2008-05-01
Madam Speaker Aagaard took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the Speaker’s Gallery of Mr Emanuel Comino OAM JP, and Mrs Angelica Poulos, a local member of the Darwin Greek Community.
I advise that Mr Comino is here at the invitation of Darwin’s Greek Community as the founder and chairman of the International Organising Committee for the Restitution of the Parthenon Marbles, which was established in 1981. He made history in 2003 when he presented the case for the return of the Parthenon Marbles to Greece at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague in the Netherlands. He has stated that Lord Elgin’s taking of the world’s greatest single collection of classical Greek sculptures is probably the world’s most celebrated cultural property dispute.
On behalf of all honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I also advise you of the presence in the gallery of Year 11 students from Marrara Christian College accompanied by Tony Rowden; and Year 3/4 Larrakeyah Primary School students accompanied by Sue Folley. On behalf of all honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I present a petition, not conforming with standing orders, from 1131 petitioners relating to a museum being built next to Parliament House. Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
Ms LAWRIE (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that leave of absence be granted for the member for Port Darwin for today due to ill health.
Motion agreed to.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, today marks an important celebration for Territory working families and the Labor movement, May Day. It is great on May Day to see so many students here in the gallery - and big, warm welcome to all.
It is a day which we in the broader Labor movement remember and celebrate but, also, one which we look forward to the future. It is very much to building a stronger economic future that this government dedicates itself. For us, it is far more than a simple public holiday though, of course, it is appropriate that we celebrate it with a day off. After all, its origin since its first celebration 118 years ago was in the International Labor Campaign for an eight-hour day. We celebrate the key role Labor has always played in pursuing and promoting social progress in the home, the workplace and the broader community. For us in the Australian Labor Party, May Day is an assertion of our central commitment to social justice as epitomised by Ben Chifley’s 1949 historic Light on the Hill speech.
In recent times few can be regarded as being more successful than the campaign leading up to the last federal election against WorkChoice. That miserably misnamed experiment by the ousted Howard government removed the rights in the workplace of Australian working families. No one can minimise the importance of the Labor movement and Australian Trade Unions, and the campaign which led to the election of the Rudd Labor government on 24 November last year.
It is a day in which we can and must also look forward, and that was the central message of Ben Chifley’s 1949 speech. It means that Labor, in government, commits to a strong economy that will maximise properly paid and decent employment conditions. It means committing to looking out for people who are experiencing life’s difficulties, and creating safer communities. It means a community with opportunities available in education and training and in which there is a health system that can serve the whole community and not just the well off.
That is what this government has been about since 2001. We have achieved much, but there is always much more to do. The development of a strong economy is at the heart of this government’s social program and our commitment to a fair and equitable Northern Territory, but it does not happen randomly or by accident.
We are projected by next year to have an economy growing at 7% - the fastest in the nation. There will be another 5000 of us in jobs, and the highest current levels of business confidence in Australia. We have established an environment in which business, big and small, has the confidence to invest. We have been level-headed and careful, but not afraid to invest in the future for all Territorians. This has meant investing in hard infrastructure of economic drivers such as the waterfront, the port, the oil and gas industry, roads, railways, schools, police stations and health facilities. It has also meant investing in social infrastructure such as more teachers for our children and youth, more nurses and health professionals, more doctors, and more police for community safety. Above all, it has been about having a vision that is well clear of the narrow confines of the electoral cycle. This is no better summed up through our strong commitment to Closing the Gap over the next five, 10 and 20 years.
Next Monday, together with my friends in the Labor movement, I will be marching - I have not missed one march in Darwin since 1987 - and, after that, will attend the traditional May Day Concert on the Esplanade.
I also table for honourable members - and maybe for the children and students here in the gallery - a copy of Ben Chifley’s 1949 speech because, whichever side of the political fence we sit on, we can all find some real importance and urgency that that speech still stirs. I will quote into the Parliamentary Record the central part of Ben Chifley’s speech:
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, with the reference to a light on the hill, I believe there was some sharing of a common objective; that being the advancement of social progress and justice. The achievement of this was principally held up in the ability of citizens to own their own home which was the cornerstone of a civil society.
When we are talking about such things, and trying to achieve such objectives, it has to be distressing to the Chief Minister, as it is to me and other members here, when we have constituents who are having great difficulty finding affordable homes. In my own electorate, there are senior citizens who are in terrible trouble trying to find a place to rent, such is the competition within the Northern Territory rental market, particularly in the Top End, and also in Alice Springs and other places across the Territory. To own a home is the cornerstone of a civil society. A place like the Northern Territory has an abundance of land. It rests with us politicians to be able to solve that problem. We should be able to solve that problem because we have been to countries where there is genuinely a shortage of land, and there is no such problem here. That is a problem that can be solved if we want to achieve that light on the hill.
For those good families who own their own homes and feel safe in the borders of those homes, they need to have some respect for law and order established, and community standards reinforced in a real and practical way. This will reinforce the statements that are made by practical effort such as a well-resourced and focused police force, so that we have law and order that is a respect for law. People then know that law is being reinforced and backed up and that there is ensuing social order. I believe Ben Chifley would rejoice if we secured those two things: social progress through proper housing, and social justice through reinforcing law and order.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his report. On May Day, we should also remember the families. The emphasis in your economy statement was about families. Labor, for many years - especially when I was young - supported families. To some extent, they have drifted away from that. We now have families where both parents have to work long hours to provide enough money to pay for mortgages and a high cost of living.
The other pressure is what the Leader of the Opposition just said; that is, the provision of affordable land and housing in our community. If you look at the rural area today, a one-hectare block is now $270 000, and two-hectare blocks are now selling for over $300 000, well out of the reach of the ordinary working family. If a family can reach that, they have to work and have two incomes to provide enough money to pay for it. I believe that is a reflection on society that is bad.
I am also interested in hearing what the Chief Minister would say about teachers in relation to May Day. Teachers are asking for better conditions and better resourcing. They, I am sure, will be marching on May Day. I am interested to hear what the minister has to say about their role in our labour force ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, your time has expired.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, in the spirit of May Day, I will not get political in my response. However, I will point out that, yes, along with the member for Blain, there is concern about the tightness of the rental market and rents in the economy. However, it is one of the prices of a strong economy. We have people flooding to the Northern Territory for work.
We do have a land release program. We have to be very careful, given that people are buying into the market at high prices, that we do not flood the market and devalue people’s assets. That is always a challenge.
However, we have more people working. We have more people earning better incomes. In the spirit of families, there was no greater attack on families than John Howard’s WorkChoices. The fact that that is now going to be overturned is going to support families right across Australia with being able to negotiate decent wages and working conditions in the workplace to the benefit of all Territorians.
Ms LAWRIE (Infrastructure and Transport): Madam Speaker, I report on the Territory government’s commitment to upgrading train crossings across the Northern Territory. Community safety is a priority for the Henderson government, and our investment in upgrading level crossing safety will deliver a safer road and rail network for all Territorians.
Two significant level crossing crashes occurred in 2006, the first involving a freight train on 26 October, and the second involving The Ghan on 12 December. Both level crossing crashes were investigated by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau. The drivers of the cars involved in both crashes have been convicted for numerous traffic offences, including an act causing serious actual danger, and driving unsafe in a motor vehicle. One driver was also convicted for not stopping at a stop sign at a level crossing, driving a motor vehicle without fastened seatbelt, driving an unregistered motor vehicle, and driving uninsured.
Since that time, the government has announced a number of measures to address level crossing safety in the Territory, and these include: we are spending more than $150 000 on crossing safety awareness, with increased infringement penalties for failing to comply with traffic signals at level crossings from $80 to $500; and we have increased enforcement at rail crossings throughout the Territory. Strategies have included both overt and covert enforcement.
The government has undertaken assessments of all level crossings in the Territory, including changes in any use since the railway commenced its operation. While all of our rail crossings currently meet the Australian Standard, we are committed to railway crossing safety so, on 24 April this year, I announced that a $6.4m major rail safety upgrade will be delivered as part of Budget 2008-09. This will deliver increased safety for Territory families on our road and rail network.
The Territory government has worked closely with FreightLink, the AustralAsia Railway Corporation and the Australian Trucking Association to identify the areas for the upgrades. Factors such as traffic volume, heavy vehicle usage and sight lines were considered in identifying the priorities. The upgrades will include more crossing signals, boom gates, bells, advanced warning signs and vegetation management.
The trial rail crossings identified for upgrades have spread through the length of the railway corridor from the south of Alice Springs to the north of Palmerston. The upgrade will be undertaken over two years with completion of all crossings targeted for the 2009-10 financial year. Some of them include: boom gates at Bradshaw Drive in Alice Springs; lights, bells and boom gates at Ilparpa Road, Alice Springs; an advance warning system at Wishart Road, Darwin; lights and bells at Fountain Head Road, Darwin region; lights and bells at Leonino Road, Darwin region; lights, bells and boom gates at Elizabeth River boat ramp at Darwin; advance warning system and road speed to be reduced to 80 km/h at the Kakadu Highway, Darwin region; realignment of the crossing at the Gardens Road, Alice Springs region; advance warning system at Cox Peninsula Road, Darwin region; advance warning system at Western Creek Road, Katherine region; boom gates at Larapinta Drive in Alice Springs; and slip lanes at Commonage Road, Alice Springs.
The Northern Territory government’s $6.4m rail crossing upgrade package targets the higher risk crossings and will increase the safety of our rail line and our road network. I thank all of the people and organisations who have contributed to the level crossings report that came before government to consider. I am happy to say that we are ahead of all other jurisdictions in Australia in improving our rail level crossings. We took the opportunity to do an entire and extensive audit of all of our level crossings and, whilst they all do meet the current Australian Standards, we take the view that the price for safety is never too high; we are going to put in additional safety measures as outlined.
What we are seeing is increased activity across the rail network. We have, through the mining boom, larger amounts of freight that is coming up and mineral loads are increasing on our rail network. Obviously, the number of trucks to and from our mines is increasing. With this increased usage, we took the opportunity of increasing the level of safety at our rail crossings.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for her report. It is very important that our railway crossings are considered safe. We have known all along that they meet the national standards. It is just as well we put a railway in that did meet those, isn’t it? It is thanks to the CLP that the railway is there.
We have been taught to always assume there is going to be a train at a railway crossing. Unfortunately, many people do not see it that way. They think there is spare space on either side and charge across the railway crossing without looking. It is most unfortunate that this amount of money has to be spent to ensure that our railway crossings are safe.
I welcome it. There needs to be a high level of safety devices installed at all of those crossings. I am wondering, however, if the minister, in her reply, could give us an update on how the trucking industry is feeling about the serious concerns they have about our roads? I am aware there are some rumblings. Maybe the minister would like to share what those are with the rest of the parliament.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, when I heard you were going to talk about the railway, I thought: ‘Oh great, we can talk about lots of things’. Whilst I appreciate the importance of the upgrading of the railway crossings, especially as we have had a number of fatalities and crashes in the Northern Territory, I believe we should have a statement on the railway. I consider it an important part of the Territory, an importance worthy of a great deal more debate than a few minutes at the beginning of parliamentary sittings.
I remember, earlier this year, a statement in the Katherine Times by the member for Casuarina, where he spoke about the possibility of a rail link between Katherine and Darwin. I presume this would be in the form of a motor rail passenger line. I mentioned this way back, I think at the time when the railway was officially opened, and was laughed at. Now I see one of the members from the other side who was laughing at me, announce that this would be a great idea for Katherine.
I still think it would be a great idea for Katherine; with a line going into Darwin city. We could have a spur line into the rural area. As a government, it is time we started to get more visionary. People in the early 1900s had the vision to put railway lines out to the suburbs of the big cities. They are used so much today. They would have gone out to rural areas in those days. If they had the vision to do that, why are we not doing something similar?
Railways are not a new technology – they are something we are able to build without having to reinvent the wheel. Yet, we do not seem to be looking at the extra uses the rail could be used for in the Territory in moving passengers. You are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on Tiger Brennan Drive. Why? Because the amount of traffic on our roads is increasing.
We should be seriously looking at alternative transport - not just buses, but transport like passenger railways to reduce the need to build more and more roads because we are allowing more and more traffic to go on those roads ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, your time has expired.
Ms LAWRIE (Infrastructure and Transport): Madam Speaker, I thank the opposition support for the level crossing upgrades. I do not think that $6.4m to save lives is unreasonable. I would expect a debate at the national level regarding level crossing safety, particularly after the horrific train accident at Kerang in Victoria. I expect that we are one step ahead of what the national standards will actually move to. If we were to delay these upgrades to when national standards move, it would cost a whole lot more in the future to create this extra level of safety.
In regard to the trucking industry, there is no doubt that our road network needs upgrading. That is why this government has a record roads budget of $271m this year. That is why this government is putting additional millions of dollars into repairs and maintenance when John Howard, their Liberal mate, robbed the Territory of $90m in roads funding - independent statistics outside the department. $90m was ripped off by your mate, John Howard, in Canberra …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
Dr BURNS (Health): Madam Speaker, the Northern Territory offers many unique opportunities to develop and build an appropriately trained medical workforce which meets the needs of our community. However, there are also challenges for our medical workforce which include a geographical application, small or large; small and dispersed population; no local medical school; small number of doctors; challenging geographical and climatic factors; and one large urban centre and four regional hospitals staffed by a large number of internationally trained medical graduates.
Despite these challenges, we have the potential to develop comprehensive health care services across the Territory. In 2007, Dr David Ashbridge, Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Health and Community Services, commissioned a review of medical education and training in the Northern Territory. The review’s report was launched in February 2008 and identified that, despite having 37 identified providers of a medical education in the Northern Territory there were gaps and duplication that needed immediate attention. All of the urgent recommendations have been acted upon.
We are re-establishing a Northern Territory Postgraduate Medical Education Council. Professor Peter Roeser, former Medical Director of Queensland’s Postgraduate Medical Education Council, and Ms Debra Le Bhers, Chief Executive Officer of the Postgraduate Medical Education Council of Queensland, have been appointed to lead this implementation and re-establishment of the Postgraduate Medical Education Council in the Northern Territory.
We are progressing nationally consistent assessment processes for international medical graduates. With the implementation of the national assessments systems, there will be new pathways to register for those doctors. The report also made recommendations for a more cohesive and coordinated approach for the future provision of education training and management of the medical workforce. This recommendation is being actioned this week with the Medical Education and Training Summit. It was my pleasure to welcome the 98 delegates from major universities, medical training bodies and professional colleges around Australia, as well as our own leading professionals, to the summit.
Mr Robert Wells, Director of the Menzies Centre for Health Policy and the Executive Director of the College of Medicine and Health Services at the Australia National University in Canberra was chair of the summit. He is one of the most highly-respected medical educators in the country, with experience in primary care, private health insurance, rural health, and health workforce policy issues.
The priority of the summit was to determine strategies that are achievable, workable and satisfy the educational and training requirements of the Northern Territory medical workforce, and also meet the distinctive needs of our community now and into the future.
The summit developed many outcomes to guide future development of the medical workforce including:
1. strategies to increase medical students coming to the Territory and more Territorians to undertake medical training, including indigenous students;
The summit generated strong enthusiasm for a better coordinated approach between the universities and the medical colleges and our doctors.
Mr Wells commended the Northern Territory for our courage and leadership in taking a hard look at our system and what we need to build upon it. With such broad representation and commitment, I am confident the Medical Education and Training Summit will produce outcomes that will contribute to better integrated and coordinated education and training that achieves high-quality training and education, promoting improved retention of the Northern Territory medical workforce.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his report; we welcome that. Training doctors in the Northern Territory for the Territory is very important. It has been highlighted in recent reports that the Territory has missed opportunities training its own doctors to target specific areas of health care in the Northern Territory, particularly in indigenous health.
The Country Liberal Party has been supportive of the proposed oncology unit that was promised in 2001. I also note in this year’s budget media release which you put out, we have not seen any real detail about funding for that oncology unit. Therefore, when or if that is actually built - when or if it is, if we give the government the benefit of the doubt and say that it will be completed whenever that might be - talking about training, we suggest placing oncology specialists in Adelaide - one Registrar and two radiation therapists - to train them in Adelaide to bring up to the Darwin oncology unit. Obviously, if we are going to have an oncology unit we need those specialists here, and we need the best possible specialists.
Since 2001, we have seen an 89% increase in health funding, and this latest budget, I think, is a third of the health budget - $915m. It is a huge spend, with a 5% increase in population. Yet, we are still seeing patients treated in the back of ambulances at the Royal Darwin Hospital. This is totally unacceptable, minister. You know that it is unacceptable. We need to get inputs and outcomes. That is what it is all about. There is funding of $915m and, yet, we are still seeing people treated in ambulance bays at Royal Darwin Hospital. Not only is it, obviously, not providing beds for those patients, but it is tying up valuable resources such as ambulances.
Overall, training doctors and specialist health care professionals in the Northern Territory should be the utmost priority. We welcome the report today.
Dr BURNS (Health): Madam Speaker, in relation to radiation oncology unit, as I have said publicly, we are progressing that particular project. Regarding training of radiation oncology specialists, that will be attended to within the proposal. That is, basically, what is contained within the funding.
In the health budget, yes, it is $915m, and it is a lot of money. Talking about Royal Darwin Hospital, we have actually doubled the expenditure on Royal Darwin Hospital since we came to power. We have put 70 extra beds into Royal Darwin Hospital since we came to power, and that is not including the 24 bed Rapid Admissions Planning Unit. Yes, there is congestion. Our Emergency departments are three times as busy as other Emergency departments around Australia. However, we have further plans about placing aged people who are currently occupying beds in Royal Darwin Hospital back out in the community.
Madam Speaker, this is a government with a plan for our hospitals, and we are moving forward on it.
Reports noted pursuant to standing orders.
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move - That the Assembly appoint an Estimates Committee and the Government Owned Corporation Scrutiny Committee in terms of the motion circulated to members yesterday at notices.
I do not propose to read out the motion in full; however, I seek leave of the Assembly to have the motion incorporated in the Parliamentary Record and the Minutes of Proceedings of the Assembly.
Leave granted.
ESTIMATES COMMITTEE 2008-09
TERMS OF REFERENCE
The maximum period for consideration shall be 5 hours.
Motion agreed to.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Infrastructure and Transport): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The bill I introduce today will implement another important measure under the government’s strategy of Building Safer Communities. The bill creates a range of new powers which will enable the Department of Planning and Infrastructure’s Transport Safety Officer functions to move towards one of hands-on law enforcement.
The government previously introduced Transport Safety Officers on to the school and passenger bus networks as a safety and security presence on the buses and at bus interchanges. From the beginning, it was evident that the officers were having a very positive effect, improving the level of safety for the travelling public and drivers, as well as acting as ambassadors for Northern Territory public transport.
What also became apparent was that the officers needed further powers to enable them to be more effective in dealing with problem passengers and other persons on the bus network. To that end, the Transport Safety Officers were given training and powers to be inspectors under the Commercial Passenger (Road) Transport Act along with the power to issue trespass notices under the Trespass Act.
In addition, consultants experienced in Northern Territory law enforcement were employed by the department to further enhance the skills of the Transport Safety Officers and develop closer working relationships between police and Transport Safety Officers.
The government did not stop there in its efforts to improve the level of safety and security for the travelling public and for our hard-working bus drivers and their support staff. Urgent steps were taken by government to examine how the powers of Transport Safety Officers could be increased so that they had legal authority to intervene in conflict situations and, at the same time, provide the necessary safeguards for the travelling public, the officers themselves, and the Territory.
The Department of Planning and Infrastructure put together a steering committee of senior officers, including expert representatives from the Northern Territory Police and the Department of Justice, to develop the necessary increased powers and safeguards for Transport Safety Officers. The steering committee also drew on the operational processes and legislation used by similar interstate public transport authorities in order to learn from their knowledge and experience in this area.
The Department of Planning and Infrastructure also began work on the development of the necessary employment, operational, policy and management structures that are required to support the new Transport Safety Officers’ functions.
The key powers and safeguards to be implemented in this bill are:
The government is aware that these new powers to be exercised by transit officers are akin to those of a police constable and, therefore, it is critical that people employed to be transit officers meet the highest standards of integrity and character. For that reason, the bill requires that a person intending to be employed as a transit officer provides authority to the Director of Transport to receive and consider their criminal history, including any spent convictions. The need for the highest standards and public confidence is such that the bill ousts the Anti-Discrimination Act as it relates to treating a spent conviction as an irrelevant record for work purposes. Provision has also been made to include a range of disqualifying offences for persons intending to become transit officers. No other Territory law enforcement officer has such stringent legislative requirements placed upon their employment.
It is also acknowledged by government that to exercise such power of arrest, power of search, or power to use force against another, must only be exercised by those persons who are suitable for such employment. Before they are employed, applicants will need to pass aptitude, physical fitness, and medical and psychological assessments similar to those faced by police and Corrections applicants. Successful applicants to be transit officers will need to successfully complete an accredited training course delivered by a registered training provider.
Transit officers will be public servants under the Public Sector Employment and Management Act. The act gives the necessary legislative framework to enable the Director of Transport to manage the performance and discipline of transit officers, and still provide the officers with the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. As a further safeguard, the bill allows the director to authorise a written code of conduct detailing standards of integrity and behaviour to be observed by transit officers. A contravention of the code of conduct will be grounds for the director to investigate the grounds for continued employment and appointment of a person to be a public servant and/or a transit officer.
Part 3 of the bill details the rules of behaviour for all persons travelling on buses and at bus stations. These rules of behaviour have mostly been drawn from the Passenger Bus Regulations and have now been placed centrally in this bill. For that reason, this bill repeals those applicable regulations from the Passenger Bus Regulations.
The bill preserves the powers of bus drivers and inspectors by making them ex-officio transit officers, but without the power of arrest, power of search, or power to use force against another. This enables bus drivers and inspectors to direct passengers as required, and for inspectors and other authorised persons to issue infringement notices as they have done under the Passenger Bus Regulations. The rules of behaviour are offences of strict liability that have a maximum penalty of 20 penalty units; that is, $2200. However, where appropriate, allowance has been made for transit officers to make reasonable directions for compliance, and for a person to comply with a direction of an officer as soon as is practicable.
Part 4 of the bill relating to the powers of transit officers has been given careful consideration, such that powers of the transit officer to arrest, search and use force are set at the same level as that of a police officer. This is important, as it is a requirement for a transit officer to deliver an arrested person into the custody of a member of the police force, to be dealt with under law. If the standards of evidence were different between the two agencies, this could lead to a situation where alleged offenders may need to be released without charge, or held while further evidence was obtained.
A memorandum of understanding between Northern Territory Police and the Department of Planning and Infrastructure will be developed to establish the necessary levels of support and cooperation between the agencies to underpin transit officer operations. This bill will result in transit officers being able to provide a more effective safety and security presence on the school and passenger bus networks.
Transit officers will be specially selected and appropriately trained and equipped for this function. Transit officers will operate within a professional management structure that will see the careful and considered exercising of these new powers. At the same time, the bill provides for stringent safeguards for the benefit of the travelling public, the transit officers themselves, and the Territory.
I am sure honourable members will support this important new bill that strengthens the government’s strategic intent of building safer communities, and provides another arm of law enforcement to assist the police in the shared goal of maintaining public law and order. The travelling public and the wider community have a right to expect they should be safe when travelling on buses or waiting at bus interchanges, and that they have the protection of transit officers who have the appropriate training, equipment and powers to deal lawfully and fairly with those persons who transgress the laws of the Territory.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr BURNS (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to increase the maximum penalty for supplying Schedule 2 dangerous drugs in indigenous communities. In September 2007, as part of the Commonwealth intervention in the Northern Territory, alcohol was banned in prescribed areas, which include most remote Aboriginal communities and town camps. The Commonwealth minister for Indigenous Affairs, Hon Jenny Macklin MP, recently visited the Northern Territory. She was told by community members that the use of cannabis had increased since the intervention. The Chief Minister and bush MLAs have heard similar reports. A recently published observational study conducted by researches from the Menzies School of Health Research noted an increase in cannabis use, and the problems associated with its use, since the commencement of the alcohol restrictions in remote communities under the intervention.
On 10 March 2008, the Chief Minister announced that the government would be increasing the penalty for supplying drugs in all indigenous communities. This bill represents a commitment that government is serious about tackling the devastating impact that alcohol and drugs is having on families in indigenous communities. Although this bill targets a range of dangerous drugs, it is well known amongst health workers and the police that cannabis, in particular, has been seen to be linked to harm in the community.
The price paid by a remote community for cannabis abuse is substantially greater than in a major centre like Darwin. In communities where cannabis use is prevalent there is less money available for the purchase of food and other necessities. The use of cannabis in these communities can be linked to other harm such as people fighting with their families to get money for drugs, people fighting when they cannot get access to drugs, and neglected children. The Northern Territory Board of Inquiry into the Protection of Aboriginal Children from Sexual Abuse report, Little Children are Sacred, found that cannabis was a significant issue for participants at nearly every community meeting the board of inquiry held.
Participants identified that cannabis had a negative effect on community and family life and, in particular, on the care and protection of children. The negative effects of cannabis within indigenous communities was a significant contributing factor in government’s decision to make the penalty for the offence of supplying drugs to those communities more serious. However, to increase the penalty for cannabis alone could simply lead to potential offenders supplying another drug such as amphetamine. Just as we have seen the restrictions of alcohol result in an increase in cannabis abuse, isolating cannabis as the only drug to attract a higher penalty could lead to increase supply of other drugs and, therefore, the problem would continue. For this reason, all Schedule 2 dangerous drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act which are supplied to indigenous communities will attract a higher maximum penalty.
Some consideration was given as to how best define what constitutes an indigenous community. Ultimately, it was decided the easiest way to do this was to rely on the parameters set by the Commonwealth government in the Northern Territory National Emergency Response Act. These parameters were set to restrict the possession of alcohol into the same community; this bill now seeks to target the supply of drugs. However, while the Commonwealth act sets up appropriate parameters for most indigenous communities, it does not provide for all of them.
As a result, it will be necessary to allow government to make regulations to ensure communities not already covered by the Commonwealth legislation can be included in this amendment. As members would be aware, the Commonwealth legislation has a sunset clause and will expire in 2012. After that time, the prescribed areas as defined in the Commonwealth act may not have any further application in the Northern Territory.
This, of course, will impact upon the application of this bill. To ensure the continued application of the provision, it is proposed that all indigenous communities currently defined under the Commonwealth legislation will be progressively listed in Northern Territory regulations. This will ensure that, by 2012, when the Commonwealth legislation ceases to operate, this provision will have continued relevance in the Territory by virtue of the regulations now listing all the indigenous communities over which the provision applies.
Consideration has been given to the potential impact the Racial Discrimination Act may have on this bill. Is government unfairly targeting our indigenous population by increasing penalties for drug laws only in their communities? No, Madam Speaker. Dangerous drugs defined under the Misuse of Drugs Act are prohibited everywhere. What this bill does is increase the penalty to supply in particular areas. It does not matter who is doing the supplying, they will all face the same penalty. While some persons who are apprehended will be local indigenous people, police quite regularly apprehend systematic and organised drug suppliers who travel directly into the communities from southern states and elsewhere in the Northern Territory in order to facilitate elicit drug supply. These people will also fall under the new provision if they are found with a trafficable quantity of drugs. If they are found supplying in commercial quantities, then the different provision of the act applies and the penalty is heavier again.
The Supreme Court has also recently indicated that it will view all future supplies into indigenous communities as a particularly serious element of aggravation in this type of offending. Clearly, this comment, as well as these amendments, is not intended to unfairly target local residents of our indigenous communities. However, in the light of the recent reports, research, and community consultations regarding the negative impact that drugs are having on our indigenous communities, this bill seeks to work in conjunction with all other initiatives, such as the Commonwealth intervention, as well as this government’s Closing the Gap initiatives. This bill offers significant deterrents to those who threaten the safety and harmony of indigenous communities.
I also draw the attention of members to proposed new section 44. It is a generally accepted principle that the penalty to be applied to a person convicted of an offence is the penalty in place at the time when the offence is committed, rather than the time when the conviction takes place. Proposed new section 44 removes any doubt about the application of this general principle for these changes. The legislation does not retrospectively increase the maximum penalty.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 21 February 2008.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, this bill is supported. The amendment is a relatively minor amendment to the offence of assault in the Criminal Code, and it means that a common assault is classified as an aggravated assault if the person assaulted is a commercial passenger driver. The reason for the minor change is because if the driver assaulted receives an injury because of the assault it would have been aggravated. I am sorry, could I withdraw that, Madam Speaker? There are a number of typos in the document from which I am reading.
It is, in any case, a minor amendment and it makes an assault an aggravated assault where the person is a driver. In fact, I think I might throw that all away.
It is supported. I note that the government has been successful in selling the story, if you like, to the community. We know the genesis of this. If memory serves me correctly, either the Leader of the Opposition or the CLP in the last term proposed a similar amendment. Of course, therefore, we support it. You will get the glory but, then again, that is the nature of politics in terms of government and opposition. It would be unwise for us to oppose this legislation.
All of us should be deeply concerned about the risks drivers face every day. I note that the government has, in fairness, tried a number of things to further enhance driver safety but it remains an issue. This is not the forum during which we would get into a debate about crime statistics, but underlying the reason for this amendment is that we are living in a more dangerous place. Anyone who saw the lead story on Channel 9 news last night would be hard pressed to argue otherwise. In any event, we support the bill.
Ms LAWRIE (Infrastructure and Transport): Madam Speaker, as the minister for Transport, I wholeheartedly welcome the opposition’s support of this amendment. The shadow spokesperson is correct. It is a minor amendment, but it makes a very big difference to sending a message - a very clear message - that we will not tolerate thugs and thuggish behaviour - whether it is on our bus system or, indeed, in our taxis. There was a very stark reminder in Victoria recently regarding people who work in a transport industry who are, basically, getting about lawfully doing their jobs and the dangers they face.
I am delighted to support the legislation brought before the Chamber today by my colleague, the Minister for Justice and Attorney- General. It is a Criminal Code amendment but is, fundamentally, to address issues that arise in the transport system, of which I have responsibility.
The government is committed to protecting the drivers of our commercial passenger vehicles. Previously, these protections applied to some of our bus drivers, but not all of our bus drivers. The protections apply to drivers on our Darwinbus network because they are public servants, and these aggravated assault protections are there for our public servants. The new aspect to this is so that it can apply to all of our bus drivers - picking up those bus drivers who are private contractors; for example, Dysons in Alice Springs and Buslink in the Top End.
Drivers of commercial passenger vehicles - the buses and the taxis - provide an important community transport service. They often work by themselves and they are, indeed, vulnerable to assault by passengers and, particularly and tragically so, at night. What we need is a strong deterrent for those individuals who think they can get away with assaulting our hard-working bus and taxi drivers that so many in the community rely on for their day-to-day mobility.
This government was proud to introduce the Transit Safety Officers on to our Darwin bus network a little over a year ago. Sadly, it is very clear that there is a need for these officers, and I have increased their numbers and their powers. The number of full-time Transit Safety Officers has been increased from four to six. This government has introduced CCTV cameras on all public buses and at our interchanges to help identify perpetrators. The $800 000 investment with CCTV cameras and a safer network has been an extremely successful resource to police.
Today, I introduce the Transport Safety Officer Bill which will deliver a further boost in safety on the public bus network. It gives our TSOs greater power to use reasonable force to remove or detain individuals causing trouble.
The legislation is complementary to the Criminal Code amendment being debated today. The bill increases the penalty for common assault on any bus driver or a taxi driver from one year to five years.
I was shocked when the Leader of the Opposition called this a fake policy announcement. He does not believe that the majority of bus drivers and all taxi drivers should have the same rights as publicly employed ones if he calls it a fake policy announcement. We are not proceeding with a fake policy announcement. We have actual legislation being amended here in the Chamber today to give additional protections to our hard-working bus and taxi drivers. I have taken the opportunity to pass the media release out to private bus and taxi drivers who were, like me, somewhat surprised with the attitude the Leader of the Opposition took to this very important safety issue.
I wrote to the Leader of the Opposition on this issue in early March. I believe he knows it will provide extra protection to hundreds of hard-working drivers. I encourage him to change his position on this legislation. I was delighted to hear the member for Araluen say the opposition supported this legislation today because I had received no response to my letter.
The Leader of the Opposition has called for mandatory sentences for anyone convicted of assaulting a public bus driver. This will not protect the vast majority of bus drivers on the network, nor do anything to protect taxi drivers. In fact, his proposed legislation fails to provide any additional protection for about 95% of licensed commercial passenger vehicle drivers. It also provides no discretion between levels of assault. The Henderson government believes that all bus drivers should have the same rights in the eyes of the law regardless of who they work for. It is true that bus drivers employed by the government through the government bus service are already covered, but this is less than 30% of our bus drivers in Darwin – and there are no publicly employed bus drivers in Alice Springs. There are also, of course, no publicly employed taxi drivers.
On 6 February this year, the Leader of the Opposition issued a media release titled, ‘Oh, yes, she’s the great pretender’, in response to this legislation. I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that there is no pretending when bus and taxi drivers talk to me about being assaulted. I announced on the same day that this will mean a person who commits a common assault on a bus or taxi driver will now face up to five years imprisonment compared to a maximum of one year. Rather than work collaboratively in protecting the drivers who provide such an important service to the community, the Leader of the Opposition, instead, decided to misquote me and published in his release that the legislation only targeted bus drivers. How wrong could he be? This is testament to how poorly he understands the legislation, and also that he does not understand how public transport services are provided to the community.
He described this legislation as: ‘This is a counterfeit law and order policy initiative …’. He went further and stated that increasing the maximum penalty for assaulting a driver from one to five years was ‘… an outrageous deception’. He continued: ‘The extension of the current provisions to private bus drivers and taxi drivers will have little effect’. That is outrageous deception.
The figures speak for themselves. In the Territory, we currently have 1100 H-endorsed drivers. An H endorsement is required for drivers of all classifications of commercial passenger vehicles including taxi, minibus, tourist vehicle, courtesy vehicle, private hire car, limousine, special passenger vehicle, special function vehicle and motor omnibus - 767 are drivers. The Northern Territory government employees who have an H endorsement make up about 4.5% of these numbers. The remainder are privately employed and, yet, we are being accused of being deceptive by the opposition.
Those bus drivers employed by Darwin Bus Service are public servants and, if attacked, the person attacking them can be charged with aggravated assault under section 188(2)(f) of the Criminal Code, which has a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment.
We should extend the appropriate protections to all drivers of commercial passenger vehicles to ensure they have the same level of protection as those drivers employed within the public service. We want a safe bus and taxi network, and this legislation is another tool in this government’s package of reforms, to improve our public transport systems.
I commend the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General for bringing this amendment before the Chamber today. It sends a powerful message out there that this government will not tolerate thugs in our transport system. We will introduce whatever enforcement tools are necessary to take any thuggish behaviour out of the system - whether it is the bus network system or the commercial passenger vehicle system.. Our transport providers do a tough job in difficult circumstances day and night.
We have put CCTV cameras into the bus network and I am working with the Taxi Council to put CCTV cameras into our taxis. We are also putting a safe taxi rank on Mitchell Street. The whole issue of safety is being promoted throughout the taxi industry, as well as the bus network. We are working with the Transport Workers Union to continue to improve any powers necessary with enforcement to provide safety right across our public transport network.
Yet, all the Opposition Leader can do is to whinge and complain, and peddle his own form of falsity and deception with meaningless words that come out of this mouth. He is a disgrace. He does not understand the transport systems.
Madam Speaker, I look forward to continuing to work with the transport sector to ensure, as a government, we are responding to their needs to provide safety right across the network for the people working in the sector, and for those passengers who rely on the transport sector.
Mr BURKE (Brennan): Madam Speaker, I support the Criminal Code Amendment (Assault on Drivers of Commercial Passenger Vehicles) Bill. It is an important change.
I was just refreshing my memory of the minister’s second reading speech where he explained the purpose of the bill is to provide that assaults on all drivers of commercial passenger vehicles are treated with the maximum degree of seriousness for assault. Up until this time, as the Leader of Government Business was just explaining, the publicly employed drivers of buses were covered, and people found guilty of assault on these drivers were liable to maximum penalties. However, that did not apply to a driver of the same bus who was employed through Buslink, rather than the Territory. That is a problem that needed fixing, and I am glad to see that that is addressed in this bill. It makes no sense for one person to have complete protection and someone else less. This is a greater deterrent on the public.
The drivers of our public buses within the public bus network do put up with a lot. I have friends who are drivers of buses or other commercial passenger vehicles. Especially on Thursday, Friday, Saturday night and the wee hours of the mornings, they put up with an awful lot - not just physical violence but verbal abuse. They are called upon to eject passengers at times and to look after other passengers on the bus where they are being subjected to antisocial behaviour and assaults of various kinds. People look to anyone in a uniform who is around, whether it is a bus driver’s uniform, a Transport Safety Officer’s uniform or other.
It seems, in society now, we rely on those whose official duty it is to apparently do something and many other people stand back and watch, perhaps too afraid for their own safety, or just paralysed in shock as to what is happening in front of them. Bus and taxi drivers do put up with a great deal, and it is not just a problem which is localised to the Territory; it is something that happens right across the country. In fact, in Melbourne just recently, taxi drivers held a rally calling for more protection from government. I do not know what the situation is in Victoria, but it is clear that, right across the country, taxi drivers and drivers of other commercial passenger vehicles put up with a great deal.
A lot goes on, on the buses. Every now and again, I jump on a bus to see what is happening. I do not feel the need to call up the media to ensure they catch it on video, but I do use the buses from time to time, because I find that is the only way you get a real sense of what is going on. Thankfully, the friends of mine who are in the industry talk to me and tell me what is happening. However, I always think it gives you a greater sense when you are there to witness things for yourself. Even in the middle of the day, when I have been on the bus, there have been a couple of instances where you think: ‘Thank goodness the driver was able to handle that in the way he or she did’. They act as a circuit breaker and, indeed, mediator and arbiter at times. The extra support across the board to all drivers of commercial passenger vehicles, I am sure, will be welcomed, especially when you consider that over 70% - I think the figure is - of our bus drivers are not Territory government employees but are employed by Buslink, the private company.
Madam Speaker, I congratulate the minister on introducing this bill. I certainly hope he gets support across the board. I look forward to friends and other drivers giving me their views on how it is operating once it comes into force.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, there seems to be some confusion. I know the member opposite, the Treasurer and Leader of Government Business, has had some difficulty grasping the fine point that has been made publicly by the opposition with regard to this matter. The reason this matter had to be presented …
Ms Lawrie: Very patronising this morning.
Mr MILLS: No. … to the community, particularly the transport sector, is because there has been misinformation provided, courtesy of the self-same minister, to the industry, particularly the taxi industry. We are always on the alert to check what the true story is when this government, this minister, presents information to the public. If it is information presented to the public in the best interests of the public - fine, and it should be easy to check. However, if that information is presented to the public in the best interests of the one who is presenting the information - then alarm bells ring. First of all, she passed this off as some grand new measure for one sector of the community. Those new measures are not new at all; they are measures that are already in existence - it was the extension of it. However, she dressed something up more than it is to overstate one aspect of it. The measures already existed for public transport operators. To extend it – fine - but to say that this is new and they are increasing the measures for one sector of this group – it was not new.
The issue here is, this was prompted, once again, by headlines and unpleasant reports in the media. Then, government reacts into a media cycle, and they create this impression that they are now going to respond to this grave community concern.
There was, on the front page of the paper, an awful account which was caught on camera - and I feel very sorry for these bus drivers – of a driver being assaulted; punched for no reason. This minister responds to that bus driver, a public servant, sitting on that bus, by putting out a media release trying to create the impression that there were no real tough measures to protect that driver, but ‘Now we have new measures and we have reacted. Aren’t we good? …
Ms Lawrie: Not true, I had worked on this for months.
Mr MILLS: The fact is that there were measures already in existence to protect that bus driver - that is the issue. There were measures already there to protect that bus driver. You then reacted and created this impression because the community thought: ‘Oh my goodness, look at that, that is awful. What is government doing?’ ‘Oh, we are creating new measures’. There were measures already in existence to protect that bus driver. To go and part …
Ms Lawrie: But not other drivers.
Mr MILLS: You are missing the fine point deliberately. There are none so deaf as will not hear! There were already measures in existence to protect that bus driver. The point is the existing measures were added to, to create the impression that there were new measures. They were expanded to cover other bus drivers, but if those …
Ms Lawrie: And taxi drivers.
Mr MILLS: And taxi drivers, okay, all right. Just to calm you, I will say all other drivers …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr MILLS: … whether they are public or private. That is the extent of it. However, the point is, if they already existed for the public sector, they did not serve to protect that bus driver. That is the point. Then, you said: ‘Right, we are going to expand them’. If they did not work for the public sector and you expand them and create the impression to react to an unpleasant media story and community concern, you are more interested in yourself than you are in addressing the core problem. That is why, first, we made that point …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I am not at all interested in myself on this issue. That is a completely spurious assertion from the Leader of the Opposition. This is about sending a very clear message that we will not accept thugs on our transport system.
Mr Mills: It does not look like a point of order to me, it looks like a reaction.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of Government Business, there is no point of order. If you would like to make a personal explanation you may approach me later.
Ms Lawrie: No need, he is in fantasy land.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Please continue, Leader of the Opposition.
Mr MILLS: A bit sensitive. There is a fine point here …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order! Honourable members, I remind you that constant interjections are not a part of our standing orders. I will be putting people on warnings. Legislation is a serious matter, and I would like it to continue as quietly as possible. Thank you, Leader of the Opposition.
Mr MILLS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The fine point is this: you have measures in place to protect a public driver. If he is assaulted, then the existing measures, as they are constructed, do not afford protection. To extend them across to include the private sector, you have to recognise that there needs to be more done with the existing measures.
That is why the opposition proposed an addition to this extension. In my view, to mischievously – I think that is probably the softest word I could use in this debate - run the line, ‘Oh, the Opposition Leader does not want to protect taxi drivers; isn’t he an awful man?’, is completely and deliberately choosing not to understand the message that is being put - which is an important message. If you have an existing measure that has not served to protect a citizen, you then tell the community that you have now increased the protection. You have, in fact, widened the existing protection that did not work in the first instance. That is why there needs to be a change.
Of course, citizens need to be protected, but the measure that was in place had not afforded protection. There needs to be more than the creation of an impression and a reaction to a concern in the community. A more effective measure would be required; that being, you tell the community that if this happens again, then there is going to be up a penalty of up to five years – that is fine. However, there is no minimum. There is no direct and guaranteed consequence if you go and punch a driver - whether they are public or private. That is the point. It is the same as dealing with a problem and saying: ‘If you do that again, I am going to get really upset with you. Something really bad might happen to you’. If they do not stop misbehaving, you say: ‘Right, I am really going to ramp it up and do something really bad to you’.
The point is there should be a consequence. The point has been misunderstood, and not attended to. I did not get a phone call or letter from the minister saying: ‘What is it that you are concerned about?. I do not need you to jump to the wrong conclusion’. Oh, my goodness, has that ever happened before? Then she trots this nonsense out, saying: ‘He does not want to protect them’. That is absolute rot!
The point is there needs to be a consequence. There needs to be a minimum. That is why we are proposing that there has to be a minimum sentence so that, if anyone does not like the colour of the bus driver’s shirt or they have had a bad day, they cannot just take it out on the bus or taxi driver. There should be a direct consequence for their actions, no matter what. No ifs, no buts. That was the difference.
The measures already existed in part for one sector of the transport sector. Then it was widened to include the private sector. That is fine. Still, though, at the nub of it, there was a problem which, in my view, remains. You need effective laws. There is a world of difference between ‘may’ and ‘will’. There is a world of difference to say this is now the maximum penalty which we have increased, and you do not apply any minimum. You are breeding ineffectiveness, with no clear and direct consequence.
In my view, if you are implementing social policy and you want to solve the problem, you need to have a guaranteed consequence. That is the deficiency. I hope that has clarified it for the minister. Obviously, she has been labouring under a misapprehension.
The other thing regarding letters that have been written to the Opposition Leader seeking clarification or ‘Can I be of any genuine assistance?’, there is an outstanding letter that has been with the Treasurer since the day she took the position, and it has not been acted on. There are members of the transport sector who are becoming deeply concerned at the lack of responsive action. You can check with your minder there. That matter has sat with you since the day you took office. I can show you the paper trail. There has been no response from you whatsoever…
Ms Lawrie: I know.
Mr MILLS: It is a matter of great concern to many in the taxi industry. What is good for this goose is good for that gander over there ...
Ms Lawrie: I have already signed a letter to you.
Mr MILLS: Let us sort it out and you get on to your job and answer that letter because many people want to know the answer to the question.
Ms Lawrie: I have already signed a letter to you. Are you talking about a deregulation question? I have sent you a letter. You lead with your chin.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I am not a supporter of mandatory sentencing but I must admit I am a supporter of mandatory punishment. I believe the Leader of the Opposition raised a good point. For certain crimes, people need to realise they have to take responsibility for it. It would be worthwhile in this case to see some form of minimum punishment, whether it is in the form of sentencing to prison or community orders. Where a violent crime occurs, especially in the case of an assault on a bus or taxi driver, there needs to be more than, ‘Do not do it. We will let you off. If you do it again, there might be a consequence’. I believe there needs to be, with these particular breaches of our law, something to say: ‘You have committed a serious offence. You are old enough to know that was wrong and, because you are old enough to know that, you will be punished for it’. Much of our law today, especially with young people, does not ram home seriously enough that, if you do something wrong and you are old enough to know it is wrong, then there is a consequence.
I support some form of minimum punishment as part of this bill. I believe that, clearly, unless this person is a minor - and I would even say at the lower end of being a minor - they should know the difference between right and wrong. They should know that it is wrong to assault someone and, if they do so, they will suffer a consequence - whether it is to make recompense, do community orders, or even go to prison. There has to be a signal sent out to the public that that person has been punished. A signal to the person who has carried out that offence that they have done something wrong also needs to be part of this legislation.
Bearing that in mind, I thank the minister for the legislation. It is an area that has needed to be looked at. I have a question: what happens in the case of people like the tourist bus operators, say the Tour Tub, if people get on it and someone assaulted him because they thought he gave a pretty terrible tour? Is he covered by this act? The other question is: if I was to hire a commercial bus to take the local footy team on a trip to Katherine; they all paid a certain amount of money to go; one of them decided that they wanted to stop at the Pine Creek Hotel and the driver did not want to stop at the Pine Creek Hotel and was assaulted, would that driver be covered as well?
I am asking whether there are areas outside your normal bus drivers working in the normal bus service that we see around our suburbs. Are those other bus drivers covered? I also add people like AAT drivers or people who take tours out to Kakadu. Are those drivers covered as well? If they are not covered, does the minister think they should be covered? Because they are doing a service for commercial reasons, maybe they are not covered under this particular legislation.
Madam Speaker, with those comments, I support the amendments to the bill. I hope that the issue regarding whether we should have a minimum sentence, or some way of sending out a signal to those people who perpetrate these crimes that they will suffer as a consequence of those crimes, and not be let off, can be resolved.
Dr BURNS (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I thank all members for their contribution. As the member for Brennan pointed out, the demonstration of taxi drivers in Melbourne which was on the news last night highlights the dangers of people working in this industry. It is just not a phenomenon of Darwin, it is all around Australia. The reactions and the feeling in that demonstration that most of us witnessed on the news last night were very high and, obviously, people were feeling very unsafe. The Victorian government is taking almost immediate action to meet some of the demands of the taxi drivers. Obviously, it is a big issue, and is an issue that this government has looked at and acting upon to try to address.
We saw earlier today the minister for Transport introducing legislation regarding Transport Safety Officers, and giving them certain powers. That is very important. I want to emphasise here as an introduction to my response that this is a government that is actually looking at the whole picture, not only of sending a message of the end result of what is going to happen in the courts and the sentences people are going to get for these types of offences, but through fitting out the buses with closed circuit television security systems within the buses, having Transport Safety Officers involved, increasing their numbers, and also increasing the powers that they have. These are important steps through legislation like this.
It is a very important issue. I can say, as a former Transport minister, some elements I have mentioned started with me, but my colleague, the current minister for Transport, has certainly moved this on and put in a whole range of reforms and steps in this regard. I commend her for that.
I also commend the Transport Workers Union which, through all of this, government has been working closely with. I met with them when I was minister and I know my colleague continues to meet with them. Also, when I was Transport minister, I attended quite a number of social functions put on by the drivers and the union. They are wonderful family people. Many of them are long-standing Darwin residents and they have a lot of history in what we might call old Darwin. They are very hard-working people. As the member for Brennan observed, they are very skilled at handling situations but, sometimes, that sort of handling can only go so far. We have seen instances reported in the media and to me personally of drivers being assaulted. In part, this is a response to that.
I thank the shadow Attorney-General for her support of this bill. As she pointed out, it is a minor amendment to cover those who are not government employees working in the transport industry. It covers people like the bus drivers who work for private providers but often undertake routes on behalf of government through government contracts in Alice Springs and through Buslink in Darwin. It also covers taxi drivers and other commercial passenger vehicle drivers such as limousine drivers, etcetera, and drivers who are operating on commercial buses such as AAT Kings mentioned by the member for Nelson. He also observed that the Tour Tub drivers would have an H licence and they are covered by this legislation. It is a very important issue, and I thank the member for Araluen for her support.
The minister clarified that the legislation previously only covered public servants but, as a number of people have observed, only 28% of the total number of bus drivers in the Northern Territory are public servants and are covered by this. If you are looking beyond that, say, in Darwin with Buslink providing 72% of drivers, that is a very important statistic. Beyond that, there are also approximately 1100 drivers who have a current H endorsement and taxi ID card - this is minibus drivers, taxis and some of those commercial passenger vehicle drivers I mentioned before. This penalty associated with an aggravated offence is increasing from one year to five years and now applies to all those categories of drivers. As I said in my second reading speech, the bill will have an important practical effect. Over 1200 drivers will have additional legal protections against assault while carrying out their very important duties.
However, as I said earlier in my introduction, government is not only looking at this, we are doing other things: the increase in numbers and powers of Transport Safety Officers; closed circuit television on buses, working towards 100% coverage of all buses is something I started when I was Transport minister - a committee comprising of the department, police and drivers to share information, because it is very important. Bus drivers have very important information that police and others need to be aware of: where the hot spots are, which individuals might be involved, and what times this is occurring. That is very important intelligence to be passed on to police, and I know police appreciate that. This is all part of operations that they mount against these troublemakers on our buses and at our interchanges where, incidentally, we have also installed closed circuit television.
Madam Speaker, these are very important aspects. I commend the work of the security committee, and I know the minister is fostering that as well. I have also mentioned the Transport Workers Union which, through all of this, I believe has been very constructive. There have been times when the bus drivers have wanted to go on strike - and they really had every reason to go on strike - but they are dedicated to providing the service to the public who go to and from work every day, go shopping or whatever, go out to the hospital, or the children who ride on our buses. These people are so dedicated, if government was prepared to take steps to address this issue, the union said they were prepared not to strike. There is a lot of heat in this issue, but they wanted to see progress. Government has delivered some progress. I know that we could deliver more and we will continue our close relationship with the Transport Workers Union because the members are very constructive in this whole issue.
I mentioned the member for Brennan, whom I thought made a very constructive contribution. I do not really want to get into a blue, as you would say, on the issue that the Leader of the Opposition raised. He accused the Transport minister of counterfeit law and order policy initiatives, outrageous deception, and fake policy announcement. The lead headline was: ‘Oh yes, she is the great pretender’. The Leader of the Opposition has accused the Transport minister of being smart, or not explaining things properly. However, he needs to have a look at his own media release, because he really does not tell the public the whole story. He did not tell the public what he was referring to - and he certainly did not put the argument that he has put here today in his media statement - because, if he did, he would have had to admit that this law is being extended to 1200 extra people in the transport industry.
He said that the measure that we are passing today did not afford protection. Member for Blain, I contend otherwise, because we are actually increasing the coverage of this sort of protection by an extra 1200 people. A total of 72% of extra bus drivers are covered. You are only applying a remedy or an increased aggravated offence here with a smaller number of drivers. By expanding it, of course you are going to increase protection for people, because more people will be brought before the court to face this sort of penalty if they are assaulting bus drivers. In itself, that sends out a clear message to the community and those who might offend. It is a bit spurious to criticise the Transport minister, when you really did not explain to the public that this was actually extending the coverage of this law to over 72% of our drivers and, in total, 1200 people within the commercial passenger vehicle industry.
Also, there is the aspect of enforcement. The fact that we are actually increasing the number of Transport Safety Officers is increasing enforcement and ensuring that more people are brought before the courts, prosecuted and found guilty of these sorts of aggravated offences. You have to be fair and look at everything in total.
You raised the issue of minimum sentences which, on the surface of it sounds okay. It is a product that you can put out there in the public arena. However, with a minimum sentence, when you think about it, you have to think through the issues of thresholds and the basic levels of offence. As your shadow Attorney-General might tell you, if someone could come along and push a bus driver like that on the shoulder forcefully, but not harmfully, that constitutes an assault. You have to be a bit more specific about where you are going to set your levels and thresholds of offence and the penalties that you might propose associated with that. At present, as I understand what you have proposed, that it is very open-ended, and I believe you need to be a bit more specific in what you are proposing.
The member for Nelson talked about mandatory punishment. He is not in favour of mandatory sentencing; he is in favour of mandatory punishment. I contend that our courts decide about the seriousness of the offence; whether it is in the form of a push by which someone has assaulted a taxi or a bus driver, up to a full-blown assault. It is the courts that determine the penalties associated with those offences.
You asked a number of questions, member for Nelson, about the eligibility of certain categories of bus drivers. Those who have an H endorsement to their licence, who drive commercial passenger vehicles and have the appropriate licence, are covered - AAT Kings, the Tour Tub, etcetera.
If a football club hires a bus and they get someone who has a bus licence to drive them somewhere and there is some incident against the driver, I do not think this act applies to that because that is a private arrangement. I understand where you are going with this, but government’s intention through this legislation is to cover the bulk of commercial passenger vehicle drivers. That is what we have done. If there are problems that emerge in the future with some of the categories that you have mentioned, we will look at them.
Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to the House. I believe it is providing coverage to all our commercial passenger vehicle drivers. It is sending a clear message to those in the community who might assault those drivers: look out, because there is an aggravated penalty associated with this and, if you engage in this sort of behaviour, you might find yourself behind bars for five years. I commend the bill to the House.
Motion agreed; bill read a second time.
Dr BURNS (Justice and Attorney-General) (by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed; bill read a third time.
Continued from 13 February 2008.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, there is quite a bit to say in relation to this bill. I believe more will be said outside the Chamber. I drafted a media release this morning. I am uncertain as to whether that has been issued, but I will be referring to my draft in relation to the word ‘may’ and its overuse in the bill when measured against what the government says it will do. I will save that because there are a couple of other things that need to be mentioned with regard to the problems with the bill when measured against what the government has told Territorians this bill will do. There is a quantum difference.
I am not sure whether the government has misled the people of the Northern Territory in relation to the bill. I note that there are no objections, so I will keep going ...
Madam SPEAKER: No, member for Araluen, I ask you to rephrase that.
Ms CARNEY: So I cannot say the government has misled?
Madam SPEAKER: No.
Ms CARNEY: The government has been untruthful when disseminating its information about what this bill will achieve, when measured against what the bill actually says. I doubt there are many members on the other side who have actually seen the bill. We have seen before, there is always a difference between what the government says it will do and what it actually does. I will save the main explanation until later.
I wish to talk about the third bullet point in this glossy recently sent out - $20 000 this cost. It says:
If that is not - I do not know whether I can use the word ‘untruthful’ or whether the Deputy Chief Minister is going to jump to her feet. I thought she was going to jump to her feet before. If I cannot use ‘untruthful’ or ‘misleading’, I do not know how to explain it because it is just not right.
Let us look at the details, third bullet point: ‘The revolving door for repeat offenders will stop – they will face court not diversion programs’. Let us have a look at the detail.
Clause 4 of this bill substitutes an existing provision in the government’s Youth Justice Act. It seeks to substitute section 39(3), (4) and (5). If you have a look at that, they are the quite well-known juvenile diversion provisions. What currently exists is the ability for police to, instead of charging a young person with an offence, give them a verbal warning, a written warning, cause a Youth Justice Conference involving the youth to be convened, or refer the youth to a diversion program.
In the clause that seeks to substitute the existing section 39 and its subclauses in the Youth Justice Act, the new provision provides that there are certain circumstances in which a youth cannot be referred to a youth diversion. Clause 4(3)(a) and (b) say that it will not apply if:
The second point is that clause 4(3)(c) refers to a youth being referred to youth diversion on two previous occasions. The government’s spin would have you believe that, if an offender goes to juvenile diversion twice, he or she will not go to juvenile diversion again. Wrong, because clause 4(4) says; ‘However …’ - it is always interesting to start a clause in legislation with the word ‘however’, but that is a debate for another day, and this is not the first time I have raised this in the Chamber. Nevertheless, it says:
What does that mean ...
Dr Burns: It is in the second reading speech as to what it means.
Ms CARNEY: It means that notwithstanding - and if the Minister for Justice wants to correct me on this I invite him to do so – the government spin says the revolving door for repeat offenders will stop, they will face court. Let us say someone commits an offence twice, the very clear inference is if you do it twice you will not go to juvenile diversion. Can the minister explain why it is that under clause 4(4) it says …
Dr Burns: I would be happy to.
Ms CARNEY: … that a youth can be referred to a juvenile diversion program ‘despite the fact that the case is covered by subsection (3)’. Subsection (3) is the one that says in essence …
Dr Burns: It is in the second reading speech if you had read it. You did not even get a briefing.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms CARNEY: … you are not going to be sent to a juvenile diversion program in particular circumstances. What do we have? Government saying on the one hand: ‘Only two juvenile diversion program referrals and that is it; and we are going to get tough’. Well, on the reading of the bill - not the second reading speech, the reading of the bill - it says it provides an out clause. It provides that the Commissioner for Police or his delegate may authorise a police officer to deal with the …
Dr Burns: As appropriate.
Ms CARNEY: Yes, as appropriate. That is where the truck is going, Madam Speaker. That truck is going right through that one. Government says one thing, what actually happens is another. Government speaks with forked tongue.
However, that is the third bullet point of the government’s $20 000 glossy. I think it cost $20 000 to distribute in the Top End. I assume it has been distributed elsewhere.
Let us go to the first bullet point. It said that parents of repeat offenders will be held responsible for their children’s behaviour through new parental orders ...
Ms CARNEY: Will. Well, we ask: will they just? We do not think so. Far be it from me to use words like ‘mislead’, ‘untruthful’, ‘tell a whopper’ - all that sort of thing. I have gone through the bill and - my God! - does the word ‘may’ make a star appearance. The word ‘may’ is just everywhere. Funny, the word ‘may’ is not, mysteriously enough, on the government’s $20 000 document. The word ‘may’ appears regularly and illustrates the difference between what government tells people it is going to, and what it actually does.
Interestingly, we have some young people in the gallery today - and welcome back - because this legislation will be of particular interest to them, I would have thought.
Ms Scrymgour: Just like you cowboys used to put up the smokescreen constantly. You did the smokescreen very well in government. You did so. What did you do about family responsibility?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms CARNEY: Ignore the Deputy Chief Minister because some of them like a chat. However, the word ‘may’. The government glossy says this is what we are going to do to young’uns if they muck up. The government bill - that is, the thing that becomes law - tells a different story. The bill provides that an agency ‘may’:
The bill sets out what a family responsibility ‘may’ provide, and there is a lot of scope. Importantly - and I am not going to use the word ‘may’ here, I will go to a slightly different area for a nanosecond - the bill states - that is, the proposed new Division 2 section 140F and Division 3 section 140G - that a family responsibility agreement - now this is the thing that the government is saying is illustrative of how seriously it is taking this issue and how the government is going to crack down on parents who are not doing the right thing by kids. This is how kids are going to be dealt with. The family responsibility agreement:
Does not give rise to enforceable obligations. So, it is an optional thing. It may be used, it may not. However, I will go on.
Let us now move to the courts. I feel certain that the reference to the court has been mentioned somewhere. If it is not in the glossy, I reckon it would have appeared in a media release or two. In any event, let us talk about the role the courts play ...
Mr Kiely interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: I doubt very much whether you have read this, Len. Maybe you should. Maybe your reading is coming on ...
Members interjecting.
Mr KIELY: Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: A point or order, Madam Speaker!
Ms CARNEY: I withdraw. I am sorry, Madam Speaker. The member for Sanderson …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I ask the shadow Attorney-General to withdraw her comment, and address the member by his appropriate title.
Madam SPEAKER: Before you go on, honourable members, I have noticed over these last three days that there has been a considerable use of personal names in the Chamber. I will be pulling members up from now on when they are using personal names rather than titles.
Ms CARNEY: Thanks, Madam Speaker. I doubt whether the member for Sanderson has read this, and that is part of the problem. What is happening in the government - we have seen it in relatively recent times - is that the leadership group, for the want of a better expression, is just saying to the junior ministers – and, of course, you cannot get much more of a junior minister than the member for Sanderson - and the backbenchers that ‘This is what we are doing, walk along with us because we are right in what we are doing’. If there was more questioning from the people up the back on the government side, then you would not be placed in the position where you are all nodding your head and saying, ‘Yes, yes, yes’ to legislation that you have not read …
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Clearly, there was no one here nodding their head. The opposition has a habit of attributing actions on this side so it gets on the Parliamentary Record, Madam Speaker. I ask her to withdraw that.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson, there is no point of order. Resume your seat.
Mr WARREN: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Araluen seems to be addressing her remarks across the Chamber and not through you. She is making pointed comments to people across here, and that is not how we do things in this House. That is against standing orders.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Goyder, resume your seat. Member for Araluen, if you would mind directing your comments through the Chair, thank you.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. They over there, if body language and verbal language were to be measured, seem to be enthusiastically applauding this bill, Madam Speaker ...
Ms SCRYMGOUR: A point of order, Madam Speaker! We are talking about very important legislation. If members opposite want to belittle and be childish in the extreme in relation to important legislation, which the shadow Attorney-General is on her feet addressing, then I suggest she stop being provocative, get to the point of the legislation, have the little kids in the playground over there join her, and let us get on with what the debate is all about - the Youth Justice Bill. Stop being so childish.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order, honourable members! Please resume your seat, member for Araluen.
I remind honourable members, once again, that this is legislation, and very serious legislation. I will read into the Parliamentary Record standing orders just to remind you that large numbers of interjections are not at all appropriate. Standing Order 51 reminds all members that:
Honourable members, I will be putting members on warnings should there be considerable disorderly behaviour during the rest of this debate. Member for Araluen, please continue.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I can assure members opposite that there is nothing more serious than the high level of crime …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member should address her remarks through the Chair, as required by standing orders.
Madam SPEAKER: I believe that the member is addressing her comments through the Chair. Member for Araluen, if you could continue to do that.
Ms CARNEY: Does that mean I look at you at all times, Madam Speaker?
Madam SPEAKER: It is up to you, member for Araluen, but it is generally considered that you are actually speaking to the Speaker, and …
Ms CARNEY: And that is the rule for both sides? Okay then.
Madam SPEAKER: Well, it is meant to be. That is meant to be the standing order. Of course, I do not expect you to stare at me the whole time, I have to say, member for Araluen.
Ms CARNEY: Madam Speaker, there is nothing more serious than the high level of crime in our community. Also, there is nothing more serious about a government that tells untruths to the people it represents. We regard those matters extremely seriously indeed ...
Ms SCRYMGOUR: A point of order, Madam Speaker! If the member is going to accuse government of untruths - and she has said this a number of times - she knows the process by which to do it is by substantive motion.
Ms Carney: I think we can …
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Get to the base of the debate instead of getting up and saying ‘untruths’ constantly, which she has been ...
Mr MILLS: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Deputy Chief Minister, please resume your seat. What is your point of order?
Mr MILLS: I think you have addressed it, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you. Member for Araluen, I believe that you understand the standing orders. If you are saying ‘deliberately has created untruth’, of course, you cannot say that except by way of substantive motion. However, if you are being general, then I will allow it.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. We take it very seriously, indeed, when a government tells untruths to its citizens. The citizens would take that pretty seriously too, especially when they pay at least $20 000 for a small glossy; especially when they pay - what is it up to now? - about $10m for the cost of the fifth floor, which is a government floor in the normal course of events in this building.
Madam Speaker, there are few things more serious than this issue. It is also seriously concerning that members opposite - and I will bet London to a brick that most of them have not even bothered to look at the bill. It is seriously concerning …
Dr BURNS: A point of order; Madam Speaker! The shadow Attorney-General has not even bothered to get a briefing on this legislation. The members opposite here, as a Caucus, have been briefed. She is just asserting something that is not true. I question her own motives in not getting a briefing.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Member for Araluen, please continue, bearing in mind that it is normally the lunch break in five minutes, and I will probably call for us to go to lunch at 12 noon. You can continue your remarks after Question Time.
Ms CARNEY: Okay. I note the Attorney-General’s attempt at making a point of order. Apparently, a briefing was obtained by some members opposite – well, bully for them. I do not seem to have the same sort of difficulties. It is a reasonably straightforward bill …
Ms Scrymgour: How arrogant is that?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms CARNEY: We have dealt with much more complex legislation in this place. The Attorney-General and his colleagues will appreciate that. With the greatest of respect minister, if it is all the same to you, the opposition will decide when we need briefings. Over and above that, the material which has been disseminated around the Northern Territory about this bill speaks volumes in itself.
Getting back to the issue, which runs parallel with the untruthful way in which the proposed outcomes of this bill have been put to our fellow Territorians. The bill itself, when read and considered - let us face it, the word ‘may’ only has three letters in it, but by its repeat appearance in this bill it clearly shows there is a great difference between what the government has told Territorians this will do and what the bill will actually do. The Family Responsibility Agreement, quoting from the bill, does not give rise to enforceable obligations. That is over and above the preceding ‘may’s in relation to whether a Family Responsibility Agreement is entered into in the first place. I draw members attention to the proposed clause 140D quote:
You did not put that in your glossy, did you? You did not put that in your glossy.
Furthermore, when we get to the courts, the word ‘may’ features. The word ‘must’ does appear in the bill; it has a cameo role. When you read the bill - and anyone can see this - the ‘must’ kicks in after all of the ‘may’s. People have elected to pursue various courses of action under the word ‘may’. There are a couple of ‘must’s but they are after all of the ‘may’s have been ticked off which, of course, people have the right to do or not.
Let us go to the court. The court ‘may’ issue a summons. The court ‘may’ issue a warrant. A prosecution for a failure to comply with a Family Responsibility Order ‘may’ only be commenced with the approval of the appropriate agency. The fine imposed for non-compliance with the Family Responsibility Order ‘may’ only be enforced in certain conditions. I am very interested to know whether members opposite were told that in the briefing. We think that the government ‘may’ like to be more honest with the people of the Northern Territory when it seeks to ...
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order; Madam Speaker! The member opposite is accusing the government of not being honest. That is completely wrong and erroneous. She is continuing to ignore the standing order in not addressing the Chair.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order regarding the first part, but if you could continue to direct your remarks through the Chair.
It is now midday and I ask you to continue your remarks after Question Time.
Debate suspended.
Continued from earlier this day.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, before lunch I referred to the difference between what the government said this legislation will do and what the legislation actually says. I will make some other comments in relation to it; however, there is something I need to correct. Before lunch I said there was no definition of serious offence. Of course there is a definition of serious offence in the act ...
Members interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: Read it, have we, children? Read it, have we?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms CARNEY: There is that definition; it was not on the next page of my print-out. In any event, I make that correction. However, if the government thinks that we should correct anything else, they are mistaken. I have had an opportunity to review the other propaganda put out by government. This is an interesting one. On 21 January 2008, a media release from the Chief Minister said as follows:
Minister, I would like your formal response to this. Can you please advise in your reply how that - given the wording of clause 4(3) and, in particular, clause 4(4) - in any way, shape or form mirrors what the Chief Minister said; namely, that diversion programs will no longer be an option for juvenile offenders and that the legislation would be amended so that young offenders ‘must not be diverted more than twice’? Is it not the case that, pursuant to clause 4(4) - and I am reading from the bill now:
You will remember of course that subsection (3) includes the existing subsection (2) from the Youth Justice Act.
I take this opportunity, if I may, minister, of bringing to your attention and ask you - and if the letters turned up in the last couple of days I apologise, but I do not believe I have a response to my letter of 27 February - if you remember during the February sittings there was the Youth Justice statement? I wrote to you and said that you and your colleagues referred to the Youth Justice Strategy. I asked if you would kindly provide me with a copy of that strategy. I have not yet received that strategy. It is important in the context of this debate because, in that statement, there were numerous references to the bill and the government’s intentions.
When looking at this bill, of course, we look to the Youth Justice Bill which was debated in 2005. I remember the media release from then Attorney-General, Peter Toyne. There are many media releases floating around suggesting that government is going to be tougher on crime. This is but one. In any event, the media release, on 24 August 2005, Peter Toyne:
Over the page he said:
In addition to all of the other government spin, I ask you, minister, to comment. Do you regard the new bill as a concession by government that what it came up with in 2005 has failed or, in the alternative, that like the Liquor Bill we debated yesterday, seeing that there is an admission of failure or, at very least, it is not working well enough; therefore, you are going to stack on this extra bit that is contained in the bill that we are debating today to try your darndest to make things difficult for juvenile offenders?
I have had an opportunity to look through the Parliamentary Record when we debated, in August 2005, the bill. When it was introduced - that is, the Youth Justice Bill -- on 30 June 2005, the then Attorney-General, Peter Toyne, went to great lengths to say, in essence, what a terrific bill this was. Of course, there was the associated media spin at the time.
In my reply, we did have difficulties with the bill. I reminded members that - the Youth Justice Bill, came in, of course, in June 2005, just after the election - the Labor Party did incredibly well with all of its pre-election hype. I am sure it will all come flooding back to the minister. You got - or that is, the government got - a ripper headline, just the one they wanted. In the NT News of 6 May, the headline was: ‘Crackdown on kid crims’. You could not have asked for a better headline, given that the government was putting forward its position that it was cracking down on kid crime.
However, when this bill was introduced we saw a significant difference, again, between what the government said was going to happen and, in fact, what is going to happen. The government has form; we saw it with the anti-gang laws. Former minister for Justice, the member for Nhulunbuy, 17 October 2006 media release:
He went on to say:
Since then, there has been a lot of gang activity in the northern suburbs - I think from memory even in the Chief Minister’s electorate. People are very concerned about gangs. My point, minister, is the government has been caught out, and is being caught out consistently, by either getting its work done through the media and persuading people that, yes, it is cracking down and coming down tough on anyone who breaks the law but, in this particular instance, young people. Yet, there is always a difference between the spin and what we deal with in parliament. If memory serves me correctly, I think we have even made some amendments to the so-called gang laws in relatively recent times. That is just some of the background. There is much more material I could have read out, but the point is made.
One different point is in relation to the provision in the bill where, in the event, after people satisfy all of the ‘may’ obstacles, there is a provision for - I will read it:
Dr Burns: Which division are you reading from?
Ms CARNEY: Clause 140N on the final page, under the heading Division 4, Miscellaneous. It is Enforcement of fine:
Minister, you were asked on 14 February in Question Time about the existing section 133 of the Youth Justice Act ...
Dr Burns: Say again?
Ms CARNEY: Sorry, section 133 of the Youth Justice Act. The question put by the Leader of the Opposition was as follows:
You said:
I am not aware - again if I am mistaken, correct me - that you have provided those figures. Why is this important? Because we say that there is already, in the act in its present form, an ability provided for parents to pay costs. Yet, certainly the spin is that there is a new procedure, albeit a slightly changed one, of recovering costs. The question is: how much have you recovered under section 133? If you have not recovered much, why do you say that you need a different, or a new way, of enforcement? Do you think that is going to be successful? In relation to the existing section 133, has that not been successful?
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of members of the Sanderson Clontarf Football Academy program, accompanied by Nathan Perrin. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Araluen.
Ms CARNEY: How nice to see them, Madam Speaker.
I believe that is about it. I know the Leader of the Opposition has some other comments to add, and I am sure there are many speakers on the other side.
In conclusion, the government should, I believe, be collectively embarrassed, given the money it spent on advertising. This is May Day. This is a ‘may’ bill. That stuff was never contained in the fine print of the stuff you have been poking in people’s letterboxes. It just was not. I have not heard any of the radio advertisements, but I gather that nowhere in those ads is the word ‘may’ mentioned.
This is a long way from what you promised, and have represented to others. We do not oppose it on the basis that it ‘may’ work - it ‘may’. We do not believe, however - and we make this point very clearly - that this is going to achieve what you say it is going achieve in your glossy brochures, and we reckon you know that too. It is a real shame that Territorians have had to pick up the tab.
The question yesterday, I think, was how much was the brochure. That was $20 000. I assume that was for circulation in Darwin. I am interested in the minister’s reply. Whether it has been distributed elsewhere and, if so, how much it has cost? Also, how much are the radio ads? Is there going to be any television or any other form of advertising? How much do you reckon it is going to cost? Do you think, at any point in the propagation of your propaganda, that you might like to actually say to people that what you are presenting is significantly different? I am sorry that you have such an aversion to the word ‘must’. We, on this side of the House, do not.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I support the Justice minister’s amendment to the Youth Justice Act.
I welcome the Sanderson Clontarf boys and their teachers into parliament today. It was great to be at Sanderson school last week. As tall as I am, most of those kids out-marked me and the member for Sanderson in a bit of kick-to-kick. It is wonderful to see them in the House. A very big, warm welcome.
Talking about the youth justice system, the most important investment any society can make is into education programs that are going to give these young students the opportunity to achieve the best they possibly can and, then, go on to fulfilling and rewarding lives and careers. I am very sure that those kids up there, as a result of this program and what they are doing, are not going to be caught up in issues such as we are debating today.
The vast majority of Territory families seek a safe and decent place to bring up their kids, a safe and decent place for our senior Territorians to live in their retirement, and a safe and decent environment for our businesses to operate in. The vast majority of parents and children are fine, upstanding people who make a positive contribution to their communities and to the wellbeing of their own families. However, antisocial behaviour and criminal activities of a small number of young people is affecting our whole community. The parents of these kids appear not to give a damn about the behaviour, safety and future of their children. These kids and their parents are denying the right of all of us to the quiet enjoyment of our day-to-day lives and, unless they are held accountable, they will destroy the fantastic Territory lifestyle and environment that so many of us have helped to establish over the years.
Everyone in this place knows my views about youth crime. It is one of the critical issues we face and I am determined to tackle it. We have a comprehensive plan to tackle youth crime and a range of measures are being introduced to address the issue. Within that plan, today’s focus is on passing the Youth Justice Amendment (Family Responsibility) Bill. This amendment will have the effect of closing the revolving door to formal diversion, and provide for family responsibility agreements and family responsibility orders which will hold parents responsible for the conduct of their children.
Responding to the comments from the member for Araluen and her concern over the use of the word, ‘may’, in the bill. This is complex legislation. It is the toughest legislation of its type in Australia. Western Australia has introduced something similar to this, but it has not been enacted. We believe this is groundbreaking legislation. It involves agreements on the one hand where parents, service providers, the Education department, FACS – whatever - can enter into a formal agreements and be case managed to assist parents with the very difficult job, on occasions, of getting a kid back on the rails. Those agreements are entered into voluntarily. There is $2.5m in the budget this year to support the introduction of those agreements and the family centres that are going to be a one-stop shop to assist families who are having difficulties in bringing up kids and preventing them from going off the rails.
The other side of our strategy is family responsibility orders. These will be orders which will be applied by the courts or police that are compelling and binding on the parents to undertake certain activities to improve their support and supervision of their children. In putting this legislation together, there has been a significant amount of thought go into it. It features flexibility allowing it to cover the individual circumstances of families. Every family’s circumstance is different. The intent of this parliament regarding the legislation is to ensure that those orders and agreements deal with the unique needs of those families requiring assistance or that need to change behaviour.
The Territory police already perform an excellent job in tackling youth crime, but these new provisions will assist them considerably in this area by providing for a collaborative inter-agency early intervention approach. These new provisions will help deal with incidents such as the recent assaults by a group of youths at Hibiscus, where 15 youths were involved in assault on patrons after a group of youths were interrupted damaging an abandoned car. Thankfully, 14 of these youths have been arrested and one is yet to be interviewed. There is no good reason why parents should allow their children to be out late at night participating in such assaults, or even looking on as some sort of cheer squad. The bill will enable agencies to identify youths involved with antisocial and criminal behaviours and provide a layered, problem-solving approach.
Having spoken at length with the Police Commissioner, these orders allow for the police to approach the courts to seek such an order for a number of families around Darwin, and Palmerston in particular, whose children are the never-ending source of police investigations and charges being laid. Police will now have the ability to seek orders to bring these parents to the table and get them involved in improving the behaviour of their kids. I am absolutely confident the police will take a very proactive approach with the additional powers they will have under this legislation.
The legislation will enable family responsibility agreements to be put in place to require the parent or guardian to ensure that the young person attends school and keeps away from and avoids contact with certain persons or places. We recognise that some parents are ill-equipped to fulfil their obligations and the bill provides the parents and guardians to be assisted by an officer from the Family Responsibility Program who will link them up with community services and programs and government support relevant to their needs and to the obligations set out in the agreement they have entered into.
Recognising that voluntary agreements may not work in some circumstances because the parent or guardian refuses to enter or comply with an agreement, or where a child continues to exhibit the same behaviour, the bill provides for an agency to bring an application to the court for a family responsibility order. Where a court makes an order, it will be able to assert terms and conditions relating to the parents’ or guardians’ own behaviour, the need for counselling, parental guidance support, or other personal development. Also very importantly, many of these families break down as a result of significant alcohol or drug abuse or domestic violence occurring within that family. These orders will require and compel those issues to be addressed as well.
A family responsibility order will differ from an agreement in that a court order will compel, as I said, the parent or guardian to address those aspects of their own behaviour that are preventing them from parenting effectively, and to exercise proper supervision of the youth in their care. If they fail in their parenting and obligations as set out in the order, the parent or guardian will certainly suffer the consequences. This may take the form of a fine of up $2200 and, if a fine is not paid, they could possibly suffer the seizure of non-essential household goods such as plasma TVs or hi-fi equipment, or they will incur a community work order. I hope we never have to reach that point. I really hope that entering into these agreements and orders will confront parents with the prime responsibility that they have; that is, to care for their children.
We will be offering far greater support to assist them to overcome their problems, and to assist them with their parenting skills. However, the primary responsibility that you have as a parent or guardian is to the care of the children that you have brought into the world or that you are supporting. It should not be the responsibility of broader society to pick up that responsibility. That is what is happening now, and this is what we are trying to tackle in this bill, for a small number of people who cause trouble disproportionately and are at the heart of so much of the antisocial behaviour and juvenile crime that we see in our suburbs.
We live in a time where a small minority of poorly guided, unruly youths from dysfunctional families engage in criminal and antisocial behaviour to the annoyance and detriment of respectable Territory families who seek a safe and enjoyable place in which to live, work and raise their families. I commend the Justice minister for bringing this resumption of Youth Justice Amendment (Family Responsibility) Bill to the House.
As I said in a press conference today, this is groundbreaking legislation. I am quite amazed the Leader of the Opposition talked about: ‘Because you seek to amend legislation, are you admitting that previous legislation failed?’ Legislation is amended all the time. There are always times when any bill can be amended to seek to achieve better outcomes, to make much clearer the intent of the legislation, and to strengthen certain provisions in that legislation.
I made a commitment to the media today that, if this is found not to be working, we will come back and look at it, because this is groundbreaking legislation. It is a comprehensive package that we have put in place. We acknowledge the extent of the problems in the community; we are addressing additional police to the front line. At the heart of it, as I have said so many times, as I get around the community and my electorate, the question that I get most often, on the doorsteps when talking about these issues, is people shaking their heads and saying: ‘What are their parents doing about it? Why do we have to suffer?’ We are going to be providing additional support to parents who want to avail themselves of that support and, where parents do not want to avail themselves of that support, they will be compelled to get that support to bring these kids under control and ensure that our streets and our suburbs across the Northern Territory are rid of this menace that really is concerning for a lot of people in the Northern Territory.
Madam Speaker, I commend the minister and his amendment.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I recognise the intent of the bill and I hope that it is successful in its implementation. However, I do have concerns. I have concerns of how effective it will be in the short term for people or whether we are going to have cases that drag on for a long time, and that we do not have success with many of the families concerned.
To give you an example of a diversionary program, this is a letter from the NT Police to one of the business people whose business was broken into in May 2007 - that is nearly 12 months ago – in which there were five juveniles involved. It just illustrates how long the whole process of diversion takes. I am trying to say to you that the process of family responsibility could take just as long or even longer to implement some of these things:
This particular juvenile had done part of the diversionary process. He had written a letter of apology. He had also:
This particular juvenile completed in March 2008, and that was a good outcome for him. The shop owner, in this case, was pleased about that.
That letter was written 10 months after the incident occurred. I do not know how many hours the police had to put into this particular case - and it is just one case - to follow up with juveniles, to see whether they completed what they had promised to do, and to follow up with the business people. I know the business people felt as though they were not getting the communication back from the police to let them know exactly what had happened to these particular juveniles who had caused so much damage to their properties.
My point is: if it takes 12 months to find out that one out of five juveniles has completed the diversion program, how long will it possibly take to ensure that this scheme the minister wants to implement actually is effective? In many cases, as we have said over and over again, many of the parents are not responsible. Many of the parents will not care, and many of the juveniles will not care. They will not care what their parents say, and that is one of the hardest things for parents who have these unruly juveniles within their care.
If you look at the juveniles concerned, the underlying reasons for their behaviour are very complicated. I feel that there should be more focus on juveniles. I hope with the youth camp - and perhaps the streamlining of diversionary programs - that focus can be put on the juveniles so they do get a chance to redeem themselves. They may be from out of town, they may be living in an unhealthy circumstances where they have bad role models, they may have domestic violence, they may have poor health – you name it, we know that – and they may also be second or third generation young people who have lived in a home which has been dysfunctional. I would like to see more emphasis on what you are going to do about these juveniles. I do not believe the diversionary program is effective. I do not believe it is swift enough. I do not believe it is successful enough.
I know you have been quoting figures of how so many do not get back into the diversionary program, but if you ask the business people out there who have been affected by these young people, they would say to you: ‘It is not working, the kids really do not care. They really do not care a darn’.
As I said, when parents have no control over their children, even though you talk about that in your notes, how far do you go with parents? How far do you go to make them have responsibility for their young people? Will the court order actually address the parent? Will you put in the support services that are necessary to ensure that that parent knows how to address the problem? Too often, we see within FACS and other agencies, people who have known problems do not get the support they need to address them, or even to assist them, or to even make them feel as though they are making inroads.
However, if the parent or guardian does not comply with the conditions of the orders of the court in this particular bill, you are saying there will be a penalty. I suggest to you that there are many families where a penalty of a fine probably will not be able to be paid. We all laugh about the unpaid fines that result from the dry town legislation at the moment. There must be thousands of them. What are you going to do? Go down the river and collect their plasma TV and take it away to pay for the fine? What are you actually going to seize as goods to pay the fine? It is pie-in-the-sky stuff, because you say it has to be non-essential household goods.
The issuing of community work orders is a very good suggestion. I believe community work orders should be not just for the parents but for them together with the young people. My only concern is, who is going to supervise these? We seem to be setting up systems which need a huge amount of input from either the police or Correctional Services or whoever. I know some of the business people have said kids have been diverted to do community service on the bus that had graffiti on it and they were supposed to clean it. However, the kid did not turn up, or when he did, there was no one there. The businessman was supposed to supervise it. What you are doing and suggesting is an enormous strain on resources.
I honestly do not believe we can go down this line - and just look at those four juveniles that did not turn up for that particular case of diversion - of holding their parents responsible, ensuring the parents have the right support to know what they are supposed to be doing, ensuring if the parents do not do it then we are going to take them to court, then we are going to fine them, and then we are going to somehow recover that fine.
What is the end result? What is the end result you are actually after? You say: ‘No, we are not going to name the parents or the young person concerned because we do not want to shame them by being named in the press’. We understand that is the general rule in regard to juveniles. However, what is the end point? Just how far down the line of this particular proposal do you go? I have concerns that we are making this convoluted, complex system, and I am not quite sure what we are going to receive at the end. Is there going to be an outcome whereby the parents, hopefully, will be good parents and their child will be a good child? In simplistic terms, that is what you are after. However, it is not simple. Quite often, it is extremely difficult to even enlighten parents. The anger some parents feel towards their kids often turns violent because it reflects on the parent.
You have to be careful that you are not setting up a scenario that makes the situation worse. I do not know whether you are going to have the resources to do this so-called family counselling, family direction, and family responsibility. This is not something that happens overnight. To be honest, there are many people out there who do not care for their kids or about themselves. I do not know how you are going to break that attitude. Is it going to be a carrot-and-stick approach? Is it only going to be the stick approach which, it seems to me, is the way you have written this legislation?
Minister, as I say, if there is a simple answer it would have happened a long time ago. I hope when we get better attendance at school all these programs and initiatives the government is talking about we will get, at the end of the day, better kids and parents.
Look at some of the scenarios you have in our towns, regional centres and communities. I do not consider this legislation will realistically succeed. I say good luck with it. I am not going to vote against it, but I believe the whole process is so convoluted and long, and we have seen similar initiatives so many times but we lack sufficient support agencies to assist where we need them.
There is provision in other acts for juveniles’ needs to be addressed, and restitution and compensation to be made. I feel the whole system we have at the moment is so slow, takes so long and, in a way, is so soft the community’s attitude is one that I worry about. In Alice Springs, we have young teenage girls who target elderly people and disabled people. That is the worst thing I have seen happen in Alice Springs. I would not be surprised if it was the same gang of girls doing this. Since they were successful, they build up their confidence and do it again and again. I hope the police can stop them quickly. When they do get them, though, I hope we do not administer this soft diversion program where these girls laugh at getting away with what they have done.
Good luck with it. I will be interested to hear more of the process of the act than the philosophy behind it. I would like to know what you are going to do. Who is going to be doing the family counselling? Who is going to take responsibility? Let us have a little of the meat of what is going to happen, rather than just the generalised theory behind it. It may make us feel good. It may make us feel nice, warm and fuzzy, but the bottom line is what is really going to happen at the grassroots.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I am not opposing the Youth Justice Amendment (Family Responsibility) Bill. I understand the government is trying to put forward a solution to the problems we have with a minority of youth in some of our communities, as the Chief Minister said. What concerns me is that we are dealing with complex issues and trying to solve them by legalistic means. This means we put down things as A, B, and C and, hopefully, that will fix the problem. My concerns are that we do not look at the bigger picture. If parents - and I am not saying this is all parents - have problems with raising their children, how much emphasis have we put in to marriage guidance? There is a Commonwealth program called Family Relationships. How many of our parents, how many of our young people who had their first child, have any idea what they are in for?
If you came from a Catholic background, many years ago, you could not get married without doing what they called Pre-Cana conferences. You had to do a course on marriage which involved budgeting, discipline, sexual relations, and a whole range of things. Of course today, many people do not get married so they do not go through any formal set of courses before they get married; they just live together and have children.
The problem there is that who is there to help those couples understand some of the issues they are going to have to deal with? There will be issues of budgeting, of relationships with one another, and of ‘How do I look after this little baby that has just dropped into our home the other day? How are we going to handle it?’ Do they know the problems that are going to occur as these children turn into teenagers? From a government perspective, I would like to see much more emphasis placed on positive parenting. You would probably say there are programs and, as I mentioned, there are Commonwealth programs. However, if we are serious about intervening, then you cannot get much earlier intervention than at the stage where two people get together.
I do not want to crowd the schools with it, but I am sure if you talked to Years 11 and 12 and made it known to many young people that there are these programs and, if there is some way we can keep promoting these programs, that will be a positive way of at least trying to reduce some of the problems that occur in the future.
Good parenting does not necessarily mean you will not get a child that is a real ratbag. There is no guarantee of that at all. From my little knowledge - and I am not the guru on family relationships. However, on my trip to America where I visited the West Central Correction facility in Marysville Ohio, I had six inmates sit down in front of me and the guest I was staying with in Ohio. All of them got into problems first, because of the early use of drugs and alcohol and, second, every person had either a broken family or a family that was never home with their kids. That was just six people taken out at random to speak to us. If you accept that we can do something to try to change parenting and help parents look after their children, then we will go a long way in trying to reduce the problems we have.
The other area - and I know people on the other side laugh when I talk about it - is that there are enormous pressures on families today because of the cost of living. A mortgage today really requires two parents to work. Unless you are on a very big wage as a single parent, two parents have to work to pay for a house today. Unless you have inherited some money or won Tattslotto, it is not easy to pay off a mortgage on a single income. If you have two people working to pay for childcare, how much parenting will happen at home? Mum and dad have had a hard day; the child has been to school or been in childcare. The parents are exhausted; they do not have much time sometimes to spend good quality time with their children.
Are we recognising that the pressure in today’s society could also be part of the reason we are having social problems in our society? Kids are not at home because mum and dad are not home - they may be down the pub or off with their mates, but they may also be working. They may have one or two jobs each to try to pay the mortgage on the house. You can go into whether people have ideas that they should own a boat, three cars, four plasma TVs and a big house. That could be some of the problem as well; people trying to earn incomes to pay for necessities in life that are really not that necessary. That is another issue.
I am saying that of the social pressures on parents today, some of that is peer group pressure: ‘My mate up the street has a plasma TV, I should have one. He has a boat, he goes fishing, I need one’. Loans, loans, mortgages - pressure, pressure, pressure. There is school as well. The other day I heard, from my grandkids, that it was $87 to buy the school photographs. Golly, I will go around there with my digital camera; I will do a few for $10. You can see the pressures mounting on parents. That means they have to work longer hours.
Therefore, as a government, what are you looking at as a means of reducing that pressure? I know people laugh at me when I say release more land, make land cheaper. I do not do it just to sound like Gerry Wood big noting himself. I am saying it because we need to reduce the financial pressures on young people, young families, by giving them the opportunity to buy land at a cheaper price, to start off with a smaller house, and not have those pressures so early in life that people have to work when the child needs them most. I always believe - and I have heard other people say it, but I suppose it is from my own experience - the time the child needs the parents most is between 0 and 3. That is when you set up the discipline and the attachment with your child. From then on, of course, a child will become slowly more independent and, when they get to being a teenager, then the issues that we have today come into play: whether your child is going to be a child who is responsible or a child who mixes up with the wrong sort.
There is another area that we should be looking at. Not so long ago, at the top end of Smith Street was the Police Boys Club. We now have the Police Youth and Citizens Club at Berrimah, but that is a completely different thing to what we originally had before. The Police Youth and Citizens Club is now, more or less, about Judo, gymnastics and the Wongabilla Pony Club. I am not saying they do not do good things. However, the Police Boys Club, in its day was run by the police. Do not forget, the police are the people who are actually at the interface with all these problems. They were on the street because Darwin was not much bigger than where we stand today. It was probably Smith Street from one end to the other, a few people lived at Parap and, if you were at Nightcliff, that was a day out in the bush just about. However, there was a Police Boys Club that encouraged young people off the street.
I will refer to my Catholic background. I went to a school which was built by an order of priests called the Salesians. They came out of Italy, from Turin. They were founded by a priest called John Bosco. What was his whole life based around? He was picking young boys off the street who were called urchins, who were no different from the Caz Boys. What we are dealing with today is not something new. It is something that occurred in the 18th century and 19th century. How did they approach it? All right, they had a religious motivation for what they were doing. What did they do? They gave young people a chance to go into woodwork, metal work, or music. They gave them a trade.
Today, the Salesian Order is very much involved in trade education. If you go to Timor, you will find trade schools. They are very much involved in agricultural colleges. They work with people on the street. I am very much a believer that our technical skills should not be out of university; it should be right in the middle of the suburbs. It could be in Palmerston, attached to the secondary school, but it should be right there where the kids needing help are. I do not think it should be plonked up there with the universities; it is the wrong image. We should be working hard to ensure we give opportunities for kids to get away from being on the street. We do it with Clontarf. For instance, we have these young people here. That is another thing; we use sport. There is a mixture of messages there.
I believe there is a role for police. Some police will say their job is just to carry out the law, to pick up the criminals, to take them to court and, after that, well, hopefully, the court will give them some punishment. I believe police have a role to play much earlier than that.
I will give you an example which I thought was successful but it waivers because it depends on who is running it. There is a sporting trailer in Katherine that goes out to Beswick. I am told, from my days in the Substance Abuse committee of the previous sittings of parliament, that that was very successful. Police went out with this trailer, full of footballs and all sorts of sporting equipment, to that community. They were out there, not as police, but, I suppose, as human beings trying to help others before they got into trouble.
I would like to see a bit more emphasis from the police side of it. They have to be out there, not with guns, handcuffs, and whatever they wear around their belts, but as community police. I know we have them in the schools, but I believe we need them on the ground working with some of those families that have a problem - not as police officers enforcing law, but police officers trying to help kids not get into trouble in the first place.
I put those up as positive things to the government, saying that I see what you are doing. You are intervening at stage 4, I thought. Stage 1 is where we need to have intervention; that is, more parenting. We need more involvement, perhaps, with the police at a much earlier stage. We need more opportunities for kids to be in those trades that we now have a shortage of, unfortunately. I know the government has plans for 10 000 apprentices, or at least apprentice places. That is a political promise they made at the last election, and that is good. However, we really need to be pushing hard to get some of these kids into those trades, just as it was the emphasis of that religious order of priests that looked after me in school. They saw that as a role and a way of getting kids out of a poverty cycle. They gave them some eduction in something that was meaningful, and gave them a reason for living, really. Sometimes I think some of these kids do not have a reason for living.
I also remember the days of Wildman River. When I did a trip out there and sat down with one of the kids there, he talked about wanting to see his girlfriend when he got out of there. He started to get a little sad about where he was. In talking to not only him, but some of the others, I believe what was missing in their life was someone to hug. That is what is missing with many of these parents and their children; they have not learnt that kids need some love in their life. If they do not have that, they will attach to somebody else who can give them some friendship and feeling of belonging.
Unfortunately, society is a very cruel society. If parents are unable to show that love - and sometimes it might be very hard for them as they have never been shown it themselves - then kids wander off and look for it in other ways - whether it is with girls or a gang. The government could say, ‘Well, we can fix that’, but that is not easily fixed. That is not something you could fix by legislation, but it is something that our society, in itself, has got away from. With all the concerns about paedophilia and all that, even parenting is hard today. Giving your kid a hug - you would be a bit worried. Walking up to someone and giving them a kiss on the cheek and saying, ‘I love you’, is not as easy as it seems today because you are a bit scared that someone might say: ‘Look at that; that is pretty terrible’. Society has pushed people away from that a little.
It is a bit like me playing Father Christmas about nine times in December. You are very conscious of picking up a child and giving them a hug and saying ‘Happy Christmas’ because of all the bad things that have happened in our society. There are things that have probably gone the other way, which has meant young children do not know what love is in their life. I would bet your bottom dollar that if you talked to some of the kids we are talking about, and asked them whether they have ever been hugged or if anyone ever walked up and said ‘I love you’, the answer would be probably not. These are some of the bigger issues that we have to look at.
On the other hand, we have a responsibility to tell young people who do things wrong, that it is wrong and the consequences of doing that action is that they will be punished. I can understand at an age of 10 to 14 maybe, you can say: ‘Look, we need to give you a second chance’. When you get above 14, 15, 16, surely you should know what is right or wrong. If you were not taught that at home, that is another problem. If kids were not told at home what was wrong, then it is hard. Many of these kids do not know it is wrong. They could say: ‘Mum and Dad never told me it is wrong; they do the same’. Again, I go back to the parenting side of it.
The only other way to enforce what is right or wrong is through some form of punishment. The judicial system, sometimes, is too weak. If I painted over someone’s wall, home, factory or car, under a proper system, I would be forced – and not 10 months later - to go there under supervision – and we have to have people who are not police officers, but community order officers - and clean it off. If I smashed a window on a premises, I would be required to pay for it. There has to be some consequence for my actions to show me that was the wrong thing to do. If it has not been taught at home, then society has a role to play in teaching that child that that was wrong, and the consequences of that action will be paying for it.
When I was young, the consequences of doing something wrong was ‘bend over the chair’. Well, we cannot have that today, you would go to court for child abuse. I got a wallop on the backside from my mum. We had rules at home; if we broke the rules, we knew you were going to be punished. I do not see myself as a person with a great tendency for violence after all those years of my mum giving me a whack on the backside. We have a society that has become too lax and too soft. You need some discipline in life. You need to be taught that you need self-discipline in life. If that is not taught, then you end up with spoiled kids. Spoiled kids end up getting in to trouble. Society itself has shifted too far saying: ‘Well, no discipline, we will talk this through.’ But by the time you talk it through, it is too late.
The minister spoke about youth camps. The Chief Minister spoke of it today. I do not want to be too cynical, but I have spoken in this parliament for the last seven years saying it is something we need. All of a sudden, the government is going to do it. I have always felt there was a need for something like that. I was interested hearing one of the other ministers say how, by having these youth camps, you can take people away from alcohol or their mates. They can go out and get some fresh air. They have a chance to think about where they are. Two camps are not enough. We need them elsewhere in our society. We have done it for petrol sniffing at Mt Theo. That is similar. What have we done? We have taken kids 60 km out of – Papunya?
Ms Anderson: Yuendumu.
Mr WOOD: Yuendumu, thank you. What did we do? We took them way out bush. Why? Because they were back in touch with nature; they did not have their radios, their CD players – well, not until the batteries ran out. They could not leave the area because it was too far to walk. We took them out there to try to get them to reassess their own values in their own community with their own people.
There is a dire need for more of that to happen with young people, in conjunction with getting them a trade, giving them some good literacy and numeracy skills, and giving them a hug. You need people in these youth camps who are not only just nine to five people; you need people who want to do it. I would not have a youth camp if it was just an application for workers who would like to work there. I would want to know whether they want to change these kids’ lives. Are they willing to put up with whatever they will get when they are out there but, at the same time, have the understanding that these kids need a bit of love? You need the right kind of people, not just nine to five people. You need people who really want to change these kids’ lives.
It is a combination of things with parenting, from when a couple has a child right through to the options of ensuring children who should have known about what is right or wrong were punished, and are being taught what is right or wrong, to the youth camps where you are giving them further options. As I said, I have spoken about that before. I spoke about Bill Fordham who ran the camp at King River Station. He also went out to Ramingining. Every time I saw him, he asked why the government would not give him enough funds to make this work. He said it did work when he ran the camp at King River Station. I gather he has now gone to Queensland. He was a classic example of a person working with young people, who knew the value of those types of youth camps.
In relation to the bill, I do not agree with the opposition from the point of view of a lot of instances of the word, it ‘may, may, may’. Obviously, you are dealing with complicated scenarios, as the member for Braitling said. You have to have a whole range of options that the court can look at. Each case is going to be different. You are going to have to deal with different parents, different youths, and different scenarios. Basically, I see the legislation putting those ‘may’s in there simply to tell the court that this is the sort of areas that we expect the court to be dealing with.
The opposition may be right, but the one good thing in this legislation is it says ‘we will review it in 12 months’. That is clearly written into the legislation, so I expect some means of looking at this legislation in relation to specific cases because, obviously, you will apply this to family A, family B, family C, and family D. I will be interested in 12 months whether you can say: ‘We have had changes to family A, family B, family C, and family D’. Then we can say that the opposition may have been right; there was not enough enforcement. I do think that this needs some trialling.
I am not going to support it because it is just legislation that looks good. I am supporting it if you add this to our whole pile of other options - from parenting, the police being more involved as there is room for that, as well as putting more emphasis on technical training for these people, and especially trying to improve numeracy and literacy. Helping families develop a much better relationship with their children is not an easy thing to do. We need to promote more about loving your child.
There are advertisements on television you see sometimes. You might not be religious, but the Church of Latter Day Saints always has an emphasis on families. There are ads about the role of dads. Fathers, I must admit, in today’s society, have been the ones who have been left out. Their role has been diminished by the changes in society. You might say there is equality of the sexes; however, in some cases what has happened is that many fathers are not sure what their role has been, or what it should be. There needs to be help with fathers trying to understand what their role is in society today.
I put those comments, minister, to you in a positive way. I do not believe, even though there is a lot of politics in discussing how much this costs, whether there is an election coming, and not everything in the bill is the way it should be but, looking after youth, trying to change the way they live, and helping families should be beyond the political party argy-bargy. It is too important. I am not so silly that that will not happen, as there is an election coming up and there will be plenty of that argy-bargy. However, when it comes to the bottom line, we all should understand that families are important, as the Chief Minister mentioned in his economic statement. The core of our family is still important, whether it has changed these days - and it has changed - but I still think we still need to work hard as a society. Parliament has to lead the way in many of these things, not necessarily with legislation, but it has to be the one that gives that support - in a lot of cases the financial support to groups.
I should not forget the non-government organisations. I noticed when I looked up the Anglicare website they have a section which is their Anglicare Family Support Services, it says:
There are other groups beside government that are involved in helping families. We also have a role to ensure that those groups have adequate funding and resources to do their job. That is all part of what needs to happen.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I put forward those comments in a positive way. I am interested - and I hope there is as much fanfare about introducing this legislation in today’s parliament as there will be in coming back with the review. It is mentioned there but, sometimes, reviews just disappear. I hope the government will ensure that 12 months from today it will come back with a report card on this very important area, because our young people are the future. That might be a clich, but it is reality. We do not want to let those kids down.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Family and Community Services): Madam Deputy Speaker, in supporting these amendments, I draw the attention of the Assembly to our government’s commitment to dealing with youth issues and, in particular, the very vexed area of dealing with youth in trouble. We are increasingly moving towards an interventionist approach in which government agencies, assisted where appropriate by the non-government sector, take steps early in the piece with the emphasis, wherever possible, is on heading off problems at the pass.
Today’s amendment bill builds on this process. A good example of this is those sections of the Care and Protection of Children Act 2007, which deals with the powers of authorised officers to move a child to a safe place. I quote from the objects of Subdivision 1 of Division 8 of the act, which states:
The act then goes on to describe the circumstances in which an authorised officer may move a child to a safe place, and what might constitute a safe place. Clearly, this part of the act is about intervening where an authorised officer reasonably believes there is a risk to the wellbeing of the child if the child is not removed.
This amendment bill to the Youth Justice Act takes this further. If a child is in this sort of situation, authorised officers now have the capacity to seek a family responsibility agreement. I have listened to the members for Nelson and Braitling. They were going through areas of the bill and, basically agreeing to it, but wanting to know what the mechanics are. The member for Nelson touched on some of the areas - which I know he spoke about in the past and is quite passionate about. He is right where he has raised that issue that there are good kids, there are bad kids, and there are some kids who, through no fault of their own, have got into trouble and have been caught up in that trap of being with gangs.
We all know, having read about – and I know the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General is well read and has done a lot of research in this area - and looked at the difference scenarios but, at the end of the day, government has a responsibility, not just to society, but also to those kids. This will deal with forcing families to actually meet their responsibility. Regarding the mechanisms in that, member for Nelson, with the realignment of the Department of Health and Families with the new Children and Families Division, there will be appropriate case management.
The member for Braitling read a letter from one of the business people who talked about such a long process or time frame to get an individual through a juvenile diversion program. Hopefully, through this process, and having talked to the many FACS and youth workers within the new Division of Children and Families, the delay is minimal. It is important to get the case management right, ensuring that these agreements are going to work, both for the families and also for that young person you are dealing with, because there might be a number of kids. As a parent, the troubles with my son are well publicised. I believe we all can look at issues that we face as parents. I do not think there is one parent in this Chamber who has not had an issue with his or her child. No matter what you might put in place at home - the values, telling your child what is right and what is wrong - the minute that child walks out that door, as parents, unfortunately - and it is a small group, I am not saying this is a scenario for every family - you cannot control what happens when that child goes out that door.
The big difference is, most parents will take that responsibility. I know the struggles as a working parent taking that responsibility but, more importantly, making my son take on that responsibility for the wrongdoing that he has done. Unfortunately, there is a group of youths out there who will not take that responsibility, and there are parents who refuse to take that responsibility. If parents are failing in their responsibility, they have to be made accountable.
Family responsibility orders are the first stage in this process. Hopefully, through appropriate case management and putting the resources in place, we do not have to get to the stage of the family responsibility orders because, once someone reaches the orders, you know that they are in big trouble, because it is a court process that they will then need to go through. Hopefully, the new department and the resources that we have put there will ensure that we can work with those families. Nine out of 10 or whatever; we are not going to have success with every case. There are some kids - and that is the sad reality - where there is no turning back. As the Minister for Child Protection, there are many cases in the Northern Territory where these parents do not give a damn as well. We have the Care and Protection of Children Act under which, when a child is in a situation of risk, that child can be removed and placed in another situation - but to different areas.
As I said, with the family responsibility agreement as the first process, the amendment bill clearly recognises that we need, as a community, to have that capacity to get in early and where it really matters; that is, working with families. The child misbehaviour, whether criminal or not, may have many causes, but are almost certainly related to their home life. The member for Nelson touched on much of that. Whether they are living with their parents or under other forms of care - and we have seen throughout the Northern Territory that not every child is living with his or her mum - it recognises that families and parents may not be very good at being parents. Family responsibility agreements can move those parents and carers into counselling and other educative and support groups to build or augment the skills they have. You can have these sorts of agreements in place.
I notice the Leader of the Opposition sits and smirks about this. It is all well and good and, in the past, we have seen many pieces of legislation that come in …
Mr MILLS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I am concerned that that remains on the Parliamentary Record. I was not smirking at that, I was just sitting there. To say something like that is just wrong.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order, please resume your seat.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Madam Speaker, it recognises, and we know that parents may not be very good at parenting. The family responsibility agreements can move those parents and carers into counselling to get the support they need to augment their skills. The members for Nelson and Braitling - particularly the member for Nelson - were saying we need to bring the care factor back into society. That is true; not just with society but with some of those kids - they need to care and show society due respect, as well.
The bill recognises that some parents may be drunks or abusers of other substances. The family responsibility agreement directly opens the possibility of entering appropriate counselling or rehabilitation programs. It recognises that some parents may have mental health issues. Family responsibility agreements can open parents in these situations to treatment.
The core of family responsibility agreements and, indeed, family responsibility orders if it gets that far, is that the interests of children and youth must come first. It is about getting in early before what may start out as minor misbehaviour - persistent truancy, for example - develops into full-blown antisocial behaviour and criminality.
If it does get to the stage of a family responsibility order mediated by the courts, the primacy of the interest of children and youth must be front and centre of the court’s consideration. The powers given to the courts in this instance to investigate and develop orders, while not being hamstrung by strict rules of evidence, but through individual practice directions, will give our courts the flexibility to achieve positive results for the children and youth, as well as for the family unit itself. It is, after all, in the interests of our hard-working magistrates, who have no joy seeing this repeat offending amongst the youth appearing before them time and time again.
Finally, there is a strict requirement that these amendments be reviewed after a year of operation. The Chief Minister said that, whilst implementing this legislation, if we find that it needs to be amended or tweaked, we will come back to do that. That is important and is something that all members on this side welcome.
Madam Speaker, this government takes the issue of youth criminality seriously, which is why we have been carefully laying down an approach of early intervention rather than waiting for full blown criminality and antisocial behaviour. Just as primary health care is designed to prevent later illness, this kind of primary social intervention is designed to prevent antisocial behaviour and criminality later. As Minister for Family and Community Services and minister for Education, I know it is not easy - no one pretends that it is - but it is vital that we move in this direction.
Ms ANDERSON: (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I contribute to this bill in support of the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General. I will outline the difficulties and problems many families have, especially in remote Aboriginal communities and in hub towns such as Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Katherine and Darwin.
To walk the streets of Alice Springs and see these school-aged children wandering the mall in Alice Springs without parental supervision is a real issue for me, not just as a politician, but as a parent. It is of concern to the town and other members as well. We have taken a multipronged approach to attacking this problem and that is what I want to talk about in this bill.
It is not just a bill that locks away children. It is a bill that looks at the whole family structure. It looks at giving support to parents so that they have capacity to look after their children. It also gives the parents skills to discipline their children and see what direction their children are going. I know that in remote Aboriginal communities the reason we cannot get children to go to school is lack of discipline from parents. We have seen in the past the substance abuse and we talk about the use of marijuana and the fact that parents and the whole community cannot discipline their own children.
Somewhere along the line, parents have lost their roles as parents. Somewhere along the line, communities have also lost their vision of where they want to direct the next generation, which is their children, to go. This bill, with its multipronged approach, is aimed at bringing that family structure back so that children can see their mums and dads being coached into looking after, and how to cope with, their children. The children are being told: ‘Two strikes, that is it, you are going to go to a boot camp’.
I really do support the model of boot camps and that children should be taken to places like Mt Theo. Mt Theo, in the member for Stuart’s electorate, was started with $1000 of ASSPA money. It took a lot of courage from the whole community and the parents to say: ‘Enough is enough. We want something to be done with our children’. So, they started the Mt Theo program in the middle of the Tanami Desert. It is too far for the children to walk to the road, or to try to walk back to the community. That showed that when parents and the whole community had support, they could do something. There was someone saying: ‘We are behind you. We will support you’. This bill shows to me the multipronged approach is similar to what happened in Mt Theo and places like Illamurta, a community in my electorate run by Barry Abbott. Because, in places like Illamurta, there is the fatherly figure of Barry Abbott, the motherly figure of Barry’s wife, and their daughter, there is that structure of family. The children see that and the discipline mechanisms in the family.
The raft of reforms that this government has put into legislation and what this bill talks about is holding parents accountable. It is about holding communities accountable for the direction of their children. The antisocial behaviour that is created in all our towns is created by juveniles. I often walk in the streets of Alice Springs and have coffee and talk to business people in the streets of Alice Springs and see young children running around without going to school, or their mothers gambling in the grounds of the Flynn Church. The children are running around in that area, going into shops and annoying shopkeepers, tourists and people who are trying to have lunch in the mall.
This government has had the vision to have the multipronged approach to combating these problems. We heard from the minister for Education last night. All these multifaceted approaches that this government has taken is what we need. We need to drive this ourselves - as local politicians, as parents and as grandparents - because we have a struggling Territory. We have a Territory that is struggling because parents are struggling. Parents are struggling because there is that hopelessness. They feel that hopelessness because they cannot discipline and control their children.
Madam Speaker, this bill aims to give parents that support to direct their children. I commend the minister for this bill.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, this bill arises as a response to a very clearly defined problem in our community. That problem is the barbecue stopper. Everywhere we go, people talk about it. I have lived in the Northern Territory since 1989 and this talk is increasing. The concern is deepening and it demands a response. A response has been provided here.
I believe that if the problem is clearly identified, understood and assessed honestly, we would recognise, first up, that these new legislative arrangements, of themselves, have insufficient power to effect change, because the change occurs not by the legislation or the arrangements that are put in place, but by people-to-people interaction. The difference that occurs, occurs as a result of those heroes that we see quietly at work in our community; some whose names we know. I am very pleased that the member for Macdonnell has mentioned Barry Abbott and his wife. There are people like Barry and his wife who have worked, and are still working, in the Territory quietly and, in many instances, without support or recognition. There are some whose names we do not know. In the Substance Abuse committee, we visited communities and saw these quiet and good people who are fighting a quiet and desperate fight to bring some social order and some morality and ethics into their community. Some of them are waging what they, if it was not for the fire in their hearts, would see as a hopeless battle. However, they battle on.
Then we have the Cole boys, who I had the great fortune of meeting as a result of a young man who visited our home last year - a young man whom I have met since and have spoken to on a couple of occasions. He is a young man who broke into our home. My wife and I have had the opportunity to speak to his mother and provide her with some support. That young man, I am pleased to report, is on the right track and in employment. I thank the Cole boys for their work. It is that human element, that passion, which makes the difference. That is where we need to put our faith.
Allan Brahminy is inspiring. He has his own story. He has now used his efforts to write a different story and bear influence on the lives of others who have experienced very difficult circumstances almost beyond our ability to comprehend. With or without legislation, these efforts will continue. The efforts of these people are the magic ingredient. There is a man who has inspired many, and won admiration of others: Mr Ross. I am not sure of his first name ...
Mr McAdam: Graham Ross.
Mr MILLS: He was spoken of in Alice Springs by long-term residents as a good man who has a heart for young people and takes time to bring them in and assist them, and has done so consistently for many years, with or without legislation.
To me, it is that element that will make the difference. That is where we should be putting our faith and trying to learn those lessons. How do we engender that spirit within our community? If we can answer that question we will then have some progress; we will see some results.
That is the difficult part, because it means complete buy-in. Anything less than a complete buy-in is a counterfeit. It is the difference between being concerned about the behaviour of another, and saying, ‘Tut, tut, we really should do something about that’, and making some suggestions that are non-intrusive and hope that they will change their ways.
Sadly, the strength of these behaviours and awful conditions that many families find themselves in will not respond to such soft measures. There needs to be an intrusion to break the cycle. Those who perhaps do not understand this concept would think of that intrusion as a violent or a demeaning intrusion. However, anyone who has raised children knows that, at times, you really have to, in the interests of love, try to break that cycle, because you can see where it is going.
That is why there is concern for the proliferation of the word ‘may’ in here. I am concerned that, in its construct, it is well-intentioned and provides the right template. It recognises where the problem can be best addressed back to parental responsibility. However, in reality, when you unpack it, I am concerned that it does not have built within it that compulsion, that extra strength, that is going to drive home to the core of the problem a solution that is challenging and difficult to implement. That is when we start to place confidence, not so much in people, but in the legislation, in the constructs that we develop, and the organisations. We put faith in systems and we are creating a system. It can be described in such ways; it is a bit like describing a piece of machinery. You think it is going to do this, that and the other. It may well do, but we are dealing with people and deeply ingrained and very dangerous social habits - emotional, spiritual - and we need that kind of cutting edge to this solution.
The opposition Country Liberal Party supports the bill, but I will carry, as always, those concerns. I speak with some humility as a father of two kids, as a teacher, as a school principal working in education for 17 years, with an electorate that has many of the social problems that are represented in the papers on a daily basis. I have worked with young people for whom I have intervened on their behalf, I have engaged parents, I have chased down parents and held them to account, and taken risks in their best interests. It is that element and that something special that can never be captured or replicated in legislation, that I have seen in the faces and the lives of good people like the Barry Abbotts. It can never be replicated; it is something else. It cannot be created by legislation. Because of that, I qualify my support because that element is the only thing that will cut through. If anyone here who is a student of history looks back at the times where there has been profound social problems, it is not rules and laws that were passed in parliament, it was the power of lives that intervened and broke through that made the difference. People make a difference.
I fear that this is a construct. I have some trepidation in going down this path, because it inevitably arouses a reaction from government, perhaps either to protect themselves from that which they may not have scrutinised themselves, or they know it and do not want it to be seen. I am not a fool. I have been in this parliament for getting on to nine years. I have observed politics from both sides. I have come to this place generated out of concern for my community. I have seen the role of government in many forms, operating in a way to create an impression with an intention to make a difference, but there is a bit of conflict there. It is the keeping up of appearances which troubles me.
There are those robust, shabby families who are really honest, really good. They make mistakes but they are really frank and honest. They do not have any pretences, and they have great kids. They make mistakes, they stumble and fall at times, and you just love them because they are honest. Then there is the other family that keeps up appearances. You know that everything appears to be in order but you see, as time goes on, the fruits of that which is concealed and not admitted to in their children, sadly. I am talking about that awkward honesty that is required to bring change to issues of concern; that awkward honesty that can appear a bit shabby and, perhaps, unsophisticated. That is what needs to be brought into these discussions.
I have said before we can easily be led into temptation in parliament to either believe the power of images and think navely and shallowly that the things that we do in here will effect real change when, secretly, what is occurring is the use of images, the clever crafting of messages to achieve an objective; that is, the retention of your hand on the tiller, the maintenance of your position in power. You have believers there, you have the resources to do that. Therefore, there is an inconsistency between the message that has been put into people’s letterboxes and what is contained in what is a response to a very complex problem. There is a discrepancy, a jarring between the messages.
The true story is something that is a little difficult to explain and is person-to-person. It requires real honesty to be able to effect change to a family. If you live next door to a family that has real problems with raising their kids, they are screaming, they are using profanity, they are up in the middle of the night, they are fighting, and they are drinking to excess, if you are that neighbour, it is not an easy matter to intervene. You would prefer to pull the shutters down. It is really hard. What we are requiring here is something that is going to go into that family and assist them one way or another. That is the reality of it. There are people in streets who are living beside these things, and it is a human issue. How are we going to break it?
The message that is put into the letterboxes creates a clear impression. In a world of images that we have these days, it is not hard to sell messages. The advertisers use it and government uses it. Opposition will endeavour to use it too, I suggest. However, we have to examine ourselves when it comes to matters like this, whether we are being honest. What is our real motivation? Do you sincerely believe that the core of this is adequate to really address the problem; to really understand the problem and the measures that are necessary to address that problem? How do you reconcile then that message that has been put into letterboxes? Does it genuinely reinforce the core of this mechanism that is being discussed in this parliament today, this legislation? Does it honestly reflect the intent? Is that information provided to help those people be reassured that things are going to get better because we have understood, we have looked into this problem, we have now grasped the magnitude of this, and we now have measures in place that are extraordinary, and will genuinely make a move towards reversing this cycle?
I have trouble with it because it is serious business we are playing with here. We are playing with people’s expectations, hopes, and desires. They want real leadership; that is, leadership which is prepared to take a real risk and to walk down the path that will effect some real change and be conducted in real honesty. Otherwise, we will find ourselves talking about this same thing again, as we did at the commencement of this parliament.
As I said, I have been here going on nine years. At the end of this government’s first term in office, there was a similar crafting of a response to a similar problem, along with media releases of a similar nature - not the same machinery being described, but similar measures; new, tough measures, a raft of them. It was packaged nicely so that people said: ‘Oh, government recognises this problem and is going to do something about it’, and ‘If we are elected we will pass these laws which will effect this change’. The expectation was raised. Just before people went to the polls, we got the headline that you would have paid a $250 000 for: ‘Crackdown on kid crims’. I remember it clearly. You got what you wanted, you got the headline. The headline told every voter who picked up the NT News that day: you go to the poll and you are going to vote for the party that is going to crack down. At last, someone is going to crack down on these kid crims. That was the promise.
Since then, we have had other new tough measures. By the way, those tough measures which were spoken of before that election resulted in some favourable press to government - that is fine, that is the way the game is played. The headline was perfect and it resulted in an expectation. I am sure the expectation then was carried through by many of those who voted for you guys. Then, once the dust had settled and you had your 19, those expectations were not carried all the way through, or not met, because of those strong, clearly articulated and cleverly crafted messages were not delivered in the same clearly defined and sharp way in legislation. This resulted in, halfway through your last term, a new raft of new tough measures - anti-gang legislation - was ramped up. What drove that? It was because of the problem that was emerging in the community: ‘Let us respond to it, let us let people know that we are on to it’. The right words were used: ‘anti-gang legislation’, ‘new tough measures’, and ‘raft of’. That has come and gone and the problems have arisen. The message that gangs do not exist went out somehow or other. In fact, they do, so now we have a new raft of new tough measures, matched up with pamphlets.
Having said all that, I am concerned that the necessary ingredients to drive through change are compromised when the genesis of this motivation lies in polling and community concern. With an election almost around the corner, it is time to talk tough again, time to describe new things that we will do if only we are given another chance. If that is the driver of this in any way or another, you are going to diminish your capacity to really break through. That is the concern. It is a responsibility that I have and we have jointly, to communicate this message, because there some pretty smart people out there and some sensitive people too who are trying their best. They will need to be backed up with some real honesty if we are going to give it a go.
I remember being asked by the ABC when these new measures announced, or flagged. I think the Chief Minister was away at the time, and the Attorney-General said: ‘We have had enough, enough is enough. Kids out of control’. He then described the measures and Caz Boys, or whatever it was. I thought: ‘Oh well, good’. The Chief Minister came back from his holiday or break and reinforced the same message because it was clear there was a problem. I thought: ‘Well, game on’. Then when I was asked by the ABC: ‘Well, it looks like you have been talking about this for some time, and the government has taken the wind out your sails’. It is not a matter of we are all tacking in the wind to try to get the best position so we can win the battle; it is so that we can fix the problem. It is not a political battle, it is a social problem. If we think we are all manoeuvring on the ocean to try to get the best position so we can fire broadsides at each other, we miss the point. It is not a game. When I was asked that question, I thought: ‘Oh, God, probably a lot of people think this is some kind of game, some kind of outsmarting plan, and the purpose of that plan is to try to win office. Why are we in office? So we can do something to really change things’.
It goes back, if we track one step further back, to the by-election in Greatorex. Prior to that by-election, and as a result of the young man who broke into my home, I thought I could formalise some of the thoughts that I had been speaking of in different forums. For some time, I had run forums in Palmerston on tough camps for kids with real problems. I used the brat camp example that had aired on the ABC as a focal point so that people could come together and discuss these kinds of camps. They were a tough kind of camp. There are lots of camps, and the Brahminy and the Balunu are two different types of camps, both very useful in approaching two different cohorts of kids. However, in my view, there needs to be a very tough camp, similar perhaps to brat camp but, of course, that is a model from overseas. It was a useful exercise to get people to talk about those kinds of constructs, because it does need to be that tough one and that does not seem to be evident.
I have had a look at what has been proposed for these other camps. They are fine, but there needs to be an overarching template as to how these camps should operate, and there needs to be a range of programs, including the tough one - the really tough one. There are models in existence.
A young lad - I will not mention his name - came into my place and, as a result of following the progress of his interaction with the legal system, I put a paper together called Beyond Wildman River. I was in Alice Springs and I held a forum which was very well attended, and we talked about these things. It grew some strong support in that community. It was a response, not a political thing, but a need to say: ‘Look, we have some problems. We are down for the sittings - public forum, let us talk about it’. It was the first time we talked about those kinds of camps in a formal way and how they would apply in the Territory.
I had given a number of adjournments on it, and there had not been any engagement from government in any meaningful way on it at that time. Then it came to the Greatorex by-election and, because people began to talk about it on talk-back radio and so on, that is when it was announced first; that government would run these camps in Alice Springs. I was pleased that they would do so. However, that was the first time we had heard support for these camps. I had already had talks with Hamilton Downs. I am really pleased that that response had been made.
The only reason I say that is that the context of all that was, it took a by-election for a change of position, or an adoption of a position, or a clarifying of a position. I wonder whether the adoption of that position was motivated out of political interest, because it had never been spoken of before until there was a by-election. You adopted your position and, then, when we were moving closer to an election, there was an adoption of a new, tough range of words.
This being 1 May, I use 1 May to draw recognition of the heavy presence of the word ‘may’ in this legislation. That concerns me, because it blunts the intent and is certainly inconsistent with the message that has been presented publicly. That is a real concern. It is a time for real leadership. You are able to sell it if you say it plainly.
I have run crime forums in Palmerston, and people thought these crime forums were about beating up on government and running simple messages. We ran a series of three of them. What was really good was we took a people on a journey. Then, by the time we got into those forums, the first one involved the police, because people had been broken into and we needed some way to clear the dramas that people were having - the worries, the troubles they had - and to sort out some basic understandings such: how the police work?; what can I do?; who do I phone?; and what are the police doing? Basic information began to be passed around. The judiciary was the second, and then people began to understand how the judiciary works; how the legal system works and how you interact with it. It was a better understanding. Then the third one was the different agencies such as Neighbourhood Watch, Tough Love and Victims of Crime.
At the end of that, people were much closer together. There was honesty; what started out as a black and white issue – I mean black and white was stark - was easy. Comments included: ‘I pay taxes, how come when I phoned the police they did not come immediately?’ That is how it started. Once we got further into it, you realised it is not that simple: that police are people who also pay taxes; that there is a hierarchy of needs at any given time; there are a range of instruments that can be employed; my phone call, even though I do not get immediate response, does feed into a system that means something; it is worthwhile phoning the police; do not phone or tell your neighbour, phone someone who can do something about it; everyone is concerned; ‘Are you a member of Neighbourhood Watch?’; ‘Oh, no, I am not’; and yes, you have a part to play in this.
Bit by bit, people were brought together and it was excellent. I reckon we need that kind of leadership: people to really engage in a sensible way, not trying to sell messages or run a marketing campaign, but to try to effect social change. That is enough.
Madam Speaker, it has support because, as the member for Araluen said, it may work; it is well-intentioned. I am concerned and have reservations, as other members here do. I hope it does make some inroads on the problems that do concern all of us.
Mr BURKE (Brennan): Madam Speaker, I support the legislation that we are debating this afternoon. As the Attorney-General said, this is part of the broader strategy to combat youth crime. The bill contains two of the three parts to this government’s attempts to combat youth crime and antisocial behaviour in the Territory: limiting access to diversion programs and the introduction of the family responsibility agreements and orders.
Essentially, the bill provides that where a young person has already been referred to diversion programs, police will be able to charge the youth with the relevant offence and the youth will go before the courts and will be able to present to the court the unsuitability of diversion programs. There is the safeguard in place that the Commissioner of Police may authorise or require a formal diversion - notwithstanding the young person may already have been referred on two occasions - where the commissioner thinks appropriate. The government’s intention is that this will be in exceptional circumstances rather than something that becomes run of the mill.
It will take some time for the message to get out to young people, but the message will get out. What we are talking about is the core group of young people who get into trouble time and time again; youths for whom diversion is not working or has not worked. I take some heart from a discussion I had with the former principal of Palmerston High School, Mr Chris Dias. I first ran into him when I was at Palmerston High and he was the senior of the science faculty. Even then, he had a fearsome reputation and you did not want to get hauled up in front of Mr Dias at all. Chris said to me that, in all the years of his teaching, and of all the kids he saw who got into trouble, only a few ever went on to get into serious trouble. He reckoned that he could confidently say that it was less than 10 in all those years. This would tally to be less than one a year, because he had many years experience of teaching by the time he retired.
I take great heart from comments like that coming from one of our senior principals who has seen generations of kids go through the education system. No one is pretending that there is not a problem. Antisocial behaviour, low-level crime, serious crime is always something that we, as a society and a government, have had to deal with. It is interesting that we have to continually find new ways to address it. It is an ever-changing field. If it was not, we would still have the same provisions that were in place when we were a colony of Great Britain receiving prison hulks from the motherland.
Thankfully, somewhere along the line, someone decided that was not a great idea. Yet, as sophisticated as we get, we still require more and more mechanisms. Mechanisms that once worked cease to continue to work. I do not pretend to have the knowledge or expertise to explain why that is so, but it is clear that is the case. We would all like to think that people are reasonable, that they can see the error of their ways, but that is just not the case. That does not mean that you should take away entirely the chance for a young person to reform and get back on to the right track. This is why we have the diversion programs in the first place. The evidence is there that, for the vast majority of young people, this works. There is no need to lock everyone up and throw away the key, which seems to be the approach some in this Chamber would like to take for some reason.
The other part of the legislation is the family responsibility agreement which aims to not only identify those youths who are engaging in low-level antisocial and/or criminal behaviour, but are also those who are at risk of drifting into more serious crime, and to provide assistance to their parents or guardians through a coordinated process. That is what the agreements endeavour to deliver.
I note that, before entering into the family responsibility agreement, an authorised agency must be of an opinion that the agreement may assist the family to resolve issues. A number of objectives enable the parent or guardian to address aspects in their own behaviour that might be identified as adversely affecting their parenting skills, and to focus the parents’ or guardian’s attention on the structured needs of their child to ensure as much as possible that they can assist their child to stay out of trouble.
This may involve not just responsibilities placed on parents, but also support for parents and guardians. It is an important part of this legislation that families are not set up simply to fail; that this government is providing avenues for support. I have been to quite a few of the Families and Schools Together programs which are run at Gray Primary School and I take that as a bit of a yardstick. I have also been to the one run at the Palmerston Christian School. They are about refocusing parents’ attention on their children which, many times, parents have not realised that slowly their attention has been taken elsewhere. They are about giving simple mechanisms for parents to find that time to spend with their kids, and find that communication with their children.
It has been fantastic to see these parents relating to their children much better towards the end of the 10-week program than when they started. It is of benefit to everyone in the family structure. I would like to think that the support that is shown to families who may have one of their youngsters getting into trouble will assist in showing them similar mechanisms, as there are plenty of families who are having difficulties with their children.
I sometimes think that we might benefit from, not so much formal courses in parenting, but certainly more avenues for parenting skills. I grew up at a time when the extended family was a bit stronger than it currently is - much of the focus is on the nuclear family. However, people get their ideas of how to be a parent from what they grew up with; what they were around; and the people they respected. Where, for some reason that has broken down, children do not have that bedrock to turn to. Parents will be able to attend courses and programs, or even counselling should they require it or, perhaps, request it. If they know that it is available and it could provide some help, then I am sure many parents will take up that option. These programs and counselling will be run by professionals to assist families to adopt appropriate strategies for addressing their own behaviour. You can find television programs on it. That is all the show the Super Nanny is about: someone who has a toolbox full of strategies helping families come back together and handle things when they have run out of ideas themselves, or are too stressed or otherwise. That is all we are talking about.
I imagine that there are even circumstances where people are unaware that their own personal behaviours are affecting their children and their role as a parent and role model for their children. Therefore, in providing avenues to address that, it may be as simple as pointing it out. That may be all it needs. It may be the other extreme. I am sure there are people out there who are parents, who do not want to know about changing their behaviours, and are not going to change their behaviours no matter how it is pointed out. I also rely a little on the fact that they are the vast minority of people; that most people want to have a great family life at home and support each other and, when faced with a problem that may seem overwhelming on their own, feel comfortable about accessing that help.
Still other parents may not have any of those personal behaviours but, for whatever reason, require assistance with building those parenting skills and how to set appropriate boundaries and enforce those boundaries. These family responsibility agreements will ensure that parents, as much as you can with the will - and I have just spoken about that minority of people - appreciate the seriousness of the responsibilities that come with being a parent, and include ensuring their children go to school and how to identify people they might need to avoid which includes not just adults, but their contemporaries. Getting in with the wrong crowd of people can lead you to things you did not really want to do in the first place. Also, how to avoid places which may attract trouble and how to identify trouble brewing so that they can extract themselves from it.
These measures should provide some help for many families who would want to use them to help keep children and young people off the streets and provide alternatives to keeping them out of trouble. I hope they will assist families to rebuild that family life that I have been talking about, and help parents learn how to provide consistent supervised parenting for their children. It sounds easy - sounds easy - but, sometimes, I do not think it always is. It is something that we as parents have to keep continually vigilant about.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to the Assembly. I am sure it will provide some extra bows, some extra mechanisms, for police to use, provide them with some back-up where they know children have not responded to the diversion programs, and can help with the identification and assistance to provide support to the families who will take the opportunity in both hands in an attempt to put their children, or child, on a more meaningful path - certainly a greater fulfilling path.
Mr WARREN (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I also support the Youth Justice Amendment Bill, but I am not going to dissect and break down these amendments. I will leave that to the would-be social engineers opposite. I want to talk about the generalities of the bill, because I want to address my constituents out there and that is important. They are just like everyone else in the Territory; they are concerned about the broader and overarching issue, not the finite details, because they want to understand their government is doing something. That is why I support this government and, specifically this minister, on seriously tackling this issue.
It is a well thought-out plan which differentiates between criminal and recidivous youth activities and the miscreant-type activities and the way we deal with them. That is really getting to the heart of it. This is one of the first amendments of its kind where I have actually seen that distinction made, and that is important. If you break those elements down, you seriously look at the whole issue, you understand the issue and, therefore, you go to the heart of trying to address those elements of it. Do not just put it into the one basket, because there is a general perception by society at large that lawmakers and the judiciary are adopting a revolving door policy on youth crime, and also not making the families of miscreants responsible for their activities. That is not just the perception out there, it is an understanding - maybe not the best understanding, but it is a fairly clear understanding - of society. The way this bill is constructed, it actually addresses those two elements and that is why I like this particular bill and why I am speaking on it.
The gist of it, as the minister said, is part of a broader strategy to combat youth crime and antisocial behaviour in the Territory. It is something that we have been working toward for a long time. It is an evolving process. And, as we see things that need to be modified, that is what the government is doing. This kind of activity is something that is always going to be a work in progress, I guess, but it is important that you understand that, address the issues as they come up, then you move on to the next one or, if you see something that needs to be modified, you do it. That is what good government is about; to try to modify misbehaviour and to address it.
That is why there is also a strong emphasis on early intervention. That is the key to it. We are talking about youth here and, if we do not get that early intervention right, we do not want these people becoming hardened criminals. That is certainly not the intent. It is a period in young people’s lives where they are not behaving totally rationally and there is a lot of peer group pressure. Many other things like drugs get involved. There are a whole lot of other things going on in their lives when they move from childhood to adulthood and they are very vulnerable during that stage. If we get in early and intervene, as this bill attempts to do, then we are a long way down the track.
The bill contains two major amendments to the Justice Act. The first involves an element being put on the access to formal diversion. That is what I talked about before; separating recidivous and criminal activity. You really need to deal with them separately and seriously, because there is that perception of the revolving door. Consequently, we have the strengthening of that aspect and it will not interfere with the overall discretion that police have in respect to charging and prosecuting offences. That is a very important aspect.
The second part of the bill introduces the family responsibility agreements and orders. This centres on ensuring that families with children with miscreant behaviour take responsibility for their kids’ actions. The key part of this is that it is not about expecting families with antisocial or miscreant children to handle it on their own. We have addressed the issue by trying to not only make those families who are dysfunctional take responsibility for it, but we also have the legal framework there to ensure that, where there is a more general, broader family breakdown, the system is in place to support those families. That is the key to it. It is about helping families deal with the antisocial behaviour of their children and supporting them with the weight of law.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I do not want to say any more. It is very important for me to get the message out to my constituents so they understand what this bill is about and that this government is trying to do something serious about the whole issue - and not just trying but doing. I am proud to be part of a government that takes that approach.
Dr BURNS (Justice and Attorney-General): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank all members for their contribution to this very important debate. There have been some very genuine feelings and thoughts placed on the table here today, and I commend that.
Starting with the shadow Attorney-General, the member for Araluen, unfortunately, much of her speech was bound up with lawyer grammar, as I will call it – ‘may’ and ‘must’ – playing the lawyer’s role and trying to prosecute a case. This is not a court of law, this is parliament. This is the place where laws are made and intentions of laws are very clear. Government has made its intentions clear in this law. This is a framework to deal with youths and the families of those youths who are acting up and ensuring that those families and those parents take responsibility.
There is not a shadow of a doubt about that. Whilst the member for Araluen can play with the words and say, ‘Oh, you did not mean this, you meant that’, and try to put shadows around it, our intention is very clear. I will demonstrate that the wording and the structure of this bill is all about providing the machinery, the wherewithal, the specific pathways for specific problems within those families and offenders’ lives and getting a result.
I make no apology for the word ‘may’ in there. I have demonstrated very clearly why it is in there. The member for Araluen, trying to confabulate her view of the world, put a lawyer’s point of view on it and attacked the government, particularly over the Chief Minister saying, in the government pamphlet, that the revolving door will stop. The revolving door will stop because we plainly put in this legislation as a main element that, after two times to juvenile diversion - no more, you are going to court; that is it, finito bonito. You are going to appear before a court. No more endless loop of process, no more avoiding the issues. You are going to go up there and face a court. That is very important. I know there were a limited number of juveniles who were using juvenile diversion as a cover. They were boasting that they were untouchable, that the police system could not get them. Well, the message from this legislation is: ‘Look out, because that exists no more’.
The Leader of the Opposition tried to make a lot of clause 4(3) and (4) that the Commissioner of Police can authorise or require a delegate to say that a youth can actually go through a juvenile diversion program. This is no different from a whole range of areas that the Police Commissioner is given discretion about within a whole range of acts, not least of all the Police Administration Act because, in our Police Commissioner, we have someone of integrity, judgment, who is autonomous, and who is called upon, in the exercise of his duties, to show that sort of judgment. That is why that discretion is put in there. Do we think that the Police Commissioner is a soft touch? I do not think so. Do we think the Police Commissioner will exercise discretion so as to avoid some manifest injustice should they ever occur, or look like occurring? Well, I think that the Police Commissioner can do that. We have always said that that was an extraordinary power that could be exercised by the Police Commissioner in respect to this particular act.
The member for Araluen also boldly asserted when she stood up here before lunch, that there was no definition of ‘serious offence’. She stood here and said that there was no definition of what a serious offence is. Well, I do not know who rang after lunch. Someone must have rung her up and said: ‘I heard you on the parliamentary broadcast and this is what you have said’. You are a lawyer, you should know that serious offences are described very clearly in the Youth Justice Regulations. There is a whole range there under three sections: 54, 55(1), 62, 66(2) - I could read for the next five to 10 minutes all the serious offences that are prescribed in there.
The member for Araluen came in here when I suggested that she did not get a briefing, as neither did any of the members of the CLP, and scoffed at that as if to say: ‘I do not need a briefing. How dare you say to me I need a briefing’. I say to you, member for Araluen, you do need a briefing. I have been Attorney-General now for about five or six months. As soon as you said that I knew it was wrong. You should have known, and you could have asked that question in a briefing and avoided embarrassment. You could have avoided the embarrassment of having to come in here, after lunch after someone else had given you the rub that what you said had been wrong. You could have avoided the embarrassment, but you did not.
I say to you and the other members of the CLP: come and get a briefing. I know the Independents do, and they ask good questions, and have good points of view. I commend the Independents because they are not too proud to not have a briefing, and neither am I. I obviously have a background in the area of health but I am never ashamed to ask for a briefing - even in the areas that I think that I know about because there is always something more we can learn. It is important that we, as parliamentarians, acknowledge that we do not know everything and we should never be too proud to ask questions. I suggest to the member for Araluen instead of just embarking in the lawyer grammar mode, she get in there and get some briefings.
Under those clauses, if the parent does not have addictive, destructive or damaging behaviour, but they do have a need in the effective discharge of their parental responsibilities, why should they be compelled? Why must they undertake counselling or therapy when there is no need for it? That is why the word ‘may’ is in there. I believe the member for Araluen knows that and she is just playing with words, trying to pass shadows and talk this bill down. As the members for Nelson and Braitling acknowledged, this is a complex issue. That is why the word ‘may’ is in there because it gives effective options of what the court – we are in the agreement stage but, if you get to the court stage also - what the family might be directed to do. That is very important.
I thought it was a bit slippery of the member for Araluen. She started talking about agreements and how agreements were not enforceable. Of course, the agreements are not enforceable. That is the first stage or first step of a process. The enforceable part comes with the order that is made through a court. The first part is all directed at getting the families together, getting the children in there, and coming to an agreement that everyone is clear about. They sign off on a document but, in a legal sense, it is not enforceable. What happens is that, if the parents do not try to follow through and live up to and fulfil that agreement, that is when an order can be made through a court. That is a very important distinction and one which the member for Araluen did not really go to, and she should have.
I have already responded to clause 4(3). She asked: ‘Where is the Youth Justice Strategy? You have talked about this. Where is it?’ Member for Araluen, there are a couple of major elements in these amendments. Of course, the other element is the youth camps. That is a very important element as well.
The member for Araluen asserted when Peter Toyne was in here he brought in the Youth Justice Act in August 2005 and, here we are, in April 2008, moving further amendments. I got the feeling she was saying: ‘That is terrible; it should have all been done in August 2005’. As a member on this side said - I think it was the member for Brennan - this is an interim process. This is a developing and evolving process.
Government will be flexible and take further steps in order to get to where we want to, and where the community wants to. We are responding to the community. We are listening to the community and, in this, as the member for Goyder said, we are addressing some of the major concerns of the community. What do you do with those kids that are on the edge; they are going through troubled times? Yes, we have these youth camps; we can do things. However, if it goes to a deeper level, then we have to address the issues within the family through a process of family responsibility agreements and family responsibility orders.
The member for Araluen also asked about section 133 of the act. The member for Araluen said: ‘There was section 133 already in the act and it already goes to the issue of restitution. Why not rely on section 133? Why are you bringing in these separate sections as part of this amendment?’ This does have some history. This provision was carried over from the old Juvenile Justice Act. In the old act, section 55(a) was added by the CLP. The direct answer to the question that the member for Araluen asked: I do not believe any monies have ever been recovered under this section. That is what I have been advised. Whether you are talking about a CLP or an ALP government, I do not think you can say that section 133 was working.
What we have done here is bring in a regime where there is a process. There are family responsibility agreements - that could be the starting point – and family responsibility orders. As I said previously, if the parents do not undertake and fulfil what they are supposed to do, they can be fined up to $2200 and, if they do not pay, they can be given community work orders, or there can be confiscation of property. What we have here is a process preceding a fine or a compulsory acquisition of non-essential household items or community work orders, so no parent can ever say, ‘I did not know my kid was out that night, and I did not know that they were acting up. I am not really responsible’, because there will be a history of them being called to account. I believe courts will be more inclined to fix fines and penalties on such parents, because there has been a preceding process. That is good and that is why this part of the act is to be commended.
The Chief Minister talked about how everyone in the Territory wants it to be a safe and decent place for families, businesses, and the community as a whole. He talked about this government’s comprehensive plan to tackle youth crime. It is groundbreaking, as the Chief Minister said. I know that Western Australia has been considering this sort of legislation for some time and New South Wales has legislation that has a few similarities. However, I am advised that this is groundbreaking legislation and is leading the way in Australia. It also shows, as the Chief Minister said, that it has the flexibility to address individual family circumstances. That, once again, comes back to that word ‘may’. It provides that flexibility to address specific parts of the problem. There are penalties, but there is also a lot of support, as the Chief Minister outlined in his speech.
The member for Braitling commended the government. She recognised the intent that we have, but she does have some concerns. She talked about, in a particular case, the length of the process around juvenile diversion. There was one successful outcome, I think you said, member for Braitling, but the others who were part of that particular crime just seemed to escape scot-free. The whole process has taken a long time and the business people who were involved were dissatisfied with that part of it. In response to that, if those other youths have avoided, if you like, juvenile diversion or have not been put through the juvenile diversion program, this legislation opens up the capacity for police. Police can apply directly to the court for a family responsibility order to put that child and that family directly into the court. The police do have that capacity; they do not necessarily have to first go for an agreement, although that would be preferable. They can go straight to the family responsibility order stage. That is a positive thing, and that may provide a short circuit and speed the processes up. That is an important element and I thank you for bringing that to my attention.
You certainly commended the idea of Community Work Orders. You are not really sure about non-essential items within the household. I suppose we will have to agree to disagree about that. There is the capacity, if people do not have non-essential household items, to compel them to do community work and I believe that is a positive thing.
Who is doing the counselling in all of this? I think that was another major question you asked - a reasonable question. Much of the work will be done through what I will call FACS - it is about to become the Office of Family and Children, through the member for Arafura’s ministerial portfolio. There is extra money …
Mrs Braham: Extra staff?
Dr BURNS: Well, that is part of the $2.5m the Chief Minister announced today. That will be going towards staff. We certainly recognise there will be an increased workload and there needs to be staff to support the families; because what we are about is not setting up families to fail.
The member for Nelson talked about complex issues and that we are trying to solve it with a fairly codified response of A, B and C. You spoke about the need for positive parenting. Member for Nelson, you have talked about people needing love; and that is correct. I believe that is part of the big problem with these kids. They are growing up in environments where there is no love, attention and care. I believe that is why these kids are, in some cases, are going bad. I agree that what is needed is a lot more love for those kids. What we are doing through this process is trying to give the children and their family support and allow them to express that love.
You also spoke about the pressures in modern life, of people working two jobs. It might not necessarily be that they are addicted to gambling, alcohol or drugs. They may simply be just so busy with work, that the kids come home after school and the parents do not come home until late. Maybe one of the parents is working nights, as well. In this day and age it is a big concern. That is why we have the flexibility in the act. If we had said ‘must’ instead of ‘may’ in each one of those categories, those parents who might not have a drug, alcohol or gambling problem would have been compelled to take counselling about issues that are little use to them. That is why we have been flexible in our approach. I recognise that families in this modern day and age are good.
You rightly said that you have been recommending a camp for many years. I have been in this Chamber and heard you. At last, things are moving in that direction. You have been consistent in your cause, member for Nelson. I believe it was you who said: ‘The word ‘may’ equals complicated’.
The member for Arafura, the current Minister for Family and Community Services, talked about the Care and Protection of Children Act, which she was instrumental in bringing to and passing it through this parliament. She also talked on the legislative and operational interfaces between this act and the Care and Protection of Children Act. That was something that Cabinet had a lot of discussion about: how these amendments would need to interface the two and work together. We discussed this extensively. We sought, in the framing of this legislation, to integrate and interface these well. She also talked about the challenges of being a parent, and her own personal challenges in that regard. She said everyone in this House had issues and problems with children. I am no exception. My parents, God rest them, had a few problems with me along the way but, hopefully, I grew up all right.
As the member for Nelson and a few other speakers pointed out – I think it was the member for Goyder - in adolescence people go through fairly difficult stages. We can all remember going through those stages with our parents, and with school. It is a very difficult time for kids. We have to remember there are many good kids out there. I see kids playing music, doing art, playing sport, and contributing to the community - genuinely good kids. What we are talking about here is a minority of kids. We have to bear that in mind. Each new generation seems to get labelled: ‘Oh, you are no good. You are all troublemakers’. That certainly is not true and we need to remember that. She stressed that, in the underlying aspects of the agreements and orders, the interests of the children and youth must come first. I consider that paramount since what we are doing here relates to juveniles and there is a responsibility.
The member for Macdonnell spoke about the wonderful work of Barry Abbott and his family, and making communities accountable. Some of the things she has seen in Alice Springs are kids not at school, mothers not paying attention to their children, and the effects of that. However, she also commended the government for our multifaceted approach to these issues.
The Opposition Leader supports this particular bill but he does carry concerns over it. He acknowledged that this is a response to the problems in the community, but he believed that there is insufficient power to really effect change. I disagree with him about that. He talked about the importance of people interaction and the human elements, and a number of people, including Barry Abbott and a whole range of people in our community, who support youth. I think the words he used were ‘they have a heart for youth’. We certainly need people like that.
As I was growing up, there was a family down the road, the Broxy family. They experienced some personal tragedy; the youngest son had died. There was a youth club at the local Baptist Church, the Life Boys and the Life Brigade, and every kid in our whole region went to this on a Friday night. I reckon there was literally - between the two age groups; the Life Boys were the juniors and the Life Brigade were the seniors - up to 60 kids there every night. We did gym, marched around, did Judo and boxing, and made things in little projects. Mrs Broxy used to play the piano and the organ, and we used to sing all the good old hymns, and that was great.
In contemporary times, my eldest son went through the Junior Police Rangers and, once again, there are lots of volunteers there. I must pay tribute to Mr Terry Baldwin, a great Territorian - of course, Tim’s father. Maybe we should say that Tim is Terry’s son, that is probably a better way to put it. Terry is a great Territorian, and has given that land at Goanna Park not just for the Junior Police Rangers but for many different youth groups. Terry is a great bloke with a great vision. He is another one with a heart for youth.
There are always people who will do that. I acknowledge what the Opposition Leader said: we certainly need more of them. I have to say that the Opposition Leader just went off to a bit of political theorising after that and it was a bit hard to follow where he was going. He went to government messages and spin, and government falling down on the job. I found it a bit hard to follow. It was fairly extended but it reminded me of a quote that I would like to use from Don Watson:
I say to the Leader of the Opposition that it is okay to opine on a few things, to surmise on things, to theorise and hypothesise, but real leadership is about what we are doing in here with the legislation that we are passing here. Leader of the Opposition, keep off the political theory and let us stick to the facts.
The member for Brennan talked about the need to combat youth crime. He talked about the construction of the bill and the discretion of the Police Commissioner, which is quite appropriate. He also talked about his teacher, Chris Dias, who is known to me and is a great person who, as the member for Brennan said, set a lot of kids on the right track. Only a handful of kids in his care ever went really bad and went off the rails.
He also talked about the ever-changing feel of our community and society and the need to change legislation, and that is what we are doing here. He also talked about the agreements and orders being support for families and not setting them up to fail, and giving parents an opportunity to find some way forward.
The member for Goyder believes that this is a well thought-out plan. He commended this bill. He believes it addresses many of the concerns of his constituents. I mentioned before about those kids who might be going through a difficult stage in their life, may not necessarily be bad, but they are going that way. The youth camps can help those kids but, at the other end of the spectrum, we are compelling some families to begin to take responsibility for their children and their parenting.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, this is an important bill before us today. It is all about youth in our community. It is all about supporting them, trying to keep them on the right path, but it is also about compelling some families, some parents who do not care about their kids and are not attending to them, to take responsibility for their children. I commend the bill to the House.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Dr BURNS (Justice and Attorney-General) (by leave): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 29 April 2008.
Mr WARREN (Goyder): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I proudly support the Chief Minister on his important statement on the state of our economy - importantly, an economy which is pretty much the toast of Australia. This is an important statement in which he proudly outlined how the Labor government is strongly supporting the lifestyle, growth, and sustainable development of the Northern Territory through a strong, vibrant and well-managed economy. This Labor government clearly has its hands firmly on the steering wheel of sustainable economic development. I am very proud to be part of this Labor government which is delivering for all Territorians.
As a professional geologist, engineer and economist who has lived in the Territory for almost 30 years, I remember the bad old days under the CLP government. The current CLP opposition has still not learnt; they continue to talk the Territory down. We need only look back at this week’s Question Time - in fact, at this week’s sittings - to see this in action. They are clearly out of touch - out of touch with the business community and with everyday Territorians.
In 2001, the Labor government was given the reins and the Territory has not looked back since. Let us be quite frank about this: this government has turned our economic misfortune under CLP mismanagement into a sustainable economic future under a Labor government with foresight and a clear vision for a prosperous, vibrant and sustainable lifestyle for Territory families.
Our future looks bright. Access Economics clearly recognises what the CLP opposition will not or cannot acknowledge: our economy is the toast of Australia with the highest economic and employment growth forecast over the next five years for all of Australia. In doing so, the Labor government is continuing to create for Territory families a lifestyle which is the envy of the rest of Australia. This is the best place in Australia to live, work and raise a family. Labor has delivered and will continue to deliver for Territory families.
There is no better way to gauge the health of an economy than through its employment growth. The Labor government has been at the helm of this economic renaissance which will see an employment growth rate of 5.5% in the coming year alone. This means, in real terms, the creation of more than 5000 new jobs. It is an economic renaissance which will see more than 10 000 new apprenticeships and traineeships over a four-year period. These young people are our future, and this Labor government is investing heavily in their future and in the Territory’s future. It is a visionary government for all Territorians.
A strong economy benefits Territory families, and our economy is not only strong but is sustainable. This government’s promotion and direct investment in our economic development is ensuring our sustainable lifestyle. This is due to a combination of major project promotion and responsible fiscal management. Territory businesses are prospering in the current Labor government-managed economic climate. This government has engaged in a combination of cash investments in our infrastructure and continued cuts to business taxes.
Business activity is at an all time record. Our economy is strong, robust and growing. Our very healthy gross state production is driven mainly by investment. Investment has been attracted by the Labor government’s responsible management of our economy. Most can see the benefits of investing in our vibrant economy but, unfortunately, not the opposition. They still live in their own abyss of the past and continue to talk down the Territory economy at every opportunity. The reality is they and their families are reaping the benefits of what this Labor government has delivered for them and for all Territory families, but they will not acknowledge that.
While investment so far has been the principal driver behind our very healthy GSP growth, the seeds of investment have begun to germinate. Our strong and robust economy is increasingly being driven by production outputs. We are moving to a stage in our economic development where future GSP growth could be on the back of long-term, sustainable production growth. We are clearly entering an exciting phase of the Territory’s development. The desperate CLP members are dogmatic in their refusal to jump on board and promote the beneficial opportunities that economic development is delivering to the Territory. They are still focused on what minor chinks they can find in the delivery of some smaller ticket items because they do not have a capacity to focus on the big picture. They still do not comprehend, or refuse to comprehend, that talking down our economy and lifestyle does not help Territory families. They still do not have the capacity to think deeply and broadly enough to govern the Territory. They do not understand that promoting the positive aspects of the Territory truly does benefit our great Territory lifestyle by attracting the all too important investment dollars that we need.
They do not understand that, because they have a leader who focuses on the small picture. This is a leader who does not understand the basics of what is truly important to Territorians. Territorians, like all Australians, care about their families. They care about the welfare of their families. It seems that everyone else but the CLP understands that in the end. Territorians want the government to deliver for them economic prosperity and the lifestyle benefits that a strong economy brings.
I am still proud to stand here in 2008 espousing the Labor government for its transformation of the Territory’s economy. I am proud to be part of this government. While we are entering exciting times to the benefit of all Territorians, this government is still not content to rest on its laurels. This government continues to invest in our infrastructure, our economy and our lifestyle. But, most importantly, there has been a planned focus to this investment to ensure that it is strategically spread across the broadest possible range of industries, and is geographically spread across the whole Territory. That is very important. By tying strategic projects across the board spectrum of industry, and across the Territory, our economic standing provides an impetus for the private sector investment. Strategic and well-managed public sector economic investment seeds and leverages larger-scale private sector investment into the overall economic development of our Territory. This, of course, creates a strong and vibrant economy, jobs for Territorians and their families, and jobs that drive our prosperous Territory lifestyle.
This investment in our economic development by the Labor government offers the greatest potential for Territory businesses, both large and small, across the whole Territory. In economic terms, this is a fiscally responsible approach to positioning our burgeoning economy for sustainable growth. It is called spreading your investment. It is a very basic and sound economics principle.
Contrast this to the previous CLP government’s crass approach of trying to pick winners. None of us forget those days. That is why we ended up with the infamous CLP economic black hole, another thing that we do not forget readily. Their approach was fiscally irresponsible and no way to govern for the benefit of Territorians. Based on the CLP members and their ill-informed contributions to this debate so far, they are still, basically, going to fail Basic Economics 101 pretty dismally.
This Labor government has transformed the Territory and we are now leading the nation in economic prosperity. Access Economics, an independent economic forecaster, is telling us and the rest of Australia all about this. This government is committed to delivering for Territorians well into the future. This government is providing the sustenance to our vibrant economy which, in turn, provides the nourishment for our great Territory lifestyle.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank the Chief Minister for his most important statement and I eagerly look forward to further updates.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I respond to the Chief Minister’s ministerial statement on Our Economy - Delivering for Families across the Northern Territory. The most poignant line out of the whole 30-page document appears in the second paragraph: ‘… is not just about this government delivering on its promises’. It certainly is not.
I will just highlight some of those delivering, or not delivering, on promises that we have seen over the last seven long years of this Labor government. Maybe we could start with the most famous one which is the oncology unit. In 2001, this government promised an oncology unit which is still not yet delivered. The 2001 promise never mentioned a federal government contribution. Yet now, according to this government, their role in the oncology unit is vital to actually delivering it.
In 2006, another time line was produced. I think that was for delivery in 2009 but that one has been …
Mr Kiely: What about Abbott’s time line?
Mr CONLAN: That time line, no doubt, will not be delivered either, unless they can work some miracles and develop an oncology unit in the next eight or nine months. Remember it is not just about this government delivering on its promises.
There was the promise of whistleblowers legislation since before the 2001 election. The Australian Labor Party of the Northern Territory, in opposition, promised whistleblowers legislation. Even when this side of the House brought the whistleblowers legislation before this House, it was rejected with the promise that it would be delivered in 2006. Guess what? It still has not happened. However, as the Chief Minister says, it is not just about this government delivering on its promises.
The promise to have Tiger Brennan Drive was made years ago and, again, when the going got tough this government suddenly decided it was up to the federal government. The federal government came a long way in leveraging this Territory government. It was up to the federal government to deliver Tiger Brennan Drive. Even last year, they promised to spend $10m on the project but had only delivered $6.5m on its first minor stage. But, as the Chief Minister has so eloquently put it in his statement, it is not just about this government delivering on its promises.
There was the promise of the waterfront development that would be delivered with a sound shell, an amphitheatre, markets, volley ball courts as well, and a raft of other public amenities by the end of 2007 - by the end of 2007. It is now April 2008. But, again, it is not just about this government delivering on its promises. As the statement says in paragraph 2: ‘… delivering for families of the Northern Territory’.
The Palmerston middle school it is still missing in action. The promise of the second high school has never been delivered. That was an Australian Labor Party promise. This government promised to deliver a middle school and a second high school for Palmerston. But, it is not just about this government delivering on its promises, as the Chief Minister said.
The Myilly Point redevelopment that this government promised in the last budget speech has not even started - it has not even started. Flagstaff Park remains a vacant, unattended lot. While we are talking about the promises, where is the boardwalk at Mindil Beach, Chief Minister? Where is it? But just remember it is not about this government delivering on its promises.
They have broken a promise to make Glyde Point the centre of the gas-based industry ...
Mr Henderson: No, we did not.
Mr CONLAN: It was a promise to make Glyde Point the centre of gas-based industry in the Northern Territory ...
Members interjecting.
Mr CONLAN: It was a promise to make Glyde Point the centre of gas-based industry in the Northern Territory. It was promised, but remember, as the Chief Minister said, it is not just about this government delivering on its promises and delivering for families of the Northern Territory.
The bike path at Humpty Doo was promised - and while we are on the matter what about the bike path at Girraween? Another promise to move a bike pass at Girraween ...
Members interjecting.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Greatorex has the call.
Members interjecting.
Mr CONLAN: I beg your pardon, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker?
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Greatorex has the call..
Mr CONLAN: Thank you. Remember, as it says in the statement, it is not just about the government delivering on its promises.
The minister for Mines issued a media release saying that they dedicated $14.4m to an expanded program called ‘The Bringing Forward Discovery Program’. Pity he did not say that it was actually a cut of $800 000 from the earlier program that did exactly the same thing. That is just simply dishonest, but we have come to expect that from this government - an $800 000 cut from an original promise. But, oh no, it was heralded in a media release - $14.4m. But, it is just not about this government delivering on its promises.
There is $4.8m for a new police station at Casuarina. Tenders were called for in November/December 2007, and work was expected to start work in early 2008. It still has not started. A $4.8m police station at Casuarina, with work to start early in 2008 - no work has been started.
The Alice Springs Hospital pool is a good one. The Alice Springs Hospital pool has remained closed after two years, despite bringing this to the attention of the minister.
Then we have the completion of the Traeger Park football grandstand in Alice Springs. The council has refused to take that over because it is incomplete …
A member interjecting.
Mr CONLAN: It is incomplete. The council will not take it over because it is incomplete. They are expected to fund the remaining $1m which was the amount about two years ago. Who knows what it is now?
A member: Wrong.
Mr CONLAN: $1m to complete the upper level of the Traeger Park grandstand. They will not take it over because they simply cannot afford it. However, this government has handed it over and said: ‘There you go, the Traeger Park grandstand’.
In the same precinct, we also have the Alice Springs Aquatic Centre - still waiting for the Alice Springs Aquatic Centre. It was advertised as being ready for the 2008 Masters Games. Well, Chief Minister, you better put your foot to the pedal to get that ready, we have about four, five, six months until the Masters Games in October. There is about six months to go with the Alice Springs Aquatic Centre. But, as I say, it is not just about this government delivering on its promises.
The Royal Darwin Hospital $900 000 upgrade of the lifts in the 2006-07 budget is still not complete, and has been included in the $2.1m upgrade just recently announced …
Dr Burns: Tenders have been let.
Mr CONLAN: Right. But it is not just about this government delivering on its promises, as we see in the statement.
The CBD upgrade was a 2005 Northern Territory government promise with the convention centre to be finished by early 2008. There was $7.5m promised for creating Darwin’s future projects, but only $2m was provided in the 2007-08 budget. The walkway between the waterfront and the CBD is due for completion in mid-2008. We are nearly there; we only have - what? - about four weeks to go. Nearly there. The walkway between the waterfront and the CBD is due for completion in mid-2008 but has been put back until further notice. But it is just not about this government delivering on its promises.
There has been no start on the 60 acre Defence Support Hub near Palmerston. It has not even started. Another broken promise.
The oncology unit – well, I did mention the oncology unit promise but it is worth another mention – was promised in 2001. There is no start on the oncology unit, despite the go ahead and funding from the federal government in March 2008. Now, I believe, we have a crack team of investigators to figure out what is happening with the oncology unit, to try to speed up the process.
The core promise, I mentioned. Oh, this is a good one - the geothermal legislation. This is a beauty. Let us back-track. This is not just about this government delivering on its promises. The geothermal legislation: on 14 February 2006, minister Vatskalis promised a geothermal bill by late 2006. On 25 October 2006, the new minister promised another geothermal energy bill. On 15 February 2007, the minister again promised a geothermal energy bill. On 19 November 2007, the minister again promised geothermal legislation was being developed. Again, on 21 February 2008, the Chief Minister re-announced the importance of geothermal energy, saying it was one of the most critical issues facing the Northern Territory. Well, that is 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 promises - nothing yet. However, it is not just about the government delivering on its promises.
Regarding indigenous health, Peter Toyne, the former minister, said in a statement in 2004:
It was a framework for health and communities services announcement in 2004. We are pretty close - that is about 18 months, so we still have a long way to go. You may be off the hook there at this stage but, again, you need to put your pedal to the metal, as they say. It is about delivering to families, and it is not just about this government delivering on its promises.
Recruiting local consultants: in 2001 there was a slash of $50m from the budget by recruiting local consultants instead of interstate experts. That is why they need an interstate expert to tell them about infrastructure. Obviously, the minister has no faith in her own department.
The Palmerston Courthouse: I am not sure what has happened to the $5m courthouse for Palmerston but, again, it is not just about this government delivering on its promises.
The 2001 election promise to establish an oil and gas research institute seems to have gone out the window.
The $50m slash in the budget by recruiting local consultants, which was interesting because when you go back to 2001 and you see this glossy by the former Chief Minister, the member for Fannie Bay:
I am not sure what has happened to that. That was a promise. Here is the Chief Minister in the Smith Street Mall:
Another promise out the window. However, it is not just about this government delivering on its promises.
Seven long years of Labor - seven long. long years - a budget of over $3bn, and what major projects has this government initiated? What major infrastructure projects?
Members interjecting.
Mr CONLAN: I just highlight that the actual waterfront project was a CLP initiative …
Members interjecting.
Mr CONLAN: The whole waterfront project was a Country Liberal Party initiative, so you can forget that one.
The East Arm Wharf, the transcontinental railway, the Alice Springs Convention Centre, Desert Knowledge, which is still not complete - all initiated by the Country Liberal Party. Not one major infrastructure development was initiated by this Australian Labor Party government of the Northern Territory. And who built the Territory from 1978 onwards anyway? Who built the Northern Territory?
Seven long years - seven long, long years of Labor in the Northern Territory. Now, with over $3bn every year to invest in the Northern Territory, and with just a few weeks ago announcing a consultant to develop an infrastructure plan, I again draw your attention to the glossy brochure. This is, obviously, a black and white photocopy of that. A reduction in the number of expensive interstate consultancies - a promise from 2001. Seven long years of Labor, and not one major infrastructure initiative by this government, and a whole raft of broken promises which I have just highlighted tonight.
Delivering for families? Well, fuel is $1.50-plus. One hundred and fifty cents a litre for fuel, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. I do not think that is going to go down too well with mums and dads out in the suburbs.
There are some good things in this statement. Having been in power for seven long years, naturally, you are going to get something right. It is like just being blindfolded and throwing darts at a dartboard - occasionally, you might get a bull’s eye. The Darwin Convention Centre confirming 28 events to date. Now, that is good news. That is 8000 confirmed delegates. That is good ...
Members interjecting.
Mr CONLAN: No, fair enough. Look, come on. The Territory is host to more than 10% of the Australian Defence Force personnel and its families. That is good. Defence expenditure for 2005-06 represented 6% of the national outlays – what is that? - I think that is a total of $954m in the Territory. That is good. That is good; no doubt about it. There was one more I could highlight – oh, economic growth of 7%, well above other states. So that is good.
While there are some good things in this statement, it is not good enough, and it certainly is not delivering for families. The Chief Minister is offering real assistance to Territory families right across the Northern Territory. If he thinks he is offering real assistance in this statement, of course, because it is not just about the government delivering on its promises and it is not just delivering for families. If the Chief Minister thinks that he is actually offering real assistance to Territory families, well, I am sorry, he is just a vacant block of land.
Debate adjourned.
Mr VATSKALIS (Housing): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I am proud to report to this House on the most extensive housing project ever undertaken in the history of the Territory. All members would be aware that, on 12 April, the Northern Territory and Commonwealth governments jointly announced a $647m housing and infrastructure program for the bush. This is a record spend; a landmark commitment that concerns around 3500 houses. This expenditure is part of an overall spend of almost $1bn on housing that will occur right across the Territory over the next five years. This is almost double the effort of the last five years, and shows the depth of the commitment of this government to protecting and supporting Territory families, no matter where they live and what their circumstance are.
We all know that the Territory is enjoying an era of historic prosperity. This government has driven economic growth since 2001, and the benefits for Territorians are the envy of the nation. At present, the Territory’s economic growth is 5%, but Access Economics has forecast a 7% growth. The number of jobs advertised in the Territory increased by over 33% over the last year, growth in the retail sector outstripped the national average, and we recently boasted an international trade surplus of $1.3bn. Well, this government must be doing something good.
We are building a better education system for our children, a better health system for Territory families. We have built constructive relationships with Canberra. This government represents the safe hands and strong leadership that the Northern Territory needs, because these good things do not just happen - they require work, planning and determination. We know that the Territory is the best place to work, live and raise a family, and that we must work hard to build on success.
But, in the midst of this success, the issue of indigenous disadvantage remains of great concern to the government. We have not buried our head in the sand. This disadvantage is being met head on, with efforts to address immediate issues for the short term, and plans in place, through Closing the Gap, to address the long-term, more underlying and intransigent causes of poverty and ill health. This is a generational challenge. Every member of this Assembly knows that housing is the lynchpin in overcoming this disadvantage. Housing is the most logical intervention point for government. Through it, we can improve health, education, employment and safety outcomes for indigenous people living in the bush. Housing will underpin the creation of new markets in remote communities. It will be a source of sustainable economic development for remote townships and entire regions. It is also the most critical intervention point.
Estimates of the current shortfall for housing and housing-related infrastructure in the Territory’s remote areas are as high as $2.4bn. That figure is indicative of the chronic overcrowding experienced by many households across the Territory. It equates to a demand for about 5000 new homes and a significant repairs and maintenance component.
To overcome this daunting challenge, we have had to change the existing system. To rely on grant-funded community housing bodies is no longer possible. They are simply not geared to capitalise on the many opportunities that exist throughout the regions. Indigenous community housing organisations currently operate in a context that is parallel to the mainstream government housing system. In essence, there are a large number of small organisations that manage a small number of dwellings each, on average, around 100 homes per organisation. The staff of the Territory’s 70-odd organisations do an incredible job in tough circumstances; no one can doubt their commitment to their communities. But their backs have been against the wall for many years.
With a population of just over 215 000 it is critical that the Northern Territory concentrate its housing effort into a single system. Territory Housing, the mainstream government housing provider, manages around 6800 homes, units and flats across the urban centres and remote areas. It manages an asset base valued at over $1.2bn. It has the organisational capacity to manage large construction and repairs programs, to support its tenants, develop its staff and to sustain itself financially. We are now drawing together the urban and remote programs - construction, repairs and maintenance, property and tenancy management and jobs training - into a single system. This applies across the business lines of public and community housing, industry assistance housing and housing for government employees. We needed a single responsive housing system which has the critical mass and capacity to deliver the types of differing service needed in our urban areas and in the bush. That is what this package has delivered.
I will now outline the strategic priorities for remote housing reform. We need to get more housing for the housing dollar and we need to create a commercial and land tenure framework to underpin that. We need a system to manage the existing remote housing asset base of around 6900 dwellings more effectively, and to link it with other government housing activities. Real jobs with real training outcomes for local people must flow from construction, maintenance and management programs. Sustainable economic development across the regions must be a priority and, importantly, we need to engage with communities around their aspirations and priorities for housing.
To this end, the Territory government has committed $100m over and above our existing commitments for remote housing. We have also committed $42m for housing for government employees under Closing the Gap. This will underpin the delivery of important services in remote indigenous communities. Our Closing the Gap investment is on top of the $14.5m spend for government employment housing this financial year, $4m of which will be invested in housing for police in remote communities.
However, that was not going to be enough. We had to convince the Commonwealth that we could deliver significant improvements in remote housing if they backed us financially. We have done that and we have been vindicated and, indeed, rewarded. An agreement struck in September of last year will see $813m in Commonwealth money invested in housing and housing-related initiatives in the bush to 2011. We won the lion’s share of the $1.6bn Australian Remote Indigenous Accommodation Program. The challenge now is to deliver on the agenda for housing reforms.
The Strategic Housing Program announced by both governments in mid-April is a key plank of this overall agenda and the focus of this statement today. Under the memorandum of understanding, the Territory and Commonwealth governments resolved to invest nearly $1bn in housing in the bush. A total of $647m, which includes a $100m from the Territory, will be directed through the Strategic Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Program over the next five years. The Strategic Housing Program will roll out the overwhelming majority of new houses, upgrades, repair work and the serviced lots and related infrastructure under the MOU. To ensure the strategic goals I outlined earlier are to be achieved and this massive program delivered in a timely fashion, the Territory and Commonwealth jointly canvassed a wide range of contracting models. We have agreed to implement what is called a Strategic Alliance model.
Alliance contracting has a strong track record with large-scale projects that have a complex mix of objectives. It has been used successfully in Australia on the eastern seaboard and South Australia for nearly a decade. I will highlight a key example from Queensland.
The Queensland government commissioned the Split Rock Inca Alliance to deliver the Inca and Wooroona Creeks roads project in north-west Queensland. The Alliance was made up of Queensland Roads, Seymour Whyte Constructions and a group representing the Indjiandji-Dhidhanu people. It has since won the Project Management Award at the 2007 Queensland Engineering Excellence Awards, and also received a Premier’s Innovation in Skilling Award last year. There are several parallels between the Split Rock Inca Alliance and the Strategic Housing Program; most notably, the focus on indigenous engagement, employment and training objectives.
Alliance contracting is based on: cooperation between stakeholders and contractors; achieving outcomes rather than focusing on self-interest; a distribution of risk rather than allocating it to individual stakeholders; fast-tracking projects; and in the case of remote housing, supporting real development in communities. This contracting model has a record of government and the private sector working collaboratively to reduce and manage risks, achieving significant time and budgetary savings, and delivering other objectives that are normally difficult to quantify.
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. While it is a new concept in the Territory, the Alliance contracting model has been received receptively by local industry representatives. Paul Nowland from Nowland Builders was quoted in the Business Week section of the Northern Territory News on 23 April as saying: ‘The alliance system had the potential to be very positive’. However, Mr Nowland did say that there needs to be an education program around the alliance system.
The first of the Strategic Housing Program information sessions was held yesterday morning, 30 April. These extensive education programs will continue across the Territory. The Territory and Commonwealth governments are working closely under the Strategic Housing Program, and I can report that Territory Housing and the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs have formed a Joint Steering Committee to progress that work. The steering committee is a means for both governments to engage in a constructive, genuine way to push the housing agenda firmly in the right direction. In a very real sense, it is the engine room that will drive implementation of the housing agenda for the next few years. It represents a juncture for cooperation, where the Territory and Commonwealth have already resolved key deliverables such as the number of houses we build and the cost and extent of upgrades and repairs. The Joint Steering Committee was formed in March of last year and now meets once a month.
Coming to the details of that program, the program is aimed at 73 remote communities and some urban centres. The program will deliver: around 750 new houses, including new subdivisions; over 230 new houses to replace derelict structures; over 2500 upgrades for existing homes; essential infrastructure to support the new housing developments; and better conditions in town camps. Sixteen high-need communities across the Territory will be targeted with new houses and large-scale upgrades to the value of $420m. This approach is about making real inroads with the housing shortfall in the larger remote communities. We will support that work by rolling out $124m in refurbishments in 57 other communities. A further $103m will be invested in fixing our town camps and in a few other ongoing programs.
Security of tenure is a key element of the program. On top of governments needing title to assets, secure land tenure will encourage the development of markets in land and private investment and ownership in the longer term. I expect to see the first Alliances under the Strategic Housing Program up and running by October this year. The successful companies will be working in remote communities for several years. What I have outlined here so far are some of the machinations of our plan to reform housing in the Territory’s remote communities.
I will highlight a few more of the Territory government’s strategic objectives and ambitions that will come on the strength of housing reform. As I have mentioned, remote community housing, housing for government employees and industry, and public housing in regional areas will be drawn together in a very real sense. Contracts, management, staffing, training and community engagement will cut across these historically separate areas. Housing management and capital investment on this large scale will help to power regional economies. We can kick-start new labour markets. This will come through apprenticeships and employment in the building sector, long-term jobs through the maintenance of housing stock, and also through the expansion of a public housing framework to remote areas. The roll-out of the public housing framework in the bush means that property and tenancy management practices will be brought in line with a consistent standard.
There are two ways forward here from the current framework. Government will absorb the existing housing providers to deliver tenancy and property management services directly or enter into agency arrangements, potentially with the new local government shires. The key point is that under both approaches housing services will be supported centrally and managed locally. Both approaches will mandate employment, staff training and pathways for professional development for local indigenous people. Both approaches will provide the same robust framework for housing management. The remote housing agenda lines up with the reforms to local government across the Territory, where new economies of scale will see sustained employment and investment in trades training. Jointly, these reforms will deliver better livelihoods and more sustainable economies for people in the bush.
That is a future where local people, on the strength of Alliances formed through these housing projects, will be directly involved in the building and management of their schools, health clinics and police stations. In time, I hope that those same people will franchise their own companies to take up the work in the bush. I see that as a future where indigenous people in the bush have equality of opportunity, where communities will flourish by standing strong and engaging strongly with governments and the mainstream economy.
This memorandum of understanding is the first of what I believe will be a succession of cooperative agreements around housing between the Territory and Commonwealth governments. It will be the first because I believe that the Alliance model will be successful and will draw governments, indigenous organisations, and companies together into a partnership. Together, the Commonwealth, the Territory and the people of local communities will deliver this program, and it will be the inspiration to complete the job and remove the social scourge of housing shortages from our community.
We have had this policy work in train, paving the way for housing reforms, for some time. The Territory and Commonwealth governments have already been jointly rolling out changes for housing delivery in nine communities in the Macdonnell region. These communities were identified by the Commonwealth under the Emergency Response. They were annexed by the Commonwealth through five-year leases. The Commonwealth government, in turn, requested the Territory take on property and tenancy management services in line with the Territory Housing framework. We have since put representatives of Territory Housing out on the ground. We are working closely with housing providers to make the transition to the new framework. We are working with ICHOs to strengthen their management practices. There was a workshop with these organisations’ staff in late January, and we have been working closely with them ever since. We are engaging with people on the ground to get a clear message across about housing reform and to get their feedback on the new approach.
Our work with the Macdonnell region will inform how we engage the rest of the Territory. Drawing together the urban and remote housing systems is important on many levels. This government is developing a framework to meet the demand for short-term accommodation across the urban centres, and to manage the transition process for indigenous households from remote to urban contexts. Home care and urban living skills programs will be a key component of this framework. They will be essential for families looking to move into public housing that do not yet have solid rental references.
The big picture work is in train, though we have already put runs on the board with Stuart Lodge and Ayiparinya Hostel in Alice Springs and, more recently, by funding the 127-bed expansion at the Darwin Christian Outreach Centre at Boulter Road to the tune of $2.97m.
I footnote this statement by acknowledging the opportunities that come with the new era of Commonwealth/Territory cooperation. Australian federalism was instituted to make the lives of Australians better - genuine cooperation is at the heart of that relationship. In this context, the Strategic Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Program is not a total panacea for the challenges we face with housing in the bush, but it does represent a new, effective way for governments to engage with each other, to cooperate better, with the focus rightly and squarely on addressing the needs of the first Australians. It also sets up a framework for indigenous communities to engage with government and get what they need. We are committed, as a government, to ensure that the opportunities of today are written into history as a milestone for undoing indigenous disadvantage.
The memorandum of understanding, the Strategic Housing Program, and this early work are - as I am sure everyone here will recognise - important, indeed, historic steps in that direction. I look forward to working in collaboration with the Rudd Labor government to achieving further long-term improvements in housing in the bush.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his statement today. It raises important issues and is also an opportunity to discuss issues upon which he has remained silent in his statement.
Aboriginal housing, like so many things, is also a product of the welfare system - the same system that has produced very poor results. Buying houses and giving them away has not worked. It is just charity with which Aboriginal people are all too familiar. The problem is that familiarity breeds contempt.
In a recent book by Tom Harford, The Logic of Life, about the rationale behind our choices in life, he talked about the difference between neighbourhoods that were filled with homeowners and others that were mostly tenanted. He looked at the issue of road crossings. He noted that the neighbourhoods of homeowners had well-equipped road crossings with plenty of zebra crossings, more than what was really necessary, in fact. Having a deeper look at the issue, he found that a large component of the reasoning for this was that the homeowners had a stake in there being good facilities; that is, they were going to be around to make use of the facilities much longer than a tenant. A tenant lacks the will - or rather is unwilling – to fight for something that they will not be around to use, as they will probably be living somewhere else next year. While that is a little abstract, I believe this gives us just another way to look at the issue of the value of home ownership and the effect that this will have on people looking after their homes and the areas in which they live. I want to leave that for a moment.
Today, we have heard another statement from the minister about how the glory days are here. Today, it is housing’s turn; yesterday, it was education. As Noel Pearson would say, this issue is about more than bricks, mortar and money. Again, the government thinks that throwing money at any problem provides a solution. The minister should keep in mind that government is judged on results and outcomes, not simply on how much money you can throw at a problem. Sadly, the way this government talks about spend and its spending increases, one could be forgiven for thinking that spending was an outcome in its own right. Sometimes the solutions are easy.
In reference to the debate yesterday, my colleague, the Leader of the Opposition, argued that government must force parents to send their kids to school - enforce the legislation that you already have and penalise parents.
The minister says that housing is the lynchpin to overcome disadvantage. Minister, you missed two key words: ‘opportunity’ and ‘responsibility’. An ‘opportunity’ to own your own home and build capital, and the ‘responsibility’ to look after your home, would surely be preferable to mere renting. This policy will be less than entirely successful unless you commit to indigenous people owning their own home on their own land. It is only then indigenous people will have the opportunity to participate in the general economy of this nation. The word ‘Commonwealth’ should actually be expressed as two words, because it refers to the wealth that can be tapped into by an individual who resides in the jurisdiction to which the common wealth refers. Sadly, many Aboriginal people are excluded from that common wealth because of the legislative instruments that truncate that capacity. Only then will we have a chance to break the cycle that welfarism and decades of bad policy and neglect have produced.
Sadly, responsibility and opportunity are missing in action in this statement. Take this case in point. CDEP was described by Tracker Tilmouth as an opiate of the masses - apologies to Karl Marx - and in doing so, he was pointing out that even a so-called employment program was little more than a panacea for those of us who are critical of the charity that welfare really is. What Tracker was saying is that there is no point in dressing up welfare and then saying it is not welfare. It is. The problem for people like Tracker is that they know that the system still means its participants are not participants in the real world.
We have desperate need. We desperately need 5000 houses, but are only planning to build 750 new houses across 16 or 20 communities. There will be 230 houses rebuilt, and this is a shortage of 4000 houses. Who is going to provide these 4000 houses? The government is giving $647m to fix a $2.4bn problem. Three years ago, the estimate to meet housing needs in Aboriginal communities was given as $850m. Less than two years ago, it was estimated that $1bn would be needed but, today, the minister has told us that they are only giving less than a third of what is needed to build the required number of houses. Clearly, we need to protect the limited stock that we are building.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. If we continue with a welfare philosophy then, whatever you budget, it will still lead to the same outcomes. A rose is a rose by that or any other name. Very deep within the psyche of the vast majority of Australians is a desire to ensure our most disadvantaged are cared for and supported. That desire, however, to do the right thing has led to outcomes that are awful beyond anything I can describe. We need a fundamental shift in thinking about how we assist those in need. It is not about trying to reduce the amount of support or begrudging helping others but, rather, about challenging the accepted cycle of building houses, breaking houses and then expecting new houses. Will the latest injection of government aid of $647m dollars achieve any different results? It will fail if it is not backed up with a culture of change in how housing is planned, provided and maintained. Will this government rebadge and repackage existing policy? It saddens me to say this, but more of the current philosophy we see today will see, in a few years time, debating the same problems that we have today. I hope I am very wrong, but I believe that is what will happen ...
Mr Knight: Twenty-seven years to fix it.
Mrs MILLER: Kindly listen. What would happen if we could give the full $2.4bn that is needed today?
Mr Knight interjecting.
Mrs MILLER: You will get your chance, you can talk later.
Would it encourage the recipients to take care of and value the houses that are being built for them? Would it encourage the recipients to fix the leaking taps and mop the grease off the floor and not destroy the fittings? Would it address the life expectancy differential? Would it help indigenous Australians lengthen the life span of their houses from the 10 to 20 years to the 50-year life span of other public housing? Not unless there is some element of need to protect the property ingrained in the occupation. It costs up to $600 000 to build each house. They are expensive to build, expensive to repair, and desperately needed.
Why is it that we do not question the fact that, in remote communities, houses will only last 10 to 20 years when everywhere else houses last for 50 years? Why is it that we accept that 10 years is reasonable? Why do we build, fix, and rebuild the same houses over and over again? The infrastructure is needed - it is desperately needed - but the way it has been delivered is not value for money. Value is not being extracted from this generous injection of taxpayer money because there is no contract in place, no partnership agreement with the recipients to ensure responsibility and a return obligation for the benefits.
Every bit of land that Australians can own or aspire to own has a value attached to it and can be given, sold or bestowed onto another party. The fundamental weakness of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act is that there is no provision for individual ownership. This has been proven to have a direct and profound impact on perpetuating the current welfare cycle, because it is inherently woven into the fabric of the legislation that the land cannot become commercially viable. There is always a torturous process that simply makes investment money walk away. It is too cumbersome and too rigid to provide the flexibility that is needed in the modern economic environment. Indigenous Australians will never be able to choose to invest in the Australian dream of owning their own home because the law says they cannot. There is no incentive for an indigenous person living in much of the Territory to wake up one morning and decide to improve their circumstances.
So far, there have been few conditions imposed on the recipients of this housing. It is worth pausing for a moment to consider an important fact: Aboriginal people in remote communities in Australia have houses constructed for them for free. Anywhere else, a person has to provide for themselves or their families by purchasing a home, or renting a home. This issue was addressed by the minister in Question Time. He said that these will become normal tenancies. Will they? If they are to become normal tenancies, then there are some glaring omissions from the minister’s statement.
I am also confused by the vague term ‘secure tenure’ that the minister referred to. The minister needs to make clear what on earth ‘secure tenure’ means. Does this mean the 40- to 99-year leases as described by the federal minister, Jenny Macklin? If this is the case, does this mean that the leases will be rateable under the new local government scheme? If it is not the case, can the minister describe what the system of ‘secure tenure’ is that he has referred to, and will access to whatever it is be a rateable leasing system? If it is, what are the expected rates that the Territory government will have to pay for the new shires? What will happen to those people who live on outstations? Will those houses be added to the Territory’s housing stock? These are all very valid questions which are not covered in the minister’s statements.
It is frustrating to have a minister deliver a statement about what appears to be a possible useful approach to Aboriginal housing, but not deliver any detail about how the system will work, other than by making vague references to what is a core issue in the new system. I hope, in closing, the minister will be far more detailed about the nature of the term ‘secure tenure’ …
Mr Knight: There was a public meeting yesterday.
Mrs MILLER: You will have your turn later on, member for Daly.
It should be expected that people who live in these houses maintain them to a suitable level. The people living in these conditions have to decide that they do not want to live in third-world conditions. They have to decide that they want to improve their standards of living because this is their house for the next 50 years, or their children’s house, or their grandchildren’s house. Why bother looking after something for the long term if the government is going to turn around and give you your new house in 10 or 15 or 20 years, even if you neglect your responsibilities as a tenant? There has to be expectations on the recipients.
There has to be an agreement or a contract that defines roles and responsibilities for both the giver of welfare and the recipient. This is the norm in every other aspect of Australian business: hypothetically speaking, I give this to you on the expectation that you will do this with it. If not, xyz will happen. That is how the rest of Australia operates. Why is this? Why has throwing money at indigenous problems made so little headway into raising life expectancy, and reducing child and drug and alcohol abuse? This is because there have been no incentives for these indigenous families to get off the charity merry-go-round and to take responsibility for managing their own lives. There is no incentive to get off welfare and enter the cycle of reward for effort that every other Australian has the freedom to enjoy and duty to obey. This is a choice that every other Australian is free to pursue.
This is not going to be addressed by throwing bricks and mortar and money into the problem but, rather, by addressing the deeper fundamental issues and philosophy that will give people the incentive and the means to get off the welfare treadmill. Why is this not an option for many for many indigenous Territorians? Why is there no incentive? What is preventing them from contributing and being part of the Australian economy? It is because indigenous people cannot create capital by building and owning their own house on their own land. It is because many indigenous parents face no consequences when they do not send their kids to school.
This government is all for warm and fuzzy measures, but will not make and take any hard decisions. Here is a hard decision for the government to consider; namely, if they are presented with the delinquent tenant who does, with malice, damage the property, will the minister say that he is prepared to evict? Will the minister demand that when a house is burnt to the ground that a complaint be laid against the person for causing the damage? It remains to be seen if the government has the ticker to be a landlord, but is in the unique position to protect the taxpayers’ investment.
This government might call the Country Liberal Party approach mere paternalism. Noel Pearson had a bit about to say about paternalism when he spoke to Fran Kelly on breakfast radio in June 2007 and I quote:
Mr Pearson went onto say:
We could do a lot worse than add a bit of Noel Pearson’s wisdom to government policy. Then, we may actually have opportunity and responsibility, as well as new houses.
This government proclaims wonderful spending initiatives, but it also needs to proclaim fundamental change to management. In The Australian on 3 March 2007, Noel Pearson wrote:
Noel Pearson went on to say …
Ms Scrymgour: Oh, Pearson, the great saviour – save us!
Mrs MILLER: It is a bit scary for you, isn’t it?
Minister, what are you doing to increase family ownership of houses on indigenous land? Under the minister’s new program, has he made any fundamental changes to the ability of an indigenous family to enter the economy and have some capital invested in their own home? It does not appear so. Actually, I know he cannot; it is still distant old Canberra that knows what is good for indigenous Australians. Perish the thought that the Northern Territory parliament be allowed to make laws for the Aboriginal people who live here, despite the fact that there are six more Aboriginal members of parliament than they have in theirs.
Noel Pearson said in this article in The Australian:
The Northern Territory government, I hope, will not fall into the same oblique that Pearson described when local councils managed houses.
No matter how much you throw at a broken system, it does not change the fact that the system is broken. Government must take steps to ensure that indigenous Territorians can own their own home on their own land, so that they can enter the economy and experience some capital growth like many other homeowners. I ask the Minister for Housing: does he want indigenous Territorians in remote communities to come under the system as the rest of the Territory? I hope that the administration of this system will not fall over because of the attitude identified by Noel Pearson. If it is to be administered by government, then I hope it will be effective; but as is the way with many bureaucracies, there is a high risk of inefficiency. Again - and this will make them all upset - in his article in The Australian, Noel Pearson wrote:
I am disappointed that the minister has remained silent on home ownership in this statement. I hope that I am not to assume that he does not actually want indigenous people to own their own homes, and that he is happy for indigenous Territorians to live under only one system – his, the welfare system.
Many people comment to me about the inefficiency of the Territory Housing bureaucracy. Surely, the preferred position would be ownership first and tenancy second. There are some issues I would like to raise about the organisation that will manage this investment. Throwing money at the problem is all well and good, but how is that money going to be managed, and how much will actually get into frontline services? This is the most extensive housing project undertaken in the history of the Northern Territory. Is your department ready, minister? Will they be up to the challenge? Can you deliver the organisation and efficiency that a project of this magnitude demands?
There is an estimates process coming up, and we will be pursuing your oversight of Territory Housing and its operations. According to the Housing organisational chart, the Executive Director of Territory Housing - whom I can appreciate is a very busy person - has three assistants. Three assistants for one Executive Director: an executive information coordinator; an executive assistant; and an administrative assistant. Why does a senior public servant have three secretaries? The Chief Executive of the department probably does not have that many and I know key executives and business people in the private sector can survive with one secretary. But three? I ask the minister: how many do you have to have?
Madam Speaker, I suggest if the minister wants to value-add and free additional funding for housing, it might be worth looking at the structures of the department. Second, if the minister wants more efficiency, he might ask why, in this time of housing stress, Territory Housing keeps selling properties? Oh, funny about that. There were some in the Katherine Times last week. I understand, minister, that some properties are sold to tenants under various arrangements, that Territory Housing has been active in the market. One wonders why we are running a real estate business instead a social housing program. Why does the department have Corporate Real Estate as a grouping? I say this because, according to his budget papers, the number of properties continues to decline. You now have over 200 properties fewer than you did three years ago. His department advertises houses for sale as an opportunity for investors. If they are such a good investment, why not keep them? What next? ‘A renovator’s dream’ is advertised in the paper. This is probably more likely, given the state that the minister will allow the properties to fall into.
Where is the money from the sale of these public houses going? This emphasis on your management of your department must come about, as you say, in that the NT must concentrate its housing effort into a single system. If this is a single system under Territory Housing, then those who have to deal with Territory Housing may well shudder at the thought because of the negative experiences they have had. But we expect this. Bigger is better, according to the minister. This is a government that will flash out its credit card and proclaim how much it is spending, but not what it is achieving. This is the opportunity to use what money you have to build houses and have them managed in a way that they are not destroyed, vandalised or sold. Minister, you need to be brave.
There are different ways properly funded housing cooperatives can and do work. There are successful housing cooperatives in the city and rural areas of New South Wales and Victoria which cater for people on low to moderate incomes ...
Mr Knight: I would like to thank John Elferink for this speech.
Mrs MILLER: The co-ops provide – are you usually this rude?
Mr Knight: Yes.
Mrs MILLER: You are. The co-ops provide a sense of belonging and control. They are self-managed and allow tenants to have a say in how the houses are maintained. Tenants are encouraged to take responsibility for the maintenance and repair, and decoration of their dwellings. They participate in the work of the co-op and abide by the rules of the co-op. The minister should be brave and not think that the department that is growing under this system you have is the only answer to housing shortage models. They are expensive in back office costs. They probably have enough executive assistants to start their own cooperative. I urge that this should be about outcomes and not departments. If better outcomes are to be found away from government, then they should be examined and embraced if they pass muster.
We must give indigenous Territorians the opportunity to own their own part in the Australian housing dream and enjoy the reward that this responsibility brings.
Madam Speaker, I close with this question to the minister. The Chief Minister met with the federal minister for Indigenous Affairs on 6 March 2008. A minute from that meeting says:
I wonder what strategy is in place to deal with the malcontents who miss out in this glorious plan?
Debate adjourned.
Mr Wood: Can I speak to the motion?
Madam SPEAKER: No, you cannot speak to this motion; debate has been adjourned.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Deputy Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr NATT (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I would like to just outline a few things that had happened in my electorate in the last couple of weeks.
On Thursday, 24 April, I had the pleasure to attend three schools and their Anzac Day celebrations. The first one was at Durack. I attended their morning assembly commemorating Anzac Day. I was there with special guests, Gary Markwell, Vice President of the Palmerston RSL; Mr Robert MacLeod, the Mayor of Palmerston; and Mrs Melissa Evans, the school council chair who is a servicewoman, and her husband, a serviceman.
Lieutenant Jason Holman from 1st Armoured Regiment was the very special guest who addressed the assembly on the significance of Anzac Day for all Territorians and Australians. He held the attention of the children at the assembly. He spoke exceptionally well on the courage, valour, sacrifices and mateship of our veterans - all the traits Australians have inherited from our brave Anzacs. The packed assembly was very attentive. A commemorative area with the Australian flag at half-mast was established on the side of the assembly hall. All of the classes laid handmade wreaths and flowers brought from home. The school choir sang wonderfully well. They sang the National Anthem and a couple of other songs while wreaths and flowers were laid.
I recognise the groundwork undertaken by Mrs Walker and her class for the organisation of the day. She was ably assisted by Mrs Darcy and her class. I thank them for their efforts. Since there was a cake stall afterwards, and I have a bit of a sweet tooth, I bought about 30 Anzac biscuits. I was pleased to see them on sale, and quite appropriately, too.
The second ceremony I attended not long after the Durack Primary School ceremony was at the Palmerston High School. Part of their school assembly hall, the basketball stadium, was packed with students. Daryl Salathiel, the secretary of the Palmerston RSL, provided a moving speech about the lessons learned from our Anzacs; about the values of leadership, mateship, service and courage that was exemplified by those who served Australia in World War I at Gallipoli. He went on to talk about the refurbishment and the upkeep of the war memorial shrine in Timor. He related a story how he had been to Timor a couple of times and found the memorial there had been left to run down. He sought advice from the Leader of the Opposition who had some contacts in Timor. Some of the local village people close to the shrine now maintain it and it is now well kept. This represents a great effort by Dale and the people in Timor.
An incident of special note was the speech by a former student, Cindy Bowden, now serving as a corporal with the Australian Defence Force. She spoke to the packed auditorium about her service in Iraq and what the Anzac tradition means to her. The Palmerston High School Defence cadets performed the catafalque party duties, marched and stood guard as sentries of the flag pole during the Ode of Remembrance and the playing of the Last Post. The ceremony was executed exceptionally well. Full credit goes to all of those involved. Wreaths were laid at the ceremony by Nryssa Fitzallen, Timothy Harrison, Peter Badkin and John Petersen who were the cadets involved in the catafalque party. The Last Post was played by bugler Bill Buckley, and the National Anthem was performed by Sand Williams and the Palmerston High School Choir.
A talented young student at the Palmerston High School, Zoe Whittington, travelled to Canberra last month, chaperoned by Mr Robert Lee, for an educational visit. She received a medallion to celebrate her achievements as a Northern Territory runner-up of the Australian government 2008 Simpson Prize. The winner, notably, was Northern Territory lad, Terry Lim, from Taminmin. Palmerston has a wonderful history of prize winners in this competition because Stacey Carbolt won the prize in 2007.
This is a popular national competition, now in its 10th year; and it honours John Simpson Kirkpatrick whom we all know as the ‘man with the donkey’, who was also famous for his bravery under fire while rescuing soldiers at Gallipoli back in 1915. The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, Hon Alan Griffin, on behalf of Hon Julia Gillard, the Minister for Education, presented the winners and runners-up with their prizes at Parliament House last month. I understand over 1000 students in Year 9 to Year 10 submitted an essay, or an audio visual presentation, which highlighted Simpson’s heroism and how the Anzac spirit is exemplified by other great Australians such as the late Bernie Banton and Dr Fred Hollows and, more recently, the 2007 Young Australian, Tanya Major.
From there, at 1 pm, I went to Kormilda College. This service has become a Kormilda tradition and I have attended that service the last two years. They had more than 1000 students, staff and guests attending the ceremony. The students behaved exceptionally well during the service; and the guest trumpeter’s playing of the Rouse and the Last Post.
The ceremony was run by Kormilda’s two college captains, Daniel Popple and Gabrielle Morriss. The Kormilda College Choir sang the National Anthem while student, Tamara-Lee Stacey, gave the welcome to Larrakia land. Four Kormilda Defence Cadets paraded the 2nd Heavy Anti-Aircraft banner, as it was brought forward to the rostrum. It is interesting to note this banner was handed to the school by the 2nd Heavy Anti-Aircraft Battery, which was stationed at the grounds of Kormilda during World War II. As the banner was paraded, school captain Daniel Popple read out: ‘The remaining members of the 2nd Heavy Anti-Aircraft Battery, 1941 – 1944, have entrusted their banner to us for safe keeping. Today we parade it at this Anzac service to honour and remember them’. It was exceptionally well done by the students.
His Honour the Administrator, Mr Tom Pauling QC, provided the address. He also welcomed a teacher at the school, and a former Defence Force Representative, Mr Bernie Holland, who spoke about what Anzac meant to him. Fr David Burgess gave the reflections, and students, Madison Ludwig, Mitchell Blundell and Bradley Cummings, were involved in the catafalque party. I congratulate Kormilda College and everyone involved. It was a wonderful ceremony. I look forward to attending it again next year.
On Anzac Day, I represented the Chief Minister and my Drysdale constituents at the dawn service at Palmerston. I am pleased to see crowd numbers increasing at Anzac Day ceremonies. I reckon we had a crowd of probably 300 to 400 people at the dawn service. It was pleasing to see the numbers of young children there, taking an interest in what was happening. I congratulate Daryl Salathiel and his committee on the work they undertook to ensure the ceremony went unhindered. Daryl was the Master of Ceremonies for the morning, and special guests included my colleague, the member for Brennan, James Burke; representing the people of Palmerston was his Worship the Mayor, Robert MacLeod; Senator Trish Crossin; and the Department of Veteran Affairs (NT Regional Office), Lisa Kulmar. We had representatives from the Defence Force: Commander of 1st Brigade, Brigadier Michael G Krause ADC; RSM 1st Brigade, Warrant Officer Don Spinks and his partner, Jennifer Pereira; and representing the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Fire and Emergency Services was the Palmerston Superintendent, Matthew Hollamby.
The Remembrance Service was exceptionally well attended. I congratulate everyone involved, and also thank Captain Gerald Mitchell from the Palmerston Salvation Army who conducted the service for the morning.
Later that morning, the march past occurred which was well attended. The crowd picked up to about 500 people. We had school representation from a number of the primary schools in and around the district. It was terrific to see a great turn-out on a wonderful day. His Worship the Mayor attended and several other dignitaries who doubled up from the morning. The catafalque party from the Defence Force did a wonderful job. I congratulate everyone involved. It really was a great day. Special mention, as I said earlier, to Daryl Salathiel and his committee from the Palmerston RSL. They do a great job every year, and I commend them for the work they undertake within the Palmerston region.
Anglicare Northern Territory hosted a Youth Homelessness Matters Day earlier this month on 9 April in Palmerston and provided a free barbecue and information on a variety of the services they provide. It was really well attended throughout the morning. I had the pleasure of meeting some of the people involved in it. I met the Executive Manager of Anglicare Top End, Ann Buxton. I had a great talk with her and she explained to me the work they undertake within the area and the work they are trying to undertake within the Northern Territory. I also met with Services Implementation Manager, Trudy Lee, the Connect Youth workers, Sharon Hurst, Pranee Tomlinson, Julie Bliss and Des Culhane were all on hand to provide information and support for clients and, obviously, help cook the barbecue. It was great to see them out and active within the community and doing terrific work. I congratulate Ann on all the initiatives they are putting together. They do a wonderful job for the young homeless people. The work they do in and around Darwin and Palmerston does not go unnoticed.
Mr BURKE (Brennan): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, what a great joy it is to see you up there in the Speaker’s Chair. I would like to start by congratulating young Jeremie Edwards, a 16-year-old who plays with the Palmerston Raiders Rugby League side for Palmerston. Congratulations also to his parents. His father, Errol, works here in Parliament House. Jeremie made his A Grade debut on the weekend. I watched the game with the Raiders playing the Litchfield Bears. Unfortunately for the Raiders, they went into the game as underdogs and that proved to be the case. They went down on that occasion. However, the Palmerston Raiders blooded a numbed of young players and Jeremie Edwards, as I said, played his first full game of 80 minutes on Sunday wearing the No 12 jumper, which I am advised puts him in the second row in the forwards. He was up against much older and more seasoned veterans. I am reliably informed that Jeremie played extremely well and gave a good account of himself. Well done, Jeremie. I am sure it is the start of a long and glorious career - no doubt, like your father’s.
I would also like to pay a tribute, a recognition to a friend of mine, Mr Simon Hall, who recently passed away quite suddenly. He was a great friend, a great campaigner for the Labor Party in Palmerston. He will be very much missed. I was happy to be able to speak about Simon at the recent Northern Territory ALP conference, which I only mention because his mum, Jane, his sister, Sally, and good friend, Paul Gascoyne, came up for that. It was good to meet them. I had never met them before. They really appreciated seeing the people who Simon knew up here.
I also thank Chris and Gary McKell of McKell’s Real Estate. Simon’s family were here to finalise those practical matters that have to be dealt with when someone passes away. Gary McKell assisted quite considerably in helping my wife, Sharon, and Simon’s family put things on the trailer and tie it all down so it could be taken back to my place. A sincere thank you to Gary McKell for his assistance.
As the member for Drysdale said, we had a fantastic Anzac Day in Palmerston. The day started off for me with the Gunner’s Breakfast at The Hub. The event is organised by the Palmerston RSL who do a great job. I note my colleague mentioned Mr Gary Markwell and the other members of the Palmerston RSL as well. It is not easy putting something together like that and the Palmerston RSL do a fantastic job each year. Daryl Salathiel is the other member of the Palmerston RSL who plays a considerable part in organising things. More often than not, he is the compere for events. This year, the Ode of Remembrance at both the dawn service and the mid-morning service was by Bill Simpkins, as well as the people that my colleague, the member for Drysdale mentioned. Padre Bob Bishop took control of the service for the mid-morning service.
The Gunner’s Breakfast kicked off at 4.30 that morning and it was extremely well attended. I met up with a couple, Linda and Jason, who live in Bakewell. They have not been living in Bakewell very long, and Jason’s father was also there. We were talking, not just about Anzac Day and its importance, but just how good it is to see new people and new generations celebrating Anzac Day. Some good friends of mine, Ken and Di, were also there and, after the dawn service, we all went to The Hub again for the breakfast. I pay tribute to The Hub where the Palmerston RSL is based. They put on a fantastic fare. Everyone had a good time. There were many people there, which was great to see.
Brigadier Krause was the guest speaker. He spoke about the sacrifices that our Defence personnel have made on behalf of their country, some of whom had made the ultimate sacrifice, giving their lives for those that have remained behind and for the things that our country stands for. He made a reference about the fact that so many people had made a sacrifice to turn up to the dawn service. It is not something most people do very often, getting up in time for a dawn service.
Giving that recognition about that personal sacrifice I felt was a very good point. It does not cost us much to give that little sacrifice in recognition for the sacrifices that others make in service of their country. It was uplifting to see the Regimental Sergeant Major Don Spinks and his wife, as well as the other dignitaries there at the dawn service. After the post-dawn service breakfast there was then the midmorning service which we attended. It was a pleasure to see the patron of the Palmerston RSL, our own Clare Martin giving support to the celebrations at Palmerston. It was a great crowd and the march was impressive. A number of schools were there and I had the opportunity to catch up with the students of Sacred Heart Primary School and their Principal and the Assistant Principal, Kath Neely and Bill Bemelmans. The Bakewell students were with their Principal, June Wessels. The guest speaker was, from memory, Major Damien Patterson who spoke eloquently about Anzac Day. Well done to the people of Palmerston for attending the event.
Prior to Anzac Day, I attended a few of the school assemblies and the special tributes the schools had prepared. At Palmerston High School it was memorable to see Corporal Cindy Bowden as the guest speaker. She is an ex-student of Palmerston High School and featured as the guest speaker for the Year 10 pledge signing. This consisted of the Year 10 students signing a charter undertaking to either remain in school or leave school only to take up an apprenticeship or a full-time job or some further study. She was the guest speaker and came across as a great young woman in her early 20s who having served in Iraq was already a veteran. She spoke of her experiences.
One point which some of the Palmerston High students strongly identified with was how school did not agree with her; how she could not wait until she got out. When she went to see the career’s advisor she said: ‘I want to join the Army’. The career advisor said: ‘What if that does not work?’ And she said: ‘Well, it will’. It is fantastic to know at such a young age what you want to do and are prepared to do everything to achieve that. The service was held at Palmerston High School with the Army cadets doing the catafalque party. All in all, it was very well done and I congratulate Palmerston High School.
Gray Primary School also had an Anzac Day assembly and service on Thursday. I was deeply impressed to see how each class had made their own wreath out of red crepe paper with little poppies stuck onto wreaths. I was taken with the effort these students had put into recognising this important occasion for Australia.
On that occasion, Lieutenant Chris Henderson was the guest speaker and spoke extremely well. The speech he gave was pitched perfectly to the age of the students that he was addressing. I thought Lieutenant Henderson did a really good job speaking to the children. The children at Gray Primary School were perfectly behaved. Congratulations to them for that as well.
While I am on Gray Primary School, I hosted a lunch with the Gray Primary School Student Representative Council. They came to my office. We had a light lunch and spoke about what was important to them, and what they wanted to see happen at their school. They are looking to fundraise for their school. One of the matters we spoke about was the need to identify what exactly you are fundraising for, and how you have to have a focus. They had some great ideas. They asked me a few questions about what I do. It was a great treat for me to be able to talk to the SRC of Gray Primary School. I wish them all the best for their fundraising efforts. I look forward to talking with them some more.
There has been much fanfare in Darwin about the Darwin program for getting the community involved in fitness and community functions - I am not sure what it is called in Darwin but it is really taking off in Palmerston as Palmerston’s Palmlesstonnes and has been a great program. I have hosted three walks on a Sunday morning. I have enjoyed every one of them. It is a chance to talk to people and exercise at the same time. There is a great sense of camaraderie and help. No one is an elite athlete or anything like that but everyone is encouraging each other to push themselves just that little, have great fun and then at the end have a healthy breakfast as well. To each of those participants in Palmlesstonnes, you only have a few weeks more to go, keep going, you are almost there. I hope things will continue and you will have the enthusiasm and get the results you were after, enough to keep going even once the program is officially over.
Palmlesstonnes is a good program. It was visionary of the Palmerston council to take it on board and run with it. I am sure Darwin City Council will also have every success with it. I look forward to hearing some of my colleagues talk on things that are happening in Darwin.
They are some of the events that have been happening in Palmerston. I congratulate all the people who have been involved.
Mr KNIGHT (Daly): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I will take a few moments to acknowledge the contribution of three public servants: Bill Ivory, Graham Franklin and Michael Banks. I know my colleague, Elliot McAdam, the former Minister for Local Government, and many other members will join me in thanking these officers.
Bill Ivory has now retired from the public service after 37 years of dedicated service. There are many of us in this House who have benefited from Bill’s knowledge, his practical approach to life and his sage advice. Bill grew up in the Northern Territory, spending a lot of his time out bush and also at Bagot and in Katherine. His schooling was completed at Maningrida by correspondence from Adelaide. Bill then went on to study at the Australian School of Pacific Administration in 1971 to 1972 and graduated as a patrol officer working for the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. Bill transferred to the Northern Territory government in the early 1980s and worked as a project officer and general manager within Local Government and also in a community development role. He also had a stint as an adviser to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs in the 1990s.
From 1998 to 2001, Bill worked for the Office of Aboriginal Development; focusing particularly on indigenous economic development. This helped focus his thinking about the future of indigenous communities and led him down a path of more study and a focus on development of the Thamarrurr region.
From 2001 to 2006, Bill spent an enormous amount of his time learning, facilitating and documenting leadership, governance and development practices in the Thamarrurr region. Bill has always been committed to policies and programs which make a real and positive difference in people’s lives, particularly when it comes to building stronger, better futures for people in the bush. Bill is a great Territorian, and I am sure he will continue to contribute to indigenous community development and, on a more local level, to sport - to his beloved Southern Districts Football team.
I am sure members will join me in recording the appreciation of the Northern Territory parliament to Bill Ivory for his long and distinguished career, and the enormous contribution he has made to community development in the Northern Territory. I wish Bill well in his PhD, which is very long in coming. Hopefully, one day, I can sit down and read it.
It is with great sadness that I announce that Mr Graham Franklin, Director of the Water Safety and Animal Welfare Branch, has resigned from his position. The Northern Territory government is losing one of its champions in water safety awareness and animal welfare advocacy.
Graham started working for the Northern Territory government in 1996, and has had various roles including working for Indigenous Housing. However, I am sure he would agree that his biggest role and achievement has been the establishment of the Water Safety and Animal Welfare Branch. Graham was instrumental in setting up the Water Safety Branch and implementing the Swimming Pool Safety Act 2004. This was no easy task, but he went about it in his quiet and gentleman-like way, showing his true passion for the legislation and its purpose.
Graham also implemented the Under 5 Water Safety Awareness Program, the only one of its kind in Australia. Since its introduction, the Water Safety Awareness Program has had over 5000 children and parents attend classes in water awareness and has received many accolades, including being named the National Best Practice by the Australian Water Safety Council. These achievements are a reflection of all the hard work Graham has done over the years, as without his strength and passion, these results would not have been achieved.
Graham also took on the role as the Director of Animal Welfare. Again, he showed his kindness and compassion. This must be one of the hardest jobs to manage, as you can well imagine, as no phone call would bring happy news. However, he has shown his determination to bring about big change. Graham has recently undertaken a review of the Animal Welfare Act. Although he will not be with us to see the changes, he has paved the way to seeing that the process started.
I thank Graham for all that he has done for the Northern Territory government and the Northern Territory community. He is truly a compassionate man and his belief in water safety and animal welfare has left sound foundations for the future. I wish him all the best in his future endeavours.
Lastly, I acknowledge Mr Michael Banks. Michael will be retiring shortly after a distinguished career. Michael has spent the last period of his working life helping to bring about reform in the local government area. I acknowledge his large contribution. I work with Michael and find him a very intelligent and compassionate man who is dedicated to improving people’s lives.
I will now move on to my electorate. The Clean Up Australia Day in various parts of my electorate occurred. I was fortunate enough to go to the Batchelor Community with my kids and help out the volunteers there. About 30 volunteers took part in the Coomalie Council Clean Up Day. I thank the contribution made by the Recreation and Sports Officer, Jason Scott, who supervised the day. Many people turned out. They went through the town and the various arterial roads, and were able to clean up a great deal of rubbish in that area.
When I left Batchelor, I headed back up the Stuart Highway just in time to catch up with some of the cleanup crews around the Livingstone area, particularly around the Livingstone Airstrip. The Livingstone site supervisor, Lyn Chambers, informed me that around 20 helpers volunteered on the day and cleaned up 24 km of roadside including the Livingstone Airstrip. Glass and plastic bottles, aluminium cans and iced coffee containers made up the bulk of the rubbish collected. The most interesting item found was a local resident’s X-ray pictures, which were delivered back to her the very next day. Cans were also taken to the Scouts for recycling. The after cleanup barbecue which I supported was very well appreciated. I donated some sausages for that, so well done to the guys at Livingstone.
In Pine Creek, they also had a very busy day and their site supervisor was Bob Webbe and Robbo who is John Robertson. They advised me that more than 20 adults and children took part and they collected about 25 bags of rubbish from around the town, including the north and south entrances of the highway bypass.
I also acknowledge in Pine Creek the Shave for a Cure Pine Creek. Congratulations to Gaye Lawrence and Gary Brown whom I had the privilege of sponsoring. Gary looks like a very different man, and so does Gaye if anyone has met Gaye over the time. So congratulations on your efforts there.
I congratulate the Nauiyu community at Daly River for being one of the 2008 finalists in the Keep Australia Beautiful Tidy Towns Awards, and then becoming the winner of the National Litter Prevention Award for 2008. Nauiyu community do sweeps and clean ups to ensure that the local environment continues to be welcoming and well presented to locals and businesses. I quote from the Keep Australia Beautiful media release of 20 April 2008:
The media release went on to say that, while congratulating the community of Nauiyu Nambiyu for their win, Keep Australia Beautiful national chairman, Don Chambers, said:
That is fantastic work by the community.
The Batchelor Neighbourhood Watch group which I helped start and has been a great success, coordinated a bike engraving event at the school. I acknowledge the efforts of Christine Bond who works at the Institute and is the chair of the Neighbourhood Watch. It is a diverse group of people. It solves many of the antisocial behaviours in the town. It has been a kind of circuit breaker for more formal action by the police and the judiciary. It is inspiring to see that they are doing a great job.
The school students thoroughly enjoyed a visit during that engraving day from Hector, the Road Safety Cat, and listened intently to Emily from the Batchelor Police on road safety issues. Approximately 40 bikes were engraved. Sharon McAlear from my office, together with Jason Scott, whom I formerly mentioned from the Coomalie Council, were cooks at the sausage sizzle. The Neighbourhood Watch team at Batchelor work very hard to create a safe environment in the community. I commend them for their dedication and look forward to the next safety session.
I would like to now talk about the Anzac Day service at Adelaide River. The dawn service, as always, was very well attended, with probably about 2000 people. That is the biggest turnout they have ever had. It was like peak hour traffic heading down to Adelaide River, and what is normally a straight-through drive was bumper to bumper with cars. The previous member for Daly, Mr Tim Baldwin, was MC on the day and the schedule of events went very well. Young Zoe Clegg read the Ode. The Last Post was performed by Bill Buckley with the Darwin Brass Band. Theresa Balanzategui led everyone in the national anthem. Thanks very much to Theresa for a great performance. We were very fortunate to have Bill Buckley and five other members of the Darwin Brass Band at this dawn service. These gentlemen chose to perform at the Adelaide River dawn service while the other members of the band marched in the Darwin dawn service Anzac Day in honouring our veterans. Their sacrifice was even more significant this year because of the recent discovery of the HMAS Sydney.
I was very honoured to be invited as the civilian guest speaker. Emotions ran high when I listened to the reading by Bruce Jones of the poem by Paul Bacon, Anzac Spirit. This day was also very special to Derrick Swan who has been a caretaker at the Adelaide River War graves for many years. Derrick will be retiring and advised us that this was his last Anzac Day as caretaker. Traditionally, the ARSS Club conducted a breakfast. I served up eggs and bacon as I am the patron of the ARSS Club. I was very proud that we helped serve breakfast for over 1000 people. The breakfast went on for quite a way into the morning. Bruce Jones, mentioned earlier, is the convener of the two-up and that lent a lovely colour to the day as well.
A fine display of old war-time photos taken of the Adelaide River area during the 1940s was displayed at breakfast. I thank the Northern Territory Library and Anne Devenish, Di Sinclair and, especially, Lynette Aitchison who helped my electorate officer with advise and the reproduction of the photos. The staff worked within a very short time frame. The photo display came together very well. Many took the time to look at the 40 photos displayed. I hope to add to the collection for next year’s dawn service. I also thank the committee of the Adelaide River Show Society for the display they had within the other buildings of the show society.
After I left Adelaide River I went to the Humpty Doo Service which was very well attended. The Humpty Doo service is one that has seemed to grown over the years. I thank all those people who contributed on such a momentous day. As Anzac Day it is salient to reflect on what soldiers have done for us not only in Australia but in the Territory and for the protection of the North. Our thoughts go out to those people who have passed away but also to those Defence personnel who are serving currently overseas.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I pay tribute tonight to a fantastic event we had in Alice Springs which was the Relay for Life for the Cancer Council. It is the third time it has occurred in Alice Springs. Last time we had 14 teams. This year we had 27 and they walked, marched and ran for 18 hours. They raised a huge $70 000 from the community of Alice Springs just for this particular event. That is a very large increase on what they raised last year. It is a great indication of the amount of work that went into the organisation and running of that event. We had huge support from sponsors including $20 000 from the AMP Foundation. The 27 teams really threw themselves into it. I have never seen the oval looking so colourful as it was that night with the number of people staying there.
It was interesting to see some of the school groups there. Boarders from St Philip’s stayed and slept in their swags. They claimed it was far better than sleeping in the boarding house and they really enjoyed it. It is one of those events that brings the community together and acknowledges those who have survived and those who have passed.
It is a fitting tribute to the organisers that it was such a huge success. I acknowledge the work of Nanette Longe, Prue Crouch and Karen Cilka who organised this event. It is unfortunate that we have lost those three workers from the Cancer Council in Alice Springs. I do not think their work is valued and we will not be able to replace them easily with people who will give so much as they have done. It is only a small office but the support they get from the community for the Biggest Morning Tea and the Big Girls’ Pyjama Party is amazing. They have a remarkable commitment to raising enough money to ensure that cancer research continues. At the last screening in Alice Springs, in fact, we had about five women who were found to have breast cancer. These statistics show we need to make a breakthrough in cancer research. We really need to give more support to some of the men in our community and it is nice to know that in the survivors’ race had some male participants.
These women in the Cancer Council do a fantastic job. I thank the people and businesses of Alice Springs that responded in such a fantastic way. Thank you for that huge effort for the Relay for Life for 2008.
We also had Youth Week across the Territory. An interesting event held in Alice Springs was a play put on by the young people of Our Lady of the Sacred Heart College called Mirage. It was a very sensitive play addressing the topic of body image and the effects of the media and peer group pressure on young people’s images of their bodies. Obviously high on the list was anorexia; an affliction many young girls are faced with. It was confronting for an audience to see these young people on stage talking about why they have this problem, why they go about what they do; how they see themselves and what drives them to go down this terrible road.
They had a young boy play a part and tell the story of how he wanted to make his body better by taking all sorts of substances. Speaking to the parents there that night it was clear these issues are very much alive in our high schools. I presume it is the same in Darwin as it is in Alice Springs. To be able to face the fact, to not be in denial, and admit you have a problem is very difficult for families and young people to work through. Some of the parents there asked questions and we had a very informative panel to assist them. I wonder if this play which was so confronting about young people and their eating disorders should be introduced to other high schools.
I commend Rajan Kandasamy, the teacher who organised this, and the young people who performed in it. The actors were Samuel Crowe in the role of Max; Jennifer Garwood as Kate; and Mikaela Bennion and Annelies Doeke. The story revolved around their lives as teenagers and they were very up-front in portraying their eating disorders and the body image problems they have.
They were very typical of teenagers we see in our schools every day. I thank Rajan for doing this. He and those young people who played the parts are to be commended for having the courage to stand up and work through this small production that brought to life a very serious issue in our society.
I also want to talk about young Lara Wood. Lara is 16 and participated in the 2020 Youth Summit in Canberra in April, along with Celeste Brand. They were the two young people representing Alice Springs. I believe there were only four young people, all told, throughout the Territory who actually attended the 2020 summit. Lara was contacted by the Duke of Edinburgh Awards people for her nomination to attend. Her mother told me that when she saw what Lara had written in her nomination form she thought: ‘This kid is going to get accepted’, because she put such a great nomination together.
Lara is a prefect at St Philip’s College and an officer of democracy. Of the 1260 applications to attend the Youth Summit, only 100 from around Australia were chosen between the ages of 15 and 24. You can imagine, out of 1260, Lara was one of the 100, and that is a tremendous result for her. Young indigenous people were well represented, and Lara met many young people from different ethnic and multicultural backgrounds. She enjoyed meeting other young people from other states and territories and she said she learned a great deal.
From the Canberra summit, 11 young people are going to attend the 2020 Summit, but none came from the Northern Territory, which was unfortunate. However, I know they had a lot of input while they were there. The groups were split into four topics: health, housing, education and indigenous treaties. Each group consisted of 20 young people. They were pleased to know that the indigenous treaty would go through to the 2020 Summit and, as we all know, it has been taken on board by the adults who attended the other summit.
Lara’s group discussed indigenous Australia and communities and families, and ended up with an outcome that prevention was better, rather than seeking a solution. How many times have we said this in the House? Rather than trying to put a bandaid on it once it has happened, let us prevent it in the first place. Prevention rather than a cure for future generations was a bigger and better idea, thus providing support for community, families and everyone.
Some of the other issues discussed were health issues such as access to good drinking water, fresh food in the bush stores; limiting access to alcohol; and being charged reasonable prices in some places that ask too much for their drinks. Indigenous communities need to learn how to be healthy, and to promote and maintain mental health. Youth suicide was another issue discussed. Education is the keystone to the future for all young people.
I congratulate Lara and Celeste for their participation in the 2020 summit. They did the Territory proud having two young people who were able to stand up and be so articulate, and came back knowing what they had achieved. Good luck to them in their future careers.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
DISTINGUISHED VISITOR
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the Speaker’s Gallery of Mr Emanuel Comino OAM JP, and Mrs Angelica Poulos, a local member of the Darwin Greek Community.
I advise that Mr Comino is here at the invitation of Darwin’s Greek Community as the founder and chairman of the International Organising Committee for the Restitution of the Parthenon Marbles, which was established in 1981. He made history in 2003 when he presented the case for the return of the Parthenon Marbles to Greece at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague in the Netherlands. He has stated that Lord Elgin’s taking of the world’s greatest single collection of classical Greek sculptures is probably the world’s most celebrated cultural property dispute.
On behalf of all honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I also advise you of the presence in the gallery of Year 11 students from Marrara Christian College accompanied by Tony Rowden; and Year 3/4 Larrakeyah Primary School students accompanied by Sue Folley. On behalf of all honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
PETITION
World War II Museum – Placement next to Parliament House
World War II Museum – Placement next to Parliament House
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I present a petition, not conforming with standing orders, from 1131 petitioners relating to a museum being built next to Parliament House. 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 respectfully request that the Northern Territory government abandon its plans to build a museum next to Parliament House.
- Your petitioners therefore humbly pray that the Northern Territory government invest in upgrading East Point Military Museum. East Point Military Museum is an important and valuable historic asset. It could become a major attraction, allowing Australians and overseas visitors to learn more about Darwin’s role as Australia’s front line during World War II.
- And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
Member for Port Darwin
Member for Port Darwin
Ms LAWRIE (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that leave of absence be granted for the member for Port Darwin for today due to ill health.
Motion agreed to.
MINISTERIAL REPORTS
May Day Celebration
May Day Celebration
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, today marks an important celebration for Territory working families and the Labor movement, May Day. It is great on May Day to see so many students here in the gallery - and big, warm welcome to all.
It is a day which we in the broader Labor movement remember and celebrate but, also, one which we look forward to the future. It is very much to building a stronger economic future that this government dedicates itself. For us, it is far more than a simple public holiday though, of course, it is appropriate that we celebrate it with a day off. After all, its origin since its first celebration 118 years ago was in the International Labor Campaign for an eight-hour day. We celebrate the key role Labor has always played in pursuing and promoting social progress in the home, the workplace and the broader community. For us in the Australian Labor Party, May Day is an assertion of our central commitment to social justice as epitomised by Ben Chifley’s 1949 historic Light on the Hill speech.
In recent times few can be regarded as being more successful than the campaign leading up to the last federal election against WorkChoice. That miserably misnamed experiment by the ousted Howard government removed the rights in the workplace of Australian working families. No one can minimise the importance of the Labor movement and Australian Trade Unions, and the campaign which led to the election of the Rudd Labor government on 24 November last year.
It is a day in which we can and must also look forward, and that was the central message of Ben Chifley’s 1949 speech. It means that Labor, in government, commits to a strong economy that will maximise properly paid and decent employment conditions. It means committing to looking out for people who are experiencing life’s difficulties, and creating safer communities. It means a community with opportunities available in education and training and in which there is a health system that can serve the whole community and not just the well off.
That is what this government has been about since 2001. We have achieved much, but there is always much more to do. The development of a strong economy is at the heart of this government’s social program and our commitment to a fair and equitable Northern Territory, but it does not happen randomly or by accident.
We are projected by next year to have an economy growing at 7% - the fastest in the nation. There will be another 5000 of us in jobs, and the highest current levels of business confidence in Australia. We have established an environment in which business, big and small, has the confidence to invest. We have been level-headed and careful, but not afraid to invest in the future for all Territorians. This has meant investing in hard infrastructure of economic drivers such as the waterfront, the port, the oil and gas industry, roads, railways, schools, police stations and health facilities. It has also meant investing in social infrastructure such as more teachers for our children and youth, more nurses and health professionals, more doctors, and more police for community safety. Above all, it has been about having a vision that is well clear of the narrow confines of the electoral cycle. This is no better summed up through our strong commitment to Closing the Gap over the next five, 10 and 20 years.
Next Monday, together with my friends in the Labor movement, I will be marching - I have not missed one march in Darwin since 1987 - and, after that, will attend the traditional May Day Concert on the Esplanade.
I also table for honourable members - and maybe for the children and students here in the gallery - a copy of Ben Chifley’s 1949 speech because, whichever side of the political fence we sit on, we can all find some real importance and urgency that that speech still stirs. I will quote into the Parliamentary Record the central part of Ben Chifley’s speech:
- I try to think of the Labor movement, not as putting an extra sixpence into somebody’s pocket, or making somebody Prime Minister or Premier, but as a movement being something better to the people, better standards of living, greater happiness to the mass of the people. We have a great objective - the light on the hill - which we aim to reach by working for the betterment of mankind not only here but anywhere we may give a helping hand. If it were not for that, the Labor movement would not be worth fighting for.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, with the reference to a light on the hill, I believe there was some sharing of a common objective; that being the advancement of social progress and justice. The achievement of this was principally held up in the ability of citizens to own their own home which was the cornerstone of a civil society.
When we are talking about such things, and trying to achieve such objectives, it has to be distressing to the Chief Minister, as it is to me and other members here, when we have constituents who are having great difficulty finding affordable homes. In my own electorate, there are senior citizens who are in terrible trouble trying to find a place to rent, such is the competition within the Northern Territory rental market, particularly in the Top End, and also in Alice Springs and other places across the Territory. To own a home is the cornerstone of a civil society. A place like the Northern Territory has an abundance of land. It rests with us politicians to be able to solve that problem. We should be able to solve that problem because we have been to countries where there is genuinely a shortage of land, and there is no such problem here. That is a problem that can be solved if we want to achieve that light on the hill.
For those good families who own their own homes and feel safe in the borders of those homes, they need to have some respect for law and order established, and community standards reinforced in a real and practical way. This will reinforce the statements that are made by practical effort such as a well-resourced and focused police force, so that we have law and order that is a respect for law. People then know that law is being reinforced and backed up and that there is ensuing social order. I believe Ben Chifley would rejoice if we secured those two things: social progress through proper housing, and social justice through reinforcing law and order.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his report. On May Day, we should also remember the families. The emphasis in your economy statement was about families. Labor, for many years - especially when I was young - supported families. To some extent, they have drifted away from that. We now have families where both parents have to work long hours to provide enough money to pay for mortgages and a high cost of living.
The other pressure is what the Leader of the Opposition just said; that is, the provision of affordable land and housing in our community. If you look at the rural area today, a one-hectare block is now $270 000, and two-hectare blocks are now selling for over $300 000, well out of the reach of the ordinary working family. If a family can reach that, they have to work and have two incomes to provide enough money to pay for it. I believe that is a reflection on society that is bad.
I am also interested in hearing what the Chief Minister would say about teachers in relation to May Day. Teachers are asking for better conditions and better resourcing. They, I am sure, will be marching on May Day. I am interested to hear what the minister has to say about their role in our labour force ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, your time has expired.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, in the spirit of May Day, I will not get political in my response. However, I will point out that, yes, along with the member for Blain, there is concern about the tightness of the rental market and rents in the economy. However, it is one of the prices of a strong economy. We have people flooding to the Northern Territory for work.
We do have a land release program. We have to be very careful, given that people are buying into the market at high prices, that we do not flood the market and devalue people’s assets. That is always a challenge.
However, we have more people working. We have more people earning better incomes. In the spirit of families, there was no greater attack on families than John Howard’s WorkChoices. The fact that that is now going to be overturned is going to support families right across Australia with being able to negotiate decent wages and working conditions in the workplace to the benefit of all Territorians.
Train Level Crossings - Upgrade
Ms LAWRIE (Infrastructure and Transport): Madam Speaker, I report on the Territory government’s commitment to upgrading train crossings across the Northern Territory. Community safety is a priority for the Henderson government, and our investment in upgrading level crossing safety will deliver a safer road and rail network for all Territorians.
Two significant level crossing crashes occurred in 2006, the first involving a freight train on 26 October, and the second involving The Ghan on 12 December. Both level crossing crashes were investigated by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau. The drivers of the cars involved in both crashes have been convicted for numerous traffic offences, including an act causing serious actual danger, and driving unsafe in a motor vehicle. One driver was also convicted for not stopping at a stop sign at a level crossing, driving a motor vehicle without fastened seatbelt, driving an unregistered motor vehicle, and driving uninsured.
Since that time, the government has announced a number of measures to address level crossing safety in the Territory, and these include: we are spending more than $150 000 on crossing safety awareness, with increased infringement penalties for failing to comply with traffic signals at level crossings from $80 to $500; and we have increased enforcement at rail crossings throughout the Territory. Strategies have included both overt and covert enforcement.
The government has undertaken assessments of all level crossings in the Territory, including changes in any use since the railway commenced its operation. While all of our rail crossings currently meet the Australian Standard, we are committed to railway crossing safety so, on 24 April this year, I announced that a $6.4m major rail safety upgrade will be delivered as part of Budget 2008-09. This will deliver increased safety for Territory families on our road and rail network.
The Territory government has worked closely with FreightLink, the AustralAsia Railway Corporation and the Australian Trucking Association to identify the areas for the upgrades. Factors such as traffic volume, heavy vehicle usage and sight lines were considered in identifying the priorities. The upgrades will include more crossing signals, boom gates, bells, advanced warning signs and vegetation management.
The trial rail crossings identified for upgrades have spread through the length of the railway corridor from the south of Alice Springs to the north of Palmerston. The upgrade will be undertaken over two years with completion of all crossings targeted for the 2009-10 financial year. Some of them include: boom gates at Bradshaw Drive in Alice Springs; lights, bells and boom gates at Ilparpa Road, Alice Springs; an advance warning system at Wishart Road, Darwin; lights and bells at Fountain Head Road, Darwin region; lights and bells at Leonino Road, Darwin region; lights, bells and boom gates at Elizabeth River boat ramp at Darwin; advance warning system and road speed to be reduced to 80 km/h at the Kakadu Highway, Darwin region; realignment of the crossing at the Gardens Road, Alice Springs region; advance warning system at Cox Peninsula Road, Darwin region; advance warning system at Western Creek Road, Katherine region; boom gates at Larapinta Drive in Alice Springs; and slip lanes at Commonage Road, Alice Springs.
The Northern Territory government’s $6.4m rail crossing upgrade package targets the higher risk crossings and will increase the safety of our rail line and our road network. I thank all of the people and organisations who have contributed to the level crossings report that came before government to consider. I am happy to say that we are ahead of all other jurisdictions in Australia in improving our rail level crossings. We took the opportunity to do an entire and extensive audit of all of our level crossings and, whilst they all do meet the current Australian Standards, we take the view that the price for safety is never too high; we are going to put in additional safety measures as outlined.
What we are seeing is increased activity across the rail network. We have, through the mining boom, larger amounts of freight that is coming up and mineral loads are increasing on our rail network. Obviously, the number of trucks to and from our mines is increasing. With this increased usage, we took the opportunity of increasing the level of safety at our rail crossings.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for her report. It is very important that our railway crossings are considered safe. We have known all along that they meet the national standards. It is just as well we put a railway in that did meet those, isn’t it? It is thanks to the CLP that the railway is there.
We have been taught to always assume there is going to be a train at a railway crossing. Unfortunately, many people do not see it that way. They think there is spare space on either side and charge across the railway crossing without looking. It is most unfortunate that this amount of money has to be spent to ensure that our railway crossings are safe.
I welcome it. There needs to be a high level of safety devices installed at all of those crossings. I am wondering, however, if the minister, in her reply, could give us an update on how the trucking industry is feeling about the serious concerns they have about our roads? I am aware there are some rumblings. Maybe the minister would like to share what those are with the rest of the parliament.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, when I heard you were going to talk about the railway, I thought: ‘Oh great, we can talk about lots of things’. Whilst I appreciate the importance of the upgrading of the railway crossings, especially as we have had a number of fatalities and crashes in the Northern Territory, I believe we should have a statement on the railway. I consider it an important part of the Territory, an importance worthy of a great deal more debate than a few minutes at the beginning of parliamentary sittings.
I remember, earlier this year, a statement in the Katherine Times by the member for Casuarina, where he spoke about the possibility of a rail link between Katherine and Darwin. I presume this would be in the form of a motor rail passenger line. I mentioned this way back, I think at the time when the railway was officially opened, and was laughed at. Now I see one of the members from the other side who was laughing at me, announce that this would be a great idea for Katherine.
I still think it would be a great idea for Katherine; with a line going into Darwin city. We could have a spur line into the rural area. As a government, it is time we started to get more visionary. People in the early 1900s had the vision to put railway lines out to the suburbs of the big cities. They are used so much today. They would have gone out to rural areas in those days. If they had the vision to do that, why are we not doing something similar?
Railways are not a new technology – they are something we are able to build without having to reinvent the wheel. Yet, we do not seem to be looking at the extra uses the rail could be used for in the Territory in moving passengers. You are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on Tiger Brennan Drive. Why? Because the amount of traffic on our roads is increasing.
We should be seriously looking at alternative transport - not just buses, but transport like passenger railways to reduce the need to build more and more roads because we are allowing more and more traffic to go on those roads ...
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, your time has expired.
Ms LAWRIE (Infrastructure and Transport): Madam Speaker, I thank the opposition support for the level crossing upgrades. I do not think that $6.4m to save lives is unreasonable. I would expect a debate at the national level regarding level crossing safety, particularly after the horrific train accident at Kerang in Victoria. I expect that we are one step ahead of what the national standards will actually move to. If we were to delay these upgrades to when national standards move, it would cost a whole lot more in the future to create this extra level of safety.
In regard to the trucking industry, there is no doubt that our road network needs upgrading. That is why this government has a record roads budget of $271m this year. That is why this government is putting additional millions of dollars into repairs and maintenance when John Howard, their Liberal mate, robbed the Territory of $90m in roads funding - independent statistics outside the department. $90m was ripped off by your mate, John Howard, in Canberra …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
Medical Education and Training - Review
Dr BURNS (Health): Madam Speaker, the Northern Territory offers many unique opportunities to develop and build an appropriately trained medical workforce which meets the needs of our community. However, there are also challenges for our medical workforce which include a geographical application, small or large; small and dispersed population; no local medical school; small number of doctors; challenging geographical and climatic factors; and one large urban centre and four regional hospitals staffed by a large number of internationally trained medical graduates.
Despite these challenges, we have the potential to develop comprehensive health care services across the Territory. In 2007, Dr David Ashbridge, Chief Executive Officer of the Department of Health and Community Services, commissioned a review of medical education and training in the Northern Territory. The review’s report was launched in February 2008 and identified that, despite having 37 identified providers of a medical education in the Northern Territory there were gaps and duplication that needed immediate attention. All of the urgent recommendations have been acted upon.
We are re-establishing a Northern Territory Postgraduate Medical Education Council. Professor Peter Roeser, former Medical Director of Queensland’s Postgraduate Medical Education Council, and Ms Debra Le Bhers, Chief Executive Officer of the Postgraduate Medical Education Council of Queensland, have been appointed to lead this implementation and re-establishment of the Postgraduate Medical Education Council in the Northern Territory.
We are progressing nationally consistent assessment processes for international medical graduates. With the implementation of the national assessments systems, there will be new pathways to register for those doctors. The report also made recommendations for a more cohesive and coordinated approach for the future provision of education training and management of the medical workforce. This recommendation is being actioned this week with the Medical Education and Training Summit. It was my pleasure to welcome the 98 delegates from major universities, medical training bodies and professional colleges around Australia, as well as our own leading professionals, to the summit.
Mr Robert Wells, Director of the Menzies Centre for Health Policy and the Executive Director of the College of Medicine and Health Services at the Australia National University in Canberra was chair of the summit. He is one of the most highly-respected medical educators in the country, with experience in primary care, private health insurance, rural health, and health workforce policy issues.
The priority of the summit was to determine strategies that are achievable, workable and satisfy the educational and training requirements of the Northern Territory medical workforce, and also meet the distinctive needs of our community now and into the future.
The summit developed many outcomes to guide future development of the medical workforce including:
1. strategies to increase medical students coming to the Territory and more Territorians to undertake medical training, including indigenous students;
The summit generated strong enthusiasm for a better coordinated approach between the universities and the medical colleges and our doctors.
Mr Wells commended the Northern Territory for our courage and leadership in taking a hard look at our system and what we need to build upon it. With such broad representation and commitment, I am confident the Medical Education and Training Summit will produce outcomes that will contribute to better integrated and coordinated education and training that achieves high-quality training and education, promoting improved retention of the Northern Territory medical workforce.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his report; we welcome that. Training doctors in the Northern Territory for the Territory is very important. It has been highlighted in recent reports that the Territory has missed opportunities training its own doctors to target specific areas of health care in the Northern Territory, particularly in indigenous health.
The Country Liberal Party has been supportive of the proposed oncology unit that was promised in 2001. I also note in this year’s budget media release which you put out, we have not seen any real detail about funding for that oncology unit. Therefore, when or if that is actually built - when or if it is, if we give the government the benefit of the doubt and say that it will be completed whenever that might be - talking about training, we suggest placing oncology specialists in Adelaide - one Registrar and two radiation therapists - to train them in Adelaide to bring up to the Darwin oncology unit. Obviously, if we are going to have an oncology unit we need those specialists here, and we need the best possible specialists.
Since 2001, we have seen an 89% increase in health funding, and this latest budget, I think, is a third of the health budget - $915m. It is a huge spend, with a 5% increase in population. Yet, we are still seeing patients treated in the back of ambulances at the Royal Darwin Hospital. This is totally unacceptable, minister. You know that it is unacceptable. We need to get inputs and outcomes. That is what it is all about. There is funding of $915m and, yet, we are still seeing people treated in ambulance bays at Royal Darwin Hospital. Not only is it, obviously, not providing beds for those patients, but it is tying up valuable resources such as ambulances.
Overall, training doctors and specialist health care professionals in the Northern Territory should be the utmost priority. We welcome the report today.
Dr BURNS (Health): Madam Speaker, in relation to radiation oncology unit, as I have said publicly, we are progressing that particular project. Regarding training of radiation oncology specialists, that will be attended to within the proposal. That is, basically, what is contained within the funding.
In the health budget, yes, it is $915m, and it is a lot of money. Talking about Royal Darwin Hospital, we have actually doubled the expenditure on Royal Darwin Hospital since we came to power. We have put 70 extra beds into Royal Darwin Hospital since we came to power, and that is not including the 24 bed Rapid Admissions Planning Unit. Yes, there is congestion. Our Emergency departments are three times as busy as other Emergency departments around Australia. However, we have further plans about placing aged people who are currently occupying beds in Royal Darwin Hospital back out in the community.
Madam Speaker, this is a government with a plan for our hospitals, and we are moving forward on it.
Reports noted pursuant to standing orders.
MOTION
Estimates Committee and Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee
Estimates Committee and Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee
Ms LAWRIE (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move - That the Assembly appoint an Estimates Committee and the Government Owned Corporation Scrutiny Committee in terms of the motion circulated to members yesterday at notices.
I do not propose to read out the motion in full; however, I seek leave of the Assembly to have the motion incorporated in the Parliamentary Record and the Minutes of Proceedings of the Assembly.
Leave granted.
ESTIMATES COMMITTEE 2008-09
TERMS OF REFERENCE
- A. INTRODUCTION
2. That the Schedule to the Appropriation Bill 2008-09 and related budget documents be referred to the Estimates Committee for examination and report on proposed expenditure when the bill has been presented.
3. That the committee may not vote on but may examine and report on the proposed expenditure contained in the bill by no later than 20 June 2008.
4. That the committee examine the proposed expenditure contained in the bill by portfolio units in accordance with the schedule and that the proposed expenditure be considered on an output-by-output basis for each portfolio unit.
15. If at any time a quorum is not present, the Chairman will suspend proceedings of the committee until a quorum is present, or adjourn the committee until a time and/or date to be fixed.
C. SITTING TIMES
- 16. The Estimates Committee will meet in accordance with the dates and times in the schedule adopted by the Assembly or as otherwise ordered by the committee and advised by the Chairman.
- (a) on Tuesday 17 June 2008 commencing at 8.30 am and adjourning at 11 pm;
D. HEARING PROCEDURE
At that time the Chairman shall note the question or that part of the question taken on notice and any clarification required. The text of questions on notice will be distributed to the minister (or Speaker) by the Committee Secretariat.
28. The additional information or answer is to be written and given by a time decided by the committee and may be included in a volume of additional information to be laid on the table of the Assembly by the Chairman of the committee at the time of its report or at a later date, which shall be no later than the next sittings of the Assembly and may be authorised for publication by the committee prior to that material being tabled in the Assembly.
G. BROADCASTING AND TELEVISING OF PROCEEDINGS
- 32. Sound and vision broadcast and re-broadcast of the hearings of the Estimates Committee will be allowed, subject to the same conditions which apply to the sittings of the Assembly and as determined by the committee.
- 33. At an Estimates Committee hearing the Chairman may, after a warning, order any member of the Assembly whose conduct, in the opinion of the Chairman, continues to be disorderly or disruptive to withdraw from the committee for a period of 1 hour.
- (a) the Chair may name the member;
- (a) the objection must be taken at once and stated in writing;
(b) the Chair as soon as practicable advises the Speaker who makes a ruling on the matters; and
(c) the Estimates Committee may continue to meet but not further examine the matter then under consideration and which is the subject of the objection.
- 38. A report of the Estimates Committee will be presented by the Chairman to the Committee-of-the-Whole Assembly and the report should contain any resolution or expression of opinion of the committee.
- “that the proposed expenditure be agreed to and that the resolutions or expressions of opinion as agreed to by the committees in relation to the proposed expenditure or outputs with reference to the Appropriation Bill 2008-09; and
The maximum period for consideration shall be 5 hours.
- 41. When the consideration of the reports of the committees has been completed the following question is proposed and put forthwith:
- "that the remainder of the bill be agreed to".
__________________
GOVERNMENT OWNED CORPORATIONS SCRUTINY COMMITTEE 2008-09
TERMS OF REFERENCE
TERMS OF REFERENCE
INTRODUCTION
- 1. That, notwithstanding anything contained in standing orders and sessional orders there be appointed a committee of the Legislative Assembly to be known as the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee for the purpose of examining and reporting on the activities, performance, practices and financial management of the Power and Water Corporation, a Government Owned Corporation under the Government Owned Corporations Act, with reference to the Power and Water Corporation’s Statement of Corporate Intent for 2008-09.
- 2. The membership of the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee shall consist of the membership of the Public Accounts Committee.
21. Questions and explanations should be brief and avoid irrelevance and tedious repetition.
HANSARD REPORT AND OTHER TABLED DOCUMENTS
- (a) the Chair may name the member;
- (a) the objection must be taken at once and stated in writing;
REPORT OF GOVERNMENT OWNED CORPORATIONS SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
- "that the proposed expenditure be agreed to and that the resolutions or expressions of opinion as agreed to by the committees in relation to the proposed expenditure or outputs with reference to the Appropriation Bill 2008-09, or the activities, performance, practices and financial management of the Power and Water Corporation with reference to its Statements of Corporate Intent for 2008-09, be noted "
Motion agreed to.
PUBLIC TRANSPORT (PASSENGER SAFETY) BILL
(Serial 144)
(Serial 144)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms LAWRIE (Infrastructure and Transport): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
The bill I introduce today will implement another important measure under the government’s strategy of Building Safer Communities. The bill creates a range of new powers which will enable the Department of Planning and Infrastructure’s Transport Safety Officer functions to move towards one of hands-on law enforcement.
The government previously introduced Transport Safety Officers on to the school and passenger bus networks as a safety and security presence on the buses and at bus interchanges. From the beginning, it was evident that the officers were having a very positive effect, improving the level of safety for the travelling public and drivers, as well as acting as ambassadors for Northern Territory public transport.
What also became apparent was that the officers needed further powers to enable them to be more effective in dealing with problem passengers and other persons on the bus network. To that end, the Transport Safety Officers were given training and powers to be inspectors under the Commercial Passenger (Road) Transport Act along with the power to issue trespass notices under the Trespass Act.
In addition, consultants experienced in Northern Territory law enforcement were employed by the department to further enhance the skills of the Transport Safety Officers and develop closer working relationships between police and Transport Safety Officers.
The government did not stop there in its efforts to improve the level of safety and security for the travelling public and for our hard-working bus drivers and their support staff. Urgent steps were taken by government to examine how the powers of Transport Safety Officers could be increased so that they had legal authority to intervene in conflict situations and, at the same time, provide the necessary safeguards for the travelling public, the officers themselves, and the Territory.
The Department of Planning and Infrastructure put together a steering committee of senior officers, including expert representatives from the Northern Territory Police and the Department of Justice, to develop the necessary increased powers and safeguards for Transport Safety Officers. The steering committee also drew on the operational processes and legislation used by similar interstate public transport authorities in order to learn from their knowledge and experience in this area.
The Department of Planning and Infrastructure also began work on the development of the necessary employment, operational, policy and management structures that are required to support the new Transport Safety Officers’ functions.
The key powers and safeguards to be implemented in this bill are:
- the Director of Transport, a statutory officer under the Traffic Act, will have the power to appoint persons to be known as ‘transit officers’.
only suitably-trained transit officers who are public servants employed under the Public Sector Employment and Management Act are to be eligible for appointment as a transit officer.
appointed transit officers are to carry identity cards and are required to produce that card for inspection before exercising any of their powers.
Transit officers are also required to produce their identity card for inspection by the public upon request.
Transit officers will incur no civil or criminal liability for any act or omission in the exercising of their powers committed in good faith. Where any liability is attached, this liability is attached to the Territory.
rules of behaviour have been created to detail appropriate behaviour by the public on buses and at bus stations (a bus station being a bus interchange or a bus stop). A person must comply with any reasonable directions given by a transit officer in relation to a rule of behaviour, or the person may commit an offence against the act that will be dealt with as an infringement notice offence.
transit officers can exercise their powers on or in the vicinity of a bus, or at or in the vicinity of a bus station.
transit officers have the power to require people to provide their name, address, and date of birth, and to produce specific evidence of their identity that will assist the officer in the investigation of an offence.
transit officers have the power to direct a person to get off a bus, or to go away and stay away from a bus station where a person has contravened an officer’s direction. A transit officer may use force that is reasonably necessary to remove a person from a bus or bus station where that person has not complied with a direction to go away and stay away.
transit officers have the power where they believe, on reasonable grounds, that a person has committed an offence warranting arrest, to arrest and detain that person. Unless the person is released beforehand, the transit officer must, as soon as practicable, deliver the arrested person into the custody of a member of the police force (including transporting the arrested person to a police station) to be dealt with according to law. Officers will also be bound by the Youth Justice Act whenever they have grounds to arrest and detain a juvenile, in the same way as a police officer is obliged.
- offences warranting arrest include certain offences under the Summary Offences Act, the Trespass Act and the Criminal Code Act. Offences warranting arrest include a contravention of a rule of behaviour after a person has been warned by a transit officer to comply.
- transit officers are able to, where necessary, carry a frisk search of an arrested person and seize any dangerous articles, as well as search any property in the person’s immediate possession for any dangerous articles. When searching a juvenile, transit officers will be bound by the Youth Justice Act in the same way as a police officer.
- the bill requires the Director of Transport to establish a system of administrative review for dealing with public complaints about the conduct of transit officers, and publish the details for the public to make a complaint, and the procedures for review, on the agency website.
- the bill provides for offences where a person obstructs a transit officer from exercising their powers or incites others to obstruct or hinder a transit officer. The bill also makes it an offence to damage or interfere with security cameras on buses and at interchanges.
- the bill also provides for an infringement notice scheme that operates in a manner similar to schemes already operating in the Northern Territory, such as the Traffic Infringement Notice Scheme under the Traffic Act.
The government is aware that these new powers to be exercised by transit officers are akin to those of a police constable and, therefore, it is critical that people employed to be transit officers meet the highest standards of integrity and character. For that reason, the bill requires that a person intending to be employed as a transit officer provides authority to the Director of Transport to receive and consider their criminal history, including any spent convictions. The need for the highest standards and public confidence is such that the bill ousts the Anti-Discrimination Act as it relates to treating a spent conviction as an irrelevant record for work purposes. Provision has also been made to include a range of disqualifying offences for persons intending to become transit officers. No other Territory law enforcement officer has such stringent legislative requirements placed upon their employment.
It is also acknowledged by government that to exercise such power of arrest, power of search, or power to use force against another, must only be exercised by those persons who are suitable for such employment. Before they are employed, applicants will need to pass aptitude, physical fitness, and medical and psychological assessments similar to those faced by police and Corrections applicants. Successful applicants to be transit officers will need to successfully complete an accredited training course delivered by a registered training provider.
Transit officers will be public servants under the Public Sector Employment and Management Act. The act gives the necessary legislative framework to enable the Director of Transport to manage the performance and discipline of transit officers, and still provide the officers with the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness. As a further safeguard, the bill allows the director to authorise a written code of conduct detailing standards of integrity and behaviour to be observed by transit officers. A contravention of the code of conduct will be grounds for the director to investigate the grounds for continued employment and appointment of a person to be a public servant and/or a transit officer.
Part 3 of the bill details the rules of behaviour for all persons travelling on buses and at bus stations. These rules of behaviour have mostly been drawn from the Passenger Bus Regulations and have now been placed centrally in this bill. For that reason, this bill repeals those applicable regulations from the Passenger Bus Regulations.
The bill preserves the powers of bus drivers and inspectors by making them ex-officio transit officers, but without the power of arrest, power of search, or power to use force against another. This enables bus drivers and inspectors to direct passengers as required, and for inspectors and other authorised persons to issue infringement notices as they have done under the Passenger Bus Regulations. The rules of behaviour are offences of strict liability that have a maximum penalty of 20 penalty units; that is, $2200. However, where appropriate, allowance has been made for transit officers to make reasonable directions for compliance, and for a person to comply with a direction of an officer as soon as is practicable.
Part 4 of the bill relating to the powers of transit officers has been given careful consideration, such that powers of the transit officer to arrest, search and use force are set at the same level as that of a police officer. This is important, as it is a requirement for a transit officer to deliver an arrested person into the custody of a member of the police force, to be dealt with under law. If the standards of evidence were different between the two agencies, this could lead to a situation where alleged offenders may need to be released without charge, or held while further evidence was obtained.
A memorandum of understanding between Northern Territory Police and the Department of Planning and Infrastructure will be developed to establish the necessary levels of support and cooperation between the agencies to underpin transit officer operations. This bill will result in transit officers being able to provide a more effective safety and security presence on the school and passenger bus networks.
Transit officers will be specially selected and appropriately trained and equipped for this function. Transit officers will operate within a professional management structure that will see the careful and considered exercising of these new powers. At the same time, the bill provides for stringent safeguards for the benefit of the travelling public, the transit officers themselves, and the Territory.
I am sure honourable members will support this important new bill that strengthens the government’s strategic intent of building safer communities, and provides another arm of law enforcement to assist the police in the shared goal of maintaining public law and order. The travelling public and the wider community have a right to expect they should be safe when travelling on buses or waiting at bus interchanges, and that they have the protection of transit officers who have the appropriate training, equipment and powers to deal lawfully and fairly with those persons who transgress the laws of the Territory.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
MISUSE OF DRUGS AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 145)
(Serial 145)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Dr BURNS (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a second time.
The purpose of this bill is to increase the maximum penalty for supplying Schedule 2 dangerous drugs in indigenous communities. In September 2007, as part of the Commonwealth intervention in the Northern Territory, alcohol was banned in prescribed areas, which include most remote Aboriginal communities and town camps. The Commonwealth minister for Indigenous Affairs, Hon Jenny Macklin MP, recently visited the Northern Territory. She was told by community members that the use of cannabis had increased since the intervention. The Chief Minister and bush MLAs have heard similar reports. A recently published observational study conducted by researches from the Menzies School of Health Research noted an increase in cannabis use, and the problems associated with its use, since the commencement of the alcohol restrictions in remote communities under the intervention.
On 10 March 2008, the Chief Minister announced that the government would be increasing the penalty for supplying drugs in all indigenous communities. This bill represents a commitment that government is serious about tackling the devastating impact that alcohol and drugs is having on families in indigenous communities. Although this bill targets a range of dangerous drugs, it is well known amongst health workers and the police that cannabis, in particular, has been seen to be linked to harm in the community.
The price paid by a remote community for cannabis abuse is substantially greater than in a major centre like Darwin. In communities where cannabis use is prevalent there is less money available for the purchase of food and other necessities. The use of cannabis in these communities can be linked to other harm such as people fighting with their families to get money for drugs, people fighting when they cannot get access to drugs, and neglected children. The Northern Territory Board of Inquiry into the Protection of Aboriginal Children from Sexual Abuse report, Little Children are Sacred, found that cannabis was a significant issue for participants at nearly every community meeting the board of inquiry held.
Participants identified that cannabis had a negative effect on community and family life and, in particular, on the care and protection of children. The negative effects of cannabis within indigenous communities was a significant contributing factor in government’s decision to make the penalty for the offence of supplying drugs to those communities more serious. However, to increase the penalty for cannabis alone could simply lead to potential offenders supplying another drug such as amphetamine. Just as we have seen the restrictions of alcohol result in an increase in cannabis abuse, isolating cannabis as the only drug to attract a higher penalty could lead to increase supply of other drugs and, therefore, the problem would continue. For this reason, all Schedule 2 dangerous drugs under the Misuse of Drugs Act which are supplied to indigenous communities will attract a higher maximum penalty.
Some consideration was given as to how best define what constitutes an indigenous community. Ultimately, it was decided the easiest way to do this was to rely on the parameters set by the Commonwealth government in the Northern Territory National Emergency Response Act. These parameters were set to restrict the possession of alcohol into the same community; this bill now seeks to target the supply of drugs. However, while the Commonwealth act sets up appropriate parameters for most indigenous communities, it does not provide for all of them.
As a result, it will be necessary to allow government to make regulations to ensure communities not already covered by the Commonwealth legislation can be included in this amendment. As members would be aware, the Commonwealth legislation has a sunset clause and will expire in 2012. After that time, the prescribed areas as defined in the Commonwealth act may not have any further application in the Northern Territory.
This, of course, will impact upon the application of this bill. To ensure the continued application of the provision, it is proposed that all indigenous communities currently defined under the Commonwealth legislation will be progressively listed in Northern Territory regulations. This will ensure that, by 2012, when the Commonwealth legislation ceases to operate, this provision will have continued relevance in the Territory by virtue of the regulations now listing all the indigenous communities over which the provision applies.
Consideration has been given to the potential impact the Racial Discrimination Act may have on this bill. Is government unfairly targeting our indigenous population by increasing penalties for drug laws only in their communities? No, Madam Speaker. Dangerous drugs defined under the Misuse of Drugs Act are prohibited everywhere. What this bill does is increase the penalty to supply in particular areas. It does not matter who is doing the supplying, they will all face the same penalty. While some persons who are apprehended will be local indigenous people, police quite regularly apprehend systematic and organised drug suppliers who travel directly into the communities from southern states and elsewhere in the Northern Territory in order to facilitate elicit drug supply. These people will also fall under the new provision if they are found with a trafficable quantity of drugs. If they are found supplying in commercial quantities, then the different provision of the act applies and the penalty is heavier again.
The Supreme Court has also recently indicated that it will view all future supplies into indigenous communities as a particularly serious element of aggravation in this type of offending. Clearly, this comment, as well as these amendments, is not intended to unfairly target local residents of our indigenous communities. However, in the light of the recent reports, research, and community consultations regarding the negative impact that drugs are having on our indigenous communities, this bill seeks to work in conjunction with all other initiatives, such as the Commonwealth intervention, as well as this government’s Closing the Gap initiatives. This bill offers significant deterrents to those who threaten the safety and harmony of indigenous communities.
I also draw the attention of members to proposed new section 44. It is a generally accepted principle that the penalty to be applied to a person convicted of an offence is the penalty in place at the time when the offence is committed, rather than the time when the conviction takes place. Proposed new section 44 removes any doubt about the application of this general principle for these changes. The legislation does not retrospectively increase the maximum penalty.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and table a copy of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT (ASSAULT ON DRIVERS OF COMMERCIAL PASSENGER VEHICLES) BILL
(Serial 138)
(Serial 138)
Continued from 21 February 2008.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, this bill is supported. The amendment is a relatively minor amendment to the offence of assault in the Criminal Code, and it means that a common assault is classified as an aggravated assault if the person assaulted is a commercial passenger driver. The reason for the minor change is because if the driver assaulted receives an injury because of the assault it would have been aggravated. I am sorry, could I withdraw that, Madam Speaker? There are a number of typos in the document from which I am reading.
It is, in any case, a minor amendment and it makes an assault an aggravated assault where the person is a driver. In fact, I think I might throw that all away.
It is supported. I note that the government has been successful in selling the story, if you like, to the community. We know the genesis of this. If memory serves me correctly, either the Leader of the Opposition or the CLP in the last term proposed a similar amendment. Of course, therefore, we support it. You will get the glory but, then again, that is the nature of politics in terms of government and opposition. It would be unwise for us to oppose this legislation.
All of us should be deeply concerned about the risks drivers face every day. I note that the government has, in fairness, tried a number of things to further enhance driver safety but it remains an issue. This is not the forum during which we would get into a debate about crime statistics, but underlying the reason for this amendment is that we are living in a more dangerous place. Anyone who saw the lead story on Channel 9 news last night would be hard pressed to argue otherwise. In any event, we support the bill.
Ms LAWRIE (Infrastructure and Transport): Madam Speaker, as the minister for Transport, I wholeheartedly welcome the opposition’s support of this amendment. The shadow spokesperson is correct. It is a minor amendment, but it makes a very big difference to sending a message - a very clear message - that we will not tolerate thugs and thuggish behaviour - whether it is on our bus system or, indeed, in our taxis. There was a very stark reminder in Victoria recently regarding people who work in a transport industry who are, basically, getting about lawfully doing their jobs and the dangers they face.
I am delighted to support the legislation brought before the Chamber today by my colleague, the Minister for Justice and Attorney- General. It is a Criminal Code amendment but is, fundamentally, to address issues that arise in the transport system, of which I have responsibility.
The government is committed to protecting the drivers of our commercial passenger vehicles. Previously, these protections applied to some of our bus drivers, but not all of our bus drivers. The protections apply to drivers on our Darwinbus network because they are public servants, and these aggravated assault protections are there for our public servants. The new aspect to this is so that it can apply to all of our bus drivers - picking up those bus drivers who are private contractors; for example, Dysons in Alice Springs and Buslink in the Top End.
Drivers of commercial passenger vehicles - the buses and the taxis - provide an important community transport service. They often work by themselves and they are, indeed, vulnerable to assault by passengers and, particularly and tragically so, at night. What we need is a strong deterrent for those individuals who think they can get away with assaulting our hard-working bus and taxi drivers that so many in the community rely on for their day-to-day mobility.
This government was proud to introduce the Transit Safety Officers on to our Darwin bus network a little over a year ago. Sadly, it is very clear that there is a need for these officers, and I have increased their numbers and their powers. The number of full-time Transit Safety Officers has been increased from four to six. This government has introduced CCTV cameras on all public buses and at our interchanges to help identify perpetrators. The $800 000 investment with CCTV cameras and a safer network has been an extremely successful resource to police.
Today, I introduce the Transport Safety Officer Bill which will deliver a further boost in safety on the public bus network. It gives our TSOs greater power to use reasonable force to remove or detain individuals causing trouble.
The legislation is complementary to the Criminal Code amendment being debated today. The bill increases the penalty for common assault on any bus driver or a taxi driver from one year to five years.
I was shocked when the Leader of the Opposition called this a fake policy announcement. He does not believe that the majority of bus drivers and all taxi drivers should have the same rights as publicly employed ones if he calls it a fake policy announcement. We are not proceeding with a fake policy announcement. We have actual legislation being amended here in the Chamber today to give additional protections to our hard-working bus and taxi drivers. I have taken the opportunity to pass the media release out to private bus and taxi drivers who were, like me, somewhat surprised with the attitude the Leader of the Opposition took to this very important safety issue.
I wrote to the Leader of the Opposition on this issue in early March. I believe he knows it will provide extra protection to hundreds of hard-working drivers. I encourage him to change his position on this legislation. I was delighted to hear the member for Araluen say the opposition supported this legislation today because I had received no response to my letter.
The Leader of the Opposition has called for mandatory sentences for anyone convicted of assaulting a public bus driver. This will not protect the vast majority of bus drivers on the network, nor do anything to protect taxi drivers. In fact, his proposed legislation fails to provide any additional protection for about 95% of licensed commercial passenger vehicle drivers. It also provides no discretion between levels of assault. The Henderson government believes that all bus drivers should have the same rights in the eyes of the law regardless of who they work for. It is true that bus drivers employed by the government through the government bus service are already covered, but this is less than 30% of our bus drivers in Darwin – and there are no publicly employed bus drivers in Alice Springs. There are also, of course, no publicly employed taxi drivers.
On 6 February this year, the Leader of the Opposition issued a media release titled, ‘Oh, yes, she’s the great pretender’, in response to this legislation. I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that there is no pretending when bus and taxi drivers talk to me about being assaulted. I announced on the same day that this will mean a person who commits a common assault on a bus or taxi driver will now face up to five years imprisonment compared to a maximum of one year. Rather than work collaboratively in protecting the drivers who provide such an important service to the community, the Leader of the Opposition, instead, decided to misquote me and published in his release that the legislation only targeted bus drivers. How wrong could he be? This is testament to how poorly he understands the legislation, and also that he does not understand how public transport services are provided to the community.
He described this legislation as: ‘This is a counterfeit law and order policy initiative …’. He went further and stated that increasing the maximum penalty for assaulting a driver from one to five years was ‘… an outrageous deception’. He continued: ‘The extension of the current provisions to private bus drivers and taxi drivers will have little effect’. That is outrageous deception.
The figures speak for themselves. In the Territory, we currently have 1100 H-endorsed drivers. An H endorsement is required for drivers of all classifications of commercial passenger vehicles including taxi, minibus, tourist vehicle, courtesy vehicle, private hire car, limousine, special passenger vehicle, special function vehicle and motor omnibus - 767 are drivers. The Northern Territory government employees who have an H endorsement make up about 4.5% of these numbers. The remainder are privately employed and, yet, we are being accused of being deceptive by the opposition.
Those bus drivers employed by Darwin Bus Service are public servants and, if attacked, the person attacking them can be charged with aggravated assault under section 188(2)(f) of the Criminal Code, which has a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment.
We should extend the appropriate protections to all drivers of commercial passenger vehicles to ensure they have the same level of protection as those drivers employed within the public service. We want a safe bus and taxi network, and this legislation is another tool in this government’s package of reforms, to improve our public transport systems.
I commend the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General for bringing this amendment before the Chamber today. It sends a powerful message out there that this government will not tolerate thugs in our transport system. We will introduce whatever enforcement tools are necessary to take any thuggish behaviour out of the system - whether it is the bus network system or the commercial passenger vehicle system.. Our transport providers do a tough job in difficult circumstances day and night.
We have put CCTV cameras into the bus network and I am working with the Taxi Council to put CCTV cameras into our taxis. We are also putting a safe taxi rank on Mitchell Street. The whole issue of safety is being promoted throughout the taxi industry, as well as the bus network. We are working with the Transport Workers Union to continue to improve any powers necessary with enforcement to provide safety right across our public transport network.
Yet, all the Opposition Leader can do is to whinge and complain, and peddle his own form of falsity and deception with meaningless words that come out of this mouth. He is a disgrace. He does not understand the transport systems.
Madam Speaker, I look forward to continuing to work with the transport sector to ensure, as a government, we are responding to their needs to provide safety right across the network for the people working in the sector, and for those passengers who rely on the transport sector.
Mr BURKE (Brennan): Madam Speaker, I support the Criminal Code Amendment (Assault on Drivers of Commercial Passenger Vehicles) Bill. It is an important change.
I was just refreshing my memory of the minister’s second reading speech where he explained the purpose of the bill is to provide that assaults on all drivers of commercial passenger vehicles are treated with the maximum degree of seriousness for assault. Up until this time, as the Leader of Government Business was just explaining, the publicly employed drivers of buses were covered, and people found guilty of assault on these drivers were liable to maximum penalties. However, that did not apply to a driver of the same bus who was employed through Buslink, rather than the Territory. That is a problem that needed fixing, and I am glad to see that that is addressed in this bill. It makes no sense for one person to have complete protection and someone else less. This is a greater deterrent on the public.
The drivers of our public buses within the public bus network do put up with a lot. I have friends who are drivers of buses or other commercial passenger vehicles. Especially on Thursday, Friday, Saturday night and the wee hours of the mornings, they put up with an awful lot - not just physical violence but verbal abuse. They are called upon to eject passengers at times and to look after other passengers on the bus where they are being subjected to antisocial behaviour and assaults of various kinds. People look to anyone in a uniform who is around, whether it is a bus driver’s uniform, a Transport Safety Officer’s uniform or other.
It seems, in society now, we rely on those whose official duty it is to apparently do something and many other people stand back and watch, perhaps too afraid for their own safety, or just paralysed in shock as to what is happening in front of them. Bus and taxi drivers do put up with a great deal, and it is not just a problem which is localised to the Territory; it is something that happens right across the country. In fact, in Melbourne just recently, taxi drivers held a rally calling for more protection from government. I do not know what the situation is in Victoria, but it is clear that, right across the country, taxi drivers and drivers of other commercial passenger vehicles put up with a great deal.
A lot goes on, on the buses. Every now and again, I jump on a bus to see what is happening. I do not feel the need to call up the media to ensure they catch it on video, but I do use the buses from time to time, because I find that is the only way you get a real sense of what is going on. Thankfully, the friends of mine who are in the industry talk to me and tell me what is happening. However, I always think it gives you a greater sense when you are there to witness things for yourself. Even in the middle of the day, when I have been on the bus, there have been a couple of instances where you think: ‘Thank goodness the driver was able to handle that in the way he or she did’. They act as a circuit breaker and, indeed, mediator and arbiter at times. The extra support across the board to all drivers of commercial passenger vehicles, I am sure, will be welcomed, especially when you consider that over 70% - I think the figure is - of our bus drivers are not Territory government employees but are employed by Buslink, the private company.
Madam Speaker, I congratulate the minister on introducing this bill. I certainly hope he gets support across the board. I look forward to friends and other drivers giving me their views on how it is operating once it comes into force.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, there seems to be some confusion. I know the member opposite, the Treasurer and Leader of Government Business, has had some difficulty grasping the fine point that has been made publicly by the opposition with regard to this matter. The reason this matter had to be presented …
Ms Lawrie: Very patronising this morning.
Mr MILLS: No. … to the community, particularly the transport sector, is because there has been misinformation provided, courtesy of the self-same minister, to the industry, particularly the taxi industry. We are always on the alert to check what the true story is when this government, this minister, presents information to the public. If it is information presented to the public in the best interests of the public - fine, and it should be easy to check. However, if that information is presented to the public in the best interests of the one who is presenting the information - then alarm bells ring. First of all, she passed this off as some grand new measure for one sector of the community. Those new measures are not new at all; they are measures that are already in existence - it was the extension of it. However, she dressed something up more than it is to overstate one aspect of it. The measures already existed for public transport operators. To extend it – fine - but to say that this is new and they are increasing the measures for one sector of this group – it was not new.
The issue here is, this was prompted, once again, by headlines and unpleasant reports in the media. Then, government reacts into a media cycle, and they create this impression that they are now going to respond to this grave community concern.
There was, on the front page of the paper, an awful account which was caught on camera - and I feel very sorry for these bus drivers – of a driver being assaulted; punched for no reason. This minister responds to that bus driver, a public servant, sitting on that bus, by putting out a media release trying to create the impression that there were no real tough measures to protect that driver, but ‘Now we have new measures and we have reacted. Aren’t we good? …
Ms Lawrie: Not true, I had worked on this for months.
Mr MILLS: The fact is that there were measures already in existence to protect that bus driver - that is the issue. There were measures already there to protect that bus driver. You then reacted and created this impression because the community thought: ‘Oh my goodness, look at that, that is awful. What is government doing?’ ‘Oh, we are creating new measures’. There were measures already in existence to protect that bus driver. To go and part …
Ms Lawrie: But not other drivers.
Mr MILLS: You are missing the fine point deliberately. There are none so deaf as will not hear! There were already measures in existence to protect that bus driver. The point is the existing measures were added to, to create the impression that there were new measures. They were expanded to cover other bus drivers, but if those …
Ms Lawrie: And taxi drivers.
Mr MILLS: And taxi drivers, okay, all right. Just to calm you, I will say all other drivers …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr MILLS: … whether they are public or private. That is the extent of it. However, the point is, if they already existed for the public sector, they did not serve to protect that bus driver. That is the point. Then, you said: ‘Right, we are going to expand them’. If they did not work for the public sector and you expand them and create the impression to react to an unpleasant media story and community concern, you are more interested in yourself than you are in addressing the core problem. That is why, first, we made that point …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I am not at all interested in myself on this issue. That is a completely spurious assertion from the Leader of the Opposition. This is about sending a very clear message that we will not accept thugs on our transport system.
Mr Mills: It does not look like a point of order to me, it looks like a reaction.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of Government Business, there is no point of order. If you would like to make a personal explanation you may approach me later.
Ms Lawrie: No need, he is in fantasy land.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Please continue, Leader of the Opposition.
Mr MILLS: A bit sensitive. There is a fine point here …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order! Honourable members, I remind you that constant interjections are not a part of our standing orders. I will be putting people on warnings. Legislation is a serious matter, and I would like it to continue as quietly as possible. Thank you, Leader of the Opposition.
Mr MILLS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The fine point is this: you have measures in place to protect a public driver. If he is assaulted, then the existing measures, as they are constructed, do not afford protection. To extend them across to include the private sector, you have to recognise that there needs to be more done with the existing measures.
That is why the opposition proposed an addition to this extension. In my view, to mischievously – I think that is probably the softest word I could use in this debate - run the line, ‘Oh, the Opposition Leader does not want to protect taxi drivers; isn’t he an awful man?’, is completely and deliberately choosing not to understand the message that is being put - which is an important message. If you have an existing measure that has not served to protect a citizen, you then tell the community that you have now increased the protection. You have, in fact, widened the existing protection that did not work in the first instance. That is why there needs to be a change.
Of course, citizens need to be protected, but the measure that was in place had not afforded protection. There needs to be more than the creation of an impression and a reaction to a concern in the community. A more effective measure would be required; that being, you tell the community that if this happens again, then there is going to be up a penalty of up to five years – that is fine. However, there is no minimum. There is no direct and guaranteed consequence if you go and punch a driver - whether they are public or private. That is the point. It is the same as dealing with a problem and saying: ‘If you do that again, I am going to get really upset with you. Something really bad might happen to you’. If they do not stop misbehaving, you say: ‘Right, I am really going to ramp it up and do something really bad to you’.
The point is there should be a consequence. The point has been misunderstood, and not attended to. I did not get a phone call or letter from the minister saying: ‘What is it that you are concerned about?. I do not need you to jump to the wrong conclusion’. Oh, my goodness, has that ever happened before? Then she trots this nonsense out, saying: ‘He does not want to protect them’. That is absolute rot!
The point is there needs to be a consequence. There needs to be a minimum. That is why we are proposing that there has to be a minimum sentence so that, if anyone does not like the colour of the bus driver’s shirt or they have had a bad day, they cannot just take it out on the bus or taxi driver. There should be a direct consequence for their actions, no matter what. No ifs, no buts. That was the difference.
The measures already existed in part for one sector of the transport sector. Then it was widened to include the private sector. That is fine. Still, though, at the nub of it, there was a problem which, in my view, remains. You need effective laws. There is a world of difference between ‘may’ and ‘will’. There is a world of difference to say this is now the maximum penalty which we have increased, and you do not apply any minimum. You are breeding ineffectiveness, with no clear and direct consequence.
In my view, if you are implementing social policy and you want to solve the problem, you need to have a guaranteed consequence. That is the deficiency. I hope that has clarified it for the minister. Obviously, she has been labouring under a misapprehension.
The other thing regarding letters that have been written to the Opposition Leader seeking clarification or ‘Can I be of any genuine assistance?’, there is an outstanding letter that has been with the Treasurer since the day she took the position, and it has not been acted on. There are members of the transport sector who are becoming deeply concerned at the lack of responsive action. You can check with your minder there. That matter has sat with you since the day you took office. I can show you the paper trail. There has been no response from you whatsoever…
Ms Lawrie: I know.
Mr MILLS: It is a matter of great concern to many in the taxi industry. What is good for this goose is good for that gander over there ...
Ms Lawrie: I have already signed a letter to you.
Mr MILLS: Let us sort it out and you get on to your job and answer that letter because many people want to know the answer to the question.
Ms Lawrie: I have already signed a letter to you. Are you talking about a deregulation question? I have sent you a letter. You lead with your chin.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I am not a supporter of mandatory sentencing but I must admit I am a supporter of mandatory punishment. I believe the Leader of the Opposition raised a good point. For certain crimes, people need to realise they have to take responsibility for it. It would be worthwhile in this case to see some form of minimum punishment, whether it is in the form of sentencing to prison or community orders. Where a violent crime occurs, especially in the case of an assault on a bus or taxi driver, there needs to be more than, ‘Do not do it. We will let you off. If you do it again, there might be a consequence’. I believe there needs to be, with these particular breaches of our law, something to say: ‘You have committed a serious offence. You are old enough to know that was wrong and, because you are old enough to know that, you will be punished for it’. Much of our law today, especially with young people, does not ram home seriously enough that, if you do something wrong and you are old enough to know it is wrong, then there is a consequence.
I support some form of minimum punishment as part of this bill. I believe that, clearly, unless this person is a minor - and I would even say at the lower end of being a minor - they should know the difference between right and wrong. They should know that it is wrong to assault someone and, if they do so, they will suffer a consequence - whether it is to make recompense, do community orders, or even go to prison. There has to be a signal sent out to the public that that person has been punished. A signal to the person who has carried out that offence that they have done something wrong also needs to be part of this legislation.
Bearing that in mind, I thank the minister for the legislation. It is an area that has needed to be looked at. I have a question: what happens in the case of people like the tourist bus operators, say the Tour Tub, if people get on it and someone assaulted him because they thought he gave a pretty terrible tour? Is he covered by this act? The other question is: if I was to hire a commercial bus to take the local footy team on a trip to Katherine; they all paid a certain amount of money to go; one of them decided that they wanted to stop at the Pine Creek Hotel and the driver did not want to stop at the Pine Creek Hotel and was assaulted, would that driver be covered as well?
I am asking whether there are areas outside your normal bus drivers working in the normal bus service that we see around our suburbs. Are those other bus drivers covered? I also add people like AAT drivers or people who take tours out to Kakadu. Are those drivers covered as well? If they are not covered, does the minister think they should be covered? Because they are doing a service for commercial reasons, maybe they are not covered under this particular legislation.
Madam Speaker, with those comments, I support the amendments to the bill. I hope that the issue regarding whether we should have a minimum sentence, or some way of sending out a signal to those people who perpetrate these crimes that they will suffer as a consequence of those crimes, and not be let off, can be resolved.
Dr BURNS (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I thank all members for their contribution. As the member for Brennan pointed out, the demonstration of taxi drivers in Melbourne which was on the news last night highlights the dangers of people working in this industry. It is just not a phenomenon of Darwin, it is all around Australia. The reactions and the feeling in that demonstration that most of us witnessed on the news last night were very high and, obviously, people were feeling very unsafe. The Victorian government is taking almost immediate action to meet some of the demands of the taxi drivers. Obviously, it is a big issue, and is an issue that this government has looked at and acting upon to try to address.
We saw earlier today the minister for Transport introducing legislation regarding Transport Safety Officers, and giving them certain powers. That is very important. I want to emphasise here as an introduction to my response that this is a government that is actually looking at the whole picture, not only of sending a message of the end result of what is going to happen in the courts and the sentences people are going to get for these types of offences, but through fitting out the buses with closed circuit television security systems within the buses, having Transport Safety Officers involved, increasing their numbers, and also increasing the powers that they have. These are important steps through legislation like this.
It is a very important issue. I can say, as a former Transport minister, some elements I have mentioned started with me, but my colleague, the current minister for Transport, has certainly moved this on and put in a whole range of reforms and steps in this regard. I commend her for that.
I also commend the Transport Workers Union which, through all of this, government has been working closely with. I met with them when I was minister and I know my colleague continues to meet with them. Also, when I was Transport minister, I attended quite a number of social functions put on by the drivers and the union. They are wonderful family people. Many of them are long-standing Darwin residents and they have a lot of history in what we might call old Darwin. They are very hard-working people. As the member for Brennan observed, they are very skilled at handling situations but, sometimes, that sort of handling can only go so far. We have seen instances reported in the media and to me personally of drivers being assaulted. In part, this is a response to that.
I thank the shadow Attorney-General for her support of this bill. As she pointed out, it is a minor amendment to cover those who are not government employees working in the transport industry. It covers people like the bus drivers who work for private providers but often undertake routes on behalf of government through government contracts in Alice Springs and through Buslink in Darwin. It also covers taxi drivers and other commercial passenger vehicle drivers such as limousine drivers, etcetera, and drivers who are operating on commercial buses such as AAT Kings mentioned by the member for Nelson. He also observed that the Tour Tub drivers would have an H licence and they are covered by this legislation. It is a very important issue, and I thank the member for Araluen for her support.
The minister clarified that the legislation previously only covered public servants but, as a number of people have observed, only 28% of the total number of bus drivers in the Northern Territory are public servants and are covered by this. If you are looking beyond that, say, in Darwin with Buslink providing 72% of drivers, that is a very important statistic. Beyond that, there are also approximately 1100 drivers who have a current H endorsement and taxi ID card - this is minibus drivers, taxis and some of those commercial passenger vehicle drivers I mentioned before. This penalty associated with an aggravated offence is increasing from one year to five years and now applies to all those categories of drivers. As I said in my second reading speech, the bill will have an important practical effect. Over 1200 drivers will have additional legal protections against assault while carrying out their very important duties.
However, as I said earlier in my introduction, government is not only looking at this, we are doing other things: the increase in numbers and powers of Transport Safety Officers; closed circuit television on buses, working towards 100% coverage of all buses is something I started when I was Transport minister - a committee comprising of the department, police and drivers to share information, because it is very important. Bus drivers have very important information that police and others need to be aware of: where the hot spots are, which individuals might be involved, and what times this is occurring. That is very important intelligence to be passed on to police, and I know police appreciate that. This is all part of operations that they mount against these troublemakers on our buses and at our interchanges where, incidentally, we have also installed closed circuit television.
Madam Speaker, these are very important aspects. I commend the work of the security committee, and I know the minister is fostering that as well. I have also mentioned the Transport Workers Union which, through all of this, I believe has been very constructive. There have been times when the bus drivers have wanted to go on strike - and they really had every reason to go on strike - but they are dedicated to providing the service to the public who go to and from work every day, go shopping or whatever, go out to the hospital, or the children who ride on our buses. These people are so dedicated, if government was prepared to take steps to address this issue, the union said they were prepared not to strike. There is a lot of heat in this issue, but they wanted to see progress. Government has delivered some progress. I know that we could deliver more and we will continue our close relationship with the Transport Workers Union because the members are very constructive in this whole issue.
I mentioned the member for Brennan, whom I thought made a very constructive contribution. I do not really want to get into a blue, as you would say, on the issue that the Leader of the Opposition raised. He accused the Transport minister of counterfeit law and order policy initiatives, outrageous deception, and fake policy announcement. The lead headline was: ‘Oh yes, she is the great pretender’. The Leader of the Opposition has accused the Transport minister of being smart, or not explaining things properly. However, he needs to have a look at his own media release, because he really does not tell the public the whole story. He did not tell the public what he was referring to - and he certainly did not put the argument that he has put here today in his media statement - because, if he did, he would have had to admit that this law is being extended to 1200 extra people in the transport industry.
He said that the measure that we are passing today did not afford protection. Member for Blain, I contend otherwise, because we are actually increasing the coverage of this sort of protection by an extra 1200 people. A total of 72% of extra bus drivers are covered. You are only applying a remedy or an increased aggravated offence here with a smaller number of drivers. By expanding it, of course you are going to increase protection for people, because more people will be brought before the court to face this sort of penalty if they are assaulting bus drivers. In itself, that sends out a clear message to the community and those who might offend. It is a bit spurious to criticise the Transport minister, when you really did not explain to the public that this was actually extending the coverage of this law to over 72% of our drivers and, in total, 1200 people within the commercial passenger vehicle industry.
Also, there is the aspect of enforcement. The fact that we are actually increasing the number of Transport Safety Officers is increasing enforcement and ensuring that more people are brought before the courts, prosecuted and found guilty of these sorts of aggravated offences. You have to be fair and look at everything in total.
You raised the issue of minimum sentences which, on the surface of it sounds okay. It is a product that you can put out there in the public arena. However, with a minimum sentence, when you think about it, you have to think through the issues of thresholds and the basic levels of offence. As your shadow Attorney-General might tell you, if someone could come along and push a bus driver like that on the shoulder forcefully, but not harmfully, that constitutes an assault. You have to be a bit more specific about where you are going to set your levels and thresholds of offence and the penalties that you might propose associated with that. At present, as I understand what you have proposed, that it is very open-ended, and I believe you need to be a bit more specific in what you are proposing.
The member for Nelson talked about mandatory punishment. He is not in favour of mandatory sentencing; he is in favour of mandatory punishment. I contend that our courts decide about the seriousness of the offence; whether it is in the form of a push by which someone has assaulted a taxi or a bus driver, up to a full-blown assault. It is the courts that determine the penalties associated with those offences.
You asked a number of questions, member for Nelson, about the eligibility of certain categories of bus drivers. Those who have an H endorsement to their licence, who drive commercial passenger vehicles and have the appropriate licence, are covered - AAT Kings, the Tour Tub, etcetera.
If a football club hires a bus and they get someone who has a bus licence to drive them somewhere and there is some incident against the driver, I do not think this act applies to that because that is a private arrangement. I understand where you are going with this, but government’s intention through this legislation is to cover the bulk of commercial passenger vehicle drivers. That is what we have done. If there are problems that emerge in the future with some of the categories that you have mentioned, we will look at them.
Madam Speaker, I commend this bill to the House. I believe it is providing coverage to all our commercial passenger vehicle drivers. It is sending a clear message to those in the community who might assault those drivers: look out, because there is an aggravated penalty associated with this and, if you engage in this sort of behaviour, you might find yourself behind bars for five years. I commend the bill to the House.
Motion agreed; bill read a second time.
Dr BURNS (Justice and Attorney-General) (by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed; bill read a third time.
YOUTH JUSTICE AMENDMENT (FAMILY RESPONSIBILITY) BILL
(Serial 133)
(Serial 133)
Continued from 13 February 2008.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, there is quite a bit to say in relation to this bill. I believe more will be said outside the Chamber. I drafted a media release this morning. I am uncertain as to whether that has been issued, but I will be referring to my draft in relation to the word ‘may’ and its overuse in the bill when measured against what the government says it will do. I will save that because there are a couple of other things that need to be mentioned with regard to the problems with the bill when measured against what the government has told Territorians this bill will do. There is a quantum difference.
I am not sure whether the government has misled the people of the Northern Territory in relation to the bill. I note that there are no objections, so I will keep going ...
Madam SPEAKER: No, member for Araluen, I ask you to rephrase that.
Ms CARNEY: So I cannot say the government has misled?
Madam SPEAKER: No.
Ms CARNEY: The government has been untruthful when disseminating its information about what this bill will achieve, when measured against what the bill actually says. I doubt there are many members on the other side who have actually seen the bill. We have seen before, there is always a difference between what the government says it will do and what it actually does. I will save the main explanation until later.
I wish to talk about the third bullet point in this glossy recently sent out - $20 000 this cost. It says:
- The revolving door for repeat young offenders will stop - they will face court, not diversion programs.
If that is not - I do not know whether I can use the word ‘untruthful’ or whether the Deputy Chief Minister is going to jump to her feet. I thought she was going to jump to her feet before. If I cannot use ‘untruthful’ or ‘misleading’, I do not know how to explain it because it is just not right.
Let us look at the details, third bullet point: ‘The revolving door for repeat offenders will stop – they will face court not diversion programs’. Let us have a look at the detail.
Clause 4 of this bill substitutes an existing provision in the government’s Youth Justice Act. It seeks to substitute section 39(3), (4) and (5). If you have a look at that, they are the quite well-known juvenile diversion provisions. What currently exists is the ability for police to, instead of charging a young person with an offence, give them a verbal warning, a written warning, cause a Youth Justice Conference involving the youth to be convened, or refer the youth to a diversion program.
In the clause that seeks to substitute the existing section 39 and its subclauses in the Youth Justice Act, the new provision provides that there are certain circumstances in which a youth cannot be referred to a youth diversion. Clause 4(3)(a) and (b) say that it will not apply if:
- (a) the youth has left the Territory or the youth’s whereabouts is unknown; or
(b) the alleged offence is a serious offence …
The second point is that clause 4(3)(c) refers to a youth being referred to youth diversion on two previous occasions. The government’s spin would have you believe that, if an offender goes to juvenile diversion twice, he or she will not go to juvenile diversion again. Wrong, because clause 4(4) says; ‘However …’ - it is always interesting to start a clause in legislation with the word ‘however’, but that is a debate for another day, and this is not the first time I have raised this in the Chamber. Nevertheless, it says:
- However, the Commissioner of Police (or the Commissioner’s delegate) may authorise or require a police officer to deal with the youth by Youth Justice Conference or by referring the youth to a diversion program despite the fact that the case is covered by subsection (3).
What does that mean ...
Dr Burns: It is in the second reading speech as to what it means.
Ms CARNEY: It means that notwithstanding - and if the Minister for Justice wants to correct me on this I invite him to do so – the government spin says the revolving door for repeat offenders will stop, they will face court. Let us say someone commits an offence twice, the very clear inference is if you do it twice you will not go to juvenile diversion. Can the minister explain why it is that under clause 4(4) it says …
Dr Burns: I would be happy to.
Ms CARNEY: … that a youth can be referred to a juvenile diversion program ‘despite the fact that the case is covered by subsection (3)’. Subsection (3) is the one that says in essence …
Dr Burns: It is in the second reading speech if you had read it. You did not even get a briefing.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms CARNEY: … you are not going to be sent to a juvenile diversion program in particular circumstances. What do we have? Government saying on the one hand: ‘Only two juvenile diversion program referrals and that is it; and we are going to get tough’. Well, on the reading of the bill - not the second reading speech, the reading of the bill - it says it provides an out clause. It provides that the Commissioner for Police or his delegate may authorise a police officer to deal with the …
Dr Burns: As appropriate.
Ms CARNEY: Yes, as appropriate. That is where the truck is going, Madam Speaker. That truck is going right through that one. Government says one thing, what actually happens is another. Government speaks with forked tongue.
However, that is the third bullet point of the government’s $20 000 glossy. I think it cost $20 000 to distribute in the Top End. I assume it has been distributed elsewhere.
Let us go to the first bullet point. It said that parents of repeat offenders will be held responsible for their children’s behaviour through new parental orders ...
Ms CARNEY: Will. Well, we ask: will they just? We do not think so. Far be it from me to use words like ‘mislead’, ‘untruthful’, ‘tell a whopper’ - all that sort of thing. I have gone through the bill and - my God! - does the word ‘may’ make a star appearance. The word ‘may’ is just everywhere. Funny, the word ‘may’ is not, mysteriously enough, on the government’s $20 000 document. The word ‘may’ appears regularly and illustrates the difference between what government tells people it is going to, and what it actually does.
Interestingly, we have some young people in the gallery today - and welcome back - because this legislation will be of particular interest to them, I would have thought.
Ms Scrymgour: Just like you cowboys used to put up the smokescreen constantly. You did the smokescreen very well in government. You did so. What did you do about family responsibility?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms CARNEY: Ignore the Deputy Chief Minister because some of them like a chat. However, the word ‘may’. The government glossy says this is what we are going to do to young’uns if they muck up. The government bill - that is, the thing that becomes law - tells a different story. The bill provides that an agency ‘may’:
- … enter into a family responsibility agreement with a parent, or the parents, of a youth if:
(a) the youth has demonstrated behavioural problems …
- … of the opinion that the agreement may assist to resolve the problems.
The bill sets out what a family responsibility ‘may’ provide, and there is a lot of scope. Importantly - and I am not going to use the word ‘may’ here, I will go to a slightly different area for a nanosecond - the bill states - that is, the proposed new Division 2 section 140F and Division 3 section 140G - that a family responsibility agreement - now this is the thing that the government is saying is illustrative of how seriously it is taking this issue and how the government is going to crack down on parents who are not doing the right thing by kids. This is how kids are going to be dealt with. The family responsibility agreement:
- … does not give rise to enforceable obligations.
Does not give rise to enforceable obligations. So, it is an optional thing. It may be used, it may not. However, I will go on.
Let us now move to the courts. I feel certain that the reference to the court has been mentioned somewhere. If it is not in the glossy, I reckon it would have appeared in a media release or two. In any event, let us talk about the role the courts play ...
Mr Kiely interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: I doubt very much whether you have read this, Len. Maybe you should. Maybe your reading is coming on ...
Members interjecting.
Mr KIELY: Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: A point or order, Madam Speaker!
Ms CARNEY: I withdraw. I am sorry, Madam Speaker. The member for Sanderson …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms SCRYMGOUR: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I ask the shadow Attorney-General to withdraw her comment, and address the member by his appropriate title.
Madam SPEAKER: Before you go on, honourable members, I have noticed over these last three days that there has been a considerable use of personal names in the Chamber. I will be pulling members up from now on when they are using personal names rather than titles.
Ms CARNEY: Thanks, Madam Speaker. I doubt whether the member for Sanderson has read this, and that is part of the problem. What is happening in the government - we have seen it in relatively recent times - is that the leadership group, for the want of a better expression, is just saying to the junior ministers – and, of course, you cannot get much more of a junior minister than the member for Sanderson - and the backbenchers that ‘This is what we are doing, walk along with us because we are right in what we are doing’. If there was more questioning from the people up the back on the government side, then you would not be placed in the position where you are all nodding your head and saying, ‘Yes, yes, yes’ to legislation that you have not read …
Mr KIELY: A point of order, Madam Speaker! Clearly, there was no one here nodding their head. The opposition has a habit of attributing actions on this side so it gets on the Parliamentary Record, Madam Speaker. I ask her to withdraw that.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Sanderson, there is no point of order. Resume your seat.
Mr WARREN: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member for Araluen seems to be addressing her remarks across the Chamber and not through you. She is making pointed comments to people across here, and that is not how we do things in this House. That is against standing orders.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Goyder, resume your seat. Member for Araluen, if you would mind directing your comments through the Chair, thank you.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. They over there, if body language and verbal language were to be measured, seem to be enthusiastically applauding this bill, Madam Speaker ...
Ms SCRYMGOUR: A point of order, Madam Speaker! We are talking about very important legislation. If members opposite want to belittle and be childish in the extreme in relation to important legislation, which the shadow Attorney-General is on her feet addressing, then I suggest she stop being provocative, get to the point of the legislation, have the little kids in the playground over there join her, and let us get on with what the debate is all about - the Youth Justice Bill. Stop being so childish.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order, honourable members! Please resume your seat, member for Araluen.
I remind honourable members, once again, that this is legislation, and very serious legislation. I will read into the Parliamentary Record standing orders just to remind you that large numbers of interjections are not at all appropriate. Standing Order 51 reminds all members that:
- No Member may converse aloud or make any noise or disturbance which in the opinion of the Speaker is designed to interrupt or have the effect of interrupting a Member speaking.
Honourable members, I will be putting members on warnings should there be considerable disorderly behaviour during the rest of this debate. Member for Araluen, please continue.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I can assure members opposite that there is nothing more serious than the high level of crime …
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The member should address her remarks through the Chair, as required by standing orders.
Madam SPEAKER: I believe that the member is addressing her comments through the Chair. Member for Araluen, if you could continue to do that.
Ms CARNEY: Does that mean I look at you at all times, Madam Speaker?
Madam SPEAKER: It is up to you, member for Araluen, but it is generally considered that you are actually speaking to the Speaker, and …
Ms CARNEY: And that is the rule for both sides? Okay then.
Madam SPEAKER: Well, it is meant to be. That is meant to be the standing order. Of course, I do not expect you to stare at me the whole time, I have to say, member for Araluen.
Ms CARNEY: Madam Speaker, there is nothing more serious than the high level of crime in our community. Also, there is nothing more serious about a government that tells untruths to the people it represents. We regard those matters extremely seriously indeed ...
Ms SCRYMGOUR: A point of order, Madam Speaker! If the member is going to accuse government of untruths - and she has said this a number of times - she knows the process by which to do it is by substantive motion.
Ms Carney: I think we can …
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Get to the base of the debate instead of getting up and saying ‘untruths’ constantly, which she has been ...
Mr MILLS: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Deputy Chief Minister, please resume your seat. What is your point of order?
Mr MILLS: I think you have addressed it, Madam Speaker.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you. Member for Araluen, I believe that you understand the standing orders. If you are saying ‘deliberately has created untruth’, of course, you cannot say that except by way of substantive motion. However, if you are being general, then I will allow it.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker. We take it very seriously, indeed, when a government tells untruths to its citizens. The citizens would take that pretty seriously too, especially when they pay at least $20 000 for a small glossy; especially when they pay - what is it up to now? - about $10m for the cost of the fifth floor, which is a government floor in the normal course of events in this building.
Madam Speaker, there are few things more serious than this issue. It is also seriously concerning that members opposite - and I will bet London to a brick that most of them have not even bothered to look at the bill. It is seriously concerning …
Dr BURNS: A point of order; Madam Speaker! The shadow Attorney-General has not even bothered to get a briefing on this legislation. The members opposite here, as a Caucus, have been briefed. She is just asserting something that is not true. I question her own motives in not getting a briefing.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Member for Araluen, please continue, bearing in mind that it is normally the lunch break in five minutes, and I will probably call for us to go to lunch at 12 noon. You can continue your remarks after Question Time.
Ms CARNEY: Okay. I note the Attorney-General’s attempt at making a point of order. Apparently, a briefing was obtained by some members opposite – well, bully for them. I do not seem to have the same sort of difficulties. It is a reasonably straightforward bill …
Ms Scrymgour: How arrogant is that?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms CARNEY: We have dealt with much more complex legislation in this place. The Attorney-General and his colleagues will appreciate that. With the greatest of respect minister, if it is all the same to you, the opposition will decide when we need briefings. Over and above that, the material which has been disseminated around the Northern Territory about this bill speaks volumes in itself.
Getting back to the issue, which runs parallel with the untruthful way in which the proposed outcomes of this bill have been put to our fellow Territorians. The bill itself, when read and considered - let us face it, the word ‘may’ only has three letters in it, but by its repeat appearance in this bill it clearly shows there is a great difference between what the government has told Territorians this will do and what the bill will actually do. The Family Responsibility Agreement, quoting from the bill, does not give rise to enforceable obligations. That is over and above the preceding ‘may’s in relation to whether a Family Responsibility Agreement is entered into in the first place. I draw members attention to the proposed clause 140D quote:
- An appropriate Agency may enter into a family responsibility agreement with a parent, or the parents, of a youth if:
- the Agency is of the opinion that the agreement may assist to resolve the problems.
You did not put that in your glossy, did you? You did not put that in your glossy.
Furthermore, when we get to the courts, the word ‘may’ features. The word ‘must’ does appear in the bill; it has a cameo role. When you read the bill - and anyone can see this - the ‘must’ kicks in after all of the ‘may’s. People have elected to pursue various courses of action under the word ‘may’. There are a couple of ‘must’s but they are after all of the ‘may’s have been ticked off which, of course, people have the right to do or not.
Let us go to the court. The court ‘may’ issue a summons. The court ‘may’ issue a warrant. A prosecution for a failure to comply with a Family Responsibility Order ‘may’ only be commenced with the approval of the appropriate agency. The fine imposed for non-compliance with the Family Responsibility Order ‘may’ only be enforced in certain conditions. I am very interested to know whether members opposite were told that in the briefing. We think that the government ‘may’ like to be more honest with the people of the Northern Territory when it seeks to ...
Ms LAWRIE: A point of order; Madam Speaker! The member opposite is accusing the government of not being honest. That is completely wrong and erroneous. She is continuing to ignore the standing order in not addressing the Chair.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order regarding the first part, but if you could continue to direct your remarks through the Chair.
It is now midday and I ask you to continue your remarks after Question Time.
Debate suspended.
YOUTH JUSTICE AMENDMENT (FAMILY RESPONSIBILITY) BILL
(Serial 133)
(Serial 133)
Continued from earlier this day.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, before lunch I referred to the difference between what the government said this legislation will do and what the legislation actually says. I will make some other comments in relation to it; however, there is something I need to correct. Before lunch I said there was no definition of serious offence. Of course there is a definition of serious offence in the act ...
Members interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: Read it, have we, children? Read it, have we?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms CARNEY: There is that definition; it was not on the next page of my print-out. In any event, I make that correction. However, if the government thinks that we should correct anything else, they are mistaken. I have had an opportunity to review the other propaganda put out by government. This is an interesting one. On 21 January 2008, a media release from the Chief Minister said as follows:
- Chief Minister and Minister for Police, Paul Henderson, announced today that diversion programs will no longer be an option for serial juvenile offenders.
- He went on to say:
- That’s no longer going to be an option. I have directed that the Youth Justice Act be amended so young offenders must not be diverted more than twice.
Minister, I would like your formal response to this. Can you please advise in your reply how that - given the wording of clause 4(3) and, in particular, clause 4(4) - in any way, shape or form mirrors what the Chief Minister said; namely, that diversion programs will no longer be an option for juvenile offenders and that the legislation would be amended so that young offenders ‘must not be diverted more than twice’? Is it not the case that, pursuant to clause 4(4) - and I am reading from the bill now:
- … the Commissioner of Police (or the Commissioner’s delegate) may authorise or require a police officer to deal with the youth by Youth Justice Conference or by referring the youth to a diversion program despite the fact that the case is covered by subsection (3).
You will remember of course that subsection (3) includes the existing subsection (2) from the Youth Justice Act.
I take this opportunity, if I may, minister, of bringing to your attention and ask you - and if the letters turned up in the last couple of days I apologise, but I do not believe I have a response to my letter of 27 February - if you remember during the February sittings there was the Youth Justice statement? I wrote to you and said that you and your colleagues referred to the Youth Justice Strategy. I asked if you would kindly provide me with a copy of that strategy. I have not yet received that strategy. It is important in the context of this debate because, in that statement, there were numerous references to the bill and the government’s intentions.
When looking at this bill, of course, we look to the Youth Justice Bill which was debated in 2005. I remember the media release from then Attorney-General, Peter Toyne. There are many media releases floating around suggesting that government is going to be tougher on crime. This is but one. In any event, the media release, on 24 August 2005, Peter Toyne:
- Young offenders will be held fully responsible for their actions under the Youth Justice Act which will replace the Juvenile Justice Act.
Over the page he said:
- But make no mistake, young offenders who waste this opportunity and don’t learn their lesson, will face the full force of these tougher laws.
In addition to all of the other government spin, I ask you, minister, to comment. Do you regard the new bill as a concession by government that what it came up with in 2005 has failed or, in the alternative, that like the Liquor Bill we debated yesterday, seeing that there is an admission of failure or, at very least, it is not working well enough; therefore, you are going to stack on this extra bit that is contained in the bill that we are debating today to try your darndest to make things difficult for juvenile offenders?
I have had an opportunity to look through the Parliamentary Record when we debated, in August 2005, the bill. When it was introduced - that is, the Youth Justice Bill -- on 30 June 2005, the then Attorney-General, Peter Toyne, went to great lengths to say, in essence, what a terrific bill this was. Of course, there was the associated media spin at the time.
In my reply, we did have difficulties with the bill. I reminded members that - the Youth Justice Bill, came in, of course, in June 2005, just after the election - the Labor Party did incredibly well with all of its pre-election hype. I am sure it will all come flooding back to the minister. You got - or that is, the government got - a ripper headline, just the one they wanted. In the NT News of 6 May, the headline was: ‘Crackdown on kid crims’. You could not have asked for a better headline, given that the government was putting forward its position that it was cracking down on kid crime.
However, when this bill was introduced we saw a significant difference, again, between what the government said was going to happen and, in fact, what is going to happen. The government has form; we saw it with the anti-gang laws. Former minister for Justice, the member for Nhulunbuy, 17 October 2006 media release:
- Tough new laws designed to shut down gangs have been passed in Northern Territory ...
He went on to say:
- The provisions in the bill are aimed at giving police the tools they need to prevent and deal with gang activity ...
Since then, there has been a lot of gang activity in the northern suburbs - I think from memory even in the Chief Minister’s electorate. People are very concerned about gangs. My point, minister, is the government has been caught out, and is being caught out consistently, by either getting its work done through the media and persuading people that, yes, it is cracking down and coming down tough on anyone who breaks the law but, in this particular instance, young people. Yet, there is always a difference between the spin and what we deal with in parliament. If memory serves me correctly, I think we have even made some amendments to the so-called gang laws in relatively recent times. That is just some of the background. There is much more material I could have read out, but the point is made.
One different point is in relation to the provision in the bill where, in the event, after people satisfy all of the ‘may’ obstacles, there is a provision for - I will read it:
- A fine imposed for non-compliance with a family responsibility order may only be enforced:
- (a) by execution against goods that are not …
Dr Burns: Which division are you reading from?
Ms CARNEY: Clause 140N on the final page, under the heading Division 4, Miscellaneous. It is Enforcement of fine:
- A fine imposed for non-compliance with a family responsibility order may only be enforced:
- (a) by execution against goods that are not necessary for the maintenance of a modest lifestyle or for earning a livelihood; or
- (b) by a community work order.
Minister, you were asked on 14 February in Question Time about the existing section 133 of the Youth Justice Act ...
Dr Burns: Say again?
Ms CARNEY: Sorry, section 133 of the Youth Justice Act. The question put by the Leader of the Opposition was as follows:
- Section 133 of the Youth Justice Act, an act introduced by your own party, provides that parents can be forced to pay for costs of their children taken into custody. Since the introduction of the Youth Justice Act, how much money has been collected under the provisions of section 133? If you cannot answer that during this Question Time, could you please provide it by the end of the session?
You said:
- We have very busy public servants. I will ask the question. I will give it to you when I get it.
I am not aware - again if I am mistaken, correct me - that you have provided those figures. Why is this important? Because we say that there is already, in the act in its present form, an ability provided for parents to pay costs. Yet, certainly the spin is that there is a new procedure, albeit a slightly changed one, of recovering costs. The question is: how much have you recovered under section 133? If you have not recovered much, why do you say that you need a different, or a new way, of enforcement? Do you think that is going to be successful? In relation to the existing section 133, has that not been successful?
____________________
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of members of the Sanderson Clontarf Football Academy program, accompanied by Nathan Perrin. On behalf of honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
____________________
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Araluen.
Ms CARNEY: How nice to see them, Madam Speaker.
I believe that is about it. I know the Leader of the Opposition has some other comments to add, and I am sure there are many speakers on the other side.
In conclusion, the government should, I believe, be collectively embarrassed, given the money it spent on advertising. This is May Day. This is a ‘may’ bill. That stuff was never contained in the fine print of the stuff you have been poking in people’s letterboxes. It just was not. I have not heard any of the radio advertisements, but I gather that nowhere in those ads is the word ‘may’ mentioned.
This is a long way from what you promised, and have represented to others. We do not oppose it on the basis that it ‘may’ work - it ‘may’. We do not believe, however - and we make this point very clearly - that this is going to achieve what you say it is going achieve in your glossy brochures, and we reckon you know that too. It is a real shame that Territorians have had to pick up the tab.
The question yesterday, I think, was how much was the brochure. That was $20 000. I assume that was for circulation in Darwin. I am interested in the minister’s reply. Whether it has been distributed elsewhere and, if so, how much it has cost? Also, how much are the radio ads? Is there going to be any television or any other form of advertising? How much do you reckon it is going to cost? Do you think, at any point in the propagation of your propaganda, that you might like to actually say to people that what you are presenting is significantly different? I am sorry that you have such an aversion to the word ‘must’. We, on this side of the House, do not.
Mr HENDERSON (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I support the Justice minister’s amendment to the Youth Justice Act.
I welcome the Sanderson Clontarf boys and their teachers into parliament today. It was great to be at Sanderson school last week. As tall as I am, most of those kids out-marked me and the member for Sanderson in a bit of kick-to-kick. It is wonderful to see them in the House. A very big, warm welcome.
Talking about the youth justice system, the most important investment any society can make is into education programs that are going to give these young students the opportunity to achieve the best they possibly can and, then, go on to fulfilling and rewarding lives and careers. I am very sure that those kids up there, as a result of this program and what they are doing, are not going to be caught up in issues such as we are debating today.
The vast majority of Territory families seek a safe and decent place to bring up their kids, a safe and decent place for our senior Territorians to live in their retirement, and a safe and decent environment for our businesses to operate in. The vast majority of parents and children are fine, upstanding people who make a positive contribution to their communities and to the wellbeing of their own families. However, antisocial behaviour and criminal activities of a small number of young people is affecting our whole community. The parents of these kids appear not to give a damn about the behaviour, safety and future of their children. These kids and their parents are denying the right of all of us to the quiet enjoyment of our day-to-day lives and, unless they are held accountable, they will destroy the fantastic Territory lifestyle and environment that so many of us have helped to establish over the years.
Everyone in this place knows my views about youth crime. It is one of the critical issues we face and I am determined to tackle it. We have a comprehensive plan to tackle youth crime and a range of measures are being introduced to address the issue. Within that plan, today’s focus is on passing the Youth Justice Amendment (Family Responsibility) Bill. This amendment will have the effect of closing the revolving door to formal diversion, and provide for family responsibility agreements and family responsibility orders which will hold parents responsible for the conduct of their children.
Responding to the comments from the member for Araluen and her concern over the use of the word, ‘may’, in the bill. This is complex legislation. It is the toughest legislation of its type in Australia. Western Australia has introduced something similar to this, but it has not been enacted. We believe this is groundbreaking legislation. It involves agreements on the one hand where parents, service providers, the Education department, FACS – whatever - can enter into a formal agreements and be case managed to assist parents with the very difficult job, on occasions, of getting a kid back on the rails. Those agreements are entered into voluntarily. There is $2.5m in the budget this year to support the introduction of those agreements and the family centres that are going to be a one-stop shop to assist families who are having difficulties in bringing up kids and preventing them from going off the rails.
The other side of our strategy is family responsibility orders. These will be orders which will be applied by the courts or police that are compelling and binding on the parents to undertake certain activities to improve their support and supervision of their children. In putting this legislation together, there has been a significant amount of thought go into it. It features flexibility allowing it to cover the individual circumstances of families. Every family’s circumstance is different. The intent of this parliament regarding the legislation is to ensure that those orders and agreements deal with the unique needs of those families requiring assistance or that need to change behaviour.
The Territory police already perform an excellent job in tackling youth crime, but these new provisions will assist them considerably in this area by providing for a collaborative inter-agency early intervention approach. These new provisions will help deal with incidents such as the recent assaults by a group of youths at Hibiscus, where 15 youths were involved in assault on patrons after a group of youths were interrupted damaging an abandoned car. Thankfully, 14 of these youths have been arrested and one is yet to be interviewed. There is no good reason why parents should allow their children to be out late at night participating in such assaults, or even looking on as some sort of cheer squad. The bill will enable agencies to identify youths involved with antisocial and criminal behaviours and provide a layered, problem-solving approach.
Having spoken at length with the Police Commissioner, these orders allow for the police to approach the courts to seek such an order for a number of families around Darwin, and Palmerston in particular, whose children are the never-ending source of police investigations and charges being laid. Police will now have the ability to seek orders to bring these parents to the table and get them involved in improving the behaviour of their kids. I am absolutely confident the police will take a very proactive approach with the additional powers they will have under this legislation.
The legislation will enable family responsibility agreements to be put in place to require the parent or guardian to ensure that the young person attends school and keeps away from and avoids contact with certain persons or places. We recognise that some parents are ill-equipped to fulfil their obligations and the bill provides the parents and guardians to be assisted by an officer from the Family Responsibility Program who will link them up with community services and programs and government support relevant to their needs and to the obligations set out in the agreement they have entered into.
Recognising that voluntary agreements may not work in some circumstances because the parent or guardian refuses to enter or comply with an agreement, or where a child continues to exhibit the same behaviour, the bill provides for an agency to bring an application to the court for a family responsibility order. Where a court makes an order, it will be able to assert terms and conditions relating to the parents’ or guardians’ own behaviour, the need for counselling, parental guidance support, or other personal development. Also very importantly, many of these families break down as a result of significant alcohol or drug abuse or domestic violence occurring within that family. These orders will require and compel those issues to be addressed as well.
A family responsibility order will differ from an agreement in that a court order will compel, as I said, the parent or guardian to address those aspects of their own behaviour that are preventing them from parenting effectively, and to exercise proper supervision of the youth in their care. If they fail in their parenting and obligations as set out in the order, the parent or guardian will certainly suffer the consequences. This may take the form of a fine of up $2200 and, if a fine is not paid, they could possibly suffer the seizure of non-essential household goods such as plasma TVs or hi-fi equipment, or they will incur a community work order. I hope we never have to reach that point. I really hope that entering into these agreements and orders will confront parents with the prime responsibility that they have; that is, to care for their children.
We will be offering far greater support to assist them to overcome their problems, and to assist them with their parenting skills. However, the primary responsibility that you have as a parent or guardian is to the care of the children that you have brought into the world or that you are supporting. It should not be the responsibility of broader society to pick up that responsibility. That is what is happening now, and this is what we are trying to tackle in this bill, for a small number of people who cause trouble disproportionately and are at the heart of so much of the antisocial behaviour and juvenile crime that we see in our suburbs.
We live in a time where a small minority of poorly guided, unruly youths from dysfunctional families engage in criminal and antisocial behaviour to the annoyance and detriment of respectable Territory families who seek a safe and enjoyable place in which to live, work and raise their families. I commend the Justice minister for bringing this resumption of Youth Justice Amendment (Family Responsibility) Bill to the House.
As I said in a press conference today, this is groundbreaking legislation. I am quite amazed the Leader of the Opposition talked about: ‘Because you seek to amend legislation, are you admitting that previous legislation failed?’ Legislation is amended all the time. There are always times when any bill can be amended to seek to achieve better outcomes, to make much clearer the intent of the legislation, and to strengthen certain provisions in that legislation.
I made a commitment to the media today that, if this is found not to be working, we will come back and look at it, because this is groundbreaking legislation. It is a comprehensive package that we have put in place. We acknowledge the extent of the problems in the community; we are addressing additional police to the front line. At the heart of it, as I have said so many times, as I get around the community and my electorate, the question that I get most often, on the doorsteps when talking about these issues, is people shaking their heads and saying: ‘What are their parents doing about it? Why do we have to suffer?’ We are going to be providing additional support to parents who want to avail themselves of that support and, where parents do not want to avail themselves of that support, they will be compelled to get that support to bring these kids under control and ensure that our streets and our suburbs across the Northern Territory are rid of this menace that really is concerning for a lot of people in the Northern Territory.
Madam Speaker, I commend the minister and his amendment.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I recognise the intent of the bill and I hope that it is successful in its implementation. However, I do have concerns. I have concerns of how effective it will be in the short term for people or whether we are going to have cases that drag on for a long time, and that we do not have success with many of the families concerned.
To give you an example of a diversionary program, this is a letter from the NT Police to one of the business people whose business was broken into in May 2007 - that is nearly 12 months ago – in which there were five juveniles involved. It just illustrates how long the whole process of diversion takes. I am trying to say to you that the process of family responsibility could take just as long or even longer to implement some of these things:
- Thank you for attending the Youth Justice Conference in September 2007. Your input during the conference was greatly appreciated. I hope you found the conference process was of some benefit to you.
- Please find attached a letter of apology from the juvenile in relation to offences committed in May 2007.
This particular juvenile had done part of the diversionary process. He had written a letter of apology. He had also:
- … completed a diversion program which included 100 hours of community service. Other conditions included his attendance at school and a requirement that he abide by a 7 pm to 7 am curfew. These, and other requirements, were completed.
This particular juvenile completed in March 2008, and that was a good outcome for him. The shop owner, in this case, was pleased about that.
- However, the other juveniles involved in this matter have failed to complete their diversionary requirements and have been referred to court.
That letter was written 10 months after the incident occurred. I do not know how many hours the police had to put into this particular case - and it is just one case - to follow up with juveniles, to see whether they completed what they had promised to do, and to follow up with the business people. I know the business people felt as though they were not getting the communication back from the police to let them know exactly what had happened to these particular juveniles who had caused so much damage to their properties.
My point is: if it takes 12 months to find out that one out of five juveniles has completed the diversion program, how long will it possibly take to ensure that this scheme the minister wants to implement actually is effective? In many cases, as we have said over and over again, many of the parents are not responsible. Many of the parents will not care, and many of the juveniles will not care. They will not care what their parents say, and that is one of the hardest things for parents who have these unruly juveniles within their care.
If you look at the juveniles concerned, the underlying reasons for their behaviour are very complicated. I feel that there should be more focus on juveniles. I hope with the youth camp - and perhaps the streamlining of diversionary programs - that focus can be put on the juveniles so they do get a chance to redeem themselves. They may be from out of town, they may be living in an unhealthy circumstances where they have bad role models, they may have domestic violence, they may have poor health – you name it, we know that – and they may also be second or third generation young people who have lived in a home which has been dysfunctional. I would like to see more emphasis on what you are going to do about these juveniles. I do not believe the diversionary program is effective. I do not believe it is swift enough. I do not believe it is successful enough.
I know you have been quoting figures of how so many do not get back into the diversionary program, but if you ask the business people out there who have been affected by these young people, they would say to you: ‘It is not working, the kids really do not care. They really do not care a darn’.
As I said, when parents have no control over their children, even though you talk about that in your notes, how far do you go with parents? How far do you go to make them have responsibility for their young people? Will the court order actually address the parent? Will you put in the support services that are necessary to ensure that that parent knows how to address the problem? Too often, we see within FACS and other agencies, people who have known problems do not get the support they need to address them, or even to assist them, or to even make them feel as though they are making inroads.
However, if the parent or guardian does not comply with the conditions of the orders of the court in this particular bill, you are saying there will be a penalty. I suggest to you that there are many families where a penalty of a fine probably will not be able to be paid. We all laugh about the unpaid fines that result from the dry town legislation at the moment. There must be thousands of them. What are you going to do? Go down the river and collect their plasma TV and take it away to pay for the fine? What are you actually going to seize as goods to pay the fine? It is pie-in-the-sky stuff, because you say it has to be non-essential household goods.
The issuing of community work orders is a very good suggestion. I believe community work orders should be not just for the parents but for them together with the young people. My only concern is, who is going to supervise these? We seem to be setting up systems which need a huge amount of input from either the police or Correctional Services or whoever. I know some of the business people have said kids have been diverted to do community service on the bus that had graffiti on it and they were supposed to clean it. However, the kid did not turn up, or when he did, there was no one there. The businessman was supposed to supervise it. What you are doing and suggesting is an enormous strain on resources.
I honestly do not believe we can go down this line - and just look at those four juveniles that did not turn up for that particular case of diversion - of holding their parents responsible, ensuring the parents have the right support to know what they are supposed to be doing, ensuring if the parents do not do it then we are going to take them to court, then we are going to fine them, and then we are going to somehow recover that fine.
What is the end result? What is the end result you are actually after? You say: ‘No, we are not going to name the parents or the young person concerned because we do not want to shame them by being named in the press’. We understand that is the general rule in regard to juveniles. However, what is the end point? Just how far down the line of this particular proposal do you go? I have concerns that we are making this convoluted, complex system, and I am not quite sure what we are going to receive at the end. Is there going to be an outcome whereby the parents, hopefully, will be good parents and their child will be a good child? In simplistic terms, that is what you are after. However, it is not simple. Quite often, it is extremely difficult to even enlighten parents. The anger some parents feel towards their kids often turns violent because it reflects on the parent.
You have to be careful that you are not setting up a scenario that makes the situation worse. I do not know whether you are going to have the resources to do this so-called family counselling, family direction, and family responsibility. This is not something that happens overnight. To be honest, there are many people out there who do not care for their kids or about themselves. I do not know how you are going to break that attitude. Is it going to be a carrot-and-stick approach? Is it only going to be the stick approach which, it seems to me, is the way you have written this legislation?
Minister, as I say, if there is a simple answer it would have happened a long time ago. I hope when we get better attendance at school all these programs and initiatives the government is talking about we will get, at the end of the day, better kids and parents.
Look at some of the scenarios you have in our towns, regional centres and communities. I do not consider this legislation will realistically succeed. I say good luck with it. I am not going to vote against it, but I believe the whole process is so convoluted and long, and we have seen similar initiatives so many times but we lack sufficient support agencies to assist where we need them.
There is provision in other acts for juveniles’ needs to be addressed, and restitution and compensation to be made. I feel the whole system we have at the moment is so slow, takes so long and, in a way, is so soft the community’s attitude is one that I worry about. In Alice Springs, we have young teenage girls who target elderly people and disabled people. That is the worst thing I have seen happen in Alice Springs. I would not be surprised if it was the same gang of girls doing this. Since they were successful, they build up their confidence and do it again and again. I hope the police can stop them quickly. When they do get them, though, I hope we do not administer this soft diversion program where these girls laugh at getting away with what they have done.
Good luck with it. I will be interested to hear more of the process of the act than the philosophy behind it. I would like to know what you are going to do. Who is going to be doing the family counselling? Who is going to take responsibility? Let us have a little of the meat of what is going to happen, rather than just the generalised theory behind it. It may make us feel good. It may make us feel nice, warm and fuzzy, but the bottom line is what is really going to happen at the grassroots.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Deputy Speaker, I am not opposing the Youth Justice Amendment (Family Responsibility) Bill. I understand the government is trying to put forward a solution to the problems we have with a minority of youth in some of our communities, as the Chief Minister said. What concerns me is that we are dealing with complex issues and trying to solve them by legalistic means. This means we put down things as A, B, and C and, hopefully, that will fix the problem. My concerns are that we do not look at the bigger picture. If parents - and I am not saying this is all parents - have problems with raising their children, how much emphasis have we put in to marriage guidance? There is a Commonwealth program called Family Relationships. How many of our parents, how many of our young people who had their first child, have any idea what they are in for?
If you came from a Catholic background, many years ago, you could not get married without doing what they called Pre-Cana conferences. You had to do a course on marriage which involved budgeting, discipline, sexual relations, and a whole range of things. Of course today, many people do not get married so they do not go through any formal set of courses before they get married; they just live together and have children.
The problem there is that who is there to help those couples understand some of the issues they are going to have to deal with? There will be issues of budgeting, of relationships with one another, and of ‘How do I look after this little baby that has just dropped into our home the other day? How are we going to handle it?’ Do they know the problems that are going to occur as these children turn into teenagers? From a government perspective, I would like to see much more emphasis placed on positive parenting. You would probably say there are programs and, as I mentioned, there are Commonwealth programs. However, if we are serious about intervening, then you cannot get much earlier intervention than at the stage where two people get together.
I do not want to crowd the schools with it, but I am sure if you talked to Years 11 and 12 and made it known to many young people that there are these programs and, if there is some way we can keep promoting these programs, that will be a positive way of at least trying to reduce some of the problems that occur in the future.
Good parenting does not necessarily mean you will not get a child that is a real ratbag. There is no guarantee of that at all. From my little knowledge - and I am not the guru on family relationships. However, on my trip to America where I visited the West Central Correction facility in Marysville Ohio, I had six inmates sit down in front of me and the guest I was staying with in Ohio. All of them got into problems first, because of the early use of drugs and alcohol and, second, every person had either a broken family or a family that was never home with their kids. That was just six people taken out at random to speak to us. If you accept that we can do something to try to change parenting and help parents look after their children, then we will go a long way in trying to reduce the problems we have.
The other area - and I know people on the other side laugh when I talk about it - is that there are enormous pressures on families today because of the cost of living. A mortgage today really requires two parents to work. Unless you are on a very big wage as a single parent, two parents have to work to pay for a house today. Unless you have inherited some money or won Tattslotto, it is not easy to pay off a mortgage on a single income. If you have two people working to pay for childcare, how much parenting will happen at home? Mum and dad have had a hard day; the child has been to school or been in childcare. The parents are exhausted; they do not have much time sometimes to spend good quality time with their children.
Are we recognising that the pressure in today’s society could also be part of the reason we are having social problems in our society? Kids are not at home because mum and dad are not home - they may be down the pub or off with their mates, but they may also be working. They may have one or two jobs each to try to pay the mortgage on the house. You can go into whether people have ideas that they should own a boat, three cars, four plasma TVs and a big house. That could be some of the problem as well; people trying to earn incomes to pay for necessities in life that are really not that necessary. That is another issue.
I am saying that of the social pressures on parents today, some of that is peer group pressure: ‘My mate up the street has a plasma TV, I should have one. He has a boat, he goes fishing, I need one’. Loans, loans, mortgages - pressure, pressure, pressure. There is school as well. The other day I heard, from my grandkids, that it was $87 to buy the school photographs. Golly, I will go around there with my digital camera; I will do a few for $10. You can see the pressures mounting on parents. That means they have to work longer hours.
Therefore, as a government, what are you looking at as a means of reducing that pressure? I know people laugh at me when I say release more land, make land cheaper. I do not do it just to sound like Gerry Wood big noting himself. I am saying it because we need to reduce the financial pressures on young people, young families, by giving them the opportunity to buy land at a cheaper price, to start off with a smaller house, and not have those pressures so early in life that people have to work when the child needs them most. I always believe - and I have heard other people say it, but I suppose it is from my own experience - the time the child needs the parents most is between 0 and 3. That is when you set up the discipline and the attachment with your child. From then on, of course, a child will become slowly more independent and, when they get to being a teenager, then the issues that we have today come into play: whether your child is going to be a child who is responsible or a child who mixes up with the wrong sort.
There is another area that we should be looking at. Not so long ago, at the top end of Smith Street was the Police Boys Club. We now have the Police Youth and Citizens Club at Berrimah, but that is a completely different thing to what we originally had before. The Police Youth and Citizens Club is now, more or less, about Judo, gymnastics and the Wongabilla Pony Club. I am not saying they do not do good things. However, the Police Boys Club, in its day was run by the police. Do not forget, the police are the people who are actually at the interface with all these problems. They were on the street because Darwin was not much bigger than where we stand today. It was probably Smith Street from one end to the other, a few people lived at Parap and, if you were at Nightcliff, that was a day out in the bush just about. However, there was a Police Boys Club that encouraged young people off the street.
I will refer to my Catholic background. I went to a school which was built by an order of priests called the Salesians. They came out of Italy, from Turin. They were founded by a priest called John Bosco. What was his whole life based around? He was picking young boys off the street who were called urchins, who were no different from the Caz Boys. What we are dealing with today is not something new. It is something that occurred in the 18th century and 19th century. How did they approach it? All right, they had a religious motivation for what they were doing. What did they do? They gave young people a chance to go into woodwork, metal work, or music. They gave them a trade.
Today, the Salesian Order is very much involved in trade education. If you go to Timor, you will find trade schools. They are very much involved in agricultural colleges. They work with people on the street. I am very much a believer that our technical skills should not be out of university; it should be right in the middle of the suburbs. It could be in Palmerston, attached to the secondary school, but it should be right there where the kids needing help are. I do not think it should be plonked up there with the universities; it is the wrong image. We should be working hard to ensure we give opportunities for kids to get away from being on the street. We do it with Clontarf. For instance, we have these young people here. That is another thing; we use sport. There is a mixture of messages there.
I believe there is a role for police. Some police will say their job is just to carry out the law, to pick up the criminals, to take them to court and, after that, well, hopefully, the court will give them some punishment. I believe police have a role to play much earlier than that.
I will give you an example which I thought was successful but it waivers because it depends on who is running it. There is a sporting trailer in Katherine that goes out to Beswick. I am told, from my days in the Substance Abuse committee of the previous sittings of parliament, that that was very successful. Police went out with this trailer, full of footballs and all sorts of sporting equipment, to that community. They were out there, not as police, but, I suppose, as human beings trying to help others before they got into trouble.
I would like to see a bit more emphasis from the police side of it. They have to be out there, not with guns, handcuffs, and whatever they wear around their belts, but as community police. I know we have them in the schools, but I believe we need them on the ground working with some of those families that have a problem - not as police officers enforcing law, but police officers trying to help kids not get into trouble in the first place.
I put those up as positive things to the government, saying that I see what you are doing. You are intervening at stage 4, I thought. Stage 1 is where we need to have intervention; that is, more parenting. We need more involvement, perhaps, with the police at a much earlier stage. We need more opportunities for kids to be in those trades that we now have a shortage of, unfortunately. I know the government has plans for 10 000 apprentices, or at least apprentice places. That is a political promise they made at the last election, and that is good. However, we really need to be pushing hard to get some of these kids into those trades, just as it was the emphasis of that religious order of priests that looked after me in school. They saw that as a role and a way of getting kids out of a poverty cycle. They gave them some eduction in something that was meaningful, and gave them a reason for living, really. Sometimes I think some of these kids do not have a reason for living.
I also remember the days of Wildman River. When I did a trip out there and sat down with one of the kids there, he talked about wanting to see his girlfriend when he got out of there. He started to get a little sad about where he was. In talking to not only him, but some of the others, I believe what was missing in their life was someone to hug. That is what is missing with many of these parents and their children; they have not learnt that kids need some love in their life. If they do not have that, they will attach to somebody else who can give them some friendship and feeling of belonging.
Unfortunately, society is a very cruel society. If parents are unable to show that love - and sometimes it might be very hard for them as they have never been shown it themselves - then kids wander off and look for it in other ways - whether it is with girls or a gang. The government could say, ‘Well, we can fix that’, but that is not easily fixed. That is not something you could fix by legislation, but it is something that our society, in itself, has got away from. With all the concerns about paedophilia and all that, even parenting is hard today. Giving your kid a hug - you would be a bit worried. Walking up to someone and giving them a kiss on the cheek and saying, ‘I love you’, is not as easy as it seems today because you are a bit scared that someone might say: ‘Look at that; that is pretty terrible’. Society has pushed people away from that a little.
It is a bit like me playing Father Christmas about nine times in December. You are very conscious of picking up a child and giving them a hug and saying ‘Happy Christmas’ because of all the bad things that have happened in our society. There are things that have probably gone the other way, which has meant young children do not know what love is in their life. I would bet your bottom dollar that if you talked to some of the kids we are talking about, and asked them whether they have ever been hugged or if anyone ever walked up and said ‘I love you’, the answer would be probably not. These are some of the bigger issues that we have to look at.
On the other hand, we have a responsibility to tell young people who do things wrong, that it is wrong and the consequences of doing that action is that they will be punished. I can understand at an age of 10 to 14 maybe, you can say: ‘Look, we need to give you a second chance’. When you get above 14, 15, 16, surely you should know what is right or wrong. If you were not taught that at home, that is another problem. If kids were not told at home what was wrong, then it is hard. Many of these kids do not know it is wrong. They could say: ‘Mum and Dad never told me it is wrong; they do the same’. Again, I go back to the parenting side of it.
The only other way to enforce what is right or wrong is through some form of punishment. The judicial system, sometimes, is too weak. If I painted over someone’s wall, home, factory or car, under a proper system, I would be forced – and not 10 months later - to go there under supervision – and we have to have people who are not police officers, but community order officers - and clean it off. If I smashed a window on a premises, I would be required to pay for it. There has to be some consequence for my actions to show me that was the wrong thing to do. If it has not been taught at home, then society has a role to play in teaching that child that that was wrong, and the consequences of that action will be paying for it.
When I was young, the consequences of doing something wrong was ‘bend over the chair’. Well, we cannot have that today, you would go to court for child abuse. I got a wallop on the backside from my mum. We had rules at home; if we broke the rules, we knew you were going to be punished. I do not see myself as a person with a great tendency for violence after all those years of my mum giving me a whack on the backside. We have a society that has become too lax and too soft. You need some discipline in life. You need to be taught that you need self-discipline in life. If that is not taught, then you end up with spoiled kids. Spoiled kids end up getting in to trouble. Society itself has shifted too far saying: ‘Well, no discipline, we will talk this through.’ But by the time you talk it through, it is too late.
The minister spoke about youth camps. The Chief Minister spoke of it today. I do not want to be too cynical, but I have spoken in this parliament for the last seven years saying it is something we need. All of a sudden, the government is going to do it. I have always felt there was a need for something like that. I was interested hearing one of the other ministers say how, by having these youth camps, you can take people away from alcohol or their mates. They can go out and get some fresh air. They have a chance to think about where they are. Two camps are not enough. We need them elsewhere in our society. We have done it for petrol sniffing at Mt Theo. That is similar. What have we done? We have taken kids 60 km out of – Papunya?
Ms Anderson: Yuendumu.
Mr WOOD: Yuendumu, thank you. What did we do? We took them way out bush. Why? Because they were back in touch with nature; they did not have their radios, their CD players – well, not until the batteries ran out. They could not leave the area because it was too far to walk. We took them out there to try to get them to reassess their own values in their own community with their own people.
There is a dire need for more of that to happen with young people, in conjunction with getting them a trade, giving them some good literacy and numeracy skills, and giving them a hug. You need people in these youth camps who are not only just nine to five people; you need people who want to do it. I would not have a youth camp if it was just an application for workers who would like to work there. I would want to know whether they want to change these kids’ lives. Are they willing to put up with whatever they will get when they are out there but, at the same time, have the understanding that these kids need a bit of love? You need the right kind of people, not just nine to five people. You need people who really want to change these kids’ lives.
It is a combination of things with parenting, from when a couple has a child right through to the options of ensuring children who should have known about what is right or wrong were punished, and are being taught what is right or wrong, to the youth camps where you are giving them further options. As I said, I have spoken about that before. I spoke about Bill Fordham who ran the camp at King River Station. He also went out to Ramingining. Every time I saw him, he asked why the government would not give him enough funds to make this work. He said it did work when he ran the camp at King River Station. I gather he has now gone to Queensland. He was a classic example of a person working with young people, who knew the value of those types of youth camps.
In relation to the bill, I do not agree with the opposition from the point of view of a lot of instances of the word, it ‘may, may, may’. Obviously, you are dealing with complicated scenarios, as the member for Braitling said. You have to have a whole range of options that the court can look at. Each case is going to be different. You are going to have to deal with different parents, different youths, and different scenarios. Basically, I see the legislation putting those ‘may’s in there simply to tell the court that this is the sort of areas that we expect the court to be dealing with.
The opposition may be right, but the one good thing in this legislation is it says ‘we will review it in 12 months’. That is clearly written into the legislation, so I expect some means of looking at this legislation in relation to specific cases because, obviously, you will apply this to family A, family B, family C, and family D. I will be interested in 12 months whether you can say: ‘We have had changes to family A, family B, family C, and family D’. Then we can say that the opposition may have been right; there was not enough enforcement. I do think that this needs some trialling.
I am not going to support it because it is just legislation that looks good. I am supporting it if you add this to our whole pile of other options - from parenting, the police being more involved as there is room for that, as well as putting more emphasis on technical training for these people, and especially trying to improve numeracy and literacy. Helping families develop a much better relationship with their children is not an easy thing to do. We need to promote more about loving your child.
There are advertisements on television you see sometimes. You might not be religious, but the Church of Latter Day Saints always has an emphasis on families. There are ads about the role of dads. Fathers, I must admit, in today’s society, have been the ones who have been left out. Their role has been diminished by the changes in society. You might say there is equality of the sexes; however, in some cases what has happened is that many fathers are not sure what their role has been, or what it should be. There needs to be help with fathers trying to understand what their role is in society today.
I put those comments, minister, to you in a positive way. I do not believe, even though there is a lot of politics in discussing how much this costs, whether there is an election coming, and not everything in the bill is the way it should be but, looking after youth, trying to change the way they live, and helping families should be beyond the political party argy-bargy. It is too important. I am not so silly that that will not happen, as there is an election coming up and there will be plenty of that argy-bargy. However, when it comes to the bottom line, we all should understand that families are important, as the Chief Minister mentioned in his economic statement. The core of our family is still important, whether it has changed these days - and it has changed - but I still think we still need to work hard as a society. Parliament has to lead the way in many of these things, not necessarily with legislation, but it has to be the one that gives that support - in a lot of cases the financial support to groups.
I should not forget the non-government organisations. I noticed when I looked up the Anglicare website they have a section which is their Anglicare Family Support Services, it says:
- In the main family support services are aimed at strengthening the capacity of parents in their parenting and care roles and are mainly provided in the home although variable use is made of group programs operated in community settings
There are other groups beside government that are involved in helping families. We also have a role to ensure that those groups have adequate funding and resources to do their job. That is all part of what needs to happen.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I put forward those comments in a positive way. I am interested - and I hope there is as much fanfare about introducing this legislation in today’s parliament as there will be in coming back with the review. It is mentioned there but, sometimes, reviews just disappear. I hope the government will ensure that 12 months from today it will come back with a report card on this very important area, because our young people are the future. That might be a clich, but it is reality. We do not want to let those kids down.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Family and Community Services): Madam Deputy Speaker, in supporting these amendments, I draw the attention of the Assembly to our government’s commitment to dealing with youth issues and, in particular, the very vexed area of dealing with youth in trouble. We are increasingly moving towards an interventionist approach in which government agencies, assisted where appropriate by the non-government sector, take steps early in the piece with the emphasis, wherever possible, is on heading off problems at the pass.
Today’s amendment bill builds on this process. A good example of this is those sections of the Care and Protection of Children Act 2007, which deals with the powers of authorised officers to move a child to a safe place. I quote from the objects of Subdivision 1 of Division 8 of the act, which states:
- The object of this Subdivision is to empower an authorised officer to take action, on a temporary basis and only in limited circumstances, to remove a child from a place where the wellbeing of the child is at risk.
The act then goes on to describe the circumstances in which an authorised officer may move a child to a safe place, and what might constitute a safe place. Clearly, this part of the act is about intervening where an authorised officer reasonably believes there is a risk to the wellbeing of the child if the child is not removed.
This amendment bill to the Youth Justice Act takes this further. If a child is in this sort of situation, authorised officers now have the capacity to seek a family responsibility agreement. I have listened to the members for Nelson and Braitling. They were going through areas of the bill and, basically agreeing to it, but wanting to know what the mechanics are. The member for Nelson touched on some of the areas - which I know he spoke about in the past and is quite passionate about. He is right where he has raised that issue that there are good kids, there are bad kids, and there are some kids who, through no fault of their own, have got into trouble and have been caught up in that trap of being with gangs.
We all know, having read about – and I know the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General is well read and has done a lot of research in this area - and looked at the difference scenarios but, at the end of the day, government has a responsibility, not just to society, but also to those kids. This will deal with forcing families to actually meet their responsibility. Regarding the mechanisms in that, member for Nelson, with the realignment of the Department of Health and Families with the new Children and Families Division, there will be appropriate case management.
The member for Braitling read a letter from one of the business people who talked about such a long process or time frame to get an individual through a juvenile diversion program. Hopefully, through this process, and having talked to the many FACS and youth workers within the new Division of Children and Families, the delay is minimal. It is important to get the case management right, ensuring that these agreements are going to work, both for the families and also for that young person you are dealing with, because there might be a number of kids. As a parent, the troubles with my son are well publicised. I believe we all can look at issues that we face as parents. I do not think there is one parent in this Chamber who has not had an issue with his or her child. No matter what you might put in place at home - the values, telling your child what is right and what is wrong - the minute that child walks out that door, as parents, unfortunately - and it is a small group, I am not saying this is a scenario for every family - you cannot control what happens when that child goes out that door.
The big difference is, most parents will take that responsibility. I know the struggles as a working parent taking that responsibility but, more importantly, making my son take on that responsibility for the wrongdoing that he has done. Unfortunately, there is a group of youths out there who will not take that responsibility, and there are parents who refuse to take that responsibility. If parents are failing in their responsibility, they have to be made accountable.
Family responsibility orders are the first stage in this process. Hopefully, through appropriate case management and putting the resources in place, we do not have to get to the stage of the family responsibility orders because, once someone reaches the orders, you know that they are in big trouble, because it is a court process that they will then need to go through. Hopefully, the new department and the resources that we have put there will ensure that we can work with those families. Nine out of 10 or whatever; we are not going to have success with every case. There are some kids - and that is the sad reality - where there is no turning back. As the Minister for Child Protection, there are many cases in the Northern Territory where these parents do not give a damn as well. We have the Care and Protection of Children Act under which, when a child is in a situation of risk, that child can be removed and placed in another situation - but to different areas.
As I said, with the family responsibility agreement as the first process, the amendment bill clearly recognises that we need, as a community, to have that capacity to get in early and where it really matters; that is, working with families. The child misbehaviour, whether criminal or not, may have many causes, but are almost certainly related to their home life. The member for Nelson touched on much of that. Whether they are living with their parents or under other forms of care - and we have seen throughout the Northern Territory that not every child is living with his or her mum - it recognises that families and parents may not be very good at being parents. Family responsibility agreements can move those parents and carers into counselling and other educative and support groups to build or augment the skills they have. You can have these sorts of agreements in place.
I notice the Leader of the Opposition sits and smirks about this. It is all well and good and, in the past, we have seen many pieces of legislation that come in …
Mr MILLS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I am concerned that that remains on the Parliamentary Record. I was not smirking at that, I was just sitting there. To say something like that is just wrong.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order, please resume your seat.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Madam Speaker, it recognises, and we know that parents may not be very good at parenting. The family responsibility agreements can move those parents and carers into counselling to get the support they need to augment their skills. The members for Nelson and Braitling - particularly the member for Nelson - were saying we need to bring the care factor back into society. That is true; not just with society but with some of those kids - they need to care and show society due respect, as well.
The bill recognises that some parents may be drunks or abusers of other substances. The family responsibility agreement directly opens the possibility of entering appropriate counselling or rehabilitation programs. It recognises that some parents may have mental health issues. Family responsibility agreements can open parents in these situations to treatment.
The core of family responsibility agreements and, indeed, family responsibility orders if it gets that far, is that the interests of children and youth must come first. It is about getting in early before what may start out as minor misbehaviour - persistent truancy, for example - develops into full-blown antisocial behaviour and criminality.
If it does get to the stage of a family responsibility order mediated by the courts, the primacy of the interest of children and youth must be front and centre of the court’s consideration. The powers given to the courts in this instance to investigate and develop orders, while not being hamstrung by strict rules of evidence, but through individual practice directions, will give our courts the flexibility to achieve positive results for the children and youth, as well as for the family unit itself. It is, after all, in the interests of our hard-working magistrates, who have no joy seeing this repeat offending amongst the youth appearing before them time and time again.
Finally, there is a strict requirement that these amendments be reviewed after a year of operation. The Chief Minister said that, whilst implementing this legislation, if we find that it needs to be amended or tweaked, we will come back to do that. That is important and is something that all members on this side welcome.
Madam Speaker, this government takes the issue of youth criminality seriously, which is why we have been carefully laying down an approach of early intervention rather than waiting for full blown criminality and antisocial behaviour. Just as primary health care is designed to prevent later illness, this kind of primary social intervention is designed to prevent antisocial behaviour and criminality later. As Minister for Family and Community Services and minister for Education, I know it is not easy - no one pretends that it is - but it is vital that we move in this direction.
Ms ANDERSON: (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I contribute to this bill in support of the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General. I will outline the difficulties and problems many families have, especially in remote Aboriginal communities and in hub towns such as Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Katherine and Darwin.
To walk the streets of Alice Springs and see these school-aged children wandering the mall in Alice Springs without parental supervision is a real issue for me, not just as a politician, but as a parent. It is of concern to the town and other members as well. We have taken a multipronged approach to attacking this problem and that is what I want to talk about in this bill.
It is not just a bill that locks away children. It is a bill that looks at the whole family structure. It looks at giving support to parents so that they have capacity to look after their children. It also gives the parents skills to discipline their children and see what direction their children are going. I know that in remote Aboriginal communities the reason we cannot get children to go to school is lack of discipline from parents. We have seen in the past the substance abuse and we talk about the use of marijuana and the fact that parents and the whole community cannot discipline their own children.
Somewhere along the line, parents have lost their roles as parents. Somewhere along the line, communities have also lost their vision of where they want to direct the next generation, which is their children, to go. This bill, with its multipronged approach, is aimed at bringing that family structure back so that children can see their mums and dads being coached into looking after, and how to cope with, their children. The children are being told: ‘Two strikes, that is it, you are going to go to a boot camp’.
I really do support the model of boot camps and that children should be taken to places like Mt Theo. Mt Theo, in the member for Stuart’s electorate, was started with $1000 of ASSPA money. It took a lot of courage from the whole community and the parents to say: ‘Enough is enough. We want something to be done with our children’. So, they started the Mt Theo program in the middle of the Tanami Desert. It is too far for the children to walk to the road, or to try to walk back to the community. That showed that when parents and the whole community had support, they could do something. There was someone saying: ‘We are behind you. We will support you’. This bill shows to me the multipronged approach is similar to what happened in Mt Theo and places like Illamurta, a community in my electorate run by Barry Abbott. Because, in places like Illamurta, there is the fatherly figure of Barry Abbott, the motherly figure of Barry’s wife, and their daughter, there is that structure of family. The children see that and the discipline mechanisms in the family.
The raft of reforms that this government has put into legislation and what this bill talks about is holding parents accountable. It is about holding communities accountable for the direction of their children. The antisocial behaviour that is created in all our towns is created by juveniles. I often walk in the streets of Alice Springs and have coffee and talk to business people in the streets of Alice Springs and see young children running around without going to school, or their mothers gambling in the grounds of the Flynn Church. The children are running around in that area, going into shops and annoying shopkeepers, tourists and people who are trying to have lunch in the mall.
This government has had the vision to have the multipronged approach to combating these problems. We heard from the minister for Education last night. All these multifaceted approaches that this government has taken is what we need. We need to drive this ourselves - as local politicians, as parents and as grandparents - because we have a struggling Territory. We have a Territory that is struggling because parents are struggling. Parents are struggling because there is that hopelessness. They feel that hopelessness because they cannot discipline and control their children.
Madam Speaker, this bill aims to give parents that support to direct their children. I commend the minister for this bill.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, this bill arises as a response to a very clearly defined problem in our community. That problem is the barbecue stopper. Everywhere we go, people talk about it. I have lived in the Northern Territory since 1989 and this talk is increasing. The concern is deepening and it demands a response. A response has been provided here.
I believe that if the problem is clearly identified, understood and assessed honestly, we would recognise, first up, that these new legislative arrangements, of themselves, have insufficient power to effect change, because the change occurs not by the legislation or the arrangements that are put in place, but by people-to-people interaction. The difference that occurs, occurs as a result of those heroes that we see quietly at work in our community; some whose names we know. I am very pleased that the member for Macdonnell has mentioned Barry Abbott and his wife. There are people like Barry and his wife who have worked, and are still working, in the Territory quietly and, in many instances, without support or recognition. There are some whose names we do not know. In the Substance Abuse committee, we visited communities and saw these quiet and good people who are fighting a quiet and desperate fight to bring some social order and some morality and ethics into their community. Some of them are waging what they, if it was not for the fire in their hearts, would see as a hopeless battle. However, they battle on.
Then we have the Cole boys, who I had the great fortune of meeting as a result of a young man who visited our home last year - a young man whom I have met since and have spoken to on a couple of occasions. He is a young man who broke into our home. My wife and I have had the opportunity to speak to his mother and provide her with some support. That young man, I am pleased to report, is on the right track and in employment. I thank the Cole boys for their work. It is that human element, that passion, which makes the difference. That is where we need to put our faith.
Allan Brahminy is inspiring. He has his own story. He has now used his efforts to write a different story and bear influence on the lives of others who have experienced very difficult circumstances almost beyond our ability to comprehend. With or without legislation, these efforts will continue. The efforts of these people are the magic ingredient. There is a man who has inspired many, and won admiration of others: Mr Ross. I am not sure of his first name ...
Mr McAdam: Graham Ross.
Mr MILLS: He was spoken of in Alice Springs by long-term residents as a good man who has a heart for young people and takes time to bring them in and assist them, and has done so consistently for many years, with or without legislation.
To me, it is that element that will make the difference. That is where we should be putting our faith and trying to learn those lessons. How do we engender that spirit within our community? If we can answer that question we will then have some progress; we will see some results.
That is the difficult part, because it means complete buy-in. Anything less than a complete buy-in is a counterfeit. It is the difference between being concerned about the behaviour of another, and saying, ‘Tut, tut, we really should do something about that’, and making some suggestions that are non-intrusive and hope that they will change their ways.
Sadly, the strength of these behaviours and awful conditions that many families find themselves in will not respond to such soft measures. There needs to be an intrusion to break the cycle. Those who perhaps do not understand this concept would think of that intrusion as a violent or a demeaning intrusion. However, anyone who has raised children knows that, at times, you really have to, in the interests of love, try to break that cycle, because you can see where it is going.
That is why there is concern for the proliferation of the word ‘may’ in here. I am concerned that, in its construct, it is well-intentioned and provides the right template. It recognises where the problem can be best addressed back to parental responsibility. However, in reality, when you unpack it, I am concerned that it does not have built within it that compulsion, that extra strength, that is going to drive home to the core of the problem a solution that is challenging and difficult to implement. That is when we start to place confidence, not so much in people, but in the legislation, in the constructs that we develop, and the organisations. We put faith in systems and we are creating a system. It can be described in such ways; it is a bit like describing a piece of machinery. You think it is going to do this, that and the other. It may well do, but we are dealing with people and deeply ingrained and very dangerous social habits - emotional, spiritual - and we need that kind of cutting edge to this solution.
The opposition Country Liberal Party supports the bill, but I will carry, as always, those concerns. I speak with some humility as a father of two kids, as a teacher, as a school principal working in education for 17 years, with an electorate that has many of the social problems that are represented in the papers on a daily basis. I have worked with young people for whom I have intervened on their behalf, I have engaged parents, I have chased down parents and held them to account, and taken risks in their best interests. It is that element and that something special that can never be captured or replicated in legislation, that I have seen in the faces and the lives of good people like the Barry Abbotts. It can never be replicated; it is something else. It cannot be created by legislation. Because of that, I qualify my support because that element is the only thing that will cut through. If anyone here who is a student of history looks back at the times where there has been profound social problems, it is not rules and laws that were passed in parliament, it was the power of lives that intervened and broke through that made the difference. People make a difference.
I fear that this is a construct. I have some trepidation in going down this path, because it inevitably arouses a reaction from government, perhaps either to protect themselves from that which they may not have scrutinised themselves, or they know it and do not want it to be seen. I am not a fool. I have been in this parliament for getting on to nine years. I have observed politics from both sides. I have come to this place generated out of concern for my community. I have seen the role of government in many forms, operating in a way to create an impression with an intention to make a difference, but there is a bit of conflict there. It is the keeping up of appearances which troubles me.
There are those robust, shabby families who are really honest, really good. They make mistakes but they are really frank and honest. They do not have any pretences, and they have great kids. They make mistakes, they stumble and fall at times, and you just love them because they are honest. Then there is the other family that keeps up appearances. You know that everything appears to be in order but you see, as time goes on, the fruits of that which is concealed and not admitted to in their children, sadly. I am talking about that awkward honesty that is required to bring change to issues of concern; that awkward honesty that can appear a bit shabby and, perhaps, unsophisticated. That is what needs to be brought into these discussions.
I have said before we can easily be led into temptation in parliament to either believe the power of images and think navely and shallowly that the things that we do in here will effect real change when, secretly, what is occurring is the use of images, the clever crafting of messages to achieve an objective; that is, the retention of your hand on the tiller, the maintenance of your position in power. You have believers there, you have the resources to do that. Therefore, there is an inconsistency between the message that has been put into people’s letterboxes and what is contained in what is a response to a very complex problem. There is a discrepancy, a jarring between the messages.
The true story is something that is a little difficult to explain and is person-to-person. It requires real honesty to be able to effect change to a family. If you live next door to a family that has real problems with raising their kids, they are screaming, they are using profanity, they are up in the middle of the night, they are fighting, and they are drinking to excess, if you are that neighbour, it is not an easy matter to intervene. You would prefer to pull the shutters down. It is really hard. What we are requiring here is something that is going to go into that family and assist them one way or another. That is the reality of it. There are people in streets who are living beside these things, and it is a human issue. How are we going to break it?
The message that is put into the letterboxes creates a clear impression. In a world of images that we have these days, it is not hard to sell messages. The advertisers use it and government uses it. Opposition will endeavour to use it too, I suggest. However, we have to examine ourselves when it comes to matters like this, whether we are being honest. What is our real motivation? Do you sincerely believe that the core of this is adequate to really address the problem; to really understand the problem and the measures that are necessary to address that problem? How do you reconcile then that message that has been put into letterboxes? Does it genuinely reinforce the core of this mechanism that is being discussed in this parliament today, this legislation? Does it honestly reflect the intent? Is that information provided to help those people be reassured that things are going to get better because we have understood, we have looked into this problem, we have now grasped the magnitude of this, and we now have measures in place that are extraordinary, and will genuinely make a move towards reversing this cycle?
I have trouble with it because it is serious business we are playing with here. We are playing with people’s expectations, hopes, and desires. They want real leadership; that is, leadership which is prepared to take a real risk and to walk down the path that will effect some real change and be conducted in real honesty. Otherwise, we will find ourselves talking about this same thing again, as we did at the commencement of this parliament.
As I said, I have been here going on nine years. At the end of this government’s first term in office, there was a similar crafting of a response to a similar problem, along with media releases of a similar nature - not the same machinery being described, but similar measures; new, tough measures, a raft of them. It was packaged nicely so that people said: ‘Oh, government recognises this problem and is going to do something about it’, and ‘If we are elected we will pass these laws which will effect this change’. The expectation was raised. Just before people went to the polls, we got the headline that you would have paid a $250 000 for: ‘Crackdown on kid crims’. I remember it clearly. You got what you wanted, you got the headline. The headline told every voter who picked up the NT News that day: you go to the poll and you are going to vote for the party that is going to crack down. At last, someone is going to crack down on these kid crims. That was the promise.
Since then, we have had other new tough measures. By the way, those tough measures which were spoken of before that election resulted in some favourable press to government - that is fine, that is the way the game is played. The headline was perfect and it resulted in an expectation. I am sure the expectation then was carried through by many of those who voted for you guys. Then, once the dust had settled and you had your 19, those expectations were not carried all the way through, or not met, because of those strong, clearly articulated and cleverly crafted messages were not delivered in the same clearly defined and sharp way in legislation. This resulted in, halfway through your last term, a new raft of new tough measures - anti-gang legislation - was ramped up. What drove that? It was because of the problem that was emerging in the community: ‘Let us respond to it, let us let people know that we are on to it’. The right words were used: ‘anti-gang legislation’, ‘new tough measures’, and ‘raft of’. That has come and gone and the problems have arisen. The message that gangs do not exist went out somehow or other. In fact, they do, so now we have a new raft of new tough measures, matched up with pamphlets.
Having said all that, I am concerned that the necessary ingredients to drive through change are compromised when the genesis of this motivation lies in polling and community concern. With an election almost around the corner, it is time to talk tough again, time to describe new things that we will do if only we are given another chance. If that is the driver of this in any way or another, you are going to diminish your capacity to really break through. That is the concern. It is a responsibility that I have and we have jointly, to communicate this message, because there some pretty smart people out there and some sensitive people too who are trying their best. They will need to be backed up with some real honesty if we are going to give it a go.
I remember being asked by the ABC when these new measures announced, or flagged. I think the Chief Minister was away at the time, and the Attorney-General said: ‘We have had enough, enough is enough. Kids out of control’. He then described the measures and Caz Boys, or whatever it was. I thought: ‘Oh well, good’. The Chief Minister came back from his holiday or break and reinforced the same message because it was clear there was a problem. I thought: ‘Well, game on’. Then when I was asked by the ABC: ‘Well, it looks like you have been talking about this for some time, and the government has taken the wind out your sails’. It is not a matter of we are all tacking in the wind to try to get the best position so we can win the battle; it is so that we can fix the problem. It is not a political battle, it is a social problem. If we think we are all manoeuvring on the ocean to try to get the best position so we can fire broadsides at each other, we miss the point. It is not a game. When I was asked that question, I thought: ‘Oh, God, probably a lot of people think this is some kind of game, some kind of outsmarting plan, and the purpose of that plan is to try to win office. Why are we in office? So we can do something to really change things’.
It goes back, if we track one step further back, to the by-election in Greatorex. Prior to that by-election, and as a result of the young man who broke into my home, I thought I could formalise some of the thoughts that I had been speaking of in different forums. For some time, I had run forums in Palmerston on tough camps for kids with real problems. I used the brat camp example that had aired on the ABC as a focal point so that people could come together and discuss these kinds of camps. They were a tough kind of camp. There are lots of camps, and the Brahminy and the Balunu are two different types of camps, both very useful in approaching two different cohorts of kids. However, in my view, there needs to be a very tough camp, similar perhaps to brat camp but, of course, that is a model from overseas. It was a useful exercise to get people to talk about those kinds of constructs, because it does need to be that tough one and that does not seem to be evident.
I have had a look at what has been proposed for these other camps. They are fine, but there needs to be an overarching template as to how these camps should operate, and there needs to be a range of programs, including the tough one - the really tough one. There are models in existence.
A young lad - I will not mention his name - came into my place and, as a result of following the progress of his interaction with the legal system, I put a paper together called Beyond Wildman River. I was in Alice Springs and I held a forum which was very well attended, and we talked about these things. It grew some strong support in that community. It was a response, not a political thing, but a need to say: ‘Look, we have some problems. We are down for the sittings - public forum, let us talk about it’. It was the first time we talked about those kinds of camps in a formal way and how they would apply in the Territory.
I had given a number of adjournments on it, and there had not been any engagement from government in any meaningful way on it at that time. Then it came to the Greatorex by-election and, because people began to talk about it on talk-back radio and so on, that is when it was announced first; that government would run these camps in Alice Springs. I was pleased that they would do so. However, that was the first time we had heard support for these camps. I had already had talks with Hamilton Downs. I am really pleased that that response had been made.
The only reason I say that is that the context of all that was, it took a by-election for a change of position, or an adoption of a position, or a clarifying of a position. I wonder whether the adoption of that position was motivated out of political interest, because it had never been spoken of before until there was a by-election. You adopted your position and, then, when we were moving closer to an election, there was an adoption of a new, tough range of words.
This being 1 May, I use 1 May to draw recognition of the heavy presence of the word ‘may’ in this legislation. That concerns me, because it blunts the intent and is certainly inconsistent with the message that has been presented publicly. That is a real concern. It is a time for real leadership. You are able to sell it if you say it plainly.
I have run crime forums in Palmerston, and people thought these crime forums were about beating up on government and running simple messages. We ran a series of three of them. What was really good was we took a people on a journey. Then, by the time we got into those forums, the first one involved the police, because people had been broken into and we needed some way to clear the dramas that people were having - the worries, the troubles they had - and to sort out some basic understandings such: how the police work?; what can I do?; who do I phone?; and what are the police doing? Basic information began to be passed around. The judiciary was the second, and then people began to understand how the judiciary works; how the legal system works and how you interact with it. It was a better understanding. Then the third one was the different agencies such as Neighbourhood Watch, Tough Love and Victims of Crime.
At the end of that, people were much closer together. There was honesty; what started out as a black and white issue – I mean black and white was stark - was easy. Comments included: ‘I pay taxes, how come when I phoned the police they did not come immediately?’ That is how it started. Once we got further into it, you realised it is not that simple: that police are people who also pay taxes; that there is a hierarchy of needs at any given time; there are a range of instruments that can be employed; my phone call, even though I do not get immediate response, does feed into a system that means something; it is worthwhile phoning the police; do not phone or tell your neighbour, phone someone who can do something about it; everyone is concerned; ‘Are you a member of Neighbourhood Watch?’; ‘Oh, no, I am not’; and yes, you have a part to play in this.
Bit by bit, people were brought together and it was excellent. I reckon we need that kind of leadership: people to really engage in a sensible way, not trying to sell messages or run a marketing campaign, but to try to effect social change. That is enough.
Madam Speaker, it has support because, as the member for Araluen said, it may work; it is well-intentioned. I am concerned and have reservations, as other members here do. I hope it does make some inroads on the problems that do concern all of us.
Mr BURKE (Brennan): Madam Speaker, I support the legislation that we are debating this afternoon. As the Attorney-General said, this is part of the broader strategy to combat youth crime. The bill contains two of the three parts to this government’s attempts to combat youth crime and antisocial behaviour in the Territory: limiting access to diversion programs and the introduction of the family responsibility agreements and orders.
Essentially, the bill provides that where a young person has already been referred to diversion programs, police will be able to charge the youth with the relevant offence and the youth will go before the courts and will be able to present to the court the unsuitability of diversion programs. There is the safeguard in place that the Commissioner of Police may authorise or require a formal diversion - notwithstanding the young person may already have been referred on two occasions - where the commissioner thinks appropriate. The government’s intention is that this will be in exceptional circumstances rather than something that becomes run of the mill.
It will take some time for the message to get out to young people, but the message will get out. What we are talking about is the core group of young people who get into trouble time and time again; youths for whom diversion is not working or has not worked. I take some heart from a discussion I had with the former principal of Palmerston High School, Mr Chris Dias. I first ran into him when I was at Palmerston High and he was the senior of the science faculty. Even then, he had a fearsome reputation and you did not want to get hauled up in front of Mr Dias at all. Chris said to me that, in all the years of his teaching, and of all the kids he saw who got into trouble, only a few ever went on to get into serious trouble. He reckoned that he could confidently say that it was less than 10 in all those years. This would tally to be less than one a year, because he had many years experience of teaching by the time he retired.
I take great heart from comments like that coming from one of our senior principals who has seen generations of kids go through the education system. No one is pretending that there is not a problem. Antisocial behaviour, low-level crime, serious crime is always something that we, as a society and a government, have had to deal with. It is interesting that we have to continually find new ways to address it. It is an ever-changing field. If it was not, we would still have the same provisions that were in place when we were a colony of Great Britain receiving prison hulks from the motherland.
Thankfully, somewhere along the line, someone decided that was not a great idea. Yet, as sophisticated as we get, we still require more and more mechanisms. Mechanisms that once worked cease to continue to work. I do not pretend to have the knowledge or expertise to explain why that is so, but it is clear that is the case. We would all like to think that people are reasonable, that they can see the error of their ways, but that is just not the case. That does not mean that you should take away entirely the chance for a young person to reform and get back on to the right track. This is why we have the diversion programs in the first place. The evidence is there that, for the vast majority of young people, this works. There is no need to lock everyone up and throw away the key, which seems to be the approach some in this Chamber would like to take for some reason.
The other part of the legislation is the family responsibility agreement which aims to not only identify those youths who are engaging in low-level antisocial and/or criminal behaviour, but are also those who are at risk of drifting into more serious crime, and to provide assistance to their parents or guardians through a coordinated process. That is what the agreements endeavour to deliver.
I note that, before entering into the family responsibility agreement, an authorised agency must be of an opinion that the agreement may assist the family to resolve issues. A number of objectives enable the parent or guardian to address aspects in their own behaviour that might be identified as adversely affecting their parenting skills, and to focus the parents’ or guardian’s attention on the structured needs of their child to ensure as much as possible that they can assist their child to stay out of trouble.
This may involve not just responsibilities placed on parents, but also support for parents and guardians. It is an important part of this legislation that families are not set up simply to fail; that this government is providing avenues for support. I have been to quite a few of the Families and Schools Together programs which are run at Gray Primary School and I take that as a bit of a yardstick. I have also been to the one run at the Palmerston Christian School. They are about refocusing parents’ attention on their children which, many times, parents have not realised that slowly their attention has been taken elsewhere. They are about giving simple mechanisms for parents to find that time to spend with their kids, and find that communication with their children.
It has been fantastic to see these parents relating to their children much better towards the end of the 10-week program than when they started. It is of benefit to everyone in the family structure. I would like to think that the support that is shown to families who may have one of their youngsters getting into trouble will assist in showing them similar mechanisms, as there are plenty of families who are having difficulties with their children.
I sometimes think that we might benefit from, not so much formal courses in parenting, but certainly more avenues for parenting skills. I grew up at a time when the extended family was a bit stronger than it currently is - much of the focus is on the nuclear family. However, people get their ideas of how to be a parent from what they grew up with; what they were around; and the people they respected. Where, for some reason that has broken down, children do not have that bedrock to turn to. Parents will be able to attend courses and programs, or even counselling should they require it or, perhaps, request it. If they know that it is available and it could provide some help, then I am sure many parents will take up that option. These programs and counselling will be run by professionals to assist families to adopt appropriate strategies for addressing their own behaviour. You can find television programs on it. That is all the show the Super Nanny is about: someone who has a toolbox full of strategies helping families come back together and handle things when they have run out of ideas themselves, or are too stressed or otherwise. That is all we are talking about.
I imagine that there are even circumstances where people are unaware that their own personal behaviours are affecting their children and their role as a parent and role model for their children. Therefore, in providing avenues to address that, it may be as simple as pointing it out. That may be all it needs. It may be the other extreme. I am sure there are people out there who are parents, who do not want to know about changing their behaviours, and are not going to change their behaviours no matter how it is pointed out. I also rely a little on the fact that they are the vast minority of people; that most people want to have a great family life at home and support each other and, when faced with a problem that may seem overwhelming on their own, feel comfortable about accessing that help.
Still other parents may not have any of those personal behaviours but, for whatever reason, require assistance with building those parenting skills and how to set appropriate boundaries and enforce those boundaries. These family responsibility agreements will ensure that parents, as much as you can with the will - and I have just spoken about that minority of people - appreciate the seriousness of the responsibilities that come with being a parent, and include ensuring their children go to school and how to identify people they might need to avoid which includes not just adults, but their contemporaries. Getting in with the wrong crowd of people can lead you to things you did not really want to do in the first place. Also, how to avoid places which may attract trouble and how to identify trouble brewing so that they can extract themselves from it.
These measures should provide some help for many families who would want to use them to help keep children and young people off the streets and provide alternatives to keeping them out of trouble. I hope they will assist families to rebuild that family life that I have been talking about, and help parents learn how to provide consistent supervised parenting for their children. It sounds easy - sounds easy - but, sometimes, I do not think it always is. It is something that we as parents have to keep continually vigilant about.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to the Assembly. I am sure it will provide some extra bows, some extra mechanisms, for police to use, provide them with some back-up where they know children have not responded to the diversion programs, and can help with the identification and assistance to provide support to the families who will take the opportunity in both hands in an attempt to put their children, or child, on a more meaningful path - certainly a greater fulfilling path.
Mr WARREN (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I also support the Youth Justice Amendment Bill, but I am not going to dissect and break down these amendments. I will leave that to the would-be social engineers opposite. I want to talk about the generalities of the bill, because I want to address my constituents out there and that is important. They are just like everyone else in the Territory; they are concerned about the broader and overarching issue, not the finite details, because they want to understand their government is doing something. That is why I support this government and, specifically this minister, on seriously tackling this issue.
It is a well thought-out plan which differentiates between criminal and recidivous youth activities and the miscreant-type activities and the way we deal with them. That is really getting to the heart of it. This is one of the first amendments of its kind where I have actually seen that distinction made, and that is important. If you break those elements down, you seriously look at the whole issue, you understand the issue and, therefore, you go to the heart of trying to address those elements of it. Do not just put it into the one basket, because there is a general perception by society at large that lawmakers and the judiciary are adopting a revolving door policy on youth crime, and also not making the families of miscreants responsible for their activities. That is not just the perception out there, it is an understanding - maybe not the best understanding, but it is a fairly clear understanding - of society. The way this bill is constructed, it actually addresses those two elements and that is why I like this particular bill and why I am speaking on it.
The gist of it, as the minister said, is part of a broader strategy to combat youth crime and antisocial behaviour in the Territory. It is something that we have been working toward for a long time. It is an evolving process. And, as we see things that need to be modified, that is what the government is doing. This kind of activity is something that is always going to be a work in progress, I guess, but it is important that you understand that, address the issues as they come up, then you move on to the next one or, if you see something that needs to be modified, you do it. That is what good government is about; to try to modify misbehaviour and to address it.
That is why there is also a strong emphasis on early intervention. That is the key to it. We are talking about youth here and, if we do not get that early intervention right, we do not want these people becoming hardened criminals. That is certainly not the intent. It is a period in young people’s lives where they are not behaving totally rationally and there is a lot of peer group pressure. Many other things like drugs get involved. There are a whole lot of other things going on in their lives when they move from childhood to adulthood and they are very vulnerable during that stage. If we get in early and intervene, as this bill attempts to do, then we are a long way down the track.
The bill contains two major amendments to the Justice Act. The first involves an element being put on the access to formal diversion. That is what I talked about before; separating recidivous and criminal activity. You really need to deal with them separately and seriously, because there is that perception of the revolving door. Consequently, we have the strengthening of that aspect and it will not interfere with the overall discretion that police have in respect to charging and prosecuting offences. That is a very important aspect.
The second part of the bill introduces the family responsibility agreements and orders. This centres on ensuring that families with children with miscreant behaviour take responsibility for their kids’ actions. The key part of this is that it is not about expecting families with antisocial or miscreant children to handle it on their own. We have addressed the issue by trying to not only make those families who are dysfunctional take responsibility for it, but we also have the legal framework there to ensure that, where there is a more general, broader family breakdown, the system is in place to support those families. That is the key to it. It is about helping families deal with the antisocial behaviour of their children and supporting them with the weight of law.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I do not want to say any more. It is very important for me to get the message out to my constituents so they understand what this bill is about and that this government is trying to do something serious about the whole issue - and not just trying but doing. I am proud to be part of a government that takes that approach.
Dr BURNS (Justice and Attorney-General): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank all members for their contribution to this very important debate. There have been some very genuine feelings and thoughts placed on the table here today, and I commend that.
Starting with the shadow Attorney-General, the member for Araluen, unfortunately, much of her speech was bound up with lawyer grammar, as I will call it – ‘may’ and ‘must’ – playing the lawyer’s role and trying to prosecute a case. This is not a court of law, this is parliament. This is the place where laws are made and intentions of laws are very clear. Government has made its intentions clear in this law. This is a framework to deal with youths and the families of those youths who are acting up and ensuring that those families and those parents take responsibility.
There is not a shadow of a doubt about that. Whilst the member for Araluen can play with the words and say, ‘Oh, you did not mean this, you meant that’, and try to put shadows around it, our intention is very clear. I will demonstrate that the wording and the structure of this bill is all about providing the machinery, the wherewithal, the specific pathways for specific problems within those families and offenders’ lives and getting a result.
I make no apology for the word ‘may’ in there. I have demonstrated very clearly why it is in there. The member for Araluen, trying to confabulate her view of the world, put a lawyer’s point of view on it and attacked the government, particularly over the Chief Minister saying, in the government pamphlet, that the revolving door will stop. The revolving door will stop because we plainly put in this legislation as a main element that, after two times to juvenile diversion - no more, you are going to court; that is it, finito bonito. You are going to appear before a court. No more endless loop of process, no more avoiding the issues. You are going to go up there and face a court. That is very important. I know there were a limited number of juveniles who were using juvenile diversion as a cover. They were boasting that they were untouchable, that the police system could not get them. Well, the message from this legislation is: ‘Look out, because that exists no more’.
The Leader of the Opposition tried to make a lot of clause 4(3) and (4) that the Commissioner of Police can authorise or require a delegate to say that a youth can actually go through a juvenile diversion program. This is no different from a whole range of areas that the Police Commissioner is given discretion about within a whole range of acts, not least of all the Police Administration Act because, in our Police Commissioner, we have someone of integrity, judgment, who is autonomous, and who is called upon, in the exercise of his duties, to show that sort of judgment. That is why that discretion is put in there. Do we think that the Police Commissioner is a soft touch? I do not think so. Do we think the Police Commissioner will exercise discretion so as to avoid some manifest injustice should they ever occur, or look like occurring? Well, I think that the Police Commissioner can do that. We have always said that that was an extraordinary power that could be exercised by the Police Commissioner in respect to this particular act.
The member for Araluen also boldly asserted when she stood up here before lunch, that there was no definition of ‘serious offence’. She stood here and said that there was no definition of what a serious offence is. Well, I do not know who rang after lunch. Someone must have rung her up and said: ‘I heard you on the parliamentary broadcast and this is what you have said’. You are a lawyer, you should know that serious offences are described very clearly in the Youth Justice Regulations. There is a whole range there under three sections: 54, 55(1), 62, 66(2) - I could read for the next five to 10 minutes all the serious offences that are prescribed in there.
The member for Araluen came in here when I suggested that she did not get a briefing, as neither did any of the members of the CLP, and scoffed at that as if to say: ‘I do not need a briefing. How dare you say to me I need a briefing’. I say to you, member for Araluen, you do need a briefing. I have been Attorney-General now for about five or six months. As soon as you said that I knew it was wrong. You should have known, and you could have asked that question in a briefing and avoided embarrassment. You could have avoided the embarrassment of having to come in here, after lunch after someone else had given you the rub that what you said had been wrong. You could have avoided the embarrassment, but you did not.
I say to you and the other members of the CLP: come and get a briefing. I know the Independents do, and they ask good questions, and have good points of view. I commend the Independents because they are not too proud to not have a briefing, and neither am I. I obviously have a background in the area of health but I am never ashamed to ask for a briefing - even in the areas that I think that I know about because there is always something more we can learn. It is important that we, as parliamentarians, acknowledge that we do not know everything and we should never be too proud to ask questions. I suggest to the member for Araluen instead of just embarking in the lawyer grammar mode, she get in there and get some briefings.
- (1) A family responsibility agreement may provide as follows:
(a) it may require a parent to undertake counselling or therapy directed at helping the parent to overcome addicted, destructive or damaging behaviour;
- (i) undertake counselling to provide guidance and effective discharge of the parent’s parental responsibilities …
Under those clauses, if the parent does not have addictive, destructive or damaging behaviour, but they do have a need in the effective discharge of their parental responsibilities, why should they be compelled? Why must they undertake counselling or therapy when there is no need for it? That is why the word ‘may’ is in there. I believe the member for Araluen knows that and she is just playing with words, trying to pass shadows and talk this bill down. As the members for Nelson and Braitling acknowledged, this is a complex issue. That is why the word ‘may’ is in there because it gives effective options of what the court – we are in the agreement stage but, if you get to the court stage also - what the family might be directed to do. That is very important.
I thought it was a bit slippery of the member for Araluen. She started talking about agreements and how agreements were not enforceable. Of course, the agreements are not enforceable. That is the first stage or first step of a process. The enforceable part comes with the order that is made through a court. The first part is all directed at getting the families together, getting the children in there, and coming to an agreement that everyone is clear about. They sign off on a document but, in a legal sense, it is not enforceable. What happens is that, if the parents do not try to follow through and live up to and fulfil that agreement, that is when an order can be made through a court. That is a very important distinction and one which the member for Araluen did not really go to, and she should have.
I have already responded to clause 4(3). She asked: ‘Where is the Youth Justice Strategy? You have talked about this. Where is it?’ Member for Araluen, there are a couple of major elements in these amendments. Of course, the other element is the youth camps. That is a very important element as well.
The member for Araluen asserted when Peter Toyne was in here he brought in the Youth Justice Act in August 2005 and, here we are, in April 2008, moving further amendments. I got the feeling she was saying: ‘That is terrible; it should have all been done in August 2005’. As a member on this side said - I think it was the member for Brennan - this is an interim process. This is a developing and evolving process.
Government will be flexible and take further steps in order to get to where we want to, and where the community wants to. We are responding to the community. We are listening to the community and, in this, as the member for Goyder said, we are addressing some of the major concerns of the community. What do you do with those kids that are on the edge; they are going through troubled times? Yes, we have these youth camps; we can do things. However, if it goes to a deeper level, then we have to address the issues within the family through a process of family responsibility agreements and family responsibility orders.
The member for Araluen also asked about section 133 of the act. The member for Araluen said: ‘There was section 133 already in the act and it already goes to the issue of restitution. Why not rely on section 133? Why are you bringing in these separate sections as part of this amendment?’ This does have some history. This provision was carried over from the old Juvenile Justice Act. In the old act, section 55(a) was added by the CLP. The direct answer to the question that the member for Araluen asked: I do not believe any monies have ever been recovered under this section. That is what I have been advised. Whether you are talking about a CLP or an ALP government, I do not think you can say that section 133 was working.
What we have done here is bring in a regime where there is a process. There are family responsibility agreements - that could be the starting point – and family responsibility orders. As I said previously, if the parents do not undertake and fulfil what they are supposed to do, they can be fined up to $2200 and, if they do not pay, they can be given community work orders, or there can be confiscation of property. What we have here is a process preceding a fine or a compulsory acquisition of non-essential household items or community work orders, so no parent can ever say, ‘I did not know my kid was out that night, and I did not know that they were acting up. I am not really responsible’, because there will be a history of them being called to account. I believe courts will be more inclined to fix fines and penalties on such parents, because there has been a preceding process. That is good and that is why this part of the act is to be commended.
The Chief Minister talked about how everyone in the Territory wants it to be a safe and decent place for families, businesses, and the community as a whole. He talked about this government’s comprehensive plan to tackle youth crime. It is groundbreaking, as the Chief Minister said. I know that Western Australia has been considering this sort of legislation for some time and New South Wales has legislation that has a few similarities. However, I am advised that this is groundbreaking legislation and is leading the way in Australia. It also shows, as the Chief Minister said, that it has the flexibility to address individual family circumstances. That, once again, comes back to that word ‘may’. It provides that flexibility to address specific parts of the problem. There are penalties, but there is also a lot of support, as the Chief Minister outlined in his speech.
The member for Braitling commended the government. She recognised the intent that we have, but she does have some concerns. She talked about, in a particular case, the length of the process around juvenile diversion. There was one successful outcome, I think you said, member for Braitling, but the others who were part of that particular crime just seemed to escape scot-free. The whole process has taken a long time and the business people who were involved were dissatisfied with that part of it. In response to that, if those other youths have avoided, if you like, juvenile diversion or have not been put through the juvenile diversion program, this legislation opens up the capacity for police. Police can apply directly to the court for a family responsibility order to put that child and that family directly into the court. The police do have that capacity; they do not necessarily have to first go for an agreement, although that would be preferable. They can go straight to the family responsibility order stage. That is a positive thing, and that may provide a short circuit and speed the processes up. That is an important element and I thank you for bringing that to my attention.
You certainly commended the idea of Community Work Orders. You are not really sure about non-essential items within the household. I suppose we will have to agree to disagree about that. There is the capacity, if people do not have non-essential household items, to compel them to do community work and I believe that is a positive thing.
Who is doing the counselling in all of this? I think that was another major question you asked - a reasonable question. Much of the work will be done through what I will call FACS - it is about to become the Office of Family and Children, through the member for Arafura’s ministerial portfolio. There is extra money …
Mrs Braham: Extra staff?
Dr BURNS: Well, that is part of the $2.5m the Chief Minister announced today. That will be going towards staff. We certainly recognise there will be an increased workload and there needs to be staff to support the families; because what we are about is not setting up families to fail.
The member for Nelson talked about complex issues and that we are trying to solve it with a fairly codified response of A, B and C. You spoke about the need for positive parenting. Member for Nelson, you have talked about people needing love; and that is correct. I believe that is part of the big problem with these kids. They are growing up in environments where there is no love, attention and care. I believe that is why these kids are, in some cases, are going bad. I agree that what is needed is a lot more love for those kids. What we are doing through this process is trying to give the children and their family support and allow them to express that love.
You also spoke about the pressures in modern life, of people working two jobs. It might not necessarily be that they are addicted to gambling, alcohol or drugs. They may simply be just so busy with work, that the kids come home after school and the parents do not come home until late. Maybe one of the parents is working nights, as well. In this day and age it is a big concern. That is why we have the flexibility in the act. If we had said ‘must’ instead of ‘may’ in each one of those categories, those parents who might not have a drug, alcohol or gambling problem would have been compelled to take counselling about issues that are little use to them. That is why we have been flexible in our approach. I recognise that families in this modern day and age are good.
You rightly said that you have been recommending a camp for many years. I have been in this Chamber and heard you. At last, things are moving in that direction. You have been consistent in your cause, member for Nelson. I believe it was you who said: ‘The word ‘may’ equals complicated’.
The member for Arafura, the current Minister for Family and Community Services, talked about the Care and Protection of Children Act, which she was instrumental in bringing to and passing it through this parliament. She also talked on the legislative and operational interfaces between this act and the Care and Protection of Children Act. That was something that Cabinet had a lot of discussion about: how these amendments would need to interface the two and work together. We discussed this extensively. We sought, in the framing of this legislation, to integrate and interface these well. She also talked about the challenges of being a parent, and her own personal challenges in that regard. She said everyone in this House had issues and problems with children. I am no exception. My parents, God rest them, had a few problems with me along the way but, hopefully, I grew up all right.
As the member for Nelson and a few other speakers pointed out – I think it was the member for Goyder - in adolescence people go through fairly difficult stages. We can all remember going through those stages with our parents, and with school. It is a very difficult time for kids. We have to remember there are many good kids out there. I see kids playing music, doing art, playing sport, and contributing to the community - genuinely good kids. What we are talking about here is a minority of kids. We have to bear that in mind. Each new generation seems to get labelled: ‘Oh, you are no good. You are all troublemakers’. That certainly is not true and we need to remember that. She stressed that, in the underlying aspects of the agreements and orders, the interests of the children and youth must come first. I consider that paramount since what we are doing here relates to juveniles and there is a responsibility.
The member for Macdonnell spoke about the wonderful work of Barry Abbott and his family, and making communities accountable. Some of the things she has seen in Alice Springs are kids not at school, mothers not paying attention to their children, and the effects of that. However, she also commended the government for our multifaceted approach to these issues.
The Opposition Leader supports this particular bill but he does carry concerns over it. He acknowledged that this is a response to the problems in the community, but he believed that there is insufficient power to really effect change. I disagree with him about that. He talked about the importance of people interaction and the human elements, and a number of people, including Barry Abbott and a whole range of people in our community, who support youth. I think the words he used were ‘they have a heart for youth’. We certainly need people like that.
As I was growing up, there was a family down the road, the Broxy family. They experienced some personal tragedy; the youngest son had died. There was a youth club at the local Baptist Church, the Life Boys and the Life Brigade, and every kid in our whole region went to this on a Friday night. I reckon there was literally - between the two age groups; the Life Boys were the juniors and the Life Brigade were the seniors - up to 60 kids there every night. We did gym, marched around, did Judo and boxing, and made things in little projects. Mrs Broxy used to play the piano and the organ, and we used to sing all the good old hymns, and that was great.
In contemporary times, my eldest son went through the Junior Police Rangers and, once again, there are lots of volunteers there. I must pay tribute to Mr Terry Baldwin, a great Territorian - of course, Tim’s father. Maybe we should say that Tim is Terry’s son, that is probably a better way to put it. Terry is a great Territorian, and has given that land at Goanna Park not just for the Junior Police Rangers but for many different youth groups. Terry is a great bloke with a great vision. He is another one with a heart for youth.
There are always people who will do that. I acknowledge what the Opposition Leader said: we certainly need more of them. I have to say that the Opposition Leader just went off to a bit of political theorising after that and it was a bit hard to follow where he was going. He went to government messages and spin, and government falling down on the job. I found it a bit hard to follow. It was fairly extended but it reminded me of a quote that I would like to use from Don Watson:
- Mere froth such thoughts might be but multiply it a few times they begin to resemble leadership.
I say to the Leader of the Opposition that it is okay to opine on a few things, to surmise on things, to theorise and hypothesise, but real leadership is about what we are doing in here with the legislation that we are passing here. Leader of the Opposition, keep off the political theory and let us stick to the facts.
The member for Brennan talked about the need to combat youth crime. He talked about the construction of the bill and the discretion of the Police Commissioner, which is quite appropriate. He also talked about his teacher, Chris Dias, who is known to me and is a great person who, as the member for Brennan said, set a lot of kids on the right track. Only a handful of kids in his care ever went really bad and went off the rails.
He also talked about the ever-changing feel of our community and society and the need to change legislation, and that is what we are doing here. He also talked about the agreements and orders being support for families and not setting them up to fail, and giving parents an opportunity to find some way forward.
The member for Goyder believes that this is a well thought-out plan. He commended this bill. He believes it addresses many of the concerns of his constituents. I mentioned before about those kids who might be going through a difficult stage in their life, may not necessarily be bad, but they are going that way. The youth camps can help those kids but, at the other end of the spectrum, we are compelling some families to begin to take responsibility for their children and their parenting.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, this is an important bill before us today. It is all about youth in our community. It is all about supporting them, trying to keep them on the right path, but it is also about compelling some families, some parents who do not care about their kids and are not attending to them, to take responsibility for their children. I commend the bill to the House.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Dr BURNS (Justice and Attorney-General) (by leave): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
MOTION
Note Statement – Our Economy – Delivering for Families
Note Statement – Our Economy – Delivering for Families
Continued from 29 April 2008.
Mr WARREN (Goyder): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I proudly support the Chief Minister on his important statement on the state of our economy - importantly, an economy which is pretty much the toast of Australia. This is an important statement in which he proudly outlined how the Labor government is strongly supporting the lifestyle, growth, and sustainable development of the Northern Territory through a strong, vibrant and well-managed economy. This Labor government clearly has its hands firmly on the steering wheel of sustainable economic development. I am very proud to be part of this Labor government which is delivering for all Territorians.
As a professional geologist, engineer and economist who has lived in the Territory for almost 30 years, I remember the bad old days under the CLP government. The current CLP opposition has still not learnt; they continue to talk the Territory down. We need only look back at this week’s Question Time - in fact, at this week’s sittings - to see this in action. They are clearly out of touch - out of touch with the business community and with everyday Territorians.
In 2001, the Labor government was given the reins and the Territory has not looked back since. Let us be quite frank about this: this government has turned our economic misfortune under CLP mismanagement into a sustainable economic future under a Labor government with foresight and a clear vision for a prosperous, vibrant and sustainable lifestyle for Territory families.
Our future looks bright. Access Economics clearly recognises what the CLP opposition will not or cannot acknowledge: our economy is the toast of Australia with the highest economic and employment growth forecast over the next five years for all of Australia. In doing so, the Labor government is continuing to create for Territory families a lifestyle which is the envy of the rest of Australia. This is the best place in Australia to live, work and raise a family. Labor has delivered and will continue to deliver for Territory families.
There is no better way to gauge the health of an economy than through its employment growth. The Labor government has been at the helm of this economic renaissance which will see an employment growth rate of 5.5% in the coming year alone. This means, in real terms, the creation of more than 5000 new jobs. It is an economic renaissance which will see more than 10 000 new apprenticeships and traineeships over a four-year period. These young people are our future, and this Labor government is investing heavily in their future and in the Territory’s future. It is a visionary government for all Territorians.
A strong economy benefits Territory families, and our economy is not only strong but is sustainable. This government’s promotion and direct investment in our economic development is ensuring our sustainable lifestyle. This is due to a combination of major project promotion and responsible fiscal management. Territory businesses are prospering in the current Labor government-managed economic climate. This government has engaged in a combination of cash investments in our infrastructure and continued cuts to business taxes.
Business activity is at an all time record. Our economy is strong, robust and growing. Our very healthy gross state production is driven mainly by investment. Investment has been attracted by the Labor government’s responsible management of our economy. Most can see the benefits of investing in our vibrant economy but, unfortunately, not the opposition. They still live in their own abyss of the past and continue to talk down the Territory economy at every opportunity. The reality is they and their families are reaping the benefits of what this Labor government has delivered for them and for all Territory families, but they will not acknowledge that.
While investment so far has been the principal driver behind our very healthy GSP growth, the seeds of investment have begun to germinate. Our strong and robust economy is increasingly being driven by production outputs. We are moving to a stage in our economic development where future GSP growth could be on the back of long-term, sustainable production growth. We are clearly entering an exciting phase of the Territory’s development. The desperate CLP members are dogmatic in their refusal to jump on board and promote the beneficial opportunities that economic development is delivering to the Territory. They are still focused on what minor chinks they can find in the delivery of some smaller ticket items because they do not have a capacity to focus on the big picture. They still do not comprehend, or refuse to comprehend, that talking down our economy and lifestyle does not help Territory families. They still do not have the capacity to think deeply and broadly enough to govern the Territory. They do not understand that promoting the positive aspects of the Territory truly does benefit our great Territory lifestyle by attracting the all too important investment dollars that we need.
They do not understand that, because they have a leader who focuses on the small picture. This is a leader who does not understand the basics of what is truly important to Territorians. Territorians, like all Australians, care about their families. They care about the welfare of their families. It seems that everyone else but the CLP understands that in the end. Territorians want the government to deliver for them economic prosperity and the lifestyle benefits that a strong economy brings.
I am still proud to stand here in 2008 espousing the Labor government for its transformation of the Territory’s economy. I am proud to be part of this government. While we are entering exciting times to the benefit of all Territorians, this government is still not content to rest on its laurels. This government continues to invest in our infrastructure, our economy and our lifestyle. But, most importantly, there has been a planned focus to this investment to ensure that it is strategically spread across the broadest possible range of industries, and is geographically spread across the whole Territory. That is very important. By tying strategic projects across the board spectrum of industry, and across the Territory, our economic standing provides an impetus for the private sector investment. Strategic and well-managed public sector economic investment seeds and leverages larger-scale private sector investment into the overall economic development of our Territory. This, of course, creates a strong and vibrant economy, jobs for Territorians and their families, and jobs that drive our prosperous Territory lifestyle.
This investment in our economic development by the Labor government offers the greatest potential for Territory businesses, both large and small, across the whole Territory. In economic terms, this is a fiscally responsible approach to positioning our burgeoning economy for sustainable growth. It is called spreading your investment. It is a very basic and sound economics principle.
Contrast this to the previous CLP government’s crass approach of trying to pick winners. None of us forget those days. That is why we ended up with the infamous CLP economic black hole, another thing that we do not forget readily. Their approach was fiscally irresponsible and no way to govern for the benefit of Territorians. Based on the CLP members and their ill-informed contributions to this debate so far, they are still, basically, going to fail Basic Economics 101 pretty dismally.
This Labor government has transformed the Territory and we are now leading the nation in economic prosperity. Access Economics, an independent economic forecaster, is telling us and the rest of Australia all about this. This government is committed to delivering for Territorians well into the future. This government is providing the sustenance to our vibrant economy which, in turn, provides the nourishment for our great Territory lifestyle.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank the Chief Minister for his most important statement and I eagerly look forward to further updates.
Mr CONLAN (Greatorex): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I respond to the Chief Minister’s ministerial statement on Our Economy - Delivering for Families across the Northern Territory. The most poignant line out of the whole 30-page document appears in the second paragraph: ‘… is not just about this government delivering on its promises’. It certainly is not.
I will just highlight some of those delivering, or not delivering, on promises that we have seen over the last seven long years of this Labor government. Maybe we could start with the most famous one which is the oncology unit. In 2001, this government promised an oncology unit which is still not yet delivered. The 2001 promise never mentioned a federal government contribution. Yet now, according to this government, their role in the oncology unit is vital to actually delivering it.
In 2006, another time line was produced. I think that was for delivery in 2009 but that one has been …
Mr Kiely: What about Abbott’s time line?
Mr CONLAN: That time line, no doubt, will not be delivered either, unless they can work some miracles and develop an oncology unit in the next eight or nine months. Remember it is not just about this government delivering on its promises.
There was the promise of whistleblowers legislation since before the 2001 election. The Australian Labor Party of the Northern Territory, in opposition, promised whistleblowers legislation. Even when this side of the House brought the whistleblowers legislation before this House, it was rejected with the promise that it would be delivered in 2006. Guess what? It still has not happened. However, as the Chief Minister says, it is not just about this government delivering on its promises.
The promise to have Tiger Brennan Drive was made years ago and, again, when the going got tough this government suddenly decided it was up to the federal government. The federal government came a long way in leveraging this Territory government. It was up to the federal government to deliver Tiger Brennan Drive. Even last year, they promised to spend $10m on the project but had only delivered $6.5m on its first minor stage. But, as the Chief Minister has so eloquently put it in his statement, it is not just about this government delivering on its promises.
There was the promise of the waterfront development that would be delivered with a sound shell, an amphitheatre, markets, volley ball courts as well, and a raft of other public amenities by the end of 2007 - by the end of 2007. It is now April 2008. But, again, it is not just about this government delivering on its promises. As the statement says in paragraph 2: ‘… delivering for families of the Northern Territory’.
The Palmerston middle school it is still missing in action. The promise of the second high school has never been delivered. That was an Australian Labor Party promise. This government promised to deliver a middle school and a second high school for Palmerston. But, it is not just about this government delivering on its promises, as the Chief Minister said.
The Myilly Point redevelopment that this government promised in the last budget speech has not even started - it has not even started. Flagstaff Park remains a vacant, unattended lot. While we are talking about the promises, where is the boardwalk at Mindil Beach, Chief Minister? Where is it? But just remember it is not about this government delivering on its promises.
They have broken a promise to make Glyde Point the centre of the gas-based industry ...
Mr Henderson: No, we did not.
Mr CONLAN: It was a promise to make Glyde Point the centre of gas-based industry in the Northern Territory ...
Members interjecting.
Mr CONLAN: It was a promise to make Glyde Point the centre of gas-based industry in the Northern Territory. It was promised, but remember, as the Chief Minister said, it is not just about this government delivering on its promises and delivering for families of the Northern Territory.
The bike path at Humpty Doo was promised - and while we are on the matter what about the bike path at Girraween? Another promise to move a bike pass at Girraween ...
Members interjecting.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Greatorex has the call.
Members interjecting.
Mr CONLAN: I beg your pardon, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker?
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! The member for Greatorex has the call..
Mr CONLAN: Thank you. Remember, as it says in the statement, it is not just about the government delivering on its promises.
The minister for Mines issued a media release saying that they dedicated $14.4m to an expanded program called ‘The Bringing Forward Discovery Program’. Pity he did not say that it was actually a cut of $800 000 from the earlier program that did exactly the same thing. That is just simply dishonest, but we have come to expect that from this government - an $800 000 cut from an original promise. But, oh no, it was heralded in a media release - $14.4m. But, it is just not about this government delivering on its promises.
There is $4.8m for a new police station at Casuarina. Tenders were called for in November/December 2007, and work was expected to start work in early 2008. It still has not started. A $4.8m police station at Casuarina, with work to start early in 2008 - no work has been started.
The Alice Springs Hospital pool is a good one. The Alice Springs Hospital pool has remained closed after two years, despite bringing this to the attention of the minister.
Then we have the completion of the Traeger Park football grandstand in Alice Springs. The council has refused to take that over because it is incomplete …
A member interjecting.
Mr CONLAN: It is incomplete. The council will not take it over because it is incomplete. They are expected to fund the remaining $1m which was the amount about two years ago. Who knows what it is now?
A member: Wrong.
Mr CONLAN: $1m to complete the upper level of the Traeger Park grandstand. They will not take it over because they simply cannot afford it. However, this government has handed it over and said: ‘There you go, the Traeger Park grandstand’.
In the same precinct, we also have the Alice Springs Aquatic Centre - still waiting for the Alice Springs Aquatic Centre. It was advertised as being ready for the 2008 Masters Games. Well, Chief Minister, you better put your foot to the pedal to get that ready, we have about four, five, six months until the Masters Games in October. There is about six months to go with the Alice Springs Aquatic Centre. But, as I say, it is not just about this government delivering on its promises.
The Royal Darwin Hospital $900 000 upgrade of the lifts in the 2006-07 budget is still not complete, and has been included in the $2.1m upgrade just recently announced …
Dr Burns: Tenders have been let.
Mr CONLAN: Right. But it is not just about this government delivering on its promises, as we see in the statement.
The CBD upgrade was a 2005 Northern Territory government promise with the convention centre to be finished by early 2008. There was $7.5m promised for creating Darwin’s future projects, but only $2m was provided in the 2007-08 budget. The walkway between the waterfront and the CBD is due for completion in mid-2008. We are nearly there; we only have - what? - about four weeks to go. Nearly there. The walkway between the waterfront and the CBD is due for completion in mid-2008 but has been put back until further notice. But it is just not about this government delivering on its promises.
There has been no start on the 60 acre Defence Support Hub near Palmerston. It has not even started. Another broken promise.
The oncology unit – well, I did mention the oncology unit promise but it is worth another mention – was promised in 2001. There is no start on the oncology unit, despite the go ahead and funding from the federal government in March 2008. Now, I believe, we have a crack team of investigators to figure out what is happening with the oncology unit, to try to speed up the process.
The core promise, I mentioned. Oh, this is a good one - the geothermal legislation. This is a beauty. Let us back-track. This is not just about this government delivering on its promises. The geothermal legislation: on 14 February 2006, minister Vatskalis promised a geothermal bill by late 2006. On 25 October 2006, the new minister promised another geothermal energy bill. On 15 February 2007, the minister again promised a geothermal energy bill. On 19 November 2007, the minister again promised geothermal legislation was being developed. Again, on 21 February 2008, the Chief Minister re-announced the importance of geothermal energy, saying it was one of the most critical issues facing the Northern Territory. Well, that is 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 promises - nothing yet. However, it is not just about the government delivering on its promises.
Regarding indigenous health, Peter Toyne, the former minister, said in a statement in 2004:
- By the end of the decade, I want the world’s best practice health care for indigenous communities in the Northern Territory.
It was a framework for health and communities services announcement in 2004. We are pretty close - that is about 18 months, so we still have a long way to go. You may be off the hook there at this stage but, again, you need to put your pedal to the metal, as they say. It is about delivering to families, and it is not just about this government delivering on its promises.
Recruiting local consultants: in 2001 there was a slash of $50m from the budget by recruiting local consultants instead of interstate experts. That is why they need an interstate expert to tell them about infrastructure. Obviously, the minister has no faith in her own department.
The Palmerston Courthouse: I am not sure what has happened to the $5m courthouse for Palmerston but, again, it is not just about this government delivering on its promises.
The 2001 election promise to establish an oil and gas research institute seems to have gone out the window.
The $50m slash in the budget by recruiting local consultants, which was interesting because when you go back to 2001 and you see this glossy by the former Chief Minister, the member for Fannie Bay:
- Labor will ... A reduction in the number of expensive interstate consultants …
I am not sure what has happened to that. That was a promise. Here is the Chief Minister in the Smith Street Mall:
- A reduction of the number of expensive interstate consultants …
Another promise out the window. However, it is not just about this government delivering on its promises.
Seven long years of Labor - seven long. long years - a budget of over $3bn, and what major projects has this government initiated? What major infrastructure projects?
Members interjecting.
Mr CONLAN: I just highlight that the actual waterfront project was a CLP initiative …
Members interjecting.
Mr CONLAN: The whole waterfront project was a Country Liberal Party initiative, so you can forget that one.
The East Arm Wharf, the transcontinental railway, the Alice Springs Convention Centre, Desert Knowledge, which is still not complete - all initiated by the Country Liberal Party. Not one major infrastructure development was initiated by this Australian Labor Party government of the Northern Territory. And who built the Territory from 1978 onwards anyway? Who built the Northern Territory?
Seven long years - seven long, long years of Labor in the Northern Territory. Now, with over $3bn every year to invest in the Northern Territory, and with just a few weeks ago announcing a consultant to develop an infrastructure plan, I again draw your attention to the glossy brochure. This is, obviously, a black and white photocopy of that. A reduction in the number of expensive interstate consultancies - a promise from 2001. Seven long years of Labor, and not one major infrastructure initiative by this government, and a whole raft of broken promises which I have just highlighted tonight.
Delivering for families? Well, fuel is $1.50-plus. One hundred and fifty cents a litre for fuel, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. I do not think that is going to go down too well with mums and dads out in the suburbs.
There are some good things in this statement. Having been in power for seven long years, naturally, you are going to get something right. It is like just being blindfolded and throwing darts at a dartboard - occasionally, you might get a bull’s eye. The Darwin Convention Centre confirming 28 events to date. Now, that is good news. That is 8000 confirmed delegates. That is good ...
Members interjecting.
Mr CONLAN: No, fair enough. Look, come on. The Territory is host to more than 10% of the Australian Defence Force personnel and its families. That is good. Defence expenditure for 2005-06 represented 6% of the national outlays – what is that? - I think that is a total of $954m in the Territory. That is good. That is good; no doubt about it. There was one more I could highlight – oh, economic growth of 7%, well above other states. So that is good.
While there are some good things in this statement, it is not good enough, and it certainly is not delivering for families. The Chief Minister is offering real assistance to Territory families right across the Northern Territory. If he thinks he is offering real assistance in this statement, of course, because it is not just about the government delivering on its promises and it is not just delivering for families. If the Chief Minister thinks that he is actually offering real assistance to Territory families, well, I am sorry, he is just a vacant block of land.
Debate adjourned.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Major Capital Program for Remote Housing
Major Capital Program for Remote Housing
Mr VATSKALIS (Housing): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I am proud to report to this House on the most extensive housing project ever undertaken in the history of the Territory. All members would be aware that, on 12 April, the Northern Territory and Commonwealth governments jointly announced a $647m housing and infrastructure program for the bush. This is a record spend; a landmark commitment that concerns around 3500 houses. This expenditure is part of an overall spend of almost $1bn on housing that will occur right across the Territory over the next five years. This is almost double the effort of the last five years, and shows the depth of the commitment of this government to protecting and supporting Territory families, no matter where they live and what their circumstance are.
We all know that the Territory is enjoying an era of historic prosperity. This government has driven economic growth since 2001, and the benefits for Territorians are the envy of the nation. At present, the Territory’s economic growth is 5%, but Access Economics has forecast a 7% growth. The number of jobs advertised in the Territory increased by over 33% over the last year, growth in the retail sector outstripped the national average, and we recently boasted an international trade surplus of $1.3bn. Well, this government must be doing something good.
We are building a better education system for our children, a better health system for Territory families. We have built constructive relationships with Canberra. This government represents the safe hands and strong leadership that the Northern Territory needs, because these good things do not just happen - they require work, planning and determination. We know that the Territory is the best place to work, live and raise a family, and that we must work hard to build on success.
But, in the midst of this success, the issue of indigenous disadvantage remains of great concern to the government. We have not buried our head in the sand. This disadvantage is being met head on, with efforts to address immediate issues for the short term, and plans in place, through Closing the Gap, to address the long-term, more underlying and intransigent causes of poverty and ill health. This is a generational challenge. Every member of this Assembly knows that housing is the lynchpin in overcoming this disadvantage. Housing is the most logical intervention point for government. Through it, we can improve health, education, employment and safety outcomes for indigenous people living in the bush. Housing will underpin the creation of new markets in remote communities. It will be a source of sustainable economic development for remote townships and entire regions. It is also the most critical intervention point.
Estimates of the current shortfall for housing and housing-related infrastructure in the Territory’s remote areas are as high as $2.4bn. That figure is indicative of the chronic overcrowding experienced by many households across the Territory. It equates to a demand for about 5000 new homes and a significant repairs and maintenance component.
To overcome this daunting challenge, we have had to change the existing system. To rely on grant-funded community housing bodies is no longer possible. They are simply not geared to capitalise on the many opportunities that exist throughout the regions. Indigenous community housing organisations currently operate in a context that is parallel to the mainstream government housing system. In essence, there are a large number of small organisations that manage a small number of dwellings each, on average, around 100 homes per organisation. The staff of the Territory’s 70-odd organisations do an incredible job in tough circumstances; no one can doubt their commitment to their communities. But their backs have been against the wall for many years.
With a population of just over 215 000 it is critical that the Northern Territory concentrate its housing effort into a single system. Territory Housing, the mainstream government housing provider, manages around 6800 homes, units and flats across the urban centres and remote areas. It manages an asset base valued at over $1.2bn. It has the organisational capacity to manage large construction and repairs programs, to support its tenants, develop its staff and to sustain itself financially. We are now drawing together the urban and remote programs - construction, repairs and maintenance, property and tenancy management and jobs training - into a single system. This applies across the business lines of public and community housing, industry assistance housing and housing for government employees. We needed a single responsive housing system which has the critical mass and capacity to deliver the types of differing service needed in our urban areas and in the bush. That is what this package has delivered.
I will now outline the strategic priorities for remote housing reform. We need to get more housing for the housing dollar and we need to create a commercial and land tenure framework to underpin that. We need a system to manage the existing remote housing asset base of around 6900 dwellings more effectively, and to link it with other government housing activities. Real jobs with real training outcomes for local people must flow from construction, maintenance and management programs. Sustainable economic development across the regions must be a priority and, importantly, we need to engage with communities around their aspirations and priorities for housing.
To this end, the Territory government has committed $100m over and above our existing commitments for remote housing. We have also committed $42m for housing for government employees under Closing the Gap. This will underpin the delivery of important services in remote indigenous communities. Our Closing the Gap investment is on top of the $14.5m spend for government employment housing this financial year, $4m of which will be invested in housing for police in remote communities.
However, that was not going to be enough. We had to convince the Commonwealth that we could deliver significant improvements in remote housing if they backed us financially. We have done that and we have been vindicated and, indeed, rewarded. An agreement struck in September of last year will see $813m in Commonwealth money invested in housing and housing-related initiatives in the bush to 2011. We won the lion’s share of the $1.6bn Australian Remote Indigenous Accommodation Program. The challenge now is to deliver on the agenda for housing reforms.
The Strategic Housing Program announced by both governments in mid-April is a key plank of this overall agenda and the focus of this statement today. Under the memorandum of understanding, the Territory and Commonwealth governments resolved to invest nearly $1bn in housing in the bush. A total of $647m, which includes a $100m from the Territory, will be directed through the Strategic Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Program over the next five years. The Strategic Housing Program will roll out the overwhelming majority of new houses, upgrades, repair work and the serviced lots and related infrastructure under the MOU. To ensure the strategic goals I outlined earlier are to be achieved and this massive program delivered in a timely fashion, the Territory and Commonwealth jointly canvassed a wide range of contracting models. We have agreed to implement what is called a Strategic Alliance model.
Alliance contracting has a strong track record with large-scale projects that have a complex mix of objectives. It has been used successfully in Australia on the eastern seaboard and South Australia for nearly a decade. I will highlight a key example from Queensland.
The Queensland government commissioned the Split Rock Inca Alliance to deliver the Inca and Wooroona Creeks roads project in north-west Queensland. The Alliance was made up of Queensland Roads, Seymour Whyte Constructions and a group representing the Indjiandji-Dhidhanu people. It has since won the Project Management Award at the 2007 Queensland Engineering Excellence Awards, and also received a Premier’s Innovation in Skilling Award last year. There are several parallels between the Split Rock Inca Alliance and the Strategic Housing Program; most notably, the focus on indigenous engagement, employment and training objectives.
Alliance contracting is based on: cooperation between stakeholders and contractors; achieving outcomes rather than focusing on self-interest; a distribution of risk rather than allocating it to individual stakeholders; fast-tracking projects; and in the case of remote housing, supporting real development in communities. This contracting model has a record of government and the private sector working collaboratively to reduce and manage risks, achieving significant time and budgetary savings, and delivering other objectives that are normally difficult to quantify.
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. While it is a new concept in the Territory, the Alliance contracting model has been received receptively by local industry representatives. Paul Nowland from Nowland Builders was quoted in the Business Week section of the Northern Territory News on 23 April as saying: ‘The alliance system had the potential to be very positive’. However, Mr Nowland did say that there needs to be an education program around the alliance system.
The first of the Strategic Housing Program information sessions was held yesterday morning, 30 April. These extensive education programs will continue across the Territory. The Territory and Commonwealth governments are working closely under the Strategic Housing Program, and I can report that Territory Housing and the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs have formed a Joint Steering Committee to progress that work. The steering committee is a means for both governments to engage in a constructive, genuine way to push the housing agenda firmly in the right direction. In a very real sense, it is the engine room that will drive implementation of the housing agenda for the next few years. It represents a juncture for cooperation, where the Territory and Commonwealth have already resolved key deliverables such as the number of houses we build and the cost and extent of upgrades and repairs. The Joint Steering Committee was formed in March of last year and now meets once a month.
Coming to the details of that program, the program is aimed at 73 remote communities and some urban centres. The program will deliver: around 750 new houses, including new subdivisions; over 230 new houses to replace derelict structures; over 2500 upgrades for existing homes; essential infrastructure to support the new housing developments; and better conditions in town camps. Sixteen high-need communities across the Territory will be targeted with new houses and large-scale upgrades to the value of $420m. This approach is about making real inroads with the housing shortfall in the larger remote communities. We will support that work by rolling out $124m in refurbishments in 57 other communities. A further $103m will be invested in fixing our town camps and in a few other ongoing programs.
Security of tenure is a key element of the program. On top of governments needing title to assets, secure land tenure will encourage the development of markets in land and private investment and ownership in the longer term. I expect to see the first Alliances under the Strategic Housing Program up and running by October this year. The successful companies will be working in remote communities for several years. What I have outlined here so far are some of the machinations of our plan to reform housing in the Territory’s remote communities.
I will highlight a few more of the Territory government’s strategic objectives and ambitions that will come on the strength of housing reform. As I have mentioned, remote community housing, housing for government employees and industry, and public housing in regional areas will be drawn together in a very real sense. Contracts, management, staffing, training and community engagement will cut across these historically separate areas. Housing management and capital investment on this large scale will help to power regional economies. We can kick-start new labour markets. This will come through apprenticeships and employment in the building sector, long-term jobs through the maintenance of housing stock, and also through the expansion of a public housing framework to remote areas. The roll-out of the public housing framework in the bush means that property and tenancy management practices will be brought in line with a consistent standard.
There are two ways forward here from the current framework. Government will absorb the existing housing providers to deliver tenancy and property management services directly or enter into agency arrangements, potentially with the new local government shires. The key point is that under both approaches housing services will be supported centrally and managed locally. Both approaches will mandate employment, staff training and pathways for professional development for local indigenous people. Both approaches will provide the same robust framework for housing management. The remote housing agenda lines up with the reforms to local government across the Territory, where new economies of scale will see sustained employment and investment in trades training. Jointly, these reforms will deliver better livelihoods and more sustainable economies for people in the bush.
That is a future where local people, on the strength of Alliances formed through these housing projects, will be directly involved in the building and management of their schools, health clinics and police stations. In time, I hope that those same people will franchise their own companies to take up the work in the bush. I see that as a future where indigenous people in the bush have equality of opportunity, where communities will flourish by standing strong and engaging strongly with governments and the mainstream economy.
This memorandum of understanding is the first of what I believe will be a succession of cooperative agreements around housing between the Territory and Commonwealth governments. It will be the first because I believe that the Alliance model will be successful and will draw governments, indigenous organisations, and companies together into a partnership. Together, the Commonwealth, the Territory and the people of local communities will deliver this program, and it will be the inspiration to complete the job and remove the social scourge of housing shortages from our community.
We have had this policy work in train, paving the way for housing reforms, for some time. The Territory and Commonwealth governments have already been jointly rolling out changes for housing delivery in nine communities in the Macdonnell region. These communities were identified by the Commonwealth under the Emergency Response. They were annexed by the Commonwealth through five-year leases. The Commonwealth government, in turn, requested the Territory take on property and tenancy management services in line with the Territory Housing framework. We have since put representatives of Territory Housing out on the ground. We are working closely with housing providers to make the transition to the new framework. We are working with ICHOs to strengthen their management practices. There was a workshop with these organisations’ staff in late January, and we have been working closely with them ever since. We are engaging with people on the ground to get a clear message across about housing reform and to get their feedback on the new approach.
Our work with the Macdonnell region will inform how we engage the rest of the Territory. Drawing together the urban and remote housing systems is important on many levels. This government is developing a framework to meet the demand for short-term accommodation across the urban centres, and to manage the transition process for indigenous households from remote to urban contexts. Home care and urban living skills programs will be a key component of this framework. They will be essential for families looking to move into public housing that do not yet have solid rental references.
The big picture work is in train, though we have already put runs on the board with Stuart Lodge and Ayiparinya Hostel in Alice Springs and, more recently, by funding the 127-bed expansion at the Darwin Christian Outreach Centre at Boulter Road to the tune of $2.97m.
I footnote this statement by acknowledging the opportunities that come with the new era of Commonwealth/Territory cooperation. Australian federalism was instituted to make the lives of Australians better - genuine cooperation is at the heart of that relationship. In this context, the Strategic Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Program is not a total panacea for the challenges we face with housing in the bush, but it does represent a new, effective way for governments to engage with each other, to cooperate better, with the focus rightly and squarely on addressing the needs of the first Australians. It also sets up a framework for indigenous communities to engage with government and get what they need. We are committed, as a government, to ensure that the opportunities of today are written into history as a milestone for undoing indigenous disadvantage.
The memorandum of understanding, the Strategic Housing Program, and this early work are - as I am sure everyone here will recognise - important, indeed, historic steps in that direction. I look forward to working in collaboration with the Rudd Labor government to achieving further long-term improvements in housing in the bush.
Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his statement today. It raises important issues and is also an opportunity to discuss issues upon which he has remained silent in his statement.
Aboriginal housing, like so many things, is also a product of the welfare system - the same system that has produced very poor results. Buying houses and giving them away has not worked. It is just charity with which Aboriginal people are all too familiar. The problem is that familiarity breeds contempt.
In a recent book by Tom Harford, The Logic of Life, about the rationale behind our choices in life, he talked about the difference between neighbourhoods that were filled with homeowners and others that were mostly tenanted. He looked at the issue of road crossings. He noted that the neighbourhoods of homeowners had well-equipped road crossings with plenty of zebra crossings, more than what was really necessary, in fact. Having a deeper look at the issue, he found that a large component of the reasoning for this was that the homeowners had a stake in there being good facilities; that is, they were going to be around to make use of the facilities much longer than a tenant. A tenant lacks the will - or rather is unwilling – to fight for something that they will not be around to use, as they will probably be living somewhere else next year. While that is a little abstract, I believe this gives us just another way to look at the issue of the value of home ownership and the effect that this will have on people looking after their homes and the areas in which they live. I want to leave that for a moment.
Today, we have heard another statement from the minister about how the glory days are here. Today, it is housing’s turn; yesterday, it was education. As Noel Pearson would say, this issue is about more than bricks, mortar and money. Again, the government thinks that throwing money at any problem provides a solution. The minister should keep in mind that government is judged on results and outcomes, not simply on how much money you can throw at a problem. Sadly, the way this government talks about spend and its spending increases, one could be forgiven for thinking that spending was an outcome in its own right. Sometimes the solutions are easy.
In reference to the debate yesterday, my colleague, the Leader of the Opposition, argued that government must force parents to send their kids to school - enforce the legislation that you already have and penalise parents.
The minister says that housing is the lynchpin to overcome disadvantage. Minister, you missed two key words: ‘opportunity’ and ‘responsibility’. An ‘opportunity’ to own your own home and build capital, and the ‘responsibility’ to look after your home, would surely be preferable to mere renting. This policy will be less than entirely successful unless you commit to indigenous people owning their own home on their own land. It is only then indigenous people will have the opportunity to participate in the general economy of this nation. The word ‘Commonwealth’ should actually be expressed as two words, because it refers to the wealth that can be tapped into by an individual who resides in the jurisdiction to which the common wealth refers. Sadly, many Aboriginal people are excluded from that common wealth because of the legislative instruments that truncate that capacity. Only then will we have a chance to break the cycle that welfarism and decades of bad policy and neglect have produced.
Sadly, responsibility and opportunity are missing in action in this statement. Take this case in point. CDEP was described by Tracker Tilmouth as an opiate of the masses - apologies to Karl Marx - and in doing so, he was pointing out that even a so-called employment program was little more than a panacea for those of us who are critical of the charity that welfare really is. What Tracker was saying is that there is no point in dressing up welfare and then saying it is not welfare. It is. The problem for people like Tracker is that they know that the system still means its participants are not participants in the real world.
We have desperate need. We desperately need 5000 houses, but are only planning to build 750 new houses across 16 or 20 communities. There will be 230 houses rebuilt, and this is a shortage of 4000 houses. Who is going to provide these 4000 houses? The government is giving $647m to fix a $2.4bn problem. Three years ago, the estimate to meet housing needs in Aboriginal communities was given as $850m. Less than two years ago, it was estimated that $1bn would be needed but, today, the minister has told us that they are only giving less than a third of what is needed to build the required number of houses. Clearly, we need to protect the limited stock that we are building.
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. If we continue with a welfare philosophy then, whatever you budget, it will still lead to the same outcomes. A rose is a rose by that or any other name. Very deep within the psyche of the vast majority of Australians is a desire to ensure our most disadvantaged are cared for and supported. That desire, however, to do the right thing has led to outcomes that are awful beyond anything I can describe. We need a fundamental shift in thinking about how we assist those in need. It is not about trying to reduce the amount of support or begrudging helping others but, rather, about challenging the accepted cycle of building houses, breaking houses and then expecting new houses. Will the latest injection of government aid of $647m dollars achieve any different results? It will fail if it is not backed up with a culture of change in how housing is planned, provided and maintained. Will this government rebadge and repackage existing policy? It saddens me to say this, but more of the current philosophy we see today will see, in a few years time, debating the same problems that we have today. I hope I am very wrong, but I believe that is what will happen ...
Mr Knight: Twenty-seven years to fix it.
Mrs MILLER: Kindly listen. What would happen if we could give the full $2.4bn that is needed today?
Mr Knight interjecting.
Mrs MILLER: You will get your chance, you can talk later.
Would it encourage the recipients to take care of and value the houses that are being built for them? Would it encourage the recipients to fix the leaking taps and mop the grease off the floor and not destroy the fittings? Would it address the life expectancy differential? Would it help indigenous Australians lengthen the life span of their houses from the 10 to 20 years to the 50-year life span of other public housing? Not unless there is some element of need to protect the property ingrained in the occupation. It costs up to $600 000 to build each house. They are expensive to build, expensive to repair, and desperately needed.
Why is it that we do not question the fact that, in remote communities, houses will only last 10 to 20 years when everywhere else houses last for 50 years? Why is it that we accept that 10 years is reasonable? Why do we build, fix, and rebuild the same houses over and over again? The infrastructure is needed - it is desperately needed - but the way it has been delivered is not value for money. Value is not being extracted from this generous injection of taxpayer money because there is no contract in place, no partnership agreement with the recipients to ensure responsibility and a return obligation for the benefits.
Every bit of land that Australians can own or aspire to own has a value attached to it and can be given, sold or bestowed onto another party. The fundamental weakness of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act is that there is no provision for individual ownership. This has been proven to have a direct and profound impact on perpetuating the current welfare cycle, because it is inherently woven into the fabric of the legislation that the land cannot become commercially viable. There is always a torturous process that simply makes investment money walk away. It is too cumbersome and too rigid to provide the flexibility that is needed in the modern economic environment. Indigenous Australians will never be able to choose to invest in the Australian dream of owning their own home because the law says they cannot. There is no incentive for an indigenous person living in much of the Territory to wake up one morning and decide to improve their circumstances.
So far, there have been few conditions imposed on the recipients of this housing. It is worth pausing for a moment to consider an important fact: Aboriginal people in remote communities in Australia have houses constructed for them for free. Anywhere else, a person has to provide for themselves or their families by purchasing a home, or renting a home. This issue was addressed by the minister in Question Time. He said that these will become normal tenancies. Will they? If they are to become normal tenancies, then there are some glaring omissions from the minister’s statement.
I am also confused by the vague term ‘secure tenure’ that the minister referred to. The minister needs to make clear what on earth ‘secure tenure’ means. Does this mean the 40- to 99-year leases as described by the federal minister, Jenny Macklin? If this is the case, does this mean that the leases will be rateable under the new local government scheme? If it is not the case, can the minister describe what the system of ‘secure tenure’ is that he has referred to, and will access to whatever it is be a rateable leasing system? If it is, what are the expected rates that the Territory government will have to pay for the new shires? What will happen to those people who live on outstations? Will those houses be added to the Territory’s housing stock? These are all very valid questions which are not covered in the minister’s statements.
It is frustrating to have a minister deliver a statement about what appears to be a possible useful approach to Aboriginal housing, but not deliver any detail about how the system will work, other than by making vague references to what is a core issue in the new system. I hope, in closing, the minister will be far more detailed about the nature of the term ‘secure tenure’ …
Mr Knight: There was a public meeting yesterday.
Mrs MILLER: You will have your turn later on, member for Daly.
It should be expected that people who live in these houses maintain them to a suitable level. The people living in these conditions have to decide that they do not want to live in third-world conditions. They have to decide that they want to improve their standards of living because this is their house for the next 50 years, or their children’s house, or their grandchildren’s house. Why bother looking after something for the long term if the government is going to turn around and give you your new house in 10 or 15 or 20 years, even if you neglect your responsibilities as a tenant? There has to be expectations on the recipients.
There has to be an agreement or a contract that defines roles and responsibilities for both the giver of welfare and the recipient. This is the norm in every other aspect of Australian business: hypothetically speaking, I give this to you on the expectation that you will do this with it. If not, xyz will happen. That is how the rest of Australia operates. Why is this? Why has throwing money at indigenous problems made so little headway into raising life expectancy, and reducing child and drug and alcohol abuse? This is because there have been no incentives for these indigenous families to get off the charity merry-go-round and to take responsibility for managing their own lives. There is no incentive to get off welfare and enter the cycle of reward for effort that every other Australian has the freedom to enjoy and duty to obey. This is a choice that every other Australian is free to pursue.
This is not going to be addressed by throwing bricks and mortar and money into the problem but, rather, by addressing the deeper fundamental issues and philosophy that will give people the incentive and the means to get off the welfare treadmill. Why is this not an option for many for many indigenous Territorians? Why is there no incentive? What is preventing them from contributing and being part of the Australian economy? It is because indigenous people cannot create capital by building and owning their own house on their own land. It is because many indigenous parents face no consequences when they do not send their kids to school.
This government is all for warm and fuzzy measures, but will not make and take any hard decisions. Here is a hard decision for the government to consider; namely, if they are presented with the delinquent tenant who does, with malice, damage the property, will the minister say that he is prepared to evict? Will the minister demand that when a house is burnt to the ground that a complaint be laid against the person for causing the damage? It remains to be seen if the government has the ticker to be a landlord, but is in the unique position to protect the taxpayers’ investment.
This government might call the Country Liberal Party approach mere paternalism. Noel Pearson had a bit about to say about paternalism when he spoke to Fran Kelly on breakfast radio in June 2007 and I quote:
- Ask the children. Ask the children if they want some paternalism. Ask the terrified kid huddling in the corner when there is a binge drinking party going on down the hall. Ask them if they want a bit of paternalism. Ask them if they want a bit of intervention because these people who continue to bleat without looking at the facts; without facing up to the terrible things that are going on in our remote communities.
Mr Pearson went onto say:
- They’re prescribing a perpetual hell for our children and, quite frankly, I find it absolutely offensive that we have our Social Justice Commissioner, Tom Calma, for goodness sake, talking about the prospect of racial discrimination.
We could do a lot worse than add a bit of Noel Pearson’s wisdom to government policy. Then, we may actually have opportunity and responsibility, as well as new houses.
This government proclaims wonderful spending initiatives, but it also needs to proclaim fundamental change to management. In The Australian on 3 March 2007, Noel Pearson wrote:
… if we invested the $2.3bn that has been estimated as the shortfall in indigenous housing provision tomorrow, we would make little progress with social problems. This investment would be wasted without fundamental policy changes.
Noel Pearson went on to say …
Ms Scrymgour: Oh, Pearson, the great saviour – save us!
Mrs MILLER: It is a bit scary for you, isn’t it?
- Families must have skin in the game if indigenous housing is to move from passivity to responsibility. This means ownership.
Minister, what are you doing to increase family ownership of houses on indigenous land? Under the minister’s new program, has he made any fundamental changes to the ability of an indigenous family to enter the economy and have some capital invested in their own home? It does not appear so. Actually, I know he cannot; it is still distant old Canberra that knows what is good for indigenous Australians. Perish the thought that the Northern Territory parliament be allowed to make laws for the Aboriginal people who live here, despite the fact that there are six more Aboriginal members of parliament than they have in theirs.
Noel Pearson said in this article in The Australian:
- The welfare housing model introduced into Aboriginal communities 30 years ago was a poor, inappropriate model characterised by: perpetual tenancy; a mixed record of tenancy management by community council landlords, who lose nothing because there is always the next government grant; insufficient rental rates; poor rental collection; and poor maintenance of stock.
The Northern Territory government, I hope, will not fall into the same oblique that Pearson described when local councils managed houses.
No matter how much you throw at a broken system, it does not change the fact that the system is broken. Government must take steps to ensure that indigenous Territorians can own their own home on their own land, so that they can enter the economy and experience some capital growth like many other homeowners. I ask the Minister for Housing: does he want indigenous Territorians in remote communities to come under the system as the rest of the Territory? I hope that the administration of this system will not fall over because of the attitude identified by Noel Pearson. If it is to be administered by government, then I hope it will be effective; but as is the way with many bureaucracies, there is a high risk of inefficiency. Again - and this will make them all upset - in his article in The Australian, Noel Pearson wrote:
- … the other source of objection is the failure of people who would own their own home to imagine that the rest of our mob would like the same thing, too.
I am disappointed that the minister has remained silent on home ownership in this statement. I hope that I am not to assume that he does not actually want indigenous people to own their own homes, and that he is happy for indigenous Territorians to live under only one system – his, the welfare system.
Many people comment to me about the inefficiency of the Territory Housing bureaucracy. Surely, the preferred position would be ownership first and tenancy second. There are some issues I would like to raise about the organisation that will manage this investment. Throwing money at the problem is all well and good, but how is that money going to be managed, and how much will actually get into frontline services? This is the most extensive housing project undertaken in the history of the Northern Territory. Is your department ready, minister? Will they be up to the challenge? Can you deliver the organisation and efficiency that a project of this magnitude demands?
There is an estimates process coming up, and we will be pursuing your oversight of Territory Housing and its operations. According to the Housing organisational chart, the Executive Director of Territory Housing - whom I can appreciate is a very busy person - has three assistants. Three assistants for one Executive Director: an executive information coordinator; an executive assistant; and an administrative assistant. Why does a senior public servant have three secretaries? The Chief Executive of the department probably does not have that many and I know key executives and business people in the private sector can survive with one secretary. But three? I ask the minister: how many do you have to have?
Madam Speaker, I suggest if the minister wants to value-add and free additional funding for housing, it might be worth looking at the structures of the department. Second, if the minister wants more efficiency, he might ask why, in this time of housing stress, Territory Housing keeps selling properties? Oh, funny about that. There were some in the Katherine Times last week. I understand, minister, that some properties are sold to tenants under various arrangements, that Territory Housing has been active in the market. One wonders why we are running a real estate business instead a social housing program. Why does the department have Corporate Real Estate as a grouping? I say this because, according to his budget papers, the number of properties continues to decline. You now have over 200 properties fewer than you did three years ago. His department advertises houses for sale as an opportunity for investors. If they are such a good investment, why not keep them? What next? ‘A renovator’s dream’ is advertised in the paper. This is probably more likely, given the state that the minister will allow the properties to fall into.
Where is the money from the sale of these public houses going? This emphasis on your management of your department must come about, as you say, in that the NT must concentrate its housing effort into a single system. If this is a single system under Territory Housing, then those who have to deal with Territory Housing may well shudder at the thought because of the negative experiences they have had. But we expect this. Bigger is better, according to the minister. This is a government that will flash out its credit card and proclaim how much it is spending, but not what it is achieving. This is the opportunity to use what money you have to build houses and have them managed in a way that they are not destroyed, vandalised or sold. Minister, you need to be brave.
There are different ways properly funded housing cooperatives can and do work. There are successful housing cooperatives in the city and rural areas of New South Wales and Victoria which cater for people on low to moderate incomes ...
Mr Knight: I would like to thank John Elferink for this speech.
Mrs MILLER: The co-ops provide – are you usually this rude?
Mr Knight: Yes.
Mrs MILLER: You are. The co-ops provide a sense of belonging and control. They are self-managed and allow tenants to have a say in how the houses are maintained. Tenants are encouraged to take responsibility for the maintenance and repair, and decoration of their dwellings. They participate in the work of the co-op and abide by the rules of the co-op. The minister should be brave and not think that the department that is growing under this system you have is the only answer to housing shortage models. They are expensive in back office costs. They probably have enough executive assistants to start their own cooperative. I urge that this should be about outcomes and not departments. If better outcomes are to be found away from government, then they should be examined and embraced if they pass muster.
We must give indigenous Territorians the opportunity to own their own part in the Australian housing dream and enjoy the reward that this responsibility brings.
Madam Speaker, I close with this question to the minister. The Chief Minister met with the federal minister for Indigenous Affairs on 6 March 2008. A minute from that meeting says:
- Minister Macklin will seek to engage the Territory government in a political discussion to set out strategies for managing discontent that may present outside the 20 priority communities identified under the Remote Housing MOU. She made it clear that the Territory and Commonwealth governments must stick together on this front.
I wonder what strategy is in place to deal with the malcontents who miss out in this glorious plan?
Debate adjourned.
Mr Wood: Can I speak to the motion?
Madam SPEAKER: No, you cannot speak to this motion; debate has been adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Deputy Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mr NATT (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, I would like to just outline a few things that had happened in my electorate in the last couple of weeks.
On Thursday, 24 April, I had the pleasure to attend three schools and their Anzac Day celebrations. The first one was at Durack. I attended their morning assembly commemorating Anzac Day. I was there with special guests, Gary Markwell, Vice President of the Palmerston RSL; Mr Robert MacLeod, the Mayor of Palmerston; and Mrs Melissa Evans, the school council chair who is a servicewoman, and her husband, a serviceman.
Lieutenant Jason Holman from 1st Armoured Regiment was the very special guest who addressed the assembly on the significance of Anzac Day for all Territorians and Australians. He held the attention of the children at the assembly. He spoke exceptionally well on the courage, valour, sacrifices and mateship of our veterans - all the traits Australians have inherited from our brave Anzacs. The packed assembly was very attentive. A commemorative area with the Australian flag at half-mast was established on the side of the assembly hall. All of the classes laid handmade wreaths and flowers brought from home. The school choir sang wonderfully well. They sang the National Anthem and a couple of other songs while wreaths and flowers were laid.
I recognise the groundwork undertaken by Mrs Walker and her class for the organisation of the day. She was ably assisted by Mrs Darcy and her class. I thank them for their efforts. Since there was a cake stall afterwards, and I have a bit of a sweet tooth, I bought about 30 Anzac biscuits. I was pleased to see them on sale, and quite appropriately, too.
The second ceremony I attended not long after the Durack Primary School ceremony was at the Palmerston High School. Part of their school assembly hall, the basketball stadium, was packed with students. Daryl Salathiel, the secretary of the Palmerston RSL, provided a moving speech about the lessons learned from our Anzacs; about the values of leadership, mateship, service and courage that was exemplified by those who served Australia in World War I at Gallipoli. He went on to talk about the refurbishment and the upkeep of the war memorial shrine in Timor. He related a story how he had been to Timor a couple of times and found the memorial there had been left to run down. He sought advice from the Leader of the Opposition who had some contacts in Timor. Some of the local village people close to the shrine now maintain it and it is now well kept. This represents a great effort by Dale and the people in Timor.
An incident of special note was the speech by a former student, Cindy Bowden, now serving as a corporal with the Australian Defence Force. She spoke to the packed auditorium about her service in Iraq and what the Anzac tradition means to her. The Palmerston High School Defence cadets performed the catafalque party duties, marched and stood guard as sentries of the flag pole during the Ode of Remembrance and the playing of the Last Post. The ceremony was executed exceptionally well. Full credit goes to all of those involved. Wreaths were laid at the ceremony by Nryssa Fitzallen, Timothy Harrison, Peter Badkin and John Petersen who were the cadets involved in the catafalque party. The Last Post was played by bugler Bill Buckley, and the National Anthem was performed by Sand Williams and the Palmerston High School Choir.
A talented young student at the Palmerston High School, Zoe Whittington, travelled to Canberra last month, chaperoned by Mr Robert Lee, for an educational visit. She received a medallion to celebrate her achievements as a Northern Territory runner-up of the Australian government 2008 Simpson Prize. The winner, notably, was Northern Territory lad, Terry Lim, from Taminmin. Palmerston has a wonderful history of prize winners in this competition because Stacey Carbolt won the prize in 2007.
This is a popular national competition, now in its 10th year; and it honours John Simpson Kirkpatrick whom we all know as the ‘man with the donkey’, who was also famous for his bravery under fire while rescuing soldiers at Gallipoli back in 1915. The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, Hon Alan Griffin, on behalf of Hon Julia Gillard, the Minister for Education, presented the winners and runners-up with their prizes at Parliament House last month. I understand over 1000 students in Year 9 to Year 10 submitted an essay, or an audio visual presentation, which highlighted Simpson’s heroism and how the Anzac spirit is exemplified by other great Australians such as the late Bernie Banton and Dr Fred Hollows and, more recently, the 2007 Young Australian, Tanya Major.
From there, at 1 pm, I went to Kormilda College. This service has become a Kormilda tradition and I have attended that service the last two years. They had more than 1000 students, staff and guests attending the ceremony. The students behaved exceptionally well during the service; and the guest trumpeter’s playing of the Rouse and the Last Post.
The ceremony was run by Kormilda’s two college captains, Daniel Popple and Gabrielle Morriss. The Kormilda College Choir sang the National Anthem while student, Tamara-Lee Stacey, gave the welcome to Larrakia land. Four Kormilda Defence Cadets paraded the 2nd Heavy Anti-Aircraft banner, as it was brought forward to the rostrum. It is interesting to note this banner was handed to the school by the 2nd Heavy Anti-Aircraft Battery, which was stationed at the grounds of Kormilda during World War II. As the banner was paraded, school captain Daniel Popple read out: ‘The remaining members of the 2nd Heavy Anti-Aircraft Battery, 1941 – 1944, have entrusted their banner to us for safe keeping. Today we parade it at this Anzac service to honour and remember them’. It was exceptionally well done by the students.
His Honour the Administrator, Mr Tom Pauling QC, provided the address. He also welcomed a teacher at the school, and a former Defence Force Representative, Mr Bernie Holland, who spoke about what Anzac meant to him. Fr David Burgess gave the reflections, and students, Madison Ludwig, Mitchell Blundell and Bradley Cummings, were involved in the catafalque party. I congratulate Kormilda College and everyone involved. It was a wonderful ceremony. I look forward to attending it again next year.
On Anzac Day, I represented the Chief Minister and my Drysdale constituents at the dawn service at Palmerston. I am pleased to see crowd numbers increasing at Anzac Day ceremonies. I reckon we had a crowd of probably 300 to 400 people at the dawn service. It was pleasing to see the numbers of young children there, taking an interest in what was happening. I congratulate Daryl Salathiel and his committee on the work they undertook to ensure the ceremony went unhindered. Daryl was the Master of Ceremonies for the morning, and special guests included my colleague, the member for Brennan, James Burke; representing the people of Palmerston was his Worship the Mayor, Robert MacLeod; Senator Trish Crossin; and the Department of Veteran Affairs (NT Regional Office), Lisa Kulmar. We had representatives from the Defence Force: Commander of 1st Brigade, Brigadier Michael G Krause ADC; RSM 1st Brigade, Warrant Officer Don Spinks and his partner, Jennifer Pereira; and representing the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Fire and Emergency Services was the Palmerston Superintendent, Matthew Hollamby.
The Remembrance Service was exceptionally well attended. I congratulate everyone involved, and also thank Captain Gerald Mitchell from the Palmerston Salvation Army who conducted the service for the morning.
Later that morning, the march past occurred which was well attended. The crowd picked up to about 500 people. We had school representation from a number of the primary schools in and around the district. It was terrific to see a great turn-out on a wonderful day. His Worship the Mayor attended and several other dignitaries who doubled up from the morning. The catafalque party from the Defence Force did a wonderful job. I congratulate everyone involved. It really was a great day. Special mention, as I said earlier, to Daryl Salathiel and his committee from the Palmerston RSL. They do a great job every year, and I commend them for the work they undertake within the Palmerston region.
Anglicare Northern Territory hosted a Youth Homelessness Matters Day earlier this month on 9 April in Palmerston and provided a free barbecue and information on a variety of the services they provide. It was really well attended throughout the morning. I had the pleasure of meeting some of the people involved in it. I met the Executive Manager of Anglicare Top End, Ann Buxton. I had a great talk with her and she explained to me the work they undertake within the area and the work they are trying to undertake within the Northern Territory. I also met with Services Implementation Manager, Trudy Lee, the Connect Youth workers, Sharon Hurst, Pranee Tomlinson, Julie Bliss and Des Culhane were all on hand to provide information and support for clients and, obviously, help cook the barbecue. It was great to see them out and active within the community and doing terrific work. I congratulate Ann on all the initiatives they are putting together. They do a wonderful job for the young homeless people. The work they do in and around Darwin and Palmerston does not go unnoticed.
Mr BURKE (Brennan): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, what a great joy it is to see you up there in the Speaker’s Chair. I would like to start by congratulating young Jeremie Edwards, a 16-year-old who plays with the Palmerston Raiders Rugby League side for Palmerston. Congratulations also to his parents. His father, Errol, works here in Parliament House. Jeremie made his A Grade debut on the weekend. I watched the game with the Raiders playing the Litchfield Bears. Unfortunately for the Raiders, they went into the game as underdogs and that proved to be the case. They went down on that occasion. However, the Palmerston Raiders blooded a numbed of young players and Jeremie Edwards, as I said, played his first full game of 80 minutes on Sunday wearing the No 12 jumper, which I am advised puts him in the second row in the forwards. He was up against much older and more seasoned veterans. I am reliably informed that Jeremie played extremely well and gave a good account of himself. Well done, Jeremie. I am sure it is the start of a long and glorious career - no doubt, like your father’s.
I would also like to pay a tribute, a recognition to a friend of mine, Mr Simon Hall, who recently passed away quite suddenly. He was a great friend, a great campaigner for the Labor Party in Palmerston. He will be very much missed. I was happy to be able to speak about Simon at the recent Northern Territory ALP conference, which I only mention because his mum, Jane, his sister, Sally, and good friend, Paul Gascoyne, came up for that. It was good to meet them. I had never met them before. They really appreciated seeing the people who Simon knew up here.
I also thank Chris and Gary McKell of McKell’s Real Estate. Simon’s family were here to finalise those practical matters that have to be dealt with when someone passes away. Gary McKell assisted quite considerably in helping my wife, Sharon, and Simon’s family put things on the trailer and tie it all down so it could be taken back to my place. A sincere thank you to Gary McKell for his assistance.
As the member for Drysdale said, we had a fantastic Anzac Day in Palmerston. The day started off for me with the Gunner’s Breakfast at The Hub. The event is organised by the Palmerston RSL who do a great job. I note my colleague mentioned Mr Gary Markwell and the other members of the Palmerston RSL as well. It is not easy putting something together like that and the Palmerston RSL do a fantastic job each year. Daryl Salathiel is the other member of the Palmerston RSL who plays a considerable part in organising things. More often than not, he is the compere for events. This year, the Ode of Remembrance at both the dawn service and the mid-morning service was by Bill Simpkins, as well as the people that my colleague, the member for Drysdale mentioned. Padre Bob Bishop took control of the service for the mid-morning service.
The Gunner’s Breakfast kicked off at 4.30 that morning and it was extremely well attended. I met up with a couple, Linda and Jason, who live in Bakewell. They have not been living in Bakewell very long, and Jason’s father was also there. We were talking, not just about Anzac Day and its importance, but just how good it is to see new people and new generations celebrating Anzac Day. Some good friends of mine, Ken and Di, were also there and, after the dawn service, we all went to The Hub again for the breakfast. I pay tribute to The Hub where the Palmerston RSL is based. They put on a fantastic fare. Everyone had a good time. There were many people there, which was great to see.
Brigadier Krause was the guest speaker. He spoke about the sacrifices that our Defence personnel have made on behalf of their country, some of whom had made the ultimate sacrifice, giving their lives for those that have remained behind and for the things that our country stands for. He made a reference about the fact that so many people had made a sacrifice to turn up to the dawn service. It is not something most people do very often, getting up in time for a dawn service.
Giving that recognition about that personal sacrifice I felt was a very good point. It does not cost us much to give that little sacrifice in recognition for the sacrifices that others make in service of their country. It was uplifting to see the Regimental Sergeant Major Don Spinks and his wife, as well as the other dignitaries there at the dawn service. After the post-dawn service breakfast there was then the midmorning service which we attended. It was a pleasure to see the patron of the Palmerston RSL, our own Clare Martin giving support to the celebrations at Palmerston. It was a great crowd and the march was impressive. A number of schools were there and I had the opportunity to catch up with the students of Sacred Heart Primary School and their Principal and the Assistant Principal, Kath Neely and Bill Bemelmans. The Bakewell students were with their Principal, June Wessels. The guest speaker was, from memory, Major Damien Patterson who spoke eloquently about Anzac Day. Well done to the people of Palmerston for attending the event.
Prior to Anzac Day, I attended a few of the school assemblies and the special tributes the schools had prepared. At Palmerston High School it was memorable to see Corporal Cindy Bowden as the guest speaker. She is an ex-student of Palmerston High School and featured as the guest speaker for the Year 10 pledge signing. This consisted of the Year 10 students signing a charter undertaking to either remain in school or leave school only to take up an apprenticeship or a full-time job or some further study. She was the guest speaker and came across as a great young woman in her early 20s who having served in Iraq was already a veteran. She spoke of her experiences.
One point which some of the Palmerston High students strongly identified with was how school did not agree with her; how she could not wait until she got out. When she went to see the career’s advisor she said: ‘I want to join the Army’. The career advisor said: ‘What if that does not work?’ And she said: ‘Well, it will’. It is fantastic to know at such a young age what you want to do and are prepared to do everything to achieve that. The service was held at Palmerston High School with the Army cadets doing the catafalque party. All in all, it was very well done and I congratulate Palmerston High School.
Gray Primary School also had an Anzac Day assembly and service on Thursday. I was deeply impressed to see how each class had made their own wreath out of red crepe paper with little poppies stuck onto wreaths. I was taken with the effort these students had put into recognising this important occasion for Australia.
On that occasion, Lieutenant Chris Henderson was the guest speaker and spoke extremely well. The speech he gave was pitched perfectly to the age of the students that he was addressing. I thought Lieutenant Henderson did a really good job speaking to the children. The children at Gray Primary School were perfectly behaved. Congratulations to them for that as well.
While I am on Gray Primary School, I hosted a lunch with the Gray Primary School Student Representative Council. They came to my office. We had a light lunch and spoke about what was important to them, and what they wanted to see happen at their school. They are looking to fundraise for their school. One of the matters we spoke about was the need to identify what exactly you are fundraising for, and how you have to have a focus. They had some great ideas. They asked me a few questions about what I do. It was a great treat for me to be able to talk to the SRC of Gray Primary School. I wish them all the best for their fundraising efforts. I look forward to talking with them some more.
There has been much fanfare in Darwin about the Darwin program for getting the community involved in fitness and community functions - I am not sure what it is called in Darwin but it is really taking off in Palmerston as Palmerston’s Palmlesstonnes and has been a great program. I have hosted three walks on a Sunday morning. I have enjoyed every one of them. It is a chance to talk to people and exercise at the same time. There is a great sense of camaraderie and help. No one is an elite athlete or anything like that but everyone is encouraging each other to push themselves just that little, have great fun and then at the end have a healthy breakfast as well. To each of those participants in Palmlesstonnes, you only have a few weeks more to go, keep going, you are almost there. I hope things will continue and you will have the enthusiasm and get the results you were after, enough to keep going even once the program is officially over.
Palmlesstonnes is a good program. It was visionary of the Palmerston council to take it on board and run with it. I am sure Darwin City Council will also have every success with it. I look forward to hearing some of my colleagues talk on things that are happening in Darwin.
They are some of the events that have been happening in Palmerston. I congratulate all the people who have been involved.
Mr KNIGHT (Daly): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I will take a few moments to acknowledge the contribution of three public servants: Bill Ivory, Graham Franklin and Michael Banks. I know my colleague, Elliot McAdam, the former Minister for Local Government, and many other members will join me in thanking these officers.
Bill Ivory has now retired from the public service after 37 years of dedicated service. There are many of us in this House who have benefited from Bill’s knowledge, his practical approach to life and his sage advice. Bill grew up in the Northern Territory, spending a lot of his time out bush and also at Bagot and in Katherine. His schooling was completed at Maningrida by correspondence from Adelaide. Bill then went on to study at the Australian School of Pacific Administration in 1971 to 1972 and graduated as a patrol officer working for the Department of Aboriginal Affairs. Bill transferred to the Northern Territory government in the early 1980s and worked as a project officer and general manager within Local Government and also in a community development role. He also had a stint as an adviser to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs in the 1990s.
From 1998 to 2001, Bill worked for the Office of Aboriginal Development; focusing particularly on indigenous economic development. This helped focus his thinking about the future of indigenous communities and led him down a path of more study and a focus on development of the Thamarrurr region.
From 2001 to 2006, Bill spent an enormous amount of his time learning, facilitating and documenting leadership, governance and development practices in the Thamarrurr region. Bill has always been committed to policies and programs which make a real and positive difference in people’s lives, particularly when it comes to building stronger, better futures for people in the bush. Bill is a great Territorian, and I am sure he will continue to contribute to indigenous community development and, on a more local level, to sport - to his beloved Southern Districts Football team.
I am sure members will join me in recording the appreciation of the Northern Territory parliament to Bill Ivory for his long and distinguished career, and the enormous contribution he has made to community development in the Northern Territory. I wish Bill well in his PhD, which is very long in coming. Hopefully, one day, I can sit down and read it.
It is with great sadness that I announce that Mr Graham Franklin, Director of the Water Safety and Animal Welfare Branch, has resigned from his position. The Northern Territory government is losing one of its champions in water safety awareness and animal welfare advocacy.
Graham started working for the Northern Territory government in 1996, and has had various roles including working for Indigenous Housing. However, I am sure he would agree that his biggest role and achievement has been the establishment of the Water Safety and Animal Welfare Branch. Graham was instrumental in setting up the Water Safety Branch and implementing the Swimming Pool Safety Act 2004. This was no easy task, but he went about it in his quiet and gentleman-like way, showing his true passion for the legislation and its purpose.
Graham also implemented the Under 5 Water Safety Awareness Program, the only one of its kind in Australia. Since its introduction, the Water Safety Awareness Program has had over 5000 children and parents attend classes in water awareness and has received many accolades, including being named the National Best Practice by the Australian Water Safety Council. These achievements are a reflection of all the hard work Graham has done over the years, as without his strength and passion, these results would not have been achieved.
Graham also took on the role as the Director of Animal Welfare. Again, he showed his kindness and compassion. This must be one of the hardest jobs to manage, as you can well imagine, as no phone call would bring happy news. However, he has shown his determination to bring about big change. Graham has recently undertaken a review of the Animal Welfare Act. Although he will not be with us to see the changes, he has paved the way to seeing that the process started.
I thank Graham for all that he has done for the Northern Territory government and the Northern Territory community. He is truly a compassionate man and his belief in water safety and animal welfare has left sound foundations for the future. I wish him all the best in his future endeavours.
Lastly, I acknowledge Mr Michael Banks. Michael will be retiring shortly after a distinguished career. Michael has spent the last period of his working life helping to bring about reform in the local government area. I acknowledge his large contribution. I work with Michael and find him a very intelligent and compassionate man who is dedicated to improving people’s lives.
I will now move on to my electorate. The Clean Up Australia Day in various parts of my electorate occurred. I was fortunate enough to go to the Batchelor Community with my kids and help out the volunteers there. About 30 volunteers took part in the Coomalie Council Clean Up Day. I thank the contribution made by the Recreation and Sports Officer, Jason Scott, who supervised the day. Many people turned out. They went through the town and the various arterial roads, and were able to clean up a great deal of rubbish in that area.
When I left Batchelor, I headed back up the Stuart Highway just in time to catch up with some of the cleanup crews around the Livingstone area, particularly around the Livingstone Airstrip. The Livingstone site supervisor, Lyn Chambers, informed me that around 20 helpers volunteered on the day and cleaned up 24 km of roadside including the Livingstone Airstrip. Glass and plastic bottles, aluminium cans and iced coffee containers made up the bulk of the rubbish collected. The most interesting item found was a local resident’s X-ray pictures, which were delivered back to her the very next day. Cans were also taken to the Scouts for recycling. The after cleanup barbecue which I supported was very well appreciated. I donated some sausages for that, so well done to the guys at Livingstone.
In Pine Creek, they also had a very busy day and their site supervisor was Bob Webbe and Robbo who is John Robertson. They advised me that more than 20 adults and children took part and they collected about 25 bags of rubbish from around the town, including the north and south entrances of the highway bypass.
I also acknowledge in Pine Creek the Shave for a Cure Pine Creek. Congratulations to Gaye Lawrence and Gary Brown whom I had the privilege of sponsoring. Gary looks like a very different man, and so does Gaye if anyone has met Gaye over the time. So congratulations on your efforts there.
I congratulate the Nauiyu community at Daly River for being one of the 2008 finalists in the Keep Australia Beautiful Tidy Towns Awards, and then becoming the winner of the National Litter Prevention Award for 2008. Nauiyu community do sweeps and clean ups to ensure that the local environment continues to be welcoming and well presented to locals and businesses. I quote from the Keep Australia Beautiful media release of 20 April 2008:
- Members of the community and CDEP are committed to ensuring that the township and its surrounds are free of discarded cans in particular. The community workforce collects, crushes and bales cans to be delivered to Darwin for recycling. For their efforts, the CDEP was recognised for the National Dame Phyllis Frost Group Award.
The media release went on to say that, while congratulating the community of Nauiyu Nambiyu for their win, Keep Australia Beautiful national chairman, Don Chambers, said:
- The community of Nauiyu Nambiyu works hard to keep their community litter free and the initiatives of the CDEP deserve recognition for promoting recycling as a way to divert waste to landfill.
That is fantastic work by the community.
The Batchelor Neighbourhood Watch group which I helped start and has been a great success, coordinated a bike engraving event at the school. I acknowledge the efforts of Christine Bond who works at the Institute and is the chair of the Neighbourhood Watch. It is a diverse group of people. It solves many of the antisocial behaviours in the town. It has been a kind of circuit breaker for more formal action by the police and the judiciary. It is inspiring to see that they are doing a great job.
The school students thoroughly enjoyed a visit during that engraving day from Hector, the Road Safety Cat, and listened intently to Emily from the Batchelor Police on road safety issues. Approximately 40 bikes were engraved. Sharon McAlear from my office, together with Jason Scott, whom I formerly mentioned from the Coomalie Council, were cooks at the sausage sizzle. The Neighbourhood Watch team at Batchelor work very hard to create a safe environment in the community. I commend them for their dedication and look forward to the next safety session.
I would like to now talk about the Anzac Day service at Adelaide River. The dawn service, as always, was very well attended, with probably about 2000 people. That is the biggest turnout they have ever had. It was like peak hour traffic heading down to Adelaide River, and what is normally a straight-through drive was bumper to bumper with cars. The previous member for Daly, Mr Tim Baldwin, was MC on the day and the schedule of events went very well. Young Zoe Clegg read the Ode. The Last Post was performed by Bill Buckley with the Darwin Brass Band. Theresa Balanzategui led everyone in the national anthem. Thanks very much to Theresa for a great performance. We were very fortunate to have Bill Buckley and five other members of the Darwin Brass Band at this dawn service. These gentlemen chose to perform at the Adelaide River dawn service while the other members of the band marched in the Darwin dawn service Anzac Day in honouring our veterans. Their sacrifice was even more significant this year because of the recent discovery of the HMAS Sydney.
I was very honoured to be invited as the civilian guest speaker. Emotions ran high when I listened to the reading by Bruce Jones of the poem by Paul Bacon, Anzac Spirit. This day was also very special to Derrick Swan who has been a caretaker at the Adelaide River War graves for many years. Derrick will be retiring and advised us that this was his last Anzac Day as caretaker. Traditionally, the ARSS Club conducted a breakfast. I served up eggs and bacon as I am the patron of the ARSS Club. I was very proud that we helped serve breakfast for over 1000 people. The breakfast went on for quite a way into the morning. Bruce Jones, mentioned earlier, is the convener of the two-up and that lent a lovely colour to the day as well.
A fine display of old war-time photos taken of the Adelaide River area during the 1940s was displayed at breakfast. I thank the Northern Territory Library and Anne Devenish, Di Sinclair and, especially, Lynette Aitchison who helped my electorate officer with advise and the reproduction of the photos. The staff worked within a very short time frame. The photo display came together very well. Many took the time to look at the 40 photos displayed. I hope to add to the collection for next year’s dawn service. I also thank the committee of the Adelaide River Show Society for the display they had within the other buildings of the show society.
After I left Adelaide River I went to the Humpty Doo Service which was very well attended. The Humpty Doo service is one that has seemed to grown over the years. I thank all those people who contributed on such a momentous day. As Anzac Day it is salient to reflect on what soldiers have done for us not only in Australia but in the Territory and for the protection of the North. Our thoughts go out to those people who have passed away but also to those Defence personnel who are serving currently overseas.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I pay tribute tonight to a fantastic event we had in Alice Springs which was the Relay for Life for the Cancer Council. It is the third time it has occurred in Alice Springs. Last time we had 14 teams. This year we had 27 and they walked, marched and ran for 18 hours. They raised a huge $70 000 from the community of Alice Springs just for this particular event. That is a very large increase on what they raised last year. It is a great indication of the amount of work that went into the organisation and running of that event. We had huge support from sponsors including $20 000 from the AMP Foundation. The 27 teams really threw themselves into it. I have never seen the oval looking so colourful as it was that night with the number of people staying there.
It was interesting to see some of the school groups there. Boarders from St Philip’s stayed and slept in their swags. They claimed it was far better than sleeping in the boarding house and they really enjoyed it. It is one of those events that brings the community together and acknowledges those who have survived and those who have passed.
It is a fitting tribute to the organisers that it was such a huge success. I acknowledge the work of Nanette Longe, Prue Crouch and Karen Cilka who organised this event. It is unfortunate that we have lost those three workers from the Cancer Council in Alice Springs. I do not think their work is valued and we will not be able to replace them easily with people who will give so much as they have done. It is only a small office but the support they get from the community for the Biggest Morning Tea and the Big Girls’ Pyjama Party is amazing. They have a remarkable commitment to raising enough money to ensure that cancer research continues. At the last screening in Alice Springs, in fact, we had about five women who were found to have breast cancer. These statistics show we need to make a breakthrough in cancer research. We really need to give more support to some of the men in our community and it is nice to know that in the survivors’ race had some male participants.
These women in the Cancer Council do a fantastic job. I thank the people and businesses of Alice Springs that responded in such a fantastic way. Thank you for that huge effort for the Relay for Life for 2008.
We also had Youth Week across the Territory. An interesting event held in Alice Springs was a play put on by the young people of Our Lady of the Sacred Heart College called Mirage. It was a very sensitive play addressing the topic of body image and the effects of the media and peer group pressure on young people’s images of their bodies. Obviously high on the list was anorexia; an affliction many young girls are faced with. It was confronting for an audience to see these young people on stage talking about why they have this problem, why they go about what they do; how they see themselves and what drives them to go down this terrible road.
They had a young boy play a part and tell the story of how he wanted to make his body better by taking all sorts of substances. Speaking to the parents there that night it was clear these issues are very much alive in our high schools. I presume it is the same in Darwin as it is in Alice Springs. To be able to face the fact, to not be in denial, and admit you have a problem is very difficult for families and young people to work through. Some of the parents there asked questions and we had a very informative panel to assist them. I wonder if this play which was so confronting about young people and their eating disorders should be introduced to other high schools.
I commend Rajan Kandasamy, the teacher who organised this, and the young people who performed in it. The actors were Samuel Crowe in the role of Max; Jennifer Garwood as Kate; and Mikaela Bennion and Annelies Doeke. The story revolved around their lives as teenagers and they were very up-front in portraying their eating disorders and the body image problems they have.
They were very typical of teenagers we see in our schools every day. I thank Rajan for doing this. He and those young people who played the parts are to be commended for having the courage to stand up and work through this small production that brought to life a very serious issue in our society.
I also want to talk about young Lara Wood. Lara is 16 and participated in the 2020 Youth Summit in Canberra in April, along with Celeste Brand. They were the two young people representing Alice Springs. I believe there were only four young people, all told, throughout the Territory who actually attended the 2020 summit. Lara was contacted by the Duke of Edinburgh Awards people for her nomination to attend. Her mother told me that when she saw what Lara had written in her nomination form she thought: ‘This kid is going to get accepted’, because she put such a great nomination together.
Lara is a prefect at St Philip’s College and an officer of democracy. Of the 1260 applications to attend the Youth Summit, only 100 from around Australia were chosen between the ages of 15 and 24. You can imagine, out of 1260, Lara was one of the 100, and that is a tremendous result for her. Young indigenous people were well represented, and Lara met many young people from different ethnic and multicultural backgrounds. She enjoyed meeting other young people from other states and territories and she said she learned a great deal.
From the Canberra summit, 11 young people are going to attend the 2020 Summit, but none came from the Northern Territory, which was unfortunate. However, I know they had a lot of input while they were there. The groups were split into four topics: health, housing, education and indigenous treaties. Each group consisted of 20 young people. They were pleased to know that the indigenous treaty would go through to the 2020 Summit and, as we all know, it has been taken on board by the adults who attended the other summit.
Lara’s group discussed indigenous Australia and communities and families, and ended up with an outcome that prevention was better, rather than seeking a solution. How many times have we said this in the House? Rather than trying to put a bandaid on it once it has happened, let us prevent it in the first place. Prevention rather than a cure for future generations was a bigger and better idea, thus providing support for community, families and everyone.
Some of the other issues discussed were health issues such as access to good drinking water, fresh food in the bush stores; limiting access to alcohol; and being charged reasonable prices in some places that ask too much for their drinks. Indigenous communities need to learn how to be healthy, and to promote and maintain mental health. Youth suicide was another issue discussed. Education is the keystone to the future for all young people.
I congratulate Lara and Celeste for their participation in the 2020 summit. They did the Territory proud having two young people who were able to stand up and be so articulate, and came back knowing what they had achieved. Good luck to them in their future careers.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016