent problems that we see and some we do not see, such as what goes on in the middle of the night in quieter, secluded places. Support agencies such as police and health see the end result of those things. Domestic violence shelters see it. It all comes from the abuse of alcohol.
There is much going on in Katherine and I compliment the minister for his ongoing engagement with the Katherine community. He was there recently to engage with the community about alcohol-related issues. I congratulate the minister for his strong stance on trying to curb the levels of alcohol consumption in that community. It is something that has not happened overnight. It has gone on for many years, and it ebbs and flows with different conditions out bush and within the community itself. I am delighted that the minister has taken a keen interest and is very firmly fixed on reducing the level of alcohol consumption.
It is about behaviour. There are a great many people I know who drink excessive amounts of alcohol. Outwardly, they do not seem to hurt too many people but, ultimately, health-wise it is not good for you. What happens to those people who outwardly cannot handle their alcohol is they turn into fighters and end up getting run over. The number of people knocked down in the main street in Katherine has been horrific. People have been run over whilst sleeping on side roads and driveways. It is very sad for the families and the individuals, but is a regular occurrence.
I am delighted to be kept abreast of the initiatives in the Katherine, including the Katherine Alcohol Management Plan. The Katherine Town Council must be complimented for their strong stance in applying for declaration as a Dry community, which has been successful. There is an initiative from the minister in the form of an alcohol swipe card. I support that. I congratulate the member for Katherine for her ongoing support for the alcohol management plan. We have seen the results of the same initiative on Groote Eylandt.
There is a new sobering-up shelter. The local publicans introduced an Alcohol Accord which, coupled with the alcohol swipe card, will be an effective accord, given the capabilities of technology. There is more work being done on the public safety model including Return to Country. Short-term accommodation is increasing as a problem within Katherine because of various things going on around the bush. The establishment of an alcohol court is welcome there, as is the appointment of Indigenous Liaison Officers to look into domestic violence.
The Venndale rehabilitation block has had a bit of a chequered history, not necessarily because of any issues to do with the Northern Territory government or even the federal government. It has been a management issue which is approaching resolution. We look forward to that facility being available for rehabilitation services. It may need to be expanded. We shall just have to wait to see how things go.
The Alcohol Supply Plan was released, and it is a tough plan. We have a big issue in Katherine and we need to take significant measures to curb the problem. As I highlighted earlier, the minister has not been backward in coming forward about the problems. He has been engaging with the publicans, the community and community leaders about what he would like to do. I am sure he is open-minded about local initiatives. I certainly think everyone in Katherine will be delighted with the results.
Around Katherine, there are other communities such as Timber Creek, Pine Creek and Mataranka. Emerging very significantly in Mataranka from the Community Cabinet visit was the issue of antisocial behaviour associated with alcohol. It was something the Cabinet ministers heard very loud and clear. I hope there is a roll-out of the Katherine Alcohol Management Plan, supply and management plans around Mataranka specifically. I know many people from the Roper go into Mataranka, and it is a real issue for not only the families of those individuals who come in from Ngukurr or Minyerri, but also for the people who live permanently in Mataranka who, on a pay day, padlock their house, grab their swag and go and camp in the bush because they are too scared of the drunks. That is what we need to be thinking about: those people, those mothers, those children who are scared to death of payday because of the behaviour that ensues. The rights of women and children come before the rights of individuals. Alcohol is a privilege, not a right. You do not have the right to disrupt other people’s lives. Most of us enjoy a nice quiet drink to relax, but when we start to interfere with other people’s lives, it certainly becomes an issue.
Other initiatives that have been proposed in the Territory recently have been interesting. The intervention of the federal coalition government into indigenous communities has been one of the most significant things in the Northern Territory’s history. A range of initiatives were proposed, several of them arising from alcohol and, for the wider Territory community, the $100 takeaway provision was an interesting one. It was widely rorted and continues to be rorted. It is ineffective. It will do nothing to stop grog running or curb excessive alcohol consumption in the bush. This government has continually said that we will support the measures that work, but we will not support measures that do not work. The $100 takeaway provision is a measure that does not work and will never work. We do not support it and we look forward to the new federal Labor government winding that back and looking at measures that will work.
The widespread alcohol ban across land trusts has been ineffective, widely rorted, continues to be rorted and, from my experience, since the intervention up until last Saturday when I was out there, people were still running grog in, doing whatever they like because they see it as another measure that they have not been engaged in and are going to get around. The only way forward with curbing alcohol abuse out bush is by engaging with the communities. I look forward to having a federal Labor government which will move towards engaging with those communities. Once you get communities onside about a particular issue, such as alcohol, you will have allies in curbing the problem. Instead of having one police officer for an eight hour shift, you end up with a whole community, eyes and ears open 24 hours a day, looking at who is coming in, what is going on, and they become your allies in curbing that problem.
There is a mood for change. There is certainly a mood to tackle this problem. Everyone, even drinkers, can see the problems occurring within their own lives and their families’ lives. They can see how their communities have been decimated by alcohol.
Madam Speaker, I will wind up by reiterating comments I have made previously in this House: alcohol is a symptom. Alcohol is a symptom of a deeper problem. It is medication. It is people self-medicating for lives in crisis. That must be our primary goal. We need to curb what we can today with various measures to help people get back on track, but we need to look at the deeper issues of why people are drinking, how we can help them get back on track to support their individual lives, make them productive members of their own family, for their children’s sake and for their community’s sake.
There are bountiful opportunities on Aboriginal land and within communities. Many of us in this House know communities which oppose excessive alcohol consumption and those communities are very successful because they have a great deal of cohesion. Not only do they have alcohol under control, they have drugs and indolence under control, they have people working, they have respect for themselves and for what is going on in their community.
That is where we have to head. Yes, we need to implement measures to curb excessive alcohol consumption, but we need to work strongly with restoring those lives and Closing the Gap is one of those ways. I am looking forward to working with the federal Labor government, and not to buck pass in these areas of indigenous affairs and substance abuse. We have a Labor government in the Territory and federally. We will not be buck passing. We will be sitting down in consultation and working very effectively together to curb these problems. We will all be judged on the outcomes, not by what we say or how much money we pump into it or what policies we develop. We will be judged on the outcomes. It will be testament to this government, the federal Rudd government and we as individual members.
I thank the minister for his statement. I look forward to working with him in the Katherine region and beyond. We certainly have a task before us, but the opportunity that now exists with a change of federal government will be a unique opportunity that we need to grasp with both hands.
Ms McCARTHY (Arnhem): Madam Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the minister’s statement on alcohol. For constituents across Arnhem Land, the one area that I speak quite often about is Groote Eylandt. In particular, the minister highlighted the success of the alcohol management plan on Groote Eylandt. It has been a success that communities across the Northern Territory have been looking at. In fact, the Substance Abuse committee led by the member for Macdonnell visited Groote Eylandt to have a look at why the alcohol management plan was so successful. It comes down to this: communities and organisations coming together.
In this case, it was the Anindilyakwa Land Council, the communities of Umbakumba, Angurugu and Bickerton and, most importantly, Alyangula. The township of Alyangula and the mining company, GEMCO, worked with local people because there was a real understanding that alcohol had a profound impact on not only the way of life of families on Groote Eylandt, but also on the workforce of GEMCO. It took a number of years. It had to take this long. That is why when our government looks at alcohol management plans across the Northern Territory, we recognise that it has to be about perseverance with alcohol because alcohol does have a dramatic and drastic impact on families, in particular in our communities. We look at Groote Eylandt and say the alcohol management plan on Groote Eylandt is an incredible success, a success that can be mirrored in other communities.
When the Substance Abuse committee went to Groote Eylandt, they had an opportunity to hear from the Anindilyakwa Land Council members who spoke about the need for Aboriginal people to be a vital part of any alcohol management plan because the impact of alcohol is largely felt in Aboriginal communities. When this recognition was understood and respected, it made it a huge impact on where the discussions were going to go about what kind of permit system would take place on Groote Eylandt.
The community had to go through a number of different ideas about the permit system, and that was because some ideas were too harsh and some were perhaps not strong enough, but they persevered. It took well over two years because each of the groups had to work out what they were trying to achieve. The people at Angurugu were concerned that it could be a race-based decision. People in Umbakumba were concerned because they said: ‘We have the strong women here who allow the grog in only on Fridays. We allow only a carton of beer to come in, and then when it gets out of hand, we will stop it.’ Umbakumba people knew that it had to be a wider community feeling because people were going from Umbakumba into Alyangula, so this understanding of how all the communities could work together was crucial to it. When the minister talked about the Alcohol Framework and alcohol management plans for different parts of the Northern Territory, it is crucial that organisations and community groups talk about it. That is what happened on Groote Eylandt and is now happening in other areas such as Alice Springs, Katherine and Tennant Creek.
We have seen the impact of alcohol abuse on families. In his statement, the minister highlighted the profound detrimental impact it has on the health and wellbeing of individuals, but in particular on children. The issues of domestic or any kind of violence against the person and the issue of crime are all behind the concerns the minister highlighted in his statement with regards to the harmful effects of alcohol.
There is data by the Menzies School of Health Research and others around the nation that shows that if we do not make a concerted attempt as a society, not only across the Northern Territory but, indeed, Australia, to deal with the harmful effects of alcohol, we have to ask ourselves: what sort of future are we looking at and what kind of society are we building?
In Arnhem Land, the profound impact of the Commonwealth intervention on the alcohol permit system is being felt already. Our government has been supportive of wanting to work through the issues of the alcohol situation because both levels of government, and particularly, at the time, the former Howard government and now the Rudd government, know that alcohol is a crucial issue that we have to deal with. We have seen the impact of the $99 laws in Darwin in particular, where the law is largely being felt strongly and many people are not happy about. It is heartening to know that our government is going to speak with the Rudd Labor government about that law. The issue is how we deal with alcohol in the sense of maturity and recognising that just because we have this massive problem across the Northern Territory in our remote communities, we must have a different approach to each of the places. As the minister said, there is not a one-size-fits-all solution.
I will tell some stories about what women, in particular, have said in places like Ngukurr. The member for Daly mentioned Minyerri and some of the communities that find themselves at Mataranka. The women tell me all the time when I go out to Hudson Downs, Jilkminggan and Ngukurr that they do have concerns when people stop off at Mataranka. What they have been telling me of late, in particular the last couple of months, is that there has been a noticeable change in regard to alcohol coming into the community, and that has to do with the Commonwealth intervention, the fact that we are looking at the policing and alcohol restrictions to our communities.
Another issue is that the women speak of how there needs to be more support for family members to rehabilitate because, for many of the families, people have a real addiction to grog and it has become a 24/7 way of life. What the women in Minyerri have told me is that family members go into Katherine and they might not see them for a while. They are left in Minyerri looking after children or grandchildren whose parents are not around. We know this story; we hear it all the time.
I feel incredibly proud to work with a Northern Territory government that is committed to wanting to see changes in indigenous affairs across the Northern Territory. I look forward to when Chief Minister Henderson can go to Canberra to speak with the Prime Minister about the intervention and the impacts that it is having in our communities. I have seen firsthand in places like Barunga, Beswick, Manyallaluk how they have lost CDEP. Families are starting to ask themselves: ‘What is going on in our area?’
I digress a little here to express to parliament that while we are dealing with alcohol, we have lifestyle issues. With less money, how are people going to live better lives? Our statistics show that we have health issues with substance abuse in our communities. We must persevere in wanting to help individuals in those communities to overcome a lot of the health and other problems related to substance abuse.
I am from in the Gulf region and Borroloola. The closure of the pub has had a significant impact on the lives of people. The pub has been closed for well over a year. It has been a very responsible decision for that pub to be closed in order to give the community a chance to grow, to rest, for children to have food and for families to be able to sleep at night without having riots and fights going on well into the early hours of the morning. There has been a dramatic impact on the way of life for people since the closure of the pub in Borroloola.
I am very pleased to be working within a government that is determined to tackle the issues of alcohol. I look forward to providing to the House more details on how the Groote Eylandt permit system is going, and to giving feedback on the alcohol management plans for the Katherine region which affect a lot of my communities in south-east Arnhem Land.
I am very interested to discuss with my colleagues in other parts of the Territory, and in particular Central Australia, to see how it is going. At the end of the day, the crucial issue is that it does not matter who you are or where you live, every child must have an equal opportunity to grow up in an environment where they are safe, they have a home and food, education and health available to them. I commend the minister’s statement to the House.
Mr HAMPTON (Stuart): Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the minister’s statement on alcohol policy and I thank the minister for it.
As he said, this is his first statement on the issue and over the last few months, it has become even more of an issue nationally. We have seen the federal government intervention in the past few months and our own government’s Closing the Gap response to the Little Children are Sacred report. At the core of all this has been the need to address the serious issue of alcohol abuse in our community.
After listening to my colleagues, the members for Daly and Arnhem, it is great to be a part of a government that truly reflects and represents the breadth of the Northern Territory. The member for Daly talked about the experience in Katherine, and the member for Arnhem about the experience on Groote Eylandt and through Arnhem Land. It is fantastic to be able to sit alongside colleagues who can speak strongly of the experiences in their electorate.
In my electorate, not only over the past few months that we have seen the intervention roll out through the communities, but through my own life experience, the issue of alcohol has certainly touched me and my family in many ways, certainly in personal levels within my own family, and I am sure it has touched many of other lives in this Assembly. The issue of alcohol does hit home. I am glad that this government is not walking away from the social challenge we face. The government is, through Closing the Gap, addressing not only that issue but the broader issues that underlie and result in alcohol abuse in our community. Closing the Gap is a five year commitment, a real commitment to the bush that will assist in dealing with alcohol abuse. There $10.1m for alcohol and drug management. The member for Arnhem touched on the need for more rehabilitation programs and services and I support her call, particularly for Central Australia.
The Mt Theo Substance Abuse program has, for many years, had to deal with the problem of petrol sniffing. Over recent times they have also been dealing with other issues such as cannabis abuse and assisting young people coming through the court and justice systems, often as a result of alcohol. Mt Theo is one of those success programs that we need to continue to support, particularly in assisting young people who often find themselves in towns like Alice Springs on the wrong side of the law and caught up in that environment, unfortunately, with alcohol abuse.
Another success in my electorate is the Kalkarindji community social club. Over the last five or six years I have been going to Kalkarindji and Daguragu, I have always found the social club is successful because of the strong leadership of the community. It is run by the community. You go there at night and you see local people working on the gate, serving the alcohol. It is well managed, but the success is due to strong leadership by the community. It is linked in with jobs. It is a workers club. You have to be a worker on the community if you are going to be a member, and it is linked to school attendance. So if you have missed a day at work or your kids have missed a day at school, you do not get into the club that night to have a beer or two. That incentive, which has come from their own community, is a strong one. It is a privilege, not a right, to be able to go to that club and have a beer and have a social gathering after a day at work.
If we look across the Territory, there are pros and cons for wanting to get these social clubs onto communities. If there is ever one model that we should all closely look at and find out why it is working so strongly, it is the social club at Kalkarindji. I am very proud to say that it is run very well by the local community themselves, council members. They have put in some very strict rules and they are strong enough to enforce those rules to their own family members and community. If you do not work, you do not go there that night and it is linked to school attendance. It is a very successful model for a community in the Northern Territory managing alcohol in their own community.
In the last three months, as I said, the big impact has been the intervention, but the consistent message I am getting, particularly from the women, is that the alcohol measures that this government has introduced into places like Alice Springs are welcome. It has brought about respite for many of the women in the communities. Having police there is also important. When we talk about stopping the rivers of grog, we need to support that with other measures such as police. They are two areas that we need to continue. It is certainly an area I will be pushing with the new federal government. We need to continue the alcohol measures out there and I welcome the minister’s statement and those measures.
As we have said, we support these measures. They are long term, practical and they are really going to protect our children. As the member for Daly said, these measures are aimed at protecting women and children, but there are broader issues for the men as well. Two elements of the intervention introduced to places like Alice Springs, alcohol restrictions and police, are very strongly supported by women particularly in my community, along with the Centrelink payments. We need to continue those three measures. That is the key message I am getting from my electorate.
Another issue with which I am continually faced in my electorate is roadhouses. There are places such as Top Springs and Ti Tree Roadhouse that are continually raised with me by constituents. If we are talking about alcohol management plans rolling out across the Territory it is important that those management plans are put together by communities on a case-by-case basis. Every community is different. They have different issues, but in some places, the issues of roadhouses and take-away sales need to be addressed as well. I look forward to the minister speaking about what changes are proposed for alcohol sales from roadhouses. There is an impact on our road statistics, particularly fatalities and alcohol-related accidents. The community of Lajamanu, for example, has been severely impacted by fatal road accidents along the road coming from Top Springs and Katherine. The impact of alcohol on our road fatalities needs to be addressed, including roadhouses.
The underlying issue we need to address is secondary education in the bush. If we are talking seriously about stopping the rivers of grog, we need to get to the underlying issues of why people are drinking and moving into town. We need more secondary education facilities and programs in the bush so those young people coming through primary school education have a pathway. Often, people have a sense of hopelessness. When your kid goes to primary school, what is there for them after that? What is the next step in terms of their life in a community?
That is an issue about which I have spoken at length with minister for Education in addition to employment and training aspects. In my electorate, we have Ti Tree, which is well known for horticulture, and we have the Tanami region with its mining sector. If we do not seriously address tapping into the economic development opportunities that already exist and opening the doors for young people through secondary education, employment and training, we will continually be challenged by the scourge of alcohol abuse.
We need to look at economic development projects. We need to support projects getting off the ground by providing infrastructure in the bush. We need to provide seed funding from the federal government to support economic development in the bush. If we do not provide the infrastructure, the seed funding to get some of these things off the ground, we are going to be challenged by young people continuously moving to and from town.
One example is the cattle project at Willowra. They have an agreement with the Loves Creek pastoral lease agisting cattle, but there is a serious need for support. I take this opportunity to bring this to the attention of the House. They need support to get that cattle project to the next stage. There are plenty of young blokes there who want to work in the cattle industry, and there are many experienced old men. If there is one area we can get our men working, it is the cattle industry, getting them involved in that industry again. This is an opportunity to say we need more money in the bush for infrastructure to assist economic development projects and employment and training opportunities. Creating real jobs is a term that we are using a lot at the moment. If we are going to create real jobs, let’s support economic projects in the bush; dollars for infrastructure and seed funding to get it off the ground.
They are the underlying issues that underpin the alcohol problems that we confront as a government and as a nation. I am proud to be a member of this government because we are not walking away from tackling this issue. I am proud that we have colleagues who represent the length and breadth of the Territory, every bush community in the Territory. Over the past few weeks, support has come out clearly for what we are doing. The message is there. People support what we are doing in tackling the abuse of alcohol.
In my home community, Alice Springs, we have established the Alcohol Reference Panel. That panel represents the community of Alice Springs. There are many well respected people on the panel with much experience and they are providing good advice to our minister and Chief Minister. I congratulate them on their work and advice. We have had Dry Town legislation since August, and we have the alcohol measures through the Commonwealth intervention and our own government. I was a bit sceptical about the Dry Town legislation because I thought many people in the community had put too much emphasis on it. Many people saw that as a panacea to this sickness, and it is not. Really, the cure for this is the people.
We can have programs or legislation like dry towns, we can amend or reform alcohol policy, but unless the community grabs it with both hands and works together with government, it won’t work. We can put up policy reforms, but it is the community that we have to bring with us. If we do not manage to do that, then it will not matter. We can have a Dry Town, but people will always find ways around it and that is what we are finding. We need to support the police. I have talked to quite a number of police officers. They are struggling with the Dry Town legislation. It has shifted the problem. That is something that we need to work with the police on and with the community. We need to work together. There were many expectations from the Dry Town legislation and, although we have to give it time, we are finding that it is not going to fix all our problems. We have to work together in the long term if we are going to have any success.
I acknowledge the work that my colleague, the member for Macdonnell, has done on the Substance Abuse committee. The title of the report has very relevant heading: Confronting the Confusion and the Disconnection. That sums it all up. We are talking about the abuse of alcohol. We can look at all the statistics, which I am sure we will, but if we do not connect with the bush, with the Aboriginal people of the Territory, we will continually be talking about this issue in this House. The recommendations in the report need to be seriously addressed by our government. I support my colleague and the committee in the work they have done.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, before I make my comments, I wish to dedicate what I say to every person across our Territory who has had a drinking problem and has decided to stop drinking and manage their alcohol. I draw my inspiration from people I have met across the Territory who have demonstrated, by their own personal, difficult decision, to say no to alcohol and to live a different life. We need to spend more time understanding how it is that they have been able to draw upon deep resources to make such decisions, and the inspiration that they provide to their communities.
Without an understanding of that element, all this talk about policies, directions, incentives and initiatives will come to nothing. We put our faith in the wrong place if we put our faith in policies, a request for and a desire for increased funding and, therefore, the problems will possibly go away. How much more funding will be required? You never know. It is an endless argument.
The truth is, as the member for Stuart, pointed out towards the end of his comments, that a proposal or plan to make a community dry caused concern until the recognition that people involved in that community had some personal buy-in. Without that, there is no real change. We may feel that a difference has been made because it sounds good and looks good and it has been resourced, but, in fact, nothing happens until people make a decision to do something. That is, the individual people.
A proposition was put in this Chamber some time ago, and I still wrestle with it, that if we individually and personally cannot come to a place where we can choose to work together to resolve this most important issue, we are only dreaming if we think we can effect real change in places remote from this parliament. If we, individually and personally, cannot look at our own drinking and make a decision on our own consumption levels, we are just playing games and going through the motions. We are mere politicians, not community leaders. We live in a social network. Yes, all right, member for Johnston, I can see you are preparing there for a little shot. This applies to us all equally …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Blain is inferring something that exists only in his imagination. I do not know what he is talking about. He should just get on with what he has to say.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Member for Blain, direct your comments through the Chair.
Mr MILLS: Absolutely. If the honourable member does not know what I was inferring, then I am happy to describe it, but I will not because these matters are far more important and weighty than frivolous issues.
We all live in social networks, every one of us. We are not disconnected from it because we were elected to parliament and sit on brown leather chairs. We are parts of social networks. We have families, friends and associates. We all know the effect that alcohol has in our own social networks. It is not an easy matter to properly understand or contend with until we look it in the face.
If we cannot really come to terms with it in our own social network, how is it that we put this faith in policy? We really have to look at it clearly, honestly and personally. I will draw upon the minister’s own words. I am not advocating wowserism, not at all. It is a recognition that the heart of this matter relies upon the need to have an individual understand their personal responsibility in this. If policy does not activate, stimulate and strengthen personal responsibility, then we will go on year after year, parliament after parliament, constructing responses to this and being a little disappointed. There will be some initial results that may be positive and we can make something of that but, ultimately, we could well be saddened.
I conclude this part with recognition of the inspiring people who have, in the face of difficult circumstances across communities in the Northern Territory, and people that I have known made a decision to stop drinking. I remember as a kid, one of the shearers who worked in the shearing team that always worked in our property was known to be an alcoholic. He was a good shearer and a well-loved man, but we knew he had a problem with alcohol, and a serious one at that. He managed it reasonably well. He made a decision one year that he was going to stand up against alcohol and he became a reformed alcoholic. I remember everyone speaking with great admiration for the courage that this man had shown. That stuck with me. If you live in a social network and you have seen the effects of alcohol, the immense courage that is required to say no, particularly if you are vulnerable to alcohol, is an extraordinary thing. I would like to see more effort made to understand and to celebrate those who make such decisions because that is the secret of it. It is not a policy as much as it is personal courage and the support and recognition that they receive. That is the key. If we cannot effect or advance that in our discussions, we really are playing politics.
The landscape has changed. I can see it in the moderated comments by members opposite now their whipping boy has gone. John Howard is no longer here and Mal Brough has gone. Now the reality is going to start settling in that it was an easy matter to deal with when we were sitting behind our arguments with an intent to score a political point or to manoeuvre this argument to a place of political advantage. Those people have gone now. Whether you were aware of that or not, the effect was plain for anyone who was objective and could see that there was some influence brought to bear upon this whole debate which was most distressing. The whipping boy has gone. You can get over that. You do not have to worry about over-inflated comments that relate to the person behind the policy and the obvious faults that you have found. That has all finished; that era has gone. Strip that away and put it in the rubbish tip where it belongs.
We are left with a new government and, of course, you will read good intent behind every endeavour of that government. I hope not. I hope you will still be honest because what we need to see are the people we are trying to effect positive changes for, to assist them. I urge that kind of analysis and consideration so that we do advance and progress. There are some great initiatives in here, but they need the right energy behind them if they are going to effect any positive change.
The opposition has not provided any fundamental criticisms of this. We provide support; we want this to move forward. I urge that we strip out of it anything that is superficial, pseudo-political or ideological because we have to get down to grassroots, which is people themselves. Can we make a difference?
With the right attitude, approach and energy, you can. You can have the best policy in the world and the wrong intent and it will be a disaster. You can have the worst policy in the world and the right intent and you could make a magnificent difference. The policy itself is not the issue; it is the attitude that you bring to bear upon the issue itself. That is the core. It is a serious matter. I know we are all concerned and we have all seen it. The core of it is the individual and helping them to make that decision. It is not communities; it is people who form a community, individuals, families, men and women who make a decision, young people. I do not know how that could be changed. I grew up in the wheat belt in Western Australia. It was a deeply entrenched culture. All you did on the weekends was get drunk. It was a part of your social culture. It was a very difficult thing to contend with and it was an awful environment.
That happens all across our community. It is not just in the wheat belt. My son works in the cattle industry. He tells me the same stories. It is a deeply entrenched culture. How do you get a young man to say no in the face of that pressure, the advertising washing over them? That is what we are dealing with. It is a powerful battle we are in and we need to have the correct attitude behind the policy. It is not an argument about the policy. Something deep is required.
I have developed good links with my son because I want to provide him with honest support in what he and all his mates are going through. They are a part of a culture. Bundy is the drink. He has had some experiences. I am speaking personally because this is a personal issue. It is not a political issue; it is a personal issue for all of us. We live in this culture. We live in this environment. We all have to contend with it and respond accordingly.
With those comments, support is provided. The words I have used and the intent behind them is the sort of support that I will provide and that the opposition does provide. Otherwise, the old Bee Gees song will be perhaps the refrain to all of this: It’s Only Words. We need more than words. I acknowledge the speeches that have been made and I know that sitting behind those words is concern. We are all concerned. That concern must drive very serious action.
In concluding, I urge the Minister for Alcohol Policy to please do whatever he can for the proprietor at Tiwi Shopping Centre.
Dr Burns: Say again.
Mr MILLS: It is not relevant to the statement, but it is the Tiwi Supermarket. I urge the minister to do what can be done in the interests of justice in that matter. It is a matter of real concern. The issue of alcohol in the suburbs is one, but there must be a response that can be provided in that situation that brings about justice. I urge the minister and the new Cabinet to revisit that issue. It is an issue that distresses me, as I know it distresses the minister, or I assume it does, but I know you well enough to know that it would as well.
Will we see a decrease? I do not propose that we should think of it in terms of standing in a place where we build a dam to stop the rivers flowing. In reality, what causes those rivers to flow is the desire for consumption. Hopefully we can address not just the supply, but the demand. May we reduce demand for alcohol within the heart of our community and understand the real reasons why people drink to excess. Let us not look at the river, but why the river flows. What creates that demand? Why do people want to drink that much? What is wrong?
I walked through the streets of Taipei. I was amazed to see a community that lives with alcohol. They do not have exotic policies; they have moderate behaviour. It is an individual responsibility. You could go into any shopping centre or corner store and buy alcohol. Did I see any drunkenness in the streets? Absolutely not. Did I see any aggression? None at all. People could responsibly use alcohol and they used it modestly. That was not as a result of a policy externally imposed; it was because of the culture of that society. That is the secret. How do you achieve that?
With those words, the support is there, minister, for this statement. I hope that some challenges have been gleaned from what I have said and will be responded to in the right spirit. I leave you with this final challenge: if we really cannot come to a place where we can work together on this and turn down the political and personal differences, we are dreaming if we think we are going to effect change. If we cannot effect cultural change, then we are going to impose by means of policy cultural change external to here. It starts here and it starts with the individual.
Debate suspended.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of Parliament House tour program visitors. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
MOTION
Note Statement - Alcohol Reforms
Note Statement - Alcohol Reforms
Continued from earlier this day.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I rise to respond to the statement by the Minister for Alcohol Policy.
It was coincidental that he delivered the statement on the same day the Substance Abuse in the Community committee tabled its report. I hope the minister in his summing up will give us an indication whether he will support the recommendations of that committee. It was a bipartisan report and it had some good recommendations.
I have listened to comments by other members today, but in the first part of your statement, you said:
- Most of us enjoy a drink with family and friends, and, used sensibly, there is no doubt that alcohol is an important part of our lives …
There are many people who cannot enjoy a drink with their family and friends in their own homes. It is as simple as that. If they could, they would not be abusing it the way they do. Many people in the Territory are forced to binge drink, to drink in public places, and to pay exorbitant prices by grog runners who take grog into restricted areas. If the minister really believes that Territorians have the right to drink with family and friends in their own homes, then he should be doing something about it. That many of our people cannot drink in their own homes or communities forces them into towns and other areas where they do not have the social means to drink in an appropriate way.
It was interesting to hear the member for Stuart talk about what is happening at Kalkarindji. He is right. Having social clubs on communities can work. The member for Arnhem said that it can work with the right controls, atmosphere and leadership. Until we find a solution to this, you are going to find alcohol abuse continues in our regional centres because we force this upon people. I do not drink in a pub, but that is the only place many of our people can drink.
What is happening with the federal intervention is absurd. People in our town camps like Walter Shaw, who has a job, goes home at the end of the day like all of us, but cannot drink. He cannot drink a beer in his house in the town camp. That is discriminating against people so much that it becomes absurd. We have to, somewhere along the way, say that restrictions are not working. They have not worked for many years and they are, if anything, forcing more unpleasant situations.
Alice Springs is meant to be a Dry Town, but let us not kid ourselves. It is not a Dry Town. We have had problems with drinkers in our car park behind the building where I work. There have been problems with people drinking in the cemetery because it is an out-of-sight place. Many itinerants buy alcohol because they are allowed to buy alcohol, and all sorts of impositions like giving a name, address and where you are going to drink it if it is $100 or more, are not solving the problem. We hear it over and over again: restrictions, restrictions, restrictions. Restrictions alone are not the answer.
I was looking through the minister’s statement to see what strategies he will implement. He talked about alcohol management plans, but he realises that one size does not fit all. What might solve a problem in one community will not solve it in others. All dry areas legislation has done is create a problem for many people. I understand the anger and the frustration of the women who demonstrated in Alice Springs a week or so ago. I understand why they are standing up and saying: ‘We do not want grog. Let us have a couple of alcohol-free days’. They are ones who are suffering from what is a continuum of bad policy premised on restrictions fixing it. Quite frankly, restrictions do not. I understand and sympathise because they are the ones who go to the funerals, they are the ones who are bashed, they are the ones who see their families destroyed, they are the ones who see the houses where they are supposed to live destroyed.
I can sympathise with them, but sympathy is not enough. You can say we will put more restrictions on people in the town, but that is not enough. Somewhere along the way, we have to use a little bit of common sense. If indigenous people, who are the majority of our poor drinkers, if I can use that expression, are allowed to drink then, for goodness sake, let them drink in the right way. Let us not keep putting them in a situation where they do not have the means to drink appropriately. Sure, there are places around the Territory where you do see good drinking environments. Unfortunately, too often we see the bad side of alcohol abuse.
It is interesting to hear the Mayor of Coober Pedy say that so many hundreds of people from the Centre have gone to Coober Pedy to escape the alcohol restrictions. Let us look at the reverse: we have had people from Pitjantjatjara lands coming to Alice Springs to drink for years. All that demonstrates is that people will move. You are not going to solve the problem. They will just go somewhere else where they can drink. If the use of alcohol is being abused, let us address that and let us not start trying to patch it up by imposing restrictions, restrictions, restrictions.
I know the government did not like it when I said if you are going to have a grog-free day, make it Territory-wide. If you are a tourist in the Territory, you must be utterly confused because there are so many different rules and hours from centre to centre. Darwin is much more liberal in its drinking laws and the way you can purchase alcohol than Alice Springs. That causes confusion. If you are going to have these rules of restrictions of hours, quantity, ID, do it right throughout the Territory. I understand that would not be the way government would want to go because government would see that was disadvantaging the capital city. Realistically, Darwin has problems the same has other communities. We cannot keep turning a blind eye to the fact that we need to take an holistic approach.
It is interesting that when the Living With Alcohol program was implemented by Marshall Perron so many years ago, it was based on a three-pronged strategy involving education, controls on availability, and expanded treatment and rehabilitation services. This government is concentrating on controls on availability. That seems to be the major focus. I have not seen anything in the form of education. Perhaps the minister can enlighten us about that. In respect of expanded treatment and rehabilitation services, they are limited.
People may look back and say: ‘We can no longer impose the Living With Alcohol levy’. However, it did, in fact, give hope. It was a bucket of money dedicated just to that program. You will find in the papers that there was a great deal of reform. Marshall Perron probably took a lot of flack when he introduced it, but it did last for many years and it did seem to have results.
We are all very good at saying what we think, but what the government should be doing is to start looking at preventing the problem before it occurs. We have to see if, somehow or other, we can make life good in communities. As the minister said, alcohol is an important part of the Territory lifestyle. If we want to make it part of the Territory lifestyle in remote communities, let us start addressing it. Let us not keep avoiding what is obvious.
The minister talked about committing millions of dollars over five years, and I believe it was $3.77m over the next five years, to roll out an identification system in regional and remote areas. That is over $3m for an identification system. Would that $3m be better off being spent establishing social clubs or jobs in communities rather than introducing the system of ID? I find it offensive that I have to show photo ID to get a bottle of wine. It is going to be offensive to our tourists. It is already offensive to many seniors who do not have photo ID. It has been suggested they go to the Motor Vehicle Registry for photo ID that teenagers get so they can go into clubs.
There are many seniors who do not have a licence, but they are entitled to have a drink the same as you and me. Tourists do not walk around with their passport in their pocket, so they will not have photo ID and will not be able to purchase alcohol. It is very frustrating to live in Alice Springs. We seem to be the target of the Territory and federal governments’ intervention and restrictions. We seem to be the town that is condemned most of all as having such a large alcohol problem. I am not suggesting for one minute that we do not, but we are not the only place in the Territory that has a problem. We have been forced to have people come into a regional centre for all sorts of good reasons. It might be sport, health or shopping. Then, of course, there is the alcohol trap they might fall into.
It is interesting that Centrelink has introduced this quarantine of welfare benefits. They offer a service in Alice Springs at the moment on a Saturday morning. You can go to a caravan outside the hospital and get a voucher for one of the supermarkets where your money has been quarantined for people to go shopping. This seems to me to be absurd because all it is doing is forcing people away from their communities into regional centres. I am quite sure that was not the intention. The more you force people out of the communities - and when I say ‘force’, I am not talking about the ones who go for all the right reasons - you are going to create a situation that is unhealthy for them. It is unsafe for them and it is detrimental to residents of the town who do not drink.
When the minister closes, perhaps he could tell us some of the things he is going to do to prevent what has happened with this alcohol abuse. For example, how will he get people to enjoy their lives without having to resort to alcohol and drug abuse? There has to be a better style of life. Most of us enjoy a good life and we probably enjoy a drink at the end of the day. For a large group of people, that is impossible. We have created this unnatural situation, and you see it continuously in Alice Springs. You see people with a trolley and their carton of beer and you know they are going off behind a hill. It is a bit like the poor old taxi and minibus drivers who say: ‘It is not illegal for us to take these people through the grog shops. We take them through, but then where do we take them? We can’t take them to a town camp because we know that is illegal. We can’t take them to a park because we know that is illegal’. I have been told on many occasions, they drop them off close to a hill so they walk up behind the hill to drink the alcohol. The minibus driver must know that he is doing something quite illegal. About the only place he can really drop people off is a private home.
We have created a bad situation, whether we like to admit it or not. We have created a situation where we have put people into this situation of saying: ‘Yes, you can buy it, but no, you cannot drink it’. You cannot take it home to your community, you cannot take it out bush, you cannot take it into a town camp, you cannot take it into public housing.
I commend the Minister for Housing because the ‘no grog’ signs on public housing are working. We have evidence of that in the Larapinta area, and I am pleased that is so, but it is still not solving the problem. It is not assisting people to learn to live with alcohol. Minister, perhaps you could rethink the ID system and the $3m you are allocating to that and put it somewhere else.
We need to change this culture of drinking that seems to be embedded in our society. We should not be putting restrictions on people who do not abuse alcohol. Education should be started in school, and not just in the regions. We talk about the lack of teachers in community schools. Let us face it: teachers in community schools have an enormous task. They are not just teachers; they are social workers and nutritionists among other things. We need to get the message into schools about the damage alcohol will do to health, family life and the people with whom you normally associate.
I gathered from the minister’s statement that the answer is large sums of money. Quite frankly, that is not the answer. A better quality of life is the answer. The answer is better health, housing and education. I do not think we will ever see an improvement while we continue to go down the path of restrictions because it has become quite apparent that they have not worked and we need to think again.
Minister, you have not had this portfolio for long and this was your first statement. Instead of concentrating on all the bad things when you are closing, perhaps you could give us some insight into what you think might address the problem. We always seem to be fixing things after they have happened. I would much rather hear you talking about how the problem can be curbed or eliminated. Sure, we have some good programs around, but one size does not fit all. You said that in the statement. We have to allow for different regions, different towns and the fact that Darwin is the capital of the Northern Territory. However, whenever you impose restrictions, you are aiming at the minority instead of the majority. It is the majority who feel the restrictions most of all. I trust the minister will report back to us six or 12 months.
I have never supported dry towns because I do not think it stops people from drinking. We seem to go through patches where sometimes it is good and sometimes bad. We should not have to show ID. This is, for goodness sake, a free country. We seem to be so tied up with regulations and rules that I wonder whether it is a free country. You have to start educating people so that they have the right to drink in their own homes the same as people in this House do.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, since I was elected to parliament we have spoken about this issue. I am not sure whether anything has changed. I wonder whether we are advancing or going backwards on this issue. Things have changed since the minister made his statement because we have had a change in the federal government. I will be interested to see whether that change makes any difference to alcohol policy arising from the intervention.
The policy of the $100 limit and proof of ID were not very well conceived. Whilst there may have been good intentions, whoever thought of that scheme obviously did not put a lot of thought into it because it simply does not work.
Be that as it may, the Little Children are Sacred report highlighted the fact that alcohol is an issue. The intervention has highlighted that as well. Often in this parliament, the emphasis is on indigenous issues in relation to alcohol. Minister, in your statement, you spoke about the Territory lifestyle and the member for Braitling just talked about the culture of drinking. Is the culture of drinking part of our lifestyle that we accept as the norm? As a non-drinker, people could ask: ‘How would you know?’ As I have said in this parliament before, I have seen too much of the effects of alcohol. Unfortunately, most of that is in the indigenous community.
However, I see in the non-indigenous community the long-term effects of excessive drinking. Perhaps with indigenous society the effect is a lot shorter because their lifespan is a lot shorter in many cases. I have lost three of my wife’s immediate relations, one about two weeks ago. I have no doubt that whilst alcohol may not have been the reason they died, it would have been a determining factor in the shortness of their life. Because I am not a drinker, I can see the issue from a different perspective.
About 20 years ago, I received assistance from the government in promoting an alcohol campaign tagged ‘Think before you drink’. The area we are not willing to look at is advertising, the way alcohol is promoted, and the notion that drunkenness is an acceptable way of life. People laugh it off. They go to a party to get drunk. Many non-indigenous people think that that is the way to have a party. What do you think indigenous people think? That is the way they do it as well. Whilst we might criticise the manner in which many indigenous people abuse alcohol, who are they copying? They did not bring alcohol here; it was brought here by us, the non-indigenous group. Unfortunately, some of the ways we deal with illegal drugs leave a lot to be desired.
A lot of that is not just through contact with other people, but through the forum of advertising. There is no doubt that the alcohol industry is a very powerful industry. It has a long association with sport in Australia. You cannot tell me you will watch the cricket right through this season and you will not see alcohol ads time and time again. I have a Boonie and a Botha doll sitting on my desk, brought to you by VB. For me it is a bit of fun, but of course it is promoting alcohol.
The Minister for Mines and Energy well knows, as the ex-manager of AFLNT, how much AFLNT relies on alcohol sponsorship. I have said before that it is a shame, and I have been criticised for saying this, that full-strength alcohol is sold at the football. I give one of the local football clubs a hand selling hamburgers, and I am usually invited to watch the footy in the last quarter by which time many people are in a state, especially indigenous people. In some ways, it breaks my heart that people are in such a condition that they are vulnerable to both sexual and physical attacks. They are at the football, they have lost their sense of responsibility and control, and it is a shame to see people in that state. Whereas we go to the football to enjoy a game of footy, some people go to get drunk. Again, the two things go hand in hand: sport and alcohol. The catalyst for that, of course, is advertising. Advertising is prominent in most sporting venues in the Territory. Who sponsors the Darwin Cup? Who has a big marquee where people have free alcohol?
A member: Toyota.
Mr WOOD: No, not Toyota. Their feeling is different from what you get from Carlton United. I am not saying that they should not be involved in sport, but we do have another legal drug called tobacco. There is a difference with government policy trying to reduce the use of tobacco, a legal drug. What did we do? We banned all advertising, we have packets with blood and guts all over them, warnings that this will kill you and if you are pregnant, this will hurt the baby. We have hammered the tobacco industry. We have taxed them, and taxed them very heavily, and rightly so, but it is remains a legal drug.
Compare that with what we have done with the other legal drug, alcohol. We might have restricted who can drink it. You might have to have ID if you are under 18. I am pushing to find out the restrictions. You cannot drive with too much of it in your blood. If you compare alcohol and tobacco, and I ask: ‘Which is the most dangerous drug to society?’, surely it is alcohol. How many driving accidents have been caused by smoking? How many divorces have been caused by smoking? There may be a few, but I do not think there are too many of them. How much violence has been caused by smoking? Very little. How much by alcohol? The police say about 80% of people in gaol are in there because of violent crimes caused by alcohol.
What do we do when it comes to advertising? We do not put many controls on advertising alcohol. We encourage it. We do not put restrictions on alcohol advertising. It is about time we assessed where we are going. The industry knows that it can provide lots of money to those sporting groups and events that would not be able to host the event without that sponsorship. There is reluctance by the greater sporting community to say: ‘No, no. We are not going to have that sponsorship’.
We know what happens if you do not accept sponsorship. A classic example, and the member for Katherine has mentioned it, is the Katherine football association banning alcohol at the football.
Imparja, many years ago, had a policy of not advertising alcohol. Where did that lead them? It led them down the garden path of not having much money because now they advertise alcohol. The reality is the industry is extremely powerful. It is able to promote its way by offering large sums of money to sporting groups. Do anything about it? No, it is regarded as okay. Do we do anything about tobacco? ‘Oh, terrible, terrible. Tobacco is terrible so let us ban that and make it is as hard as possible for people to smoke’. So we should, but it seems to me that we are bit selective about which drugs we do and don’t support.
Minister, there are many other issues related to what we are talking about today. The member for Braitling raised some issues. I have been through the issues of employment and health many times. The new Deputy Chief Minister talked about scrapping CDEP. I am on record as saying I approve of the scrapping of CDEP, but with the proviso that full jobs are given to Aboriginal people. I do not even like the name CDEP; I do not like work for the dole. Any government worth its salt should support Aboriginal people living on communities in isolated areas and should provide full-time work for all those people. There should not be any unemployment. There is no need for unemployment. I know first-hand that you can provide work for people. As mentioned in the Little Children are Sacred report, employment is the most important factor when it comes to trying to do something about this.
It is no good having good housing or sending kids to school if there are no jobs. We need full employment. I say to the new Rudd government, as I have said previously: do a type of Marshall Plan; say that we will give full employment to all those people who want a job on those communities. Do not let them have jobs where for half the day they work and half the day, they do not. If they want to do that, that it is fine. I am not saying people should not be allowed to do that either, but if they want to do a full day’s work for reasonable pay, let us provide them with that ability, which will help. It will not solve the alcohol problem, but at least it will give people a goal in life rather than sitting around doing nothing waiting for the canteen to open.
Minister, I am not going to go any further. This debate has many facets, as you know, but it is time that we looked at the issue of whether drunkenness should be part of our Territory lifestyle. Is that the culture and lifestyle that we really want? Is that good? Are people doing themselves long-term harm? What are we teaching indigenous people, that getting drunk all the time is okay? I am not sure that is the way we should be going. We also need to look at giving sporting groups funds to replace the sponsorship by alcohol companies. That is something the government should be looking at.
I hope that there is some way we can get money out of the alcohol industry. We had the Living With Alcohol program. You may be able to talk to the federal government and say: ‘If sporting groups want funding and we need to replace it, why cannot we get that from a pool of money that has come from a form of taxation on alcohol?’ The taxation goes to Canberra, of course, but if we had a pool of money that would substitute the need for sponsorship from alcohol companies, so be it.
I remember going to Milikapiti on Melville Island when I was football umpiring. This was in the days when the football grounds went up at an angle about 15, so if you ever wanted to win a match, you had to hope the wind was blowing downhill because whoever was playing uphill had Buckley’s chance of ever scoring anything. There was a big scoreboard, and guess what was underneath it. Alcohol signs, advertising. This was back in the 1970s. Even then, they knew where to target.
If communities make the decision that they would not like to advertise alcohol, and sporting groups say they do not want to advertise alcohol, there should be some way government can find a pool of funds that comes from the alcohol industry so that they can run their sport without the need for that kind of sponsorship, it would be a positive thing. If we can reduce the advertising of tobacco, someone please tell me why we should not do it for alcohol.
Dr BURNS (Alcohol Policy): Madam Speaker, this is one of the most constructive debates in the Assembly since I have been here. I certainly appreciate the support of members across the spectrum.
There has been general agreement about the devastating harm caused by alcohol abuse in the Northern Territory and its social impacts and financial cost. Many speakers in the debate have recognised the problems associated with alcohol abuse will not be solved overnight and will require substantial financial resources and leadership.
I was very heartened that speakers on all sides pledged their support for the government’s efforts to challenge alcohol abuse including the introduction of Dry Towns and alcohol management plans. There were some caveats. The member for Braitling expressed her reservations about Dry Towns and a number of members have issued challenges to me as Alcohol minister and to the government in general. I have listened very carefully to those challenges; some of them are quite substantial and well worth considering.
Much of the progress that we have made on alcohol issues in the Territory over the last few years has been under the leadership of our former Chief Minister, Clare Martin, and Deputy Chief Minister, Syd Stirling, who was the minister with carriage of this area for some time. Much of the work was done in Alice Springs in particular.
There has been a Territory Alcohol Framework that has been built up, initiatives from the Alcohol Task Force, liquor supply plans and public dry areas in Alice Springs. The former Chief Minister was also the architect of the Closing the Gap program to address Aboriginal disadvantage in the Territory. We all give a commitment that we will focus on that and we will see it through.
I turn now to some of the specific points made in the debate. The Leader of the Opposition talked about the serious issue of alcohol abuse in terms of budgetary implications for health, law and order and housing. That is certainly true. The Leader of the Opposition also gave in principle support to the Alice Springs Dry Town initiative and said that the early indications are encouraging and that there is community support behind it at the moment. The Leader of the Opposition also said that it would require ongoing maintenance and vigilance.
The Leader of the Opposition talked, as did other speakers, about the need for an overarching alcohol policy for the whole of the Territory, but one that needs to be flexible enough to meet the needs of individual communities. As a government, we have not subscribed to the one-size-fits-all approach. We want a region by region approach to alcohol issues.
The Leader of the Opposition requested details of hospital admissions in Alice Springs for men and women. From memory, she said she believed that whilst alcohol-related admissions for men had been decreasing with time, admissions for women had remained static. The Leader of the Opposition was quite correct. However, the figures I have, which I table, don’t go into 2007. I hope that there would be a significant reduction in those figures for women in 2007. That remains a challenge for us, not only in 2007 but ongoing in 2008 and further years.
The Leader of the Opposition asked me to indicate my position on closing takeaway outlets for one day, particularly in Alice Springs. The same issue has been raised in relation to Katherine. I have stated my position a number of times publicly: closing takeaways for one day a week is an option. At this stage, we are evaluating the measures in Alice Springs to date. We are having them evaluated independently and, as part of that evaluation, we are looking at what happened with Thirsty Thursday in Tennant Creek. There seem to be differing opinions about the value of Thirsty Thursday in Tennant Creek. Along with the independent evaluation of the effects in Alice Springs of the measures that have been taken so far, we have asked the independent team to look at Thirsty Thursday and report to the Alcohol Reference Group which meets in Alice Springs. At this stage, it is an option, along with a range of other options that have been suggested for Alice Springs and Katherine, but at this stage we want to keep the community with us.
The Leader of the Opposition said that we have had community support in Alice Springs. I know that there have been differing opinions, but overall the community of Alice Springs has acknowledged that steps need to be taken. Similarly with Katherine; the community acknowledged that steps need to be taken.
I think it was the member for Stuart who talked about some of the unforseen effects of Dry Town status. I agree with that. There is no one simple solution to this problem, but we have to try different options. Where those options are not working, we have to be honest enough to say: ‘Okay, that’s not working’ or ‘We need to take further steps in this direction’. We need to be flexible on this issue. We need to engage with and hear the voices of communities. They are not always going to speak with one voice. In Alice Springs, Aboriginal organisations are putting forward very strong viewpoints. Police have the responsibility of administering rules and new laws. We have the tourism and hospitality industry in Alice Springs, which has a role and a livelihood. We have to balance all these competing priorities, but we have to be strong at the same time. This is a government that is prepared to be strong about alcohol issues. We have to be and I appreciate the support from all sides of the Chamber.
Mrs Braham: Do not become too focused in …
Dr BURNS: Yes, I hear what you say, member for Braitling. Finally, the Leader of the Opposition wished the government well in tackling those issues. We will be looking for further support from the opposition and Independents on this issue.
The member for Nhulunbuy also talked about the Living With Alcohol program. Everyone in this Chamber who had anything to do with the Living With Alcohol program acknowledges that it was a strong success. Unfortunately, it fell victim to a High Court challenge, was taken away and has not returned. There have been suggestions about hypothecation of revenue from alcohol sales in some ways to re-invigorate the Living with Alcohol program.
As the former Treasurer outlined when he responded to this, he does not believe that it is possible. I believe we have to revisit the Living With Alcohol program. Even though it was some time ago when it was implemented, we have to look at those elements that were working and breathe new life into them. We might not get the same funding or the same mechanism for funding as we had before, but there is goodwill on the part of this government to invest in programs to address alcohol issues. I believe that there will be a similar will within the new federal government to do likewise. That is what we have to aim at.
The new Chief Minister is going to Canberra to talk to the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd. This will be an issue that will be raised by our Chief Minister. We need to invest in this area in a whole range of ways.
The member for Nhulunbuy talked about the approach in Groote Eylandt, as the member for Arnhem did, which has been a very successful program. As the member for Arnhem said, there was lots of consultation, it was a work in progress; it was an evolution where different interests were accommodated. It has been very successful. It is model we have to look at. The Substance Abuse committee chaired by the member for Macdonnell has looked at it, as have many others, to see whether it can be transposed elsewhere.
The member for Nhulunbuy contrasted that approach with the approach of the former Minister for Indigenous Affairs, Mal Brough. He had the one-size-fits-all approach. The member for Nhulunbuy talked about how the laws destroyed the Gove Bush Classic and Gove Beach Volleyball events, which were community events to raise money, events people had a lot of fun with but, unfortunately, fell victim to the one-size-fits-all approach.
As a number of speakers have outlined, what we need to do is look at these laws and see where we need to continue to apply them in a sensible, consultative way, and at the aspects which disadvantage individuals and communities. I am certainly supportive of that approach. It is a hard question. The member for Braitling raised the issue of individuals within certain communities who may want to drink, and she believes they have a right to drink. At one level we agree with that, but at another level, you have to have a balance between an individual’s right and the wellbeing of the community. That is the hard part that we have to work through in the coming months. There are arguments on both sides. Instead of having a one-size-fits-all approach, we need to look at flexible, fair ways to address these issues.
As Attorney-General, the member for Nhulunbuy talked about the importance of alcohol courts in the Northern Territory to be able to help those who have a drinking problem, are continually interacting with the law and are a danger and nuisance to themselves, their families and the communities in which they live. What we have to do with the alcohol courts is provide rehabilitation options for those people, to take them out of circulation so they cannot do any more harm to themselves and others around them.
The member for Greatorex talked about a lack of law and order in Alice Springs. That has certainly been an area of interest to him before he entered parliament and remains so now that he is in parliament. He is representing views of certain sections of the Alice Springs community, but the feedback that I have had is that since the police have had a number of operations and a number of alcohol measures have come into place, Alice Springs is a much safer place and people are feeling a lot safer. That is not to say that it cannot get better or we cannot make more progress.
The member for Greatorex talked about alcohol abuse being the root cause of antisocial behaviour in Alice Springs and complimented the government on taking a positive step to create the portfolio of Alcohol Policy. He, along with other but not all speakers, believes that Dry Town status seems to have addressed some of the issues. He talked about guidelines for communities to formulate their alcohol management plans. He also spoke about the increasing number of complaints he was receiving from residents about antisocial behaviour in public housing. The Minister for Housing addressed this issue in his contribution. He told us that 214 households across the Territory have sought to have their homes declared dry, and 204 of these families are tenants in public housing.
Like many others, I have seen those signs in various places. In fact, I was out doorknocking the other day and unfortunately the residents were not home, but a family in public housing had big sign up and there were certainly no complaints from any of the neighbours in that street about unruly behaviour from that house. It is a strategy that is working. The strategy was introduced to empower people to take the step. People are taking the step and it is having a positive effect.
The Minister for Local Government and Housing talked about how heavy drinking contributes to poor attendance at work, homelessness, antisocial behaviour, violence, illness and debt. He referred to the Little Children are Sacred Report and how important the message from that is. His words were: ‘Alcohol is ripping out the fabric of indigenous communities’. That was something that the members for Arnhem and Stuart and others have said during this debate.
The Minister for Local Government and Housing also foreshadowed that the government is planning to declare common areas of at-risk public housing complexes across the Territory as restricted premises and those dry areas will be closely monitored by security patrols and police. That is a further step being contemplated by the government to address some of the issues in public housing. Members with public housing complexes in their electorates often receive complaints about this sort of behaviour. This is a commonsense approach to address some of those issues.
The member for Katherine gave a very thoughtful contribution to this debate, from the perspective of Katherine. She is the local member and said abuse and misuse of alcohol has been a problem for Katherine in the last two decades. It is not something new, but everyone would agree that it has probably been getting worse over the years. We have to be honest enough to recognise that.
When I first came to the Territory in 1979, I was living out bush and it was rare for Aboriginal people to come to the bigger towns. They used to come for the Umpires Carnival and a couple of other things, a bit of footy, but apart from that, people just did not come. However, over time, it has occurred for various reasons and we could probably speak for hours about the complexity of reasons for it. However, it has occurred and it is a problem.
The member for Katherine acknowledged that measures needed to be taken in Katherine. Measures are being taken in Katherine, and she was very supportive of those measures. As minister, I want to engage with the member for Katherine. I am planning to sit down with her to talk about those measures and have her input. She is aware, of course, that alcohol consumption in Katherine is particularly high. She visited Port Augusta last year and is a great fan of Dry Town. She supports the town of Katherine being dry and restricted trading hours and that, too, is very positive. She also supports a Territory-wide ID system for takeaway liquor sales and guidelines for alcohol management plans.
The member for Katherine asked some very important questions about the Venndale Detoxification Centre or rehab centre, as I call it. This is a very important question. When I attended the Alcohol Reference Group in Katherine last week, this was exactly the issue that was raised. As I understand it, there is Commonwealth funding involved. Unfortunately for Venndale in particular and rehabilitation across the Territory generally, that money has not been forthcoming. It may have been tied up during the caretaker mode of the six-week election period. We were told, just prior to the election being called, that the money was close. Now that the dust has settled on the federal election, I will be writing to the new federal minister and the minister for FACS because they have portfolio carriage of this area of rehabilitation.
The alcohol court is going into Katherine early next year. With Dry Town status and the ID system, we must have rehab facilities very close to running. We must have a very clear plan for them. It is a very important issue that you raised, member for Katherine, and one that I will certainly be following up on.
That takes us to where we left off in the last sitting, so I will have to go to my hand written notes now.
The member for Daly talked about the high level of per capita consumption of alcohol in Katherine. He said that although the average was very high, it is really not an indication of how much some people are drinking. I think he used the example, if it is something like 17 litres of pure alcohol per person per year, and he does not drink much and the member for Katherine does not drink much, that must mean that there are some people who a drinking a hell of a lot. That is right and it is scary to think what some people are drinking per year or even per day.
Together with other speakers, the member for Daly talked about alcohol being a root cause of many of the problems that we face within the Territory. He talked about my engagement as minister with the Alcohol Reference Group and I foreshadow to that group that I will keep very close contact with them. I am not able to get down for the next meeting, but I said I will try to be available on telephone for that meeting to keep very close to developments down there.
Like the member for Katherine, he also raised the importance of the Venndale rehab facility and he raised issues in some of their regions around Katherine for which we need to have a regional approach. This is what we are trying to do, but we need to keep an eye on the attendant effects of whatever measures have been taken, either by the Commonwealth intervention or by Dry Town initiatives, and we need to be very focused on that. There are a lot of unintended effects of this.
The member for Daly talked about issues arising from the intervention and the deeper problems that drive people to abuse alcohol and the need to address them. The intent of both Closing the Gap and the federal intervention was to address those issues, but we need to take stock of where we are and how we can work closer together to get the outcome that we all desire.
The member for Arnhem talked at some length about the Groote Eylandt experience and success, and how that was an evolving process to arrive at something that worked. That is a big lesson for us all, as I said.
She said at the heart of the Commonwealth intervention, alcohol formed a crucial issue. I certainly agree with that, member for Arnhem. As other speakers did, she raised the issue of what she was hearing from constituents, particularly women, as a result of the Commonwealth intervention, there being a greater focus within the community about excluding or better controlling drinkers, and the positive feedback she has had as a local member. That is very important. She, too, said there should be more support for rehabilitation. I mentioned the $15m-odd that the Commonwealth flagged some time ago. We have to find out where that is and we have to use that to further build rehab services across the Northern Territory.
The member for Arnhem also talked about the closure of the Borroloola pub. I am certainly in agreement with her about that. As she is aware, there is a hearing on this matter before the Liquor Commission and I would like to have further conversations with the member for Arnhem as I have with the local member, the member for Barkly, on this. I know the member for Arnhem has very close links and visits the area often. We have to think what is going to happen in the future with the Borroloola pub, but that is something that is before the Liquor Commission, which is an autonomous body. However, we need a sensible way forward on the matter. I thank the member for Arnhem for her contribution.
The member for Stuart talked about the challenges of addressing the serious issue of alcohol abuse across the Territory. He reflected that it is great to be part of a government with members across the length and breadth of the Territory who can provide feedback and take the concerns and positives of their constituents to government. This is a challenge for us as government. We are moving forward, there are great challenges there. There has been a change of government in Canberra and we all need to work together to recognise the differences across the Territory. It is not surprising if there are different messages coming out of different electorates across our great Territory. It is not surprising if we find things, as we did in Groote Eylandt, that are really working successfully while in other areas, the same things might not be working all that well. It is not a one-size-fits-all approach. We have to be flexible and listen to the needs of our local communities.
The member for Stuart also talked about the importance of rehabilitation and mentioned the Brown family at Mt Theo. They have had quite a successful program for a long time. The member for Stuart, with Mt Theo being in his electorate, is advocating for more resources for Mt Theo.
He also raised the issue of social clubs and how, in some areas, having a social club where people can have a drink within certain rules could be a way forward. At Kalkarindji, I know the club has been very successful. It has very strict rules about attendance at school and work. It has its opening hours that do not encroach on the working day and I have heard that is a club that operates well.
That goes to what the member for Braitling talked about with people only being able to go to a hotel to drink, which might not be the most desirable place for people to have a drink. We need to look at new models where people can learn to drink and can drink in a safe, controlled environment rather than buy take away, go somewhere, get drunk and all the trouble starts. I call it the demons coming out of the bottle.
He talked about some of his reservations about Dry Town status for Alice Springs. I would like to engage him further in conversation about that. I also emphasise the importance of stopping the rivers of grog and turning down the tap.
He also talked about the Willowra cattle project and I know he will be talking to the minister for Primary Industry and the minister for Regional Development about that project. It sounds very exciting and there is no doubt that employment is a pivotal issue that takes away the desire of people to get blind drunk all the time. If they have something in their life, meaningful and constructive activity, people are a lot happier in themselves.
He raised the issue of the problems with policing the Dry Town and that is something that will be part of the evaluation of the Dry Town project.
The member for Blain talked about a very important issue. He said you can have all the policies in the world, but it comes down to some degree to individual choice. I can see where he is going with his argument; individual choice about people wanting to drink or people with a drinking problem saying: ‘That is it! I am not able to drink. I am giving up drinking’. That is a personal choice. Personal responsibility is a very important element in …
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, I move that the minister be granted an extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 77 in order to conclude his remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Dr BURNS: I thank my colleagues for allowing me to finish these remarks because it is an important statement.
The member for Blain talked about the importance of attitude and individual responsibility, and I certainly agree that a lot of it comes down to individual responsibility. There is a framework of thinking about alcohol issues that I learnt when I was studying this issue as part of my PhD. It is called ‘The drug, the set and the setting’. Each of those things impacts on the way that people drink. It comes down to the type of drug, which, in this case is alcohol; the set, whether it is a raucous bar or a quiet drink at home or the people you have been drinking with; and the setting, which I mentioned before. There are many factors that impact on the way that people drink, and we need to understand those complexities.
The member for Braitling asked why my statement was presented on the same day as the Substance Abuse committee report. I suppose that was an accident of fate in a way. As you know, committees work to some degree independently of government. However, I do not see it as being a disjunction. The work of the committee is really exciting. They have proposed some very important ideas, which government will take on board, examine and work through and that will inform the ongoing work that has happened to date that I have reported on in my statement, so I do not really see it as a disjunction.
She also talked about the intervention and its attendant problems. She talked about the importance of appropriate drinking places, which I have mentioned in relation to the member for Stuart’s contribution to this debate, and that is very important.
We have to be open to different ideas because it is going to take a multitude of strategies to address this issue. As I foreshadowed in my statement, we have to start working on this culture of drinking, we have to break it down and we have to change it. Going back to the Living With Alcohol program, there were elements of that program which really set the course in terms of doing that. We have to rely on our agencies, like Health, Education and other agencies to actually inform that process and we need to take a fresh approach to breaking down the culture of hard drinking in the Northern Territory. I agree with the member for Braitling that we need to address problems before they arise and take a proactive approach rather than restricting and moving after the event.
Finally, the member for Nelson talked about the change of federal government and asked whether there was going to be a change of policy on the part of the Northern Territory government. I will reiterate our position on the alcohol elements of the intervention. Most of it, we support, but we want to see more flexibility. We want to see more consultation and more flexibility. I believe we all want to get to the same place, and that is where we will negotiate with the new federal government, something we could not really do with minister Brough. He was not interested in negotiating or consulting, but I know that the new Rudd Labor government will. More importantly, we want to negotiate with our communities at a local level and be flexible, not have a one-size-fits-all approach. The impetus is there. I acknowledge that the federal intervention has been an important thing in our history. It has moved things further, but this was a government that was taking things further anyway. We want to move further, we want to address this issue, and I believe everyone in this House does.
The member for Nelson also talked about the culture of drinking in the Northern Territory and how important it is to change that. He talked about the impact on his close family and some of the tragedy there. He talked about the nexus between sport and alcohol. There are some programs, the Good Sports program is one, around that are trying to change the culture of binge drinking around sporting clubs that none of us want to see.
He talked about a comparison, particularly in advertising and other restrictions between alcohol and tobacco. I could talk about that for an hour, but I do not have an hour. It is a very important issue that the member for Nelson raised, and I have some ideas that I would like to share with him.
He also talked about the importance of work in being a protective factor, which is probably the best way to put it, to prevent people from losing their way and becoming addicted to alcohol. I agree with that, but I do not think scrapping CDEP is the way to address it. In my book, there were some governance issues with CDEP. In different locations, there were issues that needed to be looked at in respect of its effectiveness. However, to just take it away holus-bolus is not the way to go. So far, that has been counterproductive and is part of the reason why there has been an influx of people from remote communities into Darwin and other centres, as we warned before the intervention was executed.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to wrap up by saying that I appreciate the support members have given the statement and the way in which they have recognised the importance of alcohol issues in the Territory. I want to move forward on alcohol, particularly breaking the culture of alcohol in the Territory.
As minister, I am placing on the record once again that there is no silver bullet for this. We need to be flexible in our approach, try different approaches, but we need to bring our communities with us. That is where the Alcohol Reference Groups in places like Alice Springs and Katherine are very important. I was interested to hear the member for Stuart talk about roadhouses. That is something I want to engage with him about. We have done a lot, but there is much more to do. I commend my statement to the House.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
MOTION
Note Paper – Select Committee on Substance
Abuse in the Community Report –
Substance Abuse in Remote Communities:
Confronting the Confusion and Disconnection
Note Paper – Select Committee on Substance
Abuse in the Community Report –
Substance Abuse in Remote Communities:
Confronting the Confusion and Disconnection
Continued from 18 October 2007.
Dr BURNS (Alcohol Policy): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise again talk about alcohol issues. I foreshadowed during the wrap of my statement, I do not see the two as mutually exclusive. I do not see the two as competing with one another. Moreover, I see this very important report from a parliamentary committee as informing our alcohol policy as we move forward.
To some degree, my statement looked at where we have been and, to some extent, where we are going. This report really puts a whole range of fresh ideas on the table. It is appropriate that I speak specifically about the report to give it the importance and attention that it deserves.
The report was tabled by my colleague, the member for Macdonnell, in the October sitting. I congratulate her as committee Chair, together with her fellow committee members for their report. Anyone who cares to read this report, with its 15 recommendations, will acknowledge just how frank a portrayal this is of the problems of substance abuse afflicting Aboriginal communities across the Territory.
Anyone who has been in the Territory for any reasonable period of time will recognise there is a major problem with substance abuse in the bush, and it is not limited to any particular substance. Sadly, it does not come as a surprise that the committee found alcohol, ganja and petrol are the substances causing the bulk of the problem.
This report draws together all that we have known and perhaps suspected over the years about substance abuse in the bush and very much lays it on the line. The member for Macdonnell has, for years, been at close quarters with the harms that she and her committee have reported on. The depth of her understanding about the realities of the situation on the ground is unquestionable, and was obvious when she spoke to the House in October.
As harsh as these realities might be, the member for Macdonnell also conveyed the second, and I believe equally important, message to the House in October. As she said, this report contains a twofold message: it is not just about the terrible harms, but also the good things that are being done. As both Minister for Alcohol Policy and Minister for Health, I draw hope from the optimism reflected by the member for Macdonnell and the committee report.
There are good people in communities across the Territory working to maintain normality in the face of calamity. In addition to the efforts of these good people, it is important that we do not lose sight of the fact that government agencies are directing considerable and coordinated effort towards the kinds of problems highlighted in this report. As a government, we recognise the magnitude and complexity of the challenge while accepting we can always improve on our service delivery.
As our plans evolve it is vital that we maintain close links with the people on the ground, non-government agencies, and particularly Aboriginal groups, and it is important that our overall effort is supported by the Australian government. We will achieve the best possible results through solid partnerships.
I take the point made by the member for Macdonnell when she referred to the confusion existing between the Territory’s indigenous and non-indigenous cultures when it comes to tackling issues of substance abuse. I recognise that such confusion will at times arise. It is only through genuine commitment to ongoing partnerships between service providers and Aboriginal communities that we can resolve such impediments.
The Territory has responded to the broader problems of our Aboriginal communities, including substance abuse, through our five year, $286m Closing the Gap of Indigenous Disadvantage plan. Our five year commitment under Closing the Gap includes: $79.36m for child protection; $38.6m to implement the remote area policing strategy, Safer Communities and other safety measures; $10.1m for alcohol and drug management; $23.4m for better health outcomes; $42.3m for housing in indigenous communities; $70.68m towards education; $30m to improve indigenous employment and economic development; and $8.95m towards better cross-cultural understanding and engagement in service delivery.
The Closing the Gap strategy recognises that more than 17% of Territorians drink at levels likely to cause long-term harm. More than 70% of the inmates of our Territory prisons are there as a result of alcohol-related offences and, of course, we know that the vast majority of inmates in Territory gaols are Aboriginal.
In an effort to address the level of alcohol abuse among Aboriginal Territorians, Closing the Gap committed the government over the next five years to: 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 increasing police powers; recruit an extra eight Liquor Inspectors across the Territory to ensure compliance with alcohol regulations at a cost of $1.35m; recruit two clinicians to be based in Darwin and Alice Springs to service the Katherine, Tennant Creek and Nhulunbuy regions at a cost of $1.24m; implement a licensing system in regional and remote takeaway outlets at a cost of more than $3m; expand the Return to Country program for Darwin, Alice Springs and Katherine at a cost of $250 000; implement regional alcohol management strategies initially in Alice Springs, Katherine, Timber Creek, East and West Arnhem Land and Tennant Creek; implement a widespread alcohol education program at a cost of $1m; use amendments to the Liquor Act to declare dry areas across the Northern Territory starting with Alice Springs; provide power to the Racing, Gaming and Licensing minister to implement urgent liquor supply measures; introduce alcohol restrictions in town camps; and provide police with power to search vehicles suspected of grog running.
There has already been significant progress in relation to a number of these initiatives that I have just outlined. These measures will complement a range of ongoing government strategies designed to reduce the impact of substance abuse on Aboriginal Territorians.
I turn to some of the specifics of the report. The committee’s first recommendation is an important one as it relates to coordination between Northern Territory government agencies. As a government, we are well aware of the challenges in this area and acknowledge that while we continue to strive for the closest possible coordination between agencies there is still more to be done.
An Interdepartmental Committee on Alcohol, Substance Abuse and Antisocial Behaviour is in the process of being established. It will be made up of senior officers from Police, Health and Community Services, Department of Chief Minister and Local Government, Housing and Sport. It will oversee the development and implementation of strategies across government agencies. In addition, we are currently completing a review of the alcohol-related capacities with the Department of Justice to ensure it continues to be suitably structured and resourced to respond to the demands and strategic approaches including a role in whole-of-government coordination.
If I may digress, I initiated this review of Racing, Gaming and Licensing because given the Commonwealth intervention, the increased focus on alcohol issues within our community, the fact that there is now a Minister for Alcohol Policy, Racing, Gaming and Licensing has risen to that challenge very successfully, but there needs to be a very close look at how we move forward. This is a crucial area for government. I commissioned this review, which will look at the capacity of Racing, Gaming and Licensing, particularly in the policy areas. It will look at some of the regulatory areas as well. The panel will be closely consulting with interested parties such as the Liquor Commission with whom they work closely, the hospitality industry, police, health and other agencies. Moving towards the new Liquor Act to go out to consultation next year, we want to ensure that we have an agency that is able to move with this new Liquor Act which will be more comprehensive in its approach to liquor and licensing issues that we have seen in the Northern Territory before. I wanted to put that on the record.
I also want to put on the record my deep appreciation for the officers who work in Racing, Gaming and Licensing, particularly Elizabeth Morris who heads up that area. With the Commonwealth intervention, she has been flat strap, working seven days a week along with Brenda Monahan and many others in that agency. There has been a mountain of work for them to get across. There has been incredible detail. They have been liaising with the Commonwealth in very difficult circumstances. They were very successful and I commend them for it, but now is the time to look at where we are going and what the resources and structures need to be within that crucial area.
The committee recommends that consistent with the National Drug Strategy a coordinated approach to substance abuse to be adopted by relevant government agencies with balanced initiatives on supply reduction, demand reduction and harm minimisation across all substances of abuse. It is important to note that there is currently a coordinated approach in place to develop, implement and evaluate strategies consistent with the National Drug Strategy 2004-2009 and elements of supply reduction, demand reduction and harm minimisation.
We also have in place the Northern Territory Police Remote Community Drug Desk, which continues to play a vital role in the battle against drugs in remote communities. As a former Police minister, I am pleased to see that the unit continues to achieve success with a significant number of arrests and summonses for drug trafficking offences. This success is vital to the wellbeing of many bush communities.
As is noted in the report, evidence suggests that cannabis is widespread in Aboriginal communities. The report also says that cannabis use is producing significant psychological and psychiatric harm and compounds the negative effects of poverty and unemployment. There also appears to be a strong link between cannabis use and suicide among Aboriginal people. In addition to the initiatives by the NT Police Remote Community Drug Desk, the Territory is continuing to develop an agency level partnership through the Department of Justice and Northern Territory Police through our alcohol courts and pre-court diversions. In 2005, our Alcohol and Other Drugs service identified service priorities in each region of the Territory on which we continue to act.
I have touched briefly on our plans for regional alcohol management plans. The process for the development and implementation of these alcohol management plans in each of the regional centres is and will continue to be advanced through a coordinated and consultative approach. Strategies identified are intended to address local concerns within existing resources where possible, however, longer term strategies that require ongoing or additional resources are always taken into consideration.
I am all about making connections with local communities and groups and taking the disconnection away. We have to make the connection, we have to engage, we have to understand what people are telling us and we have to move forward. Everyone wants to move forward and we cannot afford to have this disconnection any longer.
Each alcohol management plan is required to address key local issues under the elements of supply reduction, demand reduction and harm minimisation. Our alcohol management plans are based on three key strategies: reducing supply, harm and demand. The plans will evolve over time to meet changing circumstances and community needs and demands. Progress on the development of alcohol management plans varies across the Territory. Alice Springs now has public dry areas and new takeaway provisions in effect since 1 August 2007. Anecdotal evidence suggests a reduction in alcohol problems in Alice, including a 10% reduction in takeaway sales, 14% reduction in personal crime, 47% in sobering up shelter admissions, and 21% fewer admissions to hospital emergency departments.
For the Leader of the Opposition, I did table earlier today a document which I hope answers your questions about admissions to Alice Springs Hospital.
Ms Carney: Yes. Thank you.
Dr BURNS: The success of our efforts in Alice Springs suggests that we are heading in the right direction, but our approach must remain responsive and flexible because the nature of alcohol-related problems will continue to change.
Plans are also being developed for Katherine and Tennant Creek. Work is also progressing on the development of alcohol management plans for Palmerston, Timber Creek and Jabiru.
The committee visited Groote Eylandt and had a chance to view first hand the success of the permit system. This is a classic case of an alcohol strategy tailored specifically to respond to local circumstances and one which was developed in close consultation with the local community. The results speak for themselves. There has been a dramatic reduction in alcohol-related problems following the introduction of the permit system that allows takeaway sales to be monitored and managed.
A recent evaluation by the Menzies School of Health Research found the system on Groote Eylandt had resulted in 75% fewer cases of public drunkenness; a decline in apprehensions without arrest from 90 to 11; 52% less property crime; a 60% reduction in incidents of disturbance; a 67% drop in the number of police callouts for aggravated assault; and absenteeism for indigenous employees at the GEMCO mine dropped from 7.8% to 2.4%.
As I said earlier today, this is an example of an alcohol management plan that actually makes a connection. There was no disconnection in this plan. There was engagement, and the results are startling. These dramatic, positive results really underline what the committee’s report is aiming for. It is all about engagement and getting people to understand and support these measures.
As we move to restrict access to alcohol in certain regions, we must also acknowledge that some people will move from these areas to places where alcohol is more readily available. For instance, we are already hearing reports of people moving from Alice Springs to South Australia because of alcohol restrictions, most notably following the recent Dry Town declaration. The extent of the impact of the movement of people is being monitored by stakeholder agencies including Health and Community Services, NT Police, Local Government, Housing and Sport and the Department of Justice.
One of the keys to ensuring the best informed response to issues like substance abuse is effective data collection. Ensuring increased interaction between government agencies, non-government service providers and community organisations will produce timely and accurate collection and reporting of key statistical information on substance misuse trends. This data will be vital in our future efforts to address substance abuse, not just in our bush communities, but right across the Territory.
With the new Liquor Act coming out for consultation for next year, one of the things that I am keen to see embedded in that act is a wider look by the Liquor Commission on alcohol-related harm within a community. If a licence is given, it is not given on the strict rules that apply now, but there is a wider look at the potential harms that the licence or its renewal might cause. An effective way to make those decisions for the Liquor Commission is to have access to accurate data.
Currently, unfortunately, there is a mixture of data. If someone presents to the Accident and Emergency department of a regional hospital and they have been the victim of an assault by someone who is drunk, that might not necessary be recorded as being alcohol-related. It is a bit patchy, and I am very keen for the Health department, in particular, to make an effort to collect top quality data so that the Liquor Commission can make effective and reasonable decisions based on solid data.
The committee’s report has recommended a tax on alcohol. Of course, additional taxes and levies on alcohol are the sole province of the Commonwealth government. To date, the Australian Treasurer has shown absolutely no interest in looking at the issue of alcohol taxation reform. While the federal assistant Health minister did establish a working party of Commonwealth and Northern Territory government officers in early 2007 to explore the feasibility of introducing a floor price for alcohol, only preliminary work has occurred and the group has not met since the middle of the year. That is an issue that needs to be addressed.
The tragic picture portrayed via the pages of the committee’s report is, of course, a by-product of an even bigger social problem. Aboriginal Territorians living in the bush are suffering poor health outcomes, inadequate housing, inadequate education and high unemployment. This situation is not a problem unique to the Northern Territory, but one affecting Aboriginal people in most states of the Commonwealth. I argue that the degree and numbers of people affected in the Northern Territory far exceed other areas of Australia, which may share the same problems. However, we have a tragic picture right across the Territory and one that needs to be addressed.
The Australian government has acknowledged the extent of the challenges facing the Territory through its intervention. While the intervention has, for the present, turned the spotlight on the realities of day-to-day life in our bush communities and town camps, I know this House recognises there is no quick fix for the difficulties confronting Aboriginal Territorians or, in fact, Aboriginal Australians. The problems are long-standing, deeply ingrained and tightly enmeshed and they lie at the heart of much of the confusion and disconnection outlined in the committee’s report.
However, I am also of the view that, as difficult as the circumstances confronting many communities might be, there must also be a focus on individual responsibility, particularly in relation to substance abuse. Unless people accept responsibility for their choices and actions and show a willingness to make a change to their own lives, progress in addressing substance abuse will be limited, but we need to give them the support to be able to do that. Nevertheless, I accept that, as a government, we must continue to work towards improving our response to substance abuse by Aboriginal Territorians. We must do all in our power to minimise any confusion on the ground, because we can only achieve the best possible results in the battle against substance abuse when indigenous Territorians are properly and fully engaged in the process. In short, we must work to ensure our efforts are being directed in the most readily understood and culturally appropriate manner.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I have tried to cover the report extensively. I commend the committee for their report. There are some fantastic ideas and work there, and we need to be incorporating that in our policy across all portfolio areas that are pertinent to reduce alcohol related harm within the Northern Territory. I commend the committee’s report to the House.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Mr Deputy Speaker, the opportunity to speak to this report is one that I hold in a very special place because as a member of this committee, the work we undertook in dealing with our terms of reference was, without over stating it, the most significant experience I have had as a parliamentarian and as a Territorian who has been given the honour of responsibility in this Chamber.
All of us, myself included, had our own ideas and views. It was not until I had the opportunity to visit the communities, sit, listen and assess the situation on the ground from different people with varying types of feedback that I feel I am now qualified to speak with some greater authority and certainly with greater conviction on matters of profound importance.
I will say it again, and I think I have woven into every opportunity that I have had to speak in this place, unless we can forge a real response to the challenges that we speak about so often, a real response that effects measurable, real, noticeable change in families that are vulnerable, we have done nothing to be proud of.
To my fellow committee members, it was an honour to be alongside you as we travelled throughout the Territory. Our Chair, the member for Macdonnell, our Deputy Chair, the member for Port Darwin, and the members for Braitling, Daly, Katherine and I had a learning journey that affected each of us.
I must acknowledge the wonderful support that we received from the Secretary, Pat Hancock; Dr Brian Lloyd, our research officer; Kellie Trout, our research administrative assistant; and Kim Cowcher, our committee support assistant. Pat and Brian, who were with us right from the beginning, shared this journey and some of the moving challenges that we were presented with, most memorably for me at Wadeye.
It is the human story that sits beneath this that is the true motivation. If our motivation is ideology or doing the right thing politically, it will be insufficient to make the difference. The problem that we encountered, being that idea that there is disconnection and confusion, arises from the anchor of our activities in many cases being in the wrong place. It has been organisational in its objective to meet the needs of an organisation, perhaps to meet the needs or demands or the influence of an ideological approach, or perhaps it is just an ill-informed approach garnered from a focus group, I do not know. The anchor for our response will determine the quality of our response. What members found was that if the anchor of our response, the root of our response, is with the families, with the men, women and children, if it is a response to them, then the response will be powerful.
That is how I see that we have as a result of the root being in different places and not directly on the person, we have as a result confusion and disconnection. The disconnection is from people. There might be a connection from idea to idea, policy to policy, agency to agency, but it has to connect to people, the people about whom the whole exercise is about and the core issue.
It was eye opening. The most important aspect of it for me was that it is not a case for disillusionment or discouragement - quite the opposite. We all know that there is a problem. We have spoken about it so many times in this Chamber. I feel as though every second speech I give in this Chamber is a response to this matter. Effectively as a result of the experience that I have had through being a member of this committee, my language has changed. My understanding has increased, and my responsibility now weighs heavily, but I have been buoyed.
I think members of the committee would share this sentiment: there is cause for hope. There is cause for confidence because we saw in each of those communities, even the ones where we did not expect to see it, cause for hope. We saw it written in the faces of courageous men and women who had made decisions in the face of quite terrible odds and circumstances that are beyond the experience of many people, certainly in this Chamber.
Visiting these places was a privilege. As we have spoken of Groote Eylandt, we should not quickly visit that place and take away the good news without recognising why there is good news there. At the heart of the experience that community has gone through is the challenge that sits behind the report. If we talk about confronting the confusion and disconnection, it cannot be confronted with a quickly formed position. The counterfeit cannot contend with the real thing. We saw the real thing in Groote Eylandt, and that was people who had the vision woven deeply into them. They had not subscribed to an idea and conformed to a plan or policy; the plan and policy became a part of them. That is the key.
Once the idea, the purpose of the whole exercise, becomes a part of the community in the lives of the language of the people, then you can have change. It is too tempting to say: ‘Oh, that seems to work’, grab the whole structure and plant it in another place. You cannot plant it in another place and expect the same results if it is not planted in the lives of the people. We saw that in Groote Eylandt. I would urge great caution before people grab what has happened in Groote Eylandt and plant it all over the place.
Why is it successful in Groote Eylandt? How is it that it is a part of the people there? It is because they persevered with it. They battled, they fought, they argued, they compromised until they came to a place where they could all agree on it. They travelled a difficult journey. That is the difficult part of this. Policy was the business they discussed, but it was personal decisions, giving and taking, working hard, battling until they finally came to a position they could agree on. It is the journey itself that produced the results, not the magical policy. We would like to go in and just pick that up because it seems to work and put it over there. It is a bit like seeing a beautiful plant, breaking it off the bush and thinking it will continue to be beautiful. In a moment it will wilt unless it is connected to the plant, the tree, the roots, and the roots go deep. That is the challenge, and that challenge stands there and speaks to us.
We have tried to say on many occasions that is the heart of this. That is what will confront confusion and disconnection, when we have the courage to push through some of the political temptations that we have for short-term solutions, or we fall prey to crafting our response to attack a certain approach because it comes from a political opponent and not see through it and to see what the heart of it is. The heart of it is: why is it that people want to drink so much? Why is it they want to abuse substances? Why? The sort of strength that you need to answer that question I found in Groote Eylandt and I found the demand for a proper response in the faces of the people we met at Wadeye.
I was deeply concerned by the discussions that we had, as reported in the report of service providers, who seemed to be individually working very hard within a particular paradigm. It is in a fragmented context when people are undertaking individual enterprises and exercises that are borne out of an organisational approach. It is not too difficult to see that its organisational objectives that are met, which are not the purpose of the exercise. Real power is released when we start connecting with people.
A question I asked at one stage when I was trying to work out why we were not completely satisfied with the approach, and it is summed up in this, and the challenge fits with me as well: when you have a briefing on a coordinated approach of policy implementation within a particular area and you have all the language surrounding the description of an initiative or an approach, after a while you start to think it is all about the initiative, the approach, the resources that are required, if only you had $100 000 or another person then we would be able to do this, that and the other, and I wondered whether anyone in that group who were delivering programs, or describing a program that could be delivered if only they had the resources, how many of them spoke the language of the people that they were wanting to effect positive changes for. None of them. Contained therein is the issue.
It is not an easy thing to learn another language, particularly for a European Australian. We have grown up with this stupid idea that we are monolingual and everyone has to learn our language. The greatest respect is paid when you make the effort to learn someone else’s language. Once you have learned that language, you have the capacity to connect. That breaks the disconnect and that will help erode the confusion. Making the effort to learn the language should be a part of the program, genuine cross-cultural training so you really know the mind of the other. It is that sort of approach we need to take. Otherwise we are not connecting with people; we are embarking on exercises that are organisational in their nature that may allow us to tick organisational boxes but, sadly, will condemn us at a later stage in the lives of those who leave us too early.
I urge members to read contributions to this debate carefully, particularly from those who were a part of this exercise. My comments largely refer to an attitude or approach that under-girds a framework. It came up again, just as the member for Johnston made reference to the Living With Alcohol framework. I have heard in this place in recent times: ‘Yes, but we do not want a one-size-fits-all’, so we will have different little responses, basically borne out of the exciting thing that happened over here. We will plant it there and cut a bit off here and implement it there, chuck a bit of resourcing in, issue a media release and we have had a response. I urge those who have the reins of power now to revisit that issue of a comprehensive overarching framework that is properly coordinated.
I heard the Chief Minister today saying there are only 2400 people. Isn’t this a wonderful opportunity for us all to subscribe to some core principles as a whole community and begin to work based on a unified approach? It does not mean the response in every particular community is identical, but it should be based on exactly the same principles, an overarching framework that we can understand and articulate which is reinforced through education, harm reduction approaches, legal approaches and rehabilitation. The same principles are being echoed again and again.
The Living With Alcohol framework has been mentioned in this debate in this Chamber. We learnt it provided a cohesive approach, consistency, and that centre point of coordination that drove real outcomes.
Whether that is the approach or not, it was clear when we agreed that confronting the confusion and disconnection largely arises from lack of coordination and cohesion with the approach. We are all saying similar things in response to a clear problem, but there is no proper central coordination. There is no central theme that we can all understand. The agencies are working, many times, against the interests of the community and resources are, therefore, being wasted. The purpose of resources is to effect a positive change in a family, a community, people who most need it.
There are some underlying challenges in this report, and they are not challenges that have been provocatively placed; they are a sincere response to the things that were seen. When we visited these places, we spoke to quietly-spoken people who have taken responsibility for some serious challenges in their community. It is that simple language, core message, plain vision, unified principles that will guide our response and so that we are all in it together. We are not doing something for those poor people over there and we are okay. We are all in it. That is what a previous approach showed. We heard again and again that there was an approach taken, a coordinated, consistent, cohesive response that was proposed, developed and implemented in the Territory that captured the attention of the nation. It is absolutely clear that we need a similar response from the hearings that we conducted with practitioners as well as those who are receiving services.
Once again, I thank my colleagues from this committee. This has made the difference to my time in this parliament. The challenges that I personally faced will stay with me and I only hope that I can live up to the challenges and make some difference as a result of what I have seen by being on this committee. I commend this report to honourable members. I urge you to weigh carefully the challenges that are woven into it because it reports on people, real people, fellow Territorians who need our leadership.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Family and Community Services): Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to speak in support the Substance Abuse report. I have a deep personal interest in this issue. The member for Macdonnell’s report covers a wide range of substance abuse and many speakers before me, including the Minister for Alcohol Policy, have talked about the ravages of alcohol. We have also heard, from previous reports, about marijuana and the impact of other illicit drugs on people.
I want to focus on one element of that, which is the abuse of volatile substances and in particular petrol sniffing. Petrol sniffing had been a scourge of many of our communities for many years. It was destroying our children, debilitating indigenous communities, and leading to crime and antisocial behaviour in our towns. I was the Chair of the Select Committee on Substance Abuse which presented an interim report to parliament in February 2003. That report identified the unacceptable levels of harm resulting from petrol sniffing. It identified that there were 30 remote communities particularly affected by sniffing and that there were an estimated 350 chronic sniffers, many of whom had suffered permanent brain damage. The emotional and financial cost to communities was severe and avoidable. This dire situation needed powerful action to end the tragedies.
In 2005, we saw the introduction of the biggest initiative in fighting substance abuse seen in the Northern Territory with the introduction of the Violate Substance Abuse Prevention Act. This act banned volatile substance inhalation; it enacted police powers to seize inhalants such as petrol, glue and paint where they are being abused; gave police powers to apprehend the people under the influence of volatile substances, and to take them to a place of safety; and gave courts the capacity to order compulsory treatment programs for serial substance abusers.
The legislation banned petrol sniffing but did not criminalise it. Prison sentences were not part of the deal; instead, the act introduced a strong emphasis on prevention and the rehabilitation and treatment of those affected by inhalant misuse. Communities themselves would continue to play a key role in defining, developing and implementing volatile substance abuse prevention and treatment programs. In many communities, traditional family-based programs and approaches had no legal status. The new act gave that legislative base while ensuring that community control remained at the core of the solution.
Services in Darwin and Alice Springs were established, including safe houses in urban areas and outstations in remote areas. The services are family-focused and work intensively one-on-one with affected young people. They provide a range of life skills, educational and recreational programs, and continue to work with young people once they return to their family and community.
Madam Speaker, this legislation and the services it introduced was ground breaking, a first in Australia. It was certainly an initiative about saving our kids. It was about keeping them alive and keeping them healthy. In doing so, we are helping the whole community and reducing crime and antisocial behaviour. Since the act was implemented, some communities with a more entrenched chronic sniffing problem have relied on the compulsory treatment provisions as an immediate response. Others have used a management plan process in the search and seizure approach to prevent the escalation of petrol sniffing in their communities.
The act has now been in operation for nearly two years and has had some very positive outcomes: 96 people have been referred for assessment under the compulsory treatment provisions; six communities have a declared management area, one in the Top End and five in Central Australia; one community close to the member for Macdonnell’s heart, Papunya, has an approved management plan in effect; 14 other communities have applied for a declaration of community management areas; two-thirds of residential services have been funded to support the legislation.
In Darwin, CAPS provides eight beds for VSA clients and, since 2006, has treated 48 clients. In Alice Springs, the Drug and Alcohol Services Association is providing adult residential services for up to 10 clients. In July of this year, the expanded facility of Aranda House was opened, which is a great facility for the Centre. The vacated facility in Schwartz Crescent will become the site for a new youth residential service to be operated by Bush Mob. This will provide accommodation for 11 young people affected by volatile substance abuse, and there are outstation programs for petrol sniffing at Ilpurla and Mt Theo.
When tabling the select committee report, the member for Macdonnell spoke about the terrible harm caused by substance abuse and the terrible price paid by communities, but she also spoke about the good things that are happening to address the issue. I was listening to the member for Blain when he was talking about what he saw in his travels. The more we are exposed, the more we see the ravages of grog and substance abuse in our communities.
The member for Braitling talked about the need to put wet canteens on communities. That was the big disgrace with the intervention; it was going to impose wet canteens on communities which did not want wet canteens because they had lost many young lives because of the scourge of petrol sniffing. Many families saw loved ones return to the communities in a wooden box. No one wants to see that. People do not want to continually be bearing the cycle of grief in our communities every day.
During the election campaign, I was at Maningrida and there were five funerals held in one day. Those funerals were for family members who had been living in Darwin and, because of alcohol, and were being taken back to their communities. It is an horrific problem. It is complex. I know prohibition does not work and I have always said that. I fully support my colleague, the member for Johnston, the Health minister, who stressed the need to look at harm minimisation. I have always said that. I know prohibition does not work, but we do have to look what is a multi-pronged strategy for dealing with a very complex issue.
The member for Macdonnell and the committee have done a fantastic job. We need to continually point out the impact of substance abuse on individuals, families and communities. It needs to be addressed.
The member for Blain said we need to get non-government organisations and our agencies talking. Places like Wadeye need better coordination so that children and women particularly who suffer the violence can be protected. The end result is that we should not have to continually see indigenous people at the top of every cohort, particularly Health where the rate of chronic illness is alarming, yet most of them are preventable. We should be able to reverse that. One lives in hope that all the programs and initiatives we have and the work that we need to do with the federal government will ensure that any financial commitment is targeted and strategic. We need to look at how those areas can make a difference, particularly to women and children, but families and communities, and that we will one day see an end the constant grieving cycle that we see in many of our remote communities.
We only have to look at Darwin to see the impact of alcohol when a lot of our mob leave the communities and come into town. During the recent election campaign, I noticed nearly 200 people missing from my electorate, many of whom I see around Darwin. That has been one of the impacts of the intervention. People have been afraid and they have moved in. We have to try to reverse that and get people to go home and be engaged in employment and other activities on their community and to get away from the grog that is killing them.
I often had a joke with Mark Sweet, the head of Telstra, when they were rolling out the 3G network in our communities by saying: ‘Forget about Telstra coming up with 3Gs. Our communities have already thought of that’, because a constant joke in a lot of our communities is the big 3Gs: grog, ganga and gambling. If we do not deal with this stuff now, we are going to lose another generation and we will see that cycle continue. As well as substance abuse, we have to be brave enough to look at child school attendance and poverty in our communities, we have to be honest and look at the underlying issues with gambling and its associated problems.
I commend the member for Macdonnell and the Select Committee on Substance Abuse in the Community. They had a look at many communities. Previously, as the Chair of the select committee, I had the good fortune of working with Pat Hancock and many of the staff. They do a fantastic job of supporting members and I know that the member for Macdonnell certainly enjoyed that. I welcome the report.
Ms ANDERSON (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I thank the Deputy Chief Minister and the Health minister for their positive contributions on the report and thank my parliamentary colleagues on the committee.
It has really been an eye opener for those people who have not experienced substance abuse and poverty that come together in communities and the lack of school attendance. It has also been an eye opener for many of the committee members to see the good things that people are doing on these communities.
Before I conclude my remarks on the report, I take this opportunity to say a very special thank you to Pat Hancock for her commitment to the committee, to Brian and the other secretariat staff because without their support, the committee cannot do anything. They are a group of people who bring us together and keep us focused on our terms of reference and make sure that good reports such as this are tabled to direct to parliament and government, hopefully, to good policies to overcome these problems.
As Chair of the Select Committee on Substance Abuse in the Community, I want to make some closing remarks on the tabling debate arising from its report Overcoming the Confusion and Disconnection. I thank other members who contributed to the debate, the members for Katherine, Daly, Braitling, Port Darwin and Blain. I also note the statement on Alcohol Policy made by the Minister for Health. We as a committee welcome the seriousness with which alcohol is being addressed in the Territory and we look forward to more opportunities for progress on this critical issue.
In my tabling statement, I made a number of points. I will remind my fellow members of what I said. When I opened the debate, I warned against the temptation for us all to be alarmed at the situation on substance abuse in remote communities and then do nothing. In fact, what the report shows is that we can do something. As the report suggests, a combination of rehabilitation, reduction of supply and recreation form a killer combination and providing consistent funding for these measures offers the promise of better results in the future.
I also emphasised the importance of community responsibility, community engagement and community negotiation. The report clearly shows that these are essential elements of successful, sustainable interventions on substance abuse. Although we may at times become discouraged by the scale of problems people face in remote communities, we have a body of good practice and a bunch of good people in place doing good things.
The Ilpurla Rehabilitation Centre is one and Mt Theo is another. We have so many committed people who want to help their own people be successful and overcome the problems of substance abuse. The report shows we can do more to support them in their good work. Wonderful things happen when substance abuse is halted. There is space to think about other challenges, get kids to school, preventative measures and alcohol management plans. The alcohol management plan at Groote Eylandt is a great example of this. With positive approaches such as these, communities can look to the future with more optimism.
I will now consider the contributions of my committee colleagues to the debate. The points they have made are worth highlighting. As the member for Katherine suggested in her speech during the tabling debate, the select committee has been notable for its bipartisan approach. There has been a high level of cooperation amongst members, and a sincere commitment to workable and sustainable outcomes. I agree with the member for Katherine that the Groote Eylandt hearings were inspiring. As she said, the committee was surprised by how much work had been going on that we were not aware of, and we were relieved to see such happy community members due to the work they had done.
I want to go back to what the member for Blain said earlier: not one size fits all. One of the things we have seen with the Groote Eylandt plan was that it grew out of the people of Groote, indigenous and non-indigenous people. Its leaves reached out to other residents so it was a tree that grew out of that community and bore the fruit for everyone in that community. They are the kind of initiatives that we want to see and we want them driven by people in the community.
As the member for Katherine suggested, we all saw, as a committee, the challenges and the difficulties of housing shortages and the multi-stranded nature of the problems in housing, education, health and employment that all add to the problems of substance abuse. This is why coordination has been such an important part of the committee’s recommendations in this instance.
The member for Daly reminded members of the regional focus of the committee’s inquiry, the constraints between communities to the west and east of Alice Springs, and the sense that some communities are so much better at managing and containing substance abuse. As a committee, we thought it was important to identify why this is so and whether there were things in strong communities that can be spread among others.
The member for Daly also emphasised the importance of looking at cases of substance abuse and not blaming the victim. He also noted the importance of education campaigns and highlighted how they rely on adequate levels of education for community members. As for the committee as a whole, the member for Daly underscored the importance of community involvement and ownership and the importance of our recommendations that community audits be employed to draw on the strength of communities in tackling these problems.
When the member for Braitling spoke, she highlighted, with some justification, our report as a strong, intelligent report. She also talked about how confronting it can be to go into communities and hear people tell it as it is. When things are tough, it is true that this can be hard. We are grateful to people in the communities for their honesty and commitment in sharing their stories. That is one thing about indigenous people in communities: they have become overburdened with so many problems such as overcrowding, poor health, poor education and poor roads. There is no respite in a community for people to do anything because it is just problem after problem. As a government, we have to work in a coordinated fashion with true consultation and real partnership with these people to overcome some of these problems.
The member for Braitling emphasised the key importance of adopting a coordinated approach and reform of the funding process. She also underscored the importance of raising funds from specific resources dedicated to harm reduction and preventative measures and the importance of there being a coordinated body for alcohol policy.
The committee as a whole came to the view, as suggested by the member for Braitling, that recreation was an important part of the substance abuse equation. It is critical that it receives sufficient emphasis and that it be properly resourced. The committee saw many good programs, and putting more resources into this would be consistent with a greater emphasis on prevention that the committee would like to see in the overall approach to substance abuse.
The member for Port Darwin, in her contribution, reminded us again of the good news that we found over the course of our inquiry. We saw so many strong, inspiring people and programs at Docker River, Mt Theo, Harts Range, Larapinta Learning Centre and Groote Eylandt amongst others. It is true that we have a strong base of good practice and established programs all over to do good things in the field of substance abuse. We need to make sure we get in behind them in the best way possible to provide sufficient support for them so that they can make a significant difference to the situation across the Territory that has been responsible for great harm over the years.
Madam Speaker, in the opening moments of my speech today, I highlighted the seriousness of alcohol issues in the Territory. In closing, I want to return to this theme and to talk a little about the changes happening now. We all know the important things that have happened in respect of alcohol in the Northern Territory over the last six months. We are also welcoming in a new federal government and, unusually, we will have Labor governments in both the Commonwealth and Territory. I see this as a unique opportunity to continue the good work on alcohol and helping people in the communities in partnership with the Rudd Labor government.
I am sure that this is a one-in-a-lifetime opportunity, as I said about the intervention. The intervention for Aboriginal people is a one-in-a-lifetime opportunity to make things better and it should not be about whether we are a Labor government and there being a federal Coalition government. It is about us having compassion and a human element to do something as human beings for other human beings. As human beings, we need to get things right for indigenous people in this country.
I am sure that the other members of the committee will agree with me when I ask all members not only to register the fundamental importance of these matters, but also to ensure that the needs of remote communities not be forgotten among all the present changes, federal and Territory, in which we find ourselves.
Let us keep this on the agenda and see it through. We have made some good beginnings and following through must be a central part of what we do from now on both as a Territory and in partnership with the Commonwealth.
I want to end by saying that this has been a hard journey, a journey that comes to an end as we deliver our report to this House. I hope it is not a journey that is forgotten by this parliament and that members of government do something and listen to the recommendations of the committee.
I hear many people talking about the intervention, saying that there are good and bad things about it, but when there is a national crisis and emergency, it means that things are bad. We know that things are bad in our communities. We attend the funerals. We know that our children are being raped. We know that our women are being violated and it takes guts for someone to do something. That has been shown by the introduction of the intervention.
It is up to us as a society now not to normalise that behaviour and make sure that we work in partnership and do not forget the things in the Little Children are Sacred report. We must help these people overcome the problems of alcoholism and drugs. I saw with great interest in the Centralian Advocate only a week ago on the front page that 60% of our kids are now on marijuana, ganja, and that is another focus that we are going to have.
In closing, I thank my fellow committee members and to the committee secretariat. I hope as I stand here in front of you in this parliament that government does take notice of the recommendations of this report.
Members: Hear, hear!
Motion agreed to; report noted.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Growing Industry Capability
to Support Defence
Growing Industry Capability
to Support Defence
Mr VATSKALIS (Defence Support): Madam Speaker, I rise to deliver a statement that recognises the valuable contribution Defence makes to the Northern Territory economy and community, and to report on an important initiative of the Northern Territory government and the Northern Territory branch of the Australian Industry and Defence Network, AIDN-NT: the implementation of the Defence Support Industry Development Strategy.
Defence has played an important role in the development of the Northern Territory since the establishment of Fort Dundas on Melville Island in 1824. To date, around 10% of all Australian permanent Defence force personnel are based in the Northern Territory. Almost 13 000 Defence personnel and families reside in the Northern Territory, making up about 6% of our population.
Defence personnel posted to the Northern Territory often deliver an added bonus to our community. Their wives, husbands and partners represent an important part of our community and workforce. They often bring skills and experience eagerly sought by industry, the public service and non-government organisations. They include teachers, nurses, childcare workers, shop assistants, secretaries, small business owners, skilled tradespeople and the list goes on. They all enjoy the Territory lifestyle while importantly contributing to the growth of the Northern Territory’s economy and population.
Defence recurrent expenditure in the Northern Territory in 2005-06 totalled $954m. Close to 50% of this comprised salaries paid to Defence personnel. The flow on effect of Defence salaries as private consumption expenditure continues to be an important contributor to the Territory’s economic turnover.
Defence, of course, is also an important contributor to the regional economies of the Northern Territory. Pine Gap in Alice Springs accounts for about 12% of the local population, while Katherine receives about $20m into its economy from the RAAF presence at Tindal each year.
Defence also contributes to other regions and indigenous communities through the operation of NORFORCE, which I understand is the largest employer of indigenous people in the Territory. Also we are advised by the Navy that Darwin is the busiest naval port in Australia. On average, Darwin hosts over 60 visits by major naval vessels per year. While in port, the crews spend their money on a diverse range of items and activities spread across the economy. These include accommodation, meals, drinks, tours, transport, clothing, tourist gifts, computer hardware and software, audio and video hardware, and music and video discs.
Our construction industry in particular has benefited from the diverse presence in the Northern Territory over the past 12 years since the ‘Army Presence in the North’ project started in earnest.
Defence has recently outlined his plans to spend an estimated $250m over the next five years on infrastructure developments and refurbishments at the RAAF Bases at Darwin and Tindal and the Army base at Robertson Barracks. Over and above this, the project called Single Living Environment and Accommodation Precinct will see the construction or refurbishment of 3535 living-in accommodation units for single personnel Australia-wide at an estimated cost of $1.2bn. Some 918 of these units to be upgraded are allocated at Larrakeyah Barracks and Robertson Barracks.
The Defence Housing Authority is also a major contributor to the economy, managing over 2200 properties in the Northern Territory. New housing developments at Lyons and Muirhead are groundbreaking initiatives, with over $170m invested by the Defence Housing Authority in Lyons alone.
Aside from Defence spending on infrastructure, Defence is making considerable investment in equipment and the sustainment of that equipment. The Defence Materiel Organisation, known as the DMO, is planning to spend $100bn on the acquisition of equipment such as new artillery and sustainment of such equipment over the coming decade.
For our local Defence support businesses to capture contracts and opportunities to participate in Defence-related projects, they need to understand the environment in which they operate and ensure they have the credentials, capability and capacity required and, importantly, be well networked with decision makers within Defence and its prime contractors.
The Defence industry environment is a complex one. It is an environment guided by a number of government strategies and policies. The Australian government’s Defence White Paper, Defence 2000: Our Future Defence Force, sets out the Australian government’s decisions about Australia’s strategic policy for the current decade. The 2000 White Paper has been a key determinant in the direction of Australia’s Defence forces.
Another plank of the Defence policy architecture is the Defence Capability Plan 2006-2016. This provides the Defence industry with guidance that enables broad business planning. It details the approved and planned major capital equipment proposals for that period. The Defence Capability Plan is an important point of reference for the Northern Territory government and local industry in that it describes future projects, their scope, the related through-life support requirements, major decision points and predicated values of projects of contracts.
The Defence and Industry Policy Statement 2007 is a more recent addition to the Defence policy architecture. It defines how a partnership between Defence and industry will determine Australia’s priority capabilities, the expectations of industry and the operating environment to be shaped. The policy details the key strategies that Defence and industry need to pursue over future years.
As I said earlier, the Defence industry operates in a complex environment and for our local industry to grow and align its capabilities to capture Defence-related work it must do so in an organised and strategic way.
Today I am pleased to table the Northern Territory Defence Support Industry Development Strategy 2007-2017, which was jointly released yesterday by the President of the Northern Territory branch of the Australian Industry and Defence Network, Mr Mark Smith, and the Northern Territory government. Establishing this strategy has been a joint initiative of AIDN-NT and the Northern Territory government and is a milestone event for government and the Defence support industry.
The strategy aims to identify industry development priorities to ensure that benefits and opportunities offered by the Defence presence in the Northern Territory are not lost, but are realised through the provision of high quality, reliable support to Defence. The strategy articulates the priorities and directions that the Northern Territory industry, with the support of the Northern Territory government, must address over the coming decade if it is to optimise its engagement in the Defence sector.
In developing this strategy, AIDN-NT and the Northern Territory government agreed on a vision and mission for industry which would guide the strategic directions. The vision and mission were developed incorporating input from consultation with industry and Defence and are consistent with those of government and AIDN-NT. The vision for the industry is:
- A strong, sustainable and growing defence support industry with capability aligned to the needs of Defence.
The mission agreed by AIDN-NT and government is:
- To work in partnership to grow the capability of the Northern Territory defence support industry to support Defence, capturing a greater share of Defence spending related to its Northern Territory operations, securing substantial benefits for business, Defence and the Northern Territory economy.
Both AIDN-NT and the government were conscious that the strategy needed to be consistent with and complementary to existing Defence and Defence industry policy, but must also be relevant to local industry. The strategy needed to capture the views and issues of the local industry, as well as prime contractors, Defence and other stakeholders. AIDN-NT and the government agreed to a strategy development process that would enable us to capture the broadest possible input. This included the engagement of an internationally renowned Defence industry consultant, Mr Peter Smith of BartonVale Technologies, who, in partnership with a local consultant, assisted in shaping the strategy and ensuring that key stakeholders were engaged and consulted throughout the process.
During April and May 2007, 500 copies of a discussion paper were distributed to stakeholders, informing them of the key issues related to the industry, inviting them to participate in the consultative process and provide input to the development of the strategy. The discussion paper and a more detailed background information paper were also placed on my Department of Business, Economic and Regional Development’s website, which received almost 1000 hits.
The strength of this industry development strategy lies in the level of the consultation undertaken, the level of input delivered by stakeholders and the consequential level of ownership by stakeholders. I should mention that comments received from the Minister for Defence, a number of professional organisations and industry commended the Northern Territory government and AIDN-NT on this initiative, and paid tribute to the quality of the consultative process and the substance of the discussion paper.
Consultative forums were held in Darwin, Katherine and Alice Springs and were attended by over 100 representatives from Defence and industry. I had the pleasure of attending one of these forums in Darwin and was encouraged by the level of interest shown by the large number of industry members present and the contributions that they made. In addition to these forums, the consultant also undertook face-to-face consultations with a number of local industry members to ensure all issues were canvassed and input captured.
AIDN-NT and the government recognise that while this is a strategy for the Northern Territory Defence support industry, it needed to reflect the views of Defence, which is the industry’s number one client, and those of the prime contractors. All of these are headquartered interstate. With the support of the consultant, face-to-face consultations were undertaken with Department of Defence officials in Canberra and chief executive officers of Defence prime contractors around Australia.
The consultations with key Defence officials included: Head of the Industry Division of the Defence Materiel Organisation, Mr Kerry Clarke; Director of Industry Police, Industry Division, Eddie Ho; Chief Operating Officer of the Defence Support Group, Ms Chris Bee; Director General Army Preparation, Brigadier Mick Slater; and Chief of Staff and Head of Strategic Programs, Defence Science and Technology, Mr Steve Pendry.
Consultations with prime contractors included: Chief Executive Officer, Defence Maritime Services, Mr Greg Hodge in Sydney; Chief Executive, Thales Australia, Mr Norm Gray, in Sydney; Executive General Manager, Tenix Defence Land Systems, Mr Ian Sharpe, also in Sydney; CEO, Australian Aerospace, Joseph Saporito, in Brisbane; Managing Director, General Dynamics Land Systems, Mark Diedrich in Melbourne; and Chief Executive, BAE Systems, Mr Jim McDowell in Adelaide.
Written submissions were also received from key stakeholders including: Lieutenant General David Hurley; Chief Capability Development Executive, Mr Roger Lough; Chief Defence Scientist, Defence Science and Technology Organisation; and Professor Helen Garnett, Vice-Chancellor, Charles Darwin University. This demonstrates that every effort was made to ensure a broad range of consultations were undertaken across the length and breadth of the industry.
While the preparation of this strategy has been a joint effort between industry and government, it is clearly a strategy which industry owns and can see its imprint. It is a strategy which industry has grasped, taken ownership of, and will now start to implement.
I thank all those who contributed their time and views to the preparation of this strategy. Without such input, the strategy would not be what it is: a foundation stone for the future development of the Northern Territory Defence support industry.
Prior to finalising the strategy, the outcomes of the consultation were reported to industry to test the validity of the assumptions and conclusions drawn from the input received from Defence and industry. That strategy was then provided to industry and the DMO for comment prior to final endorsement by the AIDN-NT executive and Northern Territory Cabinet. Again, this demonstrates the rigorous process followed by AIDN-NT and the government in developing this strategy and ensuring that best policy development practice has been followed.
During consultation, industry and Defence identified a number of areas that should be addressed and actioned as necessary in order to develop a growth industry. These have been coalesced into seven major points of focus, which are: workforce development; building business capability; linking industry to opportunity; profiling and promoting industry capability; developing strategic infrastructure; establishing strategic partnerships; and research and development. The strategy describes each point of focus and lists strategic directions that stakeholders believe important. The strategy also identifies those organisations that could contribute in a collaborative approach to achieving a successful outcome.
In developing the strategy, consideration was given to placing it within the existing policies and plans to which I referred earlier. In particular, the Defence and Industry Policy Statement 2007 has been an important touchstone for the development of the Northern Territory strategy.
During my meeting with the Minister for Defence in Canberra on 13 June 2007, we agreed on the importance of the integration of the two policy platforms and that the Northern Territory strategy would contribute to the outcomes sought by the national policy statement.
The issues described in the Defence and Industry Policy Statement bear many similarities to those identified during consultation for the Northern Territory strategy and the strategies detailed in the national policy will underpin the implementation of the Northern Territory Defence Support Industry Development Strategy.
This strategy also has links to the Northern Territory Economic Development Framework released in August 2006. The framework forms the basis for future economic and industry development in the Territory. It sets a clear direction for making decisions in the knowledge that Northern Territory stakeholders have a shared sense of direction. The framework’s vision is to build a prosperous, dynamic and sustainable economic future for the Territory. This Defence Support Industry Development Strategy aims to advance the vision through identifying and pursuing industry development priorities for the period 2007 to 2017.
I will now talk briefly of some of the key points of focus within the strategy and their importance to developing the industry. A major focus of the strategy is an issue familiar to all Territory business, and that is workforce development. Skills and labour shortages are a critical issue for industry across Australia. The Northern Territory and the Defence Support Industry are no exception, with strong demand from the resource sector for skills and labour common to both sectors. There are many definitions of ‘workforce development’. AIDN-NT and the Northern Territory government have chosen the following as a suitable definition for its purposes:
- Workforce Development is a combination of attracting, retaining and managing the workforce, managing the size and composition of the workforce and skilling that workforce.
An estimated 12 000 new employees will be needed in the defence industry sector nationally over the next decade; 75% of these will be required in the trade areas and 25% need to be engineering or trade qualified project management personnel. While the Northern Territory requirement may only be a proportion of this, it will be a challenge to meet the demand. The Northern Territory government and AIDN-NT have initiatives already underway and are addressing workforce development issues.
The Department of Employment, Education and Training released Jobs Plan 3 in 2007. Jobs Plan 3 is a long-term strategy to create a highly skilled and flexible workforce and to maximise employment opportunities for all Territorians. The Northern Territory Occupational Shortage Employer Incentive Scheme is part of the Northern Territory government’s Jobs Plan 3 and provides a financial incentive for businesses in the private sector to employ additional apprentices and trainees in areas with identified occupational shortages.
The government also provides a financial bonus to apprentices and trainees to assist them to meet the cost of work gear, safety gear and other work-related costs in their first year. There is an additional bonus for those employed in an identified skills shortage area. In addition, the government’s Workready program provides students with an additional pathway to help them transition from school to work. Workready is a school-to-work transition program that aims to assist and encourage Year 11 and 12 school students to take part in structured vocational education and training, VET, that leads to school-based apprenticeships and hopefully an ongoing apprenticeship.
This is just a selection of initiatives with the Jobs Plan will support workers’ development the Northern Territory and which is providing a foundation for implementing workforce development strategic directions contained in the strategy. AIDN-NT has also recently launched its Defence Education and Learning program, which aims to improve the management and operational capabilities for the Northern Territory defence support industry.
Defence Education and Learning is providing nationally accredited training in project management and a range of topics related to tendering to Defence. It is an excellent initiative by AIDN-NT and, like Jobs Plan 3, contributes to the workforce development strategic directions of the strategy. If we are to build the capabilities of Northern Territory defence support businesses to compete with interstate suppliers for Defence work, to gain Defence approvals and to operate in accordance with Defence requirements, Building Business Capabilities should be one of the cornerstones of the industry development. This is the second point of focus in the strategy.
The arrival in the Territory of Network Centric Warfare systems, the Armidale Class Patrol Boats, Abrams tanks, Tiger helicopters and a variety of other new platforms bring new and highly complex technology. As the complexity of Defence platforms increases, so does the need for businesses to demonstrate their ability to support these platforms. Northern Territory businesses will need to develop key technical capabilities if they are to participate in the evolving technology layer delivered by prime contractors. However, business systems such as quality assurance, occupational health and safety, project management and reporting must also be developed to the required level.
I am pleased to advise that AIDN-NT and DBERD have again partnered, this time to initiate a visitation program for groups of local SMEs to visit selected Defence prime contractors and SME facilities interstate in order to gain a better perspective of the Defence support environment and the business systems and accreditations applied by prime contractors. Last week, the first of these delegations comprising five business representatives visited Defence prime contractors interstate. The delegation visited the General Dynamics Land System and Tenix Defence facilities in Adelaide, the Tenix Defence operations in Bandiana and the Thales Bushmaster manufacturing plant in Bendigo, Victoria. Importantly, the tour provided the opportunity for delegates to gain an understanding of what is required to participate in the supply chains of these prime contractors. Each Northern Territory delegate was also given the opportunity to promote their individual business capabilities to these prime contractors.
The delegation toured the facilities of each of these large national and multinational contractors to gain a better understanding of the infrastructure, equipment, systems and procedures that they employ in Defence-related contracts. Financial assistance of $10 000 was provided from the Industry Development Support Program to AIDN-NT to subsidise delegates’ travel and accommodation costs. DBERD, through its Territory Business Up-Skills program, provides workshops for business owners and managers to improve their business management skills and capabilities. The department has, in the past, provided training in tendering to Defence, developing a business profile and project management, specifically for the Defence support industry. The Department’s Business Growth Program also offers information, funding and development services to enhance business performance, profitability, employment levels and market penetration. These important programs will help build the business capabilities required and contribute to the success of the strategy.
The third point of focus in the strategy is about Linking Industry to Opportunity. Northern Territory SMEs are often unaware of the upcoming Defence opportunities. There is a need for Northern Territory Defence support businesses to be able to access information in relation to Defence projects and tender opportunities relevant to the Northern Territory quickly and easily to enable them to establish networks with primes or to cluster and tender in a timely manner. While there are a number of strategic directions detailed in the strategy, I can report that AIDN-NT has already implemented an Extranet for its members, which provides information relating to Defence contracts.
I would also like to acknowledge the work that the Business Access Office of the DMO, located in Winnellie, does in linking Northern Territory businesses to Defence contract opportunities.
Closely linked to this part of the strategy is the fourth focus, which is Profiling and Promoting Industry Capability. Keeping Defence and prime contractors constantly up to date with local capability will encourage them to think Northern Territory first when looking for support options. Prime contractors indicated during consultations that they want to be kept informed of Northern Territory Defence support capabilities and indicated a willingness to engage with Northern Territory SMEs.
In October, I participated in the Territory’s delegation to the Land Warfare Conference and Exhibition held in Adelaide. Organised by the Defence Science and Technology Organisation, this conference and the associated industry exhibition is the major annual event at which new Army equipment is exhibited and future land system projects are discussed.
DBERD hosted 10 business and industry delegates representing eight Northern Territory organisations as part of the Northern Territory Government and Industry Exhibit, which promoted out local industry capability that supports Defence. The Northern Territory delegates were given the opportunity to actively promote their individual capabilities to Defence and Defence prime contractors attending the conference. The feedback I received from a number of delegates is that the contacts and relationships they made have presented them with exciting opportunities for capturing new and valuable Defence related business in the future.
Participating in this delegation enabled me to meet with the chief executives and senior management teams of prime contractors and with Defence, to lobby for Defence related projects and activities to be undertaken in the Territory. AIDN-NT has also produced a capability profile brochure which was used extensively at the Land Warfare Conference and Exhibition to promote local industry capability.
Mounting Northern Territory exhibits at key Defence conferences is an example of the collaborative initiatives that government and industry must deliver in order to profile and promote Territory industry capability.
Developing Strategic Infrastructure is the fifth focus of the strategy. Members would be well aware of the Defence Support Hub being developed close to Robertson Barracks. The growing Defence presence in the Northern Territory is increasing demand for infrastructure to support that presence and related industry activities.
The Northern Territory government and industry are working at attracting infrastructure investment by the Commonwealth and the private sector, which will facilitate industry growth and enable industry to support Defence. The Defence Support Hub is a major initiative of the Northern Territory government to enable the Defence support industry to grow and align its capability to deliver support to armoured and non-armoured vehicles, artillery and other ADF platforms based at the barracks as well as support for such areas as simulators and network-centric warfare capabilities.
The sixth focus is Establishing Strategic Partnerships. Identifying and forming strategic partnerships with world class partners which can contribute to the long term, sustainable development of the Northern Territory Defence support industry will be fundamental to its growth. Many prime contractors have already seen the opportunities to partner with SMEs in the Northern Territory, growing their capability to support Defence locally without themselves making major capital investment. These partnerships also benefit SMEs, providing the opportunity to participate in large Defence contracts, access to new technologies and the opportunity to develop new skills, improve systems and their credentials.
The Northern Territory government and AIDN-NT have both established strategic partnerships with Defence and with the broader Defence support industry across Australia. The Northern Territory government, through its Defence Support division within DBERD, has developed close working relationships with a broad range of areas within the Defence organisation. These relationships are aimed at gaining a better understanding of the needs of Defence in the Northern Territory, the ways in which government and industry can support the Defence presence, and how local industry can become embedded in contracts and projects.
The government has developed strong relationships with many prime contractors through visiting their facilities interstate and hosting their visits to the Territory. It has also hosted visits by industry groups such as the Australian Industry Group Defence Council and the Australian Industry and Defence Network National Executive. AIDN-NT has established relationships with AIDN in other states in Australia and is continuing to grow its links with prime contractors and Defence.
The strategy identifies the need for local businesses to integrate themselves into the supply chains of Defence prime contractors. Mapping the supply chain opportunities associated with Territory-based Defence equipment will assist businesses in identifying which original equipment manufacturers or prime contractors they should form relationships with and they will be able to build upon the good working relationships that DBERD and AIDN have established.
Levering Research and Development Opportunities from the Defence Presence in the North is the last focus of the strategy. The Northern Territory’s unique geographical location and climatic conditions provide a unique opportunity to undertake research and development in relation to Defence people and equipment. Ranging from desert to tropical, these environments are considerable different from those experienced by Defence in the southern states, yet are generally similar to the environments in which personnel and equipment are deployed.
More high-tech equipment is either being based here or used in major Defence exercises in the Northern Territory. The arrival of platforms new to Australia and this environment, such as the Tiger Armed Reconnaissance helicopters and the Abrams tanks, provide opportunities for research and development in the Northern Territory. Currently, investment of resources into research and development is not significant in the Northern Territory Defence support industry, but there is potential for considerable growth. The strategy identifies ways in which industry, supported by government and Charles Darwin University, can capitalise on the opportunities ahead.
I spoke earlier about the value of the Defence presence and its contribution to the Northern Territory economy. The large Defence presence in the Northern Territory requires a high level of industry support for its operations. Adopting a more strategic approach to capture more Defence-related work locally will benefit local businesses, create new jobs and help grow the Northern Territory economy. Growing the capability and capacity of the Defence support industry in the Northern Territory will contribute to the capability of Defence as well as contribute to the sustainability and profitability of businesses.
While production of this strategy has been a joint industry and government initiative, this is truly an industry-owned strategy with high levels of senior industry guidance and input, and containing strategic directions endorsed by industry. I am encouraged by the level of industry ownership of the strategy and the eagerness of AIDN-NT to commence work on implementing its strategic directions. AIDN-NT has already commenced developing its action plans and has a clear vision of where it is heading and what needs to be done to get there. While the government and AIDN-NT have worked very closely on developing the strategy, the real challenge now lies ahead.
As I mentioned earlier, many people have contributed their time and ideas to the development of the priorities and directions contained within the strategy. The large number of industry, government, academic, union and Defence stakeholders who all contributed to its development now need to support its implementation.
It is clearly evident that the Northern Territory government recognises the importance of the Defence presence in the Northern Territory and the importance of supporting that presence. The government’s view is that Defence equipment based in the Northern Territory should be maintained in the Northern Territory. This strategy is a key component in the efforts of government and AIDN-NT to capture that work for growing local industry capability and capacity to provide the high level of support that Defence requires in order to carry out its operations here and deploy to overseas destinations.
The Northern Territory government supports the Northern Territory Defence Support Industry Development Strategy. I encourage all those with an interest in industry to also get behind it and support its implementation.
I commend AIDN-NT President, Mark Smith, who runs his own business, and Mr Andrew Jones, Executive Officer of AIDN-NT. I extend my thanks to my departmental staff, especially Mr Gareth James and Mr Peter Sims who, together with their colleagues in the Defence Support Unit, have spent long hours working with AIDN-NT to ensure this is a document we can all be proud of.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of this statement.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his statement. I welcome Mark Smith and colleagues to parliament tonight and congratulate you, in particular, and the government for this strategy.
The minister’s statement makes it reasonably difficult for the opposition to respond. We received the statement, as we ordinarily do, last night and we received the strategy as the minister got to his feet, which is normal parliamentary practice in this parliament, at least. There are no new gripes there. The difficulty is we have not seen the strategy, so it is very difficult for us to comment on it in a meaningful way.
Nevertheless, you will have noticed, as I am sure other members did, that, since I received the strategy I have been looking through it, and it certainly looks impressive. I note that others have commented on the strategy as per the minister’s statement and regard it as a good document. We are, in a sense, being asked to comment on something we have not seen so, in those circumstances, please accept our apology, if you like. We wish you all well and, in so many ways, it is difficult for us to comment on the strategy in any other meaningful way.
Having said that, the minister did raise some issues in his statement, and one in particular I will come to shortly. I thought it was worth going through those matters contained in the first few pages of the minister’s statement because I am not sure that the very important part that Defence plays in the Territory is entirely understood by everyone around the Territory. As the minister said on page one of his statement:
- Defence has played an important in the development of the Northern Territory since the establishment of Fort Dundas on Melville Island in 1824.
- … 10% of all Australian permanent Defence Force personnel are based in the Northern Territory. Almost 13 000 Defence personnel and families reside in the Northern Territory, making up about 6% of our population.
Defence personnel posted to the Northern Territory, as the minister said, bring with them a number of skills and attributes that build our community, build the Northern Territory, even before we get to the very obvious economic benefits that they bring as well.
I liked the way, frankly, in the statement, the minister said:
- Their wives, husbands and partners represent an important part of our community and workforce. They often bring skills and experience eagerly sought by industry, the public service and non-government organisations.
Indeed, they do. They are, as the minister said, teachers, nurses, childcare workers, shop assistants, secretaries, small business owners, skilled tradespeople and the list goes on. Appropriately, the minister referred to the flow-on effect of Defence salaries and the importance they play in our economy:
- Pine Gap in Alice Springs accounts for about 12% of the local population, while Katherine receives $20m into its economy from the RAAF presence at Tindal ...
The Northern Territory does very well as a community from Defence, Defence personnel and Defence support. I am not sure that it is that the role it plays in the Territory is as well understood as it should be. Perhaps all of us have a role to play in that regard. In terms of the importance of Defence and associated industries to the Northern Territory we, with government, as you would expect, welcome it and embrace it. We, like government, believe that everything should be done to maximise the economic and other benefits that arise from the presence of defence the length and breadth of the Northern Territory.
In relation to the strategy, I make it very clear that the opposition wishes everyone involved well. I wonder whether the minister might undertake in his reply to report in 12 months to see how this has gone. Any strategy is only as good as its implementation. If it is not implemented well, efficiently and with the appropriated infrastructure, no strategy is going to work and all of us know that. I hope that the minister regards this as serious enough to report to members of the Assembly in 12 months time. That would certainly be worthwhile from our point of view so we can know how it is going.
Putting aside the strategy, this ministerial statement moves beyond the strategy and to other things. I am absolutely compelled to take issue with the minister in relation to his comments about the Defence Support Hub. I have done a bit of work on this and it is no coincidence that we are debating the statement today, which is the first day the new Chief Minister of the Northern Territory has a full day in the job. Why do I refer to the new Chief Minister? Because by media release dated 9 May 2005 and headed ‘Defence Support Hub for Darwin’, the minister in his normal self-serving way, said:
- The Martin government is working closely with industry to target the upcoming through- life support of the Abrams tanks to secure jobs and contracts here in the Territory and not see contracts head south.
He went on:
- Maintenance and support of the tanks is estimated to be worth more than $10m a year and establishing a support precinct close to the barracks would increase the opportunity for Territory businesses to secure much of this work.
He goes on and on. Nothing wrong with that; a statement of good intention, self-serving though it might be.
However, it goes on. The new Chief Minister, when he was the Minister for Defence Support, like his colleagues, was at pains to create the illusion that much is being done, evidenced by the prolific use of media releases and other government documents issued out of departments and the 5th floor of this building on a very regular basis. The then minister, now Chief Minister, did a couple of media interviews. He said he is talking to a number of the major prime contractors; he is representing, as he did when he talked with Daryl Manzie on 10 May 2005, that much work was being done because getting a defence support hub was very important. That was back in May 2005.
There are various references in parliament so we have been going along thinking: ‘Gee whiz, they are serious about this project’. There are various references in June 2005; February 2006; the new minister had a bit to say on 13 February 2007; more on 12 October 2006, and minister, you were the minister then, all talking about creating a defence support hub to turn:
- … through-life supported repairs and maintenance requirements into valuable industry development opportunities and strengthening Territory capabilities are providing the foundation for strong sectoral growth.
The very clear picture that the minister and his colleagues wanted to create with the various media releases and reports in this place about the Defence hub is not only is it a good idea, and it is, but by jingoes, you are doing something. Time after time, you are flat out like lizards saying: ‘We are doing something’. Well, despite the Chief Minister assuring all and sundry, as he did by media release dated 14 February 2006, in the final paragraph and I quote:
- I will be meeting with each private contractor …
I wonder where I have heard that before.
- I will be meeting with each private contractor who tenders for the through-life support contract of the Abrams Tanks to promote the economic advantages of carrying out this work in the new Defence support hub as well as the capabilities of Territory businesses to meet Defence needs.
That was 14 February 2006.
It is a year or so later and the minister is still telling us that he is talking to people.
Ms Lawrie interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: I do not know what you know about this, member for Karama, but I wait with great excitement to hear what you are going to say.
Let us have a look at what was on the government intranet today, under the heading Creating Darwin’s Future: A Tropical Harbour City, which is a bit of government spin, we are used to that, but, by jingoes, have they spun themselves almost out of control. It talks, as ministers have, about the strategic importance of Darwin to the nation’s Defence activities and recognised for the growing presence of the Australian Defence Force in the north. Yes, you have all said that before. It says:
- New Defence equipment being located in Darwin will provide considerable benefits to the Territory economy. Darwin has the opportunity to develop high technology industries to support this presence and a proposed new …
So what is it? 27 November 2007, and the ‘new’, much lauded by some in the Labor Party room, the new Chief Minister has been working on it since his first media release, and there might have been others, on 9 May 2005. If this is Labor’s new action man, he is not going to serve you well and he is not going to serve Territorians well. But, wait, there is more!
This document that was on the government intranet today was also included in the strategy. You would expect that to be so because this strategy is 2007 to 2017. It is futuristic. It does not, unlike government media releases saying I am going to do this and I am going to that represent to Territorians that indeed it is being done. This is 2007-2017. The authors of that document know that in future a Defence hub is going to be created, but not if you look on the NT government website. Here we have the picture, and I will table this, ‘proposed Defence support hub’ - and it has been proposed for a while? - and it has all the pictures and it has roads going up there and it has buildings. It is an enormous block, obviously, but on this picture it looks to be divided into other areas.
Mr Wood: It has magnetic ant hills.
Ms CARNEY: Yes, I know. I may come to that.
In any event, there is even a road to the right. All of the buildings are there, and you look and think: ‘Gee, that is fantastic’. However, a member of my office was asked to drive out to this site today, minister, and this is what he saw. I will table these as well. This picture of the road is, we are fairly certain, the road on this somewhat futuristic diagram. Not a lot happening there. Yes, that is the main thoroughfare of the Defence Support Hub, colleagues. That is a far cry from the picture contained on the NT government website. Here is another one, here is another, in fact, that is a better photo of the road and what a great photo it is, too.
In case you did not already know it, minister, my point is that you are led by a failed Police minister, a failed …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! The member well and truly knows that she cannot make those allegations denigrating a member of the Chamber without a substantiative motion.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to withdraw the last phrase.
Ms CARNEY: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, it is a sad day, is it not, when in this parliament, a member of parliament cannot say that a minister is a failed minister? I ask for your clarification on this point. What is it exactly, if I heard you correctly, that you want me to withdraw?
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: The assertion that the minister was a failed minister. The Leader of Government Business is quite right: you cannot do that other than by way of substantive motion.
Ms CARNEY: Just so that I am clear …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would ask you again to withdraw it, please.
Ms CARNEY: Mr Deputy Speaker, in order I am clear about what it is you want me to do …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am asking you to withdraw the words ‘failed minister’.
Ms CARNEY: Mr Deputy Speaker …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I am asking you to withdraw the words ‘failed minister’.
Ms CARNEY: Mr Deputy Speaker, I dissent from your ruling, and I will, accordingly …
Ms LAWRIE: Speaking to the point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am happy for you to seek clarification so we do not hold members of the gallery up. If she really wants to work it out, then speak to the Clerk who is in the Chamber.
Ms CARNEY: Mr Deputy Speaker, I dissent from the ruling you have just made and ask that you act accordingly.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I will seek advice from the Clerk. Leader of the Opposition, I have taken advice from the Clerk of the Court …
Ms CARNEY: Clerk of the Court?
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have taken advice from the Clerk of the Court, and your dissent will be noted. You may proceed with your speech. Your dissent will be dealt with in due course. I am asking you to proceed with your speech.
Ms CARNEY: If I may have a moment, and with your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, can I ask why it is that you do not allow me to formally dissent from your ruling?
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: I have allowed you to dissent from the ruling. I am just advising you that the Clerk has given me advice and it will be dealt with. I am asking that, while it is being dealt with, can you proceed with your speech?
Ms CARNEY: While it is being dealt with?
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Yes, it is being dealt with.
Ms CARNEY: I cannot follow that.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: You have some documents you wanted to table. Do you want to table them?
Ms CARNEY: Yes, absolutely.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Is leave granted?
Leave granted.
Ms CARNEY: In case you did not already know it, you are led by a failed Police minister. You are led by a man …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. That has been ruled on. There is a dissent motion to be considered by the Speaker on advice from the Clerk. The member should follow the decorum of the Chamber and proceed without repeating something that is currently under the consideration of the Speaker. I know she likes to play the person and not the issue, but really!
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, I ask you to withdraw that statement about the minister being a failed minister because it is currently being dealt with as part of the dissent consideration by the Clerk.
Ms CARNEY: Mr Deputy Speaker, this motion is a formal dissent from your ruling. It is a lack of confidence in your ruling and, by implication, in you in this instance, as Deputy Speaker.
Madam Speaker, I ask that the matter should be brought on formally, that the House divide, and that we resolve this matter before we can move forward because the expression ‘failed minister’ is surely allowed in this parliament. Madam Speaker, now that you are in the Chair, I hope that you …
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, I have to say that, unfortunately, I was not watching the proceedings, so I will have to arrange a Hansard rush, and I will make a ruling on the matter. I have no idea of what happened; I have just been asked to return. I will try to find out what happened, Leader of the Opposition, so I will make a commitment to deal with the issue as soon as possible.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: If you would not mind continuing ...
Ms CARNEY: I am happy to continue, Madam Speaker. My difficulty is I am pressing …
Madam SPEAKER: It was about a particular comment, was it?
Ms CARNEY: Yes. I am pressing what I regard as a right to refer to a minister as a ‘failed minister’. In that context, I am in the invidious position of not being able to move forward as a result of your inability to rule.
Madam SPEAKER: I have no idea of the context and things like that.
Ms CARNEY: Okay, perhaps could we try this, Madam Speaker …
Madam SPEAKER: Perhaps if I get some rushes from Hansard and, if you continue, that would be fine. Perhaps if you try not to use those sorts of comments in the meantime, while I am trying to work out what happened, Leader of the Opposition ...
Ms CARNEY: I am always happy to accommodate you, Madam Speaker, but I want to refer to the Chief Minister as a failed Police minister and failed in a number of other areas in relation to the very statement that is before us.
Madam SPEAKER: All right. Okay.
Ms CARNEY: So, you will appreciate my position, I am sure.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, Leader of the Opposition.
Ms CARNEY: Madam Speaker, I ask that the clock be stopped. Could we adjourn momentarily, Madam Speaker?
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, if it helps with the tone of the speech that the Leader of the Opposition wants to continue with, ‘I believe he is a failed minister’ is different from ‘he is a failed minister’. If she wants to keep up with the tone, ‘I believe he is failed minister’ is more appropriate.
Ms CARNEY: Madam Speaker, may I suggest the following …
Madam SPEAKER: I guess what you are saying, Leader of Government Business, is that, and I agree if it is a generalised thing, but I still have not seen the rushes. Leader of the Opposition, you wanted to say something?
Ms CARNEY: Madam Speaker, in the circumstances, I suggest that we adjourn so that you can see the rushes. I am unable to further my debate when I cannot use an expression as ruled by the Deputy Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: What I suggest is that we adjourn your speech and then you can have the balance of your time plus an extra 10 minutes, which would probably cover the amount and we go to another speaker while I get the rushes.
Ms CARNEY: So the issue will be resolved tonight?
Madam SPEAKER: Oh, yes. It will be resolved in the next half hour, but I need to see the rushes and make a considered decision.
Ms CARNEY: Yes. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: I suggest that you resume your seat and, once I have made a ruling on it, I will call you again. In the meantime, I will call the member for …
Ms LAWRIE: Just for clarification on that, Madam Speaker, I will seek advice from the Clerk regarding not being able to speak twice in the same debate. I do not want to preclude the Leader of the Opposition from resuming her speech. It is a question on a technicality, Madam Speaker. I will just be seeking clarification as to whether that can actually occur under the standing orders. I do not want to prevent the Leader of the Opposition from continuing her remarks if it could be deemed to be speaking twice in the same debate.
Madam SPEAKER: I said she can continue her remarks at a later time, and I will extend her time by 10 minutes. Member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his statement, which is very important. It is something close to my heart in the sense that I have the barracks sitting right in the middle of my electorate.
I do have to make one comment at the outset. You said:
- Defence has played an important role in the development of the Northern Territory since the establishment of Fort Dundas on Melville Island in 1824.
That depends on your perspective. The Tiwis might say they were defending their land. The British might say they were defending the Tiwi land against the Portuguese or Dutch. It is a bit of a moot point as to whether the defence of our land started at that time, but it is a comment that is to some extent relevant to what we are talking about in relation to defence of the country.
Minister, I must admit that while you were delivering your speech, I tried to read this one. I wish you were able to deliver this because it is a lot easier to understand where you are coming from. If ever there was an argument for some screens in this Legislative Assembly, where you could describe exactly what you were talking about in this fairly dry document and you could turn it into this document and put it on the screen and we could talk to what you were proposing, it would be much easier to understand.
That is not to denigrate the importance of the statement. Defence is important to the nation. How we keep that defence capability up to scratch and in a state of preparedness is a most important function of the nation’s defence and if the Northern Territory can play a part in that, so it should.
The big issue is that we are up here with our Defence force facilities, but in the south are the facilities that maintain our equipment. That is why the tanks go on the railway line and other things go south. The question for government and industry, and I suppose that is what you are trying to do in this strategy, is: how do we either get Defence to move from having its servicing base down south to come to the Northern Territory? Obviously, this strategy is trying to do that. It is trying to develop the mechanisms for local industry to be able to service that industry if we can get it here. It is also looking at getting those service industries down south to come north and develop their industries closer to where the servicing is required. That is why the government has proposed the Northern Territory Defence Support Hub.
I do not know whether I need to say much because this document says it all. I would only be repeating what is already here. People who are interested in finding out what the government’s and industry’s vision is should get hold of this document because it is very clear as to what has happened. Obviously to achieve the vision, you have a strategy which is workforce development, building business capabilities, linking industry to opportunities, profiling and promoting business capability, developing strategic infrastructure, establishing strategic partnerships, and research and development. They are all very important aspects of the industry and they are well laid out in this document. If people do not want to read the whole document, there is a section on strategic direction, which makes it clear where the strategy is. There are some dot points, and it is well laid out. If people were talking to me about where we are going in relation to supporting our Defence industry in the Northern Territory, I do not think you could get a better document than this.
I do not know whether you can say in your summing up as to what your strategy is. I know you have been south and you have been speaking to various people. How far advanced are you in attracting these service industries to the north? I understand what the Leader of the Opposition was talking about when she spoke about the Defence hub. I know they are working on it mainly because there is a big electrical conduit being installed at present. If you are talking to the contractors, could you please ask them to fix up the trench on Wallaby Holtze Road? It needs to be repaired. They are obviously working on getting infrastructure to that Defence hub.
I do not have the photographs the Leader of the Opposition showed, but I know the minister for Planning this year in estimates …
Mr Vatskalis: They probably went to the wrong place.
Mr WOOD: I am not arguing about those photographs, but the minister for Planning, during the Estimates Committee, was given a black and white photograph of magnetic ant hills and I can tell you that the left-hand side of that photograph, about one-third of it, is in wetland, which surprises me. When you look at the requirements for development in the Litchfield Shire, there is a clause that says we should not be using those areas and we should not be filling them.
That section of the Defence hub has been poorly planned. I know we can fill wet land. That is what people do, but I think we can be a bit cleverer and work around the wet areas. We do not need square lines for everything. We can fit in with the geography of the land, and if it is wet, leave it wet as part of our wetlands of the Northern Territory and Darwin area, and use the dry land for the Defence hub.
I am in total support of the Defence hub. It is a great idea, but my objection has basically been that part of the land is not suitable for it and we should have left it alone. That is a minor but important complaint in the whole scheme of what we are trying to do.
I would be interested in hearing from the minister as to whether any industries, local or interstate, have put their hand up to go in the hub. Obviously, it is no good putting all this money into the infrastructure if no one is interested in coming here, so I am interested to hear whether we have people coming. If we do, what are intending to do? What is their relationship with the Army? I presume this is all based around Robertson Barracks.
I am also interested to know what discussions are being held between Robertson Barracks and the Defence Support Hub. How does that relationship work? Do you just tell someone to come or do you sit down with Robertson Barracks and have a strategy or working party that will link what is happening on Robertson Barracks with what is going to happen in the Defence Support Hub? I am presuming the Defence Support Hub is Northern Territory owned and, at the same time, we are dealing with a Commonwealth instrumentality in the Defence Force. I am interested to know how that connection works to make sure all this comes together.
This is a very timely statement and strategy. My impression, having been on the periphery of all this, is that it has taken a while for this to come together. There have been people talking about it and we have some contractors already doing work for the Defence industry, but this is bringing it all together as a strategy. It is vitally important that we work towards this because it is helping the economy. It means that our Defence Forces are efficient and ready and capable. In this day and age when we are sending our troops off overseas to Iraq, and that may finish soon, but to Afghanistan, Timor and other places, it is good that we as Territorians will now participate in doing that and we play our role as part of the nation’s support for its Defence industry and the forces.
Mr NATT (Mines and Energy): Madam Speaker, I support the statement delivered by the Minister for Defence Support on Growing Industry Capability to Support Defence in the Northern Territory.
Like the minister, I acknowledge the significant contribution that Defence makes to the Northern Territory’s community and its economy. The Northern Territory government has broadened and deepened the nature of the support services it provides the Defence Force support industry and Defence families.
Defence is one of the largest contributors to the Territory’s economy and the Northern Territory government is taking steps to help industry develop its capabilities and capacity to capture more Defence-related business. The Northern Territory Economic Framework, which was released in August 2006, sets a clear direction and it is making decisions in the knowledge that Northern Territory stakeholders have a shared sense of direction and vision in the area.
The Northern Territory government and the Australian Industry Defence Network NT, or AIDN-NT, have identified and pursued Defence support industry development priorities for the period of 2007 to 2017, and I commend the minister for releasing the development strategy for 2007 to 2017. It is a fantastic booklet, a great resource for the industry and provides a valuable strategy for local businesses that wish to sustain their capabilities within the realms of Defence force support. If there are new businesses around the place looking to get their finger in the pie, so to speak, it is a wonderful resource for them.
Industry and government are able to pursue economic benefits relating to major Defence-related projects currently under way. It is interesting to note that some of the economic development opportunities that are arising through the arrival of the First Aviation Regiment’s 17 new Tiger Reconnaissance helicopters, as well as the arrival of 41 Abrams M1A1 main battle tanks, the ongoing establishment of the fleet of 10 Armidale Class Patrol Boats and the Australian-US Joint Combined Training Centre Capabilities initiative, including the development of Bradshaw, which is out near Timber Creek, as the Army’s Field Training area.
The Northern Territory government and AIDN-NT are committed to helping industry build its capacity and capabilities. Issues have been identified that need to be addressed in order to formulate a Defence Support Industry Strategic Development Strategy. I commend Mark Smith, President of AIDN-NT, and the minister for putting this strategy together.
It is interesting to note some of the key points and statistics that were published in the Treasurer’s annual financial report indicate that the Defence presence in the Territory has more than doubled since the early 1990s, with the number of defence personnel and their families increasing from 6223 in June 1992 to an estimated 12 935 in June 2007. That has doubled in a matter of five years. Of the Australian total permanent Defence Force personnel, 10% are based in the Northern Territory. Recurrent Defence expenditure for the Australian government in the Territory totalled $954m in 2005-06. That is a considerable spend by the Australian government in the Territory on our armed forces.
Major Defence-related activities under way in the Territory include the $170m development of the new suburb of Lyons at Lee Point, and the recent acquisition of land adjacent to Lyons, which is now known as Muirhead. Defence activities nearing completion include the construction of the $82m Robertson Barracks 1st Aviation complex, and the $65m Bradshaw Field Training Area near Timber Creek, as I said. The Territory’s economy will benefit from local supply and support contracts from the Armidale class patrol boats, the Abrams tanks, Tiger helicopters and replacement of the field vehicles and trailers.
The Territory is an integral component of Australia’s security strategy by virtue of our location. Major Territory Defence sites are an integral component in the protection of Australia’s northern borders and will greatly benefit from the increase in capabilities that have been mentioned.
Defence will remain an important element of the Territory economy in the foreseeable future. It is interesting to note that we have a number of major Defence sites in the Territory; namely, Larrakeyah Barracks in Darwin; Robertson Barracks near Palmerston; HMAS Coonawarra which is based in Darwin also; RAAF Base Darwin; RAAF Base Tindal near Katherine; and the Joint Defence facility of Australia and the United States at Pine Gap near Alice Springs.
We really should not forget that Defence is an important contributor to the regional economies, particularly Katherine and Alice Springs, which enjoy the residence of RAAF Base Tindal and Pine Gap.
Defence also is an economic contributor to regional indigenous communities through the operation of NORFORCE and Defence exercises. Through the development of the strategy, the Northern Territory government and AIDN-NT are seeking to lever further economic development for the Defence presence in some of our Northern Territory regions.
Other Defence force sites include the Defence establishment at Berrimah, Bradshaw Field Training area near Timber Creek, as I mentioned earlier, Mt Bundy Field Training area near Mary River, the Delamere Bombing Range near Katherine, and the Jindalee operational radar network facility, which is near Alice Springs.
Defence delivers more than just dollars into our economy. I take this opportunity to recognise the contribution that Defence communities make to the Northern Territory and, in particular, to my electorate. As I said, almost 13 000 Defence personnel and their families reside in the Northern Territory. It is estimated that 5589 of these are Defence Force personnel, which means that around about 7500 are spouses and children who are active members of our community. They attend our schools, they work in small businesses, they work for charities and are employed in our public sector.
Let us not forget that they also have to have a bit of enjoyment and embrace our lifestyle. I know that many of them play sport. Through my time at the AFL, many Defence Force players donned the jumper every week to play for local clubs; and that is not confined to AFL - it is all sports. Let us not forget the recreational fishing sector. Many Defence Force people come here with a boat or, when they get here and discover that the fishing is good, and they purchase a boat, fishing tackle and gear and that contributes to our economy.
The partners or spouses of Defence members are often skilled and qualified people who are very welcome contributors to our workforce.
We recognise the importance the Defence presence makes to our community while noting that the Defence community is unique in its highly transient nature with large numbers moving into the Territory for two to three year periods. That is very noticeable in my electorate. I estimate that just over 25% of my electorate is comprised of Defence Force personnel. Often when I am door knocking, people have been here for their one or two years or just running into their three year stints and have to leave at the end of the year. The rollover process will take effect next month and many of the families that I have come to know in the two and a half years that I have been here will be leaving, but the rollover will occur and we will have new faces on the door steps when I start door knocking again in the not too distant future.
There is a range of challenges that each posting brings, such as new schools, finding childcare, spouses finding work and families establishing new networks. One of the big things that I find on the door steps is adapting to the weather in most cases. Many families come up from down south and find that the heat knocks them around considerably. Adapting to the weather, and especially the Build-Up and Wet Season because a lot the families do move into Darwin during December, is difficult. Families posted from Townsville are more used to our climatic conditions so they are not too bad, but I know a number of the families posted from New South Wales, South Australia and Victoria find it hard to adapt. However, once we get into a Dry Season, they become a little more at ease and enjoy the lifestyle.
Another big thing I find on door steps is familiarising themselves with the Northern Territory. Many of them have come from big cities and have a network of friends and families. Familiarising yourself with the Territory, the wide open spaces, the easy way to get around, they do find it well set up and well established and they feel that moving to the Territory puts them at a little bit more ease. They do not have the stress and strain of driving through heavy traffic every day and they do not have the stress and strain of their children on the streets in some of the bigger southern areas.
Something else I find on the door steps is that many of the women are trying to come to grips with their partners being overseas. Many of them are mothers with young children at either pre-school or school and it is difficult for them to settle into a new environment and to find all of the networks they need. It is pleasing to see that we are helping in that area with our Defence support.
Recognising these challenges and noting the significant value to the Northern Territory as a whole by the Defence community, the Northern Territory government made a commitment to create Defence Community Liaison functions. This role has now been implemented within the Department of Business, Economic and Regional Development and the officer concerned is actively engaged in the Defence Community Organisation, Defence Families Australia, and Defence Housing Australia to identify issues that the Northern Territory government may be able to help with and address in order to make postings to the Territory a smooth and enjoyable experience for Defence members and their families.
Durack Primary School has a very strong presence of Defence children. The Defence Force does provide a Defence Support Training Aide. I had the pleasure of working with Corinne Hunt who has just left the school and been replaced by Sue Wilson. Corinne has worked with Defence Force families over the last couple of years and has set up some wonderful contacts for mothers and children within the school, helping them, through the assistance of the Defence Community Organisation and Defence Families Australia, trying to organise their postings, helping them out with any issues they may have within the school or community and she has tried to make it as easy and as smooth as possible for many of those families coming into a new environment.
I commend the Durack Primary School for the work they do to help mothers and children settle in. It is a great little school with a great set-up and I can commend all the teachers for the work they do within the school. I have not had the pleasure of meeting Sue Wilson yet. Sue has only just started. She has replaced Corinne in the last couple of weeks. I understand that she has a Defence family background. Her husband has been in the Army for 25 years and she has two teenage girls, one in Year 11 and the other is working for Territory Housing. They seem to have settled into the Territory very well and I know that Sue has hit the ground running at Durack and has set up many meetings with students and mothers at the school. She continues Corinne’s good work by setting up the Friday morning cup of tea and scone before the children go to assembly. Many of the mothers drop their kids off at school, come into the staff room, have a cup of coffee and talk with the Defence Support Training Aide about different issues. They can also talk to other mothers who have been in Darwin for a couple of years. I commend the school for the work they do.
My electorate covers Winnellie, Berrimah and Pinelands, a huge industrial area, and of course, East Arm. A number of businesses have set up within those areas and they provide wonderful support for Defence Force strategies and help as best they can with some Defence projects. Some of the business opportunities and skills required are quite diverse. It would be interesting to see statistics on employment in Defence-related industry in the Territory. A preliminary estimate of value, including specialist and non-specialist support services, construction and Defence housing is around $600m and that was for the 2005-06 year. The diversity of some of the businesses is quite amazing. It ranges from logistic support, armoured vehicle maintenance, field vehicle and trailer maintenance, electronic systems design and development, communications systems support, radar systems operations, signals op monitoring, provision of aircraft for target towing and logistics, ship maintenance, repair and modification, underwater training systems, construction services right down to air-conditioning supply and supply of gases, waste disposal and shade cloth. The diversity is huge and many businesses in and around Darwin benefit greatly from Defence force maintenance work.
There are a couple of the businesses I would like to mention: Universal Engineering has a wonderful name. Steve Tilley is the Managing Director. He took over the company about 13 years ago and has managed to pick up a contract modifying Abrams tanks. The work that he has done in the company is recognised nationally to the point where two of his Northern Territory tradesmen were flown to Puckapunyal in Victoria to complete modifications on 16 Abrams tanks. That illustrates the skills shortage around Australia. With the diversity of skills we have in the Territory, for the Army to employ two of our tradesman in Puckapunyal to work on tanks is a great feather in the cap of Universal Engineering. They have modified 41 tanks in the Northern Territory and they have worked on 16 in Victoria, as I said earlier. The specialised work that is undertaken here is truly demonstrated by the work that Universal Engineering do.
Another interesting one is MTU Detroit Diesel. They convert Unimogs, which are Mercedes Benz 8-tonne 4WD trucks, the work horse of the Air Force Defence Squadron. It is primarily used for troop transport logistical purposes. MTU Detroit Diesel has secured a $9m contract over two years, which indicates there are some terrific contracts out there. We have some great skills in the Territory being utilised by the Defence Force, which is great to see.
The minister noted the important role Defence has played in the development of the Northern Territory since 1824. The Australian Defence Force presence in the Territory, its expanding role with numerous visits by foreign military and the growing strategic importance of Darwin as a mounting base all illustrate why Defence will continue to be a major contributor to the Territory’s economy and community in the foreseeable future. Darwin and Palmerston are strategically important bases for Defence, and the more we can do to assist Defence personnel and their families who are posted to the Territory, the better, because this will help make postings to the Territory an attractive option and further investment by Defence and Defence industry a logistical consequence.
Madam Speaker, I support the minister’s statement. I commend the work that AIDN-NT and the government have done in putting the Defence Support Industry Development Strategy together. I commend the statement to the House.
Mr BURKE (Brennan): Madam Speaker, I acknowledge the presence of Mr Peter Sims and Mr Mark Smith as well as Gareth James in the gallery. Thank you very much for coming along tonight. It is always good to be talking about Defence-related issues, given that so much of my electorate is made up of Defence personnel and their families.
As other speakers have already said, there is a long history in the Territory of a Defence presence, and the real acknowledgement of that came after or during World War II with Darwin’s bombing by the Japanese over a period of 18 months. Anyone who grew up here knows that Defence is an important part of life in the Top End and the NORFORCE Unit has a special place in the hearts of many Territorians. It is well known and I know that the Army, Air Force and Navy cadet units have a great representation of young people, particularly the RAAF Cadet Unit in Palmerston, which does some great things including, last year, fundraising to take a group of cadets to the Gallipoli Dawn Service, something they managed to fundraise themselves and I commend them for that.
One of the great changes in Defence policy was the relocation of so much of the effort to the northern parts of Australia. The unofficial policy was infamous prior to that of retreating to a point somewhere north of Sydney and defending from there down. It was the Hawke/Keating government which recognised that the major effort for Defence had to be the north because any threat to Australia was unlikely to come from the Antarctic, and therefore there was a great deal of work done in looking at the northern reaches of the country and an upgrade of many bases, both main bases and remote airfields and the like that could become operational very quickly.
To give an idea, and I know there have been some quotes already, but over all, the Defence budget has increased significantly since 1996 from $10.6bn to $22bn. That is a huge increase, yet still nowhere near what our allies, the United States, can manage to spend, but a significant amount nonetheless in anyone’s language.
I note from this document, The Northern Territory Defence Support Industry Development Strategy, that Defence expenditure attributed to the Territory has grown at an average of 11% per annum since 1995, when the Army relocation to Darwin began in real earnest. The Defence presence has grown from a just over 6200 personnel and families in 1992 to almost 13 000 in June 2007. Many of those families are based at Palmerston. The continued numbers increase at Robertson Barracks can be attested to by the increase in living accommodation that continues to be built on base. There was a page I found very interesting because until you see it listed, you do not fully appreciate the investment that the military has in the Northern Territory. Robertson Barracks on it own, without going to any of the equipment that is there, is a $1bn investment.
Then there are the various units, the ASLAV vehicles, the M113 armoured personnel carriers, the Bushmaster armoured personnel carrier, and the Leopard tank, which of course has now been replaced as the main battle tank by the Abrams, an awesome piece of equipment. One only has to be parked next to one of the trucks carrying one to appreciate its sheer size. It is a considerable leap forward in technology and capability on the Leopard tank, which was our main battle tank for so many years. It was a great war horse but, unfortunately, not one that can compete at all with the Abrams.
Of course, there is the armed reconnaissance helicopter squadron. I have seen a short DVD presentation on its capabilities and it defies belief. The manoeuvrability of the helicopter is amazing. I am sure it defies the laws of physics, to quote the character of Scotty from Star Trek. That is just some of the equipment that is or will be in the Northern Territory. That is without the FA-18s at Tindal, which we understand will be replaced by the joint strike fighter and, before that, the Super Hornet as the interim. All of these aircraft represent a significant investment by this country in Defence capabilities.
Many Territorians would be familiar with the sight of the patrol boats coming in to and out of Darwin, patrolling the northern waters and headquartered at HMAS Coonawarra.
As well as the fact that these are themselves pieces of equipment, within them they have a whole range of equipment: communications gear, computer gear, night sights and technologies which are all at the cutting edge of the different industries of which they are part. Robertson Barracks has an amazing network of computers, as I am sure every Defence base does. It is not just about being able to have those communications available when you can; it is ensuring their availability so there is a whole range of security issues, which is a separate industry, the security industry. By that I mean information security, not just physical security or security of assets.
I did see, having a look through this document, that one of the first ports of call was to try to define what ‘Defence Industry’ actually meant as it does take such an array of different professions, technical trades and the more obvious trades. If you go to Robertson Barracks, and you will find plumbers and electricians working there just the same as they do everywhere else in the community. All of this represents major opportunities for the Northern Territory.
As I mentioned, Defence capabilities use technology which are at the cutting edge of whichever field you are looking at. This means that the Northern Territory, if we can secure that business, has a great opportunity to expand its skill base. I saw, through this document, the need for a Skill Audit being identified:
- The NT Defence support industry skills map 2006-10 along with any relevant data available from the Department of Education, Employment and Training should inform any future study of skills and labour shortages.
This is vital. You need to know the point from which you are starting to be able to set the strategic directions for the future and looking at the skills you currently have because there are certainly Northern Territory small businesses which have already secured contracts in some areas of prime contractors, as I understand they are called within the Defence community, sub-contracting out to smaller contractors elements of the contracts they hold. I know there are already some Northern Territory businesses which have secured this.
I was talking last year to a couple of guys who ended up being sent to the US to learn more about some of the technologies being employed in the vehicles they were working on. They were benefiting personally from an increase in the skills they held from your more typical skills, and the business was benefiting from them having that overseas training and gaining that because they could advertise their business as having the capability of being able to provide the maintenance support of the particular vehicles which were being worked on. I know the type of vehicles that they were working on, but I am not sure whether the proprietor of the business would be too keen on that being talked about so I will err on the side of caution.
Beginning the process of a skills audit to build skills, finding out what our base level is, then looking to what opportunities exist, how we can build the skill base and then starting the process again to determine what further advanced skills that can be the building blocks for.
It was good to hear the recognition that this government’s Jobs Plan has had as part of that, we are up to Jobs Plan 3. The first Jobs Plan that this government initiated was the first of its type in the Territory. It was needed for some time and has been a resounding success, so much so that we are into the third version, Jobs Plan 3, and we are filling the gaps and shortages that exist.
I make this point: I can remember many years ago when the Howard government first came in at the federal level that union organisations and training organisations were warning that if the then new government carried out its plans to scrap the training initiatives that were in place when it came to power and had been put into place by the previous government, there would be a job shortage or a skills shortage in 10 to 15 years time. That is exactly what happened. There was a skills shortage because the training that was provided by the federal government was not scrapped, but went through a radical decrease in availability. Those observations 10 or 15 years ago were proved beyond doubt.
One of the other programs that gets a mention through this strategy document is the government’s Workready program. That is the school to work transition program aiming to assist and encourage Year 11 and 12 school students to take part in structured vocational education and training and leading to school based apprenticeships. I commend, once again, Palmerston High School for the work it does in its vocational training school-based apprenticeships.
It is constantly working to build partnerships with small business and large, wherever they can, to give their students the opportunities to try school-based apprenticeships and to take part in structured vocational education because much of work that becomes available out of the Defence industry is trade based. I note through the document that, and this comes from page 16, that the Defence and Industry Policy Statement 2007 states around 12 000 new employees will be needed in the Defence industry sector nationally over the next decade. Of these, 25% need to be engineering or tertiary qualified project management personnel and 75%, three quarters, the vast majority, are required in the trade areas.
The strategy makes the point that these ratios can be expected to apply to the Northern Territory Defence industry. Trade skills are vitally important and those base apprenticeships - and when I say ‘base’, I mean the basic building blocks that lead to those higher skills that are employed by Defence, Defence contractors and the prime contractors - provide the skills their employees need to work on incredibly complex equipment. I remember from my time at school, I am not sure if it is still the advertisement, but there was an advertisement run by the Air Force during recruiting times which showed an exploded view of an FA18 with systems represented through it and the by-line said something like: ‘When we are finished with you, you will know how to put this back together’. I know from the many friends I have in Defence just how complex the work they do is and just how important it is.
Of course, having the skills base is only part of the picture because you have to have the business capability and the Northern Territory government is working hard to assist business in building their capabilities so that they can successfully tender. Many people who run businesses have the skills pertinent to those businesses, not necessarily business management skills, and so the aid the Northern Territory government can provide in helping to assist with how to grow the business, how to manage business, how to have appropriate occupational health and safety systems in place which is often a requirement by the Department of Defence when looking at awarding contracts. Those mechanisms for business are very important.
I note I am running out of time. I could speak for a lot longer on this, but Madam Speaker, I do not need an extension of time. I commend the minister’s statement and will conclude my comments there.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, I seek leave to withdraw my point of order.
Madam SPEAKER: Is leave granted?
Ms CARNEY: No.
Madam SPEAKER: There being no objection, leave is granted.
Ms CARNEY: No! I said ‘no’, Madam Speaker. Division, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry. I did not hear that. If you said no, that is fine.
Ms LAWRIE: Do you want to divide when I am withdrawing a point of order?
Ms CARNEY: Withdraw it now? You should have had the Whip to do it at the outset.
Madam SPEAKER: I am sorry. Did you want to do anything else apart from that?
Ms LAWRIE: I was seeking leave to withdraw the point of order. Madam Speaker, I seek leave to suspend standing orders to allow me to withdraw my point of order.
Leave granted.
____________________
Suspension of Standing Orders
- Withdraw Point of Order
- Withdraw Point of Order
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent me withdrawing my point of order.
Madam SPEAKER: The question is that standing orders be suspended.
Ms CARNEY: No, Madam Speaker. Madam Speaker, with your indulgence, this is most unusual. You have indicated to members of this House that you were to rule. The fact that the Leader of Government Business has had an afterthought really does not change the fact that we want a ruling on this issue.
Madam SPEAKER: At this stage, we have only suspended standing orders in order for the minister to withdraw the point of order. I understand the minister wanted to make some comment in relation to her motion. I ask her to speak now and I will allow you to speak as well.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is very determined to focus on playing the person and playing politics. I am happy to allow her to do that. If she wants to continue to use the words ‘failed minister’ and play the person, she may do that. I withdraw my point of order.
Madam SPEAKER: I have sought advice from the Clerk regarding this matter. I am accepting the fact that the minister has withdrawn the point of order relating to the expression ‘failed minister’. That being the case, there is no point of order. I should say that, in your continuing remarks in your speech which is to come on for a further 10 minutes, I will allow the expression ‘a failed minister’.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. So just to make it abundantly clear, there will be no ruling on this because you have ruled in any event that the Deputy Speaker’s ruling is not upheld, as it were, correct?
Madam SPEAKER: Not at all. What I am saying is that because the point of order has been withdrawn, the Deputy Speaker was unable to make a ruling on it because it has been withdrawn.
Ms CARNEY: So we will have no ruling on his ruling? Correct?
Madam SPEAKER: I have also sought advice on that and, unfortunately, I am not allowed to make a ruling on it because that is not in the process. I am advising you that you are able to continue your speech if you wish at this point. You have 10 minutes and I will allow the use of that expression.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. It was a dissent motion.
Madam SPEAKER: It was a dissent motion, but if the point of order has been withdrawn, there cannot be a dissenting motion because there is no point of order.
________________________
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): You would like me to proceed?
Madam SPEAKER: If you wish to, you can continue.
Ms CARNEY: Madam Speaker, for the sake of the Parliamentary Record, I should talk about what has happened here tonight and the outrageous way in which the government, in a very clumsy, ill-conceived attempt to be difficult from the outset, has put you, with respect, Madam Speaker, in an impossible position. Hence, the repeated requests to me to accommodate the government so that we would not see a situation where, Madam Speaker, you would make a decision in terms of the Deputy Speaker’s ruling from which they anticipated, correctly, that we would then respectfully seek to dissent from your ruling had that eventuated, Madam Speaker.
The reason this is all very interesting is that the new Deputy Speaker made a mistake. The new Leader of Government Business made a mistake. The Speaker was placed in an impossible position where she might have had to rule that her Deputy Speaker did the wrong thing. That would have created dramas for government, and they would have to have decided whether they back the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker.
It is almost hysterical for members opposite, and particularly the Leader of Government Business, to suggest that the words ‘failed minister’ should not be used in this place. It is an outrageous proposition for any government minister to be so utterly defensive and pathetic to call a point of order when other members are describing their own as a ‘failed minister’.
Ms Lawrie interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: I would not be saying too much if I were you, Leader of Government Business, because your mouth has already got you into trouble. You are not unlike – no, I will not go there. It has already got you into trouble. Shoot first, ask questions later. You will suffer the consequences. You all will.
Madam Speaker, we are concerned about the hysterical, defensive way in which government members leap to their feet, put Madam Speaker in an impossible position and I do not propose to reflect on the Speaker, but words like ‘slippery’, ‘buggerlugs’, ‘bah!’, ‘hypocrite’, ‘bovver boy’, ‘cloth ears’ and ‘tone’ have been objected to by this government in the recent past.
For a government that collectively leads with its chin on almost everything, to be so hysterically obsessed with pithy little words like this shows members opposite for exactly what they are. They will say that this parliament is a place for debate. You would not know it when one considers the speed with which they leap to their feet in relation to things that, quite frankly, are absurdities.
Madam Speaker, that is why we wanted the ruling. We will do this every time you become so obsessed with your sense of image and egos that you create a situation in the parliament of the Northern Territory where certain words are used that in common parlance cannot, on any interpretation, be described as offensive, demeaning or inappropriate in any context are objected to. We will do it time after time after time.
Through you, Madam Speaker, and I direct it particularly to the Leader of the Government Business, I know she is upset she did not get the Deputy Leadership, but we ask her to focus on the job at hand. If what we have seen tonight, which would have to go close to being unprecedented, certainly since I have been a member of this parliament, is the level of incompetence from the new Leader of Government Business and the new leadership team, then God save our fellow Territorians.
This has been amateur hour. This has been the Labor Clampetts coming to town, sitting in this parliament and trying their best to make themselves look good. Well, you have not made yourselves look good. You have two new ministers who are a laughing stock. The Clampetts have been in office collectively since 2001, but, by God, the Clampetts have excelled in the last couple of days. Shame on you!
Returning to my response to the statement, where was I? I said to the new Minister for Defence Support that he is led by a failed minister, a failed minister of Police. He was the one who, for the most part, oversaw the rising rates in crime in the Northern Territory. He was a failed Police minister who did not deliver his own promise, Labor’s promise, of providing 200 extra police on the beat.
He is a failed Minister for Defence Support, and that is evidenced when people go back to what I said throughout my earlier contribution in response. He is a failed minister because he has been saying since 2005 that a defence hub would be really good and he was talking to a whole lot of people. He has failed because notwithstanding the picture on your government’s website of seemingly a little industrial village here under the heading ‘Proposed defence support hub’, all we have as at today is absolutely nothing.
We did not scour every centimetre of the block. If there is something there, tell us, but I note with great interest, minister, you spent, and you are a new person in this regard, surprisingly little time in your statement talking about the defence hub. One, two, three - yes, three paragraphs; immediately suspicious. Why did you not want to talk about that? Because even you know, through you, Madam Speaker, that your new leader is a failure. He is an absolute failure. Someone must have whipped this up, and then someone must have thought: ‘Oh! We have to protect Hendo; he hasn’t actually done anything’. Of course in the media interviews and releases, in particular of May 2005:
- I have been speaking to a number of the major prime contractors.
He has been speaking to people, Madam Speaker! This man is a gunna! He is gunna do this and he is gunna do that. He is a failure. I feel sorry for those in the Defence support industry that the minister has failed you and has failed Territory businesses along the way as he was the man who said that a defence hub would be terrific, as it would be, for Territory businesses.
I do not know how your vote has fallen, minister. We know you have all been working on it for 15 or 18 months or so, but you are led by a man who has excelled at saying at what he was gunna do, but not actually doing it. You are led by a man who failed to deliver the increased opportunities to Territory businesses that would flow from a hub as promised and as repeated by parrot-like since you took over this ministry. You are led by a man, a failed minister, a man who failed to advise this parliament or the public by media release in the event there were any difficulties. This is a guy who comes in here and says: ‘I am going to do this, and I am going to do that’. If there was an impediment, if there were a series of difficulties, then surely it was incumbent upon your new Chief Minister to outline to the parliament or indeed to the public through media release, what the problem were. But, no. So is it reasonable for us and others to think that the minister has failed? Absolutely. You cannot have it both ways.
You cannot go around issuing media releases, talking to journalists and saying: ‘I am going to do this, and I am going to be doing that’, putting little pictures on government websites, giving the very clear impression for those who have been interested in the discussion since at least May 2005 that something was happening and then have a statement brought on today in which it is abundantly clear that not much is happening.
This failed minister lacks courage and of course we know he lacks ticker because he had had the numbers for 15 to 18 months and he never challenged. What does that tell you about this failed minister who is now going to be your failed leader? Would it not have been interesting if he had issued a media release or put it on the government website saying: ‘I promised you this, but in fact, you do not have it’? Now, would that have been worthy of a media release? It would have been because those interested in the Defence Support Hub, might have wanted to know where things were up to. I note with great interest that the present minister has not provided anything in the way of an explanation in his statement.
If this Chief Minister, this new bloke, is going to do well for you people, then he is a failure. He is a failure before he even starts, and you guys had better look to number three on your ticket.
Debate adjourned.
WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY BILL
(Serial 123)
LAW REFORM (WORK HEALTH)
AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 124)
(Serial 123)
LAW REFORM (WORK HEALTH)
AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 124)
Continued from 18 October 2007
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, in assessing the intent of this legislation and looking in context at a growing workforce in the Northern Territory and legislation that has been in place since 1987, the existing act was established at a time when there were 71 000 employees. Today, there are nearly 180 000.
When we assess rising concern over safety in the workplace and the fact that this act that was established in 1987 has not received a comprehensive review, all of that is accepted and supported by opposition. The intent of it is to increase safety in the workplace. The means by which this is achieved warrants greater discussion. I say, however, though there is mention of stakeholder involvement, and notwithstanding there has been a lot on the public agenda since this was first put on the Parliamentary Record as a bill, I am concerned that we are progressing with a significant change in a context where stakeholders still have some reservations.
I am mindful that I have placed at relatively short notice some amendments and I do not like doing that at short notice, but I note that government has also circulated some amendments this afternoon of which, unfortunately, I have only just become aware. The issue is not so much the content or the nature of the amendments, but we are at a stage where it is clear that those stakeholders, those who are directly involved and affected by the implementation of this reform, still have many unsettled matters.
Minister, I thank you and pass on my appreciation to members of your department for provision of a briefing which outlined very well the context in which this reform is placed and the intent thereof, but I went away with a better understanding and certainly support for the objective, which is to increase and to improve safety practices in the workplace, but some concern. As a legislator, I feel there is much work still to be done.
To envisage, of course, with 19 members all in unity there, singing the same old song that, no matter what I say, it will pass. I know, as I heard right at the end of the briefing, that there are regulatory aspects of this which are still being worked on and they will follow this debate.
I understand that one of the initial reforms, being the amalgamation of all the safety regulatory activities into one body, makes organisational sense if we are looking at the clear objective of improving safety practices in the workplace. However, there are a number of matters that are activated in implementing such an organisational notion. It might suit the system itself to unify into one place, and there is a lot of merit and I have seen these sorts of things happen. When I was at university, there were umpteen universities and colleges in Western Australia. Now there are only a couple; they were all amalgamated into one. It made sense, but something was lost in those amalgamations. There is always a cost. They make great sense and it is an idea that is often met with great enthusiasm for those with the power to amalgamate and to bring things together and to craft a new vision.
I hope it does, but it requires the right attitude to ensure that the real objectives, which are improved safety in the workplace, are achieved because it is achieved not through organisation, but through people who are working in harmony with an objective. You have to make sure that those relationships are brought along. That is why I am concerned about the fact that it appears to me that there are still a number of unaddressed issues and concerns. From my insufficient, I would have to say, assessment of how this is bedding down in the workplace, I wish I had more time to visit a number of workplaces. In the stakeholder bodies to which I have spoken, there is awakening concern at the way this is being implemented and the fact that a lot of employers do not believe this is happening and many of them do not know the real implications of it.
One line sticks out to me in your second reading speech, and I agree with it:
- Underpinning all Australian OHS statutes is the philosophy that greater consultation between workers and employers makes for more effective OHS at the workplace.
That is a philosophy that has been woven into every speech that I have given. I am not an anti-unionist. I am not ideologically bound to say employers are good and unions are bad. We are not running a cartoon show here. These are matters that must be approached maturely. The culture of the workplace is going to be changed by this reform, and I hope that it is changed for the better, but in bringing about cultural change in the workplace, it has to be managed very carefully.
The amendments proposed by the opposition are in that context so that we can protect the workplace and establish an appropriate culture in the workplace to reinforce the objective. If we enhance the adversarial nature of the workplace by a clumsy implementation, by a lack of real connection to those who have different responsibilities, employer and employee, we may well retard our capacity to achieve better objectives in the workplace. It is based upon good relationships. The Territory, as the Chief Minister said a number of times this afternoon, has 204 000 people. Therefore, that provides us with the capacity to manage the establishment and development of good culture within our community, particularly in the workplace; the relationship between an employer and an employee. There are aspects of this legislation that would run against or diminish the capacity for developing a better working relationship because of the adversarial nature of some of the implementations.
Before we get excited, I have to restate because I am so accustomed to the reactionary response that the objective is totally agreed to. The need for reform is fine. The philosophical underpinning, I agree with. It is the careful managing of the implementation that will ensure that the cultural change that we desire is achieved.
According to the briefing and what I have read in the second reading speech and a little that I have picked up from stakeholders’ comments, by the amalgamation of all the safety regulatory activities into one body was to be based on contemporary practice - fine. That is what reform should take us to. Assuming, though, that contemporary practice is good practice because it is new does not always mean that it is the best. However, judging by the description of the team charged with the responsibility of assessing this bill and the proposal before us, I can only assume that that was weighed properly and it is contemporary practice that is achieving the best outcomes.
The second one is that the standards are clear. We have spoken about the need for standards to be clear flowing through all of our activities. That applies in education, too, it must be said. The capacity for compliance requirements also need to be very clear so that there is the removal of confusion. That is a good principle as well.
The third one is that it recognises the national commitment to OHS strategies; that there is a national move in a direction and that the Territory needs to respond to it. That is good. Probably this is agreeable, but it is a challenge that it is suitable for all industries. That is good, but that is where it is going to be a challenge. That is where I found some concern that some of the regulations that will sit beneath this bill, if passed, are still to be worked on, particularly in regards to the mining industry. That is a concern.
No one will disagree that we want to create and maintain a safe working environment, no one at all. We need cooperation. I am concerned that aspects of this implementation, the timing thereof, may place unnecessary challenges to the development of capacity for cooperation. No one disagrees that there needs to be an improvement and that can only be achieved through cooperation.
I understand and support the principle of independence, having proper resourcing for the agency and having the capacity to relate directly to the minister. They are suitable and necessary reforms.
The core problems that I find in this challenge directly the notion of the appropriate relationship in the workplace and respect for the proprietorial responsibilities and rights of an employer. I have a small business background, farming and working in the non-government school sector, and friends who work in small business. Responsibilities weigh so heavily upon an employer. Unless you have walked in those shoes and understood the weight of the responsibility, not just to make a buck as some who have been perpetually employees and standing from a distance perhaps looking at it through an ideological lens, there are ordinary folk out there from all levels of education who have taken enormous risks with their own capital and put it all on the line and had a dream, failed a couple of times perhaps and got up a small business. Then they have taken, expanded their responsibilities to further that dream and employed others and allowed them to be a part of it.
Perhaps some have had a different approach to life and different experience. They may have had a horrific experience and had horror bosses who have abused people and sucked the life out of them so that they can become rich and then discard workers. I have not really experienced that. I have trained young people, I have seen them in the workplace, I have seen them come and go, I have seen all sorts of conflicts and things like that but, generally, it is nothing so sinister other than people bedding into a new system. There are plenty of means to deal with inappropriate behaviour by an employer, but it is the elevation of the adversarial nature, that divide, that concerns me.
In the workplace, an employer with a number of workers receives some benefits, basic benefits, by organising a strategy within the workplace to monitor, maintain and improve OHS standards within the workplace. I understand with workers compensation, they receive some recognition of that kind of strategy being in place. It is an initiative they take. I do not have the view of employers that they only do it in their own interests. Most employers I know do it in the interests of their workers. They like their workers and they want to see them progress so they put these things in place to benefit all. There is a flow on benefit for the employees as well.
What we are seeing here, though, is the workplace electing its own representative independent of the employer. Perhaps even the employer already has a strategy in place and it appears to me there is going to be duplication. You are going to have the employer with his or her own strategy in place and then the legislation requires another committee with the election of a representative by the employees. It would be appropriate in respect of the workplace that the employer be directly involved in that and able to appoint the representative. After all, the employer who has taken the weight of the responsibility, has a clear benefit personally in the establishment of such strategies, and should be respected in their capacity to ensure that they have an adequate representative. Of course, they are not going to have a representative who is out of sync with the workplace otherwise that is obviously going to be a problem to them. That is a problem to start with.
The second is the access of the union into the workplace. It is a violation of basic rights of ownership in a sense in that if you are running a business that someone should come and speak to you and then in you go rather than have direct access into the workplace. I find that a difficult proposition.
If I, as a school principal, for example, taking the weight of responsibility for all that goes on in the school, had people who could come in and go and assess matters without me knowing about it, without any respect for the fact that I carry these burdens on a daily basis, and yet you feel as if there is another agency which is working against me will only further alienate the one who is carrying the direct responsibility. It is appropriate that there be a respectful relationship established through the approach of the union to at least come in through the front door in a sense, and that is the employer.
I see the amendment on the schedule which has been circulated and that goes some way to alleviating my concerns. If there is a genuine issue in the workplace which must be investigated, that is fine, but as the bill stands, the door is wide open for third parties to come into the workplace and investigate, to film, to measure and to check. That has the potential, particularly in the Territory, to create discord and not help establishing the right culture within the workplace.
Once again, the core of your second reading speech has that central principle, which is greater consultation between workers and employers making more effective OHS in the workplace. We have to protect that because implicit in these two areas is the implied message that employers are in need of close scrutiny and they must checked, they must be held in check, and you have the means now for them to be properly and carefully scrutinised. It is almost as though they are guilty until proven innocent. That is offensive. I know that many of those who have looked at this and carry the responsibility for employees find it insulting.
It is not going to be any step toward engendering the appropriate culture where there is greater cooperation and levels of trust within the workplace, where you can improve the culture and safety standards. It is the culture you need to change, and that is spoken of here. The core philosophy is there, but these measures will not enhance those endeavours.
The final matter, and it is a matter which has raised many eyebrows of those who understand these things, is the removal of basic rights and legal protection for employers. I note, too, that there is a late amendment circulating and I am looking forward to hearing more about that, but inherent in this is something quite extraordinary where the capacity for judgment to be passed upon an employer and the normal rights and protections appear to be removed. If we want to have better cooperation and improved outcomes, you have to establish and strengthen the notion of trust in the whole relationship.
I do not know what is in mind or where this came from. This is not the sort of world I want to operate in. I would like to see us here in the Northern Territory find a better way of achieving these objectives than these heavy-handed approaches which many fair-minded Territorians will find offensive.
I do not know where these ideas have come from. I can guess, knowing that the left faction of the Labor Party now rules the roost. Perhaps that is where it comes from, but there is something embedded in this that needs to be exposed and I think it is going to cause a problem for you, Chief Minister, if you do not make progressive moves to ensure greater capacity for trust in the workplace and respect for employers. There are plenty of measures in here we agree with. As I know from the Chamber of Commence, they are happy to go along with this, but there are a couple of elements that are quite difficult to take.
I urge you, minister, as we come to the stage of looking at these in the committee stage, to allow adequate debate and, hopefully, good sense will prevail in the interests of an enhanced and improved culture in the workplace that achieves the objectives, but based on trust and proper communication between employers and employees.
Mr BURKE (Brennan): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the bill. First, I would like to recognise that Mr Bernie Banton died this morning, a true campaigner for work safety. I hope that we recognise his life and contribution tomorrow with a minute’s silence. I know there is the business of the House, but I think it would be entirely appropriate to do something like that. Bernie Banton is a hero for raising awareness about dust diseases, a hero for raising the profile of dangerous workplaces and the need to be ever vigilant of them, a hero for betting and putting at risk everything he had, even his life, in order to do battle with a large multinational global conglomerate.
What did the executives of that conglomerate do when Bernie Banton first went in with his lawyer to seek compensation? If you go to the Andrew Denton website and look up the interview, you will find out that they laughed. They laughed at him. I do not know the exact words, but they basically told him he had Buckley’s. He had every right to be angry about that, and I will try to find some words, maybe tomorrow.
The whole thing about the diseases that Bernie Banton contracted from his employment was that his employer already knew that the working conditions to which they were subjecting Mr Bernie Banton would cause or could cause health problems. They did not warn their workforce, they did not provide their workforce with the tools to protect themselves, and they showed scant regard - scant regard - for the welfare of their workforce. This is a global conglomerate.
Well may it be said that these types of employers are in the minority. I hope they are. I think they are. However, when it comes to despicable behaviour, it can be perpetrated by the largest of companies as well as the smallest and everyone in between.
Laws dealing with workplace safety are designed, in some way, to attempt to cease such actions or lack of action and care by employers. This bill is a considerable step forward on the act and the law as it stands at the moment prior to passage of the bill.
I welcome the strengthening of NT WorkSafe because there is absolutely no reason why there should be a single death in a single workplace in this country. We have the means of stopping it. We have the technologies available, the practices are known and yet we have deaths in our workplaces here in the Territory, in every state and territory of this country, and in every western country in the world; places which attempt to provide safe workplaces because there are contraventions of even those laws. In places where there is no protection such as this bill attempts to provide, the problems are even greater, the social consequences even greater and the deaths even more numerous. This is the sort of thing that Bernie Banton made the last few years of his life his mission to try to be an advocate for.
Perhaps I see things through too ideological a paradigm, I do not know. Perhaps it is because I have been biased, having worked for a union, and having been in the old Industrial Relations Commission against employers who have had very little regard for the people I was there to represent, I do not know. I would love to suggest that we did not need adversarial mechanisms. I do not think adversarial mechanisms work in a number of instances. I will give one example, however. Within the Work Health Act and the workers compensation scheme, you have mandated a mediation at the start of the process. Shall I tell you what happens with monotonous regularity not just here in this jurisdiction, but others? You go along to try to mediate and you find the employer’s representative sitting there saying nothing, admitting nothing, conceding nothing, contributing nothing. You say: ‘This is an attempted mediation. What are you going to do?’ With monotonous regularity you hear: ‘We are only here because the legislation says we have to go through this mediation process. We just want it ticked off so we can head to court’.
Unfortunately, our culture relies quite heavily on adversarial processes. This Chamber is one; the courts are another. That is the reality. If someone can find a better mechanism, fine. I would love to be able to stand here and say: ‘Isn’t it great that every employer out there doesn’t need the threat of penalties, does not need legislation to mandate what is required for a safe workplace, that everyone would be reasonable and everyone would try to do their best to provide these things’. But it just ain’t so. It just ain’t so. Do some research and find out how many deaths there have been in the workplace this year alone, how many men and women do not go home to their families this year alone.
Strengthening laws on workplace safety, strengthening the body bringing everything together into one framework, I fully support anything that makes Northern Territory workplaces safer for Northern Territory workers. Do not think that from me focusing on this that I do not recognise there are employers who do try because there are, but many of them do not have the skills necessary to implement OHS regimes without assistance. Part of the role of NT WorkSafe is to provide assistance and that is to be commended. People who have formed their own small businesses or, if lucky enough, large businesses usually do so focused on the particular enterprise they are engaged in. For the personnel stuff, the filing stuff, the administrative side of things, many small business people engage others to assist them with. Health and safety is no different an area; it is highly specialised. There are volumes of OHS reports that fill compactus files because our knowledge of OHS is so far ahead of where it was even five years ago that there are continually updates.
One of the points of which I took particular note from the minister’s second reading speech was the better recognition of psychosocial injury, psychological injury. Psychological injury is, in my opinion, not very well recognised in the court environment. Enough studies have been done to show that those with physical and obvious injuries by and large receive greater compensation than those with purely psychological injury. Part of it is that you cannot really prove the extent of a psychological injury. You can prove the outward signs perhaps, but it is an injury which is so hard to really show the full extent of in many cases. I note that recognition is problematic and I understand that. Anyone who has been a personal injuries lawyer in the field of transport accidents or workers compensation or other personal injury areas knows how difficult psychological injury is. What is caused by the event in question? What is caused by something else?
However, as blunt a tool as the adversarial court system is, it is the one we have. It is the one we employ judges and tribunal members to assess. It is a very tough and, having said it is a blunt instrument, I know that those people who engage in trying to make the assessments with the assistance of medical practitioners or psychologists, with all the evidence they can, try to make the best assessments they can. The further analysis that will be done of this area I think is most welcome and I will be very interested in the results.
I welcome the increase in penalties for breaches of workplace safety law, the regulations, the act. These have been outstripped over time. They might have been relevant at one stage, but the passage of years without amendment, or full amendment of those penalties, has meant they have fallen behind and I very much welcome that increase in penalties because, unfortunately for some employers, the threat of the penalty is important. For many, it will not be. I have dealt with a number of employers who have willingly instigated safety measures because they understand that they are the ones who ultimately benefit from it. Safe workplaces tend to be happier workplaces and happier workplaces tend to be more productive workplaces.
Part of ensuring a safe workplace is to listen to the concerns of your workforce. When you have a smaller workforce and willingness, it is relatively easy to communicate with people and to listen to the concerns of your workforce and to act on those. As you grow, it is harder to do so. The mechanism of having workplace OHS officers is fantastic, having employees take on responsibility and undertake training to assist and be a point of reference for other colleagues is a step forward.
The member for Blain said something about being worried about having people come into the workplace, specifically mentioning union officials. The truth of the matter is it is the unions that often identify systemic failures across industries. It is the union activity which often forces industry as a whole to increase its standards. It is not about barging in unannounced, uninvited, going willy-nilly wherever you want. There are some very real limits, and there were before WorkChoices, about what union officials could do. Twenty-four hours notice was one; talking to employees during breaks was another, not interrupting the flow of work at all.
From personal experience, I can say that some employers have been very open and said: ‘Yes, as long as you do not disturb people from their work, talk to who you like where you like, but do not disturb the workplace’. All the officials I have worked with have done exactly that. There are situations at the other end of the scale where the employer will say: ‘There is your room. You sit in there. Whoever wants to talk to you has to see you there’, and they set that room up opposite the manager’s office, which puts off any person going to see the union official. That is a little mechanism that perhaps the member for Blain is not familiar with, but it is one used, again with some regularity, unfortunately. I am not taking this from other sources; I have seen it myself.
The right of a union official, someone who has had extensive training in occupational health and safety issues, someone who has quite a knowledge of the industry in which they are an official, someone who has no obligation anywhere other than to the employees of the workplace to have a right of entry, subject to the conditions I outlined, is commendable. There may be other conditions I have forgotten to mention.
The greater powers for the work and safety officers, and greater enforcement and greater resources for enforcement are welcome. I hope that we do not have, as we did recently, media outlets able to go round and, within five or 10 minutes, be videoing a dangerous practice on some worksite, whether it be construction, mining or anything. We have seen photos in the newspapers. I sat in my office when I was a union official watching a building go up opposite. The painter had his tin on the side, dipping his brush in, leaning over the edge of the wall to try to get to that difficult spot. No scaffolding, no safety net, no safety equipment, no safety harness, and that was on the fourth storey.
There is a real need for strong work safety legislation. This is an improvement on previous legislation. There will always be room for improvement and, through operation after this comes into force, I am sure there will be areas where we can do a little bit better. Work safety is a dynamic area which is always improving, but I am sure that the families of people who have been injured or killed in the workplace will thank this government for these improvements. I hope that it is a positive addition and part of the legacy of greater awareness of workplace safety, part of that legacy that Bernie Banton and people like him leave us.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the member for Brennan. Notwithstanding whatever differences we might have on an ideological front, I thought much of what he had to say was valuable. In legislation like this, it is important to get the balance right. How many times have we said in this Chamber that we are all striving to get the balance right?
We will support the legislation, but we believe that there are points that should be made along the way that we would like government to consider when it regularly reviews and assesses legislation after its implementation, as a good government should. We make our points because we want government to take them into account. We know they are unwilling to change the legislation, but it is important in much the same way as the member for Brennan outlined his reasonably passionate belief that the bill is perfect, equally we will outline our reasonably passionate view as to why it is not.
In any event, let us be very clear on one thing: that is that the opposition supports legislation that is aimed at providing better and safer workplaces for hard-working Territorians. Who would not? It is a pretty simple concept. To the extent that the contents of the bill achieve those things, then we are pleased and they are, obviously, supportable.
However, what is not being prosecuted, for the want of a better word, by government either in the second reading speech or any of the contributions I have heard so far or, indeed, media releases, is other parts of the bill which, we believe, are concerning. The member for Brennan talked about the fact that there are some good employers and some not-so-good ones. Equally, there are some good workers and some not-so-good ones. Getting the balance right is important. We have great difficulty with changing the nature of the workplace in the Northern Territory to such an extent where the pendulum, in our view, has swung not all the way but too far in terms of making it difficult for employers. We would expect government to have difficulty with our points, but we make them nevertheless because we strongly believe that we should.
The bill allows for interference in the workplace which is unprecedented in the Northern Territory. I used to be the member of a union when I was a university student working some summer holidays. I do not have any ideological difficulties with unions. The member for Brennan was right: unions have achieved great things over the years. There is no doubt about that. They do assist decision-makers when they identify difficulties in the workplace. They also assist members of the union in that process.
However, we do not believe that the unprecedented change in the Territory that gives unions greater powers of entry in this bill, which are, in our view, greater than any jurisdiction in the country, are appropriate. The member for Blain talked about some of these things, but I propose to do so as well. The power of entry without notice and without grounds to enter a workplace to inspect a workplace for nominally OHS reasons is of concern. The bill contains powers that cannot be used in any other fashion, such as IR disputes. However, the experience in other jurisdictions has shown this not to be the case. These changes will have the effect, in our view, of blurring the lines between industrial relations and the work health issues that fundamentally change the nature of the Work Health Authority and create powers of investigation that are not extended to police who investigate serious crimes. I will come back to that, but I would like to have heard the member for Brennan, who is a lawyer and practised in the area, on that, but I will come back to it.
The authority under this legislation has changed substantially. Clauses 11 to 14 introduce powers of the Authority to demand sworn evidence. These powers currently do not exist. Currently, the Authority operates as an administrative body that oversees the inspectors. These powers to demand evidence include an offence of failing to provide the evidence requested. Presumably, this process is aimed to assist the investigation process but, essentially, will have the effect of creating a pre-trial hearing to determine whether a prosecution should proceed. The only reason that a person can refuse, based on our reading of the bill, is if they have had a reasonable excuse to fail to comply with the instruction. The right to silence that would normally be afforded in the court, would not be afforded as a reasonable excuse, and the right to avoid self-incrimination and therefore, the right to silence, is specifically overturned by dint of clause 94 whereas section 37(5) of the old act confirms this right. Is that not of some interest to the member for Brennan?
In the bill, it is proposed that it will become the Authority’s job to decide whether to proceed with prosecutions pursuant to the Work Health Act and I refer to clause 80. The police do not have the power to demand that people hand over information pertaining to their criminal investigations unless they have a warrant. Under the proposed bill, on our reading, the Authority and its investigators do have the power to demand information without a warrant. These are extraordinary powers of investigation.
If the Work Health Authority wants to investigate matters, it would be appropriate that they should have powers of investigation commensurate with police powers, that is, the right the obtain warrants or simply ask for the information.
The power to obtain warrants still exists in clause 69, but these new powers are over and above the standard powers. I am uncertain as to how a court would deal with evidence when the information has been obtained under threat of criminal sanction, and the information turned out to be self-incriminating or extracted in circumstances where the right to silence would normally operate. Is this not of interest to the member for Brennan?
In the past, admissions made under coercive circumstances have been ruled involuntary and therefore, inadmissible. There is a general principle in law that coercion should not be used to obtain admissions of guilt for obvious reasons. One of the fundamental tenets of our criminal legal is the right not to have to provide self-incriminating evidence. Is this not of interest to the member for Brennan?
The accuser must prove a wrong doing. Clause 94 specifically removes the right to remain silent on the grounds of self-incrimination. Contrast that with section 10 of the Evidence Act, which states:
- Nothing in this Act shall render any witness compellable to answer a question tending to incriminate himself.
Consequently, the Authority will be able to collect evidence outside the normal rules of evidence and make directions according to the evidence obtained, including making a decision to prosecute. If it makes, and I stress ‘if’, directions that are punitive in nature, then the government will have established a body that has the role of judge and jury within the executive. Is that not of interest to the member for Brennan and other members of government?
Employers, as we know, are not criminals, and they have their rights, just like everyone else. Their rights have been, on our reading of the legislation, stripped away by this instrument. If a union official walks into a workplace, decides that there is something to complain about, then the Authority becomes judge and jury.
Whilst this is, and it can, I think, be reasonably regarded as, relatively intrusive legislation, there are other issues of some concern. Specifically Parts 6 and 7, comprising clauses 64 to 74. They deal predominantly with incident notification and reportable incidents. These sections outline what a reportable incident is and powers of investigation by the Authority. The powers include the power to demand a site be left undisturbed as well as powers of entry and investigation. We do not have a problem with this as it mirrors existing powers in the old act, namely section 39, and if anything the bill defines the powers more comprehensively by being more specific in the nature of powers extended to investigators whereas the old act was more general. Nevertheless, the powers of investigation clarify many of the powers that an investigator would choose to use.
The fundamental change is the operation of clause 94 of the bill. Clause 94 specifically removes the right to remain silent on the grounds of self-incrimination. Clause 70 makes it a criminal offence not to comply with certain directions given by an investigator. Clause 72 creates a general power to demand information on oath by an investigator when the self-incrimination clause applies. Clause 73 makes it an offence to hinder or obstruct an officer in an investigation for which the offender could go to gaol for up to six months.
To put this into context, if a police officer had similar powers, he or she would be able to enter a place at any time without grounds simply to monitor compliance with the law and demand a person to provide whatever information the police officer required on oath, and if that person refused or failed to comply, including information that could incriminate that person, they would be committing a criminal offence. The only requirement is to give ‘reasonable notice’, whatever that means, pursuant to clause 67(2)(a). In our view, these are extraordinary powers of investigation.
Division 7, clauses 49 to 54, deals with union rights of entry into the workplace. There are currently no powers of union access to workplaces under the Work Health Act. In the Territory, the current Work Health Act caters for workplace governance by giving WorkSafe inspectors powers of inspection, an approach used in all jurisdictions, but also there is a requirement for health and safety committees.
Operation of the health and safety committees is governed by Section 44(a) to 44(g) of the current act. These committees must exist in any workplace of 20 or more workers. Not less than half of any such committee must be elected workers from the workplace. The committee is supposed to liaise with the employer about all matters pertaining to OHS issues in the workplace, and these are balanced and sensible approaches to OHS issues.
A person must be nominated by the committee to inspect a workplace from time to time, with the agreement of the employer, or on reasonable notice to the employer, if the workplace has not been inspected in the preceding 30 days. The committee must meet at least every three months, and there is a duty imposed upon the employer to furnish details and consult with the committee in relation to matters pertaining to OHS issues in the workplace.
These are reasonable and comprehensive, however the Workplace Health and Safety Bill provides for rights of entry that are extraordinary because of two new factors, first the issue of notice of entry and, secondly, grounds for entry. In relation to notice, the following only is required for a union official to enter the workplace with the exception of the requirement to give notice to inspect records because of the terms of the federal Workplace Relations Act under which there is no requirement for notification of entry. Under the proposed amendments, the only requirements are:
that the union official has an identity card issued by the Work Health Authority nominating him or her as on OH&S representative;
they must have members at the site or be a party to an award that governs the site which means that there need be no members there;
to comply with Commonwealth law;
which is very limited in this area for reasons I will not go into, but I am sure the drafters of legislation will understand them.
identify themselves to the apparent person in charge of the workplace;
whatever that means.
enter during work hours; and
must comply with the person who is in charge of the site that they then comply with OHS demands of the site.
Madam Speaker, for the purpose of the above, an ‘authorised purpose’ means:
to discuss OH&S issues with any member or potential member of a union;
to observe work practices; and
to investigate any suspected contravention of the act.
In relation to the second issue, namely grounds, we make the following points: in all other jurisdictions where this legislation operates, particularly in the jurisdictions where there is no requirement for notice, the union official must have some reasonable suspicion or reasonable grounds to enter the workplace because of a possible breach of OHS rules that the union official has become aware of. No such requirement exists in the proposed Northern Territory legislation. The Territory legislation is designed, on our reading of it, to allow carte blanche access to establish grounds with no notice.
There is no other equivalent or similar legislation in the country that combines the no notice/no grounds approach. This is of great concern to the opposition and I note to employer bodies. If memory serves me correctly, it was the Chamber of Commerce and the TCA which both came out and made their objections in relation to some parts of the bill well known.
I now turn to powers of investigation by unions. Once inside the workplace, the proposed legislation gives the power to unions to conduct investigations that include videoing, recording, measuring, interviewing workers, demanding the production of documents to take whatever extracts or copies they see fit other than personal health records of workers.
I do not propose to list what some might describe as a litany of cases and incidents that illustrate that this type of legislation has been abused in the past. There are instances in Western Australia, and I refer to the one in 1997 in which the Western Australian newspaper reported that a union official entered a work site and shut down a crane for three hours using the OHS powers to gain entry to the work site. There are a number of examples, and I am sure members opposite know them. I feel certain the member for Brennan would know them. The point is that as a consequence of making changes of this nature in this legislation, it has the ability to open up the workplace to abusive conduct, intimidatory conduct and a conduct that is offensive. We wonder why it is that the Labor government has chosen to do so.
Madam Speaker, there are a number of other issues, and I note that the member for Blain has talked about them and I do not propose to revisit much of what he said, but I refer to clause 93, which makes it an offence to discriminate against a worker because of their involvement in OHS issues, for example as a safety representative. That, of course, is quite reasonable. The offence carries a gaol penalty and, according to clause 93.4:
- The employer will be presumed to have discriminated against a worker unless the employer proves that they were innocent of the charge.
If in proceedings for an offence against this section the employer is found to have discriminated against a worker or prospective worker, it will be presumed that the employer did so on the ground alleged in the instrument of charge unless the employer establishes the contrary on the balance of probabilities.
In short, the onus shifts immediately to the employer, or to put it in more simple language, guilty until proven innocent. Our view is that this stands and, indeed, I am sure the member for Brennan’s view would be, if pushed, that this is contrary to some pretty fundamental principles of law.
They are a sprinkling of issues. I should say for the purposes of the record that my pages are not numbered and I feel certain that I have missed a page. However, for the purposes of the debate, we have illustrated why it is that we are concerned, why it is that the Chamber of Commerce has expressed concern. All of us are committed to good legislation that achieves great outcomes, and let us be very clear about that, but we would not be doing our jobs properly if we did not, on the way through, as it were, highlight some of the issues.
I wrote a letter to some employers a week or so ago, and I will quote from parts of it:
- This bill will radically shift the balance in workplaces in the Territory, and powers relating to unions are buried in the changes to the Work Health Act.
In our view, and indeed, the view of others, so in reply, if government members are planning on saying we do not know what we are talking about, they can apply that to the Chamber of Commerce, the TCA and others who I am sure have been speaking to government about it, but the bill strips away, in our view and others, from employers legal protections enjoyed by the rest of the community. Individuals charged with serious criminal offences have, it can fairly be said, in some respects more rights than employers accused of breaching OHS rules. Our view is that these changes incorporated in the bill have been designed, in terms of the government’s spin department, to fly under the radar. For our part, we will continue, as we always do, our discussions with Territory businesses. We know that they are concerned and, in some cases, we know that there is resentment turning to anger. I should say in relation to those businesses and industries that they are committed to looking after their workers and are the first to agree to sensible and reasonable OHS changes.
I sought, in my contribution, to make some comparisons, although it has not been extensive, between the existing act and the new bill to show what we call the radical shift in the balance in workplaces in the Northern Territory. I would like to hear from the Chief Minister, and I note he has carriage of this legislation, his views on the Territory being the only jurisdiction where a union official can enter a workplace without having the grounds to do so and without notice. I am very interested to hear his views on the right to silence being suspended and the right to avoid self-incrimination also being suspended as a result of what can only be described as changes to what I, and I feel certain the member for Brennan, would have regarded as fundamental legal rights.
Madam Speaker, we have tried in a relatively thoughtful manner to outline our concerns. The member for Blain has some amendments. I am not optimistic of the government taking up those amendments, but you never know. One day we are going to get lucky, as the new Chief Minister did at 4.45 pm on Sunday. We look forward to the continuation of the debate and the government’s response to the proposed amendments.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Speaker, speaking after two lawyers, I feel a little inadequate. I come from a layman’s perspective, being a past small business operator, a past union member, a past non-union member in the workplace and having been approached by a number of constituents who have come to me with their concerns and reading comments from some small business people in Alice Springs.
I do not have the background knowledge that the previous two speakers have and I appreciate their contributions, although I have to say to the member for Brennan, he must have had a very miserable life before coming into parliament. What he had to say was so sad. Things cannot be that bad out there!
We all agree what we want most of all is a safe workplace, and that is the intent of this bill. There is no one in this House who will argue against that. We know there have been accidents and deaths, and any incident in the workplace where people are harmed is tragic. Let me just say to the member for Brennan: all the legislation and regulations in the world will not stop incidents happening for the simple reason that there are always human factors involved. Yes, we can try to introduce legislation that will help people be reassured that their workplace is safe, but we are never going to stop something happening.
I look back and think about the small contracting business that my husband ran before I came into this place. The employees enjoyed above award wages, flexible work hours to suit their family commitments, bonuses and the use of the firm’s equipment. It was a happy workplace and they were very productive because they did a lot of bush work. No, they did not want union representatives within their workplace because they felt they could cope quite well on their own in negotiating with a good employer. As the member for Blain said, it is not all bad out there. There are good employers and perhaps not-so-good employers in the same way as there are good employees and not-so-careful employees. We have to be realistic about this. I can understand the government, because of the huge workers compensation bill they have that has probably come about from incidents in the workplace, wanting to tighten it up and make it better.
The concern that was raised with me is the clause about union representation in this bill that is not in the current act. There are nervous Nellies out there who are saying: ‘Is this part of the Labor Party’s federal and territory agenda that now suddenly unionism is going to be high on the ladder for governments?’ Perhaps the minister can say why he felt it was necessary to include union representation and their roles in this bill when it is not in the current act. He will probably say: ‘It is because we are upgrading and making it better’.
It was raised with me that there was concern that unions could walk into the workplace at any stage unannounced and without notice. During the briefing I was reassured that the section covers that the representative must comply with recent obligations imposed by the Workplace Relations Act, which requires 24 hours notice of entry. That is reassuring in a way. This raised the question: ‘We are conforming with the Commonwealth act. Do we, as a territory, have the right to have IR laws?’ I raise that as a matter of interest because the Self-Government Act says we cannot, that as a territory we do not have the right handle our own IR laws. That is a federal matter. I think the advice from the minister will be that this is covered by the Commonwealth Workplace Relations Act anyway.
I am pleased with one of the amendments circulated today because at the briefing, the role of the union rep was raised, and I notice now that subclause 3(b) has been omitted. That subclause read:
- An ‘authorised purpose’ is one of the following: to observe work practices at the workplace involving or affecting a member of the employer organisation.
The member for Brennan mentioned that and I do not think that is what the Workplace Relations Act is all about, that a union member can come in to observe the work practices. They come in on request. They come in to check out a particular incident. They do not come in just to stand around and have a look and see what is going on and checking out whether things are going right or wrong. I will support today’s amendment. I thank the officers who gave us the briefing for picking up on that suggestion.
We also raised the question of the right to remain silent. There was concern that it had been removed from this bill. I noticed that we have an amendment in respect of ‘the abrogation of privilege against self-incrimination’. I would like the minister to explain it more as we go through it, but it certainly allayed some of our fears that evidence could be used, whereas this amendment reads:
- The answer to the question or the information provided is not admissible in evidence against a person in civil or criminal proceedings.
That is a good response to a concern that was raised and it shows, minister, that concerns raised by some of the groups have been addressed and we appreciate that very much.
Employers must pay for expenses for training for elected health and safety representatives was something else raised with us. Clause 42 is to the effect that a training obligation requires the employer on request of the workplace representative to allow them to attend approved training on full pay and to pay reasonable costs associated with attending the course.
Minister, you said in your second reading speech that the Northern Territory government will pay for initial training courses for representatives in businesses with 10 to 20 employees. That is good. You also said at page 5 of your second reading speech: ‘roving or shared representatives will be allowed for small businesses where they can collaborate on costs’. I cannot see provision in the bill for that to happen. Whether it will be in the guidelines that will be published, I am not sure. I seek your clarification on that. You mentioned it in the second reading speech, but where is it covered in the bill?
At our briefing, we were told there was to be consultation with stakeholders and that there will be guidelines issued for union representatives in the workplace before the bill is assented to. I believe they have not been drawn up yet. It would be worthwhile and useful for us to see those guidelines so that we know whether they allay some of the concerns that have been raised. I am not quite sure when they will be completed. Perhaps you can give us some indication of when that will happen.
There was concern about employees electing a representative if they wish to. It was not quite clear whether the employee has a say in who will be elected or not as the Health and Safety representative. There seemed to be duplication in some of the positions, but I think we are clear on that. I would like the minister to clarify that for us. I would like to be reassured that this bill is not going to impose too much upon small business. Big business, when they have such large operations, has an added obligation to employees, but I want to be reassured that employees also have a safety net and, where possible, we can avoid the accidents that happen.
Why are we having such a large amount of workers compensation paid out? I think you said workers compensation premiums cost Territory business $82m last year. That is a lot of money for one year, isn’t it? Perhaps you can explain why it is such a costly business. We have had in the past many workers compensation cases that seem to have dragged on for years. Has the process been made simpler within this bill? That is not directly related to the bill, but often, delays in resolution of cases bring a lot of stress and concern to families and sometime processes need to be streamlined.
I noticed the member for Blain has amendments. Perhaps we can look at them when we are going through the committee stage.
Mr Mills: Sure.
Mrs BRAHAM: It would have been helpful for us if you had put a little note explaining what they were about and where they were from.
Mr Mills: I did that in my speech.
Mrs BRAHAM: Yes, but you can understand where we are coming from because we were not totally sure.
I want to thank the small business people who did get in touch with me. They will be a little reassured by what we have heard tonight. The Chamber of Commerce, which has also been in touch, acknowledge that they are not going to win everything, but as long as they can win enough to make it a better situation for everyone, that is what it is all about. The word ‘balance’ was used in an earlier speech, and that is what we want.
Minister, I thank very much the officers for the briefing yesterday. I thank them also for taking on board some of the comments we made, and the fact they have responded. I look forward to your response.
Mr HENDERSON (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I thank honourable members for their contributions to the debate. I thank the Leader of the Opposition because she said that the opposition will support this legislation, even though they will move some amendments which we will debate in the committee stage.
Fundamentally, this is the most major reform of this legislation in 20 years. It is long overdue and, as all members have said, this goes to the heart of providing a safer workplace in the Northern Territory, and Territory workplaces are fundamentally different in so many respects in 2007 than what they were.
I had just finished working in my trade in the Territory in 1985 before I moved into the IT industry. Workplaces were very different in the early 1980s. The human cost and scale of human tragedy of accidents in the workplace are exemplified by deaths in the workplace, which the member for Brennan talked about. Every worker in Australia should be absolutely confident when going to work every day that they are going to come home. I agree with the member for Brennan. We have the systems in place, we know what we are doing in the workplace, and every employer has a duty to provide a safe workplace, and every employee has a responsibility to work safely and to look after their fellow workers.
I will go through the comments by individual members, but first I want to say that this legislation is born out of a comprehensive review of all Occupational Health and Safety legislation throughout Australia, with a very explicit brief to the consultants who conducted the review that we wanted to update our legislation to be contemporary in Australia. A lot of the misapprehensions, for want of a better word, that employer organisations about the application of this legislation in the workplace has not been borne out in any way, shape, manner or form in other states where this legislation exists.
I have had a number of meetings with employer organisations over the last 12 months, as have officers of my department, to work these issues through and, fundamentally, we are very nearly there and aligned on the same page. There are a couple of issues which are still disputed, but that is more to do with a misunderstanding as to how this bill will work in practice.
The member for Blain talked about a cultural change in the workplace and that is absolutely what we are trying to engender in this bill. There was a lot of confusion when the draft bill was released for public comment about the powers the health and safety representatives would have and what they would do. Employer representatives who came to speak to me about 10 days ago about this bill said that employers spend a lot of money having occupational health and safety departments within their business, they train people and they are on the ground. Yes, many organisations typically do that. The bigger organisations that have the capacity and systems to put that sort of regime in place, but a lot of smaller businesses just do not have the capacity and systems to put a comprehensive employee occupational health and safety regime in place with dedicated staff on the ground looking to those issues.
This bill will apply in all workplaces in the Northern Territory. As I said to the employer organisation, it is all very right and proper that employer organisations have an absolute legal responsibility to provide a safe workplace, but the heart of this reform is to give ownership through employee-nominated health and safety representatives in the workplace. It is actually to give ownership to the employees in regards to safety in their workplace; they actually have a nominated represented who is working with the management, the occupational health and safety team if it is a bigger organisation, in a spirit of partnership to ensure there is a safe workplace and an extra pair of eyes and ears in the workplace, engaging in regular dialogue with their workmates.
That is the fundamental change here. It is not just an employer’s responsibility to provide a safe workplace; it is the employee’s responsibility to work safely. The introduction of health and safety representatives in the workplace is going to strengthen that culture amongst employees to work safely, because they will have ownership of that person and the responsibilities that they have in the workplace. They are in every other jurisdiction in Australia where the sky has not fallen in. Some of the fears about additional costs have not been borne out or impacted elsewhere in Australia.
We will go to the other concerns the employers had about union right of entry. This is a complex issue. We have just been through a federal election campaign that was very much a referendum on WorkChoices and workers’ rights in the workplace. There was a resounding public view. If you talk about the pendulum and where the balance was, the former Commonwealth Liberal government had gone too far in reducing the rights of workers in workplaces right across Australia. I notice that on the news tonight, the aspirants for the Liberal Party leadership are already saying that they had gone too far and they need to distance themselves from the Howard/Costello reform agenda.
I will explain the application. The member for Braitling was absolutely right. Under the Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act, this parliament does not have any IR powers, and our IR regime is referred back to the Commonwealth Workplace Relations Act. So at the moment in the Northern Territory under Commonwealth law, unions do have the right of entry into the workplace to investigate a breach on IR grounds under section 747 of the Workplace Relations Act. The provisos are that the union must have a member of the union on-site, it must be in working hours, there must be 24 hours notice unless exempted by the Industrial Relations Commission, and no access to residential premises.
Currently under the Workplace Relations Act in the Northern Territory, unions have right of entry to hold discussions with employees pursuant to section 760 of the Workplace Relations Act where they have a member or an eligible member, that is that the employer employs under the award, who carries out work that is covered by an award or collective agreement that is binding on the union, only during working hours and only on a break and with 24 hours notice.
Employers and the employer associations say: ‘We have never had union right of entry in the Northern Territory’. That is wrong. Currently, under the Workplace Relations Act, unions do have right of entry to workplaces in the Northern Territory. What has not occurred in the Northern Territory is because we did not have a facilitation provision within our Work Health legislation, the Workplace Relations Act does allow provision for an investigation of a breach on occupational health and safety grounds under section 756, subject to enabling legislation in the state or territory. That is what we have never had in the Northern Territory. I do not believe, as the Leader of the Opposition said, that this is going to be a radical shift or a radical departure.
In relation to the Commonwealth Workplace Relations Act, which was amended extensively under the former federal government’s WorkChoices legislation, I did not hear any employer organisation saying that John Howard had gone too far, that this was a radical shift in terms of facilitating union right of entry. There has been a comprehensive misunderstanding by employer associations in the Northern Territory about what this bill actually provides for. It provides for access for union officials in regard to occupational health and safety-related issues that are allowed for under the Commonwealth Workplace Relations Act. So if this is a radical shift, then it would follow that those employer organisations would be railing against the Workplace Relations Act and I have never heard them do that.
So there has been a misunderstanding. This is not a radical departure from anywhere else in Australia. It is contemporary in nature and it goes to the very fact that unions can and do play a very constructive role working with members or eligible members and employers on improving safety in the workplace. Unions are not proscribed organisations in Australia. There has been a long tradition of allowing unions reasonable access to workplaces in Australia. All this legislation does is trigger the clauses in the Commonwealth Workplace Relations Act that allow them on site for occupational health and safety matters in the same way that the Commonwealth legislation allows them right of entry for IR powers.
The member for Brennan spoke about Bernie Banton who died this morning. I agree with the member for Brennan. Bernie has been a hero and a beacon for workers not only in Australia but throughout the world who have had to fight through the courts a terrible injustice that has been afflicted on Bernie and others like him by years of working in unsafe workplaces. It is an absolute scandal that massive multinational companies can tie up quite legitimate claims for compensation for years and years and years through the court system, waiting for people to die so they never have to pay compensation. Bernie died a national hero and it is a tragedy that he died in the circumstances that he did.
WorkSafe is going to be beefed up to facilitate this new regime across the Northern Territory and the member for Brennan said that the establishment of health and safety representatives in the workplace is a big improvement. I certainly think it is.
The Leader of the Opposition spoke at length. I do not know what she was reading from; I think it was a submission from one of the employer organisations that came to me early in the debate. We can get to the details of some of the issues she spoke about when we are debating amendments proposed by the opposition and proposed by me as the minister.
In regards to powers of the investigators, we have taken advice from DEET lawyers, the Department of Justice and Parliamentary Counsel on these matters. I am advised that they are appropriate and they are not extraordinary in the context of contemporary occupational health and safety legislation. The Leader of the Opposition stated that a registered union official can close down a site on occupational health and safety grounds. They explicitly cannot. Only a representative from WorkSafe NT has those powers. Again, she said this bill was a radical shift. This is contemporary legislation; it is not radical legislation. It is contemporary legislation and the sky has not fallen in elsewhere in Australia where it is in place.
The member for Braitling talked about the impact on small business. I was very wary of that when the consultant provided me with the initial report and the recommendation was that every workplace in the Northern Territory, where employees in the workplace wanted a formal health and safety representative, every employer had to provide for that. When we looked at what was happening in other jurisdictions, the Australian Capital Territory, Tasmania, the smaller states did not have the requirement where an employer had 10 employees or fewer. That covers, member for Braitling, around 85% of all employers in the Northern Territory. They can use this provision if they want to facilitate a health and safety representative, there is facilitative provision where they can elect to do so, but they cannot be required to do so under this legislation.
We will review this act in five years time. That will be one of the issues up for review, a requirement for smaller businesses being required to have health and safety representatives. The reason we took that call, as I said, was we are a small jurisdiction. The vast number of our businesses are small with fewer than 10 people. A large number of those are sole trading enterprises or only one or two people, where the owner of the business is working in the business right next door, doing the same tasks essentially as the employees and common sense prevails 99 times out of a 100 when people are working in a specific workplace with specific tasks, side by side. They normally work it out themselves. The impact on small businesses is not there because they are exempt from the requirement to have health and safety representatives if they employ fewer than 10 people, although they can elect to do so.
The member for Braitling talked about the sharing of costs. Clause 35 of the bill, Part 4 Division 3 states:
- If a single work group consists of the workers of two or more employers, any costs and expenses of a health and safety representative that are to be borne by an employer under this part are to be apportioned between the employers as agreed between them or in default of an agreement, equally.
There is a requirement under the bill to share those costs if they elect to share health and safety representatives.
There has been an enormous amount of consultation go into this legislation over the last 12 months. I thank all the employee organisations, the unions that have had input, the employer organisations that have had input, our consultants who have done a great job, members of the department and my Senior Policy Advisor who has done an extraordinary amount of work in assisting with the consultation mechanisms that have led to this bill.
I am very confident that this bill will lead to safer workplaces in the Northern Territory. It will assist in improving a culture of safety in the workplace in the Northern Territory. I would like to leave my wrapping-up comments and speak from a summary from a publication for which I have great regard. It comes from Construction Connections, the TCA’s quarterly magazine, third quarter 2007, and includes comments from Mr Steve Margetic, one of the directors of one of the Territory’s largest construction companies, Sitzler Brothers. Mr Margetic is discussing OHS changes happening at the federal level and are reflected in this legislation:
- Are the OH&S changes necessary? Absolutely. Of value? Without a doubt. It has changed the industry needs to embrace, to maintain access to any Commonwealth-funded projects and in the Territory, that is a big slice of available work. Just as importantly, we have to embrace these changes for our industry to be attractive to new entrants. People are keen to see their kids go into industries that look after them and the construction industry’s still got some work to do to demonstrate that.
I know that there are many employers who support these reforms. They know the greatest challenge that they have at the moment is attracting and maintaining a skilled workforce. If employees in this market can see that they have opportunities to work with an employer who has a strong work health safety focus in their workplace and an employer who does not, I know where the majority of those workers are going to go.
As parents, we all want our children, when they elect to go into the workplace, to have the confidence that they are going to go to an industry that is a safe one to work in. Everyone has to lift the bar. The majority of employers do the right thing; a minority does the wrong thing. We do need a culture change across the Northern Territory in Occupational Health and Safety in the workplace and I am very confident that this act will go a long way to facilitating that cultural change.
Motion agreed to; bills read a second time.
In committee:
Workplace Health and Safety Bill (Serial 123)
Clauses 1 to 4, by leave, taken together:
Mr MILLS: Mr Chairman, I move that amendment 27.1 so that the issue of who elects the health and safety representatives can be dealt with.
The bill before the House anticipates that the Health and Safety Committee itself elects the health and safety representative. This is a problem because such representatives usually already exist at the expense of the employer. It has been made clear to me that the most substantial work sites already have an employer-nominated representative and, indeed, larger firms employ such people exclusively for OHS purposes.
The purpose for this is that insurance companies place a premium discount on the presence of such representatives and consequently, employers bear the costs of such employment because it saves a considerable amount in insurance premiums. It is only fair that as it is the employer who pays the insurance premium and the cost of the training of such representatives, they should retain the choice of who should take up that position.
The first amendment in my schedule addresses these issues as it seeks to amend the bill so that it is the employers who select the representative. This is a matter of common sense because if the system in the bill is adopted, a situation will exist where an employer will have to pay for training, possibly twice over, if an unqualified person is elected to the position of health and safety representative.
Worse still, and considering the access this bill is attempting to give to unions, the capacity of an OHS representative to cross into areas of industrial relations is there because this bill in its entirety changes the nature of OHS as it has been practiced up to now in the Territory, therefore depriving the employer of the right to determine who their OHS representative is and deprives them of control of their workplace. It is incongruous to me that the bill determines that an employer still has all the common law liabilities and, in the next breath, removes the capacity of that employer to control the workplace for which the common law makes them responsible.
Mr Chairman, I seek support for the proposed amendment from this committee.
Mr HENDERSON: Mr Chairman, this goes to the fundamental policy shift that I talked about in my closing remarks in debate on the second reading.
The facilitation of health and safety representatives provided for by this legislation is really to empower ownership of health and safety issues in the workplace by employees in the workplace. The member for Blain said we already have legislation that provides for occupational health and safety committees. Yes, we do. By implication, the member for Blain is saying: ‘Why do we not just stay with the current provision under the current act that provides a requirement for occupational health and safety committees? They are working fine; we do not need to amend them. Most employers do the right thing by having occupational health and safety representatives in the workplace’. Well, the facts just do not reflect that, member for Blain, and it is not contemporary practice.
He talked about the costs of insurance premiums and discounts where you have health and safety committees in the workplace. The actual cost last year for workers’ compensation payments was $82m in the Northern Territory. As the member for Braitling said, that is a huge amount of money and averages around $6000 per annum per worker in the Northern Territory. It is an extraordinary amount of money. If the system, as provided for under existing legislation, was working well, I would hate to see something working badly. The cost to business in lost time and loss of productivity as a result: last year in the Northern Territory, there were 2949 compensation claims that came in at a value of $82m. That is absolutely extraordinary and is what is happening under the current legislation and the current culture of occupational health and safety in our workplaces provided for with committees.
Health and safety representatives elected by people in the workplace are going to be able to address immediate occupational health issues in their day-to-day work. They do not have to wait for a committee meeting to occur. The committee might only meet once a week. These health and safety representatives have powers under legislation. They are trained. They cannot exceed or abuse those powers because if they do, the accreditation is removed. The employer always has a right to request an officer from WorkSafe come in if they query the claim by the health and safety representative in the workplace.
Having health and safety representatives in the workplace allows for employees to take immediate action where there are imminent dangers becoming apparent in the workplace, without having to call on the employer to come down and do something about it, call a WorkSafe inspector in to do something about it, or wait for a committee to convene to discuss it with management.
We do not support the amendments as proposed by the member for Blain because they fundamentally seek to maintain the status quo. The status quo is not working, and that is borne out by the figure for workers compensation payments of $82m last year, and nearly 3000 Territorians injured in the workplace to such an extent that they claimed under workers compensation insurance.
Proposed amendment negatived.
Clauses 1 to 4, as printed, agreed to.
After Clause 32, Part 4, Divisions 2 and 3:
Mr MILLS: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 27.2, which deals with health and safety committees.
Amendment negatived.
Mr MILLS: Mr Chairman, I want to discuss Division 7, which relates to clauses 49 to 54. These clauses are about union access to the workplace. By way of amendment, I invite defeat of Division 7 in its entirety. This division is the most contentious of the bill. It introduces a union right of access to the workplace, any workplace, without notice and without grounds so the union can look into OHS issues.
There are currently no powers of union access to workplaces under the Work Health Act. In the Territory, the Work Health Act caters for workplace governance by giving WorkSafe inspectors powers of inspection, an approach used in all jurisdictions, but also there is a requirement for health and safety committees. The operation of the health and safety committees is governed by sections 44(a) and 44(g) of the current act. These committees must exist in any workplace of 20 or more workers and not less than half of any such committee must be elected workers from the workplace.
The committee is supposed to liaise with the employer about all matters pertaining to OHS issues in the workplace. A person must be nominated by the committee to inspect the workplace from time to time with the agreement of the employer or on reasonable notice to the employer if the workplace has not been inspected in the preceding 30 days.
The committee must meet at least every three months and there is a duty imposed upon the employer to furnish details and consult with the committee in relation to matters pertaining to OHS issues in the workplace. At a Commonwealth level, Part 15 of the Workplace Relations Act 1996 deals with rights of entry by representative organisations into the workplace. Most of that part is dedicated to the operation of entry rights related to IR matters, nevertheless sections 755 to 759 are exclusively dedicated to entry rights for unions in relation to OHS issues.
The Workplace Relations Act 1996 is drafted to accommodate the operation of state level legislation relating to work health issues. The courts have ruled that the Commonwealth legislation was not written with the intent to cover the field, and so the operation of section 109 of the Constitution, Inconsistent State and Commonwealth legislation, that is the Commonwealth law shall prevail to the extent of the inconsistency, did not nullify the whole instrument.
If it were held that the Commonwealth instrument was intended to cover the field, the state legislation would have been completely nullified. However, that was not the intent of the Commonwealth when passing these sections in the Workplace Relations Act 1996. The effect is that state/Commonwealth inconsistency issues need to be dealt with on the case by case basis. This then allows for the capacity for visiting union officials to engage in jurisdiction shopping. In that case, the CFMEU had no powers to enter a workplace under the Workplace Relations Act so they used the local arm of an affiliate union to gain access to a workplace using the local OHS laws.
The proposed Territory Workplace Health and Safety Bill acknowledges this requirement in a note in the bill, pointing out that a union official exerting his or her authority is bound by Commonwealth legislation. The note refers to the requirement for a unionist who wants to inspect employee records and says that person must give 24 hours notice to the employer of the requirement to see the records. Because the Workplace Relations Act is not prescriptive in relation to OHS issues, the proposed amendments in the Workplace Health and Safety Bill provide for rights of entry that are extraordinary because of, first, the issue of notice, and secondly the grounds for entry.
With the exception of the requirement to give notice to inspect records, there is no requirement for notification of entry. Under the proposed amendments, the only requirements are the official has an identity card issued by the Work Health Authority, nominating him or her as an OHS representative; must have members at the site or be a party to an Award that governs the site; comply with Commonwealth law; identify themselves to the apparent to the person in charge of the work place; enter during work hours; and must comply with the person who is in charge of the site, that they comply with the OHS demands of the site. For that purpose, an ‘authorised purpose’ means to discuss OHS issues with any member or potential member of the union.
I note the amendment has been circulated and I would like to know when that is going to be dealt with. That is the second one to observe work practices and to investigate any suspected contravention of the act.
In all other jurisdictions where this legislation operates, particularly in the jurisdictions where there is no requirement for notice, the union official must have reasonable suspicion or reasonable grounds to enter the workplace because of the possible breach of OHS rules the union official has become aware of. No such requirement exists in the proposed NT legislation. The Territory legislation is designed to allow open access to establish grounds with no notice.
There is no other equivalent or similar legislation in the country that combines the no notice, no grounds approach. Once inside the workplace, the proposed legislation gives the power to unions to conduct investigations that include videoing, recording, measuring, interviewing workers, demanding the production of documents and taking whatever extracts or copies they see fit other than the personal health records of workers. In other jurisdictions, they have some form of arrangements for union access except for South Australia and Queensland. However, these powers of access are tempered with notice and/or grounds requirements. Businesses will hate the intrusion on their property with mines, in particular, the target of organisations.
These amendments blur the line between IR and OHS. Although the amendments make provision for the motivation to be restricted to OHS issues, the fact that unions can approach mere potential members makes this a union power grab. The government will try to paint anyone who resists the legislation as being uncaring about occupational health and safety.
Mr Chairman, this division has nothing to do with OHS and everything to do with an increasing of power to unions. We on this side of the house cannot and will not support these amendments to the bill.
Mr HENDERSON: Mr Chairman, I thought that I had dealt pretty comprehensively in my concluding remarks to the second reading debate about the issue of union right of entry. Listening to the inflated language used by the member for Blain, I urge him not to be so disingenuous about the impact of this legislation. It is not a Trojan horse for unions to carte blanche walk on to any work site in the Northern Territory as part of a recruitment campaign. The facilitation in these provisions under OHS powers prescribed in the Workplace Relations Act are to facilitate and allow unions to engage with members where they have award coverage, to provide for a mechanism to improving safety in the workplace. There are very clear delineations in regard to the Workplace Relations Act in what union officials can and cannot do.
The Workplace Relations Act details the arrangements for such entry, including permits and conditions, permitted activity whilst on site, notice requirements, etcetera. It also prohibits very explicitly misrepresentation regarding entry and activity on site, and this is where we go to the heart of what a union official can do whilst on a site. They cannot misrepresent the reasons they are there. There are, within the bill, mechanisms for disqualification from holding a health and safety representative or authorised union representative powers that have been made explicit in the bill and they will be enforced.
There are also provisions in the bill that there is a right to sue for damages in the event of a misuse of power that results in a loss or damage to a business, so a union is not going to allow some sort of rogue representative to use this legislation as a Trojan horse to create mayhem …
Mr Mills: It has happened before.
Mr HENDERSON: … in the workplace because that union exposes themselves to being sued for damages for that misuse of power.
The member for Blain says it has been used before and, in Queensland, where there have been a couple of instances, and I have had this debate with the Territory Construction Association, those union officials lost their accreditation. The legislation works. Where they misrepresented or abused the powers under the legislation, the system worked.
The hyperbole about the sky falling in over right of entry is just not there. The checks and balances are in the legislation. We are the only state that does not provide for right of entry for health and safety in the workplace. There is right of entry already for union officials under IR powers. I have never heard any employer organisation say to John Howard and Peter Costello: ‘You have to amend the Workplace Relations Act because it is a Trojan horse for union officials in the Northern Territory to enter into workplaces for IR powers to recruit members’. Come on! It really is quite a fallacious argument.
The member for Blain drew attention to the lack of a reasonable suspicion clause in the bill. I will quote from a letter that I sent to employer organisations about this because they raised it with me:
- Regarding your request that words ‘reasonable suspicion’ should be added to section 53(3)(c), I draw your attention to section 50(4)(d) which provides that as a condition of appointment as a union representative they must not misrepresent the extent of his or her authority. I am advised that reasonableness is implied in the provision.
Amendment negatived.
Clause 53:
Mr HENDERSON: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 26.1 to omit subclause (3)(b). This issue was a point of contention raised by employer organisations. On further reflection of that representation, this amendment clarifies the grounds of entry by an authorised union representative.
The intention of the government is to provide for entry to workplaces by authorised union representatives on the same basis as is provided in other jurisdictions and in accordance with the federal government’s Workplace Relations Act. It was put to me by stakeholders that the grounds provided in subclause (3)(b), whilst conforming with the Workplace Relations Act, is not articulated in the same way in the legislation of other jurisdictions.
This was an issue of interpretation and legislative drafting. Whilst I do not agree that in practice, it represents any change from what happens in other jurisdictions. In the interests of clarifying the policy intention and promoting a cooperative approach to the development of guidance materials and regulations - as the member for Braitling said, there is a lot of work to be done on the regulations and guidance documents - to clarify the intent of the government, I have decided to remove that provision.
Mr MILLS: Mr Chairman, I welcome this concession by government. I question the origin, however, of the condition that was in the original bill. It indicates the concern arising not just from this side of parliament or a philosophical position, but a need to protect the issues of trust and cooperation within the workplace. This is a confirmation of what may sit behind the intent of the bill. I welcome it, and I see within your comments a concession and recognition of some of the matters that deeply concern those who carry the weight of responsibility who are small business operators in the Northern Territory.
We are not dealing with the multinationals, the horror stories that seem to grip the ideologues. We are talking about ordinary Territorians. This is the sort of thing that has deeply concerned ordinary folk who are taking responsibility in the workplace. It is welcome, but there is a tone that still operates within many aspects of this. It is not just philosophical matters; it is protecting the culture and the tone of the workplace so we can achieve the objectives.
By the way, there is no anti-union position here. It is the proper relationship between those who have responsibilities so that we can achieve the core objective. I welcome your concession.
Mr HENDERSON: Just responding, Mr Chairman, this was a drafting provision and goes to the issue of a when a hazard becomes a hazard in the continuum of events that lead to a hazard in the workplace. It goes to the issue where, whether it is the union member of someone on the site who is employed under award, is unsure about a work practice or part of a site is safe or unsafe. It probably has not reached the point where it is really unsafe yet; they cannot get clarification of it for a union official to be called to come in and assess the situation. That is where the word ‘observation’ came into it. I understand that could cause some concerns.
It was the way the legislation was drafted in picking up that hazards often do not appear overnight. There is a series of events that lead up to it. As it was put to me, we have had another look at it. We still believe that there is no fundamental change in the policy intent of the bill.
Removing the clause will enable a clarification in drafting the regulations around it. That is the explanation as to how those words appeared as they did in the bill. It was the way that the Parliamentary Counsel drafted the provision. I am pleased to have the support of the opposition for its removal.
Mrs BRAHAM: Mr Chairman, I also would like to make some remarks on this and thank the minister for omitting the subclause. It is common sense. As you say, you are going to review the legislation in five years or so and perhaps other areas will be reviewed.
Like the member for Blain, I am not anti-union in any way. I say that because my brother is a workplace union representative in a rather large establishment in Victoria. He would kill me if he thought I was disparaging some of the principles in which he has such belief.
Minister, we have to get that balance and I thank you for doing this because it does remove some of concerns.
Clause 53, as amended, agreed to.
Mr CHAIRMAN: As a point of clarification, we have jumped ahead here a little bit, so I am going back to clauses 5 to 52.
Clauses 5 to 52, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clauses 54 to 93, by leave, taken together.
Mr CHAIRMAN: We will deal with clause 93(4). Member for Blain.
Mr MILLS: Thank you. Clause 93(4) reads:
- If, in proceedings for an offence against this section, the employer is found to have discriminated against a worker or prospective worker, it will be presumed that the employer did so on the ground alleged in the instrument of charge unless the employer establishes the contrary on the balance of probabilities.
Any member hearing that would be concerned. This subclause is simply wrong. Clause 93 makes it an offence to discriminate against an employee for their functions as an OHS representative. We do not have a problem with that, but what is a problem is that the operation of subclause (4), which seeks to make people guilty until they prove themselves innocent. This clause carries a gaol penalty and, according to clause 93(4), the employer will have been presumed to have discriminated against the worker unless the employer proves on the balance of probabilities that they were innocent of the charge. The subclause provides that they need to prove on the balance of probabilities they are innocent. In short, they are guilty until proven innocent. This stands contrary to a fundamental rule of law that is captured by section 5 of the Criminal Code, which reads:
- Every accused person is presumed to be innocent until the contrary is proved.
An extraordinary provision! We were talking about the core philosophy in the second reading speech, which was to have proper relations between employer and employee. What an extraordinary situation! I urge the Chief Minister to attend to this because any right thinking person who believes in justice must adhere to the presumption of innocence at all times. This subclause must be struck out.
Mr HENDERSON: Mr Chair, I suppose this goes to an issue of what is contemporary in this legislation. In the extreme circumstance, it provides protection for health and safety representatives in the workplace so they can raise concerns legitimately in the workplace either with the employer or with WorkSafe without fear of being discriminated against by the employer for raising those health and safety concerns.
There are two thresholds that apply to this clause of the legislation. Before we get to the reversal of the onus of proof, WorkSafe NT have to prove in a court of law the first threshold, which is that the employer discriminated against the employee on the basis of raising concerns about occupational health and safety in the workplace.
The first limb in a prosecution is for WorkSafe NT to prove in a court of law that the employer had discriminated against the employee. If the threshold of the bill is providing for health and safety representatives in the workplace who are trained, who are authorised by WorkSafe NT to go about their duties under the act in facilitating a safe workplace, they need to feel that they have absolute protection under the act to pursue their roles, which they are authorised to do under this legislation, without fear of being discriminated against. That is absolutely fundamental to the confidence for health and safety representatives to operate in the workplace.
I envisage that this provision would be triggered very rarely because, as I said, most employers do the right thing. Officers have to feel secure in their employment in order to be effective.
Member for Blain, you say that once the threshold of a court determining that the employer had discriminated, the employer has the burden of proof on the balance of probabilities to show that the OHS activity was not the predominant reason for the discrimination.
So the first thing that WorkSafe has to do is prove that the employee had been discriminated against and the employer then has to demonstrate to the court that OHS activity was not the predominant reason for the discrimination. If it was, then the penalties apply. This is not extraordinary, member for Blain. This reversal of the onus of proof for discrimination, once discrimination has been proved in a court, is in place in Victoria, New South Wales and South Australia and is scheduled to be in place in other jurisdictions. It is contemporary in nature. It does exist in other jurisdictions and I imagine that the clause would rarely be triggered, member for Blain, and I would contest that the fundamental objective of this act it to facilitate safe workplaces and health and safety representatives in the workplace absolutely have to feel secure in their employment in terms of raising concerns.
Most employers will not discriminate against employees in raising health and safety concerns, but those who do, where WorkSafe NT achieve a judgement in a court that discrimination has occurred in the workplace, those employers are going to have to demonstrate to the court that Occupational Health and Safety was not the predominant reason.
Mr MILLS: Chief Minister, I still cannot understand why the normal rule of law should not apply. You have this extraordinary situation couched in the language of the need to protect a worker, but you leave the employer completely exposed. Would a murderer have the same protection? Would someone committing a serious crime have the same protection? It appears they have greater protection than an employer who is required to prove innocence. You said today that there are 204 000 people in the Territory who are well connected; we know each other.
This sort of precedent, entering the culture of relations within our workplaces in the Northern Territory, is going to send a shiver up the spines of those who have responsibility, and it is the ones who take the responsibility are the ones who are going to feel this most. This is an extraordinary provision. Do you believe it is applicable to the Northern Territory? Is there an argument for its application in the Northern Territory? What sort of consultation have you engaged in that has seen acceptance of this provision in our community?
Mr HENDERSON: There has been extraordinary consultation on all of the reforms in this legislation, and I go to some of the words that the member for Blain was using, saying that this is extraordinary legislation and setting a precedent.
As I said, this provision is in place in Victoria, New South Wales, South Australia and other jurisdictions are moving to it. I am advised, as I said in my response earlier, that this provision would very rarely come into effect. Victoria has had this provision in its legislation since 2004, three years ago. There has only been one instance of an employer being prosecuted under this provision who had to demonstrate that OHS activity was not the predominant reason.
This is not about employers being terrified of their responsibilities in the Northern Territory. It is establishing a bar that health and safety representatives in the workplace have to feel secure in their employment.
It is for the authority, WorkSafe NT, in the first instance to prove in a court of law that discrimination has occurred. We have all sorts of antidiscrimination provisions, including the Anti-Discrimination Act. For people to feel free from discrimination, whether it is racial discrimination, gender based or in any other form, is fundamental in so much of our legal system. This is another definition that requires that employers do not discriminate against health and safety representatives in the very legitimate role they have in identifying safety issues in the workplace.
If an employee is discriminated against, that has to be proven in a court of law. This will occur very rarely. It has happened once in Victoria since 2004. It is not precedent. It is not extraordinary. It is contemporary legislation.
Mr Mills: For the Territory it is.
Mr HENDERSON: You say, member for Blain, ‘in the Territory it is’. A lot of your arguments all the way through these committee stages have gone to the fact that there should not be a provision in this bill and you have moved to strike it out, for health and safety representatives to be elected in the workplace and that the committee system works fine. Well, the committee system does not work fine.
There was $82m worth of workers compensation payments made last year. There were 3000 people injured to such an extent that they drew on workers compensation insurance. If you think about not only the cost in insurance premiums to employers, but the cost to a business in lost time and lack of productivity, this regime sets up a whole culture change. I deny it is extraordinary, sets a precedent or places an extraordinary burden on employers. It is contemporary legislation. It will be very rarely triggered and I see no reason that it would be triggered on an extensive basis in the Northern Territory. Those health and safety representatives have to feel secure in their employment.
Mr MILLS: You said, Chief Minister, that you have consulted extensively. Well, you can say you have consulted extensively, but can you name the employer groups that support this provision?
Mr HENDERSON: We have consulted with all of the major employer groups. In respect of who has supported what, this is extensive reform and we have had representation from employer and employee organisations. We have had an Occupational Health and Safety Reference Group which has combined individual enterprises as well as employer and employee organisations. We have had stakeholder groups from different sectors of industry. We have had written submissions from employer and employee organisations and individuals. I am not going to go through a huge matrix of who has supported which clause.
I can say that employee organisations, the union movement, do not have everything they wanted out of this bill. They wanted industrial manslaughter to be part of the bill and, as minister, I said no to that. The original penalties in the submission to the government from the consultant were right at the upper scheme of the penalty regimes throughout Australia. We have adjusted those penalty regimes to be in the middle of the pack. They were subterranean before. I think the maximum penalty for a death in the workplace was $150 000. That is subterranean! That was the value of a life in a prosecution under legislation today until this bill goes through and is assented to. That is totally unacceptable. There were other issues that employee organisations wanted to see in this bill to which we did not agree.
One of the concerns employer organisations raised on the requirement for health and safety representatives in the workplace was that it should not apply to very small businesses. We agreed to that. We agreed to making the penalty provisions middle of the road. We picked up the issue of observation practices in the workplace. We have agreed to fund training for health and safety representatives for businesses employing between 10 and 20 people.
Not everyone has what they wanted on either side of this debate. I am confident this legislation is contemporary in nature. I do not believe that it gives rise to huge concerns for employers. Most employers do the right thing, member for Blain. This provision exists in Victoria, New South Wales and South Australia and their skies have not fallen in. Employers have not stopped employing people in those jurisdictions. The economy is growing strongly in those jurisdictions and there has only been one prosecution in Victoria since 2004. I urge you, member for Blain, to look at the facts on how this is working elsewhere. You should not be scaremongering about how it will apply in the Northern Territory.
Mr MILLS: Just for my own edification, Chief Minister, can you explain to me where this principle is reversed anywhere else, where the accused must prove their innocence? Is there any other place where this occurs?
Mr HENDERSON: The premise of your question, member for Blain, is fundamentally wrong again. It is not that the accused has to demonstrate their innocence; the employer has already been found guilty of discrimination so a finding of guilt is already there. They are not accused of discriminating against the employee; there has already been a finding of guilt and once discrimination has been proved, under the legislation the employer has the burden of proof on the balance of probabilities to show the OHS activity was not the predominant reason for the discrimination that has already been proved, not alleged.
Mrs BRAHAM: Minister, my comment is that the wording is provocative. That is the problem with this clause. It says it will be ‘presumed’ that the employer did on the grounds alleged in the instrument of charge. It is presumed. That is what makes this clause so provocative. That is what the member for Blain is referring to. There is an assumption of guilt written into this clause that in common law is just not there.
Mr HENDERSON: I have answered this question and demonstrated that this is not extraordinary legislation. It does not set a precedent. It exists in Victoria, New South Wales and South Australia. I quote from the legislation:
- If, in proceedings for an offence against this section, the employer is found to have discriminated …
That is the first limb. The first threshold that has to be passed is that the employer has to be found to have discriminated against a worker.
- … it will be presumed …
So they have to be found to have discriminated in the first instance. WorkSafe NT has to mount a successful prosecution and the employer has to be found to have discriminated. They are not accused at the point where it will be presumed:
- … that the employer did so on the ground alleged in the instrument of charge unless the employer establishes the contrary on the balance of probabilities.
Mrs BRAHAM: So he is guilty? It is that presumption.
Mr HENDERSON: They have already been found to have been guilty of discrimination. That is the first limb that has to be proved. To ensure that the prospective penalties do not flow from the discrimination being on grounds that occupational health and safety was the reason for the discrimination, the employer has to prove that the discrimination that has already been proved is not the predominant reason for the discrimination.
Mrs BRAHAM: I still think it is provocative.
Amendment negatived.
Clauses 54 to 93, as printed, agreed to.
Clause 94:
Mr MILLS: Mr Chair, I move that the whole of clause 94 be omitted from the bill. Clause 94 abrogates the right to silence relating to self-incrimination. It abrogates the privilege against self-incrimination. It is not an excuse for refusing or failing to answer a question or for refusing or failing to provide information as required under this bill, that the answer to the question or information would tend to incriminate the person subject to the requirement of an offence.
Of the powers granted in this legislation, many of which I harbour major reservations about, this is the most aggressive. The bill introduces powers of the Authority to demand sworn evidence. These powers currently do not exist. Currently, the Authority operates as an administrative body that overseas the inspectors. These powers to demand evidence include an offence of failing to provide the evidence requested.
Presumably, this process is aimed to assist the investigation process, but essentially will have the effect of creating a pre-trial hearing to determine whether or not a prosecution should proceed. The only reason that a person can refuse is if they have a reasonable excuse. The right to silence that would normally be afforded in a court will not be afforded as a reasonable excuse and the right to avoid self-incrimination and therefore, the right to silence, is specifically overturned.
It is proposed that it will become the Authority’s job to decide whether or not to proceed with prosecutions against the Work Health Act. The police do not have a power to demand that people hand over information pertaining to their criminal investigations. Under this bill, the Authority and its investigators have the power to demand information.
These are extraordinary powers of criminal investigation. If the Work Health Authority wants to investigate matters, it may be argued that they should be given power of investigation the same as police powers, which is the right to obtain warrants or simply ask for the information. The power to obtain warrants exists in clause 69, but these powers are over and above those.
It is uncertain how a court would deal with evidence when the information has been obtained under threat of criminal sanction and the information turned out to be self-incriminating. Statements made under coercive circumstances have been ruled involuntary and therefore inadmissible. There is a general principle in law that coercion should not be used to obtain admissions of guilt for fairly obvious reasons.
One of the fundamental tenets of our criminal legal system is the right not to have to provide self-incriminating evidence. The accuser must prove a wrongdoing. Clause 94 specifically removes the right to remain silent on the grounds of self-incrimination. Section 10 of the Evidence Act however, captures the long-held tenets of the law when it provides:
- Nothing in this Act shall render any witness compellable to answer any question tending to criminate himself.
Consequently, the Authority will be able to collect evidence outside the normal rules of evidence and make directions according to the evidence obtained. If it makes directions that are punitive in nature, then the government will have exercised a body that has the role of a star chamber within the executive.
Therefore, the authority will have to act as the Licensing Commission does when it hears evidence insomuch as it may make rulings that deal with the proper administration of the Act. However, any ruling that could be seen to be punitive may be ultra vires.
This will lead to longer and more complicated litigation and will add a quasi-judicial level to criminal and civil processes because the effect of these changes will be to alter the Authority from a straightforward investigative body into a body that hears evidence, summonses witnesses and makes determinations on that approach. I urge that it be removed.
Mr HENDERSON: Mr Chairman, in order to expedite proceedings, the amendment that I will move to clause 94 will help clarify some of the concerns of the member for Blain.
This goes to the heart of one of the major failings in the current legislation. It was of significant concern for me when I became minister for this portfolio. In respect of quite a significant number of investigations into tragic deaths in the workplace that were underway where WorkSafe NT, under the existing legislation, did not have the powers to get access to information a company holds that could lead to the determination of what caused the accident, and therefore an assessment as to whether their was any culpability on behalf of the employer contributory to that accident. We had any number of cases that had been stalled for a long period of time because WorkSafe NT have very few powers under existing legislation to compel the provision of material, evidence and documents to determine the cause of an accident.
If we are looking at legislation that not only changes the culture of any workplace, provides for a greater level of ownership of safety in the workplace and a greater balance between the responsibilities of employers and employees, the fundamental objects of this legislation are to provide for safer workplaces. Part of that has to be that in instances of breaches occurring which lead to accidents, serious injury or death, the investigating authority must have the powers to determine the cause of the accident. If you cannot determine the cause of the accident, what led to the death of the employee, you cannot determine whether the employer was culpable and, more importantly, you cannot look at the systemic issues which may have failed to allow for improvements to be made to prevent other deaths.
I am not going to support the removal of this clause because it goes to the heart of determining the cause of an accident which has led to a serious injury or death in the workplace. We would be negligent as legislators to continue with current legislation which does provide for the cause of incidents which lead to death in the workplace never to be determined. Again, I am advised that legislation in New South Wales, Western Australia and Victoria has similar provisions. I will be moving an amendment to clarify this, but the clause has been rigorously tested by DEET Legal, Justice prosecuting counsel, and it goes to the heart of determining the cause of a serious accident and, tragically, death in the workplace.
I go to the tragedy of relatives who lose a loved one in the workplace and who never get closure by knowing what caused the death. I certainly do not support the deletion of this clause, and I believe the amendment I will move will deal with some of the concerns of the member for Blain.
Amendment negatived.
Mr HENDERSON: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 26.2 to insert a new paragraph at the end of the existing clause:
- (2) However the answer to the question or the information provided is not admissible in evidence against the person in civil or criminal proceedings except:
(b) proceedings in the nature of perjury.
This specific issue was raised with me by the Civil Contractors Association. They did not have any problems at all with the intent of the clause. They very clearly stated they did not have any problem at all with intent of the clause in respect of the Authority being able to secure the information from the employer to assist in an investigation to lead to a conclusion as to what caused the accident or injury in the workplace.
They had very real concerns that the way the clause was drafted could actually be detrimental to the object, meaning that people would not come forward with verbal information because it may incriminate them and lead to other civil or criminal proceedings.
We took those concerns back to Parliamentary Counsel and Justice. They could see that there was probably some potential for difficulty in interpretation by the courts. I have come back this evening with this amendment that very clearly states that the abrogation of the right to silence is intended to apply only to this legislation or proceedings for perjury under it. It cannot be applied for any other civil or criminal proceedings. I am advised that employer associations are now satisfied with this amendment and the clarity it provides.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 94, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill to be reported with amendments.
Law Reform (Work Health) Amendment Bill (Serial 124):
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill to be reported without amendment.
Bills reported; reports adopted.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the bills now be read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bills read a third time.
TABLED PAPER
Ombudsman for the Northern Territory - Annual Report 2006-07
Ombudsman for the Northern Territory - Annual Report 2006-07
Ms LAWRIE (Leader of Government Business)(by leave): Madam Speaker, pursuant to section 28 of the Ombudsman (Northern Territory) Act I table the Annual Report for 2006-07 for the Ombudsman for the Northern Territory.
MOTION
Print Paper – Ombudsman for the Northern Territory - Annual Report 2006-07
Print Paper – Ombudsman for the Northern Territory - Annual Report 2006-07
Ms LAWRIE (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Annual Report for 2006-07 for the Ombudsman for the Northern Territory be printed.
Motion agreed to.
MOTION
Note Paper - Ombudsman for the Northern Territory - Annual Report 2006-07
Note Paper - Ombudsman for the Northern Territory - Annual Report 2006-07
Ms LAWRIE (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Annual Report for 2006-07 for the Ombudsman for the Northern Territory be noted.
The work of the Ombudsman’s Office has been detailed in the Ombudsman’s 2006-07 Annual Report. Notably, the report shows a decrease in inquiries, approaches and complaints made to the Ombudsman. The report outlines that this was the result of more effective and efficient internal complaints resolution procedures for government entities, statutory bodies and local government agencies. Not only has the Ombudsman and her staff worked to ensure compliance with their practice complaints resolution procedures but they have done so under budget, recording a surplus of $104 000.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the report and that I have leave to continue my remarks at a later hour.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
TABLED PAPER
Remuneration Tribunal Determination No 2 of 2007 – Members of the Legislative Assembly
Remuneration Tribunal Determination No 2 of 2007 – Members of the Legislative Assembly
Ms LAWRIE (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I table the report of the Remuneration Tribunal and Determination No 2 of 2007 for members of the Legislative Assembly.
MOTION
Note Paper - Remuneration Tribunal Determination No 2 of 2007 –
Members of the Legislative Assembly
Note Paper - Remuneration Tribunal Determination No 2 of 2007 –
Members of the Legislative Assembly
Ms LAWRIE (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the report.
Madam Speaker, it is a requirement of the Assembly Members and Statutory Officers (Remuneration and Other Entitlements) Act that any Tribunal determination is distributed to each person whose entitlements are affected by it, and that a copy of the determination is tabled in the Assembly within six sitting days of its receipt by the minister.
I am advised that copies of the determination have been distributed in accordance with the act. I am now tabling the determination consistent with the legislative requirement to do so.
Members will recall that at the time of the Tribunal’s 2006 Report and Determination, legal advice was obtained that the Tribunal did not have the power to determine the capacity entitlements set out in clause 7 of its determination, being entitlements dealing with office space, equipment and staff for electorate offices. For this reason, clause 7 was disallowed in the February sitting.
In place of the clause 7 provisions, the then Chief Minister tabled Administrative Arrangements in the Assembly reinstating those capacity provisions and providing the Speaker with the authority to receive requests from members in respect of those entitlements and to amend the entitlements as appropriate. To ensure transparency, the Speaker is required to notify any variations to those Administrative Arrangements to members within four weeks of approval. I note that no variations have been requested or made since these arrangements were put in place in February this year.
As you would expect then, the Tribunal has not included these particular capacity entitlements in its 2007 determination. In the meantime, the Tribunal received legal advice that other capacity entitlements were also beyond its power to determine and those matters have also been omitted from the 2007 determination.
In summary, the Tribunal notes in its report at page 6 that those matters which are outside this authority are travel entitlements except personal travel expenses, government-supplied motor vehicle or allowance, office space and equipment, communications and postage and childcare allowance.
The Tribunal goes on to note the entitlements which are within the Tribunal’s power to determine are additional salary of office, personal costs while travelling, any new personal allowances and general matters. Since the report has been finalised, further legal advice was sought as to whether electorate allowance is also within the power of the Tribunal to determine. The advice is that this allowance is within the power of the Tribunal to determine. Despite some uncertainty about this when the Tribunal was preparing its report, the Tribunal included the allowance within its determination quite validly as it turns out.
I turn now to entitlements and issues raised in the Tribunal’s 2007 report. Confirmation that electorate allowance is a form of personal remuneration addresses a doubt raised by the Tribunal in its report. This concerned the implications of any unspent portion of the allowance being seen as potential income otherwise than under an enactment as required by the Self-Government Act. I understand the Tribunal has now written to all members to advise it accepts the legal advice on this point and has no further reservations on this issue.
A new entitlement called a Travel Cost Allowance has been created in the 2007 determination. It is proposed to indemnify a member where, for example, accommodation for official travel is paid directly and therefore travel allowance is not paid. Given that a member is likely to incur other reasonable expenses while travelling in these circumstances, it is appropriate that these costs should also be met by government. The Travel Cost Allowance may then apply and may cover one or more of the following types of expenses: accommodation, meals, hire cars, taxis or ferries, and use of a member’s own car.
Two other new entitlements are a per kilometre allowance entitlement for authorised use of private cars, and a right to have the costs of hired transport reimbursed in certain circumstances and a resettlement allowance to apply to a member following the end of their term as an elected member in certain circumstances. Rates of travelling allowance have been increased generally in line with the amounts determined by the Commonwealth Remuneration Tribunal for federal politicians. In its report, the Tribunal queried whether wording in section 4(1)(c) of the Assembly Members and Statutory Officers (Remuneration and Other Entitlements) Act in relation to entitlements for members holding or occupying certain offices only enables the Tribunal to determine entitlements for holding that office rather than in relation to carrying out the functions of that office.
Legal advice has confirmed that the wording of this section of the Act does empower the Tribunal to fix entitlements in respect of the performance of the functions of the offices listed in that provision and no amendment of the act is required.
Finally, the Tribunal has made several recommendations in relation to legislation and the publication of determinations of member’s capacity benefits. Government will carefully examine these recommendations.
Madam Speaker, I would like to formally note that on 21 November, 2007 Mr Otto Alder retired from his appointment as Member of the Remuneration Tribunal after 10 years of dedicated work as the sole member of this body. I would like to place on record the government’s appreciation of the work he has done in this role not only in respect of MLA entitlements, but also in respect of the entitlements of magistrates, judges and members of Northern Territory government statutory bodies. I am sure all of my parliamentary colleagues join me in wishing Mr Alder the very best in his retirement. The new member of the Tribunal will be announced in the very near future.
I move that the Assembly take note of the report and seek leave to continue my remarks during debate on this report in the next sitting.
Leave granted.
Debate adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT
Ms LAWRIE (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr NATT (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, it is that time of the year. The Christmas break is almost upon us and, my, how the time has flown. This year has been one of fulfilment for me, meaning that I have endeavoured to ensure my portfolios have contributed to the wellbeing of the Northern Territory and moved steadily forward. I am extremely pleased with my portfolios and the people within them, who include departmental staff and those on the ground throughout the Northern Territory including the producers, the mining people, the growers and so on.
I want to praise and thank several people who have supported me this year. First and foremost is my loving wife, Jette. She has been a fantastic sounding board and has always supported me. I thank her for her love, understanding and being there when times were somewhat testy and uncomfortable. Parliamentary life can be extremely demanding on your personal life and, at times, it can wear you down. Her comfort, support and understanding through these times is greatly appreciated and I thank her for being there. I am looking forward to having a couple of small breaks over Christmas and spending some down time with our son, Travis.
Lu and Des Friedrich, very close friends of ours, have been great support to both of us in the three or four years that they have been in the Territory. We have a great friendship, we love their company, and we look forward to doing the same over the Christmas break and into the New Year. I thank them for their support.
My Electorate Officer, Russell Wilson, has been a stalwart for me in Drysdale. His work rate is unquestionable and I thank him for his dedication to me and my constituents. Many of my constituents visit the office with issues, and I am always extremely confident knowing that Russell will follow up in my absence on all details that need to be addressed. He does a great job and I am extremely lucky to have someone of his calibre. I thank him for a fantastic year and I look forward to working with him again next year. It would be remiss of me not to thank his wonderful supportive partner, Ruth. Ruth is also a great supporter of mine and she, on most occasions, will be at Russell’s side working with him at our booth at the markets on Friday nights, at barbecues, electorate functions, or whatever. Ruth will always be there. I thank them both for their support during the year.
I pay tribute to my staff in my office on the fifth floor. Mark Hough, my Senior Advisor, cannot be thanked enough for his guidance and support throughout the year, and this year especially. Mark is also a close friend away from my working life and has always been very good to me and Jette. I thank him for his friendship, guidance and advice. I also acknowledge his partner, Jenny, who has been a good friend to Jette since we arrived in the Northern Territory. I thank Jenny for her understanding and friendship to us both. To the both of you, your friendship and support is highly appreciated.
Ray Clarke is my Primary Industry and Fisheries advisor. He has been a great support for me this year and his knowledge is unquestionable. He is well respected within the department and on the fifth floor, and I thank him for his guidance and back-up throughout the year. I know we have had some long hours some nights on different issues, but, well done, Ray. I thank you and I thank Fiona for her understanding on some of those late nights.
Colin Hallenstein is my Mines and Energy advisor. Life in the office would not be the same without Colin. He is always quick with a joke and a quip, and he is one of those guys who keeps a smile on our faces. He has a wonderful personality. He is also very well respected and highly thought of throughout the mining industry. I thank him for his guidance and support this year, which has been invaluable. Unfortunately, we are going to be sad in our office come 7 December because Colin is retiring. He wanted to retire a little earlier in the year, but I talked him into staying until the end. Colin, I thank you for staying on. Your friendship has been greatly appreciated as has your work in the office. I thank you and Lois for the support you have given me this year, and I look forward to continuing our friendship after your retirement. Good luck in your retirement, too.
Gemma Buxton, my previous Media Advisor, and my present Media Advisor, Edwin Edland, have both been diligent. They have undertaken extremely difficult workloads, and they are to be commended for the good work they do. Promoting the work undertaken in my departments is a real honour and they do it very well. I am lucky because I have some good news portfolios. Gemma and Edwin do some great work in promoting the work of my departments. I thank them for their efforts throughout the year.
Amanda Addison, my PA, has stepped up over the last couple of months and I thank her for doing that. Her work is highly valued, so is her infectious laugh. She is great to be around and I thank her for her support of me and the office staff in the last couple of months. I am sure that will continue into next year. More importantly, I thank her for keeping Jette company at times when her husband and I have been out on the road, or we have had late nights with our jobs. Most times I know she is keeping Jette company with a glass of wine in hand. I thank Amanda and her husband George.
Eunice de Ramos, Pui and Chantelle Barrett are three people who have been helping in my office throughout the year, and I thank them for their support and effort. It has not gone unnoticed and I thank them profusely for everything they have done and wish them well in their new roles.
I thank my government colleagues for their support, guidance and friendship. It has been a long, but good year and it was topped off last weekend with Saturday’s wonderful results on the federal front. Wasn’t that a sweet feeling! Again, I thank them for all they have done for me this year.
I thank my department Chief Executives for their dedication and efforts. With the command of their departments, their highly valued work does not go unnoticed. I thank them for all the hard work they do and the long hours they put in, ensuring that the DPIFM branch of the government performs well. I thank them all for their input.
Department personnel in Primary Industries, Fisheries and Mines and Energy do some outstanding work for the Northern Territory. A lot of it does go unnoticed and it is often not acknowledged in the way that it should be. However, they can rest assured that we all appreciate the effort that they put in. I thank them for their diligence and dedication to the department and the roles that they undertake. Believe me, you do make a difference and I am sure you will continue to do that into the future. I thank them all for their hard work.
To my close friends, constituents and supporters, I thank you for your continued support and assistance. I enjoy my work in the electorate and I look forward to doing the same next year and, hopefully, in the years to come.
In summing up, I wish all of the people I have mentioned a very merry Christmas and a happy and prosperous new year. Again, I thank them for all that they have done for me this year. I look forward to working with them next year.
In closing, Madam Speaker, I would like to mention one person who is a constituent of mine, who has recently been well recognised as an inventor. John Trott, who lives in Woolner in my electorate, came to my office in June to show me a little idea he was developing. His idea was simple and very innovative. Whilst suffering from a back injury, Mr Trott was inspired to get to work on an idea he had been mulling over for some time. In simple terms, Mr Trott has redesigned the shovel to accommodate an additional handle on the shaft to make gardening easier. He calls it the Ezy Lift shovel.
From my office, John was placed in contact with the office of minister Vatskalis, the Minister for Business and Economic Development and the Northern Territory government Business Development Unit, which went through a range of programs that the department offers, including the Northern Territory Research and Innovation Grant Program. As a result, we have a new Territory-made shovel designed to make gardening easier, which will be ready to hit the market early next year.
The Business and Economic Development Minister last week tested the new Ezy Lift shovel created by Mr Trott. Mr Vatskalis has said that the Territory is full of innovative people like Mr Trott, who are solving problems all the time. The Territory government supports these local businesses and entrepreneurs. John’s new design is fantastic and sure to be a winner with gardening enthusiasts everywhere. It is great to see Territorians lead the way when it comes to innovation.
Mr Trott received a $20 000 government grant to develop his shovel. His received one of 10 grants totalling $300 000 awarded by the government through the Northern Territory Research and Innovation Board.
He developed his unique Ezy Lift shovel out of the desire to dig in the garden following a back injury some years ago. The new shovel has been tested by Charles Darwin University and it shows some positive results, including 18.7% less stress to the back per shovel stroke so, over a period of doing quite a bit of shovelling of soil from the front garden to the back garden, it takes quite a bit of strain off the back.
Mr Trott is going to use his grant money to continue to develop his Ezy Lift, retro-lift handle, which is a variation of the Ezy Lift shovel and can be attached to an existing shovel. Mr Trott was provided with the specific information with regard to the options available to get his shovel to the market. I am pleased to say that the Territory government gets behind our innovators and supporters developers and innovations. I congratulate Mr Trott and wish him well with the further development on the Ezy Lift shovel.
Last but not least, in mid-October I was invited by Miss Emma Connelly, who is a student teacher at the Durack Primary School, to address her Year 3 class on the topic of politics. The class had been focusing on the three levels of government and their roles and responsibilities. My job was to discuss my role as MLA and a minister, and explain some of the responsibilities of the government and the other two levels of government. The children were armed with questions about specific responsibilities and were very keen, eager and interested learners. I had a lot of fun in the morning, sharing some of my knowledge and experiences with them. I thank the Durack School and Ms Emma Connelly for the opportunity to discuss an important topic. I must admit the enthusiasm of the kids and some of the questions they asked were quite daunting, not to mention testing at times. It goes to show that the level of education nowadays is fantastic and augers well for the kids in the future.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I rise to talk about three young Territorians doing great things in our community.
First, I would like to talk about a young Territorian called Claire Ryan. Claire Ryan is a young Alice Springs woman and a student at St Philip’s College who works hard to give the youth of Central Australia a voice, and works towards the betterment of many young people in and around Alice Springs. 2007 has been a great year for Claire. She has been a member of the Youth Minister’s Round Table and, just recently, was chosen to represent the Territory as a finalist in the National Public Speaking Competition.
The National Public Speaking Competition featured the topic and quote Australia in 2020 should be recognised as …. Claire’s response was:
- Australia in 2020 should be recognised as a world leader in solving Indigenous poverty and setting standards for other countries and cultures.
This topic has been a true passion of Claire’s since she was a ‘Make Poverty History 07 Ambassador’ earlier this year. Claire strongly believes that Australia needs to accept the truth of poverty in our own country before trying to help others. She also believes that the Northern Territory should be accepting this harsh reality, as many Territorians live with poverty every day of their lives.
The National Public Speaking Competition held in Sydney recently comprised two parts; one prepared four-minute speech to a panel of judges and another three-minute impromptu speech. I am happy to advise members of the Legislative Assembly that although Claire did not win, participating in the National Public Speaking Competition was a great experience; one of which she can be extremely proud and one for which she received a great deal of publicity in Alice Springs several weeks ago. To be selected from a group of 50 000 applicants around the country is certainly an achievement in itself. I understand that Claire’s two speeches were well received and the impromptu speech was ‘What was the main thing you learned at school?’, to which Claire replied ‘to follow your intuition’. Of course, she added a number of other things to produce what I understand was a very impressive speech.
Throughout 2007, Claire was a member of the Youth Minister’s Round Table for Young Territorians and, as the only representative from Central Australia, she found the experience quite challenging. I met with Claire on several occasions and was happy to provide her with support and assurance along the way although she is such a confident young woman, she generally needs little assurance or reassurance. The Youth Round Table has given Claire a great opportunity to develop skills. It has also given her the encouragement and skills to empower herself and some in the community.
As a result of her involvement in the Youth Round Table, Claire Ryan is hopeful that she can begin a Central Australian Youth Advisory Committee based in Alice Springs. It is her hope that the committee will be diverse in range, cultures and opinions, and be a mechanism to provide feedback on issues surrounding youth to various councils and committees. This is an impressive aspiration for Claire and, given the range of issues facing our young people in Alice Springs, it is a welcome initiative.
Claire’s goals arising from the Youth Round Table have been to ensure that the youth of Alice Springs are given a voice and a chance to be heard on the Territory stage. Therefore, following a year on the Youth Round Table and with the proposed formation of the Central Australian Youth Advisory Committee, Claire is feeling confident that there is a strong foundation for the youth of Central Australia. As Claire’s term on the Youth Minister’s Round Table draws to a close, we are confident that this is just the beginning for Claire. To progress her ideas for the youth of Alice Springs, she has made arrangements for discussions with the Alice Springs Town Council. I am sure all members of the Assembly wish her well in her endeavours and her efforts to talk with members of council.
I feel certain that we will be hearing a great deal more about Claire Ryan as the years roll on. If Top End members do not know Claire, I am sure they will come across her in the not-too-distant future. She is an impressive young woman who is doing over and above, in my view, her bit for young people in Alice Springs.
I also talk, as I ordinarily do, about impressive people in my electorate. One impressive young person is Luke Smyth who is participating in an international service project which, for the want of a better description, is a humanitarian project. Luke’s project runs from 14 December 2007 to 6 January 2008 and involves the construction of a kitchen and dining room in Anandwan in Maharashtra in India. Anandwan is a small community which was set up in 1951 for the disabled and destitute. The kitchen and dining room will be for the use of the Anandwan choir which is for children and, interestingly, blind girls in particular, who live in that area because their families consider them to be a burden. The organisation is a crucial means by which these children can attain some self-esteem and confidence, and it provides them with an occupation and thus, a way to ease the burdens on their families.
Luke Smyth was selected earlier this year to be a member of the ‘07 Make Poverty History Road Trip’ to spread the message of the need for further contributions to foreign aid. To prepare for this, he attended training sessions where he learnt of the global extent of poverty, some of its root causes and proposals for its reduction and eradication. Luke believes that it is the responsibility of our youth to try to help those less fortunate. In supporting the Anandwan community, Luke is hoping to encourage more people to take action.
On behalf of all members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory, I wish Luke every success in his trip to India in the next couple of weeks and, particularly, in the construction of the kitchen and dining room in Anandwan, and hope that the choir will continue to provide children with self-esteem, confidence and means for future occupation.
Luke Smyth is yet another example of an impressive young person from Alice Springs. I have met Luke, spoke with him for some time and there is no doubt that he is an impressive young man, a St Philip’s student. It is wonderful as a local member to meet with so many young people, to invite them into your office, spend time and listen to them. To see the hope and optimism in their eyes is something that really gives all of us hope for our future and, on occasion, can be quite moving. As we all get older, we sit back and marvel at the energy and enthusiasm of these young people, and wish them the very best, as I am sure members of the Assembly wish Luke Smyth the best.
Another impressive young person in Alice Springs is Edward Tikoft. He is undertaking humanitarian aid activities over the Christmas break. Edward, who is also the college captain of St Philip’s College for 2007 and an active member of the school and greater community, is taking part in the Round Square International Service project set to take place in Ilbissl, 100 km south of Nairobi in Kenya. Edward, along with students from all over the world and with Kenyan students, will be contributing hands-on help to build a science laboratory for a boarding school for Masai girls. These Masai girls, if not actively in the education system, would be married off and be mothers at the time they are 13 so the value of the project is immense. Edward wants to be part of the service project in order to share life experiences with other young people while also engaging in life on the other side of the world and meeting new people, having fun and developing his personal ability to communicate with people who live so far away and to learn from them.
Edward believes that being of service to others in everyday life is an important virtue. He is very clear that if you do not go overseas to find yourself and, indeed, help others, then you are not trying hard enough. This project provides service on another scale and will, hopefully, prepare him for further service-related activities in the Northern Territory. Isn’t it wonderful when our young people go overseas? They do, in so many ways, find themselves. They meet with young people from other cultures and have what is invariably an invaluable and, in some cases, a life-changing experience.
In 2005, Edward was privileged enough to go on a long-term exchange to rural South Africa, and this opened his eyes to the effects of poverty in ways that he would never have expected. Edward is now motivated to do what he can to help out in a practical way. I am sure all members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory join with me in wishing Edward the very best for his forthcoming trip to Kenya. I look forward to hearing about his achievements in the future.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, we have a number of impressive young people in Alice Springs and Edward is yet another one of them. It really is a pleasure to talk about them, as we should, in the Northern Territory parliament. They should, even at their relatively young age, be very proud of their experiences to date and of their optimism for the future and, interestingly, their own determination to help others, whether they are at home in Alice Springs in the Northern Territory or Australia or, indeed, on the other side of the world.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, it is with considerable sadness that I speak tonight about the tragic passing of Vern Pech at Maningrida. Sadly, whilst at work on 17 October this year at 1 pm, Vern met with an unfortunate accident and died at the age of 64 years. Vern was a true Territorian, liked and respected by many people across the NT, a real character and someone with a great sense of humour.
Before I talk about Vern, his life and recount a few stories, some people call them ‘Verngettes’, or the ‘Word according to Vern’, I thank my colleagues who agreed that I deliver this eulogy for Vern in parliament. I am grateful to the member for Arafura, Marion Scrymgour, and the Minister for Essential Services, Kon Vatskalis, for allowing me the privilege of delivering a eulogy for my friend.
Furthermore, I am grateful to them for allowing me the honour of announcing tonight that the powerhouse at Maningrida will now be known as the ‘Vern Pech Power House’. As part of this eulogy, I will draw on biographical information put together for Vern’s funeral service by his sister, Betty Schelling, his nieces, Katherine, Julie and Michelle, and his good friend, Peter Thomas, and delivered by his niece, Katherine, at the service in Christ Church Lutheran Church, Murray Bridge, South Australia and read at his memorial service in Darwin. I thank those who have added their fond anecdotes and memories of Vern.
Vernon Karl Pech was born on 16 May 1943 at Booleroo Centre. He was the first son of August and Una Pech, nee Wegner. After completing his primary education at the Pine Creek School, Appila, Vern helped his father on their family farm. At the end of 1964, the family moved to Murray Bridge, where Vern’s parents retired on a 25 acre farmlet. In 1965, Vern did some relief work running the local community radio station, 5MU. For the following 10 years, he remained in Murray Bridge undertaking electrical work.
In 1975, shortly after Cyclone Tracy’s devastation, Vern bought a Land Rover and a small caravan and drove to Darwin looking for work. He found work here repairing electrical goods and, after some time, was offered a similar job out at Bathurst Island.
In 1983, Vern was offered a job as Essential Services Officer for the Power and Water Corporation at Maningrida in Arnhem Land. Apart from a relatively small break, he worked there for the next 25 years or so. The only break he took was a short-lived retirement in the 1990s when he was an investor in an emu farm, or an ‘emu motel’ as he called it. Everyone was really glad when he was lured out of retirement to return to Maningrida to his old job he loved so much.
In 2003, as Minister for Essential Services, I was proud to award Vern a certificate acknowledging his 25 years of service and recognising him as the longest-serving Essential Services Officer in the Territory. As we all know, keeping the power, water and sewerage working in a large remote community is a great challenge and essential to the wellbeing of the community. As we also know, it can be a very dangerous job. Tonight I pay tribute to all our Essential Services Officers, but I pay particular tribute to Vern. He was tireless, hard-working and reliable. The generators he maintained during his service were one of his passions, nicknaming them the ‘Rolls of the Rolls Royces’.
Vern also took many extra jobs around the community, including unloading of fuel and other supplies for the community from the shipping barge which could arrive at any hour of the day or night. More recently, Vern was acknowledged with a certificate of appreciation for cyclone pre-planning, preparation and recovery response for Cyclone Monica which swept through Maningrida in 2006 causing a lot of destruction. Vern always knew what to do in a cyclone to ensure his beloved generators kept going and other essential services kept functioning. At his memorial service, it was said that particularly during Cyclone Monica, Vern:
- … was a machine and a power house to Maningrida.
He led the recovery effort, particularly repairs to power lines and other infrastructure. Vern always strove for perfection in his work using his own special language, words like ‘perfecto mundo’ and ‘el schmicko’ when things were done to his satisfaction.
A note was read at Vern’s memorial service from Jo Killmister from Maningrida, who said that Vern would often give them ‘the word according to Vern’. All of us who knew Vern would agree he certainly had a lot of wisdom to impart.
I would like to table a photo of Vern Pech sent to me by Nerilie Wright from Mobile Enterprises, which captures the essence of Vern imparting ‘the word’. Madam Speaker, I seek leave to incorporate the e-mail which accompanied this photo into the Parliamentary Record.
Leave granted.
- Hi Chris
These are the photos of Vern Pech that were taken 14 October 2007, the weekend before he died. They were taken by Alan Hauff of Build-Up Contracting Services who was at Maningrida building extensions to the power house. Alan had asked Vern to take him to his favourite spot so he and his crew could swim and relax for the day. Vern took them to this spot on the Blyth River, a couple of hours from Maningrida and about 70 km from Ramingining. The water is clear for a large area and about 3’ to 4' deep. Perfect to cool off and to see a croc coming.
Alan and 2 of his crew, were working on the extensions and my partner, Pentti Heikkinen from Mobile Engineering Services, our apprentice, Lukas, and Power and Water, Brett Halse, were working on the gen sets and walkways etcetera at the power house at the time of Vern's death. Vern was a sort of a 'father' figure to these guys and all the others he met, I'd say. They always enjoyed each others company. Pentti had been going back and forward to Maningrida for 12 years. Brett and Alan nearly as long.
Alan's photos captured the Vern finger so well as he was making his point doesn't he?
As was mentioned at the memorial service, he will be sadly missed
Regards
Nerilie Wright
Dr BURNS: I am sure the e-mail from Nerilie Wright speaks on behalf of many people and highlights Vern’s friendliness and hospitality, as well as the high esteem in which he is held by many people. In a note read at the memorial service, Jo Killmister also spoke on behalf of many people when she said ‘Vern was an inspiration’, and drew some smiles amongst many of the Essential Services Officers who attended when she said that ‘Vern has gone to the big power house in the sky’.
Following Monica, Vern suffered a heart attack. No doubt, all his hard work caught up with him as a warning. He was planning to retire in 2008 and was looking forward to taking it easy. Vern was one of a kind. Like many long-term Territorians he was a bit different, but always felt at home in the Territory. In fact, we value people who are different. We call them characters, and Vern was certainly a character.
I know that Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people alike from Maningrida held Vern in the highest affection. I am told the whole town gathered on the road to the airport when his body left the town as a mark of respect and sadness. Peter Thomas, who was a very good friend of Vern, was in Maningrida a couple of weeks ago helping to collect Vern’s belongings. He reports that it was obvious how much Vern would be sadly missed by the locals as he was approached by them to have Vern’s home smoked. This was another sign of the high regard in which Vern was held by the community.
Vern’s humour and good nature will be remembered by his family, relatives and friends. Although he was born a South Aussie, Vern became a Territorian to the end. He is survived by his younger brother, David, elder sister, Betty Schelling, brother-in-law Mervyn and his three nieces and their families.
Many stories abound about Vern and I relate some of the ‘Verngettes’. A number of people remember Vern’s cooking ability. According to Jo Killmister, Vern’s ‘Super Sexy Pizza’ was legendary. Alan Clough, who lived in Maningrida in the 1990s, claimed Vern told him the recipe as follows:
- Super Sexy Pizza Recipe
Some kind of pink fish paste; probably Peck’s Paste - a little bit goes a looooooong way.
Tinned oyster - heavily smoked
Cabanossi - the cheapest kind
Sliced gherkins - the sweetest kind
White cocktail onions and canned pineapple (if we were lucky because these balanced the overpowering taste of the pink paste).
- We didn’t have a cast iron digestive system like Vern, but he always used to bring beer to share so how could we refuse? But Vern reckoned it was good for us and it would make us ‘extra spoofy’, and ‘extra sexy’ to the ladies (or something like that).
Finishing the culinary theme, one of Vern’s favourite dishes was ‘Chicken a la Greasia’. Vern named it himself, not so much after any regional cooking style, but more because of his own unique deep frying technique.
At his memorial service, there was a note from the ‘Super Sexy Babes from Alice Springs’. These were the remote community billing girls from Power and Water. They really liked interacting with Vern and enjoyed his faxes and sense of humour. Like many others around the Territory, they were deeply saddened by Vern’s passing.
I have already mentioned that Vern enjoyed a drink, in moderation of course, and it seemed he was also a bit of a magician. At the memorial service, Johnny Walker, a long-term Maningrida resident, told the story of Vern’s ‘Tardis’. This was a drink cooler which Vern nicknamed his ‘Tardis’. Johnny Walker said that although it was only able to hold six coldies, he swore he saw Vern pull 10 coldies out of it on many occasions. That is why Johnny Walker thought Vern was a magician.
Vern was also a cat lover, although he probably would not admit it. A whole herd of them used to camp in his Land Cruiser. An eye witness reports that while driving to work one morning, Vern hurried past in the opposite direction in his old HJ45 Land Cruiser rushing to some emergency or other. Most of the pussy cat herd had managed to bail out of his truck where they had been sleeping. The witness recounts:
- I watched the rest of them peeling off the vehicle into the dust and grass on the side of the street as he drove towards me. One pussy cat on the roof couldn’t summon the courage to leap off as Vern accelerated. When he went past I looked in the rear vision mirror and saw the pussy cat roof surfing on Vern’s HJ45, leaning into the corner as Vern went around the bend.
Vern was a qualified shotfirer, which means he could detonate explosions. He was also extremely proud that he was one of the qualified shotfirers in the NT with ‘Extravaganza’ on his ticket. This meant that Vern could put on ‘show quality’ firework displays. This was something he really loved doing, and something he was really famous for. There are many stories about Vern’s fireworks displays for the Maningrida community. One of Vern’s assistants recounts:
- Vern was always perfecting his firework displays with electronic ignition for the big bangers (domestic light switches on a power board wired out to 50 m to the explosives, a genius of improvisation, a genius in his own way). There he was, rocking on his feet and chortling after he pressed each light switch and it achieved the desired explosive effect. He was in his orange safety suit and face mask, with the flames from the explosion reflecting on the shield and the orange suit. It was surreal. My job as his assistant was to put him out if he caught fire. I also had a fire suit and a mask. I felt at one with Vern here as a trusted colleague in the inferno.
My own recollection of a big display of ‘leftovers’ put on by Vern in the Maningrida Council workshop yard on a cool Dry Season night. It coincided with a major Army exercise with Hercules transport aircraft approaching low and noisily, landing at the airport. As the fully-lit planes passed overhead and the Leopard tanks they disgorged clanked down the road, Vern’s incandescent display lit up the sky like giant flares. It reminded me of what Beirut must be like. Not a completely baseless thought, given the community politics of Maningrida at that particular time.
Probably the last word should be given to the kids of Maningrida who, along with everyone else, loved Vern and his fireworks. The time was New Year’s Eve and, after a Vern’s fireworks extravaganza, the kids sang out: ‘We love you Vern, we love you Vern, we love you Vern’. This was all the Maningrida kids singing out round the perimeter in appreciation of Vern and his fireworks. Rest in peace, Vern.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I have to say I thoroughly enjoyed hearing about Vern. I did not know Vern but, by gee, it is characters like him that give so much history and special character to the Territory. I wish I had known him. He must have been special because he came from South Australia. Some of us South Aussies do migrate to the Northern Territory and do not go back. I could never lay claim to being as adventuresome as Vern. I could not possibly have eaten what he ate; I have to say that. It is very adventurous and I think my husband might have tried something similar. I am sure Vern will be sorely missed. You could not help but miss a character like that.
Tonight I want to place on the record the achievements of some of my constituents in Katherine. There are over 9000 people living in the Katherine area and some of them have achieved remarkable outcomes in their chosen fields, whether it be sport, education, business or, in this instance, Pride of Australia nominations for 2007.
First, I acknowledge Don Lockley who, with his late wife, Nan, was a neighbour of Mike’s and mine for around eight years. They lived directly behind us and were fantastic neighbours. They were living there when the 1998 floods swept through their house to the height of, in the old measurement, 6’4”. Nan became ill the same year and, unfortunately, passed away. Don relocated to Darwin so we lost our lovely neighbours. I have to say that we really do miss having such wonderful people living behind us. Tonight I acknowledge Don for being nominated in the True Blue category of the Pride of Australia Award and for, ultimately, receiving the medal for 2007 at the award presentation on Tuesday, 9 October. Don won the medal for a lifetime of achievement in fostering Australian values and making Australia a better place to live.
Don and his wife, Nan, arrived in Darwin in 1957 when he was transferred with the Air Force Construction Squadron. Their son Leigh was born in Darwin in 1958. In 1961, Don was transferred to Sydney and their second son, Ian, was born that year. In 1965, Don and Nan were unhappy with raising their sons in Sydney and returned to Darwin, with Don being given the job of starting the YMCA. During his time at the helm of the YMCA, Don was responsible for the establishment of badminton, volleyball, judo, table tennis and the school holiday program. Around 1971, he became the Field Commissioner of NT Scouts, a position he held for about seven years.
In 1981, Don began working with NT Occupational Health and Safety. He and his wife and his family transferred to Katherine in 1986. In 1996, he was forcibly retired and he and Nan went on a six-month world trip, having a fantastic holiday of a lifetime.
Don moved to Darwin in 2001 and married Nemia from the Philippines whom he had met in 1999. In 2003, he was asked to return to Occupational Health and Safety and, in 2006, Don and Nemia returned to live in Katherine. Don is now 76 and still working full-time for NT WorkSafe. He is very active, a keen sportsman and plays bowls. While living in Darwin, he was still playing hockey each week, pretty good for a man of his age. Congratulations, Don, on receiving the Pride of Australia Medal 2007 in the True Blue category. It is a wonderful acknowledgment of the commitment that you have made to the Territory over many years.
Also from my electorate and nominated for Pride of Australia Awards were Christine Beane, Trevor Keatch and Dani Mattiuzzo. While these people did not receive the overall medal in their categories on the night, they were very worthy nominees and deserve all the accolades our community can give them.
Christine Beane is the reason so many children who go to the MacFarlane Primary School are very happy. Christine runs a breakfast program at the school which provides breakfast every school morning for around 75 children. This program is run in conjunction with the Smith Family Breakfast with a Mentor program. Each morning, a cheerful Christine, with the assistance of volunteers, supplies breakfast to children who attend MacFarlane Primary School, as well as other schools in Katherine East. She encourages the students and accompanying parents to have a chat while having their breakfast, to get to know other students and to get to know the teachers better. The program Christine runs has made a difference to the outcomes of the students in the classroom, with them being more alert and happier, which is a very important basis for learning. Well done, Christine.
I visited Christine’s program this year to see how things were going and to lend a hand. I had a great time talking to the students, their parents, and the teachers present. Not only are the students happy and ready to get on with their school day, there are other students who work voluntarily in the kitchen helping out, so the program has developed a real community spirit of caring and sharing. Christine’s nomination was in the Community Spirit Award category.
St John paramedic, Trevor Keatch, and Senior Constable Dani Mattiuzzo were nominated in the Bravery Award category and deserved a medal for their act of bravery which could have had a much more devastating outcome if not for their intervention. Constable Dani, as she is affectionately known by hundreds of Katherine school children and young people, was off duty and at the Katherine Oasis Shopping Centre. Outside the car park on the median strip of Katherine Terrace, a man was wielding a knife and threatening a woman who was lying on the ground bleeding. There were other people also at the location.
Dani went straight to the scene and attempted to calm the man, who continued to wield the knife. Trevor Keatch arrived at the scene shortly after and, while the man was distracted by Trevor, Dani Mattiuzzo managed to tackle the man to the ground and restrain him, while Trevor administered first aid to the injured woman. There is no doubt that the actions of both Dani and Trevor prevented further serious injury to the already injured woman on the ground and bystanders on the median strip, let alone what could have become a much nastier incident so close to a very busy shopping centre. Well done, Dani and Trevor; you deserve medals for your act of bravery in Katherine. In our eyes, you are heroes. Congratulations once again to Don Lockley, Christine Beane, Trevor Keatch and Dani Mattiuzzo.
On 29 October, I had the pleasure of attending a graduation ceremony at the Nitmiluk Tours office in Katherine for three graduates and a tourism award recipient. In September 2006, Nitmiluk Tours started its Indigenous Traineeship Program with seven trainees. In October 2007, three of those trainees completed their traineeship through studies with Charles Darwin University and their practical work experience at the Nitmiluk Gorge Centre which, of course, is located in the magnificent Nitmiluk Park. What a great location to have your work experience.
Don McGregor, Jaidine Fejo and Karen King have all graduated from Charles Darwin University with a Certificate II in Retail and Tourism. The traineeship presented a steep learning curve for all involved - trainees, supervisors, lecturers and management. The trainees who persevered and completed their studies are to be congratulated for their fortitude and determination.
Karen King is 19 years old, educated at the Katherine High School and has the support of her extended family in the region. Karen gave birth to a baby daughter in August this year and is currently on unpaid maternity leave.
Jaidine Fejo is 18 years old and also educated at the Katherine High School. Jaidine enjoys the support of a large family in the region. She is currently enjoying some time with her family and caring for some of the young children. She has been offered several positions and will contemplate her options in the near future. When I was talking to both Karen and Jaidine at the presentation awards, both indicated that they would like to travel and, fortunately, with the options that are open to them from their traineeships, they will be able to do that.
Don McGregor is in his mid-20s. He is from the southern Arnhem Land region and has worked in Kakadu as a ranger before joining Nitmiluk Tours. Don also completed Certificate III in Tourism and is currently studying for his Certificate IV with Charles Darwin University. Don researched cultural aspects of the Gorge region to enhance his river cruises. He plays the didgeridoo, demonstrates the use of various weapons and hunting tools, and tells his passengers the stories of the region, thus giving them a value-added experience. This led to a surge in requests for the cultural cruises on the river at the gorge and, from next season, Don’s research will be incorporated into every cruise by passing on his knowledge to all river men.
It was especially gratifying to witness these graduates receiving their certificates and to acknowledge their achievements. I have known both Karen and Jaidine since they were very young girls, so it was very special to see their commitment to training for their future. As Jawoyn Association spokesperson John Ah Kit said when he presented the awards:
- Training is so important to the Jawoyn’s vision of a way forward.
John also said working through the paperwork to access these traineeships had been very difficult but it was worth it to see the company’s first graduates.
Another special presentation during the evening was to Marine Supervisor, Jamie Brookes. Nitmiluk Tours Managing Director, Wes Miller, presented Jamie with an award he had accepted on his behalf at the Australian Indigenous Tourism Conference held several weeks earlier in Broome. The Gnunkai Award in the individual category recognises the extraordinary personal and professional achievement and contribution by an individual over many years to Australian indigenous tourism. What makes it so very special is that the individual Gnunkai Award is not handed out every year; it is only given when there is an outstanding candidate, and Jamie is certainly that.
Jamie has worked for Nitmiluk tours for nine years since starting as a school leaver. He is now in charge of 16 tour guides and boats at Nitmiluk National Park, and has recently researched local indigenous culture to incorporate a cultural component in all tours on the gorge starting in April next year.
I have known Jamie since he was a very young boy and have watched him develop into a wonderful role model for others, especially his lovely young family. Jamie was also piloting the jet boat that Mike and I had the pleasure of experiencing several years ago. The jet boat trips in the gorge are only available when the river is very high, so there are limited days that it operates. The volume of water coming down the gorge is incredible and definitely requires a highly-trained and skilled operator handling the boat. When we had the opportunity to go on one of these jet boat tours, we were lucky to have Jamie in charge of our trip. It is something I will always remember. It was certainly exciting, as Jamie will well remember. I thoroughly enjoyed it.
Nitmiluk presently has two trainees, Larissa Manbulloo, who is continuing her studies in tourism and retail, and Cameron Kossack, who is three months into a three-year traineeship to become a qualified chef. He is under the supervision of Nitmiluk Tours Chef, Tony Williams, and will do two three-week training programs at the CDU Palmerston Campus next year. Nitmiluk Tours is hopeful that the traineeship will continue in future years, and I certainly endorse that.
In the days that followed this night of wonderful celebration of achievement, tragedy struck for both Wes Miller with the loss of his son-in-law and Jamie Brooks with the loss of his sister. Both of these deaths were young people, and I extend to Wes and Jamie and their respective families sincere and deepest sympathy from Mike and I. Our thoughts and prayers are with them all at this very difficult time.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight I conclude my report on my observations of community patrols in action on my recent trip to New Zealand.
I will briefly recap on my reasons for undertaking this study trip. For some time, my local Wulagi Neighbourhood Watch has been concerned about crime and antisocial behaviour in their community. Their concerns, like all of us, I am sure, extend beyond just their own suburb. Some very proactive members researched strategies to tackle crime in the community and made themselves aware of community patrolling in New Zealand. As a result of this research, Neighbourhood Watch members travelled to the Community Patrols Conference and Training Seminar in Invercargill, New Zealand, to observe and assess similar community-based patrols for the Northern Territory.
The members of Neighbourhood Watch Northern Territory delegation were: Sergeant Jeff Mosel, Executive Officer of Neighbourhood Watch NT; Mr Paul Wyatt, Acting Chair of Neighbourhood Watch NT and Area Coordinator of the local Neighbourhood Watch; and Mr Anthony Scott, owner of the Wulagi Supermarket; and Assistant Area Coordinator for Wulagi Neighbourhood Watch Wulagi. Both Sergeant Mosel and Mr Wyatt were funded to travel to New Zealand through Neighbourhood Watch Northern Territory and the Department of Justice, and Mr Scott received assistance from members of the community such as me, as well as a donation from Wulagi Neighbourhood Watch. As you can see, the community was very supportive of this trip.
This trip was very fruitful and Neighbourhood Watch Northern Territory reported directly back to the Chief Minister on what they had observed, and expressed a desire to trial a community patrol in the suburbs on Anula and Wulagi. They also organised for public meetings with members of community patrols New Zealand and the New Zealand Police who attended the 2007 Annual General Meeting of Neighbourhood Watch Northern Territory. I attended one such public meeting held at Casuarina Library.
The information provided to me from members of Neighbourhood Watch who attended the seminar in Invercargill, the clear in-principle support of the Police Commissioner and the Chief Minister and, might I add, my own interest in and support of this successful New Zealand idea to tackle crime in the community, were the drivers for me to undertake this study trip.
There are many tools in the community toolbox for tackling crime and antisocial behaviour, including our already successful Neighbourhood Watch networks. As community patrolling has been explained to me and others as really Neighbourhood Watch on wheels, I have every reason to believe that having an extra set of eyes and ears in the community to identify potential and actual criminal activity surely must lead to us having a safer and more secure community.
Because of this accepted view, I decided that I should look at community patrols from an organisational theory perspective and see how they work, both in their own structure and how they effectively networked with the community and police. I am hopeful that such knowledge might help in the successful establishment of a model that will suit both our community needs as well as the needs of those who so selflessly give up their time to assist their fellow citizens.
I now turn to the community patrols themselves. The structure of the patrols in each area is that they are volunteer organisations. The patrols that I had a look at in various sized towns were generally of about 20 to 40 people. The patrols themselves are always staffed by two people and they respond to a voluntary base station, not to a police base. The characteristics of the volunteers are that, in the main, the volunteers were 50-plus, and in nearly all the organisation there were 20% or 30% family members. They were related in either a marital situation of husband and wife, or perhaps it could have been mother/daughter, mother/son, father/daughter, father/son or some other relative. There was a smattering of younger people. When I observed this trend, I was advised that some younger people had become involved because they were thinking about entering the police force and this looked good on the CV. They were using that as a stepping stone to aid their recruitment into the New Zealand Police.
All community patrol volunteers need to undergo police checks. They do not accept quite a number of people who go through these checks for various reasons. However, it is mandatory before they are accepted, and they also go through a period of probation for some three to six months, depending on the management structure or team of the particular patrol. The management of the teams I am talking about is a loose configuration of people and each community patrol is an individual entity, although they do work to a board. It is a very loose configuration with a chair and a treasurer and, perhaps, some other executive officer who helps with the rosters. When it comes to the management of the team, people volunteer to go out on particular shifts. Generally speaking, depending on the patrols themselves, the shifts could be just one night a week or the patrols could do a couple of nights and use a couple of teams. They go out for about a three- to four-hour duration, probably from around 9 pm or 10 pm to midnight, 1 am or 2 am. Sometimes, they go out at different times during the weekend if there is a special event.
I noticed in some teams that there were clashes between members. I was advised that the executive got together and interviewed different people and deemed them to be unsuitable. Then, you might say, they managed them out of the team. However, as you can imagine, it is a voluntary organisation and there are no set rules and disciplines within the teams, so that was a bit of an issue. However, as they are not a defined organisation as such, it is hard to see any other way of managing it.
They resourced the teams with a vehicle, and most teams had personal identification; they had to have that. They had jackets which identified them as community patrol officers. The vehicle was a little Gemini-type car or a small four-cylinder sedan. I did not see, and heard no reports of, anything larger than that. It was only a two-person vehicle in which they carried a first aid kit.
The communications aspect within the vehicles was interesting. Some of the community patrols had mobile phones with a dedicated number back into the sergeant of police at the nearest police station, and some had a mobile phone given to them that they could use to call back to their base. A lot of the vehicles had police radios in them. When I queried that, it seemed that radios were fairly common around the place. The police network over there is not considered secure, and is actually prone to being listened into by all members of the public and the media. As a demonstration of this, on New Zealand news you will always find lots of camera crews at crime scenes because they listen to the police radio. They did not have any privacy issues as it seems like everyone else, unlike the Australian police network which, I understand, is digital and Australian police are not too keen on having people listening to their communications. For personal identification, you had to go in and out of police stations.
The fuel for the vehicles is paid for out of the pocket of the volunteers, it might be donated, or they could have money from a fund similar to the Community Benefit Fund. For office space, a number of police stations within the home cities that they worked in might dedicate space for them, although there are instances of where people are working from home where they will have a base station. There are issues of resourcing in the police station as well as in the home. Items such as filing cabinets, computers, and Internet all have to be paid for.
Some of the funding models in New Zealand are by private donation and some is from a statistical model. If the community patrol can demonstrate it is working and has done certain things - such as it might have spotted a number of drink drivers, it could have attended so many domestic violence situations, or might have called in so many antisocial behaviour incidents on the street - then they can stack that up and they will get a reward back from government for that.
Private donations can take the form of donations from different companies, but there seems to quid pro quo. I noticed in some areas where the funding was provided that the patrols actually patrolled those premises, so they acted as a fairly cheap private security firm. I also noticed that some of the patrols were made up of small business owners in town, so they patrolled their premises and others shops. Once again, it was a commercial-type arrangement.
For insurance of individuals in New Zealand, there is a universal insurance scheme. They advised me that there has never been an assault on an individual community patrol officer. I had no problem believing that as they do stay in the car; they do not actually get out of the vehicle and chase anything down. However, what I was concerned about is that there is no public liability insurance should a person injure themselves while working on a community patrol, which could preclude them from going to work the next day and incurring any lost wages. That was an issue.
For the tasking of patrols, the time is generally from late in the evening, 9 pm to 10 pm, and they generally do one patrol. Police intelligence will provide them, depending on the relationship they have with police stations, with pictures of people they are looking for or tell them hot spots to patrol. In some areas, the community patrols turn up at the shift change to be briefed by police on what is going on, and then they patrol those areas.
Community patrols have been involved in surveillance and apprehension-type programs tasked by the police. That is to say one community patrol I was with was sitting outside a gang’s premises, and I am talking about a bikie gang or organised crime gang, and taking down the numbers of plates of cars visiting. They also sit in car parks of clubs and look at the number of drinkers leaving the car park. They might, from listening to the radio, know where there is, say, youths with antisocial behaviour on their minds travelling through a suburb. They will keep following the youths until it is called in.
The frequency and duration of patrols is up to each individual patrol to set but, generally, it is at least one or two nights a week, Friday and Saturday night. Some communities have it going all the time. It is up to their resources and what they decide to do. The geographic span of the patrol activity is huge. To drive around Anula and Wulagi, well, you are pretty well around and about and outside the thing in, I would say, seven to eight minutes. Their geographic span of activity is that one patrol would cover all of the Darwin area and another patrol will cover all of the Palmerston area and go out into the rural area. I use those sizes to give you a feel of the area that these people cover in New Zealand.
All patrols are expected to fill out statistics and time sheets when they return to keep everyone informed, including the police, informed as to what they are doing. As you can see, there is quite a cost. There are a few liabilities and, as I said, they have universal insurance coverage in New Zealand so there are funding issues within the program.
We need to investigate funding models to investigate to ensure our volunteers are adequately supported. Should we fund this at a government level or should it be funded at a private level? At the government level, you could ensure continuity. At a private level, then you get into areas of undercutting security firms or, perhaps, dedicating resources to certain areas where a community patrol is going on more of a business patrol. That is something we need to look at.
There would need to be funding for vehicles. If individuals use their own, there are issues of compensation. Let us not forget that the model that we are looking at would be under the auspices of Neighbourhood Watch so we need to have a look at the relationship there. I certainly would not advocate that people are out of pocket for this so we need to have a look at that.
On the issue of communications, there might be difficulties with police radios and the privacy aspects of that. I am not too sure how that would work, but that is certainly something that we would need to look at. Public liability, as I said, is also an issue. Should someone on a community patrol have an accident, who is to be sued? Is it the individual who owns the car or, if it is a community- owned car, who bears the brunt if they have an unfortunate accident of hitting a car, going through a fence, hitting an animal or something of that nature? That needs to be resolved. Personal health and workers’ compensation insurance is also an issue in the event of people hurting themselves, and I am not talking about injury inflicted through crime, but in the course of getting out of the vehicle or walking around and something happens.
In respect of training and law, there were instances where I noticed that the people who were on community patrols did not know the law and could not interpret it correctly. That needs to be looked at. If they are out, one eye on the road, one eye on the potential perpetrator, driver safety training needs to be taken into account. There are issues of privacy because of the information they are gathering. There are issues of recognition of accredited patrols. In New Zealand, they are having real issues with other patrols commencing which are not under the community patrol banner, such as the Guardian Angels who are more proactive in their attitude to crime. That needs to be looked at, as does tasking from police.
In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, Neighbourhood Watch and community patrols are a great initiative. I welcome the concept of community patrols as a deterrent to crime and antisocial behaviour. However, I am cautious that we do not accidentally or inadvertently abuse the goodwill and livelihood of the volunteers who give their time and energy. If we as a community want volunteer patrols, we must be prepared to provide training, management, structures and support, the hardware and software and suitable levels of insurance to ensure that they do not suffer any loss or are open to legal action as a result of providing a valuable service to our community.
Motion agreed to, the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016