2006-02-21
Madam Speaker Aagaard took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise you of the presence in the Speaker’s Gallery of Mr Neville Perkins, OAM, former member for Macdonnell and Deputy Labor Leader in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly from 1977 to 1981. On behalf of honourable members, I extend a warm welcome to our distinguished visitor.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I report that the New South Wales-based Australian Wilderness Tours has purchased Odyssey Tours and Safaris. Earlier this year, Voyages Hotels and Resorts announced the closure of its Darwin-based touring company, Odyssey Tours and Safaris, as part of the company’s rationalisation of its touring operations. In great news for the Territory, Grant Hunt, the Sydney-based CEO of Voyages, announced last week that a sale to Australian Wilderness Tours was successfully negotiated.
Australian Wilderness Tours is a four-wheel drive, soft adventure operation, with 25 years experience operating in all Australian states, as well as in Alice Springs and the Gulf country. John Alwyn-Jones, who is Director of Marketing and Development for both Australian Wilderness Tours and Odyssey, has advised that the company will continue to operate the full Odyssey program to its usual high standards.
The purchase of Odyssey complements the excellent Australian and overseas programs run by Australian Wilderness Tours. The company is a recognised luxury tour operator and can offer domestic and international operators and its clients the most comprehensive up-market four-wheel drive ecotour program available in Australia today.
Odyssey will continue to operate their day tours in Central Australia under the banner of Voyages Hotels and Resorts; however, the company will phase the name out over the next two years as the product is absorbed by Australian Wilderness Tours. Most of Odyssey’s staff have been offered ongoing employment. The company is set to invest heavily in luring more international tourists to the Top End for longer periods during what the company calls ‘the lush and green season’. They have identified Europe as their largest growth market over the past two years, particularly the French. The company believes that by strategically purchasing a complementary tour company in Darwin, they can dramatically increase the length of stay and dispersal throughout the Territory.
United Kingdom and Europe are key source markets for the Territory. Australian Wilderness Tours are already working closely with established NT supporters in the international market, such as Australie Tours, and we are confident that this investment will grow the market. They have also indicated a plan to reduce North Queensland and South Australian itineraries and increase the time our visitors spend in the Katherine region. That is great news for tourism in Katherine.
We are now working closely with the new Odyssey venture to ensure that the international distribution network is aware of this new and improved tour company. The purchase of Odyssey Tours and Safaris by Ralph Clissold is great news for Territory tourism, and an example of why the Territory’s economy keeps moving ahead. Ralph Clissold is the Australian Wilderness Tours Managing Director, who was born in Alice Springs and has worked in ecotourism for the last 28 years. With his partner, Meg, who is a horticulturalist, they have developed a unique experience for their increasingly discerning passengers. I certainly wish Ralph, Meg and their team all the very best in the future.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I thank the Chief Minister for her report this morning. Ecotourism, by far, has the most opportunity to develop in the Northern Territory, with our amazing parks and river systems throughout the Territory. It is encouraging to see that it is of a high standard.
I must confess, Chief Minister, I was a little concerned when Voyages announced their sale, because they usually invest in properties and enterprises that they have the potential to develop into the highest standard - a la Yulara. I was a little concerned to see that they had divested of this. However, I welcome the new owners and trust that they will be able to develop this area and show it off at the highest potential that is has for the Territory.
Mr HENDERSON (Regional Development): Madam Speaker, this morning I update the House on the latest developments with Desert Knowledge Australia. More than half a million Australians live in desert regions, and Desert Knowledge Australia is focused on building business networks and job opportunities across these regions, particularly for indigenous Australians.
One of the central issues identified at the recent 2015: Moving the Territory Ahead Economic Summit was the importance of developing the Territory’s regions and engaging indigenous Territorians in the Territory’s economic future. Desert Knowledge will play a central role in the economic development of Central Australia.
As the physical centre for Desert Knowledge, Alice Springs has a key role in, and will benefit from, driving this economic development and creating sustainable livelihoods in the desert. Desert Knowledge brings government, private sector and community organisations together. It is, therefore, essential that it has a highly experienced and well-regarded board in order to achieve its aims.
Last December, I was pleased to announce the Director of Reconciliation Australia and former federal minister, Hon Fred Chaney AO, as the new Chair of Desert Knowledge Australia. Mr Chaney has vast experience in both the public and private sectors at a national and state level, and has a strong understanding of the challenges and opportunities for inland Australia. He is passionate about building opportunities for indigenous Australians and has, for many years, been involved in both government organisations such as the National Native Title Tribunal, Reconciliation Australia, and community groups such as the Graham (Polly) Farmer Foundation.
Last week, I was pleased to announce the appointment of the remainder of the board, and had the opportunity to attend their first board meeting last Friday in Alice Springs. I am particularly pleased that five of the 11 members are from Central Australia, and I am sure will be well known to members of this House. Mr Des Rogers, former Chairperson of the ATSIC Alice Springs Regional Council and the Indigenous Housing Authority of the Northern Territory, is a local Alice Springs businessman who has owned and operated a number of businesses, including his present venture, Peppered Black. Mr John Baskerville, the Executive Director Southern of the Northern Territory government’s Department of the Chief Minister, is a long-term resident of Alice Springs with broad experience in the power and construction industries. Alice Springs resident, Ms Janet Turner, is a member of the Institute for Aboriginal Development and is fluent in the local Arrernte language. Ms Turner was nominated by the Lhere Artepe Aboriginal Corporation representing the native title holders of Alice Springs. Mr Harold Furber is the Chairman of the Desert Peoples Centre Board, a facility for providing post-secondary education for indigenous people, and has presented at conferences and workshops all over the world on various indigenous issues. Dr Bruce Walker is Director of the Centre for Appropriate Technology in Alice Springs, an organisation which delivers appropriate technology to indigenous communities, and is also a member of the Desert Peoples Centre Board. The other members of the board have been drawn from different sectors around Australia and all have experience living and working in desert regions: Ms Sharon Hocking from Broken Hill; Mr Daniel Tucker from Perth; Kalgoorlie businesswoman, Ms Kathy Finlayson; Queensland health educator and promoter, Ms Beryl Meiklejohn; and Mr Alwyn McKenzie from Port Augusta. It was great to be at their first board meeting in Alice Springs last Friday. Everybody is very keen and excited to be getting on with the job, and Fred Chaney is really relishing the challenge of chairing the board.
Last November, the government announced it was increasing its commitment to the Desert Knowledge Precinct from $27m to $30m to complete Stage 1 of the precinct, restaged over three years to complete priority elements first. This is one of the largest construction programs Alice Springs has ever seen and work is continuing on site even as I stand here. Local business, Sitzler Bros, is on track to completing its $2.6m second stage headworks by April this year. Installation of the headworks is about 40% complete, sewerage services have been completed, installation of electrical services is nearing completion, and sub-grade is in place for most of the roadworks.
The indigenous land use agreement for the precinct is being prepared by the Department of Justice and legal representatives of Lhere Artepe and is almost complete.
Design and documentation work on the $1.25m Business and Innovation Centre, the headquarters for Desert Knowledge Australia, is being undertaken by local architects Susan Dugdale and Stephen Lumb. Their work is due to be completed in June, with construction expected to start in July.
The government is also working with the Desert Peoples Centre on delivering Stage 1 of their facilities at the Desert Knowledge Precinct, including teaching facilities for the Centre for Appropriate Technology and Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education.
Madam Speaker, Desert Knowledge Australia holds great opportunities for job and business growth in desert Australia and, in particular, in Alice Springs. I look forward to seeing the project continuing to rollout, and I will make ongoing announcements to the House as to progress on their development.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his report this morning. I am pretty glad to hear it, because the Desert Knowledge Precinct has been a little cul-de-sac for some time that has been actually heading nowhere. It has been fairly fancy off the highway, but not going anywhere, so, it is very good to see that at long last that is rolling.
I believe that it was almost an illegal identity, minister. You have not had a board meeting since last March. I welcome the new chairman, Mr Fred Chaney, and the new board members, and I hope that the input that they have into this precinct will certainly see it developed into the standard that is expected of it.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Speaker, we are pleased that the minister gave us an update on the Desert Knowledge Precinct. I have to admit, we were beginning to think it got lost in the bureaucracy. It is also good to hear that funding has been committed. I believe the board is good. I am pleased to see representatives from Alice Springs. There are a lot of initiatives occurring already, as you know, in the Centre and, to take advantage of them by using the expertise and knowledge we have, is great.
We have many environmental issues in Australia today, not just from an environmental point of view, but from conservation and the wise use of our resources. We are looking forward to getting some positive outcomes from this Desert Knowledge Australia. Even though it is in the Centre and we are pleased with the input into our economy, on a global look I believe this is what is important for Australia. These are the things that make Australia great. We were brave enough to do the Adelaide to Darwin railway, and do the big things, and this, I hope, is going to go down that path so that it will stamp, not just Central Australia but the Northern Territory in the realm of Desert Knowledge. When you look around the world, at Israel, we could probably take advantage of the way they have done things there. We are not selling the things we already have.
Minister, we will appreciate your update as time goes by. Alice Springs people are going to be really pleased to hear this announcement, because they have been holding their breath. They can breathe a sigh of relief now that it is definitely on the agenda. We will all look forward to seeing development, particularly the design and architecture of the centre as it progresses.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, yesterday I had the pleasure of accepting a report from the Darwin Harbour Advisory Committee, which is a milestone in the management arrangements for the Darwin Harbour.
In late 2003, the advisory committee submitted to government its Darwin Harbour Regional Plan of Management. The plan was endorsed by government in February 2004. This was a groundbreaking plan which, for the first time, treated Darwin Harbour as a single entity and drew together the cultural, social, economic and environmental information about the region, identified the management issues, and made a number of significant recommendations about implementation.
The regional plan of management was the first formal articulation of a vision for the region, which reflected the range of values important in its management. The implementation of the plan of management is overseen by DHAC, and DHAC is required to prepare an annual status report. The committee has now submitted its first annual status report. The plan of management had five overarching goals, each with a number of strategies and actions, and made 15 recommendations for integrated management. The plan of management created high expectations and I am pleased to report that many of its actions have been achieved.
The establishment of three working groups, the Ecosystem Monitoring Group, the Ecosystem Research Group and the Indigenous Working Group were priority actions, and all three have been very active and have overseen a number of projects. Other actions have been implemented by relevant stakeholders, as detailed in the report. For example, a stormwater strategy for Darwin Harbour has been drafted and dispersion modelling of the effluent from the outfalls in the harbour has been undertaken by Charles Darwin University. In general, DHAC’s review of the 15 recommendations from the plan of management concludes that good progress is being made towards implementing the plan. There are areas where the number, timing and range of actions have not all been implemented as intended. More work needs to be done and I remain committed to the continuing work of the great work of the advisory committee.
The status report is publicly available and will be accessible on the department’s web site.
The Darwin Harbour Advisory Committee also takes an active role in engaging the wider community and increasing awareness and public awareness of management issues for the harbour.
On Tuesday, 21 February, I will be launching a seminar program for the advisory committee. This series of presentations and discussions will showcase some of the work being done by government under the Darwin Harbour Regional Plan of Management. Presentations are by various expert members of the advisory committee and cover such diverse topics as marine pests, groundwater resources, cultural sites, hydrodynamic modelling of the harbour, and coral and mudflats to name a few of the interesting topics covered.
Anyone interested in learning a bit more about the work of the Darwin Harbour Advisory Committee and the environment of the Darwin Harbour and meeting with the committee should consider going to this seminar series. It starts at 6.30 pm on Tuesday, 21 February, in the Museum and Art Gallery Theatrette.
The Darwin Harbour Advisory Committee is establishing a groundbreaking new approach to regional planning in the Northern Territory. It is a plan that the community called for, for over many decades, and the Martin Labor government has delivered. I take this opportunity to thank the outgoing chair, Mr John Bailey, for his energy, commitment and passion in driving the regional plan of management and overseeing the beginnings of its implementation.
Government will continue to protect our new unique Darwin Harbour. We have protected 96% of mangroves and given the community a real say over its management. I am confident that the committee will go from strength to strength and will become an increasingly significant body in the management of our iconic harbour and the whole of the Darwin region.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I welcome the minister’s report. I have two minutes to respond to what is a very important issue for the future of the Northern Territory. I have the pleasure, most mornings when I am at sittings, of being able to pull back the curtains and look across at our magnificent harbour. We do need to make sure that we have some very stringent plans in place to ensure that it stays looking as beautiful as it is. I look forward to having future briefings with the minister’s department. I am sure that it is going to take more than one or two briefings to be able to get my head around everything that we need to understand that is being done for this harbour to make sure that it is preserved for future generations.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for her statement about the Darwin Harbour. The Darwin Harbour is bigger than we see out there around Wickham Point. It also includes quite a bit of land around to the Howard River and out towards the Mandorah area. It is certainly bigger than people just see across from the port.
I also hope to get to the seminars; some of those are quite good. What the Darwin Harbour Advisory Committee is doing is what should continue for a long time if we are to make sure the harbour continues to be free from pollution and other detrimental effects that could occur.
Whilst the advisory committee seems to be looking at the condition of the harbour as it is now, there needs to be some real discussion over the future planning of Darwin Harbour. I have said time and time again that the industrial development in the middle of the harbour is inappropriate. I have supported Wickham Point, the LNG plant, but I do not believe there is a need to develop industrial land in the centre of the harbour. That will risk the things that you are saving; that is, the mangroves and the quality of water. We should try to move industry away from the harbour unless it needs to be close to the water.
I also think we need to bring in the Development Consent Authority for the full division for the area called East Arm. That is where most of the industrial development is occurring presently and, by involving the Development Consent Authority, we can make sure people are included in debates about the kind of industry that is being developed there. It is a very important area but one that could threaten the health of the harbour.
I congratulate the work that John Bailey and the Darwin Harbour Advisory Committee are doing. However, I do think there are other issues that need to be raised so that we can look after the future of the harbour as well.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, It is ongoing work. As I said there are recommendations and an evolutionary process that is happening through this. However, I want to say to the member for Nelson, in respect of some of his concerns, bear in mind development is what we all do and the environment is where we live. The balance between both is what needs to be found, and this report certainly does that.
Dr BURNS (Corporate and Information Services): Madam Speaker, today I provide details of the new procurement framework for the Northern Territory government, which will be introduced on the 1 March this year.
With the Northern Territory government embracing procurement reform in 2002, a number of initiatives, including the 30-day payment policy, have already been announced and implemented. The reform process also involved a review of the legal framework, supporting the government procurement, and this commenced in 2004.
As a result of the Northern Territory government’s procurement reform agenda, the NTG procurement framework has been consolidated and simplified. The Department of Corporate and Information Services has already begun awareness sessions throughout the Territory involving all agencies and industries. While the Procurement Act stays in place, the new framework sees 26 new procurement directions, replacing the existing 38 directions, 34 procurement guidelines, procurement policy and strategy document. These changes were made after consultation with key procurement agencies and external stakeholders including representatives of government, the Territory Construction Association, the Contractor Accreditation Limited (CAL), the government Procurement Council, the Small Business Association, the Motor Trades Association, and the Northern Territory Industry Capability Network.
These changes have provided a simpler, clearer and consistent approach to procurement from an agency, as well as industry perspective while continuing to embrace the fundamental principles which exist in this government’s procurement practices. The procurement directions confirm the five fundamental procurement principles are: value for money; open and effective competition; enhancing the capabilities of local business and industry; environmental protection; and ethical behaviour and fair dealings.
Key changes to the procurement policies incorporated in the directions are:
In closing, Madam Speaker, I would like to endorse the procurement framework, and I look forward to being able to report on the longer term outcome of these initiatives.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I welcome the report from the minister. Procurement, as always, has been a very vexed issue for many of our contractors in the Territory. Quite often, you will find that when one person misses out there is always a complaint to be made and you need to investigate fully what the causes were. I am glad the minister has streamlined the processes of procurement.
However, one of the vexed issues still continues; that of a panel list of preferred contractors. Once you get into the panel or list of contractor preferred tenderers, it is advantageous to the business. However, it locks out everybody else. For instance, a business might start up in the Territory tomorrow and, over the next six months, or even 12 months, perform extremely well and provide excellent service for Territorians. This new business cannot get onto the panel until the current panel term is completed. This business has absolutely no way of entering into competition for government contracts.
The other issue is, for instance, if a business person or a worker in a business decides that they want to go out in business on their own because they have a very special capability, there is no way that this new person can start up a business that can offer its services to government either, because it is locked out until the panel comes to an end. I believe that is something that the government must look at closely to allow fair and open competition. This is what private enterprise is all about: open competition. Panels do not allow open competition.
Dr BURNS (Corporate and Information Services): Madam Speaker, I take on board the comments made by the member for Greatorex. I offer the member for Greatorex a briefing on the new procurement guidelines, because part of the reform agenda that has taken place is to do away with panels within certain categories of contracts and to free the system up. As the member for Greatorex said, this was something concerning businesses which we have taken on board, and has been addressed within the reforms.
I offer the member for Greatorex a briefing. These are complex matters related to procurement and procurement directions which this government has moved to simplify and consolidate. Therefore, I am very happy for the member of Greatorex to receive a briefing and find out the detail of the changes and reforms that this government has implemented.
I also pay tribute to my colleague, the member for Wanguri, who led a lot of this reform. After the election, I took the challenge up. Thanks to him and to the agency staff and industry representatives who worked so hard to bring these reforms about.
Reports noted.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr STIRLING (Racing, Gaming and Licensing): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
In 2002, I announced a number of changes affecting bookmakers including a reduction in the tax rates, the migration of Sportingbet.com Australia Pty Ltd to the Territory, and a proposal to the remove the restriction on bookmakers offering odds based on final totalisator dividends.
A bill addressing the latter of these issues was introduced at that time, but was deferred by agreement in good faith pending the outcome of various negotiations between agencies bookmakers and the industry. Although not all negotiations are yet concluded, it is an appropriate time to proceed with our previously notified legislation.
Currently, the Racing and Betting Act prohibits bookmakers from offering to pay winnings that are the equivalent to or based on a totalisator dividend. The prohibition does not extend to dividends offered by the Northern Territory licensed totalisator, NT TAB. This provision dates back to 1989. It is difficult to understand its rationale, particularly in today’s wagering environment, which is why the amendment bill was drafted.
Since the original introduction of the amendment bill, the restrictions have not been enforcement and all sports bookmakers currently offer products based on totalisator dividends. There has been no adverse impact on integrity, and bookmakers’ national and global competitiveness has been enhanced to the benefit of the Territory. As noted earlier, there appears little basis for the existing legislative restriction; its removal will legitimise current operations and continue to provide punters with greater flexibility and betting options consistent with National Competition Policy principals.
Madam Speaker, I commend the Racing and Betting Amendment Bill 2006 to honourable members and table copies of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Parks and Wildlife): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
This bill amends the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act so that the offences of ‘failing to comply with a permit’ and ‘failing to comply with traffic signs’ are designated as regulatory offences. This bill also allows for by-laws to be designated as regulatory offences and subject to an infringement notice scheme. The retention period for a return or forfeiture of seized articles is to be made consistent across provisions within the act, and is set as a period of 60 days. This bill will enable Parks and Wildlife officers to better regulate the activities that occur on lands controlled under the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act.
In the year 2000, the Northern Territory received a report from consultant, Bill Wilson, titled, A Review of the Enforcement Capacity of the Northern Territory Parks and Wildlife Commission. The report made a number of recommendations, including amendments to the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act.
The Wilson review identified fundamental issues for the capacity of the legislative regime to encourage compliance. Currently, there is limited capacity to encourage greater compliance by issuing administrative or on-the-spot fines for offences against permit conditions and Territory Parks and Wildlife conservation by-laws. Unfortunately, this means that there may be significant levels of non-compliance with minor offences under the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act and by-laws. This bill will allow conservation officers to issue on-the-spot fines for appropriate offences against the by-laws.
Current enforcement mechanisms are complicated and expensive. The current scheme has also proven to be an administrative burden to conservation officers through its rigidity. For example, under the current section 56(3) of the act, a person who has been successfully prosecuted for a breach of permit conditions cannot be granted a new permit for five years. This penalty is additional to any imposed by the court, and applies irrespective of the nature or severity of the breach. For minor breaches, this is manifestly unfair and could result in instances of hardship and injustice.
The purpose of this bill is to make the existing offence, ‘breach of a condition of permit’ section 67D, Compliance with permit, a regulatory offence and to amend the act’s by-law making powers - that is, section 25AQ and 71 by-law - so that existing offences under the by-laws may be regulatory and may be infringable. Please note, this does not automatically make the by-laws regulatory or infringable. It does, however, allow by-laws to be appropriately constructed so that the offender’s intent is not an element of the offence, and for those by-laws that fall within the Department of Justice’s infringement notice policy to be made infringable.
Officers from my Department of Natural Resources, Environment and the Arts will soon prepare new by-laws which will take into account both of these factors so that the benefit of this bill can be fully implemented. The changes will be supported by a permit system that includes clear and precisely drafted obligations and conditions. The results of these changes will be to bring about greater compliance with the regulatory functions of the act.
At this stage, no new offences are proposed, but any by-law amendments will be approved by the Minister for Parks and Wildlife.
The introduction of infringement notices will streamline the enforcement process and allow for immediate punishment of people who commit offences in our parks. The ability to issue infringement notices during the hunting season, for example, will markedly increase the effectiveness of this program. Currently, a permit may be issued under the act to hunt waterfowl during the declared hunting season in line with the sustainable use of wildlife policy. While hunting is prohibited in parks, the by-laws permit the use of firearms to hunt on reserves during the waterfowl season. A permit to take waterfowl at specific times uses a combination of provisions under the act and the by-laws.
This bill makes non-compliance of a permit condition a regulatory offence that may be subject to an infringement notice, and will provide an effective and proportionate enforcement regime during the waterfowl hunting season. A condition of the waterfowl hunting permit is that returns are submitted indicating the number of waterfowl species hunted. For example, this enables Parks and Wildlife to monitor sustainable use of magpie goose which is a protected species. The biodiversity of Territory parks may be harmed if permit conditions are not adhered to, and breaches may threaten protected wildlife. The ability to issue infringement notices will enable minor offences to be dealt with on the spot and should encourage all hunters to do the right thing.
This government also wishes to support wildlife-based industries. These industries must report to the federal Environment minister for export approval. For example, the federal Environment minister can, under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, revoke the approval for exports of wildlife products such as the crocodiles or cycads if he or she believes that Northern Territory legislation has inadequate compliance measures. The amendments currently before this Assembly strengthen the Territory’s compliance regime.
I now turn to the important issue of road safety in our parks and reserves. Failure to comply with traffic signs, section 69, is the only offence within the act itself that attracts the maximum penalty of only five penalty units but, unlike other offences attracting higher penalties, it is not a regulatory offence. This bill amends the act so that failure to comply with a traffic sign is a regulatory offence and an infringement notice, combined with the proposed regulatory offence status of failing to comply with traffic signs, will enable conservation officers and police officers to enforce compliance. The use of infringement notices for regulatory offences is a cost-effective alternative to a costly prosecution process that does not guarantee positive results.
This bill also amends the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act to provide for operational and administrative consistency in respect of retention periods for return or forfeiture of seized articles. The retention periods for articles seized under the act and the by-laws are being changed. Currently, the retention periods for articles seized under the act is 60 days and, under the by-laws, 30 days. Articles seized under the by-laws - for example, firearms or explosives, vehicles and vessels - may be of a similar nature to those seized under the act. It is more appropriate that similar items are treated consistently. The changes in this bill will ensure that the retention period under the act and the by-laws is 60 days.
This bill provides for the proportionate and effective enforcement of offences under the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act and its by-laws. These changes are being supported by conservation officers and key industry groups so I am confident that this government’s initiatives to bring about greater compliance with parks management principles and the safe conduct of park activities will be well received by the community.
Madam Speaker, the Territory community is right to expect that the administration of parks and wildlife management is consistent with community values. This efficient enforcement regime maintains these values. I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from 1 December 2005.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Madam Speaker, there must have been millions of words spoken, reams of reports produced, and countless hours in many and varied community groups over many years talking about the abuse of alcohol and antisocial behaviour. Sadly, as I stand here today, I can see very little change in the situation in our communities throughout the Northern Territory. In some instances, it is much worse, and that is something that saddens and frustrates not only me, but I am sure many of us in this Assembly.
The situation has become so intolerable in some areas that I know people who have moved interstate to get away from what they see as a social problem that is escalating and not being addressed by this government.
Since I have been in the Legislative Assembly, I have talked many times and at length over the past two years about the abuse of alcohol and the effects of antisocial behaviour in our society - almost ad nauseam. Before that, and for most of the time I have lived in Katherine, I have been involved in discussions through many different forums about the problems that we are confronted with daily. There is not a day goes by when I am not confronted by these same problems in my own community, and that usually starts with my morning walk around 6 am. It is not a great way to start the day if you want to maintain a positive attitude for the remainder of the day. It is nothing for any early morning walkers and joggers in Katherine to come across groups of people sitting along the riverbank or seated under shelters around the town drinking wine from soft drink bottles, or beer from cans. Right in the heart of Parap last Saturday morning at the markets a man was sitting at the back steps of the pharmacy quite openly drinking alcohol from a long-neck bottle.
I am also one of those citizens who hate to see litter cluttering and spoiling our town, so I am one of several people in Katherine who, when I am walking, picks up rubbish and puts it in the bin. I also collect the cans and leave them at the back gate of one our great dedicated Katherine community citizens, Jenny Duggan who recycles the cans that are collected by the morning walkers and donates the money to charity. Over a three-year period, she has collected over 340 kg of cans. That is a lot of cans.
This might not seem anything really significant and remarkable, but the reason I mention this is that these early morning walks, picking up cans from around the walkways and pathways, highlights just how much alcohol is consumed each day in Katherine - not to mention the number of empty moselle cartons amongst the small number of empty food containers, stray thongs and occasional pieces of clothing. This mess which, in the main is empty alcohol containers, is created by pretty much the same people, to be repeated each day. A noticeably alarming thing is the number of containers that are showing up each day in the town’s parks that are being used to inhale substances. I can only assume that that is petrol.
The number of people who are getting away with drinking alcohol opening in our urban communities is definitely increasing. At the present time, it is even worse with many more people who have left their outlying community during the Wet Season to come into town. It just compounds the problems that already exist. Unfortunately, I have to now mention a couple of recent instances in Katherine that involve alcohol and antisocial behaviour, and it is likely that members of this Assembly will think these incidents are random and isolated, but I can assure them that that is not the case.
Within the past two weeks, an employee was leaving her workplace which, incidentally, happens to be the Katherine Visitor Information Centre. This young employee locked up the centre in the afternoon, walked to her car which was in the car park of the visitors centre, a very public place. When she reached her car, she was approached by two young men she had noticed in the car park. These two young blokes began intimidating her and making demands for money etcetera. When she refused, they proceeded to kick in her car door. It was during this time she was able to get into her car and, thankfully, get away unhurt. However, I do not need to tell you that she was very frightened and shaken by this incident.
This is not acceptable and the fact that these young blokes were loitering around the business centre car park indicates that they could not have cared less who they threatened. The scary thing is that this is the type of incident that we cannot afford to have our tourists experience. It is totally unacceptable for local residents who are going about their daily business to become victims of this intimidating behaviour which is accentuated by alcohol.
The Katherine Visitor Information Centre is a beautiful building. However, it is unfortunate that the surrounds look like the local dump because of the amount of litter that is left there. It is just disgusting. The shady area was designed for tourists to have a welcoming impression of Katherine, but has turned into an area where large numbers of loitering people gather, openly drinking alcohol which, in turn, leads on to the yelling, arguing and humbugging of tourists and locals alike. For the most part these days, the visitors centre area is a disgrace. Defecating and urinating is commonplace, and it is just not hearsay, Madam Speaker, I have seen it happening quite openly on my morning walks. Usually it is in the garden area which, I guess, is somewhat of a blessing. Katherine Town Council and the Tourist Association are taking steps to try to improve this area, and I am involved with that working group. However, it is very frustrating and very disheartening to face this day in and day out.
In another incident in Katherine on Saturday night in the Woolworths Shopping Centre, a woman stabbed a man in the leg which resulted in the police and ambulance attending. Just great for the shoppers to be witnessing a bleeding man, knife wielding woman; not to mention all the yelling that was part of this incident - again, alcohol related.
Also this last week, the new Catholic priest in Katherine, Father Vincent Nguyn, was so intimidated by the quarrelling itinerants around the Catholic Church precinct that he was too afraid to leave the church and go home. The police had to be called to remove the itinerants from the precinct. Father Nguyn is not unfamiliar with itinerants as he is a long-term resident of Australia and has previously lived in Darwin.
These are just a couple of examples of incidents that cause a great deal of stress and anxiety to the people who are involved in Katherine and, quite frankly, are just not acceptable. Everyone has the right to feel safe and protected and to have their properties secure. To have so much antisocial behaviour in our communities has become far too common and an everyday occurrence. The problem with that is that, when you are witnessing unpleasant situations daily, in the beginning you are outraged and you speak out loudly. As time goes by and the incidents continue on and on, people tend to become more complacent and that, unfortunately, is why it sometimes takes so long to get some action. However, to the people who care about where they live - and most members of this Assembly I would think fit that category - and those who live anywhere apart from Katherine they, obviously, witness plenty of drunken and antisocial behaviour on a regular basis. We do care, all of us, and want to see some improvement.
The Community Harmony program was launched in Katherine and involved representatives from a cross-section of the community to meet regularly to come up with strategies to combat antisocial behaviour. It is fair to say it was hailed as being the answer to our problems - or so we were told. I have listened over the time it has been in Katherine - which has been well over two years - to many and varied people’s comments who have said it will work, it would not work, it is a talk fest, it is another strategy development meeting, give it time, and so on. I sincerely hoped that the nay sayers in the community would be able to swallow their words by seeing some significant outcomes. After all, there has been a significant amount of money put into this program. However, what I have seen so far is an increase in the problems that we are facing in our communities, not a decrease.
The Return to Home scheme sure has not achieved its goal, with the people using it just moving from one place to another. There are certainly no less drunks on our streets; there are double the number, with 22 000 drunks apprehended throughout the Territory. With this there is no argument; it is fact.
The book-up system has caused so much angst and misunderstanding to both the user and the retailer, and not taught people how to manage their money at all; just given them a false sense of thinking that the plastic card is a bottomless pit. However, that will be another debate for another day.
To highlight how concerning the problems are, I would like to read into the Parliamentary Record today a letter to the Editor of the Katherine Times which was published in last week’s addition. It is written by Werner Sarny who has had a business and personal commitment to Katherine for over 40 years. What he wrote is, unfortunately, very true and echoed by a majority of seriously concerned people. What I respect and admire about Werner Sarny is that he is not afraid to speak his mind and to speak the truth. The letter’s heading was ‘Drunkenness out of control’ and I quote:
This same situation has become so intolerable in Port Augusta, South Australia, that the Port Augusta City Council has received support from the South Australian government to trial a 12-month alcohol-free ban on public drinking throughout the whole city. I applaud the mayor and council for taking such a strong stance to try to improve the social environment in Port Augusta, and am watching with a great deal of interest to see what a difference it makes there.
There is a downside to prohibition though, and I know this because of the trialling of restricted hours of trading that we carried out in Katherine over a period of 12 months. I have listened, on several occasions, when Labor government members have implied that I profited from selling alcohol and contributed to the problem in Katherine when I had a licensed general store. What those members did not take the time to find out - which, of course, would not have been advantageous to their cause - was that it was me who instigated and pursued the trialling of restricted hours against some very stringent opposition from some members of the Katherine community.
The records will show that it took 12 months of wide community consultation and Licensing Court hearings before the two six-month trials of restricted hours were put in place. One of the downsides of the restrictions was that the problem was removed from Katherine to another place and, in this case in particular, to Mataranka, Pine Creek and Timber Creek, where there were no restrictions in place. This, I fear, is highly likely to be the case with what Port Augusta is trialling. The problem drinkers will move to another location where it is easy to access alcohol and drink in a public place. Unfortunately, that will probably be, in the first instance now, Alice Springs. Now it is highly likely that the Northern Territory will have a considerably increased number of drunks to contend with.
One of the biggest problems that I believe we have in dealing with antisocial behaviour and alcohol abuse is that, while we all know what the problems are and what it will take to fix it, no one is prepared to take the serious step of making the hard decisions to change things. Decisions that are going to work are not going to be popular decisions. That is where the challenge lies, as far as I am concerned. No one in government is prepared to make the hard and unpopular decisions that will make it work.
We have before the House this amendment bill which has the opportunity to properly address and deal with habitual drunks and antisocial behaviour. What I read from the second reading speech and reading the legislation, this does not go anywhere near addressing the problem of public drunkenness.
Before the last Territory election, Labor promised to get tough on drunks. It sounded pretty good to the voters in the streets and the suburbs, and it was just what they wanted to hear. They were sick and tired of the growing problem and, let us face it, the Country Liberal Party had announced that we were not going to tolerate drunken and antisocial behaviour. It was very popular and well received by the voters. Following the election, what a backflip from Labor. It was amazing. I had looked forward to some serious steps being taken to finally address the serious social issues across the Territory, and I welcomed the prospect of this new bill. However, it does not address what I had first thought it was supposed to.
A well-respected lawyer with 24 years experience in criminal law, after looking at this legislation, said that the bill can accurately be called ‘a get out of gaol free card’. He said it was blindingly obvious that the intervention orders will be used by the defence counsel to avoid gaol. Just as alarmingly, this legislation will not only be soft on drunks, it will allow criminals who are, or claim to be, alcohol dependant to avoid gaol. The essential flaw in the legislation is contained in the criteria for referral to the alcohol court and the making of an alcohol intervention order. This is contained in sections 16 and 18 of the act. The offender must be facing gaol if an alcohol intervention order is to be made. This is reinforced by section 14 of the act, where a term of imprisonment has to be highly likely. Essentially, it means that the act will not be a part of a ‘get tough on drunks’ policy as was presented during the last election campaign. It will, in fact, be the absolute and complete opposite.
After completion of the program ordered by the intervention order, the offender will be able to avoid their gaol term outlined in section 20 of the act. The risk of failure to complete the program set out by the intervention order is fairly minimal - hardly a deterrent, as it is only a period of imprisonment of not exceeding 14 days, which would be served concurrently with the original sentence.
Prohibition orders involve the person also being sentenced for the offences they are facing. However, the sentencing can be adjourned for six months. This, too, will be used as an out by the defence lawyers as, if the person stays away from alcohol for six months, they will probably be dealt with more lightly for their offences.
While there are so many associated issues when talking about the abuse of alcohol, I would have thought that this government would have looked at how these habitual drunks could break the cycle of their dependency. Following on from the alcohol court proceedings, what is in place in regional and remote locations for an offender to receive treatment for their alcohol addiction? The alcohol court will be totally fruitless and, again, just another level of bureaucracy without meaningful outcomes unless rehabilitation is taken seriously and is available in regional and remote areas.
I have talked in this Assembly before about a rehabilitation centre called Dillinya, which is near Delamere. It is 231 km south of Katherine and is off the Top Springs road, or the Buntine Highway. I have talked on several occasions, if I recall, about this centre. I am very disappointed that this government has not contacted Sheila Miller about this centre to check it out thoroughly. However, with this new bill I am hopeful that the minister will be open to looking at this place of healing. Sheila prefers to call it a healing centre rather than a rehabilitation centre. At the risk of repeating myself, I am again going to talk about the work of Sheila Miller and what she has fought so hard and for so long to set up. It is to help Aboriginal people break the cycle of alcohol abuse.
Sheila trained at Batchelor College gaining a Diploma of Education and Science in Drug and Alcohol and is a qualified counsellor. This was following Sheila being a chronic alcoholic for 24 years, so she had the will and determination to make a difference, not only to her own life, but those of her people. She understands the needs of Aboriginal people and speaks and understands numerous dialects. Sheila has always been outspoken about the lack of complete healing for her people. She is outspoken on what is necessary for the success of turning drunks around, and has always claimed to me she could take 12 drunks off the streets of Katherine on any day and rehabilitate them through her healing programs.
First of all, they would have to be identified by their regular admittance to a sobering-up shelter, followed by habitual drunks being sent to a detox centre as those still intoxicated. We do not have one of those in Katherine either, minister. Then the person would be moved to a rehab centre to complete their healing. This is the area that Dillinya has had success in. At the September sittings, I tabled a document that detailed the activities of Dillinya Cultural Healing Camp, and I encourage the minister to look at that document. I also encourage the minister to talk to Sheila Miller to understand just what this strong and caring woman is trying to do for her people.
You would appreciate that it is understandable Sheila is sick and tired of political discussions and debates that do not include Aboriginal people who speak for their own. Sheila expresses her frustration at the amount of money spent on programs she knows are doomed because of the lack of involvement of Aboriginal people. One of those programs that Sheila has walked away from is the Community Harmony Group. One of the most important parts of turning someone around from being a habitual drunk is having the proper rehabilitation treatment. I believe Sheila has much to offer her people that has not been acknowledged or recognised by this government. I have no doubt the minister is very sincere in what he has put forward in this bill to try to make some inroads into what is a very serious problem throughout the Northern Territory. Please, I encourage you to look at what Sheila has to offer. I am still very much appalled by the amount of money the Community Harmony Group has received and, yet, Sheila has received no financial support for a program at Dillinya which we know works.
Another option - this is obviously going to be talked about at another time and debated in another issue but it intertwines - would be to establish a rehabilitation facility similar to a boot camp - but that word is not one that I particularly like. However, we need somewhere where people could be trained in a variety of skills that would give them meaningful work at the end of their rehabilitation. It is the only way to break the ongoing cycle of alcohol abuse and antisocial behaviour, otherwise we are going to see the same people over and over again.
As a matter of interest about training, a training provider was contacted to run a course in chainsaw handling in a community not very far from Katherine. He had a very enthusiastic group of trainees, who all fronted up and did the course, proudly gaining their certificates. The end result? There were no chainsaws for them to use in the community once the course was completed. It is pointless unless the training courses that we offer these people are appropriate and the trainees can utilise their newly-gained skills.
Getting back to the rehabilitation side of the alcohol issue, the next step following the rehabilitation from a centre like Dillinya or an established rehab centre is for these people to have meaningful work to go to. This amendment to antisocial behaviour, alcohol and tenancy covers so many of the problems that are experienced in the Territory. I have probably rambled from one area to the other of what I wanted to say. I find that they are all intertwined.
Like the minister and other members of this Assembly, I am anxious for successful outcomes to the antisocial problems we have throughout the Territory but, unfortunately, I do not see how this legislation addresses that in any significant way at all. As I have said earlier, there have been a lot of things tried over a very long time to improve the problems in our communities. I know there is much more that I could say about things that have resulted in this bill being presented for support. However, unfortunately, I do not believe it has gone anywhere near the mark of addressing our serious alcohol and antisocial behaviour issues.
I do, however, favour the amendments proposed to the Residential Tenancy Act. There is nothing worse than having the neighbour from hell living next door, and the amendment proposed will allow for a less complicated, but effective, process to evict those tenants who do not comply with acceptable behaviour agreements. I am sure, over the period of this term, there is going to be much more said about antisocial behaviour and alcohol abuse.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I support my colleague, the minister for Justice, concerning the Antisocial Behaviour (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2005. Before I go to those particular areas that I want to address to the bill, I listened closely to the member for Katherine.
The figures substantiate what she was saying - Katherine alcohol usage figures, the most recent that I have seen, appear very high. I want a little more work done on those figures, and I will be tabling those at some stage or making them public. However, the figures would back up or support some of the things she had to say today.
The fact is, we have a revolving door of alcohol abusers, probably measuring in the hundreds if we go right across the Territory - certainly not the thousands or tens of thousands as suggested by the Leader of the Opposition. The fact is, there is a relatively small number in the overall population who are doing nothing else but drinking - and drinking to excess. The question I always have - and I see it in my electorate and in Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs - is: where on earth do they get the money from to purchase such vast quantities of alcohol that they sit and consume every day and every night of the week? If they are awake, they are drinking. The only time they are not drinking is when they are comatose or the grog’s finished and they have gone to sleep.
We are not trying to suggest in any way that this is the be all and end all. This is another step on the path to working on antisocial behaviour right across the board. Government always will remain open to further suggestions, amendments, or legislation in itself, as suggestions and working groups put forward recommendations. We say this is another step in the right direction and let us test its veracity over a 12-month period or so and see how we are going.
In relation to the points made by the member for Katherine about the alcohol court being a soft option or the defence lawyers seeing this as a way of getting their clients out of going to prison if they say they are an alcoholic, I see it the other way. Prison for many of these people is a reprieve; it is a break from grog, a chance for them to get healthy. They get three good meals a day in prison; they get exercise and activity, probably lacking while they are out on the grog in the long grass. However, the problem with going to prison - in the sense that it is a reprieve, it keeps them alive, it gets them off the grog, they have food and activity and exercise in their life - is that nothing in the prison system challenges their behaviour. Nor does it, of course, skill them for anything they might do outside. On release from prison, they are back in the same location, in the same social situation, where they were abusing alcohol in before, and nothing is surer that they will abuse alcohol again and be part of that revolving door.
At least, under the alcohol court, there is a challenge to go through the treatment phase: challenge their behaviour and lifestyle, get them off the grog, get them to detox as the member suggests, get them thinking right in their head away from the grog for a few weeks, and actually look at their whole lifestyle and how it might be changed.
On the other hand, the member for Katherine was highly commending and praising of those treatment programs that involved training and giving useful skills and things, as long as they were relevant to the community the person came from; that they might be utilised in that place. On the one hand, to do this was a get out of gaol free but, on the other hand, she said it is good and they should do this. I am not quite sure where the member of Katherine sits in all of that, but I listened very closely to her knowledge and experience of the work being done south of Katherine. It may be a good model. I would like to see something of it for myself. However, to say that getting out of prison is the soft option, I believe it is probably the other way; that prison can be seen as the least soft option in many cases, particularly when you are lying drinking, not eating, not looking after yourself. At least in that place you do get looked after.
I will pick up several issues across the bill, as the Minister for Racing, Gaming and Licensing, because the Liquor Act itself is part of my portfolio responsibilities. However, before going into the elements of the legislation which relates most directly to that role as minister, I want to express a general view that, as I said before, we do not see it as the be all and end all that will fix everything; it is more part of an evolving response by government in dealing with this longstanding social issue which has been part of Territory life for many decades.
Unlike governments of the past, we have had the fortitude to tackle it up-front. We have targeted both the immediate causes and the underlining causes. Some programs have been more successful than others, but there is no doubt that our overall efforts do receive the broad support of the community.
As the minister for Justice has already outlined, the Antisocial Behaviour Bill impacts on several pieces of legislation, including the Liquor Act. In particular, this bill seeks to add a new part to that act which will enable the establishment of dry or restricted premises in urban areas. The restricted premises amendment to the Liquor Act is necessary to give both occupiers and owners of residential properties in urban areas, as well as interested persons, a clear option should they wish to have a residence declared to be a liquor-free area. The need for this option has arisen from ongoing and unacceptable antisocial behaviour in urban areas.
Mechanisms exist to address the impact of liquor in public places, such as the 2 km law, but these amendments will deal with liquor being taken on to individual residential premises. The restricted premises addition to the Liquor Act complements the existing Part VIII of the act which deals with restricted areas. Members will be aware there are currently more than 100 restricted areas. All of these, except one in Alice Springs, are on Aboriginal land and most cover smaller remote Aboriginal communities.
While the existing provisions of the Liquor Act can be used to establish a liquor-free area in any area, this amendment will allow for a simpler process for smaller residential areas and homes and other private areas that are open to the public. What is on offer is a completely dry area, which means that unlike restricted areas declared under Part VIII of Liquor Act, there will not be any liquor permits. All premises declared restricted will be completely dry, where bringing, possessing or consuming alcohol will be illegal.
An owner or occupier of a premises, or their representative, can make an application seeking declaration of a restricted premises. Also able to make an application for private premises that are open to and used by the public is an interested person. This includes a person residing in or conducting business in the neighbourhood, a community-based organisation in the neighbourhood, or a police officer of or above rank of Senior Sergeant. A restricted premises includes occupied premises and other private premises that are open to and used by the public - shopping centres, churches and schools, for example. Where an application is made to the Licensing Commission by an occupier - for example, a tenant - the owner of the premises must be notified by the occupier.
In considering an application, the Licensing Commission will undertake consultation in a manner the commission deems appropriate with the occupier and/or owners of the premises and the Commissioner of Police or the commissioner’s delegate. Provided the application is practicable to implement, the commission may declare the premises to be restricted as requested by the applicant. The commission may also make a declaration that is smaller or larger than the area requested - for example, all or part of a shopping centre - or refuse to make a declaration if the commission is satisfied the application is frivolous, irrelevant or malicious. In determining whether or not to make a declaration, the Licensing Commission must be satisfied that it is in the public interest, when it is made by an interested person, or an owner or occupier, that it will reflect the wishes of the majority of the occupiers of the premises.
I wish to point out that this new provision does not make it an offence to transport liquor through a restricted premises to a destination not covered by the restrictions. It is primarily to ensure persons who have purchased liquor in a shopping centre are not committing an offence while they continue shopping or leave the centre.
As I mentioned earlier, declaration of a restricted premises will be an outright restriction on bringing, possessing or consuming liquor at the restricted premises. There are penalties for those who break the law, with any liquor brought into the restricted premises being seized by police. Open liquor will be tipped out unless the police believe it unsafe to do so. Unopened liquor will be taken to the police station for destruction. A fine may also be imposed. This may occur by way of infringement notice or on-the-spot fine, most likely to be used in situations involving open liquor which has been tipped out, or through a contravention notice dealt with through a court of summary jurisdiction for situations where police have seized offending unopened liquor.
Once a declaration has been made, the Licensing Commission must arrange for a sign to be displayed at the premises that gives information about the declaration, the consequences of failing to comply with the declaration, and any other information that the commission considers appropriate. A restricted premises declaration will remain in force until the title of the land changes, any lease arrangements expire, or there is a change in tenancy. The person who applied for the declaration may request the commission to revoke a declared restricted premises, or the commission may revoke a declared restricted premises at its discretion.
The bill will also repeal the existing provisions of section 122 of the Liquor Act with respect to prohibition orders. Prohibition orders pertaining to individual persons will now be addressed through sections of the new Alcohol Court Bill. However, matters pertaining to licensees will still be contained in the Liquor Act. Licensees must not allow a person subject to a prohibition order to be on licensed premises. The Liquor Act will be amended such that when an alcohol court makes an order in relation to an individual and the court sends a copy of the order to the Director of Licensing, the director must give notice to all relevant licensees concerning the prohibition order. Contravention of a prohibition order by a licensee will be a contravention of the liquor licence held by the licensee.
The provisions I have outlined today have arisen from the government’s determination to eliminate the alcohol-fuelled antisocial behaviour that our community has had to suffer - and has had to suffer for too long. They provide individual Territorians with new options, support for protecting themselves from unwelcome and unacceptable intrusions and abuse. I commend these amendments and, indeed, the bill in its entirety to honourable members.
Mr McADAM (Local Government): Madam Speaker, communities across the Northern Territory are increasingly concerned about issues of safety, security and the right to the quiet enjoyment of one’s home and local surroundings. Feeling safe in one’s home and local environment is of paramount importance to the majority of people. This legislation package tackles the problems of antisocial behaviour head on. It recognises and attempts to deal with the impact of alcohol abuse upon individuals, their families and the rest of the community, as well as providing ways to better manage antisocial behaviour in our homes and local communities.
There are three key areas under the Antisocial Behaviour (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill that are directly relevant to my role as Housing Minister. The first are amendments to the Liquor Act to allow a private premise to be declared restricted premises under the act. Under these provisions, an owner or an occupier, including a tenant of private premises, may apply to the Liquor Commission for a declaration that the premises, or a specified part, are restricted premises. This means it would be an offence to consume or possess liquor at that place. The commission must consult with the occupiers and owners of the premise and the Commissioner of Police before making a declaration. It is important to note that the declaration can only be made by the commission if it is satisfied that the declaration will reflect the wishes of the majority of lawful occupiers, and I refer to clause 6.
What this means is that, while Territory Housing will be able to help a tenant to make an application if they wish to do so, Territory Housing cannot make a unilateral application itself to have one of its properties declared restricted premises where the majority of the people lawfully in the house do not want the restrictions in place. The provisions are not designed to be punitive or imposed on tenants against their will. Instead, we are seeking to support tenants who struggle with stopping unwelcome drinkers coming to their homes. This is something many of our tenants have reported to us.
The new provisions are designed to help tenants to take control back over their own houses by allowing them to stop problem drinkers drinking at their home where they do not want it to occur. Advice from regional officers suggest that these measures could have a significant impact on reducing antisocial behaviour. For public housing tenants who wish to go down this path, Territory Housing will support and assist them with the application if needed, and will work to help them manage their tenancy.
It is important to note, however, that it is the police who will enforce the new rules and respond if there is a breach of the declaration, while the commission itself will place the notices on the houses. Of course, it is not just public housing tenants who will benefit from the new provisions, but also people in private accommodation who experience difficulties caused by people drinking at their places of residence.
Arguably the most significant focus area for the housing portfolio under the antisocial behaviour legislation package is the introduction of new acceptable behaviour agreements. The bill introduces amendments to the Housing Act to give the CEO of Housing the power to require a tenant in public housing to enter into an ABA, which is clause 13. It should be noted that it is only public housing tenants who can be subject to an ABA. Key points about the new powers are: the request to enter an ABA must be made by giving the tenant a notice that describes the behaviour and the terms of the proposed agreement; the tenant has a period of less than 28 days in which to enter an agreement when required to do so - failure to do so can leave the tenant liable to be evicted; and a tenant can only be required to enter into an agreement if the CEO of Housing believes that the tenant or another person living at that premise is likely to engage in antisocial behaviour. That opinion must be based on the history of the tenant’s current lease or previous NT Public Housing leases;
ABAs will also operate in relation to the behaviour of other people occupying the premises. If a person who is residing in the dwelling with the consent of the tenant breaches the terms of the agreement then the tenant is also taken to have breached the agreement. However, where the breaches were due to someone other than the tenant - for example, visitors - and the court is satisfied that the tenant has taken all reasonable actions to prevent the breach, the court will have discretion not to terminate the tenancy.
The reality of public housing today is that it is provided for people most in need. It is the housing of last resort for many people. The vast majority of our tenants do the right thing, observe the terms of their lease and peacefully get on with their lives. The big but, however, is that some do not. Some tenants, or their visitors or guests, are disruptive, noisy, offensive and behave in ways that are unacceptable to the general community.
The key challenge we have in public housing is to manage the tension of being the housing provider of last resort, where people are evicted often fall into homelessness and, on the other hand, making sure that people who unreasonably disrupt the lives of those around them are effectively dealt with. The reality is though, it is not usually the very bad cases of noise nuisance that cause the difficult management problems for Territory Housing, it is the cases where the situation is not so clear cut and the incidents have been minor or intermittent and much more difficult to deal with. This is particularly so in the context that Territory Housing must have sufficient evidence to satisfy a court before a tenant can be evicted. We think the new ABAs provide a very useful tool that will help Territory Housing to help manage this grey area. It is not every public housing tenant who needs to be on an ABA and, as I have said before, most people in public housing do the right thing. Conversely, sometimes the behaviour is so serious only evictions are appropriate. However, where we have a tenancy that is getting into some trouble because of antisocial behaviour but could still be helped, then the ABA gives an opportunity to intervene early and spell out very clearly for the tenant what is needed from them if their tenancy is not to end in an eviction.
Of course, in some cases of serious noise and nuisance in the existing tenancy, Territory Housing will always reserve the right to seek termination through the court without the tenant entering into an ABA. This will always be a matter of operational discretion for Territory Housing, depending upon the circumstances of each particular case. ABAs will, therefore, be used in three distinct situations:
ABAs may, therefore, give tenants who may otherwise be evicted or refused entry to public housing a second chance. The responsibility of the tenant will be clearly and transparently stated, and any extra support that they might need to help save the tenancy can be identified and mobilised.
Territory Housing will be taking a case management approach to each matter, drawing in expertise from the right support agencies. We are pretty good at bricks and mortar, but we also recognise that when it comes to support, a range of expert responses are needed to meet the complex issues that many of our tenants face.
We understand the risk of ABAs could be seen as oppressive or unfair for some tenants, particularly where English is a second language or the tenant has literacy or other problems. For this reason, interpreters will be called upon to help ensure that the tenant understands what the ABA means for them, and that their rights are fully explained. In addition, only senior officers within Territory Housing will be able to sign off on an ABA. Tenants will be able to appeal a decision to require them to enter into an ABA through Territory Housing administrative appeals processes, where the matter can, ultimately, be reviewed by external panel.
Some people have claimed that ABAs will simply provide another place for badly-behaved tenants to hide. This is simply untrue. The reality is that, ultimately, it is the court that decides whether a tenant can be evicted or not, and there are high standards of evidence needed. As I said, Territory Housing will continue to vigorously pursue eviction action against tenants causing severe noise and nuisance where there is sufficient evidence to do so. ABAs will provide another source of information for the courts to have regard to when it is making its decision. Indeed, this government is of the view that a proven breach of an ABA will be given greater weight by the courts. Therefore, ABAs are hardly likely to be some sort of an escape hatch for those tenants who supposedly wish to hide behind it.
The third and final element of the bill that is relevant to the housing portfolio is a provision that will amend the Residential Tenancies Act to allow a third party, not the landlord, to apply to terminate a tenancy agreement where they have been adversely affected by the conduct of the tenant, and I refer to clause 18. In some cases, Territory Housing or other landlords may only receive complaints about tenant behaviour from only one neighbour. For Territory Housing, where it is not possible to substantiate the complaint in a survey of other neighbours, it is generally not possible to take eviction action because there is not enough evidence for a court that a lease agreement has been breached. In such situations, the complainant can now apply directly to the court to terminate the tenancy if they believe they have sufficient evidence to show breach of the act.
In this case, the landlord will be given an opportunity to be heard by the court. If the landlord objects to the making of an order for possession, then the court can only make the order if exceptional circumstances justify it. These provisions are designed to allow a landlord to put their position to the court before any adverse findings as made against a tenant. The provision empowers people in a local neighbourhood to take direct action against tenants of other properties causing noise and nuisance. It also means that people who repeatedly make unfair or vexatious complaints against the tenants - and there are many of these people in this category – will, obviously, need to take responsibility for putting their cases before the court.
Madam Speaker, at no stage have we abandoned the critical role of our courts in determining, on the evidence, the course of tenancies in public housing in all the legislative changes I have discussed today. I commend the bill to the House.
Ms LAWRIE (Family and Community Services): Madam Speaker, I lend my support to this raft of legislation designed to tackle antisocial behaviour in our society. The true test of any significant legislative reform is whether it is fair, reasonable, or just. I commend the Attorney-General for his work, because the antisocial behaviour raft of legislative changes are, indeed, fair, reasonable and just when tackling a very problematic issue in our society.
I talk specifically in regard to the treatment aspects of dealing with people with alcoholism, because treatment aspects fall within my agency and, specifically, within the division of Alcohol and Other Drugs program. The reforms will give treatment services the chance to get in and make a difference, to break the cycle of alcohol abuse and antisocial behaviour on our streets. You have to see these reforms in the context of everything else we are doing: taking tough action on petrol sniffing, strengthening our Mental Health Services, and putting in place a proper system of family support services. The reforms are a part of proactive approaches across a range of social problems that build stronger communities. We are not going to just sit back and watch Territorians harm themselves and, indeed, their families.
Our new petrol sniffing laws give families, communities and police a way to make a difference. We have put in $1.4m in services on the table for treatment in rehabilitation services. Communities across the Territory, from Angurugu to Willowra, are working with government to stop petrol sniffing. On behalf of Territory communities, I am calling on the Commonwealth government to expand the roll-out of Opal fuel. We are intervening and putting treatment and rehabilitation services in place, but a regional roll-out of Opal in Central Australia needs to be part of the solution.
Our new investment in Mental Health Services means that more people can get the help they need to live safely in the community. We have put $835 000 additional to ensure people get the support they need – intensive support – if they have a relapse in their mental illness. We are putting in an extra 14 beds, with 24-hour support, for people who cannot live in the community.
This is the context for our approach to antisocial behaviour: intervention and treatment services that can make a difference in people’s lives. The government’s plan is a targeted and evidence-based approach. It is based on what the professionals are telling us works. It is about treatment and rehabilitation. We know there is a core group that cycle through the sobering-up shelter; people call it the syndrome. We are about putting a stop to the culture that says that that is okay. There are up to 200 long-term, habitual drunks who need help.
I have great confidence in the treatment programs we have in place. They are high quality programs. This is about getting the people who need those programs in the front door. It is a no excuses approach. If you are an offender and you have a problem with alcohol, then you need treatment. That is what we are saying. We are already spending $9m a year on treatment services across the Northern Territory. Now we are increasing that by another $560 000 a year, and the additional treatment and rehabilitation services that people need will be fully funded by this government.
The treatment agencies in the Northern Territory, run by government and the community sector, have very good experience in working with people with alcohol problems. They have experience in working with clients referred through the criminal justice system. We know that treatment is an effective means of preventing an escalation of alcohol and other drugs problems, providing new skills and new ways of coping, and they offer an opportunity for improved health and social functioning. There are very clear benefits for individuals and for families, and for the broader community, of getting people who need help into treatment. These benefits are realised in economic and social terms.
We have injected new funding of $550 000 in the next financial year, increasing to $640 000 in 2008-09, that will enable existing services to cater for the additional people who will require treatment when this program is in place. We will develop service options which build on the existing expertise and infrastructure available in the sector. We are talking to treatment agencies to look at options for expanded treatment places.
In addition, my department is working closely with the Department of Justice to develop a link between the specialist alcohol court and its clinicians, to make sure that people are assessed, case managed and referred to an appropriate range of treatment options. We will build on what we have learnt from the very successful Court Referral and Evaluation for Drug Intervention and Treatment, (CREDIT NT) program, which bails people who have committed illicit drug-related offences into drug treatment programs.
The people I speak to welcome the strong action government is taking to ensure that offenders who need treatment for alcohol dependency will get that treatment. They recognise the harm that occurs to communities, families and the individual if we turn a blind eye to the underlying cause of so much criminal behaviour in the Territory.
A minority hold the view that court mandated treatment is non-effective and that choice is a requisite requirement of treatment for alcohol and other drug problems. This philosophical view is not borne out in the evidence. Certainly, the service providers already working with clients with illicit drug dependency through the CREDIT NT program report good client outcomes as a result of coercive treatment. This is not a soft option. The soft option would be warehousing drunks, ignoring the problem, locking them up. This is about making a difference, giving people a wake-up call. Rehabilitation has never been a soft option; it is a real solution for habitual offenders and for their victims. Our approach is unashamedly tough, but it is also an approach that offers hope for families and communities ravaged by the burden of alcohol dependency.
In my community of Karama, I know that we will welcome the raft of reforms that the antisocial behaviour legislation introduces. When we came to government in 2001, Karama was somewhat notorious for the drunks and people lying around the shopping centre. The reforms that the government has introduced of additional police patrols, youth patrols, and our capacity to work with local business in a collaborative way, has made a significant difference to the community of Karama. It is a lot more peaceful community now. However, we needed to do more and go further. I really did welcome, in the lead-up to the 2001 election campaign, the announcement by the Chief Minister to tackle the core recidivist drunks living in our community, because it is distressing to see that, whilst some of them may not commit criminal offences, they are living such a destructive lifestyle. To have society allow that to continue to happen is distressing. To introduce a range of reforms that are before the House today to provide for an improvement in the treatment and rehabilitation services that we make available to alcoholics is a really important step.
Without such reforms, we would not have seen the growth and capacity of our rehabilitation services that we have seen now. My agency went to work very quickly with those services. First of all, they did a scoping study of the services to see exactly what rehabilitation services we had throughout the Territory and what the capacity of those services are. The agency then went into forums with the Alcohol and Other Drugs Rehabilitation Services looking at the quality of treatment programs and new treatment programs that exist throughout Australia. A very strong approach taken by my agency is to improve the capacity of the rehabilitation services that already exist right across the Territory, but also ensure that they are taking on board new best practice models of treatment for both alcohol and other drugs.
I commend the work done by Jo Townsend and the staff of Alcohol and Other Drugs programs. They are widely respected by the non-government agencies in the community which offer the treatment and rehabilitation services. We have taken a collaborative approach in the government in being able to work with the non-government sector in preparing them for what will certainly be their greater role in rehabilitation and treatment services right across the Territory, not only as I have said in drugs to date, but also through these legislative reforms in the area of alcohol as well. Service providers have been very concerned that, without coercive treatment, there was a catchment of people who they really were not getting to or able to keep in the scope of rehabilitation. Being able to have compulsory treatment orders as part of this raft of reforms is an essential element to what the community sector had been seeking for a while. Coercion, as I said, has seemed to work. The feedback we are getting from the drug treatment services is that the coercive aspect has seen some successful treatment outcomes.
What do we mean when we talk about successful treatment outcomes? We are actually saying that we are giving someone an opportunity to live a better life. We are giving someone an opportunity not to continue to destroy their health, their bodies where, in many instances in fact, the destruction goes to the family around them. Anyone who has lived with an alcoholic can start to understand why the government is taking such strong measures to deal with alcoholism in our community.
We are a government that is no longer prepared to say it is acceptable. We wanted to put in a range of measures that pick up some of the sorriest cases of people living in our society who start to become ostracised from society - people look at them and blame them. They have a significant addiction and health problem. I know the opposition have had a ‘lock them up’ mentality towards it. Professionals in the sector, on the strongest advice, say that that is a foolhardy approach that it is not actually treating the cause of the addiction and, in fact, treatment and rehabilitation services are the far better and more appropriate approach to take.
I commend the Attorney-General for the effort that he and his agency have gone to in proposing what is really greenfields legislative reform. It is bold, it is strong but, as I said before, it is very fair and reasonable and, fundamentally, it is extremely just. Surely, we are seeking justice when we propose law reform. I commend the Attorney-General for the effort that he is taking. However, I also know there are significant teams of people both in his agency, my own agency, in Police, and in Housing who have all worked together to bring this raft of reforms together. They are inter-related; each aspect of the reform is strong because another aspect of reform is sitting alongside it.
I commend the efforts taken by the Minister for Housing and his agency in looking at reforms when it comes to public housing tenants. As we know, many of our significant alcoholics are living in public housing. Through their addiction, their alcoholism, they are simply not successful at holding down a job or contributing to society, and those lucky few are living in public housing. We know some of them are not in public housing, some of them are in a homeless situation, sometimes referred to, locally, as long-grassers. We are a government that is saying that, as a civilised and mature society, these situations are intolerable and we will put the resources behind the actions required to clean up the mess we have inherited through decades of neglect by successive CLP governments.
Mrs Miller: You would have to mention that.
Ms LAWRIE: I hear the member for Katherine saying, ‘You would have to mention that’. Member for Katherine, I will mention that because it is to the shame of successive governments of many years. You chose to ignore significant sections of the Territory society, with one-way bus tickets south and monster and stomp. This is a new and bold approach …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Opposition members!
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, I know they do not like to hear the truth. I know the truth often hurts.
Mr Mills: It is a load of gobbledygook.
Ms Carney: You would be a fascinating Chief Minister, Delia.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Minister, please continue.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, I know the opposition get riled very easily when you try to put on the public record a reality for the Territory, that this government is intent on dealing with generational problems which have evolved over decades of neglect.
Mrs Miller: Well, they have not improved much in the last four years either.
Ms Scrymgour: We are trying to pick up your neglect of 26 years.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Katherine! Order, Minister for Natural Resources and Environment and Heritage!
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, I know by the heated interjections that this is a sensitive subject. You press a few buttons for the opposition, when you start to go to areas they know that they were complicit in that neglect. It is a neglect that this Labour government is not prepared to continue with. We believe that the reforms we have introduced into the Chamber that we are debating will not only assist the individual but, more importantly, they will assist families struggling with the burden of alcoholism, which often brings abuse and aggression. I hope the reforms we are debating in the Chamber will, ultimately, mean that some children in the Territory do not have to live with such horrendous living situations as they have had to endure through the scourge of alcoholism in our society.
I know my agency is working as hard as possible in the area of neglected children which, in the past, they were under-funded to tackle. For 10 years under the CLP …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, members of the opposition!
Ms LAWRIE: … not one additional child protection worker was employed - 10 years without an additional child protection worker. That is an absolute disgrace! My agency is getting down to levels of neglect that were not able to be tackled in the past, because …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, opposition members, cease interjecting.
Ms Carney interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, Leader of the Opposition!
Ms LAWRIE: We have put in the resources. As I said, in these draft reforms there are many complementary additional resources that we have put into my agency which really will underpin the reforms that we are debating today.
Mental health reform is critically important. Many people dealing with substance abuse issues also have mental health issues. Therefore, the more strength and tenacity we put into our mental health system, the more people we are, obviously, able to assist. In assisting individuals, fundamentally, we are assisting their families and, importantly, our society to be a more harmonious society - a fairer and just society; a society that does not turn its back on the most disadvantaged people we have in our society.
I commend the Attorney-General for the work he has done in bringing these reforms. The people who have worked on the reform committee have done a lot of hard work and they have been bold. I see that they have brought together a package with a great deal of strength and tenacity to it. I commend my agency, particularly the Alcohol and Other Drugs program, for the work they have done in working with the community services sector, to be able to skill up the sector and prepare those important treatment and rehabilitation programs to take the clients in that will come out of these compulsory treatment orders.
Madam Speaker, I commend the raft of reforms to the House.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, once again, I have been subjected to the sheer agony of listening to the member for Karama rabbit on in the way that she does on so many occasions. I note in her speech that she said that ‘we believe this, we believe that’, speaking of her comrade friends in the Australian Labor Party. They are the true believers. The member for Karama and her friends are true believers, each and every one of them, who believed their Chief Minister during the last election. They believed, like a whole lot of other Territorians, media releases such as those dated 24 April 2005 all about antisocial behaviour, where the Chief Minister said: ‘I am going to have a bit of a crack at this, this is not good. The Territory is going to rack and ruin under Labor but, vote for us in 2005, give us a shot at it because we have some answers’.
I note that the Chief Minister. in the way that she does, issued a number of media releases at about that time. She issued another one, no doubt in anticipation of this so-called wonder package of the Australian Labor Party, on 29 April, which dealt with the housing problems. She said: ‘I want these matters to be treated urgently in the Housing and Justice portfolios for both public and private tenants’. Urgent? Urgent, Madam Speaker? I do not think so! It will be very interesting to see whether the Chief Minister, who has a certain flair, I will concede, for issuing media releases, talks in this debate because she has form. Her form is she will issue a media release, get her 30-second grab, and then run like hell and leave it to the troops.
Of course, what an interesting bunch of troops they are! Here was I thinking that the Leader of Government Business wanted to be the Chief Minister, that he would be the one knifing the current Chief Minister in the back in only a few months from now. However, I was wrong; it is the member for Karama who comes in here showing her bona fides and saying: ‘Pick me, pick me. I want to be the Chief Minister’. Over our dead bodies! I do not think that anyone in the Northern Territory will ever vote for you as Chief Minister but, if you fancy your chances - go for it!
I believe having a sense of humour in this job is very important; in fact, critical to the job of any politician – perhaps more critical to those in opposition. I look forward to the member for Karama carving out her credentials, carving out her bona fides, to show to her colleagues that, yes, she is the one - she is the one to take them to the election in 2009. I just cannot wait if that is going to be the case because I do enjoy a laugh - and my colleagues will attest to that. I do enjoy a giggle and, when the member for Karama steps up to the plate and she does all this hand-wringing and says, ‘I just want to help people. I know where the truth will lead us. I know we said this is only a few months ago. I know we have changed our minds, but I am the Chief Minister’. I do not think so, Madam Speaker.
We will watch with interest the interaction between the members for Wanguri and Karama. I do not think they are going to get on, Madam Speaker, because …
Members interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: … they both want to be Chief Minister. The member for Wanguri may be about three feet taller; however, the member for Karama will no doubt embark on covert and overt tactics to try to destabilise him and, together, they will assist the destabilisation of the current Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. I do enjoy a giggle and I look forward to that day.
There is not much else I can say in relation to the profoundly silly comments made by the member for Karama. I thought she was just filling up time, but she did not even do that very well. She fell a great deal short of what I expected. I suppose, when you do not have much to say, you should do the right thing and sit down, and how grateful I was when I saw the member for Karama take her seat. In fact, on this side of the House there was a collective sigh of relief. However, she does give us the entertainment that we so enjoy in this place. I could go on and on about the member for Karama. Tempting though it is, I will not because there is a job at hand.
The job at hand is to express our opposition to the current bill before us. This is the Northern Territory Branch of the Australian Labor Party’s answer to the serious social problems that are plaguing Territorians. This is the milk and the honey. This is the one that is going to fix, magically apparently, all of the problems. It is well intentioned, and I suppose we have to admire them for that; at least they are trying. However, they are not doing it very well and Territorians will attest to that at the next election, because these so-called reforms will do nothing to address the sorts of issues that our constituents - and let us face it, there are 25 of us - ring us, fax us, e-mail to us about on a daily basis.
I am sure it is not just because it is my electorate, I am sure it is happening in everyone’s electorates. These people vote and, in only three years time, they will see the Country Liberal Party actually provide some solution, as we do and as we will. The Australian Labor Party is just on planet Mars when it comes to coming up with solutions about these problems. It is evidenced by the media releases that the Chief Minister has issued. She said that antisocial behaviour and street offences were not on. Well, you would not know it if you had a close look at this legislation. She has said that it was urgent back in April 2005. I have grown older since then, as everyone has. If that was the Chief Minister’s definition of urgent, I would hate to be in a hurry.
In any case, we oppose these bills for many reasons. The best way of putting it is that the bills in their present form are inadequate to the task at hand. They fall short because of their lack of scope, and they give criminals a chance to escape sentence. I know that members opposite do not like this concept of people going to gaol for anything, because they do not believe, unlike my party, in individual responsibility and consequences. The irony is an obvious one, given that we have seen, under the Australian Labor Party, record highs of indigenous imprisonment in the Northern Territory. When crime is so rife, they have no choice. Even the members of the Labor Party have to say: ‘I suppose we had better lock up some of them’. The only reason people are in gaol is because there is so much crime being committed in the Northern Territory.
I refer back to the pre-election hype surrounding this package, and you could be forgiven for thinking that there was a brave new world of policy initiatives that would focus on and attack the drunks in our communities who plague our parks, public places and our streets, but that was then and this is now. The bills do not address those problems and there are many reasons for it.
One of them is by dint of section 128 of the Police Administration Act. That section was used 21 862 times last year. This section allows police to apprehend for protective custody a person who is drunk apparently by alcohol or a drug. The conditions that operate when this section is used mean that a person cannot be charged with a criminal offence. This is the vital flaw in the government’s approach to their antisocial behaviour package. The alcohol courts will only be able to make orders with respect to people who have been charged and plead guilt or signal their intention to do so to a court of summary jurisdiction. Only then will there be a referral to the alcohol court and a likelihood of a sentence of imprisonment.
Last year, we apprehended 22 000 people or thereabouts, and not one of them fulfilled the requirements of the government’s package. Let me say that again: 22 000 people were locked up, taken into protective custody last year, and not one of them will fall within this legislation. Stop kidding yourselves. You cannot pull the wool over everyone’s eyes all of the time.
Even if you add the handful of people who were convicted of behavioural offences in our streets - for instance, breaches of the Summary Offences Act - the last count we had was I think in 2003-04 and, in answer to a question I think the police minister said there were about 790 or thereabouts. At that time, out of about - being generous - if there were 20 000 drunks apprehended, only about 700 to 800 or thereabouts were prosecuted under the Summary Offences Act. Clearly, something is not working because all we are having is 22 000 people being rounded up, locked up, let go the next day. Then, we have the laughable situation of about a fortnight ago where the Police minister issued a media release at a media conference saying: ‘We have moved a whole lot of drunks’. I think the figure was about 7000. They moved 7000 drunks from somewhere in Darwin to somewhere else in Darwin. This is not a good outcome. Hello! This is seriously not a good outcome.
The thinking behind this bill is the government wants to go after people who breach the Criminal Code by breaking into people’s houses and stealing from Territorians. It is being dressed up by the $8m spin machine on the fifth floor of this place; that is, those people, almost 100 of them as I understand it, employed at a price of about $8m to provide spin doctoring services to this government. They are paid well and aren’t they earning it? Some people in the Northern Territory community actually believe that this legislation will do what the Australian Labor Party says it will do - and it will not. However, I take my hat off to the spin doctors because, by jingo, they earn their money.
When the average punter in the street thinks about antisocial behaviour, he or she is thinking about drunks who are upsetting the good social order of day-to-day life in our streets, our community. He or she is thinking about the drunks in our parks. There was an incident last week where someone dared to go into a park and ask people to be quiet. He had his head punched in. This is, again, not a good outcome.
The truth is that this bill cannot fix those problems and, indeed, they would be upset to hear that the alcohol orders are designed to sidestep sentencing. That is what average Territorians need to know and, by jingo, we plan on telling them. Many Territorians will be surprised to learn that an eligible person under Labor’s bill can sidestep being sentenced for an offence they have committed if they avail themselves of an alcohol intervention order.
Rather than headline ’government tough on antisocial behaviour’, the more accurate headline would be ‘government will give crims the choice of gaol or treatment’. That is what they are actually doing. The truth is, as we know, often the first casualty of war. In fact, it is the first and repeated casualty of the Labor government; they perpetrate deceits. They perpetrated one prior to the last election, and they continue to perpetrate the myth.
There is a difference between Labor and the CLP. Labor thinks that a person who commits a crime needs help and intervention, and that the underlying assumption is that they are, in their own right, somehow victims and, once they commit a crime, it is proof they are victims. We think that if you commit a crime you are a criminal. If treatment is appropriate - and often it is - it becomes or should become a part of your sentence and not a way to avoid sentence. That is the difference.
The reason, of course, for this is simple: under Labor’s model a person with an alcohol problem is identified after they commit an offence punishable with imprisonment of up to two years and they are likely to do real time. We say that an alcohol problem is identified if you are continually being locked up for being drunk. Under the Labor model, a person needs to commit a crime - a crime must be committed and a victim is created before you will get anywhere near this legislation. Commit a crime, create a victim, then you go under this and there are procedures whereby if you say: ‘I did do all of those nasty things, your Worship, but I have an alcohol problem’, this is the Labor Party’s sanctioning of not going to gaol. We think that that is not in line with community expectations. We also believe that it is not in line with what Labor promised before the last election. We are not asking too much. If you followed through with your headlines and your media releases, we would be sitting here as your fellow Territorians, applauding you. However, do not give us this rubbish: ‘We said this and now we are doing that’.
The CLP, unlike Labor, will not wait for a crime to be committed and a victim to be created before someone is dealt with by your so-called alcohol courts. That is the difference, and we are proud that we believe so strongly in our position.
Labor is going to wait until the person they are trying to help creates a victim and becomes a criminal before they move to medical intervention. We say, as I have said, that is the wrong approach. Once a person commits an offence they are a criminal and they should not be allowed to sidestep a criminal sanction. If you want a medical intervention, then intervene before a criminal offence has occurred; intervene before there is a victim. However, sadly, that will not happen under Labor’s proposal.
Of the 22 000 apprehensions for protective custody last year, how many were repeat apprehensions? In other words, frequent flyers. If you do the calculations of those 22 000 people, it represents about 11% of the Territory population being apprehended last year for being drunk. Or put another way, about one in 10 people you and I know were locked up last year. However, the truth is that most of those apprehended were the same people being caught again and again.
We say that we are not prepared to stand by and watch someone locked up again and again for being drunk and creating havoc. While you lot are happy with that, we are not, and we make no bones about it.
Mr Henderson: You were for 27 years.
Ms CARNEY: Madam Speaker, in relation…
Mr Stirling: Read the NT News 10 years ago.
Ms CARNEY: The Police minister - who is not in his seat and, therefore, should not be recognised by me or, indeed, you, Madam Speaker - interjects, but in the circumstances it is an interjection worth taking up: ‘Twenty-seven years’. I tell the Police minister, 27 years ago there, were not 22 000 drunks coming into our centres in the Northern Territory. Yet, under Labor in the last five years …
Members interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: In the last five years, it has gone from about 10, and you have the graph because it is in your own department’s report - it goes like that. That is under Labor. The gall that you display by saying: ‘Oh, 27 years under the CLP’. Pull the other one, sport! We know that you are given to being a bit creative with the truth, and that is why I suppose people do not like you. However, you cannot come in here and argue things that simply defy reality.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms CARNEY: Madam Speaker, I note the time, and I have quite a bit to go. I probably will take up the next 15 minutes. I thought I should flag that with you. Should I keep going or should we come back to it?
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, I will just ask members if there urgent business for members at lunchtime? Please continue. Leader of the Opposition, if you need an extension after 15 minutes though, we will do that after Question Time.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms CARNEY: Sure, that is unlikely, but I am happy to indicate that, Madam Speaker, thank you.
Madam SPEAKER: Please continue.
Ms CARNEY: What are we doing? What is Labor doing to catch the frequent flyers – silver, gold and platinum – nothing! Silver, gold and platinum - they are working their way up and if it were a proper reward system, my God, these people would be happy! They would all be platinum, in fact, they would probably be Chairman’s lounge members. Under Labor, they would think that was a good outcome. No, it is not. Do not talk to us about 27 years of the CLP because your own figures go up like that.
That is why today the CLP launched its own policy called Safe Streets. It is not riddled with $8m of spin doctoring language for this Labor Party and Chief Minister. It is real language for real people who have had more than enough of the garbage that is perpetrated by the Labor Party and the rubbish that they are seeing in their own communities.
I encourage the Police minister to look at page 157 of the police annual report last year. It shows that in the year 1999-2000. 11 395 people were apprehended for protective custody. Last year, as I said, it was - wait for it! - 21 862. I do not think that extends over the 27-year period that the CLP was around. In fact, most of it, Chief Minister, has gone up under your watch. Just in case you have forgotten, I thought I should point that out to you.
It is a crisis that these bills do nothing to address and that Territorians are seeing every day on our streets and in our parks. If you walk out of this House at night and across to Bennett Park, there is an even chance that you will see people drinking there, especially at night. These are exactly the same people who generate so many of the non-intentional homicides, murders and so on in our communities - drunks sitting around full of booze and bad manners …
Mr Henderson: Have you spoken to Peter Paroulakis lately?
Ms CARNEY: Not unlike the member of Wanguri - sitting around full of booze and bad manners who lose their tempers as, indeed, the member for Wanguri is given to do …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, Leader of the Opposition, I ask you to withdraw those last comments. It is highly improper to be referring to a minister in that way.
Ms CARNEY: I am happy to withdraw the reference to booze, if there is any implied suggestion - very happy to withdraw.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, Leader of the Opposition.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Please continue.
Ms CARNEY: Of course, that is fair enough if you talk about my apology, but I do stress and say again the comment in relation to bad manners of the member of Wanguri.
In any event, drunks sit around and get themselves into trouble. They are a risk to themselves, their friends, their communities, and their families. They are also a risk to their fellow Territorians and that is not on – it is just not on!
The government will defend themselves by saying, as the Police minister did, that they have a better resourced police force and, of course, with compliments of, I think, $7.2bn or thereabouts, in GST revenue that Labor has received since it came to office. Wouldn’t you spend it? Perhaps you would not spend all of it and create a budget crisis, but you certainly would spend some of it to improve health services and policing in the Northern Territory. The twist, however, is to deliver on those services, so you cannot just say: ‘Oh we have more police and more beds in hospital’, if that is the case these days. I am not entirely sure, I suspect it is not. You cannot say: ‘We have employed all these people, therefore, the outcomes are better’. That is not the case and Territorians want to see bang for the Commonwealth buck. They want to see you delivering services; that is why we live here. That is what you should be doing as a government of the Northern Territory.
However, this is a problem about antisocial behaviour; this is what offends the sensibilities of Territorians. Dressing up a piece of legislation that says convicted criminals can get a softer option than gaol is rubbish - complete rubbish. It is a line about antisocial behaviour, stuff on a media release and, somehow, a la, Labor think they have achieved the results. Not by a long shot. No doubt, there will be a bevy of press releases issued today. You will be there with your little media advisor. The government media advisors - all 10 of them - will be lined up badgering the journalist in the way that they will, and they will spin it. Welcome to my world!
However, we know what the truth is. We know what the truth is and so do the Territorians who ring my office and, presumably your offices, saying: ‘I have 30 drunks across the street from my house; what can you do about it?’ You know what I am going to tell them? I am going to tell them that Labor could have done a whole lot of things about it, but they chose to do nothing. In fact, I will be telling pretty much everyone in the Northern Territory that Labor chose not to act on the problem.
For the backbenchers who clearly share the delusion that is the Australian Labor Party in government in the Northern Territory, I ask them in their own minds or in their own homes, to actually read this stuff; have a look it. We have to; you do not have to because of your $8m staff and the ministers who have carriage of it. I commend, I urge you, to read this legislation. You ask yourselves whether it matches the media release and the election promises, because it does not. You also ask yourselves, through you, Madam Speaker, whether your electorates will be happy with the outcome. I will bet London to a brick that they will not be, and for very good reason.
In summary, before turning to the next part of the bill, it is a deceit, a disgrace. I will be farming this out, as I have done, indeed, to so many people in the Northern Territory who do share my views that this is just not okay. If you line it up with what we said prior to the election, the planets are just not aligned.
It is well-intentioned, but it will not address the problems. Labor sanctions crimes being committed and victims being created before drunks are dealt with under this proposal. There is a point of difference and, of course, in politics we know that Territorians, or voters, always look for a point of difference. The point of difference is, as the CLP, we are not prepared to wait for crimes to be committed and victims to be created. That is why we launched our policy today.
It is important that I deal, within the time I have left, the other part of this bill. However, before I do so, I need to ask why they are being heard cognate - which means that they are being heard together although they are separate in so many respects? They are not particularly related to each other in a legislative sense and, therefore, they should be debated separately. We are much more sympathetic to what that part of the bill is trying to achieve. We are a sensible opposition. We will shout from the rooftops where it is appropriate. We will also give you various indications of support and compliments where it is appropriate to do so.
I say again: we are supportive of what that part of the bill tries to achieve. However, because they are cognate, because they are linked together, we are in the invidious position of having to say we oppose your bill. We cannot excise them, we have to vote on it as a package. Therefore, because government - stupidly and unwisely in our view - linked them together, we are in a position of saying we are certainly more sympathetic in relation to the Residential Tenancies Act amendment, but we cannot go with you because of our deep-seated opposition to the alcohol court.
Nevertheless, it could be suggested that the reason Labor put these bills together is that, despite their numbers, they just do not like long debates. Last week, we had two or three pieces of legislation on the Notice Paper, this week, so far, we have one. This was a government that, eight months ago, went to Territorians and said: ‘We are a government with more to do’. Well, you would not know that there was anything else to be done because this government actually is not doing anything. One piece of legislation on the Notice Paper – how every strange! There will be a couple of others, on urgency, debated later this week. However, it shows, perhaps, why these bills are linked because they just do not like debate. We saw it last week when we were talking about the budget and the Leader of Government Business shut us down. Perhaps it was not him, it was the Treasurer, because he had a bit of a hissy fit. In any event, these bills should be separate.
Notwithstanding the reservations we have in relation to these bills being cognate, I repeat that we are with you, to a large extent, in what you are trying to achieve. However, there are some points which ought properly be made. It is appropriate, I suspect, that I talk about an area where I come from, although not in my electorate: Larapinta in Alice Springs. These are the people who might be described as some who do not expect very much from their government. They just want to live in safe homes, safe streets in a safe area in Alice Springs. Well, Larapinta is a disgrace, and it is a disgrace because of the antisocial behaviour that is happening there, and of the housing difficulties that continue to confront so many residents. Members will remember the meeting at Larapinta held a year or so ago, such was the level of concern in that community.
I raise Larapinta because I can only hope that some of these measures in the housing package will assist those poor people in Larapinta who are putting up with things that none of us should put up with. I am in receipt of regular e-mails from one person in particular, and I believe other members are as well. It almost makes you weep to read of the difficulties these people are experiencing, so we believe government should act.
I raise the following concerns. I do not expect anything to be done about them, but it is appropriate, where I have concerns about any issue, that I outline those concerns on the Parliamentary Record. I was told earlier by the Treasurer who said that the government would trial this proposal and perhaps have a look at it in 12 months. It may be that some of my concerns have been revisited there.
I need to be quick because I do want to finish when my time expires, Madam Speaker, rather than seek an extension. You have come up with something called an acceptable behaviour agreement. We hope that is not like the so-called good neighbour policy which, apparently, was Labor’s answer to having good neighbours. Clearly, it did not work. Territory Housing does have the power to evict people. You do ask the question: is it not the case that people undertake or enter into lease arrangements and, like any agreement or lease, the landlord in this case can evict people? I would be very interested to know how many people have been evicted. Given the problems that neighbours experience, they have a right to expect that vast numbers of people would be evicted. I do not think that that is the case. Perhaps we can pursue it in estimates. In any case, we hope that the acceptable behaviour agreement is much better than your so-called good neighbour policy, because a good neighbour policy that had atrocious neighbours, ergo, is not a good neighbour policy.
To a large extent, some of the proposals are just a re-badging of some things that presently exist. I refer again to people not complying with their lease arrangements, although I note that it is a tighter time frame under this bill; that is, if someone refuses to enter into an acceptable behaviour agreement, there is a 28-day period which can bring on either an eviction or, I gather, a refusal by Territory Housing to house people.
There are some concerns in relation to the definition of ‘interested person’ under clause 17 of the bill. I make the point …
Dr LIM: Madam Speaker, I move that the Leader of the Opposition be granted an extension of time to finish her remarks, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, I would ask that if we grant this leave that it happens after Question Time.
Ms CARNEY: Okay. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Motion agreed to.
Debate suspended.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
Senate Community Affairs Reference Committee
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the Speaker’s gallery of members of the Senate Community Affairs References Committee: Senator Moore, Senator Humphries, Senator Adams, Senator Crossin, Senator Polley, Senator Webber and Senator Siewert. On behalf of all honourable members, I extend a very warm welcome to our distinguished guests.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: I also draw your attention to visitors in the galleries who are visiting parliament as part of the public tour program. On behalf of all honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I also draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of the Chief Magistrate, Mr Hugh Bradley, On behalf of all honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Continued from earlier this day.
Madam SPEAKER: We will continue with the Alcohol Court Bill 2005 and Antisocial Behaviour (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill. The Leader of the Opposition has a 10-minute extension.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, the member for Greatorex for jumping to his feet and moving that I receive an extension of time. I indicated before our luncheon adjournment that I did not expect to be much longer and I can confirm that is the case.
To continue with the comments I made in relation to the Alcohol Court Bill and the Antisocial Behaviour (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill being cognate, members will recall that I made some comments in relation to ‘interested persons’ under the proposed new section 100 of the bill. I note that the definition of ‘interested persons’ is similar to that used in the Liquor Act and includes local residents, community groups, police officers and so on. Up until now, the only possible applicant in an eviction proceeding has been a landlord. We welcome that part of the amendment because we see that it has a number of benefits.
As I was explaining to members prior to lunch, we are in a difficult position because the government has put together two separate pieces of legislation. We have real difficulty in relation to the Alcohol Court Bill. Because the residential tenancies amendments are linked to that bill, we have no choice other than to voice our opposition to the current bill before us, notwithstanding that we are supportive of some of the changes in the residential tenancies bill.
I stress that the concern being put to me by a number of people is that by extending the types of people who can make an application for eviction - this is the view more so of others than of me, but it is appropriate that as their representative I put this concern on the record and I would be surprised if the minister had not heard it as well - Territory Housing may abdicate their responsibility when it comes to eviction proceedings. If there are problem tenants, there is a view that Territory Housing rightly should evict them from the premises. It has been put to me that it is conceivable that Territory Housing may not take action in the hope that someone else will. I guess a good example is some of the difficulties experienced in the Larapinta area in Alice Springs. I do not, for a moment, reflect negatively on the hardworking public servants in Territory Housing. I know they work very hard, under very difficult circumstances. I simply make the point on behalf of others - a point I might say I have some sympathy with - that there is a concern that Territory Housing may abdicate some of its responsibility. I say to you, minister, that there are some misgivings about what, at its highest, could be an unanticipated consequence of this legislative change.
In relation to this point, I raise the issue of legal proceedings and legal costs. It seems that the Labor government, is encouraging neighbours of problem tenants to commence proceedings for eviction and those people are to pay for those proceedings themselves. Either someone can go and get a lawyer - I do not know what the going rate is these days, probably between $280 and $350 an hour for a lawyer – and sit down with the lawyer and get a couple of hours worth of advice to assist them in the proceeding or, alternatively, they may retain a lawyer to act for them. That is a cost that, in my view, Territorians should not be obliged to pay because if there are problem tenants, particularly public housing tenants, why should other people pay to get rid of them? I just wonder, regarding the private sector, whether government might consider - subject to the enormous budgetary constraints it faces - offering some sort of subsidy, incentive or assistance to those people who need to go off and get lawyers just because they have the neighbours from hell next door to them.
Having said that though, the new provision does enable the neighbours of troublesome tenants to finally take steps to have the premises emptied of difficult tenants. That will be warmly received by many people who will access this part of the legislation.
We want to support the miscellaneous amendments to the bill because it contains items that do seem to bring about improvements. However, once again, for political reasons the government has introduced a bill that is cognate with the other bill. Once again, the spin machine will go into overdrive to say that we opposed antisocial behaviour control legislation, and we also opposed reforms to the Residential Tenancies Act. A reading of the Parliamentary Record will, in fact, reveal what our position really is, and the misgivings we have in relation to these two bills being cognate.
Regarding the antisocial behaviour legislation, I thought it was very interesting, this afternoon in Question Time, to see the Chief Minister, who was far from comfortable in my view answering some of the questions. She said that those people who commit serious crimes will go to gaol. We will continue to monitor that. People, in our view, are sick and tired of putting up with drunks, many of whom commit a number of offences against their fellow Territorians. Our position - and I restate it - is that the Country Liberal Party will not wait for a crime to be committed and a victim created in order to deal with the problem of drunks. We will not stand by and sanction legislation which, in almost every respect, insists that a crime is committed and a victim created before someone falls within the domain of this so-called alcohol court.
It was put to me by someone a day or so ago that we already have alcohol courts in the Northern Territory. They are the courts in which most of the offenders appear. I do not know the exact figures, but magistrates and senior lawyers tell me that these days about 90% of matters, in our lower courts in particular, are crime and almost all of it is alcohol-related. Therefore, in a sense we already have our alcohol courts.
It will be very interesting, nevertheless, to see how this legislation operates. We think it will create difficulties for you. In conclusion, we know it will create difficulties for most people in the Northern Territory who expect much more from this government; who expect to rely on some of the promises that were made before the last election. However, sadly, because I feel the government has become drunk on its own power, obsessed with its own ability to do whatever it likes and consumed by its own arrogance, we now see a government that is just simply not delivering the results that it promised Territorians. As a Territorian and a person who represents Territorians, I feel incredibly sad about that. However, in conclusion, in relation to the residential tenancy amendments, we wish you well.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, the bill before us is an extremely important bill and one which I would ask the government to defer. I will explain my reasons as I go along.
Looking at the bill and listening to Question Time today, I believe what we really have here is the offence of public drunkenness by stealth. The reason I say that is because you have legislation here which says we will force these people to do something after they have committed an offence. That seems to me after the horse has bolted.
We do not seem to have anything in here, excluding perhaps prohibition orders - but that is the same thing; you have to commit an offence that is not gaol-able - which deals with those people who are the ones I heard of when I was on the substance abuse committee, that you see in the parks, who defecate or swear, are a nuisance or, sometimes, are asking for money and those sorts of things, that are generally not picked up for an offence, but are the people that drive you mad. They are a nuisance and, sometimes, you are scared to walk down the footpath because people are lying there, etcetera. They are a fact of life. I was in Katherine about three weeks ago on a Thursday night. I arrived there at 8 pm. I was going down to Andy McNeill’s funeral, and that street between Red Rooster and the Crossways Hotel, for me, was scary. I would say tourists who arrive in Katherine at that time of night, would be actually scared off from staying in Katherine. It was not a good feeling. They are the people that I believe we have to start with first.
What I cannot understand here is what I call a clashing of government philosophy. I will try to put it this way: we have created laws for petrol sniffing which have said the government has the power of apprehension, and you can then go before a magistrate and that magistrate can require you to get treatment. Of course, if you do not do that treatment then a warrant can be issued - I presume for your arrest for not submitting to that treatment. The reason the government did that - and I support what the government is doing and I might differ from the opposition - is because it said it did not want to make petrol sniffing illegal. In other words, you would not have a criminal offence. You could have a criminal offence for supplying alcohol, but you would not have a criminal offence for actually sniffing. What was the important reason? Because petrol is a legal substance. That is one of the reasons, I believe, that you have to make that distinction. If you are talking about drugs, drugs are already illegal, and you are committing an offence because the substance is illegal in itself for use.
Alcohol is legal. Why are we not applying exactly the same principle that we are applying for petrol sniffers to alcohol? In other words, those who misuse alcohol. The misuse would be drunk continually, going through sobering-up shelter many times - the CLP has mentioned three, I think there has been other talk about six times. It was interesting to talk to Sheila Miller from Dillinya, where I went on the weekend, who said that one person has been through the sobering-up shelter 302 times and it is increasing. You would have to ask where in your legislation you are going to force that person to have something done about their problem? Again, when I was on the substance abuse committee, I remember a very rowdy meeting in Alice Springs, where the now minister for NRETA and I were on that committee, and the minister was publicly scolded by some people for even thinking of this sort of thing. The issue of Stolen Generation, etcetera, came up and I went to the defence of the minister because I knew the minister was not talking about race, he was talking about human beings. That is what we have to make sure we keep in our mind. This is not about whether you are Aboriginal or not Aboriginal, it is about helping human beings get over a problem that they cannot get over themselves.
I have said it before that you need a process of compassion. You need some force behind what you are doing as well. I do not believe that the legislation before us has picked up that area. Instead, it says if you commit an offence, then we will consider putting to you the option of whether you have some treatment. I do not know how it would work in real cases, but talking to CAAPS, treatment there is six to eight weeks. If I was sentenced to three months gaol, I would probably take the option of CAAPS anyway, simply because it would be a shorter sentence. I can go to CAAPS, I can go home from CAAPS, I have fulfilled my rehabilitation and I do not do the punishment that was required for the offence.
It could be looked on the other way; that police might see this as an opportunity to get people into prohibition orders by picking them up for minor offences and, therefore, making those people the subject of a prohibition order. Again, you have to commit an offence to get some help. We should really be trying to get those people before they commit an offence. It just seems silly that this process is step three, instead of one and two coming first. The government needs to consider this a little more.
There is another possibility. If you look at the Mental Health and Related Services Act, under involuntary admissions, the criteria for the involuntary admission of a person on the grounds of mental illness are that the person has a mental illness and, as a result of the mental illness, the person requires treatment that is available at an approved treatment facility. Is it possible that, for a person with alcoholism which is a sickness and a health problem, we could not get those people through this type of legislation? I am not saying you use that mental health legislation. What I am saying is that there is the Volatile Substance Abuse Prevention Act, the Mental Health and Related Services Act, both of which allow you to pick up people who could be suffering from alcoholism and, through a court order or a magistrate, force them - that might be too harsh a word - but require them to take part in rehabilitation. That is what we are missing in this legislation. You have come in at chapter 3, and you have forgotten chapters 1 and 2. I put it to the government: you need to just stop a minute and look at this legislation again.
I also think you need to have wider consultation. You may have some answers to what I am going to say. I received a letter, and the minister would also have received the letter from the Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission. It gave support for some things but felt that there were questions about it being a coordinated approach. It said there were inadequate resources and I quote:
I rang CAAPS to check on that and they told me they have problems. They are actually full; they have a waiting list. If they have a waiting list, how is it going to operate? Is the government going to give them more money to expand CAAPS, to put on more staff? If you are going to have this system, you have to have the facilities and the people to cope with the extra people who are going to require rehabilitation.
I also quote from this letter, which I think most MLAs received, from the Darwin Regional Crime Prevention Council, which was one of those committees set up under the Alcohol Framework. This is under the same concept that the government has been putting forward. They say:
They go on and they say at the end:
That is from Richard Bowman, Chairperson of the Darwin Regional Crime Prevention Council.
There are people out there saying that they believe there is not enough community consultation presently and they would like a little more time. That is why I say let us look at deferring this. I have always felt - and the minister probably will be bored to tears hearing me say it again – and still think there are opportunities with rehabilitation of alcoholics to put them in a farm-type area where they can learn some skills, get some basic numeracy and literacy, can get assistance from people who they know are compassionate, and where there is space. I know the minister will say he has heard it all before, but I went to Dillinya on Saturday. I went out there to talk to Sheila Miller. It is a long way from anywhere is all you could say. It is certainly not next to your corner store. It actually won the Tidy Towns Award in several categories last year. You can see by the way the houses and the surrounds are maintained - although they were waiting for their lawnmower to come back from Katherine which, unfortunately, had broken down – that they have a lot of pride in that area.
One of the good things about that area is that they are isolated; there is time for those people who are chronic alcoholics in many cases to go out and go back to country. The people who are dealing with and looking after the people in the program have an understanding of Aboriginal thinking. Sheila Miller and her brother Paddy who speaks seven languages, are people who have been alcoholics themselves. They know how hard and difficult it is. That is what we should be putting more emphasis on: finding Aboriginal solutions to many of the itinerants, getting those people who might not fit into the you-beaut guidelines that departments sometimes have for people to have the right qualifications and have done the right work and filled out the right form.
People might not always agree with Sheila Miller; she is a tough nut - and I say that in the nicest term, Sheila. Obviously, she upsets people sometimes, but there is a great compassion in that woman. The same with Paddy and a whitefella called Brian who has been off the grog for 10 years who helps around the place. Those people have not only been through the experience, they have an understanding of how to get to those people they are trying to help. I cannot stand here and tell you how much success they have had. Sheila says they have had quite a bit of success,. They have the odd failure, for sure. However, Sheila said that, in many cases, in bringing Aboriginal people back to country that is not their country, culture has to be put aside sometimes when a person is in a state of alcoholism. Their culture has disappeared and we are trying to bring them back where they can appreciate their culture once again.
Dillinya might not serve all purposes. Although it does have arts and crafts, it might not have gardening and some of the other skills we might be able to develop in other areas, but it is a model that is worth looking at. We have Wildman River sitting out there in mothballs where no one lives except the caretaker. Perhaps there are opportunities there. We do have services in town, but when you look at CAAPS and FORWAARD - they are fine groups, they do a lot of good work - their rehabilitation programs are about six to eight weeks and you have them in the city where those pressures are going to come back on to people quickly.
Some people will argue that it is better to have rehabilitation in the city because people have to be able handle real life when they get back to it. However, listening to Sheila Miller at Dillinya, they have a process for bringing people back into the real world after being out there for some time which seems successful. They do not have a six to eight-week program because some of these people need a lot of time and space. I tell you if I wanted to get away from the rat race - sometimes from this place and all the issues we have to face from time to time - Dillinya would be the place. It is a beautiful area, it is peaceful and it is something a lot more politicians should make the effort and go and see. As far as I know - and I might be wrong and I stand to be corrected - there has only been two other politicians visit, Mike Reed and Tim Baldwin, and that was some time ago when they got funding for it. I think Anglicare also looked after them.
Ms Scrymgour: We know why that funding went there.
Mr WOOD: I am not making any judgments over the funding at this stage, because that is for another day. Today I say it is an example of what we should be doing. I do not necessarily see that being promoted.
It was mentioned that there will be rehabilitation for these people, but I thought it is worth me expounding the virtues of some of these places that do not necessarily get a lot of support. ANSTI is one, at Bees Creek. It has had its ups and downs. ANSTI is, at least, out in the bush. It has its own type of rehabilitation that is different from the others. It takes Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people. I have not been there for a while, although I am meant to go and judge the Goanna Games on 1 April – what a day to go. They have been around for a long time. I certainly think that they should be mentioned because they have done a lot of work in their time.
If I looked at this legislation by itself, I could say there are some issues there and it looks like you are starting to go down a certain path. However, what worries me is that we should be looking at this more in the context of the government’s own policy, the Alcohol Framework. We have taken one recommendation out of the Alcohol Framework, which is recommendation 25. That is what we have today. I will read recommendation 25:
… on the demand for services.
We have a book here which is the framework. As someone said to me: ‘That is exactly what it is; a framework’. You have just gone and grabbed a piece of the framework and said: ‘Let us put that forward’, without the other piece of the framework - and quite a bit of the other framework.
I have mentioned things before like advertising of alcohol. It is mentioned in the recommendations that we ought to look at that but, really, has anything been done? The Chief Minister said, basically, it is okay to be drunk in Mitchell Street. I query the very essence of that statement as to whether being drunk in a public place by anybody, white or black, is really a good thing. You will hear people say they are frightened to walk down Mitchell Street. I can tell you it is not indigenous people who are drunk in Mitchell Street. The majority are non-indigenous, and people are frightened. That is why you have so many police and security people in Mitchell Street. I believe for too long we have presumed drunkenness is okay. If you presume that, then why would you want to go crook at an indigenous person in the park? You have to apply it evenly. There is a danger when the Chief Minister said: ‘We would not allow someone to be drunk in Mitchell Street’. I query whether we should be allowing people to be drunk - and I am talking about drunk that is a real pain in the neck, not just someone who is a little happy. I do not think we should be promoting it.
It is recorded that many young people go in for binge drinking and the statistics seem to show that. I believe it is the responsibility of government to be setting the benchmark a little higher, not lower, and saying: ‘We have a major problem with alcohol abuse in the Northern Territory, and we are not going out there to say drunkenness is a good thing; we are saying that is not necessarily a good thing. It is not good for your health, it is not good for the community, it is not good for your family. You can have a good time without getting sloshed. Yes, you can have some beer and some wine’. However, that is the difference and we ought to be clear that we are promoting the good use of alcohol.
Madam Speaker, the Alcohol Framework has 62 recommendations, and we pulled out one of them and said: ‘Let us make a bill’. What I would have preferred is a much bigger package. Again, that is why I say defer it. There are people saying we have not had enough consultation. I believe you have not picked up the people who need help as well, who are committing a major offence; that is, the people on our streets who need help. Before we introduce this legislation, we need facilities where they can go. If you do not have Dillinya-type set-ups, and CAAPS is full, then why are we introducing legislation? When we get these people, are we just going to do rehabilitation in the gaol and make the Correctional Services people our social workers? I do not think so. I do not think gaol is necessarily the best place to rehabilitate people.
If you are going to arrest them for an offence, I say, for sure; let them do their time for the crime and then, if they are problem alcoholics, then issue a court order to go through rehabilitation. The other way around is an approach that I do not believe is going to work. Some people will use it as a way around their punishment.
I would like to sum up with a couple of things. I heard the debate about whether the CLP is pushing public drunkenness, and I should say one thing about the CLP’s document. I would use the same argument against this as I am using against the government’s policy. There is nothing at the beginning and end of this, just a tough little bit in the middle. Where are the services to help? Where are chapters 1, 2, 9 and 10?
Ms Scrymgour: Monster and stomp!
Mr WOOD: Okay, but this is the bit that is here today, which is a tough approach to people who are drunk. However, again, my argument would be that you cannot just take one piece of policy and leave it like that.
The other thing that I will repeat is that I believe that the way in which this bill is set up - and I just need to look at the second reading. The minister has said ‘the legislative package underpins a coordinated whole-of-government approach for breaking the cycle of alcohol abuse’. Unfortunately, I do not believe it is applicable to the people we are talking about. It also set up what I call a pseudo-public drunkenness offence, by grabbing people who have committed an offence under the influence of alcohol. It seems a cute way of getting around what would be seen by the public as a public drunkenness offence.
Lastly, I believe that, after all these years I have been in parliament - I cannot say it was years, otherwise it would sound like I was old - I remember my first speech which talked about the boys at Daly River who died from alcoholism. I looked back then as I do now, and I do not really believe we are any better off. In fact, in many ways, we are worse. I was talking to Sheila Miller, and she said something similar; that she is not sure we are going anywhere at the present time.
The government might say that this is part of the package. It has its good qualities, but it does not have enough support both ends to make it work. I hope the government will defer it. The crime committee is saying defer it and the Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission is saying there should have been more work done on it. You could let this one sit and have a think about it and let more people debate it, because it certainly raised debate in this parliament. If nearly every person in this House is going to debate it, maybe that is another good reason to defer it. Now we are going into the community and telling the community there is this legislation and this is what it is about. Let us debate the issue of drunkenness and public drunkenness. Perhaps some of these issues really need to be debated in the broader area.
Finally, Madam Speaker, I have not spoken at all on the Antisocial Behaviour (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill because, unfortunately as someone said before, this is a cognate bill and it would have been much better to have split them considering the importance of the alcohol bill and of the antisocial behaviour bill. My understanding of the antisocial behaviour bill is that when you compare what we have done with what the New South Wales parliament has done, they are a bit like chalk and cheese. We have introduced something similar but we have not introduced the back-up for it; the management that should go with this legislation.
That has certainly happened in New South Wales; they have programs to help people. I will just see if I can find the section from the public housing bill. They have initiatives, response teams, and they do all sorts of things that assist with antisocial behaviour measures. I just wonder if we have introduced the support mechanisms that need to go with the tough-type bills we have introduced? I am interested to hear what the minister has to say. Madam Speaker, as I reiterated before, I would have preferred that this bill was deferred to another time.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I support the antisocial behaviour legislation. I sat here listening to the member Nelson and I disagree with some of the things that he said but there are some things that I do agree with. Last night, I was sitting down going through - from the time, and even before, I entered this parliament, in my position as a CEO of health services and I became a member sworn into this parliament - the number of speeches that either I had made, or debate we had found ourselves participating in on the issue of alcohol in this Chamber. Sometimes, when we do talk about those issues, those lines get blurred when we see the words ‘antisocial behaviour’. The member for Nelson certainly did pick that up. When we come to that issue of antisocial behaviour, the issue of alcoholism and drunkenness does seem to get lost in what that underlying issue really is. That certainly is something that has to be addressed.
When we shift our focus from the issue of alcoholism and drunkenness, and make excuses for that behaviour and regurgitate it in another form and call it antisocial behaviour, it suddenly becomes a different social set. That issue then shifts on a separate group of people; that that problem is only associated with those people. If we peel away all of those layers that people conveniently want to put there because they do not want to confront within themselves, we can see what that real issue is.
Alcoholism is not a black issue; it is a problem that affects everybody regardless of race, colour or creed. It is in our homes, it is in every home. I grew up in this town and had many non-indigenous friends. I grew up in a house with a father who was a chronic alcoholic, and faced the issues of alcoholism, and the violence and everything that came from that. I was certainly surprised, I suppose, as a child growing up in this town that many of my non-indigenous friends were also confronted with this same issue.
Every single one of us who is sworn into this parliament stands up here because we have a legal responsibility and an obligation to everybody out there – not only the ones who vote for us - to act responsibly. When we get to debates like this, that responsibility gets thrown at the wall and people tend to use their ‘let us get tough’ approach or ‘zero tolerance’ and ‘let us gaol the drunks’. I believe that that goes to the extreme and people lose sight of what those real issues are.
I reflect back on when I was the chair of the Select Committee on Substance Abuse. I know the member for Nelson talked about that meeting in Alice Springs. I remember before that meeting in Alice Springs when I was the CEO running Wurli WurlinjangHealth Services and Katherine West Health Services prior to coming into this parliament. In talking to those Aboriginal groups and my committee looking at the issue of mandatory treatment, I remember at that meeting when I said ‘mandatory rather than compulsory’. Member for Nelson, those people reacted because embedded in the mindset of Aboriginal people was the whole issue of mandatory sentencing, and I realised it was the wording.
Once we remove the shackles of the issue of mandatory and look at compulsory - I suppose I have always come from the point of my readiness and willingness to argue the case for compulsory treatment. I am not ashamed to stand up here and say that I have always been a supporter, and I have talked about compulsory treatment of alcoholism. However, I do not say that because I want it to sound good or that it should be in the media headlines. I say that based (1) on my own life experiences; (2) on the information and knowledge that I have been able to acquire from health professionals, and the many years that I worked in the field during my years as the CEO of Aboriginal medical services; and (3) on the published views of relevant authorities and experts.
The bottom line is that although alcoholism is an addiction with personally and socially destructive consequences, alcoholics never give up or moderate their consumption through the exercise of unpressured choice. The chemical hardwiring installed by alcohol dependency itself makes such rationality impossible. Professor Ross Fitzgerald, and psychologist Jim McLean, have recently explained why that is, and why governments need to adopt and implement policies that steer addicted individuals into programs and environments of enforced abstinence.
The Attorney-General has presented legislation and reforms that will break the cycle of alcohol abuse and antisocial behaviour on our streets. Yes, it will take time. I also listened to the member for Katherine during her speech. As well as that being her elected area, I also spent a number of years down there. This was a problem facing Katherine for many years. It has been a problem facing the Territory for many years. However, I remember being part of a group of individuals in Katherine trying to get the former member for Katherine, Mike Reed, and the former Minister for Health under the CLP government to work with those Aboriginal organisations to try to address this issue, and getting nowhere. The former CLP Chief Minister came out with ‘monster, stomp, whinging, whining, carping blacks, and that is all you should do with it’ as his approach. Society has a problem, not just here in the Northern Territory, but worldwide, and this is a huge issue.
I always maintain - and I know that the member for Nelson talked about it - that we are talking about an issue of a legal drug. Sometimes, it needs people to really face the consequences about changing policy about grog. If you look over the four years since we have come to government and at the Alcohol Framework, there have been many changes to try to deal with this.
I remember reading a speech here once which talked about one of the recommendations from the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. One of their prime recommendations in 1991 was to implore with the then Territory government that the Liquor Commission should have representation of an indigenous person on that commission to try to address and be part of that decision-making process. I was very heartened by the Minister for Racing, Gaming and Licensing who said that there is now an indigenous person at that level on that commission. It has taken some time, but our government has made that decision and there is an indigenous representative at that level on the commission to start looking at some of these issues.
From our government’s point of view, we have instigated a number of initiatives and reforms. It is a long-term problem and they certainly are not going to work overnight. If people think the zero tolerance approach, the mandatory sentencing and gaoling of drunks is going to work - well, they are kidding themselves too, because they should get out and talk to more people rather than just sit at their desk in front of their computers writing utter rubbish, or stop playing gutter politics that continually is played with this issue.
Antisocial behaviour affects and interferes with the lifestyle of innocent neighbours and passers-by, and we are not denying that. That is, of course, unacceptable. Part of the purpose of this new legislation is to try to stop the humbug and harassment that everyday individuals and families who are not caught up in the whirlpool of an alcoholic lifestyle frequently have to put up with.
The legislation which the Attorney-General has presented has been worked across and involved the minister for Police, the Minister for Family and Community Services and the Minister for Housing as well. It has gone across all agencies because that is how this issue should be tackled. It should be a whole-of-government approach, and should be tackled in that way, and not seen as a criminalisation issue. We have to look at the many facets of it. The Attorney-General and all the officers from those departments who have worked on this and consulted, ought to be congratulated because it is broad sweeping.
Regarding the housing component of that, from my point of view, there are many people from the electorate of Arafura - the majority are my own countrymen from the Tiwi Islands - who are sent into and housed in Darwin, or forced to come here because of the high-level care that they require with dialysis. Yes, the Tiwi Islands does have its own renal facility, but that is at a different level. If you meet the guidelines and criteria for self-care haemodialysis, you can return back to the island, but if your level of care is the next level up and you require high-level dialysis care and treatment, you are brought back into Darwin and you have to stay here.
A lot of those dialysis patients come to my office a lot of the time. We are countrymen and, when families come in, unavoidably they stay with those families. We have made changes with those agreements. There are two examples where I have worked with both Territory Housing through the minister, and with those families who are in those flats where there have been calls from tenants because of the bad behaviour; where we have sat down with those families and worked through the issues. There is a sign put up in front of those flats. That problem is then removed away from that and those families are removed back to the island.
We cannot expect that things are going to change overnight. We have to work through these issues. Sure, there are going to be some gaps in all of this. Nothing is ever going to be 100% right. We will work through that process. It is a start and it will work.
During the election campaign, there was a lot of talk about the antisocial behaviour legislation and Labor’s position, and I remember at the time - and I do not know if this happened in any of the other bush electorates – in my own electorate it was run against me, that to support any sort of compulsory treatment or the policy we were proposing, that we were being discriminatory towards Aboriginal people. This was coming from the CLP. I often find it a bit rich when, on one hand, they say one thing outside, and then come in here and completely contradict themselves. The hypocrisy reeks when it comes to this issue.
I go back to what I said: alcoholism is not a black and white issue, it is one of the biggest social ills that needs to be tackled. For the reasons of legality - and we know how the politics is played at a federal level with the tax for volume on alcohol. I could keep going on this because if there is a favourite subject of mine it is grog and all of the problems that go with it, but I will not. What I maintain, have said publicly, and say quite openly when people question the government’s stance as being too tough or hitting a certain group, and it is their right to drink, has always been the real breach of human rights. This is what it gets down to, because it is often the voices of those people that do not get heard, and we often hear about the rights of people in this area.
The real racism lies in the fact that the victims of drunks are largely our Aboriginal women and children. This has been ignored for far too long and we need to stop ignoring it. They are the ones who go hungry and homeless, and suffer the violence. They are deprived of the cultural stability that has been destroyed by alcohol. Call it what you will - antisocial behaviour - it is, in their behaviour. We are not making excuses for that behaviour. It is appalling. John Ah Kit, the former member for Arnhem, stood in this House, but also very publicly outside this House, and talked about the embarrassment of the defecating, the urinating, the begging, and what that was doing and that we needed to deal with it.
We are not making excuses for it. I do not believe any of us in this House are- and me most of all. However, I will stand up and defy anyone who says that we are soft. I have certainly heard people say that everybody has a right. Yes, everybody has a right, but the rights of women and children often go unheard in this whole debate. Whenever we look at these issues, and particularly for my point of view and where I come from - and the members for Arnhem and Macdonnell, but all of us here - we do not have to be Labor or CLP or Independent to agree that it is an issue, it has to be dealt with. This package does.
I commend the Attorney-General, but I also commend those other ministers who have worked collaboratively, from the ministerial level down to those agencies, to pull together this package of reforms that will have some impact. I firmly believe that it will. It is a first for the Territory. You often watch the pendulum, and people see the pendulum goes this way and say you are being too extreme. Then the pendulum swings to the other side and you have the bleeding heart syndrome of humans rights being breached. This whole package is allowing the pendulum to stay in the middle, and it is neither to the extreme left or to the extreme right. It is balanced. We will get it right. Not everything is going to be right at the start, but we will work through it.
It is a start towards addressing, as I said, an issue that has been around for a long time. It is about those kids, and about the women. That is always in the back of my mind. It is because we owe it to them to bring in this legislation in the hope it will make a difference. I know that it will make a difference. I thank and commend the ministers and the officers. I acknowledge the work of Kate Halliday on the legislation. When I looked at this legislation I was a bit sceptical of it pulling together. I acknowledge Kate and her work, the Department of Justice and all of those officers, because it has been a job well done.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Speaker, this seems to be becoming a debate about alcoholism rather than the bills, but I guess that is why it is very difficult. We are not talking about these bills addressing alcoholism; we are talking about a bill that addresses the consequences of alcohol abuse, and that is what we need to bear in mind. As the minister has just said, she hopes it will make a difference, and I am certainly of that opinion.
It is a bit of a shame, minister, that you have so many different amendments to different bills all in the one bill. I would like to speak to some of them because it is important to address some of the amendments that he has put forward. They are the ones that I found myself calling for over a long time. I talk about the Liquor Act where you talk about enforcing a ‘no grog sign’ in the dry areas. It is certainly something that many people in Territory Housing have tried. Unfortunately, because it had no backbone, no law to it, it was easily abused. There are many people out there who want to live a peaceful life away from alcohol abuse. There are many people who want to say to their visitors: ‘No, you cannot come in here if you have alcohol’. If this, some way, addresses this problem, then it is a good thing. As I said, we have tried it, unofficially; now let us make it official.
What we need to do is to get a strong sign; a sign that spells it out really clearly for people on their premises, who need to send a strong message. Will you do some advertising on radio or Imparja to get the message out to people who come into town to say: ‘You cannot come into my house with alcohol, because I have this sign on it’? In fact, that takes the responsibility away from the tenant. Many tenants have cultural or relationship obligations and cannot say no to people who come to their house. This way, this is a sign that has come from the minister, that says no grog is allowed. It gives that officialdom which is really important, and gives people something to draw upon, because they can refer to the sign as something that has been put there officially. That is going to be a tremendous help to many of our tenants who find it hard to say no. I hope, somehow or other, we can get that message across, and do not just leave it up to the tenants to say: ‘I have a sign’; that we start letting people out there know that these signs really mean no grog. I just hope it means that many of those tenants have a more peaceful life and are not as humbugged as much as they are at the moment. I have seen people actually give up their tenancy rather than put up with the humbugging anymore; it is just often too hard to live with. Minister, I support that.
Regarding the acceptable behaviour agreements, if it helps let us do it. However, I have to ask you why we need it when we already have tenancy agreements? If a tenant signs this agreement, has support from different agencies like ASAUHA, and has been through a living skills program, surely that is enough to show them this is how you should behave; the way you should live. I am not sure whether you have grabbed the idea from New South Wales because, if you have, you certainly have not gone into the detail that they have put into their legislation about acceptable behaviour agreements. I wonder how you can justify putting in another step when you already had the first step, which is making sure people have signed tenancy agreements, they have been through probation periods, or they might have special references as are required now, and they seem to have done that right. However, now you are wanting acceptable behaviour agreements. Not that I am against them, but I just query why have you decided to go down this line and what are you hoping to achieve by putting in another layer? Are you, in actual fact, only delaying a process that is inevitable in the end? Are you delaying the eviction of a tenant who has a history of bad behaviour by introducing this step as well? Are we going to see people given chance after chance? Or are there some particular people you are targeting? Is it discriminatory? Perhaps the minister could explain to me exactly why he has introduced these acceptable behaviour agreements and just who is he targeting. I just hope it is not going to be a delaying mechanism for unruly tenants being allowed to stay longer and upsetting neighbourhoods.
I also want to ask the minister: it is all very well to sign these agreements but what support will be available? What agencies will you bring in to help these people succeed? Let us face it, although we complain about much of the unacceptable behaviour of tenants, the bottom line is we would like all tenancies to be successful. That means we would have a harmonious neighbourhood and that is something that we should all aspire to. However, many people cannot do it without support and propping. Perhaps the minister could tell us what agencies will be engaged in assisting these tenants who do have acceptable behaviour agreements. I also ask the minister if he could tell me if they are going to be for new tenants, tenants with prior history, or tenants who are already in public housing and need a little boot along or something to get them back on track? Perhaps the minister could explain to me just who he is targeting.
It seems to have been partly successful in New South Wales. It seems to me, though, to be a roundabout way of avoiding the inevitable, which is eviction eventually. Perhaps it is because the minister probably does not really like to see people thrown out of public housing. However, to be honest, quite often that is the end result that will only solve the problem for the neighbourhood. Minister, if you could answer those questions about that I would be very grateful.
Obviously, I am going to support the Residential Tenancies Act, particularly as it was my idea, because it does allow a third party to apply to the courts for termination of a tenancy agreement. I guess I could already name some people in the neighbourhood who might take advantage of this. We have had some rather horrific tenants. We have had Territory Housing talk to them, send letters to them, and we have even had one given an eviction notice, but they are still there. No matter what Territory Housing seems to say to them, they still seem to want to disrupt the neighbourhood. This particular avenue at least gives them a chance to have their say.
However, costs have been raised with me, and that is a fair comment from people in the neighbourhood. What sort of costs would we be looking at if someone was to take a tenant to court? Will they, in fact, be fighting Territory Housing who might stand up for the tenant and engage lawyers, which would then put enormous cost on the people in the suburbs who want to do it? Are you, in fact, looking at making it a quick, easy court system for people who want to do this? I believe it was the Minister for Housing who implied that many of the complaints are vexatious. I only know one group of complaints I have had that might be seen to be like that. Every other complaint I have had, I would have to say was a genuine case. I would not like to think that the minister is saying: ‘We have introduced this process, but Territory Housing will, in fact, get involved in this process and block any action by residents’. Again, these tenants who are causing all this misbehaviour in the neighbourhood will be allowed to stay on and on and on.
If we had a proactive department - and I fully understand that they have lots of tenants, and that they are probably overworked and understaffed - many of the problems we have would not be there. However, when you get week after week people causing disruption, entering people’s property, having loud parties, sleeping all day, drinking all night, you cannot blame people for getting fed up with it. If Territory Housing did the right thing and were equipped to act, then we would never have suggested this amendment. It is just in frustration from tenants that this has been suggested, because they really feel as though they are just not getting the action and, quite often, they do not get a response to know what Territory Housing has done.
I was told the other day in a briefing that this was against the Privacy Act; that, in fact, Territory Housing could not tell the complainant what they had done because it is a breach of privacy of the tenant that they are complaining about. I find that just an excuse. It is crazy. If I have a complaint to the town council about something, usually the council ranger gets back to me and tells me what they have done. There is no reason, in my mind, why Territory Housing should not also get back to people who complain and tell them what they have done. That is a very important point.
Regarding the alcohol court, I do not think we can go back to making being drunk an offence, as is suggested by the CLP. I have looked briefly at what they have put out. Being drunk is not the problem; it is being drunk and causing problems that is the problem. It is the behaviour that stems from uncontrolled drunkenness. There are many people, quite frankly, who get drunk and then just go to sleep and you hear no more about them. It depends on what you call drunk. Are we talking about over 0.05 or 0.08? There are probably a few people in this House who might be considered drunk if that is what we are using as a measure in that way.
Members interjecting.
Mrs BRAHAM: No, I am not pointing at anyone. The point is …
Mr Stirling: They lost their seats at the last election.
Mrs BRAHAM: What are we talking about?
It really concerns me that we are again trying to fix the problem once it has happened. Perhaps we have to start talking about addressing the problem before it has happened. I know I have said this over and over again, but you are always going to have indigenous people leaving their communities to drink in another place, and you are going to have them drinking in an unacceptable way, a way that is not conducive to healthy living, and then you are going to get bad behaviour. While you forbid Aboriginal people to drink in their own backyards, they will drink in my backyard.
They have the right to drink, we gave them that right many years ago, but we have put a scenario there that is aimed at making them become bad citizens. Anyone in Australia has the right to drink, unless you have a prohibition order against you. Why do we make it so difficult that the only way they can drink - and we are talking about the itinerants - is to come into town, drink hot wine, port or beer, usually in someone’s backyard and causes problems? Until we really start thinking about addressing where it starts, all these things that we want to do to stop this antisocial behaviour is a bit late, like after the horse has bolted we are trying to shut the gate. We should have been shutting the gate a long time ago, before it happened.
We had some great programs. Perhaps the minister could give us some idea of how many people in our gaols - and we are talking about those who have committed a criminal offence - are there because of alcohol problems. It would be interesting to know what sort of stats we are looking at. The feedback I get from Correctional Services is that many of these people who have committed violent crimes are, in fact, when they dry out in gaol, good decent people. They are pliable, easy, they like to learn in the horticultural part of the gaols - all those sort of things they like to get involved in. It is in that instant when they are too drunk that they cause the problems.
I also know that Correctional Services have some tremendous work programs. I do not know whether I have talked to you about this, but we seem also to need some sort of facility where these people are going to be nurtured. It is no point in going through this program, then opening the gaol door and letting them walk out because, sure as eggs, where do most of them end up now? Back in the creek. I had a great example of one who was on community work, who had a job lined up, who had been attending that job for many weeks, the employers were happy to have them, who was put out of gaol and into a hostel. His mates came around that night and he disappeared, and that was the end of him; he was a lost soul. That soul could have been, in fact, gainfully employed, off the grog and not causing problems.
This is what I mean: we are trying to do something after the problem. We need to look at how we can fix it before we get the problem. I commend the many practices in Correctional Services which try to assist these people when they are in gaol to change their way of life and become responsible citizens. However, I believe we need some sort of half-way house just to make sure they succeed. Why do we always set them up to fail? It is a shame.
When people are on these treatment programs, will they be in some sort of hostel accommodation? Will they be in accommodation like CAAPU that has accommodation where they are given meals and generally looked after, or will they be let into the communities and expected to come to these programs each day? I wonder whether that will work. Will it be a case of, they are returned to their community and still expected to front up for treatment each day, or what? Just give us an idea of the practicalities of what you are going to do and how it is going to happen, because there are already treatment programs: detox through DASA and CAAPU in Alice Springs. Voluntary entry into the program is already there, so I hope we are not just duplicating the system. If people can be ordered through the court, I take it that they still have to do it; it still has to be voluntary because, if they do not do it, there are repercussions. We already have a system in place for people who wish to go on these programs. I am wondering how you are going to do it.
As alcohol problems also affect families, will the families be involved in the rehabilitation? Will you get the family together so they can address the problem as a unit, rather than one person in isolation? Quite often, it is a family problem. I am interested to know how you will go about the treatment and the counselling that will be needed. What happens if an offender who is on one of these programs is given or offered alcohol by a relative and, basically, cannot say no? That happens quite often. Will that offender then be punished because of the coercion of a relative, or someone else? Will there be flexibility enough to know that that offender has been under a tremendous amount of stress from a relative or some sort of cultural relationship? I am interested, minister, in finding out exactly how carefully the offender in the program will be supported. Also, what agencies will be involved in ensuring these people are given the support they want? In anything we do, it is fine to have legislation to say ‘this it is, it is good’. However, if we do not implement it well, and put in the support measures, we could easily find we are not achieving anything at all.
I know the member for Nelson said this, but is it true you did not consult with your Regional Crime Prevention Committees? Or did you consult with them? That needs to be clarified. If you did not, perhaps you need to defer it a bit longer. Perhaps we should be looking at this bill in another month’s time to give us some time to get out there and make sure people understand.
I understand that the Legal Aid Commission has made comments to you. They are concerned that it may be targeting people. They are concerned at the fines that might come about as a penalty; that, again, people might get caught in the fine recovery. They are also unsure whether this is a good law and I believe they might even mount a legal challenge to it. I guess you will be able to fill us in on the detail of that because NAAJA have obviously fed that back to you; they said they had made these comments to you. I am interested to know your response to NAAJA and the concerns that they have raised.
Antisocial behaviour is one of those terms we are throwing around now that has almost become meaningless. Antisocial behaviour: what do you mean? What are we really talking about? All alcoholics do not engage in antisocial behaviour. Alcoholism is not necessarily a crime. To get drunk should not be a crime, in my opinion; it is only a crime when you commit a criminal offence. That is what we should be talking about. That is what I do not understand about the CLP’s policy. Perhaps they can explain exactly what they are doing. There is a lot of anguish in the community over problems of antisocial behaviour. There is a lot of anger in the community because they do not feel they are getting the protection and the help that they need.
In the last couple of weeks in Alice Springs, the crimes we have seen, which may or may not have been alcohol-related, have just been awful. There are far too many Aboriginal people killing Aboriginal people. There are far too many Aboriginal people hurting Aboriginal people - hurting their wives, their children, and each other. The Accident and Emergency Department at the hospital do some stats on how many of those cases are alcohol-related incidents. As well as that, have a look at your renal patients. How many have been brought about because of the abuse of alcohol? I keep not wanting to go down that road, but that seems to be a real problem for us to address.
Alcohol is causing distress in our neighbourhoods. It is destroying the lives of people and we just seem to be scratching the surface. We are saying: ‘Okay, if you do this we are going to fix you, dear’. I know many people in this House have said it many times: until the lifestyle in our communities and town camps is such that it makes people feel good about themselves, take pride in themselves, they will stay in this self-destruct mode that they seem to be in.
I support your bill and wish you luck with it. I am interested to see how it works out. Let us hope that the end result will be a good result for everyone. However, most of all, let us hope that we can prevent people getting to this stage before they need this assistance or this intervention. Let us see if we can get back to basics and start fixing it before it has begun.
Ms McCARTHY (Arnhem): Madam Speaker, I respond to the Alcohol Court Bill and antisocial behaviour legislation. I have listened to quite a few of the comments made here today. Perhaps it was the members for Nelson and Arafura where I heard the words that I was really waiting to hear amidst all this debate; that is, the word ‘compassion’ to recognise that the issue of antisocial behaviour goes far deeper. When we talk about the alcohol court and rehabilitation, we have to ask ourselves what it is that occurs in rehabilitation? What is it that occurs in places like CAAPU, CAAPS and FORWAARD in Darwin and Alice Springs? Rehabilitation begins with the self. It begins with understanding why you are who you are; why it is that you have been so addicted to a particular substance - in this case, alcohol; why it is that you have lived with alcohol to such a destructive point where your own families live with it as well. The core issue of what happens in rehabilitation is about the self; it is about the healing process of an individual.
I have heard the words ‘respected citizens’, ‘decent citizens’ ‘take your place as citizens in society’ and, believe me, most people want to do that. They want to be active citizens in society. However, most of these people do not have the start that many others do in life. I reflect upon my own constituents of Arnhem, and my own family in Borroloola, and recognise how strong the grog is, and how it chokes the very life of the future that we have and hold for our children.
I hear what is happening in Alice Springs. I have read the debates and the newspapers. I have heard the radio broadcasts. I am acutely aware, not only as the member for Arnhem but as a citizen here in the Northern Territory, of how deeply affecting it is for all people. I drive up and down the Stuart Highway to go out to my communities, and I experience it myself - not just as a politician, but as a traveller. I remind my parliamentary colleagues that what we have to be careful about within this debate is recognising that, as the political leaders of the Northern Territory, we also have a role, a duty, an obligation, to conduct ourselves and display leadership in such a way that it has an effect on the very people we are here to represent. It is our attitudes that speak volumes.
Going down the highway, I had an experience recently where a colleague was with me and I saw it first-hand. We say it is not just about Aboriginal people but, in this particular incident, I will focus on that. The attitudes against antisocial behaviour in places are such that you are no longer welcome to walk into a store, or to use their rest rooms. You are made to feel not like a citizen. These experiences are very real; it happened to me just a couple of weeks ago. It happened to me and my family. I observed the behaviour of those people in that particular service station, and I had to remind myself that, within all this debate about antisocial behaviour, it really reflects on our attitudes in society. People want governments - local governments, the Territory government, the Commonwealth government - to do something; to do more, and so we should. However, so too should other members of society who have businesses, whether it is tourism, the shopkeepers on the highway, the Aboriginal groups or legal services around the Northern Territory, or health centres - we all have a responsibility to care for those people in society who are less privileged and who have those problems that we see every day.
There are many report and investigations into the patterns of alcohol use and misuse. I would like to make comment on one by the Menzies School of Health Research, d’Abbs and Jones, in particular. They cautioned against the wholesale use of the term ‘antisocial behaviour’ saying we have to be careful about how we use that term. They recognise that public drunkenness is a serious problem and one that clearly causes frustration and anger among residents.
I commend the minister for his courageous position of trying to find the delicate balance - and it is a delicate balance - between what we see as obvious and very real concerns right across the Northern Territory with the housing concerns, and the alcohol court. It is to be commended.
However, as the member for Arnhem, I also call upon my parliamentary colleagues to look closer at the rehabilitation aspect - the whole healing component right throughout the Territory, not just in Darwin and Alice Springs, considerably more so in Katherine, and even more so in our remote communities – so that it is a process where all communities are a part of the rehabilitation that we so desperately need.
With the housing component, it is important for those who come from the communities and go into a Northern Territory Housing Commission place, to try to make a start and a life for themselves. However, the way it is with our Aboriginal families, with the cultural ties, the extended ties, we naturally welcome so many other people into our homes, more so than perhaps an non-Aboriginal person would. It is no criticism; it is just a reality of the way we live our lives. Those people bring with them addictions to alcohol or other substances. They also bring with them the lack of education they may have received; all the worries and troubles that they have; and sickness - whether it is to do with renal disease and other sorts of sicknesses that need attention in Darwin. Therefore, for them to be able to say that their houses can be dry is a really important step. Again I commend, in particular, the Housing Minister.
Within that, I also urge, through the housing process, that these families who experience such affliction have the real support of officers who come to the home to make sure they do not have to go beyond this new system of the acceptable behaviour agreement, which is the next step to eviction. I am confident, in talking with the Housing Minister, that there are things in place to ensure that that will not happen. However, I am confident that I will be watching those things very closely.
We have heard many times of the concerns of indigenous incarceration. I heard the member for Araluen mock the government for such a high incarceration rate. These are issues which are deeply concerning, but I say to the Leader of the Opposition and, indeed, the opposition: you are not blameless. Be very careful.
I remember covering the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody as a journalist in 1988, 1989 and 1990. I am acutely aware, as indeed are my colleagues, of those figures. I would like to reassure my constituents that I will be doing everything I can to ensure that your thoughts and your concerns are being heard.
In closing, Madam Speaker, I urge long-term planning so that we can review this process at a time that is appropriate to the minister to ensure that the goals of this legislation are met. I urge that we keep an open dialogue with community, legal groups, and indigenous groups across the Northern Territory. I must reiterate to all parliamentary members to be acutely aware of the leadership role you have in seeing genuine change in such an important social issue facing the Northern Territory. Be vigilant, be just, and do it with compassion.
Mr HENDERSON (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Madam Speaker, I would like to outline how this legislation will give police extra tools to target antisocial behaviour and to combat the use of alcohol.
Of significance to police are provisions in the Antisocial Behaviour (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2005 to declare restricted premises which will prohibit the consumption or possession of liquor at private premises. There are existing provisions in the Liquor Act allowing an area of land to be declared a dry or restricted area. In urban areas, the existing 2 km law, which prohibits the consumption of alcohol within a 2 km radius of liquor outlets, only applies to public places. Police apply this law regularly, dispersing groups of drinkers, tipping out their alcohol, and moving them on before they commit crimes or engage in antisocial behaviour.
This new law will complement our existing dry area provisions, allowing people to declare their own private residence dry. The new laws will allow the Licensing Commission to make a declaration that prohibits the consumption or possession of alcohol at private premises. This includes privately-owned land and houses, rented premises or land and buildings open to use by the public such as shopping centres, churches, hospitals and schools. Once the Licensing Commission has made a dry declaration of a private premise, police will have the power to enter and search that premise and persons at the premise without a warrant if they believe, on reasonable grounds, that a person has contravened the declaration. Police may also seize any opened or unopened containers of alcohol found at the premise. The pecuniary penalty, maximum of $500, applies in contravention of the declaration, which can be dealt with by the court or by issue of a summary infringement notice.
Owners, occupiers, or their representatives, will be able to make application to declare private premises dry, allowing Territorians to take action with the full support of the courts and police to prevent alcohol-related problems occurring in their homes or business. Police will also be given input into this process. For example, interested persons can apply to have premises opened to and used by the public declared dry. This includes police officers. Police will also be among those parties consulted by the commission before they make a dry declaration. All too often, police are called in to sort out domestic and other disputes at private residences as a result of excessive alcohol consumption. These laws will arm them with a new tool that will allow them to prevent these sorts of incidents occurring in the first place if that residence has been declared dry. It will allow police to intervene before alcohol-fuelled trouble starts.
The Alcohol Court Bill 2005 will give legislative capacity for both alcohol intervention orders and prohibition orders to be issued by alcohol courts operating at Darwin and Alice Springs. Alcohol intervention orders can be instituted as a condition of release, or as a condition of a good behaviour bond pursuant to the Sentencing Act, or as a condition of bail pursuant to the Bail Act. Police will have the power to arrest an offender whom they believe has contravened an alcohol intervention order. Police may also arrest an offender for breach of a prohibition order when it is incorporated into the terms of the good behaviour bond or forms part of an existing bail condition. This arms them with a further tool to break the cycle of alcohol abuse and related crime.
The police are at the frontline of the campaign and are targeting violence and antisocial behaviour on a number of fronts. In Darwin at the last election, government announced $2.4m would be spent over four years to fund the new public place patrols which target antisocial behaviour hot spots. We have delivered on that commitment and 10 new Aboriginal Community Police Officers and two new police vehicles have now boosted the availability of police resources to run dedicated and proactive patrols of public spaces. These patrols are about getting people affected by excessive alcohol consumption off the streets before they harm themselves and others. In the first six weeks of operation, the new patrols, working with the general duties officers, achieved significant results. More than 2700 people were taken into protective custody to sobering-up shelters and the watch-house; more than 3000 litres of alcohol was tipped out; and more than 7000 people moved on before offences were committed.
This legislation is all about breaking the cycle of alcohol abuse that we saw all too often and for too many years now across the streets of the Northern Territory. It is not aimed at any one particular group, but is all about behaviour, and that is what the legislation targets.
The Leader of the Opposition, in a very schizophrenic contribution to the debate earlier today, really did not know whether she was Arthur or Martha on a number of issues. She accused the government of instituting this legislation that would provide a ‘get out of gaol free’ card and tried to run the line that people who were charged with serious charges of violence and assault could, somehow, plea bargain their abuse of alcohol to get out of gaol, and it was all part of the Labor government’s strategy to somehow be soft on violent crime. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is a sad day that our gaols are full across the Northern Territory, but the reality is that people who do commit crimes of violence and are convicted of those crimes will go to gaol for a term of punishment, but also further protecting the community and the families of those particular people.
She was also very dismissive of the alcohol court, said we did not need it, and that somehow it would be totally ineffective and, essentially, that there would be no improved outcomes as a result. Well, the opposition did not oppose the introduction of the drug court, and my colleague, the Attorney-General, can certainly point to very significant achievements as a result of that initiative. The alcohol court will be run along similar lines.
The opposition has also been very dismissive of the police moving people on. This is the same opposition that, when in government just prior to the 2001 election, introduced, in a very theatrical way, legislation that supposedly gave the police powers to move people on. At the time, the opposition’s argument was that the police did not have the powers to move people on and there needed to be very specific legislation to give police those powers to disperse groups of people before problems occurred. We argued at the time that police already had those powers. Over the Christmas/New Year period, over 7000 people were moved on before offences were committed. Alcohol was tipped out, people were dispersed before a problem was committed. We did not need theatrical legislation that the opposition introduced. Now they say that police should not be moving people on when they were the same party that tried to say the police did not have those powers and legislation had to be provided. It was a very schizophrenic contribution from the Leader of the Opposition.
She also said that, somehow, police were going soft on summary offences; that people were not being charged under that legislation. She talked about 700 or 800 people. The figures that I have - and she only has to go to the annual report - is that in 2004-05 there were 2898 public order offences across the Northern Territory. That is down from 3138 in 2002-03 largely as a result of increased police presence and moving people on before offences were committed.
Lastly, but not least, we are starting to see signs of improvement across the Northern Territory. We have a long way to go. However, I will go to an interview on Thursday the 16 February 2006 on Top FM, Territory Talk, Peter Perrin with Peter Paroulakis who, I recall, once stood for the seat of the Northern Territory for the CLP against Warren Snowdon back in - maybe the late 1980s was it? Or early 1990s; it was certainly one of Warren’s earlier campaigns. Peter Paroulakis has been trading in the mall for many years now and he is a very decent gentleman. Mr Paroulakis said:
That being the problems of drunkenness and itinerants:
He then went on to say that there has been a much higher level of police presence in the mall, mobile vans which were there two or three times a day, foot patrols and bicycle patrols. The reporter then said:
He said:
There are pockets around the Northern Territory where things are starting to improve as a result of the increased police presence. In the mall today, I was talking to some of the traders who are very happy with the cruise ships in the mall, the police, the Larrakia intervention service all working well together. It has been a huge improvement for the mall traders.
For the opposition to come in here and say it is doom and gloom, it is getting worse than it has ever been, here is one of their own members - I do not know if Peter Paroulakis is still a member of the CLP – who said he has been trading in the mall over the last 30 years and the situation has improved quite considerably.
The police are at the front end of a lot of the work in this particular issue across the Northern Territory, whether it is remote communities or our urban communities. I am confident that these additional powers the police have will lead to improved outcomes. However, what we want to see as a government is the cycle of alcohol abuse being broken; that people who are chronic alcoholics get the opportunity to look at themselves in the mirror and, through rehabilitation, have an opportunity to clean up their lives and get back on to the straight and narrow.
As I said during the election campaign on any number of occasions, if it was somebody in my family who was being picked up all of the time then I would want something to be done about it. This legislation gives the police and the courts the additional funding for the rehabilitation services. The Health Minister and the Attorney-General advised there was some $9m a year already spent on rehabilitation across the Northern Territory. An extra $560 000 a year is going in as a result of these initiatives. We should see further improvements across the Northern Territory.
We know that there are a lot of deep and complex issues that go to the heart of these problems. We do not have the time or the foresight to get into that particular debate tonight. However, the effort that this government is putting into improving education in the bush, in particular, in years to come is going to go a long way to reducing this sort of behaviour as well.
Madam Speaker, I commend the Attorney-General for bringing this legislation to the House today. This is a government that is making serious inroads into this problem that has been neglected for too many years. We will monitor this legislation as it takes effect. I am sure if we need to make further amendments in the years to come, we will do so.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I recall before the election the Chief Minister saying that she was going to get tough on drunks. She went public in the media in her advertising that she was going to gaol drunks. Literally within hours of announcing that she had won the election, she started to spin. She has been spinning ever since. It is suddenly now: ‘Oh no, we are not going to deal with them now, we are going to rehabilitate them’. Now we see this amendment that, effectively, does nothing. It says to somebody who has committed a crime: ‘You are going to gaol, or you do this’.
You can bet your last dollar, everybody who faces gaol will say: ‘I do not want to go to gaol. Let me go to this alternate treatment and I will try to dry out’. As the Leader of the Opposition said, you wait until somebody has become a victim of this drunk before you do anything. It is not appropriate. You should be dealing with drunks right from the very beginning, before they end up causing many victims around them. You should be dealing with them to try to prevent them from getting drunk. Try to get them off the streets as early as you can and put them in places where they can dry out; receive treatment and receive honest rehabilitation and come back to make some meaning out of their lives because, at the moment, they are absolutely not.
What concerns me about this amendment bill, which is in cognate with things that really need not be cognate, is the way it has been drafted. We had this fanfare at the launch of the Alcohol Framework 18 months, two years - perhaps even longer ago – then we saw nothing. Out of it came this, out of the wilderness.
The Darwin Regional Crime Prevention Council, which was formed from the recommendations from the Alcohol Framework, wrote a letter to all MLAs - so I assume the Chief Minister, the Attorney-General and every minister in this Chamber would have received this letter, and also members of the backbench in government. Not one of them has chosen to address this letter that was written to them. It is an indictment on the government for ignoring the committee they set up themselves. The first line says:
It goes on to say:
The level of alcohol-related crime in the community is sufficient that the government’s committee, the Darwin Regional Crime Prevention Council, expressed the view that there is a lot of alcohol-related crime.
It says, and I will read again:
Unfortunately, I believe this letter is going to fall on deaf ears. Obviously, the Attorney-General is not going to defer this legislation this afternoon, and here is a committee that this government has set up which is now being completely ignored.
The letter went on to say:
In your own electorate, Madam Speaker, you know about the case of the man who came out to address a group of drunks, asking them to desist what they were doing, because he was trying to get some sleep.
Madam SPEAKER: I would say that it is actually the electorate of Millner.
Dr LIM: I thought Coconut Grove was part of Nightcliff, anyway, member for Millner. This man was then followed home by people within the drinking group, suffered home invasion and severe injuries, not only to himself but also to his partner. People in the Northern Territory are sick and tired of this sort of behaviour in our community. They have been crying out to the government for a long time now, saying: ‘Do something about it and fix it’. Unfortunately, what this government has done is come up with this rhetoric that, in the end, will not address the issue of anarchy in our streets. Alcohol is one of the biggest problems we have. It is one of the causes of the antisocial behaviour that we witness every day.
A couple of hundred thousand dollars has been put aside for court clinicians, one in Alice and one in Darwin. How is the court clinician going to be able to assess these people? Who are they? This Health Minister cannot even get enough doctors for our hospitals. How is he is going to find two more doctors to be court clinicians? Give me a break! Where are you going to find them?
The Country Liberal Party came out with a policy that will deal specifically with the drugs. The member for Arafura said: ‘Oh, gee, this is a racist thing’. It is not about indigenous people, white people, or Chinese; it is about drunks. If it happens that there are more indigenous drunks than other drunks, then so be it. If there are more white drunks, then there will be the same consequence for them. It is not about racism, and if anybody dares to say that, then think about your own racist feelings, or how you try to diminish anybody’s argument by labelling them as being racist.
In the government’s own figures, 22 000 drunks have been put into protective custody in the last 12 months. That is a huge indictment on the government. Obviously, the policies they have to try to rehabilitate, or repatriate people who have come in from the bush, are not working. They are staying in town, getting drunk more and more, and it goes round and round in a circle. This is a revolving door business.
You said before that the alcohol court would only gaol people once they have committed an offence, and with a resulting victim. Do you want to do that every time? You are going to wait for a drunk to hurt somebody, damage somebody, or steal something, before you deal with it? Territorians expect safe streets to walk about anywhere without being molested or abused. I do not want my wife walking down the street and called a ‘white f’’ing c’. I do not want that …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex!
Dr LIM: I am not swearing.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, in parliamentary language when it is read it is obvious what the words are. It is considered unparliamentary, so I ask you to withdraw that.
Dr LIM: I withdraw that and say that I do not want my wife to walk down the street being sworn at by itinerants. I do not want that. They do not do that to me and I appreciate that because, obviously, I have a relationship with them. That is quite different. They see somebody white walking down the street and they swear at them. That is not acceptable - not acceptable at all.
The CLP says if you do the wrong thing you have to pay the penalty. If the Community Harmony program has worked then we will not see this huge rise in the number of drunks on our streets. Almost every day I get e-mails from constituents, business people, complaining about drunks lying around on the green parks of Alice Springs, in the middle of the mall, or next to the dry river bed. It poses huge problems for tourists. You heard the member for Nelson speak about driving to Katherine at 8 pm one night, two weeks ago. It worries him, if the environment is like that and he feels slightly intimidated, what it is like for somebody who is unaccustomed to such a public display of antisocial behaviour?
We need to be tough on drunks. It is time for this government to say: ‘Enough is enough, we are not going to put up with this anymore’. Particularly in Alice Springs, where I come from, people are saying we do not want to see anymore of this sort of thing. The CLP, briefly, would do this: if a person is apprehended and taken into a sobering-up shelter, their home, a police station, or to another place, they will have their name entered into a central register that is to be maintained by the commissioner. When a person’s name is entered upon the register and that individual’s name has entered in the register three times in a six-month period, then that person must be brought before court to be assessed by that court for the purposes of making an order. I will keep reading from the policy document:
If you treat the drunk as a person who can be rescued, put them in a place where they can dry out and undergo treatment, then I believe you are giving this person a chance to come back as a productive member of our society.
There is very little time having this cognate bill. This alcohol court business alone would take the full half-hour of debate. However, we have to deal with the housing and tenancy issues as well. Earlier in the debate, we heard the Minister for Housing speak about how this amendment will also help in dealing with Territory Housing tenants who are causing destruction to the community and huge disturbance with drinking parties and large groups of people occupying homes, and that this legislation will be able to deal with these tenants.
My first question is: how determined is Territory Housing to ensure the tenants they put into public housing are ones who will comply? We would not have received the number of complaints we have been getting in the last four years if Territory Housing was doing a better job. I know of complainants who have rung Territory Housing with their issues and, because they ring a lot and become nuisance complainers - if you would like to call it that as they ring so often - when they complain they are labelled racist by Territory Housing officers. If that is the case, if that is true, that is a problem. I do not believe any public servant should label a complainant a ‘racist’. It is important the public service takes the complaints objectively and then investigates objectively.
Because somebody complains every day, there might be other issues involved which brings the complaints about; it needs to be sorted out. If that is an issue then Territory Housing needs to try to mediate a meeting between the neighbours and try to resolve the difference. Sometimes, it is only cultural differences, or different cultural expectations that causes racist antagonism between neighbours. Sometimes, it is a cultural misinterpretation.
Take this instance: one night about 10 pm I was rung by a constituent complaining about a huge mob of people next door. He was concerned that he and his wife were the only ones at home. I went to visit the constituent and, when I got there, there were three or four cars of people next door; one car was driving around doing U-turns along the short street. The people who rang me were indoors; they were okay and when I talked to them they were fairly angry and said to me they felt intimidated. However, there was no overt activity that one could describe as being aggressive. I spoke to the people next door and asked if I could help them. One of them recognised me and said: ‘Oh, I know you. What is your name again?’ I told him my name and we talked and I asked him where he was from and what he was doing. It was a very hot evening and most of the family were outside sitting on bonnets of cars and on the lawns, talking and enjoying the cool breeze of the evening. There was no real issue, except that there were a lot of them there. When I broke the ice the whole issue disappeared.
I believe there are ways for Territory Housing to deal with that sort of thing - try to mediate a meeting and keep emotions out; try to work out an understanding between neighbours. More often than not, you can find a very easy path through that.
However, when the minister spoke about expecting tenants to sign an ABA, I do not know how easy that is going to be. First of all, Territory Housing has to determine that this particular tenant has been a troublesome tenant in the first place, which means somebody has to make a complaint. This complaint has to be made repeatedly before you would label somebody a problem tenant, which would then require that tenant to sign an ABA.
That is what is happening now: people are complaining about tenants of Territory Housing. Why do you not act on it straightaway, rather than going the ABA route? Granted, the ABA route will give you 28 days grace so you can act a lot more quickly than you would if you had to go through the normal court process, through which it may take years to evict somebody. Apart from that, I believe if Territory Housing were to be a bit more proactive and get on with training people and giving them the capacity to understand urban living in the first instance, you would not have as many of those issues.
I remember in our time we assisted tenants with a formal document that they could pin up on their front door saying that their tenancy or house was only available for certain people who were the only people allowed in the house. That document was pasted on the front door. At least, the tenant could say to uninvited guests: ‘I am sorry, your name is not on this list, you cannot come to this house’. That gave them some empowerment to be able to say no. If you do not give people the empowerment to say no, then you cannot stop relatives and friends from visiting and they come in large numbers.
The Minister for Housing said the ABA will apply not only to the tenants but their visitors. How are the visitors going to know that there is an ABA in the first place? You are also not giving the tenant any power to turn people away. The ABA does not help that; what helps is something to say ‘No, you are not allowed to come in’. That is, I believe, what was possible under the old system where we could put out a document under the letterhead of Territory Housing saying only the people on the list of names or legitimate tenants can be inside that house, and the rest have to leave.
When you get people coming from the bush to live in an urban situation - and I have said it time and time again - you have to give people the capacity or the ability to live in an urban setting. It is quite different. This might sound funny but, in my teenage years before I came to Australia, I was sat down at a table where there was a full setting - three knives, three forks, dessert spoons, dessert forks, the whole dinner setting - and taught how to use the dinner setting. That might be just a small thing but, if you do not know how to use a stove or a hot water system, and do not really understand a proper toilet cistern system, then you are bound to damage it before too long. You have to give these people some training; show them how to use an urban home.
Neighbours have rung me and said: ‘Limmy, new tenants have just moved in across the street. It is a man and a woman and a couple of children and a bag of clothes, and that is all they had. Not a stick of furniture, no crockery, no cutlery, nothing’. They expect to live in this urban home. It is no wonder they fail to become good neighbours, and this government does not put anything in place to provide that.
Last week, the minister spoke about the new group that he started with William Tilmouth and others to provide urban living skills. It has to get going straightaway. The sooner you do it, the better. The quicker you train people up so they know how to do it, the better. Otherwise, this will just keep on going and you will bring in neighbours who do not understand the environment or how to use the home. You will then continue to have issues with others living there trying to just have a peaceful life.
When you have Territory Housing putting a tenant in there who already has issues in the past, and you say to them: ‘Okay, you live there now. If the neighbour has an issue with you, the neighbour can put in a complaint or can put a complaint to court and take you to court and try to get you evicted’. If Territory Housing is not prepared to go through the evidentiary process to prove that a tenant is not doing the right thing, why does the government expect, if your agency is not prepared to do that, that you pass on the responsibility to the neighbour next door? Why are you putting that on the neighbour? This is, after all, Territory Housing’s responsibility. What I believe has happened here now is that it is really the government saying: ‘Territory Housing, you can sit back now. You do not have to worry about it, let them do their own thing’. What you do then is create a situation where a neighbour has to take out a court action against another, rather than saying: ‘Hang on, let the public service, the third party, objectively do that’. You are putting them into a situation where neighbours are at adversarial situations with each other. That is really not the right way to engender good neighbourhoods in our communities.
While landlords are not allowed to take this complaint to court, they are allowed to provide evidence. It is strange that you see Territory Housing being the major landlord with most of the problem tenants. That is the one body I would have thought would have the biggest responsibility to deal with those tenants. I recall early this year, the Labour Prime Minister of Britain announced that, in an effort to restore respect in society, his Labour government would establish a network of 50 units like a ‘sin bin’ for the most destructive families. What he was going to do was to say: ‘If you are disruptive, you can be out of the neighbourhood and you can live somewhere else in isolation for a while, and then earn the right to come back’. That is from a Labour Prime Minister. Maybe this government should really consider taking a leaf out of Tony Blair’s book and be a lot firmer with our neighbours from hell.
When you bring three different aspects of this raft of legislation into one bill, it makes it impossible for the opposition to support. There are some that have merit and could have been supported by the opposition, perhaps with some discussion. However, the opposition will have great difficulty supporting the alcohol court. It is not a serious attempt at dealing with drunks. Our community in Central Australia is screaming out every day now saying that they have had enough ...
Ms CARNEY: Madam Speaker, I move that the member be granted an extension of time, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Dr LIM: I will be very brief now, Madam Speaker. Our communities are saying enough is enough and we need to seriously get the drunks off our street, get our mall back, and get our suburban streets back so that we can walk in safety. We want that now. We do not want to wait any longer, until one of us gets hurt, before a drunk will be taken off the streets. Do it now. We want our community back so that we can live in Central Australia without all the humbugging that we have been faced with every day.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, when you look at the topic to hand, which is looking at antisocial behaviour in our communities and a government package that is designed to alleviate some of the negative effects that such behaviour has on a community, it is not surprising that we have heard such a diversity of debate over the last four or so hours from members. When you look at what could constitute antisocial behaviour in the community, it does span everything from disgusting acts in public such as defecating in public places and urinating against trees and that sort of thing, where it is aesthetically very confronting to the community but not of lasting damage to the community as a victim, through to quite serious acts of violence and illegal acts which could also be encompassed in the term antisocial behaviour. We have heard right across the spectrum about those types of behaviour in the community - everything from youths to adults, from a whole range of contexts in which such behaviour might be offered up by members of our community to the detriment of the community as a whole.
Therein lies the root of the problem we faced when we were looking at what our government could do in combating antisocial behaviour: what do you focus on, what are the most important priorities that a government might take to this type of report? We felt that one of the key and dominant factors in antisocial behaviour, of whatever level of impact on the community, was alcohol - alcohol abuse and the harm that it visits on other community members as well as the abuser themselves. Quite clearly, as Health Minister, I would be very interested in the self-abuse of alcohol but, beyond that, you have to protect the people from victimisation in the community.
The focus of this reform package is to alleviate some of the victimisation that stems from alcohol abuse by individuals in our community. There is always politics in these issues, and there is also a lot of emotion because any one of us in this House could picture both victims and perpetrators of this type of behaviour in our own communities. That is what we are here for; we are to represent the overall interests of the communities, the parts that elected us, the overall Northern Territory community. Therefore, it is not surprising that there will be politics and emotion in these issues. For that reason, it is not surprising also to see the opposition and, indeed, other members position themselves in political terms about what they want to say to the electorate. That is, I guess, inevitable given the nature of this reform. However, I remind members that when you are dealing with conflict social behaviours such as alcohol abuse and antisocial behaviour, politics is a very uncertain friend and so is emotion. While emotion might lead you to take some reform actions, it has to be evidence and proven practice that is going to inform a good policy.
Over the long period of time that this reform has been worked up, we have constantly referenced to the opinion of experts through the task force that was charged with developing the detail of this legislation, and to the accumulated experience around Australia and other parts of the world on what works and what does not work. That is why we have brought in a very strong theme of rehabilitation as the only way you can tackle alcohol dependency and addiction and all of the behaviours that flow from it, with any chance of having an effective intervention.
There is no convincing evidence that short-term removal from the community, for example, does anything to alleviate dependence on alcohol. You would only need to go to either of our prisons and talk to the prison officers there. One of the great frustrations is that they are seeing alcohol-related offenders whose offending is related to alcohol abuse, simply reappear time and time again at the front door of the prison to be, yet again, a customer of that facility. That really should indicate that prison, of itself, is not a proven way of breaking people out of the cycle of alcohol dependency and the behaviours that flow from it.
The other thing, by way of introduction to my comments, is that there has been commentary, probably over the last couple of weeks and some comments during the debate, about the need to slow down, have consultations, and to talk to everyone about this. We brought this package in, as announced and as presented to the Territory community during the election of last year. It was very clearly spelled out in a series of media releases, media events and public debate which was, at times, quite intense through the election campaign. Both sides of politics realised it was a defining issue and there was a lot of work put in by both sides to present themselves and their proposals to the electorate. We believe we have been mandated to bring this reform through the parliament. I can assure members that the contents of the package that we have brought here, in its legislative aspects, fully accords with what we said to the Territory electorate during the election campaign. As we all know, when politicians are out addressing the electorate they will talk to different groups with different emphasis. However, the details that were put in writing during the campaign are all honoured within the package we have before us today.
I feel bound to comment that part of the members’ positioning that has been going on over the last number of days, and particularly today, is dealing with who in our community is part of this problem. It was good to hear the member for Greatorex saying this is not a problem with race; this is a problem of drunks. Some of our contributions, from the members for Arnhem and Arafura, also made that point; that we are dealing with the harm and victimisation that flows from alcohol abuse. That is what the focus of this is. To simply say it is an itinerant or indigenous problem dishonours the intent of this legislation. We want to be just as concerned, for example, about three patrol cars attending Melanka Lodge during a late night drunken brawl of their patrons, as we are about itinerants abusing alcohol and behaving antisocially in the local park or in the long grass in Darwin. It is all part of the blight of alcohol in our community, and the provisions in these reform bills are framed to apply to every Territorian in our communities, without fear, favour or context. If there is harm being done as a result of alcohol abuse, that person should and can be brought before the court and ordered to confront the problems that their addiction is causing to other people as well as themselves.
Further to that point, it does not take very much acumen to work out - in one study of alcohol in Central Australia, based on the Liquor Commission records of grog sales in the alcohol outlets of that area of the Territory, six million litres of alcoholic beverages were consumed by Central Australians in a one 12-month period - that the Aboriginal population could not drink six million litres in a year and survive the experience. They would be drinking something in the order of 400 L each, man, woman, and child, let alone the adults who do drink, given that a lot of Aboriginal adults do not drink. It defies logic to say that this is purely an issue which exists as an itinerant and indigenous problem. It would dishonour the intent of this reform to contain the scope of the discussion purely to that, as the opposition has been trying to do today.
We are going to go with the member for Greatorex; he has quite rightly pointed out that we have to deal with drunks in the community. It is not a question of where they are drunk or who they are; it is a question of what harm and victimisation it causes within the community to which they belong.
Going to some of the points which were made in more detail, it is important - as I put forward in response to one of the questions during Question Time – to look at this reform package in the light of the responses which the government has put out before, or sees as being part of the overall response. There are different levels of victimisation which flow from the action of drunks in our community. The worst, of course, are things such as drunken rapes or killings, or extremely brutal assaults on victims in the community, as an adjunct to uncontrolled drinking and emotions which arise when that occurs. Those matters will go to the Supreme Court; they will be dealt with under the laws and with the full force of the law. There will not be any option of diversion into alcohol rehabilitation in those cases. The Supreme Court will deal with them; it is not the alcohol court.
The Magistrates Court will form the alcohol court, and that will have two levels at which it can choose to put orders on the offender. In all cases, the people before that court will have offended, but with different degrees of victimisation arising from the offences. For the more serious offences, the intervention orders are part of a suspended sentence arrangement which means that the sentence is still applied and hangs there, and the person escapes that sentence only to the point that they successfully continue and complete the rehabilitation which is ordered by the court. If they breach, they are back before the court and, if they breach in a way which shows they have no commitment to rehabilitating themselves, they go to gaol. That is the strong enforcing principle within the intervention orders.
Prohibition orders are designed to keep the offenders away from further abuse of alcohol in the life they return to in the community. They constrain liquor licensees from providing alcohol and they also constrain the individual on what they can do and where they can do it within the community. That would be applied to lower levels of victimisation in terms of whatever that person had done prior to coming before the court. Below that again are all the protective custody and summary-type offences and responses that we have in our communities through Night Patrols, wardens, ACPOs and police. There are many people being taken out of risk situations or prevented from offering violence and other antisocial behaviours to the rest of the community that are being dealt with day by day. The opposition has made much of the 21 800 and something apprehensions that have occurred each year, quite wrongly claiming that 21 800 separate individuals have come to the notice of one or another of our patrolling mechanisms. There are many high repeat protective custodies and the number of people actually abusing alcohol is, thankfully, nowhere near the figure the opposition has been claiming. I hope members can see that this reform package sits across that spectrum of offending and antisocial behaviour that does occur in our communities.
The three elements of the package are, obviously, the alcohol court and the ability to compel alcohol abusers into rehabilitation - take them out of circulation. One of the key offender groups that we would want to see taken in, in such a way, would be people who are offering violence, particularly domestic violence, to women and kids. The opposition might say: ‘Oh, it is only 80 people’. Well, it may be 80 people, it may be more; it is a question of how the assessment goes in the court processes as to how many offenders would be put into those arrangements. If this is targeted as well as we believe it is, we should see a considerable impact on violent offending in our communities, particularly towards family members and associates of people who are simply not able to handle their drinking habit. That is a pretty good place to target, because I cannot personally imagine many levels of victimisation above that that we should ignore or not deal with in our community.
In targeting that aspect of this reform package, we have been very aware of other undertakings that we have made to the Northern Territory electorate about the need to move beyond the very effective work that we have done on property crime, through its relationship to drug abuse, to violent crime and to alcohol. This is the next phase in trying to reduce the offending levels of antisocial behaviour in our community.
That is one aspect of this which is at quite a serious level of victimisation in our community, one of the most serious levels and one of the most concerning. If the Police minister can tell me, as a result of the new focus within the police work on domestic violence and some of these mechanisms, that the police can now take offenders out of circulation and into rehabilitation, I will be very happy to see some impact on this terrible area of offending. We have to preserve the integrity of our family life; there is no more important thing that a government should concern itself with.
With the other two elements, the member for Braitling has mentioned, and quite rightly, that many of the households in public tenanted housing and housing around units in Alice Springs, the occupants have become so confronted by the visitors who are abusing alcohol on their premises regardless of whether they want that to happen or not. I have seen many makeshift signs around saying ‘no alcohol in this house’ or ‘no alcohol in this spot’. She quite rightly pointed out that that needs some further authority put behind it by government. We will certainly look for a very easily understood, prominent sign that can be put up if the householders want to declare a dry area over their premises.
It was good to see the member for Katherine, quite rightly, trotting out some particular incidents that have happened in Katherine. I will point out what could be done under the provisions that we have brought forward today. The priest in the church would be able to move to declare the church as a dry area, which would give that church environment greater protection in that the police can be called to deal with any drink-related behaviour around or in that church. The shopping centre, similarly, could become a dry area. It could apply to get a declaration so that anyone inside that shopping area would be subject to the provisions that will now be in this act. Taking the case of the person who stabbed the woman, depending on the level of the violence and the victimisation, that could be taken to an intervention order on that individual for assaulting the woman with a weapon, and that person could be put into up to 12 months of rehabilitation. There are three impacts directly on the examples that you brought forward in the debate.
It will be encouraged in communities through a publicity campaign following the enactment of this legislation to let everyone know what they can do to protect themselves. In the tenancy arrangements, a third party application for tenants to be evicted is one of the key provisions, as are the behaviour agreements and the ability of Territory Housing to take action against unruly tenants. I have heard commentary over the last week or so – I think it was from NTCOSS and some of the meetings that they had been conducting. I have to point out that one of the things they threw up in their commentary about it is that the government has not consulted them. It would have been an ideal opportunity for them to invite a government member to inform their meetings, because there was a lot of misinformation being spread around those meetings. We would have been very happy to provide accurate information about what is in the packages rather than having uninformed debate about this. Be that as it may, the legislation will be there for all to see and to interpret, as will the process by which we roll out the provisions and apply them in the community.
We have heard a lot about what I, as a politician, would have to say is a good little slogan that the opposition has come up with, the ‘get out of gaol card’. You only have to talk to any of the alcohol rehabilitation program facilitators in the Territory to see that confronting your demons as an alcohol dependent or addicted person is anything but an easy option. To break that cycle and to come to terms, as the member for Arnhem said, with who you are and why you have become addicted or dependent on alcohol or other substances and, even more importantly, why that translates into total disrespect of people who could be respecting and loving around you, is not an easy process, either here or anywhere in the world. I have no doubt, as the member for Nhulunbuy asserted, that a time in gaol would be much easier than a time in an intensive rehabilitation process. There is no doubt that would be challenging to the person.
I have tried to cover, in broad brush terms, some of the points which have been made. It has been a very wide-ranging debate. I will make an offer to all members such as the member for Braitling who had quite a number of more detailed questions, we are happy to lay on a briefing, or an additional briefing in the case of the member for Braitling, because there is a lot of the …
Mrs Miller: Will you look at Dillinya?
Dr TOYNE: What I will say about that is that we will look at any model which is out there as to how it is performing and whether it would be able to make a contribution. I do not think rehabilitation will stand on one model in one place. I could point to Barry Cook’s outstation in Central Australia as another example which has had some success in getting people out of the grog cycle. There are examples out there and there are things we can build additional capacity around. No fear or no favour; if it is providing some benefit we will look at it.
Quite a number of the issues which have been brought forward are more of an operational nature that will only start to be detailed; for example where people undergoing rehabilitation will live, who will supervise them, and the details of the actual rehabilitation programs. These are things which will emerge as the process is put in place and the programs are put there to support them with the funding that we have allocated to rehabilitation and to the alcohol court. We are more than happy to share those through briefings as we roll out these initiatives. I make that offer to members; there are too many detailed questions which were offered up in this debate to deal with them in the short time I have to respond. It is more efficient to have people available. We can set a time and you can come along and ask questions and we will do our best to answer them for you.
Madam Speaker, that has covered as best I can the wide-ranging debate.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Alcohol Court Bill 2005 (Serial 33):
Mr CHAIRMAN: Is it the wish of the committee that the bill be taken as a whole?
Ms CARNEY: No.
Dr TOYNE: Are you moving an amendment or what?
Ms CARNEY: No, I am asking a question in relation to two clauses. Therefore, I do not move that it be read as a whole.
Dr TOYNE: We can do it within the bill as a whole.
Mr CHAIRMAN: You may proceed, Leader of the Opposition.
Ms CARNEY: I lost my bit of paper. I will not take long.
Mr CHAIRMAN: We will have to take it clause by clause until we get to the clauses that you …
Ms CARNEY: I can indicate in order to assist you, Mr Chairman, I will be asking questions in relation to clauses 11 and 12.
Mr CHAIRMAN: To seek clarification, only clauses 11 and 12? We will be able to take clauses 1 to 10?
Ms CARNEY: Yes.
Clauses 1 to 10, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 11:
Ms CARNEY: Attorney-General, I wanted to ask you some questions in relation to clauses 11 and 12 because they struck me as being somewhat unusual. In relation to clause 11 - these clauses, of course, deal with the proceedings to be in open court. Clause 12 deals with the restriction of …
Mr CHAIRMAN: Leader of the Opposition, could we just stick to clause 11 and then we will …
Ms CARNEY: Happy to, but thought it may put it in some context, Mr Chairman. I am happy to deal with clause 11. Attorney-General, that clause states that a proceeding must be held in open court, but enables a proceeding not to be heard in open court if, according to the bill, justice will be best served by closing the court. Can you explain why it was found necessary to include a clause of this nature in this legislation?
Dr TOYNE: Yes. My understanding is that the court is dealing with a combination of health, rehabilitation and offending issues. This structure allows the court to open or close the court according to its perception of what best suits the issue to hand. If they are talking purely in terms of the medical health aspects of rehabilitation, it may be that they want to preserve some confidentiality around that. However, if it is hearing the matters relating to the offences, as a general rule, we would want to see that as an open process that everyone can witness. I will just get some further advice.
I have had confirmation, yes.
Ms CARNEY: Does that mean that, on occasion, for privacy and confidentiality reasons, for reports relating to someone’s addiction or otherwise, the courts have the discretion to close the court but that, in relation to the offence generally, the courts will not be closed?
Dr TOYNE: Yes, it is up to the discretion of the court as to what they withhold from the public domain and what they keep within the closed court arrangement. The intention would be that matters regarding the offence, and its hearing and the sentencing of the court around the offence, would be open and matters regarding the details of the person’s status as an addict and the rehabilitation program that they may be referred to may be put into a closed court.
Ms CARNEY: It is the case, Attorney-General, that in the courts of the Northern Territory, details of pre-sentencing reports and counselling reports and so on are ordinarily and regularly tendered to magistrates on behalf of offenders by their solicitors. Why is it the case that the courts should not be closed on those occasions but should be closed on this occasion? What is the reason for the difference?
Dr TOYNE: I am informed that it is around the role of the court clinician, whose job it is to prepare and present a report to the court regarding the prospects of rehabilitation and the details of what would be involved in it. On occasion, the closed arrangement would be used to protect the clinician’s professional work to the court. They are not working for the defendant, they are working for the court, so they are in a different situation than, say, an expert witness that a defence or prosecution would call.
Ms CARNEY: Does the same provision apply in relation to the drug courts which also have court clinicians?
Dr TOYNE: There is no closed arrangement in the drug court, the difference being that credit is based on a bail arrangement. This is dealing with a suspended sentence arrangement and that changes, in the view of our policy section, the need for disclosure.
Ms CARNEY: This sort of provision is extremely uncommon, in my view, in Territory legislation. It exists in the Community Welfare Act, and rightly so. I believe it extends to – I may not have the wording right – the Sexual Offences (Evidence and Procedure) Act, or something like that, and the reasons for that are obvious.
This is my last question on this clause. Is it the case that you would anticipate clauses of this nature finding their way into legislation in the Northern Territory when dealing with what could normally be described as sensitive matters such as people’s counselling reports and so on?
Dr TOYNE: The last bit?
Ms CARNEY: Dealing with sensitive matters such as counselling reports and so on; that is, the sort of evidence that is usually tendered to magistrates?
Dr TOYNE: The whole purpose of these provisions is to visit on the court a degree of discretion about how they handle the work of the clinician informing the court. It very deliberately allows the court to take it on merit and case by case. It is not something you would make a policy about. Our policy is to give the court discretion.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12:
Ms CARNEY: These are similar questions in respect of clause 12 that deals with the restriction on publication. Again, it is an unusual provision to be found in Northern Territory legislation. To my knowledge, it exists in the Community Welfare Act and probably the Sexual Offences (Evidence and Procedure) Act. Can you advise why it is that you support legislation that restricts publication of the result of a proceeding, that is in clause 12(c).
Dr TOYNE: My understanding of this is that the intent of it is that we are trying to prevent the health assessment of the individual from being freely published. That is the target on restriction on publication as I understand it. However, I will check that.
Yes, I am further informed that the sensitivity here is that there will be probably other health issues involved in the person’s general report, not just the question of their alcohol dependency but, potentially, some other details of their health status which, like any other health information we handle in the health system, is under a policy of not making it publicly known. It really hinges on the details of what is in the report on the person’s health as to whether the court would say that they do not want this to go out in general because it is health information.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you for your answer but, with respect, it does not really relate specifically to clause 12(c). I accept that there may be a good reason to restrict publication of the matters that fall under the wording of clause 12(a) which is ‘a report of or information relating to a proceeding’ although it does not expressly say so. You would, ordinarily, I guess, expect that to be the clause that deals with a person’s private and confidential information. Arguably, clause 12(b), the specific details of the proceeding could, at a stretch, incorporate that. However, clause 12(c) is very specific. It does not refer to health reports or anything like that; it is ‘the result of a proceeding’. Do you accept that this is a potential difficulty? In the alternative, what might results of a proceeding be that should not be published?
Dr TOYNE: I can give you one example. If you had a person who was abusing alcohol and, obviously, had to deal with an addiction as a result of the court’s sentence and attachment of the order, but they may also have a condition where they may be diabetic or they might have gone into end-stage renal failure, the court would, as a matter of course, I would imagine, say that this person should undergo rehabilitation, but they should also have the care regarding the other health condition that they may be manifesting. That gets you squarely into the domain of privacy of health information. That is certainly what is envisaged; it is not to withhold the sentencing outcome from the community. It is just that, in some cases, the sentencing outcome and its associated order may actually contain provisions which deal with the health condition.
Ms CARNEY: You do not envisage a situation where the result of a proceeding, such as a person was not sent to gaol today, they copped an intervention order, is not published?
Dr TOYNE: I can only say that we have given the court discretion on such matters because, as in all court processes, the possibilities are virtually infinite as to what combination of things a court is going to have in front of it. If the court feels that there is purely offending and related dependence on alcohol and that is the only elements of the sentence, they probably will not close the court and withhold publication. However, if there is some element of health information involved in either the court proceedings or in the final content of the order - because the order may well say they have to be at rehabilitation five times a week and twice a week they have to go to the renal unit or whatever - that will be part of the deposition of the offender. That is health information. You do not go around anywhere else in the health system saying that this person has diabetes and he is off being treated somewhere. That is simply privacy principals.
Ms CARNEY: There are a couple of points that arise. I am trying not to be difficult, but the fact is that in courts in the Northern Territory orders are made as to people’s rehabilitation and treatment on a fairly regular basis. Why is it that the courts are not players in relation to those matters? What makes matters that fall under this legislation fundamentally different? Is there a difference? I cannot see one. Perhaps I will ask you to answer that before I get onto the next point. I should not be too much longer.
Dr TOYNE: I can only say that with the client group that we are talking about, there will be, on many occasions, overlying health issues. It is our judgment that we need to offer the court discretion to deal with those. There was mention of other issues like psychiatric/mental health which is very common with heavy drinkers.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you. As Health Minister, you would be aware that under what is loosely described as the ‘sniffing legislation’ there is the ability for compulsory treatment orders to be made where a sniffer is brought before a court. Are the courts to be closed in relation to those matters? Can you answer that question before I take it to the next step?
Dr TOYNE: We will have to get back to you on that one because I did not carry that legislation through to that detail. It was done by my colleague, the Minister for Family and Community Services.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you. If you could get back to me. I suspect your answer will be the same in relation to this one. If it is the case that the courts are not to be closed or the discretion is not available for the compulsory treatment orders for sniffers which, of course, would require detailed sensitive and confidential information, the type you have been talking about to be put before the court, why do you close the court or provide for the discretion in an alcohol court but that discretion is not provided in other courts in the case of sniffers? Would you give me an undertaking that you will come back to me, perhaps by the end of the sittings, with the answers to those two questions which, I am sure you would agree, are pretty important questions?
Dr TOYNE: I am more than happy to look into the consistency of the different court arrangements. My personal view would be that, if you have concerns about privacy of sensitive health information in one context, it has to be applied consistently. We will have a look.
Ms CARNEY: That is it.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Mrs BRAHAM: Mr Chairman, in the minister’s second reading speech, he said:
Clause 14(4)(b) we raised at the briefing …
Mr CHAIRMAN: Member for Braitling, if I may just hold you up for a moment. I have not cleared clause 13. If I could just …
Mrs BRAHAM: I thought you gave me the nod.
Mr CHAIRMAN: I did give you the nod, but I was caught off-guard. If you would just give me a moment, and you can get back up.
Mrs BRAHAM: Did you give me the nod or not? No?
Mr CHAIRMAN: I told you I gave you the nod, and I consider you have your question prepared, so I am sure it will be fine.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14:
Mrs BRAHAM: Mr Chairman, clause 14(4)(b) says: ‘a person is not eligible for referral to the court if any of the following circumstances apply …’. I believe you have left out section 7(f) from the Sentencing Act which would include the community service order. We raised it at the briefing and you were going to amend it so, instead of having a sentencing order under section 7(g) or section 7(h), it should also include section 7(f).
Dr TOYNE: I thank the member for Braitling, as I completely omitted to include in my speech in response a correction to the second reading speech. In the second reading speech as it stands, community service orders were excluded. In fact, within the legislation, the alcohol court includes offenders who are subject to community service orders. They can be put on both intervention orders and prohibition orders, so they are not excluded.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill to be reported without amendments.
Antisocial Behaviour (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill (Serial 34):
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill to be reported without amendment.
Bills reported; report adopted.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General) (by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bills read a third time.
Continued from 29 November 2005.
Dr LIM (Greatorex):
[Editor’s Note: On the motion of the Chief Minister, by leave, contribution to debate by the member for Greatorex was expunged.]
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Greatorex. I am not quite sure whether he was specifically talking about this RTD. However, thank you for your comments.
This is part of the regular review of our remuneration by the tribunal, and I thank them for the 2005 report. It goes through a number of different issues, ranging from travel allowances generally, and travel by the opposition. A new determination has now addressed opposition travel, which is something that I hope you support. It is a fair way of dealing with it, and means that there is a scale established that will cover any variation inside of the opposition in the future.
The decision to have mobile phones for electorate officers is a good one, and I thank the tribunal for that. Also, the way that they will be paid for, I believe, is a very accountable one. Some of the other clarification issues that have been dealt with in this RTD, are again, effective for the working of parliamentarians. With those few brief comments, this RTD has widespread support because it has not created any controversy, which is excellent. Again, I thank the tribunal for the work.
Dr LIM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I was advised wrongly as to what the bill was, and what I said should be expunged from the Parliamentary Record because I was talking about the wrong thing altogether. I seek leave for that.
Madam SPEAKER: I have to seek advice on that, I do not think you can expunge things from the record.
Dr LIM: I seek leave of the House, if that is possible. Obviously, it does not make sense.
Ms Martin: It does not.
Dr LIM: I was talking about a completely different bill.
Madam SPEAKER: The Clerk is suggesting that I seek agreement of the Chamber for the member for Greatorex’s comments to be removed from the Parliamentary Record.
Ms MARTIN: In all due fairness to the member for Greatorex, he was given the wrong advice on what this was about, so I agree with him - fair cop, let us get on with business.
Madam SPEAKER: Would you like to move that, Chief Minister?
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister)(by leave): I move that the contribution to the RTD debate by the member for Greatorex be expunged from the record on the basis that he was given wrong advice about what it is about.
Dr LIM: Thank you, Chief Minister.
Motion agreed to; debate expunged.
Motion agreed to; paper noted.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, last August in my statement on the Darwin City Waterfront project, I outlined in considerable detail the arrangements we had put in place with the successful development partner, the Darwin Cove Consortium, for the next 10 to 15 years. It is my pleasure this evening to provide this House, members and Territorians with an update on the considerable progress being made on the waterfront project. It is an appropriate time to do so.
There is no doubt that the waterfront is starting to capture the imagination of Territorians. Key elements of the project are starting to emerge, with hundreds of thousands of tonnes of fill and armour rock being delivered for the sea wall and convention centre pad. The project is building momentum, just as another major project, the Darwin LNG project, shifts to long-term operations after almost three years of construction.
Members of this House would recall that we first announced the Darwin City Waterfront project with the release of the expressions of interest document in mid-2003. It followed on from discussions at the Territory’s first Economic Development Summit in 2001, where the focus was firmly on key projects that could bring a step change to our economy.
We followed this up with several fundamental economic studies into the best solution and model for development, as well as project delivery. Members would recall that, over the years, there were a number of unsuccessful attempts to bring a convention centre to Darwin. Neither previous governments nor the private sector could find an acceptable option for development. As well, various concepts for the redevelopment of the old industrial land at the port had also been mooted. But again, nothing eventuated. Behind the scenes, senior government staff were hard at work investigating the economic viability and optimal scale for a possible convention centre for Darwin, as well as the options for the future development of the waterfront site. We reviewed the analysis, concepts and experiences of the past, but quickly came to the conclusion that something altogether bolder and more in tune with the lifestyle of the Territory was needed. Out of this work emerged Darwin City Waterfront and the rest, as they say, is now history.
The work generated from the waterfront project will feed into our economy over the next 10 to 15 years, effectively providing a floor in general construction during that period. In parallel, new commercial opportunities will develop and new jobs will be created in hospitality, tourism and commerce. Overall, the economic benefits will be significant, measurable, and ongoing.
In the EOI, we clearly set out what we wanted to achieve with the redevelopment of the old industrial land alongside Darwin’s existing wharves. We wanted to leverage the best private sector creativity and, importantly, investment to recast this site into a world-class waterfront precinct. We knew we could do that through a competitive bidding process and by being very clear up-front that we would invest in this landmark infrastructure. We were determined to apply the very highest standards of environmental management to this project. After all, it was an old industrial site with more than 100 years of industrial activity occurring alongside Darwin’s wharves. All forms of trade and cargo had, at one time or another, passed through and across the waterfront. Knowing this, my government commenced the most wide-ranging environmental assessment of the site.
In the end, we delivered one of the most comprehensive environmental assessments seen in the Territory, which is part of the construction and environmental management plan prepared by the consortium members. The plan will go a long way to ensuring that the waterfront’s environmental values will be protected and improved.
Since 2004, more than 100 investigations have been undertaken including planned investigations, costing and risk analysis, contamination assessments, soil sampling, leach ability testing, vapour testing, noise and air quality monitoring, more than 20 studies into contamination treatment options, more than 20 investigations covering marine works, 15 groundwater modelling and hydrogeological studies, and UXO assessments and surveys. We are particularly proud to have achieved the right balance between a fast-tracked project and achieving high environmental standards.
From the very beginning, we have quite deliberately use the words ‘world-class’ to describe this project. That has been our vision from the outset, and to achieve this we wanted to encourage both innovation and creativity. In 2006, that means taking the best elements of similar projects around the world while, at the same time, remaining faithful to our heritage, history, culture, and climate. While the project can stand alongside other developments of excellence in Australia such as Darling Harbour, Southbank, and Docklands, it is, nevertheless, uniquely Territorian. There is no doubt the Darwin City Waterfront is one of the most innovative development projects currently under way in Australia, and stands alone in reflecting the unique values of the Territory. The project is also crucial to our continuing drive to expand the Territory economy.
The 10 to 15-year construction phase will deliver work to Territory businesses and jobs to Territorians and, when the convention centre and the crew ship terminal become operational, new economic activity will be generated. For example, the convention centre alone will generate in excess of $200m of new economic activity - that is in today’s dollars.
Let me remind members and Territorians of what the Darwin City Waterfront will offer: a 1500 seat, 4000 m convention centre similar in size to this building; a 2 km promenade almost double the length of Bicentennial Park; a new seawall creating a sea water lagoon immune from the major tidal movements of Darwin Harbour; 10 ha, or 40% of the site, will be allocated as public space including significant parklands; new water recreational facilities which will include a new wave pool; a $4.5m cruise ship terminal; a new residential community and marina; a pedestrian bridge from the escarpment with elevators connecting to the public domain and a shaded walkway connecting the site to the mall; commercial and retail facilities will include a new hotel; there will be significant investment by the developer and the government in public art and culture in recognition of our heritage and cultural values; and the project includes essential infrastructure such as headworks, roads and a multi-storey car park. What this means is more opportunities and more jobs for Territorians.
The Darwin City Waterfront will have three components: the new Darwin convention centre delivered as a public/private partnership; a large community infrastructure component funded by government; and a long-term commercial and residential property development. The first stage of the project takes in the convention centre along with the $94m of community infrastructure in the form of the seawall, wave pool, parklands and public art, as well as the hotel, commercial space, car park and the first multi-storey apartment complex. Stage 1 has been valued at $300m and will be completed by early 2008. The next stage incorporates a further $64m in community infrastructure along with progressive construction of the residential and commercial developments, planned to be completed within the next 10 to 15 years.
Importantly, this project is founded on the principle of partnership. I am sure that, from time to time, the partnership will be tested but it will be the collective innovation and energy that will deliver the result we are after. It is a partnership that will add $1.1bn of new investment in the Territory economy. Importantly, the government’s contribution will leverage some $800m to $900m of investment from the private sector over the life of the project.
Since financial close on this project, an enormous amount of work has been completed by the Darwin Cove Consortium. One of the most visible signs is, undoubtedly, the convention centre building pad. That is just the first of many. My ministerial colleagues will take you through much of the details surrounding progress on this project. In particular, the minister for Planning and Infrastructure will provide a detailed update and the progress of works including approval, permits, design and construction. The minister for Business, Economic and Regional Development will also spend time this evening speaking about our strong commitment to local content and the successes we are seeing on this front across the Darwin City Waterfront project.
I will now provide a summary of construction projects to date. The construction of the $100m-plus Darwin convention centre is advancing well. The building will be developed over the next two years by a joint venture of local firms, Sitzler Bros and Barclay Mowlem. In recent times, the joint venture has constructed the accident and emergency facility at Royal Darwin Hospital and the Palmerston Medical Centre, which demonstrates their construction credentials. Another local firm, Macmahon NT, which is responsible for constructing community infrastructure, has recently completed the building pad and revetment walls for the convention centre. Almost 400 000 tonnes of fill was positioned by Macmahon to complete the convention centre building pad. Shortly, Sitzler/Barclay Mowlem joint venture will commence piling as the first element of their building program. From that point on, the Darwin exhibition and convention centre will rise from the site to become one of Darwin’s landmark structures. It is scheduled to open for conventions in 2008.
Macmahon is also the contractor responsible for the community infrastructure component of the project. Each day, Territorians can see the progress of the sea wall, one of the key elements of this package, extending into Kitchener Bay.
One of the first tasks required was clearance of the site for unexploded ordnance. Thankfully, no explosives were discovered. However, several objects of interest were identified which have now been stored for future display. Construction work is progressing at a rapid rate. It is an interesting project; the construction team needs to work within the limits of Darwin’s significant tidal movements. They will eventually place about 360 000 m of fill and armour rock on the sea floor to create the wall and, in doing so, create the 4 ha recreational water space or lagoon for the Darwin City Waterfront. When complete, the wall will be 650 m long, three storeys high, and 70 m wide at the base under the sea - which is a very substantial structure by any measure. Using GPS equipment mounted on earthmoving equipment, Macmahon are in the process of placing the fill and armour rock while dredging continues to remove mud in some places up to 14 m deep.
One of Australia’s largest private companies, TOGA, will develop the hotel apartments and commercial spaces of the Darwin City Waterfront. Planning approval for Stage 1 has been secured and design is progressing for the hotel, residential and commercial development.
I would like to take a moment to offer my condolences to the family of Cameron Bradley who tragically lost his life recently while working on the dredging barge. I believe all members will join me in saying how sorry we are for the their loss.
Everyone involved in the project has committed to the highest standards of occupational health and safety. Because of the number of different contractors and subcontractors, a site-wide occupational health and safety coordination committee is to be established. It will include the key contractors from Darwin Cove alongside WorkSafe, relevant unions and government representation. While contractors working on-site have obligations to meet the requirements of government legislation in the work, health and safety area, the committee will provide a focal point for all OH&S issues across the various elements of the project, and be a vehicle for continuous improvement on safety.
It was only two-and-a-half years ago that Darwin City Waterfront was still a functioning and active industrial site. Shell supplied the Territory’s bitumen from a plant opposite Fort Hill Wharf, Coogee Chemicals still operated their acid storage facility close by, and Shell, Caltex, Mobile and BP still received all their fuel supplies over at the old Iron Ore Wharf. Old Fort Hill Wharf stood there condemned, the old sheds were still there and, at low tide, the mud stretched out from Kitchener Bay almost to Stokes Hill Wharf. Cruise ship and Navy R&R visits competed with live cattle and break bulk and container vessels for access to the wharves. Sadly, Territorians and visitors alike were excluded from much of the other area.
At the same time, Darwin city itself was transforming with new commercial and residential projects and maturing parklands. However, our wonderful harbour sat alone with the old industrial site constraining any ambition people had in reconnecting to the harbour. This project will give Darwin a special place down at the waterfront and one which will contribute to the lifestyle of all Territorians.
Territorians have much to look forward to as the Darwin City Waterfront unfolds. The Darwin convention centre will be the iconic heart of the waterfront development; its on-water location will provide a dramatic backdrop for future events, and I am sure that Territorians will grow to love the new building. Both its design and location will prove to be great attributes in marketing the Darwin convention centre in the national and international conventions and exhibitions marketplace. The main spin-off will be a significant increase in business tourism to the Territory. The Alice Springs Convention Centre has experienced that already, and this facility will do likewise. It is well accepted that convention centres only capture a fraction of the revenue they generate, and there is no doubt that this centre will generate demand across the tourism and hospitality sector in the form of airline seats, hotel rooms, tours, meals, taxis and souvenirs, to name just a few. Importantly, the centre will also be a means of continuing our push to promote the sophistication of Territory business to a national and international audience.
The convention centre operators will be Ogden IFC. They have opened an office in Darwin and have appointed Malu Barrios as their local manager. Ogden have extensive experience in this field; they currently manage a range of centres across Australia including the Brisbane and Cairns Convention Centres and Suncorp Stadium, as well as the new convention centre in Kuala Lumpur. In partnership with government, they have commenced their pre-opening marketing aimed at securing new events for Darwin, and have already indicated there is strong interest in booking events once the centre opens in 2008. In the run-up to the official opening of the centre in early 2008, Ogden will start the process of recruiting Territorians to fill the new permanent and casual positions needed to run a successful convention and exhibition centre.
Darwin convention centre will be a striking part of the city landscape and will draw people to Darwin who previously may have never contemplated a visit here. It will also be a new option for our larger local events where the only real option currently is to hold those events at outdoor locations. Both Ogden and the government anticipate that the Darwin convention centre, with 4000 m2 of exhibition space protected from the elements, will be a catalyst for the development of a number of new local events over time.
Water is the drawcard for this development. It will bring people back into the city and be a key feature of precinct-wide events designed to celebrate living in the Territory. Territorians will be able to swim all year round at the wave pool. The final design is being developed, but I can assure you it will be something really special with around 3000 m2 of pool and a variety of wave types that will be suitable for all ages. Children will be able to play in the lagoon created by the sea wall and indulge in a variety of water sports. Various watercraft will be a feature of the lagoon, along with yachts anchored at a short distance away in the marina linked to the residential development. For those not so keen on water, the beach will provide a great place to sit or lie back and watch the world go by or, if you are feeling more active, a game of beach volleyball or cricket.
Shade is a crucial element in our tropical climate; it brings comfort and relief during the harsher periods of the year. Shade will be a key component of the planning and building of walkways and the precinct as a whole. The waterfront will offer Territorians substantial areas of new parklands, providing recreational areas, performance spaces, and a variety of sites to reflect on our heritage and culture. In time, these areas will complement the existing parks in the remainder of the city, and we all expect to see families rushing to their favourite spot of an evening or on a weekend, just as they do now at East Point, Nightcliff, Casuarina and the Esplanade. We will also have the opportunity to bring a blanket or deckchair to the waterfront to either listen to or watch a variety of music sessions or public performances from the soundshell, a key element of the parklands development in Stage 1.
The connection between the city and the harbour will also be a great drawcard for tourists visiting Darwin. In much the same way as Southbank does for Brisbane, or Darling Harbour for Sydney, the Darwin City Waterfront will be a great place to have fun and relax within the city.
The cultural plan for the precinct will bring together the art, history and heritage of the area, creating points of interest for visitors and locals alike. We have guaranteed the presence of public art and the developer has agreed to invest 1% of the project cost on achieving this. From the outset, provision of integrated public art as a part of the waterfront project was a priority. We funded the appointment of a public arts consultant to prepare and deliver a public art and culture master plan. This cultural plan was delivered in late 2005 and provides a vision, framework and strategies for the integration of a range of art and cultural strategies for the waterfront development. The vision is for art to be a big part of the public domain, and places have been designed to cater for both permanent and temporary installations, as well as art exhibitions and the performing arts. We will talk to the arts and cultural sector to make sure their views and expertise are incorporated.
Cities located alongside great harbours try to build as many connections as possible with the water for the enjoyment of their people. I believe it is fair to say that Darwin does not offer enough opportunities for both locals and visitors to our city. Darwin City Waterfront will change that dramatically. Firstly, the shaded linkage from the mall to the edge of the waterfront will take people to a new bridge over the escarpment. We want this walkway to celebrate the rich heritage of the area through interpretation, and we want it to be aesthetically pleasing and complement the existing design of the Smith Street mall. The budget is $1.5m and construction is scheduled to start in mid-2006 and will be timed to minimise impact on current users of Smith Street. From the bridge, the shaded theme continues down to the waterfront. Once there, Territorians and visitors alike can wander along the seawall promenade, or around Stokes Hill, or through Goyder’s Park to the harbour edge near the old Iron Ore Wharf and the Deckchair Cinema.
The first meeting of the steering committee consisting of key stakeholders was held in January to ensure all parties are consulted on the overall concept development and design. The Darwin Cove Consortium has appointed HASSELL as the Smith Street connection architect. HASSELL is currently contacting stakeholders to determine issues and seek input before preparing a design concept for consideration by the steering committee. The work will well and truly be completed before the opening of Stage 1.
Stage 1 of the project will see approximately 138 new residential units constructed in the first development. I understand there has been strong market interest in these units, even though the formal marketing efforts are not yet under way. Over time, around 1300 more units will be constructed as the site is built out over the next 10 to 15 years. When that occurs, the population of Darwin CBD will have increased by around another 3000 people, either renting or working to pay off their inner city home. The benefits of such a substantial increase in inner city living will be good for all businesses in the city. It will also provide the important critical mass of people for the waterfront, ensuring vitality day in and day out, all year round. It will be a great place to live - a marina similar to the one at Cullen Bay, a vista across one of the world’s great harbours, and architecture in tune with the location and climate. I can imagine that both sunrise and sunset will be spectacular from key vantage spots across the precinct.
Stage 1 will also include a new hotel constructed for the Madina Hotel Group, a part of the TOGA Group of companies. It will service part of the accommodation demand for the convention centre and also add further depth to the accommodation market across the city. In addition, there will be a range of commercial spaces developed for retail and hospitality and a restaurant by the water. Every shop, restaurant and business will create new jobs for Territorians.
When Territorians drive down to the waterfront precinct in early 2008, they will see a new dual lane McMinn Street entrance to the precinct and have the choice of parking on the street or in the new multi-storey car park. Overflow parking will also be available above the escarpment in the city where people can then use the linkages into the precinct to access all the features I have just mentioned. It is important to restate, once again, that access to Stokes Hill Wharf will continue as it is today. If people are interested in viewing the latest cruise ship to visit Darwin or are lucky enough to be sailing, the new cruise ship terminal adjacent to Fort Hill Wharf will be what greets them. Passengers from these ships can choose to visit great tourist sites of the Territory or just spill into the waterfront and the rest of the CBD via pedestrian links, and make the most of our city. I just add that watching the Aurora leaving Darwin tonight about an hour ago was a spectacular sight in the sunset. It really is a most impressive ship.
The waterfront project is an integrated development. It is diverse and has something for everyone. This creates opportunities across the board. That is the key strength of the work that was first started some years back - high quality strategic thinking combined with creative and innovative project delivery will deliver an exciting new dimension for Darwin and the Territory.
We are not getting ahead of ourselves; we know there is still a lot to do. However, we have also come a long way already. It is important to take stock and recognise the progress we are making. It is also a good opportunity to keep Territorians informed about how we are going and involved in the ongoing development. In fact, we have kept Territorians up-to-date on the project’s progress since day one. I can reaffirm today that we will continue to do so through the 10- to 15-year life of the project. Public information is available through the project office at 43 Mitchell Street and through our web site, e-newsletters and newspaper columns. The scale model is being amended to reflect changes that have occurred since the original concept was launched, and the arrangements for its public display will be finalised in the near future. There will also be additional opportunities for community comment as each element of the project goes through the full development approval process required of all projects in the Territory.
When Stage 1 of the project is complete, it will be important to have the most effective local government arrangements in place to manage the precinct. At the same time, it will be crucial to hit the ground running and make sure that we have an exciting range of events, festivals and performances in place and linkages into wider activities across the Top End. I have previously advised this House that we intend to create a statutory corporation to fulfil this role. I can now tell you that legislation will be introduced for this purpose in the near future so that the corporation can be in place to receive community assets and commence all the necessary planning for a new community in early 2008. The key function of the corporation will be to own and manage land in the precinct and other property; promote the precinct and encourage people to live in it and visit; manage the parks and public spaces; carry out all necessary works, repairs and maintenance; work with the Territory government and Darwin City Council on the interface between the precinct and the wider city of Darwin; and take on all functions of a municipal council.
Darwin City Waterfront is an ambitious project and one this government is proud to have developed. It sits firmly within the true tradition of economic development in the Territory. It is now becoming a reality before our eyes. Darwin City Waterfront will bring real tangible change to Darwin when Stage 1 is complete in 2008 and ongoing economic stimulus for many years after. In time, this development will add to our growing reputation around Australia and internationally as a modern, dynamic and exciting city. Importantly, it will delivery lifestyle infrastructure and new jobs for Territorians. In just two-and-a-half years this project has gone from a concept to the exciting work in progress which we see today. Stage 1 including the Darwin convention centre, sea wall, lagoon, wave pool, parklands, promenades, hotel apartments, and retail and commercial spaces will be up and running in two short years, in early 2008.
Mr Deputy Speaker, it is an exciting time to be in the Territory. I certainly commend this statement to the House. I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Chief Minister for her statement. I say at the outset that the CLP supports the development of the waterfront because, naturally enough, it was the CLP that planned to build it. Any criticisms we have about government in the course of this project should not be twisted and spun into ‘the CLP does not support this project’.
I see the member for Wanguri laughing. I do not know him well, but I suspect he does have a bit of sense of humour, and I know that sometimes he cannot even spin with a straight face.
It is the case that the CLP supports this. I still have the old diagrams upstairs if you want to have a look at them. It is an interesting picture that the Chief Minister paints. She puts on the radio voice and it is all sweetness and light, and families are sitting there happily at the waterfront. What she did not say is: ‘Oh well, under the Alcohol Court Bill, we will have all the drunks fixed up by then so if there are mums and dads sitting there you will not be humbugged by drunks; you will not have people falling around people’s legs; you will not need to step over the drunks as you are going to the waterfront’. We hope that that is the outcome of the alcohol court and other legislation, although we fear it will not be. Yes, the waterfront is a wonderful development - certainly has the potential to be a wonderful development. However, when the Chief Minister talks about our great Territory lifestyle she deliberately, in my view, concentrates on part of it with her fingers crossed behind her back, no doubt thinking to herself: ‘Oh God, I hope the drunks will not go down there. Oh God, I hope the drunks will not humbug everybody’. We feel that they will.
Notwithstanding those comments, I want to make it abundantly clear that we support it. The Chief Minister made mention in her statement of keeping people informed. It is appropriate, in the first sittings in 2006, that she brings this statement forward. However, the Chief Minister is always a bit twitchy about money. I will make some observations about that shortly. The Chief Minister said that she wants to keep people informed. Can you at least, Chief Minister, keep Territorians informed of the costs because they seem to be growing?
There are two major difficulties, as we see it at this stage with the project, and that is that it is a moving feast in two areas – first, in respect to design, and second, in relation to taxpayers’ exposure. We are now hearing in the language of government that this project will force deficit budgets for the next few years - not something that was put about prior to the election, or when we had all the glossy brochures printed, something about which Labor had a great deal to say prior to 2001. If the Chief Minister is going to be fair dinkum about keeping Territorians informed, please keep Territorians informed about the ongoing costs of this development. Those costs are clearly going to be significant.
The deficit budget for the next few years was not what was originally promised or contemplated by government on original projections of whether this project could be done from within the resources of government while they returned surplus budgets. Members will recall Budget Paper No 2 of 2002-03 and 2003-04 outlined our old friend the debt reduction strategy. Members on the Labor side will remember it, albeit distantly. There is a quote from page 23 of the 2003-04 budget which referred to:
I note that in the Chief Minister’s statement she referred to the road being widened, but the Chief Minister did not say how much that cost, and she also did not say who paid for it. It does not appear to be on the original design plans and, therefore, it is an extra - and what an expensive extra it must be. Clearly, the taxpayer paid for it. I suspect the minister who is going to talk next may know about this because it may have come from his budget - or certainly the sewerage headworks would have. We will need to be looking, as Territorians will need to be looking, pretty much across the agencies to see who is picking up the tabs for various works. If the Chief Minister wants to keep Territorians informed, then tell them who is paying for what, and how it boils down to the bottom line of how much this project is going to cost.
There is some ongoing concern in some quarters that the government was so desperate to say that it was going to build something prior to the last election that, perhaps, it was not in a stronger negotiating position, and the consortium partners were then able to increasingly get deals in their favour. That is, of course, the nature of any commercial negotiations. The word in some quarters in Darwin - and I have talked about this before - is that government did not negotiate as hard as it should have. Why is that significant? Because it means that the money spent by Territorians, or paid for by Territorians, has increased, and they would expect the government to go in hard and negotiate well on their behalf.
In relation to some design areas – and I would be grateful if the Chief Minister would comment on this and anything else I have had to say in her reply - there is now a marina and the lagoon. However, the problem is we do not know where the new marina is. It is not on the web site for either the government or the consortium so, if someone can tell us where the marina is, that would be good. In fact, the photograph on the consortium’s web site shows a ‘future representation’ of the water inside the sea wall with boats tied up alongside the outside of the sea wall. That could be interesting because it begs the question: does that mean the marina is outside the sea wall? If so, it will be subject to the 7 m tides, and the boats that are apparently floating around happily might look a bit different if some of them fall over. Elaboration on that would be good and, of course, why it is that the marina does not appear on the web site. It may be that nothing swings on it. That is fine but, given that the Chief Minister regards this statement as something of an information package for the benefit of Territorians, then that is not an unreasonable question to ask.
The promise of the retrofitted lock has apparently disappeared. The lock seems to be an ongoing issue but, no doubt, the Chief Minister will talk about that in the course of her reply. I hope she does.
They are just some of the observations we make. This is a project that, given this concept called commercial-in-confidence, members of the opposition and other Territorians cannot get access to. I make no comment about that. It just simply means that it makes the opposition’s role quite difficult when it comes to prosecuting various points that should be made on behalf of Territorians. No government is beyond reproach and all governments should, quite rightly, be questioned on pretty much everything they do. However, given the magnitude of this development, you would expect us as an opposition and Territorians, generally, to ask questions. Some of the questions might be uncomfortable. Well, do not shoot the messenger in the course of a reply or, indeed, a reply to any future questions; treat our questions on behalf of Territorians in the way that you think they deserve because, through the opposition, we pass on information to so many people in the Northern Territory. You cannot, on the one hand, say: ‘We are going to keep people informed’, but on the other say: ‘We will only tell you about the good bits and only give you the good bits of mums and dads sitting there having a nice time’.
This is a significant project, one which is clearly supported by the CLP. However, please do not think that you are beyond questioning; it is incumbent upon us to question. Some of the commercial arrangements are very complex, and the financial structures are also complex, not unlike the railway, I suppose, in that general sense. That did not stop Labor when it was in opposition asking questions. All of us, as individuals, need to ensure that we get a good night’s sleep so we, sensibly, will ask these sorts of questions. I ask the Chief Minister to take some of the matters I have raised and, in particular, a number of the matters that I know my colleague, the member for Blain will raise, seriously and reply to them sensibly. The member for Blain will talk about the nature of public/private partnership arrangements and I look forward to his contribution in that regard.
Once again, thank you for this statement, Chief Minister; it is timely. It is important that you keep this parliament informed, but please do not give us just the good bits, the happy snaps. Please give us the real information that we, on behalf of Territorians, should receive. It is not your money, or your waterfront; it is Territorians’ money and the waterfront belongs to everyone in the Northern Territory.
Dr BURNS (Planning and Lands): Mr Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to take this opportunity to inform the House of progress on the Darwin City Waterfront development. Before I do so, I express my profound sympathy and condolences to the family, friends and co-workers of Mr Cameron Bradley who tragically died a couple of weeks ago in the workplace within that particular project. I am sure all members join with me in extending those condolences, and regard the loss of life in the workplace as an unacceptable tragedy.
The waterfront is a fantastic project. I am incredibly enthusiastic about the project. I became even more so when I had cause to visit Townsville and Cairns, along with you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to look at, firstly in Townsville, the treatment of open spaces along The Strand - that is going to be an important part of the waterfront development here - and also the Convention Centre in Cairns. I recommend that to any members in the House.
It is great to see that facility in Cairns. It is very similar in scale to the one that will be built here. Its function is a little different, in that half of it is used for fixture games for the NBL. Government thought very clearly about why we are going to preserve approximately half of our floor space as an exhibition centre, which would be suitable for some fixtures of basketball, but not purpose built. It makes more possibilities for exhibitions, for large meals and banquets, etcetera, so there has been a bit of thought and market research go in there. It was great to see this modern facility in Cairns with the art work there, to visit the kitchens, to find out about the work behind the scenes within a convention centre, and the type of conventions that are attracted to Cairns. It is also great that the same company will be running the convention centre here. With the connections that they have, with both national and international conventions, will send a lot of business our way to the Territory. It was a great experience for me, and I suggest to any member in the House to have a look at that particular facility, how it operates, and what a plus it is for the city of Cairns.
The Leader of the Opposition talked about previous government’s plans for waterfront development. The plans that the previous government had, as I have seen them, really do not compare to a modern convention and exhibition centre development, as you see in Cairns and as will be built in Darwin. To some degree, we are not comparing apples with apples. The previous government may well have had a proposal, an idea, a concept, however, what is taking shape down there is very much different and it is very contemporary. It is in tune with the market and the people who are very experienced in operating convention centres and in attracting conventions. I do not think we should dwell there too long; let us move on. Let us look at what has to be built here: a modern convention centre which will be a great asset, as the Chief Minister said, to the people of Darwin and for the Darwin economy.
Before I move on to talk about the nuts and bolts of the project - the Chief Minister certainly has had a lead in developing the project and bringing it to fruition - my job as Minister for Infrastructure and Transport is to ensure that the project goes smoothly, that any risks or liabilities that government might have during that process are minimised, that it is managed well from a government perspective, and that the project comes to completion and is what government wants and has asked for. I see my role as attending to the detail, making sure that the incredible detail that is associated with the works that are going on there all fit together and are going on smoothly. I will go through some of that detail soon.
The Opposition Leader talked about the fact that there will be two deficit budgets associated with the construction of the waterfront project. That is quite true. She seemed to say it just dropped out of the box in the last couple of weeks. Well, if she went to the budget from May last year, she would see that the waterfront project was built into the May budget. It is not as if government is trying to hide something about the financials to do with this waterfront; they are there in the budget and the forward estimates. In terms of departmental responsibilities, they are there within the budget and also recorded in the Treasurer’s Mid-Year Financial Report. It is all in there.
In contrast to the previous government, when they were running into deficit budgets it was not about investment and infrastructure. Unfortunately, the previous government’s deficits were coming about because of ballooning recurrent expenditure. That is why this government, after surplus budgets over the past three budgets, is very intent on carefully managing the economy of the Territory and the Territory government budget. We are looking at recurrent expenditure. We are also looking at our capital works expenditure, and are managing that, in stark contrast to the CLP, particularly in their last term of government where they just let things get out of control. They were raiding every hollow log they could find, and their recurrent expenditure, the famous ‘crocodile jaws’, was a big menace to them. That is the difference in this government’s management of the budget and the previous government’s management.
The waterfront project has captured the interest of numerous Territorians. If you go down to the wharf precinct you often see people looking back to the city watching all the activity on site. I was privileged to visit the site early this month to look at the pad for the convention and exhibition centre as it reached a stage of practical completion. The mudflats have been dredged away and replaced with thousands of tonnes of landfill and armour rock. Work on the sea wall is now well under way, and piling for the convention centre will soon begin.
This is the public face of the project but, behind the scenes, some important milestones have been reached since the project achieved financial close in May last year. These have paved the way for the construction of the convention and exhibition centre, the sea wall and other community infrastructure, as well as the hospitality precinct and the first residential buildings which collectively comprise Stage 1 of the project. I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that there will be a lock. I do not know what pictures of boats she has been looking at, but everything will be catered for there, and this project is being well managed.
Amongst the milestones are, firstly, the sign-off of the remediation action plan by the independent contaminated land auditor on 9 August 2005. This plan provides:
Engineering design for the sea wall and breakwater is complete.
The design development of the convention and exhibition centre has been reviewed by government officers and is now being moved into a detailed design of development and documentation. Importantly, this review provides a mechanism through which government can be satisfied that all functional and design elements required in the project deeds have been incorporated in the design and that the convention and exhibition centre operator is receiving a facility which meets expectations and is fit for purpose. Detailed design of the convention and exhibition centre is on track for completion by mid-2006.
The concept design for the wave pool and water recreation area has been improved. This involved changing the orientation of the wave pool for better interface with other public areas, and was approved by the Development Consent Authority in November. This paves the way for the details of the design development and documentation which is currently under way. The wave pool will cover an area of 3000 m and will provide waves of up to 1.2 m, offering a range of experiences for boogie board riders as well as safe swimming areas for families.
A revised concept design for the public domain incorporating the improved water recreation layout was also approved by the DCA in November.
The hospitality precinct developer, TOGA, will shortly be announcing a design competition inviting local architects to design the restaurant which will complement public amenities, and an open performance space. This is an exciting opportunity for local architects not currently involved with the consortium to take part in the design of a significant feature of the development.
Design of civil works such as roads, sewers, electrical and other site services is well under way. The first meeting of all parties involved in the Smith Street connection was held in January to ensure all relevant groups are consulted on the overall concept and design of this important element of the development.
A number of permits have already been issued to the Darwin Cove Consortium by the Development Consent Authority, and others are pending. As is the usual process with the Development Consent Authority, each development application was open to public comment and, in each instance, interested parties were able to attend DCA hearings. It is important to emphasise here that, despite some of the nay saying of the opposition during the last sittings regarding process, DCA and timelines, everything which has been done in this development has been done along statutory time lines and in line with statutory processes. There has been no shortcutting or short-circuiting of statutory processes in any of this; and it has all been open to the public to comment on. I completely refute any assertion by the opposition or anyone that this has not been an open and transparent process of consultation with the public.
Development permits issued so far include a permit for marine infrastructure works including the construction of the sea wall and dredging in the vicinity of Kitchener Bay. Four variation permits have also been issued: one to allow the realignment of the sea wall, one to allow minor additional dredging and earthworks associated with the first finger wharf; one to allow dredging operations to be undertaken 24 hours, seven days a week; and one to allow the use of McMinns Street intersection for works associated with the construction of remediation cut-off drains. A fifth variation for changes to the required earthworks to reflect proposed changes to the community infrastructure is pending subject to submission of documentation by the applicant, Macmahon NT.
There is also a permit for community infrastructure works, including public parklands, water play areas, a pedestrian bridge link, and multi-storey and service parking facilities which have been issued. Two variation permits have also been issued. One is to allow the permit to better reflect the project construction time frames, and remove perceived ambiguities. A second variation to revise the layout of recreation areas is pending subject to the submission of amended plans by the applicant, Macmahon NT. There is also a permit for the Darwin convention and exhibition centre which was issued on 6 October 2005. A variation permit was issued in November to allow the removal of the previously proposed construction staging area access by McMinn Street, and changes to construction hours to allow large concrete pours to occur overnight, except on Friday, Saturday or Sunday nights.
There is also a permit for Stage 1 hospitality development comprising a serviced apartment hotel complex, commercial areas and a budget accommodation operation. This was issued in December. There is also a permit for the Stage 1 residential development comprising 138 residential units and commercial areas at ground and first-floor level, which was also issued in December. There is also a development application for the construction of a lock, and this was considered by the DCA at its meeting on 7 September 2005. The granting of a permit is pending subject to submission of additional information and amended plans. Other development applications anticipated to allow the full development of Stage 1 include those for the waterfront restaurant and performance amphitheatre, and a Stage 1 mixed use parking reduction.
Local industry participation is a critical element of the waterfront development, and it is taken very seriously by this government. The consortium partners are required, under the project development deeds, to implement local industry participation plans. These plans set targets of 85% expenditure on local contractors and suppliers. Stage 1 alone will see about $300m in construction expenditure within the local economy. This is important for government, as we want to ensure that Territorians get their fair share of work on the waterfront project.
Most of the consortium main partners and consultants are Territory companies which have a strong commitment to growing the Territory’s economy and building local capacity. These partners include the Sitzler/Barclay Mowlem Joint Venture, Macmahon NT, which was formerly Henry Walker Eltin, HASSELL, Connell Mott MacDonald, MKEA Architects and Knight Frank. It makes sense to use local contractors who have a track record of working on local projects and who understand the unique challenges of working in the Top End.
To this end, I was pleased to present the opening address at the waterfront industry briefing held at SKYCITY in November. A large number of representatives from a broad range of industries attended …
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, I move an extension of time to allow my colleague to complete his remarks, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Dr BURNS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. A large number of representatives from a broad range of industries attended to hear how they can become involved in the Darwin City Waterfront project. The briefing included presentations from key staff of the waterfront project office within the Department of Planning and Infrastructure, as well as the consortium partners and the Northern Territory Industry Capability Network. I was pleased to attend and open those particular presentations. The briefing provided important information for local industry, and for anyone who missed it, all the presentations are available on the Darwin City Waterfront web site, which is www.waterfront.nt.gov.au.
The first major contracts relating to the waterfront development were awarded to Wagners NT and Gulf Transport whose road trains have been bringing 500 000 m3 of land fill and 120 000 tonnes of armour rock to the waterfront site since October. Gulf Transport has been bringing the armour rock from Mt Bundy, while Wagners have transported the fill from the Darwin Business Park. The multiplier effect of these contracts is significant. New drivers have been employed and the haulage companies have, in turn, awarded contracts to suppliers such as Australian Fuel Distributors and Gulf Transport, as a joint venture with Halkitis Brothers at Mt Bundy, where Gulf will drill, blast, sort and crush the rock. Maintenance is being undertaken at Gulf Transport’s workshop at Coonawarra Road, Winnellie. Contracts have been awarded to suppliers such as ABS for tyres and brakes, DAC Enterprises for plant hire, Paul Lewis Electric for electrical plant, crushers and screens, and Corroboree Tavern for accommodation and meals. Wagners NT is using six road trains from its fleet to cart fill from the Darwin Business Park and is also engaging the services of other Territory carriers to meet demand. Wagners NT staff of 40 has been boosted by another 10 drivers for the contract. All fuel, oil, tyres and spare parts are being procured locally.
As I have already mentioned, a number of other contracts have been awarded to local companies to undertake road works, install a water main and install the subsoil drain. More recently, a contract to undertake soil and water validation and testing for Stage 1 of the project was awarded to URS Australia, which has established an office in Darwin. URS personnel have worked with the contaminated land auditor previously on the waterfront project and are familiar with the testing work that is required. Testing began in early January and will continue over a period of eight months, with the option to extend beyond that time if required. The awarding of this contract, valued at $1.2m, to a local office is significant. It indicates that, for future major developments in the Northern Territory, local firms will be in a position to provide this testing service.
In addition to the $94.6m that government will invest in the community infrastructure, which is to be delivered with the project delivery deed, government has also awarded $5.7m-worth of contracts to local companies for headworks and remediation work, a boon for these Territory businesses. However, it must be stressed that work on the waterfront project is not a given. Companies wanting to win contracts will have to demonstrate that they are competitive, they have the appropriate quality standards, and they have the financial credentials and capacity to deliver on time and on budget. The consortium will work closely with the Northern Territory Industry Capability Network to get information on local companies with the capability to deliver on packages. In many cases, tenders will be packaged to suit the local market. Territory companies should ensure they are registered with the capability network to give them a better chance of being asked to quote on supply and service packages.
The consortium members are not precluded from awarding tenders from interstate companies for specialised work, or if their tenders are more competitive, although, there are financial penalties applicable should the consortium partners fail to reach the 85% target for the local industry participation.
Given the commitment and goodwill shown by the waterfront partners, as well as the Territory’s previous experience of major projects such as the AustralAsia Railway and the LNG plant at Wickham Point, I am confident that the consortium partners will not only meet these targets but exceed them. After all, many companies have grown on the back of those previous projects, putting them in the good position to tender for this new development. For example, Barclay Mowlem reached local industry participation rates of about 95% on the Mitchell Centre and TIO building. A similar level of success was achieved by Barclay Mowlem on the Palmerston Health Centre project where they achieved the local participation rate of 98%. The consortium signed a heads of agreement with the Larrakia Corporation, the Territory Construction Association and the Northern Land Council to provide meaningful employment and training for indigenous people. The first step in delivering on this commitment will be announced shortly when Sitzler/Barclay Mowlem take on four apprentices as a result of the agreement. The exciting thing about this agreement is that the waterfront project provides enough additional work to justify taking on these apprentices who can work on a range of projects as they earned their trade qualification, providing a long-term response to the Territory skill shortages.
I am pleased to say that trade contracts for locals are already starting to emerge. Structural steel packages will be sized to ensure local fabricators have the capacity to do the work. Air conditioning design and construct work is to be carried by Queensland company, AE Smith. However, most of their work, such as duct supply work and installation, is likely to be subcontracted to local companies. Other subcontracts will be available for chilled water installations, switchboard manufacture and installation, and electrical installation associated with mechanical equipment. Neilsen Electric, along with AE Smith, has been involved in the waterfront bid from the beginning and will do the electrical work for the convention centre. A Darwin company, Project Plumbing, will also be responsible for plumbing.
A number of local design professionals are also heavily involved in this project. These include the Darwin offices of engineers, Connell Wagner and its group of companies, and also Connell Mott MacDonald is engaged to Sitzler/Barclay Mowlem for the design of the convention exhibition centre, fire, engineering and civil works. CWDC Pty Ltd has engaged Macmahon NT for the detailed design and development of the community infrastructure work for the provision of traffic, civil and marine and structural hydraulic services as well as mechanical, electrical communications, lighting and fire protection, engineering and desktop geotechnical studies. This particular company has recruited and relocated staff from Adelaide and Brisbane to Darwin to undertake the immediate design tasks.
Most of the HASSELL architects are still working out of Sydney and travelling regularly into Darwin. However, as the project gets closer to the bricks and mortar stage HASSELL’s Darwin office is taking on an increasing role.
The public art and culture consultant has developed a strategy to incorporate art and culture in its various forms within this development, and that is very laudable. Darwin architectural firm, MKEA Architects, is the principal architect for the design documentation of the cruise ship terminal to be located near the eastern link jetty of Fort Hill Wharf. MKEA is currently progressing the detailed design following analysis of stakeholder and security requirements which will affect the final design.
As the Chief Minister outlined in her statement, the site is a former mixed-use industrial site which has been subject to a variety of contaminants over the time, mainly fuel products. The remediation is following well-established processes proven around Australia and we have commissioned URS environmental consultants to conduct field validation testing to meet the requirements of the environmental auditor. All work undertaken by individual developers will be conducted in accordance with construction environment management plans approved by the Office of Environment and Heritage and the environmental auditor. There is a remediation action plan and this identifies the scope of remediation to be undertaken for each element of the project. The auditor has been involved throughout the investigation and management plan preparation stages and will have a continuous monitoring role during the Stage 1 works which include excavation, treatment, and re-use and or treatment of the soil. We are paying a lot of attention to the environment and environmental requirements there. We have an independent auditor looking at that process, and we will be delivering a top class project at the end of the day.
Therefore, 2006 is going to be a significant year for this particular project with a number of milestones being met. I am taking an active interest in this project. I am incredibly enthusiastic about it, as I said, particularly after visiting the Cairns centre. I see my role as attending to the detail of the project to ensuring that the project runs smoothly.
Madam Speaker, I support the Chief Minister in her statement. It was the vision and the energy of the Chief Minister and the Department of the Chief Minister that brought this project to fruition. The baton has been passed to me to an extent and I intend to attend to that detail and make sure that this project comes in on time and on budget, and surpasses the expectations of Territorians who I think will be thrilled with the project in its finished form. It is going to be a great project for tourism in the Territory. It is already a great project for the economy in the Territory. I endorse the Chief Minister’s statement wholeheartedly.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, unfortunately, I cannot muster the same level of enthusiasm. At the outset of the former speaker’s contribution, he made reference to the visit to Cairns and Townsville and urged honourable members to go and have a look. I have done that a couple of times. Yes, it is worth a look.
I have also seen the glossy brochures and the scale model. However, what Territorians have not seen is the nature of the deal that we have been signed up to by this government. That is where I will be focusing my attention. In the light of current developments, particularly in public/private partnerships, there is a greater need than ever for clear disclosure as to the level of financial risk that the Territory is exposed to. I can understand that these matters may not draw the same level of enthusiasm as the former speaker, but they should because the deals that we are tied up to today will satisfy a short-term objective: being able to establish a major project. We will have achieved something and the glory and the brilliance of that great achievement will reflect directly on the architects, the current government - away they go, ride off into the sunset, name on a plaque or whatever.
However, the financial underpinnings of this deal will extend well beyond the term of a current government. That is why it is so important to have a greater level of accountability and transparency within this deal and the underpinnings of this deal. Simply put, we need to know the nature of the financial arrangements and obligations which will be carried by Territorians into the future. That is where I will be focusing my comments.
I draw honourable members’ attention to a very interesting article produced for the Australian Journal of Public Administration, December 2004. The article was entitled, ‘The risky business of public-private partnerships’. Those who listen to what is recorded here will have reason for concern and, out of this, may come genuine questions. They are genuine questions that, on behalf of Territorians, will warrant genuine answers. I will be quoting a couple of passages from this article. The author is Professor Graeme A Hodge, Director of Privatisation and Public Accountability Centre, Faculty of Law, Monash University in Melbourne. Going to the end of his paper, he analyses the current trend of what he describes as ‘third way governments’. That is governments where it is hard to tell whether they are actually Liberal or Labor; they are all fighting for this middle ground. Tony Blair is a good example of that.
The current Labor government is also, if you talk to the true believers. They are not sure whether this is a Labor government, or endeavouring to stand in some spot that was once occupied by a CLP government, because there is hardly any difference. That is a trend that is happening right around the world. Out of that trend has come PPPs, a new and modern way. However, the gloss has come off in recent times, as the Chief Minister undoubtedly has been aware of the dramas that have confronted Premier Iemma and, also, what have recently been brought to bear upon the former premier of Western Australia, Dr Geoff Gallop, who is, I must say, a relative of mine - but that aside.
The PPPs have exposed some problem. I will use, at this point in commencement of my comments, some words from this article ‘The risky business of public-private partnerships’:
The professor goes on to say:
They are the words of a well qualified academic.
Moving to the New South Wales experience with PPPs, I quote from The Australian Financial Review, of Friday, 3 February. In the wash-up and exposure of the problems that were uncovered in the recent PPP with the tollway, I quote an article by Stephen Scott, headlined, ‘Bureaucrats can’t be trusted with PPPs’:
There is very good reason for this argument, because there is much to do with the financial accountability aspects of this waterfront development that we are unclear of. There has been information provided, but it is of insufficient nature to allow a sense of genuine accountability, to be able to test the finances, the deals, the arrangements that lock citizens in for an extended period of time. We need this.
When the Auditor-General in New South Wales said that the capacity of bureaucrats - and I would have to say, elected officials - to understand these complex arrangements is deficient, you only have to hear the strength of the comments, generally, from members opposite who are promoting this, talking largely in terms of how wonderful it is going to look, and how excited they are that all these things are being put in place, we are going to have wave pools and walkways. You can see the picture. However, we need more than that. There is an indication always coming through that there is a lack of ability to grasp the technical aspects of this. I have been to briefings, and it is very complex business, but I only want to know, on behalf of Territorians, what we have been signed up to. I know we are going to get a nice waterfront, and it has an important part to play in the economic development of the Northern Territory, but what is the nature of the deal we have been signed up to? I will continue.
On many occasions, the opposition and others have sought direct information on the processes used to settle the terms of the development and the costs agreed to for the Territory’s liabilities. The opposition and Independents have, rightly, questioned matters regarding design, the environment and costings - it is the responsibility of opposition to do so - cost sharing, ownership, and the benefit to the community. We have constantly been seeking clear, concise information. The Chief Minister has said the government made its decision subsequent to proceeding to the marketplace to seek a partnership arrangement and, in September 2003, called for expressions of interest. After the appointment of the Darwin Cove Consortium, the Chief Minister said that this will be a public/private partnership. For the government’s contribution towards the convention centre and Stage 1 of the community infrastructure, they will leverage a $1.1bn investment in the Northern Territory. The public must take on board the point that government, on behalf of Territorians, is a joint venture partner in this project, through well-known public/private partnerships.
So, what do Territorians know of their government’s liabilities from this partnership process? We know about the wave pool and all the glossy stuff that we can see, touch and feel, however, we do not know about the nature of the deal.
Firstly, the consortium will build, own and operate the convention centre, and then it will be transferred after 25 years. The Chief Minister detailed the process as the consortium’s cost for the convention centre being $102.85m, and that payments will be made for the convention centre for establishment costs prior to opening the government-owned construction.
What costs? How many millions? The Territory availability payment will be $12m annually paid over 25 years. That amounts to $300m, which includes capital, financing costs, maintenance, operational support and incentive-based payments, which includes overall financial costs of about $3m per annum for operational support and, importantly, security will be assured as no payments are made until the convention centre work is completed and ready for use, thus making, in today’s dollars - bear in mind, in today’s dollars - in the case of the convention centre, a cost of $115m. That is just for the convention centre.
It seems fair to say that the Chief Minister has allowed the consortium to build the convention centre for $102.85m, and then government will pay its partners another $12m, thus bringing the total to $115m, even before the doors open.
Mr Martin: No, no. That is the repayments.
Mr MILLS: You will have your opportunity in closing, Chief Minister. Government will then continue to pay its partners $12m per year for 25 years, or some $300m for capital, financing costs, maintenance, operational support and incentive-based payments. That is what the Chief Minister has informed us.
But there is more. Built by the Sitzler/Barclay Mowlem joint venture, with private sector finance, design and construct maintenance and operation, and asset management by Honeywell, government will be paying its partners around $3m per annum for financing costs, included in the $12m per annum for the operational support. But wait - for the construction and maintenance of the convention centre, Territorians must also acquire: (1) $41.8m for dredging, chemical containment and a sea wall; (2) $7.7m for site power, sewer, communications and water infrastructure; (3) $3.7m for roads, car parks and traffic management; (4) $3.8m for pedestrian linkage to Smith Street; (5) $11.1m for wave pool and children’s water park facilities and shade; (6) $11.4m for public open space; (7) $9.1m for multi-level car parking adjacent to hospitality precinct; (8) $4.5m for cruise ship facilities; and finally, (9) $1.5m for an avenue of honour connecting Smith Street - all totalling $94.6m. More has been revealed in the course of this discussion.
There is one more direct cost to Territorians and that is the value of the land. The Chief Minister assured parliament that the Australian Valuation Office had valued the land at $26m, valued for 1200 units and some commercial properties. The formula was noted as being a return of, for Stage 1, 12% of gross residential sales on 138 apartments, and 10% of gross commercial sales yielding, say, about $10.4m, and, secondly, for Stage 2, 18% of gross residential sales - that is 1302 apartments - and 10% of gross commercial sales yielding, say, $180.8m from the development.
A further unanswered issue is: will Territorians make no return where consortium partners develop units or commercial facilities for themselves - for example, the apartment hotel, hospitality business leased to others and other commercial properties leased by consortium partners?
Now to indirect costs. The Chief Minister has indicated indirect costs to be $11m for assessment and removal of land-based contaminants from the present site - that is $10m for removal and $1m for assessment; $6m for Territory costs; $1m to set up a new governing authority for the waterfront area and you would assume a further, say, perhaps $12m for 25 years running costs of that authority - and the list goes on. Subsequent to calling for detailed submissions of intellectual capital from three final tenderers - one dropped out - it seems government has already paid one corporation for that input and is negotiating with another. But what are these costs we may add to the accountability sheet for the convention centre project? Another $1m?
The development will cost Territorians some $252.6m to construct, being $115m for the convention centre, $94.6m for the public infrastructure, $26m for the land component and $18m for indirect costs. Then there is the $300m in ongoing payments over 25 years and $12m for the local authority management.
The Chief Minister has told this parliament payments will be made for the convention centre for establishment costs prior to opening and Territory-owned construction. Does this mean that the Martin government has arranged with Territorians to pay $300m over 25 years, $94.6m for the infrastructure, $26m for the land, $18m for indirect costs, at a total of some $438.6m? What are these establishment costs? What other millions have been added to this total? Will Territorians be paying for the cost of building the convention centre before opening its doors, then also pay for it again by paying it off over the next 25 years? The Chief Minister told this parliament that she could say with great confidence the convention centre will cost, in today’s value, $150m.
Further, the Chief Minister said the convention centre is like getting a home mortgage. Well, it looks like Territorians have a major commitment to pay for. The Chief Minister said in parliament that the Martin government expects to have a return of some $144m in gross sales formula. Yet that provides a nett loss, according to these calculations, of $294.6m. The government’s own projections also suggest an added income to the Territory of some $190m over 25 years in added numbers of specialist tourists due to the convention and exhibition centre and attached facilities.
Territorians are obviously saddled with another very heavy mortgage. So tell us the truth, Chief Minister, of the real costs of this convention and exhibition centre, without cluttering the reply with benefits from residential, commercial and community facility developments. Strip it back and let us talk in real terms. What is the real cost?
Take into account the residential development side of the deal is about the same scale as the DHA Delphin Development at Fairway Waters, where there are approximately 1300 blocks of land, we have about 40% open space with roads, parks, lakes and the golf course. That development, on the other hand, was not the best piece of land in the Territory given away for a development which could have taken place in the CBD under normal market conditions. The opposition and Independents have been calling for accountability from this Chief Minister and her government. Will Territorians hear the truth? Will we know exactly what we have been saddled with?
I requote the words of the New South Wales Auditor-General in light of the problems exposed by the PPP arrangements in New South Wales which the new Premier has backed away from …
Mrs Miller: Madam Speaker, I move an extension of time be granted for the member for Blain, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr MILLS: In closing, the New South Wales Auditor-General recommended that the New South Wales government blueprint for public/private partnerships working with government guidelines should be given legislative force to ensure the government tabled contract summaries of all deals with the private sector in parliament in a short time frame. This is more about long-term sustainability and knowing exactly what we have been saddled with. I want to make sure I discharged my responsibilities as a member of the opposition for the sake of the younger ones who will be growing up to inherit something that has been signed up today, of which we do not know the deal.
Mr HENDERSON (Police Fire and Emergency Services): Madam Speaker, I support the Chief Minister in her statement this evening. I have to make a few comments on the member for Blain’s contribution. My head is spinning with all the numbers he was throwing around. However, he talked about the transparency of the financial arrangements in regards to this project. The Chief Minister, in her previous statement in August last year, was fulsome in her details in regards to those arrangements. I am aware that the member for Blain, the shadow Treasurer, has been offered opportunities for full and detailed briefings in regards to these arrangements. I believe he has availed himself of those briefings. My understanding is that all the questions he asked were fully answered to his satisfaction at those briefings.
In regards to how we are, somehow, leaving a huge financial legacy for future Territorians, that is not substantiated at all. One thing he did say at the outset was that the financial arrangements for the waterfront project were, or are, very complex and detailed, much like the railway. I can certainly attest to that, having had the briefings on the financials for this project and, when we came to government, how the railway project was financed and structured. I have every confidence in the public servants who have worked very hard, diligently, and thoroughly, with the best advice available to them in structuring both the railway project and the waterfront. They are the same people.
If the member for Blain is asserting - and he quoted from a Financial Review article, I think - that somehow the bureaucrats do not have the capacity to put these details together, he, obviously, does not have confidence in the bureaucrats who assisted the previous government - the same bureaucrats who put together the financials for the railway are the same people who put together the financials for this project. The previous government did not come in here, table and detail all of those complex financial documents, and neither will we. I have every confidence in those public servants - I will not call them bureaucrats, they are public servants - who worked diligently in getting both projects up and running.
Following on from the Leader of the Opposition, what an interesting day it has been. They say a week is a long time in politics. The opposition, prior to the election, from the moment the government announced the waterfront project, is seeking to pull it down at every turn. The member for Blain, the Leader of the Opposition at the time prior to the former member for Brennan making a comeback, said that the CLP would scrap the project. They spent every single opportunity prior to the election trying to pull this project down. I will go through some of the comments that were made, not only in this forum and publicly, but also to the Development Consent Authority.
Yet, we have the now Leader of the Opposition tonight saying that they fully support the project and it is a wonderful development. Credit to the Leader of the Opposition. She finally found that, after the election where there was a resounding mandate for the government, that the public actually liked this project; they always did. It was a resounding mandate for the government. The Leader of the Opposition said it is a wonderful development, totally supported. Then the member for Blain continues the line of trying to undermine public confidence in this particular project by asserting that there are huge legacies for the taxpayer into the future. Never mind. The tension obviously still exists amongst the opposition about whether they support this project. The Leader of the Opposition said it is a wonderful development earlier today. That is why I was saying it has been a fascinating week in politics.
Just prior to the election, we had public comments by the then Leader of the Opposition saying they would never criminalise public drunkenness and what was required was health interventions. Today, the current Leader of the Opposition said they are going to criminalise public drunkenness. The CLP opposition really does not know whether they are Arthur or Martha on what are the two biggest issues that are around at the moment: the state of the economy and how it is roaring ahead, and support for the waterfront. Obviously, on the very vexed issue of how we deal with antisocial behaviour in our community, they are flip-flopping all over the place.
Let us revisit a bit of history today. Early on - and certainly the CLP attacked the project at every opportunity – was the formal submission from the then shadow minister for Transport, Mr Stephen Dunham, MLA to the Development Consent Authority. This document is dated – I am trying to find the date; it will be here somewhere. Anyway, this is a transcript from Stephen Dunham, shadow minister for Transport and Infrastructure, submission to proposed planning scheme amendment 040032:
They had 14 reasons to oppose this development. They must have spent thousands of dollars trying to damage public confidence in this particular project. They purported to say that they supported developments on the waterfront but not this particular type of development.
In the Leader of the Opposition’s current comments that this is a wonderful development, does she include the residential in that? The then spokesperson, Mr Dunham, certainly said:
Again, regarding the 1400 residential properties that are going to be developed there over the next 10 or 15 years, I wonder if the current Leader of the Opposition now agrees with the government that residential development there is entirely appropriate.
The member for Blain launched into a long and deceitful scare campaign about building heights, saying that we were going to be building this wall of units around the harbour and nobody would be able to see the harbour. They must have spent many thousands of dollars on glossy brochures. I would like to know - it is very clever where you got the same artistic impressions that the developers were using for the proposal. It was very clever trying to put it into people’s letterboxes saying: ‘Hey, this really comes from the developers’. With building heights, it was very deceitful trying to say that we were going to build out the views around Darwin for an elite few. I am trying to say - here we go:
The politics of envy they tried to play, that somehow this Labor government was going to give away this wonderful asset for 1400 very privileged people to live in high rises. It was a very deceitful campaign.
If we look at what the CLP’s position was, in the Northern Territory News on Wednesday 11 May 2005, the editorial said:
We have seen that the CLP has been all over the shop on this project. They were for a convention centre on the wharf in 1999, and then against it in 2003. The opposition went back to their proposals for the waterfront, and I am sure members will remember the glorified car park, spire, and some commercial developments, which was about the entire extent of the vision that the CLP had for the waterfront. It certainly did not contain a convention centre. If you look at the documents here, there is massive great car parking space here, a few commercial developments, a bit of a public art spire here, and that was about it.
What we have managed to do is to leverage about $900m of private sector investment in what is going to be a world-class waterfront precinct for the City of Darwin. As well as the mandate the government had at the last election, the Darwin business community is very supportive of this particular project. Chamber of Commerce CEO, Graham Poon said, on 2 November: ‘This is a great boost for the local job market, for tourism it spells the beginning of a new era’. Gateway Group CEO, Penny Tastula, said - and pardon the language, Madam Speaker: ‘It is bloody marvellous and about time’. Territory Construction Association General Manager, Jon Baker, said, ‘We are excited about the project’, as well as big Chris, the member for Johnston. Jon Baker is ‘excited by the project, it will provide sustained opportunity for training and employment’. However, the member for Blain is still trying to cast doubt in the public mind of the financials of this particular plan …
Mr Mills: Why don’t you remove the doubt by answering some of the questions?
Mr HENDERSON: I will pick up on the interjection. If the member for Blain has specific questions - and he himself has asserted, admitted and acknowledged that it is a very complex and intricate financial arrangement - all he has to do is request a briefing, bring his questions along with him, sit down with the same public servants that did all of the financials on the railway, and he will be taken through them.
Mr Mills: No, I am talking to you. This is parliament, I have put them on the record in parliament.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HENDERSON: All of the questions will be answered, and the member for Blain’s concerns can be allayed. After that briefing, if he still has concerns, if he wants to test those concerns, he can do that but …
Mr Mills: Why not in parliament? You cannot run it in parliament.
Mr HENDERSON: … to come in here and throw - I am sure if you were to read the Hansard, there must have been dozens of different numbers flung around. Goodness knows where they came from …
Mr Mills: We have Hansard. You can follow it through, give some answers.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Blain!
Mr HENDERSON: It is pretty hard to tease out complex commercial financial arrangements in a to and fro across the parliament. However, if you want to …
Mr Mills: That is why we have Hansard.
Mr HENDERSON: If you want to bring those questions to a briefing, as I say, from the same public servants …
Mr Mills: They have been placed on the Parliamentary Record.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Blain!
Mr HENDERSON: … the same public servants who …
Mr Mills: This is arrogant, totally arrogant!
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Blain, cease interjecting!
Mr HENDERSON: … the same public servants who did the work on the railway well, obviously, that will be happily provided.
He talked about the financial risk to the taxpayer. Let us again go back to the CLP’s plan. The CLP’s plan was that the waterfront should be taxpayer-owned and managed. It was to be entirely paid for and funded by the taxpayer - no contribution of $900m from the private sector - the whole thing. Even if it had half the attributes of the current waterfront, we would talk about $500m. Their car park, spire and little commercial precinct would have cost $500m; that was to be totally owned, managed and funded by the taxpayer.
What would a $500m commitment do to the budget? If the member for Blain wants to talk about financial risk, certainly a $500m capital works project would certainly hit the budget very hard. I am still aghast that a party that claims to be a conservative party, a champion of private enterprise, has so little faith and confidence in the private sector to develop the waterfront, that they would want to do the entire thing - publicly owned and managed through the bureaucracy, the public service, and entirely funded by the taxpayer. What would that have done to the Territory’s finances, our capacity to fund infrastructure, schools, hospitals, roads and sporting facilities around the Northern Territory! If you wanted to decimate the capital works budget for the regions of the Northern Territory, a $500m project over 10 years in Darwin would certainly do that. It would have decimated the regional capital works budget.
On the one hand, the Opposition Leader says it is a wonderful development, a great project, and they totally support it. Yet, the previous Opposition Leader but one, further back down the line, is on the public record as saying that they would scrap the project, and is still trying to undermine public confidence in this project.
If we go to the piece by Paul Dyer in the Northern Territory News on 3 December:
said Mr Mills. He also went on to say he wanted to see a project that was taxpayer-owned and managed rather than the developer own and manage the project.
Here we go! Here are the champions of the private sector saying that the private sector should have no part of this; that it should be entirely owned, funded and managed by the public sector. Well, as I say, a week is a long time in politics. You certainly wonder when the CLP is going to get a straight line on this particular project.
It is a great project. It is a wonderful project for the Territory. We are pleased to be partnering with the Darwin Cove Consortium for a project that is going to come at a capital cost of around $1.1bn, with hundreds of jobs being created in Stage 1. As my colleague, the infrastructure minister said, for the local industry participation plan, there is a commitment from the consortium that 80% of this work is going to go to local Territory companies. It is going to underpin the construction industry for the next 10 to 15 years. We believe that over 1000 jobs are going to be created, and an enormous boost to our tourism industry. It really is a fabulous project, and is going to put Darwin on the map as a wonderful international and national destination.
As business minister in this government, I am very proud to say that we have no problems at all in involving the private sector in a project of this size. They will deliver a wonderful project for the people of the Northern Territory. Thousands of jobs will be created during the construction phase; and many hundreds of jobs and the multiplier effect in the operational phase, not only of the convention centre and the hotels, but the commercial precinct and the spin-off in the tourism industry for the Northern Territory into the future.
It is visionary. I join with my colleague, the member for Johnston, in commending the Chief Minister for her passion, commitment and drive to see this project come to fruition. It really is a vision of the Chief Minister’s that has brought this project to fruition. The people of the Northern Territory are going to benefit for many decades to come. It is good to hear that the Leader of the Opposition now supports this project and acknowledges it is a wonderful development. I urge her to speak to her colleague, the member for Blain, and get him to desist from continuing to try to undermine this project through the backdoor whilst she has changed her tune and is supporting it through the front door.
Mr NATT (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure that I have been given an opportunity to support the Chief Minister’s statement on the Darwin City Waterfront project.
The wharf precinct of Darwin is steeped in some wonderful history. The area, from early times, was utilised by the traditional owners, the Larrakia people, where they traded with the Macassans from Indonesia. The so-called modern wheels of progress began to roll in 1869 when G W Goyder landed with his survey team on the ship Moonta and placed a flag on Fort Hill. The original Government House was built atop the escarpment overlooking the harbour. However, the wooden construction could not stand the ferocity of our local termite population and was replaced by a stone construction, which now houses the Territory’s Administrator.
In 1886, a railway jetty was erected replacing the original Gulnare jetty to cater for the gradually increasing shipping trade. However, this jetty had to be upgraded in 1904 when the railway jetty began to rot with time. Many buildings began to rise in the vicinity of the wharf precinct and port to cater for the business and resident workers. These shanty constructions had to be replaced from time to time when the seasonal cyclones and strong winds struck. We are all aware that the most historical event for the harbour was during World War II on 19 February 1942 when intense Japanese bombing of allied ships and the surrounding areas took place. Many ships were sunk, the jetty destroyed and railway locomotives blown into the harbour.
The current Stokes Hill Wharf was rebuilt in 1956, and it was pleasing to hear in today’s statements that it will play a prominent role in the waterfront redevelopment.
I have only touched on a few of the highly publicised points of history of the area. However, it is pleasing to report the rich cultural heritage of the site will be maintained in the project. The new public car park planned for the area will be located on the original position of Goyder’s camp with art, craft and food market stalls constructed along the theme of the original campsite. Theme-based information and education areas covering aspects of the important history and culture of the site are to be erected for additional public interest in the areas around the old Warrego wreck in front of Stokes Hill, and around the pump house and pearling museum.
As has been the agenda of this government on all planning projects, public art will be employed to showcase the diverse cultural aspects and influences on the area. I understand this theme will extend to the Smith Street connection and the proposed pedestrian paths and bike trails. I am sure the Larrakia Corporation will have a heavy input into this popular section of the project, given their historical and cultural association with the site and surrounding country, and their relationship with the Lyons development and other projects around the Darwin area.
When I came to the Territory nearly six years ago, I had several dealings with companies and businesses within the Top End. My connections, at that stage, with these enterprises were predominantly seeking sponsorship for the AFLNT. It was a particularly difficult period of time then trying to negotiate a favourable outcome for the league and the interested businesses. Many industries had come off a boom period of a few years earlier and were feeling the pinch of a downturn in commerce, particularly the construction industry. The government of the time had neglected to establish long-term economic stability for the Territory, and sat back expecting things to happen without planning for future viability. Contractors and tradespeople were unable to cope with the uncertainty of the future and the poor showing of the government at the time, to the point where many tradespeople and businesses moved out of Darwin seeking greener pastures and a stable future.
It took this government to turn that trend in business around. The announcement of the waterfront project and several other innovative contracts with large business enterprises has turned the downtrodden economy around into one of the most buoyant in Australia. The waterfront project has created job certainty for Territorians for at least 15 years. The spin-offs have been enormous and the diversity of the development has introduced a highly-skilled labour force into the arena and created job certainty for many Territorians, young and mature. This skilled section is now assisting local industries by training our younger work force. Apprenticeship intake has risen markedly, with wonderful incentives and insights offered by this government. These apprentices will move through their trade with confidence and stay in the Territory, knowing that work will ongoing when they have completed their indentures. It is hopeful that many of these building tradespeople will become instructors on the job as another wave of apprentices follow on.
The interest in this project has been enormous. In late November last year, there was an industry briefing held at SKYCITY outlining the waterfront project to a broad range of industries: ‘Why don’t you become involved in the development?’ The presenters, the Northern Territory government, Darwin Cove Consortium and the Northern Territory Industry Capability Network, were overwhelmed with the attendance at the briefing, to a point where the industry can now make contact with these agencies seeking further information via a specific Darwin City Waterfront web site. As a response to these briefings and contract application processes, the Darwin City Waterfront project office has received an enormous number of inquiries from interested businesses seeking further information on the contractual arrangements. In keeping with this government’s commitment to the transparency with its dealings with industry on all fronts of development, a summary of the main contracts has been prepared and also placed on the waterfront web site for all to see under the heading of ‘About the Project’.
Local businesses have benefited greatly under the direction of this government’s mandate of ensuring 85% of the project has local industry input. The Darwin Cove Consortium worked closely with the Northern Territory Industry Capability Network to identify local companies with the capability of delivering resources and expertise to the project over a wide range of trade contracts. It is interesting to note that the NTICN is a private company owned by the Northern Territory Chamber of Commerce and the Territory Construction Association. It is heavily supported by DBERD, and its primary function is to support and promote the capabilities of local business in the industry sector. The NTICN, therefore, plays a very critical role in the identification of opportunities for Northern Territory businesses to participate in the waterfront and convention centre projects. It has an extensive register of companies with statements on their capabilities. The NTICN consultants assist those businesses wanting to buy goods or services to find competitive local suppliers.
Trade contracts available to interested industries are many and varied. Steel fabrication, roofing and cladding, concrete supply and finishing, window installation, airconditioning ducting, supply and installation, and various ranges of steel supply and steel works are a few of the industries involved. The flow-on effects of this work will, obviously, benefit other businesses in the Northern Territory. Work vehicles will need to be serviced and repaired, workers will need to be fed, tyres will have to be upgraded on a regular basis, fuel supplies will be supplied - and so the list goes on. These are the reasons the Territory long-term stimulus of the economy is great for Northern Territory business.
Contracts have already been awarded to local haulage companies; namely, Gulf Transport and Wagners NT. The Darwin office of URS won the contract to undertake all sampling and testing of soil and water. The local construction company, Wolpers Grahl Pty Ltd, has won the contract to upgrade the work required for McMinn Street. Advanced Civil Engineering has been awarded a $1.7m contract to install water mains to the convention centre. BMD Constructions has won a $2.1m contract to establish a sub-soil drain system.
The construction of the convention centre building, as such, will soon commence now that the compaction of the base works are close to being finished. This construction will enable many Territory businesses to enact their contracts. A number of further tenders are now in the marketplace for bids in several areas of the centre.
This waterfront development has been a wonderful innovation for the Territory. I, for one, am looking forward to a grand opening of the convention centre in 2008, and continued work to enhance the precinct. The finished product will be a fantastic spark for tourism, and establish a major attraction and community asset that will marry into the CBD and further enhance the wonderful lifestyle we enjoy in the Territory. I am also looking forward to taking my interstate and overseas visitors to the waterfront precinct to have a meal, enjoy a drink while watching the sunset, and perhaps go for a stroll throughout the new surrounds.
Madam Speaker, I am proud of this achievement and the economic benefits it has brought to the Territory and its local industries. For that reason, I am extremely pleased this afternoon to support the Chief Minister’s statement.
Ms SACILOTTO (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I support and commend the minister’s statement in relation to the Darwin City Waterfront project. Our Darwin Harbour is the most beautiful harbour in the world. It is, quite frankly, the jewel in the crown of the Northern Territory. The waterfront project will complement and enhance the usage of this fantastic natural asset. The development is exciting, and my constituents and I are fortunate that the project is right in the middle of our electorate of Port Darwin.
Not only will the facilities be a drawcard for locals and visitors alike, visitors to the waterfront will inject large sums into the local economy. From my real estate background, I can predict that people who own property in the CBD and surrounding areas will see financial benefits of the waterfront in their property valuations. One highly successful Darwin real estate agent, and winner of the 2004 REINT Salesperson of the Year Award, Marianne Martin of McGees, states this description of a property in the Port Darwin electorate:
Many constituents of Port Darwin have spoken to me, as their local member, in relation to the waterfront development with enthusiasm. Many people are eagerly awaiting the facilities that will be available at the completion of Stage 1. These facilities will include: the world-class convention centre; an approximately 3000 m2 pool, including the ability to produce a variety of waves in a pool suitable for all swimmers in which it will be fantastic to be able to swim all year round; parklands incorporating the shell; public art displays and water sports as part of Stage 1.
Many business people have provided comment in relation to the Smith Street connection, generally commenting that it is a crucial part of the development and that it is essential that the connections are comfortable and flowing from the waterfront to the greater city area. Paul Addison from TOGA Group was recently on air with Daryl Manzie from FM 104.1, saying that it is essential that the connection is created and maintained.
My vision for the Smith Street connection would be to utilise the area to serve as a fitting tribute to the traditional owners of this area, the Larrakia people, whilst also acknowledging the contributions by the many ethnic groups, community groups, individuals, waterside workers and pioneering families that have made the area and the city what it is today - a pleasant, interesting and comfortable pathway that visitors and locals alike could enjoy whilst making their way from the waterfront to the city in search of other treasures in the Darwin area.
A steering committee has been set up. The members of that committee include: Darwin Cove Consortium, Darwin City Council, Browns Mart, the Anglican Church, government representatives from Arts and Heritage, and the waterfront office. The purpose of the formation of this committee is to ensure that all parties are consulted on the overall concept and design of this important element of the development.
Madam Speaker, in closing, the Darwin wharf and city area are rich in history and culture, and this should be highlighted in the Smith Street connection. As you may be aware, on Sunday, 19 February, we commemorated the 1942 bombing of Darwin and remembered those who perished protecting our country’s honour and lifestyle. The ceremonies were well attended, and have reminded many people that the trauma and horror of war came right to our doorstep and was played out on the site of our new waterfront development.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I thank everyone for their contribution to this debate - some more enthusiastic than others. It is good to hear from the Opposition Leader that the opposition - I think, after listening to the contributions - supports the waterfront project. That is terrific because, as the minister for Business pointed out, there have been various positions on this over the last 12 to 18 months. You would probably have said 12 months ago, adamant opposition, particularly from the member for Blain when he was Opposition Leader. He cast aspersions in a most embarrassing way, really, on the ability of the private sector to build a development like this, saying: ‘Why would you trust them to do it; the only way it can be done is with public money’. He produced diagrams of very large car parks with spires to take the place of any development on the waterfront.
It is excellent, in theory, to have the support of the opposition with this project. I thank members on the government’s side for their enthusiasm. I notice there was some criticism from the member for Blain on the enthusiasm that members were showing, and I would not expect anything less. It is an exciting project. It is a complex and exciting project which will add a new dimension to the city we love. This is something to be enthusiastic about and not be embarrassed.
Just to pick up some points that were made by the Opposition Leader, the member for Araluen. She was critical of government for not being public about the costs of the convention centre, about the development, and said that we hid from the public before the last election that there were going to be deficits because of the building. Not at all. We said many times, and in this House, there would be deficits over three years that we had not planned on three years previously, but those deficits would go into the system and then be gone by 2008-09. Therefore, any attempt to say that we had not been public and accountable on that are simply rubbish. We were, and we were very clearly. If there was some sense that we were hiding it for the election - not at all. In fact, I am quite proud of it. The fact that we can identify deficits as being part of an infrastructure project like the waterfront development is something that we should be proud of, because it is not money spent - as we saw from the CLP when they were in government - which used to be on the credit card, putting recurrents on the deficit. This did happen, particularly in those late years of the 1990s. In 1999-2000, recurrent expenditure was deficit-funded. This is definitely a one-off deficit, over three years, and then it is gone. What will we be left with? Stage 1 of the magnificent waterfront development.
The Opposition Leader also said, to paraphrase her, that the word around town is that the government was so keen to get a project like this established before the election, that we rolled over to the consortium. I do not know where the Opposition Leader is getting her information from but, maybe if she wants to sort this out definitively, she might go to the consortium and ask them whether they felt that we ‘rolled over’. They might find it was actually the other way.
We got an excellent deal for Territorians. We got a great return from the development over 10 to 15 years for Territorians; that we could get 18% return on those Stage 2 developments - that is the most of the residential properties, not just on the land. We had a Valuer-General’s assessment of the land which went over three years, I think, from about $25m to about $30m. We are going to get, with current prices, probably the best part of $110m, and that is without taking into account how properties will increase in value over the next 10 to 15 years. Therefore, in getting that 18% return, that is an excellent result. If the Opposition Leader just wanted to test that element of this project, go to the real estate industry in Darwin and ask: ‘What do you reckon about a deal that gives Territorians an 18% return on the land and the development of the land?’ The developed land over that period of time. They will whistle in admiration.
I say to our negotiating team that they did a great job. We have public servants who worked on the railway project who know about these things. Where we needed specific expertise to deal with a project like this one - the convention centre part, the legal aspects, which are very complex - we got additional expertise in. That was very important. We had that expertise in accounting, in legal, in the running of a convention centre and, put together with the expertise that we have - and I am very proud of that expertise that we have in-house - the actual financial close deal was an excellent deal for Territorians.
I say to the Opposition Leader: do not come in and say ‘the scuttlebutt around town is’. Go and test some of the things that you are saying. Go and test the 18%. Do not come in here putting down those who are part of the project just because you feel like it and hear a bit of scuttlebutt.
The member for Blain went on at great length quoting from a newspaper article on public private/partnerships, virtually casting a slur on the entire $1.1bn development at the waterfront asking if we knew what we were doing. I just point out, in case the former Opposition Leader, the member for Blain, missed this – and he went back to the August debate which detailed the financial close detail - that we have put it on the record in here, that he has had a briefing. Therefore, to come in and say: ‘We need to know the financial details’ - he has had them. He has had the appropriate details. Of course, he cannot see every single sheet of paper, there are commercial-in-confidence aspects. However, anything to do with the expenditure of public money has been detailed quite appropriately.
However, he needs to also understand there are three components to the waterfront development. There is a public/private partnership of developing the convention and exhibition centre. There is a very large capital works project; that is, the public infrastructure for Stage 1 such as the seawall, the wave pool, the other aspects of that public infrastructure which is $94m. It is a capital works project, so what is the risk to the Territory? Like any other capital works project we have, this is a series of capital works projects from marine works of $41m, bridge link and stairs at $3.8m, the cruise ship terminal at $4.5m, to the Smith Street extension at $1.5m. To come in and say you have not identified the risk, well, it is the same risk as you would have with a capital works program we do every year. That is a capital works project. Then, the final part of the waterfront is a private development and that is in the hands of TOGA.
If he wants to talk more about that and potential risks to government, it is only an advantage to government because part of the development of those 1300 or so units is the fact that we will get $64m worth of public infrastructure for free. That is the kind of risk I like. You get the lock and other aspects of the public infrastructure as part of Stage 2 of the waterfront at $64m - for no expenditure from our capital works program. I believe that is terrific. In terms of a risk that the member for Blain can identify, it is actually to do - with regard to the newspaper article he was reading - with the convention and exhibition centre. He read out the details from my last speech which actually itemised all the aspects, but then he added the numbers together to get a totally wrong number because he had not carefully gone through the speech. We are not paying for anything until we actually have it built and, then, very clearly we pay between $11m and $12m from 2008-09 when the convention centre is going to be open - like you do with a mortgage, like you do in the nature of public private partnership - over 25 years, and then the building is ours.
It is very straightforward. The member for Blain implied somehow or other we were hiding costs from him. We itemised those, he has had briefings and the costs are there. We have given the costs in today’s dollars, we have given them in dollars over the life of the project, and we have tried to be as consistent and open as we can. The nature of buying a house is the same as this building of the convention centre. You put the deposit down for your house and pay it off to the bank over a period of time, usually 25 to 30 years. It is the same with this convention centre and, as when you buy a house, it is yours in the end. We build this convention centre, it is the Territory’s in the end. The flow-on effect over those years of the convention centre is something like $200m to the Darwin economy. It is very significant, and that is probably a fairly conservative estimate.
The member for Blain can cast all the aspersions he likes, but the figures are out. Our Auditor-General is keeping a watch. He has done a first assessment of this and given it a tick. He will continue to watch this project. He will report to this parliament, as he is duty bound, to say whether he thinks this project is a good deal for Territorians. He will give those details as appropriate. If the member for Blain thinks that something else is hidden, he should identify it rather than just simply adding up figures and coming to the wrong conclusion.
Madam Speaker, it is an exciting project. It will add a new dimension to the Territory and to Darwin. It means enormous numbers of jobs. It means great business opportunities. When you look at the current predictions of organisations like Access Economics, at the Housing Industry Association’s five-year future, what underpins that confidence in the Territory economy, partly, are ventures like the Darwin City Waterfront project. They will underpin construction for the next 10 to 15 years here in Darwin. On all levels that you look at it - a big flow into the economy, boosting tourism, great recreation for locals, great jobs, great business opportunities - this is a terrific project.
I say to both members of the opposition who spoke on this: if you have any more outstanding questions about this that you want us to brief you on, just tell us. We are very open and very happy to do those briefings. Just let me know. Send your list of questions, if that is easier. This is a very important project and we want to deal with all aspects, rather than have members of the opposition casting aspersions like, ‘the Territory basically got screwed on this one because they were in a hurry to get it done’. Not so, Opposition Leader.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
Mr McADAM (Housing): Madam Speaker, in generational terms, we face a major watershed in indigenous affairs, just as we did 40 years ago. This year, 2006, sees the anniversaries of events that echo down the decades in influencing the present. They are events that have affected all Australians, both indigenous and non-indigenous. However, they have affected us here in the Northern Territory more than anywhere else, and they have affected indigenous people more than anyone else. They are also events which leave the Territory and the nation with much unfinished business.
In March 1966, 40 years ago, the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission brought down its decision on equal wages for Aboriginal people working in the pastoral industry. Up until then, Aboriginal men were paid $6.32 a week in today’s currency, and women $3.52 per week, while non-Aboriginal workers were paid between $34 and $46 a week.
In May 1966, 40 years ago, Aboriginal stockmen at Newcastle Waters went on strike; that action sparked by urgent desires for equality with other Australians, and in protest at the miserable living and work conditions they faced.
In August 1966, 40 years ago, saw the famous Wave Hill walk-off - a strike by the Gurindji and others, an event which was, arguably, the beginning of the modern land rights movement.
In a very direct sense, 30 years ago, the passing in December 1976 of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act by a Liberal federal government, saw the beginnings of a resolution of the inequities faced by indigenous Territorians.
However, as I said, these historic events still leave us with much unfinished business and huge challenges. More than that, there are issues that face us here in the Northern Territory and, indeed, nationally that, if left untouched, will sow the seeds of future tragedy for us all.
I know the word ‘crisis’ is often ill-used, but in speaking out today on indigenous housing in the Northern Territory, I cannot think of a better term. While rapid technological changes were already leading to a decline in Aboriginal employment in the pastoral industry, there is little doubt that the equal wages decision accelerated a process which led to a collapse in Aboriginal employment in Northern Australia. Related to this was an exodus of hundreds of Aboriginal people to a life of unemployment and under-employment in missions and government settlements, and a string of destitute fringe camps along the length of the Stuart Highway.
Arguably, the promise of industrial equality was an illusion in the face of no work for Aboriginal Territorians, and absolutely no realistic attempt by federal governments to invest in creating alternative ways and new economies, especially in regional and remote areas.
The passing of land rights legislation was a profound act of social justice but, again, was not matched by any serious attempt by federal governments to undo the material wrongs faced by indigenous Territorians, and for two very important and interrelated reasons. First, the things that go with land rights, such as self-determination, were never backed by a proper commitment to build the capacity of people to take over - in other words, to build the human capital of Aboriginal Territorians. As the late Bangardi Lee pointed out: ‘Things fell to pieces … went down … The government did not train people to take over responsibility’. Second, the promise of land rights has never been matched by any coherent attempt to build financial capital on the traditional lands of indigenous Territorians, from either public or private sources.
Arguably, the heroism, vision and determination of those leaders of 40 years ago has been allowed to trickle away. We might have different political viewpoints, ideologies and interpretations of history in this House, and that is as it should be; that is politics as normal. Because I am an unusual politician in a way, I do not seek to engage in such discussions today. I want to abandon politics as normal. I am not really interested in arid and pointless debate, name calling or finger pointing in the face of what I have described as a crisis in indigenous housing. I, like many of my colleagues in this House, just want to get on with the job. That is why I seek bipartisan support in this place and, indeed, from our parliamentary colleagues from both sides of the political fence in the federal arena.
While we do face a crisis, we can create great opportunities. I want to build on the work started by the previous CLP government in their establishment of the Indigenous Housing Authority of the Northern Territory, otherwise known as IHANT. As well as the consolidations which we have achieved since that time, I believe that in organisational and practical terms, we in the Northern Territory have made great advances in getting our house in order. As a nation, we should now join together in building homes for our fellow Australians.
I would be misleading this House if I were to express optimism about the current situation. In fact, we are going backwards and, as good as our efforts are, we are being defeated by the catastrophic mathematics of our current situation, let alone what we can expect in the future. In 2004, it was estimated that the unmet need for indigenous housing in the Northern Territory was $850m; nationally at $2.5bn. This is the result of 35 years of underdevelopment in indigenous housing. With even modest allowances for cost inflation in the construction industry, that figure must now be nudging very close to $1bn in the Northern Territory alone.
In broad terms, that means we must build 4000 new houses to meet that need. Yet, despite the rolling together of Commonwealth and Territory housing funds under the overarching agreement that our Chief Minister signed with the Prime Minister, John Howard, and confirmed through the Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Agreement, even with a modest increase in funding, our projections are that we will only be able to build approximately 120 new houses a year from 2006 to 2007. At that rate, it will take the Northern Territory 33 years to fulfill current housing needs. That depends on the heroic assumption that all existing houses survive those 33 years, and that none have to be replaced or substantially renovated over that period.
We simply know this will not happen. We know that hundreds of houses already face replacement or major work because they are already uninhabitable, or on the verge of being so, and the average life of existing houses is considerably less than 33 years. It also assumes that there will be no population increase in the foreseeable future. Again, we know that this is not the case. The indigenous population of the Territory is estimated to rise by 100% over the next 25 years, and the level of household formation will rise around 25% in the next 10 years alone. In other words, the current rate of new construction is barely matching the birth rate.
We are not talking here about tiny communities. There are already 20 remote towns with a population greater that 500. In the next 25 years, both Wadeye and Maningrida will be more populous than present day Nhulunbuy. By that time, the number of Aboriginal population centres with populations greater than 2000 is likely to be eight or nine times the current number, with at least three above 3000 people.
Mathematics is defeating us now and will continue to do so unless radical changes are enacted. Even on absurdly conservative projections, in 33 years time at the current construction rates, we would still be lagging unmet needs by 16 years - and probably much more than that. In fact, in 33 years time at current new construction rates, our backlog is likely to be 33 years. We face the cascading effect of severely limited resources being swamped by rising needs. We are, indeed, going backwards.
So far, I have only spoken of the financial consequences of the prices in indigenous housing. The social costs are more threatening and are only destined to deteriorate. You can tick every box: health, education, training, employment, community harmony, substance abuse, violence, and criminal behaviour. With all our best efforts and despite great financial outlays, without decent housing our chances of solving these problems are likely to be largely futile.
It is an unfortunate fact that on the very few occasions in recent years that the media has chosen to report on indigenous conditions in the Northern Territory, it has become almost routine reportage that three- and four-bedroom houses in remote towns and communities house anything from 16 to 20 residents. Such numbers are also seen as normal for houses in our towns. There can be nothing normal about this state of affairs.
I cite the situation of our Territory children, for they must be judged the most vulnerable and least responsible for the appalling conditions they face. It is to these kids we owe our united commitment. Such living conditions have devastating effects on health, particularly for our young children. Take this example. From time to time, kids in suburban centres get a middle ear infection known as otitis media. It is relatively easy to treat with antibiotics but, for kids living in such massive overcrowding, it escalates and is prolonged and is known as chronic suppurative otitis media or CSOM. Put simply, the disease laid on these kids comes from a host of infections rather than a single source and requires far greater medical intervention, only to see immediate re-infection after treatment as a result of overcrowding. The result is that hearing damage through CSOM is at such levels that the World Health Organisation has defined these rates as being a major medical emergency.
You do not have to be a rocket scientist to gauge the effect of so many kids arriving at school who are mildly to profoundly deaf through living in such conditions. More than a decade ago, researchers at the Menzies School of Health showed that overcrowding is directly link to acute childhood admissions to hospital. More recently, it has become apparent that the greatest toll is actually through chronic disease. Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory have among the highest rates of kidney failure and rheumatic heart disease in the world. The requirement for kidney dialysis is escalating at an alarming rate and will take an increasing proportion of the health budget.
Rheumatic heart disease has been eradicated from non-indigenous populations in the rest of the country. However, in the Northern Territory, it too frequently leads to cardiac failure and early death. Both diseases can be prevented. There is an irrefutable link between skin sores and childhood kidney disease, and mounting evidence linking skin sores to rheumatic heart disease. Local researchers at Menzies have shown a direct relationship between children having skin sores and crowded housing. They believe that provision of proper housing would have a profound impact on the long-term health of these people. Aboriginal health and Aboriginal housing are inseparable issues.
These kids face intolerable further effects on their schooling through apparently simple challenges such as getting enough sleep on school nights. Such overcrowding is also strongly linked with massive exposure to substance abuse and household violence, not to mention sexual abuse and other violence directed towards our children.
What is often missed or misunderstood in this discussion of chronic overcrowding is the effect on the houses themselves, what we call ‘health hardware’. Toilets, food storage spaces, washing and cooking facilities simply wear out in the face of such overwhelming use by so many people. With the best of care and intentions, the fabric of buildings inevitably falls apart far more quickly than might be the case in suburban Darwin or Alice Springs, with all the consequent effects on health.
Current overcrowding and homelessness, both in town as well as the bush, already has a direct effect on antisocial behaviour, substance abuse and violence. Unless we act as a nation, the mathematics as I have outlined will lead to greater levels of antisocial behaviour in our cities, towns and communities. To put it bluntly, the social problems we currently face in the struggle against antisocial behaviour will get dramatically worse if we do not act.
We must look at the social and economic opportunity costs of acting sooner rather than later. The only conclusion that can possibly be drawn is that the longer we postpone tackling the indigenous housing crisis, the greater the ultimate costs will be. We should, effectively, look at the costs of meeting indigenous homelessness and housing need as part of the national debt. As I have outlined, it is a part of the national debt we are not paying off.
I do not wish to be endlessly gloomy about the future, despite the enormous challenges we face. Turned around properly, with proper resources, indigenous housing can, in fact, offer us solutions to broader problems related to health, training and employment and indigenous economic enterprise. The real trick for the partnership between the Commonwealth and the Territory and indigenous towns and communities, will be to turn the overwhelming adversity of indigenous housing to sustainable economic development in remote areas of the Territory. In a sense, properly funded housing programs can be transformed into a sort of Marshall plan for the bush.
IHANT, pioneered by previous governments, remains as a primary source of advice to government. Since the abolition of ATSIC, we have reconstituted the board and I announced its new membership just after Christmas last year. As well as five indigenous representatives, there are also representatives of the Commonwealth and Territory governments on the new board. Their first meeting was held in Tennant Creek earlier this month. In my discussions with the new IHANT Board, I raised the issues of escalating costs of remote area housing, as well as the huge difficulties that we face in simultaneously strengthening housing management capacity while, at the same time, increasing the number of houses being built. IHANT’s role will be to advise on the progress of combined indigenous housing programs which is the subject of expenditure through the Northern Territory and Commonwealth governments.
For the first time in Australia, following the overarching agreement signed last year and the subsequent Indigenous Housing Infrastructure Agreement, this has allowed the Northern Territory to roll all major housing funds into a single funding pool comprising: the Aboriginal Rental Housing Program, $20m; the Community Housing and Infrastructure Program, $39.3m; the National Aboriginal Housing Strategy (NAHS), $22m; and the new Healthy Indigenous Housing initiative, $4.73m annually until 2008. Thus, for the first time, from 2006-07 we will be able to avoid duplications that overlap between the Commonwealth and the Territory.
The agreement will improve indigenous housing service delivery through greater efficiencies and delivery of coordinated programs, as there have been previous occasions where the Australian government and former IHANT construction plans have overlapped; a greater focus on longevity of dwellings through strategic housing maintenance programs; effective housing management, repairs and maintenance and life skill programs; more appropriate indigenous housing design to improve efficiencies in construction while maintaining flexibility and individual community choice; and greater opportunities for the development of employment and training initiatives.
The IHIA program also has provision for the funding of an additional $80m per year currently administered by the Australian government for the delivery of essential services, power, water and sewerage, and municipal infrastructure to communities outside the 72 main communities serviced by the Territory government. The agreement specifies that both parties will clarify responsibility for these communities for the delivery of these services in order to work towards a better integrated model and service delivery in these areas. The agreement also includes a common policy framework which outlines the commitment of both governments to jointly discuss and negotiate responsibilities for the delivery of essential services and municipal infrastructure and services outside the 72 communities serviced by the Territory government. The outcomes pursued in the common policy framework include: greater effectiveness in coordination of services; better housing; better housing services; more housing; improved partnerships; and improved performances linked with accountability.
The Territory government is committed to increasing indigenous community housing stock across the Territory. The position paper presented to the Australian Housing Minister’s Conference in 2004 proposed that the nation has to renew its commitment to addressing indigenous housing shortfalls if it is to have any hope of impacting on general indigenous disadvantage. We have made considerable progress in achieving some of these goals. These include partnerships with the Australian government, indigenous housing organisations and other stakeholders. The introduction of the new IHANT Board allows the government to receive strategic advice from informed and representative members of the indigenous community.
The Territory government takes the issue of overcrowding and poor conditioned dwellings seriously and we are committed to a long-term and sustained effort to provide the housing infrastructure that is required. As the Territory cannot meet the extraordinary unmet need of indigenous housing alone, we are currently working in a constructive partnership with the Australian government, the Indigenous Community Housing and, of course, the private sector. The Territory government has worked collaboratively to provide remote area housing and essential services to communities such as power, water, sewerage, aerodromes and barge landing services; improved consultation and interaction with the indigenous community through facilitating indigenous community housing workshops and the IHANT Board; constructed dwellings and provided employment and training opportunities to local indigenous people through the central remote construction model which has been expanded into two other communities and is planned to progressively extend into other areas; negotiated an agreement with the Australian government to upgrade power, water and sewerage services in Aboriginal urban living areas; and the transfer of responsibility for these services to the Northern Territory government.
The Northern Territory government is also committed to improving the standard of existing stock through improved repairs and maintenance programs and upgrade schedules. The additional income resulting from the agreement will also allow for increased activities through repairs and maintenance and upgrade programs, therefore, increasing the life of remote community housing stock. In fact, since housing has been subject to rigorous approaches to high standards and quality control, as well as well-run repairs and maintenance programs, the life of the houses is rapidly lengthening.
The current lifespan of indigenous community housing, as I said previously, is significantly lower than for mainstream housing in urban areas. This low number is the result of a number of variables such as chronic overcrowding, poor living skills and a lack of community capacity to provide adequate housing management and maintenance services. The Northern Territory government recognises the need to increase the longevity of the housing stock and, as such, has implemented a new life skills program aimed at teaching new residents of indigenous communities the skills required to maintain their houses and their tenancies. As I have noted, we are moving in the right direction with regards to increasing the life of the housing stock.
The Northern Territory government is also committed to improving housing management and maintenance programs by reviewing operational policies and standards in 2006. It is anticipated changes to these processes will result in more appropriate allocations of funding to indigenous community housing organisations to equip them with adequate resources to provide a higher quality service to indigenous community housing tenants. The Northern Territory government has also been successful in attracting $4.73m a year for the next four years from the Australian government under the Healthy Indigenous Housing initiative which targets measures to enhance governance within the indigenous community housing sector.
Strategies implemented under this significant allocation will be focused on implementing reforms to improve the performance of indigenous community rental housing providers, focusing primarily on corporate governance. This funding is provided to implement reforms to improve the performance of indigenous housing community organisations, as I said previously, on corporate governance. A proposed outcome of this activity would be a very strong self-managing, self-governing sector, with organisations accredited, housing managers, and effective systems supporting business and asset management.
In order to deliver on this commitment, the Northern Territory government will work intensively with the indigenous community housing organisations (ICHOs) to improve government’s frameworks, to improve and implement effective planning and performance management processes, build a whole-of-community capacity in housing services, and develop effective information management systems and capacity to provide accurate information.
The Northern Territory government is currently developing an employment and training strategy for the indigenous community housing sector. This strategy is in response to the government’s acknowledgement that the indigenous community housing management and construction industry is an essential element in facilitating the economic and social development of the Northern Territory. The strategy will support current NT government employment and training directions outlined in the Building the Territory Work Force, Building Stronger Regions, Stronger Futures, The Indigenous Economic Development Strategy and Agenda for Action, a whole-of-government approach to indigenous affairs in the Northern Territory 2005-2008. The strategy will aim to increase employment and outcomes for indigenous Territorians; achieve greater indigenous economic and enterprise development generated through the housing management and construction areas; develop partnerships between government, communities, training providers and industry groups; ensure better matching of training programs to the requirements of industry and the work force; and an improved structured industry training apprenticeships program taking into account the unique requirements of the participants.
There is a simple choice to take about the future of indigenous housing in the Northern Territory and nationally. We can continue our current levels of effort and do our very best and, ultimately, fail because of the legacy of under-expenditure over a period of 35 years and the inexorable pressure of future needs. Or we can view indigenous housing as a national priority I have already dubbed a Marshall plan for the bush. In the Territory alone, this would mean an extra $180m a year for the next 10 years.
The Territory cannot do it alone. Even if we could take the economic consequences on such a tiny jurisdiction and a minuscule tax base, we could not raise the extra funds needed. We need a national effort, a national partnership. The face of the indigenous service delivery environment has changed significantly, both across sectors and governments. The abolition of ATSIC and the agency, ATSIS, paved the way for new arrangements for the management of indigenous affairs.
With the elevation of Mal Brough to the federal ministry, the portfolios of Indigenous Affairs and Family and Community Services, with responsibility for Housing, are finally under the one roof. I have written to Mr Brough congratulating him on his new role in indigenous affairs and housing, and am seeking to meet with him at the earliest opportunity – indeed, tomorrow along with the Chief Minister. Clearly, I ask other members of this House to take up that opportunity should it arise.
I was born in Elliott some years ago in an old Sidney Williams hut at the side of the Stuart Highway. I guess I get some ironic pleasure out of the fact that this site is now called Bicentennial Park. Life was pretty tough back then, with no mod cons and pretty well everyone out bush did it hard those days, both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people. When I now see so much of Aboriginal housing being not much better and, in many cases, a lot worse than it was even 50 years ago, I have to ask myself: what is wrong with us as a relatively rich nation that we cannot find the resources to house our fellow Australians? I have outlined the consequences of ignoring the problem, if for no other reason than enlightened self-interest. It is up to us as Territorians and as a nation to get it right.
I began my remarks today talking about significant anniversaries that we will celebrate this year. It is my hope that 2006 can be celebrated in the future as a year where the nation joined together in starting to meet the housing needs of our fellow Australians.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Deputy Speaker, this statement delivered by the Minister for Housing could be delivered by any minister for housing from any political persuasion. No one disputes the fact that there is a huge shortage of housing for indigenous Northern Territorians. When I was the minister for Housing, I said the same things. We approached the federal government, just as this minister is doing, seeking national support to rectify this situation.
Members may recall that I, in fact, took out participants of the Ministerial Council on Housing to visit one of our nearby communities in Central Australia when we met back in 2001. What the Minister for Housing from Tasmania saw in the communities drove her to tears.
We all agree that there is a huge problem with trying to provide adequate housing for indigenous Northern Territorians. But how do we go about doing it? The minister spoke about increasing the longevity of homes, so the homes would last a bit longer than the average 33 years. It is a big issue. When we visited the community with the ministerial council, we saw homes that were newly built, homes that were there less than five years, and homes that were there for longer than 30 years. Even the new homes showed great signs of disrepair. One has to ask the question: why do these homes have such major signs of disrepair so soon after they have been completed?
When the minister gave his history of what happened with indigenous people over the last 40 years or so, he spoke about the accelerated process which led to collapsed employment because of the issue of equal wages and the desire to be equal Australians. I believe also that there was another accelerated process. There was the true accelerated housing of poorly prepared people living in those homes. Blame whoever you like for that. It led to a huge acceleration of deterioration of residential homes. However, in today’s terms, in the suburbs, accelerated housing of poorly prepared people living in the suburbs has also led to the collapse of mainstream goodwill towards Aboriginal tenants. That must be addressed by this government also.
The minister spoke about the necessity to ensure that there is a means of employment, of capacity training, of industry training using housing as a means or vehicle to bring this about. Yet, he lamented that there is not going to be enough money to ever catch up on the shortage that we have.
The minister spoke about how much money the Northern Territory government puts into the pool that IHANT can direct into housing development, and how much the federal government contributes towards this as well. However, I ask the minister to also look outside the square, and look at the Aboriginal Benefits Account. This is the first time that I have really looked at the ABA in great detail. This Annual Report 2004-05 was sent to all of us within the last week.
The total ABA income for 2005 was $57 259 247, some $7m more than in 2004. This money is earned as royalties; it is in the ownership of indigenous people in the Northern Territory. You think about it. Whilst the Northern Territory is one-sixth of the Australian land mass and indigenous people own 50% or 51% of it, it is 650 000 km2. If that land were fully utilised; it would be making more than $57m from mining royalties. Imagine, if these royalties were used wisely by the land council that controlled the money, and they used that money to develop the land for agriculture, animal husbandry or tourism. There would be all sorts of opportunities out there. Imagine how much this $57m that was earned last year, could convert to. It could be $500m. It could be even more than. Think of the amount of land. Think of all the pastoralists who are currently working on pastoral leases and how much money they generate from their properties. There will be more money than you could poke a stick at. You could actually use that money to buy your own home.
If I had a block of land or a pastoral property, and somebody wanted to mine on my property, there will be royalties paid to me. I would use the money for capital improvement on the property; whether it would be building myself a house or building my children a house on the property. The same can be done with indigenous people with this sort of income. The minister needs to consider this. It is a group of people making huge income but not using it in a way that will further their benefit from the money.
There are many houses out there facing rapid deterioration and, as a consequence of that, we do not have enough houses for everybody living out bush. We also see a lot more communities or outstations, with many houses in them that are underutilised or uninhabited. Ask anybody who has travelled to the bush and they will tell you: ‘Oh yes, we have driven through community A, B, C and there is a cluster of houses; not a soul inside - generators, new solar hot water systems, etcetera’. While on the one hand, we have a huge shortage of homes for people, we then have that wasted resource. Somehow, we need to be able to match that up. I do not know how you are going to that because, if a family, a group of people or a small community decide they are not going to live there anymore, for whatever cultural reasons they have, what do you do with that infrastructure you have laid down on the ground? What do you do with it? I hope the minister, who is an indigenous person himself, can bring this within the cultural context and try to resolve it. I do not understand their culture, and no way in the world would I be able to get anywhere near to understand the concepts that, obviously, are major issues for many of the people living out bush.
Overcrowding, without a doubt, causes problems. We know that overcrowding is one of the associated factors in rheumatic heart disease, multiple skin infections and kidney diseases. We know that you can get chronic suppurative otitis media as well. When I said it several years ago, the members for Stuart and Wanguri slammed me by saying that I was anti-Aboriginal because I said hygiene has a huge impact on people’s health. Here, the minister says exactly the same thing I have said, and it is fine. Well, let me repeat that overcrowding and hygiene, all bundled into one, are the reasons why we get such high incidences of chronic illnesses. If you can spread people out so they are not living in such high density, obviously it is going to be a lot better. Sometimes you wonder. I, obviously, understand the urban system better than I do the bush system. When you move a small family into a Territory Housing residence in Alice Springs or in Darwin, before long, you see others moving in with the family. How do you stop that?
Do not say because there are not enough houses, that is why they are crowding in it. The house is provided for the family. The rest of the people who have come to this house were not there initially and, suddenly, they appear as if from nowhere. Obviously, they have come in from the bush or wherever else, and they take up residence in the property and the tenant is powerless to do anything about it. It does not appear to me, anyway, that Territory Housing works particularly hard to support those tenant families, to empower them in a way that they can say to the visitors: ‘Okay, come and visit if you wish to, and with our blessing, but you cannot stay here’. We have to be able to give them some sort of support to do that, otherwise they will continue to be under social pressures. They have been suffering this for many years.
IHANT money is finite, and no matter how much you put into it, unless you can contain the cost of construction, you are going to end up fighting a losing battle. I recall that, when I was a minister for Housing, the average home built out bush was about $250 000; today it is closer to $500 000. That is only five years, and that is a real problem. Where are you going to find the money? If the price of a house built out bush has doubled in the last five years, something is wrong somewhere. The price of building a home in the suburbs has not doubled in the last five years. Something is wrong somewhere and you need to address that. Until you can control that, you are going to always be short of money. With the money that you have, you can only build half the number of homes today that you built five years ago. You are behind the eight ball immediately.
I believe that rolling all the major housing funds into one is a good initiative. I would be very keen to hear how that has been going. Now that the minister has put down those figures, I am very pleased to see that. Bringing the NAHS funding into the one pool as well allows standardisation of the homes, the nature of the construction and also the cost. Before this occurred, there was always an issue of inequality of types of homes that were being built by IHANT versus NAHS.
With time, I am sure there will be more designs that are appropriate or appreciated by indigenous people. We started off with the Papunya model quite a few years ago. It was a start in the right direction. I understand, talking to quite a few people in IHANT, that that Papunya model has been modified somewhat, but going in the right direction and providing designs that are much wanted by the residents.
I want to come back now to the urban areas. While the minister’s statement is mostly about indigenous housing in the bush, housing in the suburbs is greatly impacted by the lack of adequate housing in the bush. Without a doubt, there is a significant urban shift of people to Territory Housing properties in the suburbs and that is causing quite a major problem for many people. I have said it before and I will say it again: there are many people who are ill prepared, poorly prepared, for urban lifestyle. We can change that. We can fix that by teaching people how to deal with the urban mod cons. We can do that by appropriate training and teaching.
When I was talking to William Tilmouth recently, I suggested to him that maybe there should be a program where we have a home economics-type teacher who would come to a home and provide instruction - not labour, but instruction: this is how you manage your budget; this is what you do when you go shopping; this is the type of food that you would buy; this is how you would use a stove; this is how you would cook; this is how you use a washing machine. Do that, maybe for a whole month - a full-time job for a month. That person returns to the same family every day, five days a week - or seven days a week, it is up to the program - making sure that the family understands what it is like in terms of daily living in the suburbs. Children get up each morning, and go to school each day after breakfast. Tell the parents about shopping and show them what it is like to live in the suburbs and ensure that they at least have those skills there. Hopefully, after a month, those people will have picked up those skills and then the home economics instructor moves onto the second family and spends a month with the second family.
Perhaps, once a week, they return to the first family to see how they are doing, to ensure that they are still maintaining those skills. In 12 months, you can influence, affect, train, and teach, 12 families, 12 households. That is a start. Then have a competition, if you like, to see how they manage with the skills that they learned. That will be a way of ensuring that the longevity of the homes that they are occupying, their health, nutrition, education - all those things improve. All you need is one full-time officer at a time to do this. Twelve homes in a year is not many but it is 12 more than you would otherwise have. It would be a good thing.
This urban drift - what are we going to do about it? The Alice Springs News of 16 February reported and I quote:
Let us concentrate on this 5000 to 7000 people from the bush coming into town. If that is the case, then I am really concerned. Alice Springs has, at best, 30 000 people, and you are going to bring 5000, or one-sixth of the population, in a very short space of time into the town. The cultural impact will be just humungous - absolutely humungous! In the same way, you would not want to bring in 5000 Americans to live in Palmerston or in Darwin all in one hit. You would not agree to have 5000 Americans living in Darwin. Nor would you want 5000 Shanghai-native Chinese people to come to Darwin to live in a short space of a year. You could not do it. You would cause such huge cultural turmoil …
Mr McAdam: What about 2000 Australians moving to Alice Springs?
Dr LIM: I am not talking about Australians or Americans. The minister misinterprets what I am attempting to describe.
I am trying to impress on the minister that no matter who they are – okay, let us use what has been demonised. We talk about Muslims, imagine 5000 Muslims living in Alice Springs all in one hit. As a government you would say: ‘Let us not try to do that. Let us spread people out a bit at a time’. You do not move in a huge mob of people who are not prepared for urban living, and suddenly plonk them there. That is why you are having so many problems in the suburbs. You do not accept that, but that is why it is causing the problems. If you abandon the bush people and say: ‘No, you cannot stay there anymore, you have to come into town, it is cheaper’, then there are going to be huge problems.
If a senior public servant confirms that to the Alice Springs News and it is prepared to print it, then there has to be a huge element of truth in there. Five thousand people in Alice Springs. No wonder Alice Springs people are concerned. You wonder why you have such cultural upheaval in Alice Springs. People complain all the time about neighbours from hell. You have heard about it. Every member would have heard about it. Your constituents have complained to you about it, time and time again. We need to ensure that people are adequately prepared for urban living. If not, you are just creating a situation that will just deteriorate beyond your control and that would be a tragedy.
I am not sure whether the minister is aware about an indigenous housing forum that is going to be occurring in March. I understand the conference will be titled ‘What is wrong with indigenous housing’. I understand this has been organised by a university in New South Wales. If the minister is not aware, then I suggest he finds out about it. I am sure, like me, he will be interested in attending …
Mr McAdam: I am aware.
Dr LIM: It is good to hear the minister is aware. I hope he will be attending, as I will be, to see what the workshop will provide in ideas to improve indigenous housing in the Territory.
The statement as delivered by the minister can be delivered by any minister of any political persuasion. Nobody disputes the fact that there is a huge problem with housing for these people in the Territory. We want to see this improve. We want to see more money put towards it. However, the money does not have to be government sources only. There are other sources. In particular, if the land was to be developed, appropriately, adequately, there will be more money than would ever be needed. In fact, people in the bush could buy their own homes with the money that they would receive from royalties - not only from mining, but from all the other avenues of business.
If you look at the total ABA income of $57.259m in 2005 and $50.402m in 2004, the way it is divided up 40% of the money is paid to the four Northern Territory land councils in a proportion of Northern Land Council, 23%; Central Land Council, 14%; Tiwi Land Council, 2%; and the Anindilyakwa Land Council, 1%, which translates to something like $19m. Then, there is another 30% of the royalties which is paid to land councils for distribution, in accordance with section 35(2) of the act, to Aboriginal organisations in areas affected by mining operations. That is something in the total of $14.3m of which the Northern Land Council picks up about $4.74m, the Central Land Council $2.7m, and Anindilyakwa Land Council picks up nearly $7m. There is money there.
It could be used, instead of putting it away in trust or buying lots of capital property, which does not appear to me to be returning the benefits into welfare for the direct beneficiaries of the land trust, which is a real pity. The remaining 30% of the royalties are available for the benefit of Aboriginals leaving the Northern Territory under section 64(4), also for the administrative costs of the ABA, which appears to be about $500 000. Under section 64(8), where the land council cannot meet its administrative costs, they can be topped up at the minister’s discretion.
There is a substantial amount of money. Let us see that money used to grow itself. Let us see the money being used to develop the land which the people own so they can then use that money to buy their own homes, or top up the money that governments provide to develop enough housing to satisfy the Territory’s needs. The minister talked about $180m a year. With the money that is available, that is over $50m more. If you can increase that with other industries combined with mining, you will have more money than is needed to develop the housing that is required out bush, or even in the urban areas.
Debate adjourned.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
I want to speak briefly this evening in relation to the commissioning ceremony that I and the member for Port Darwin attended last Friday for the two new Naval patrol boats, HMAS Larrakia, and HMAS Bathurst. It was a very special evening, particularly for the Larrakia people after whom HMAS Larrakia was named. Given that the Naval base is in the suburb of Larrakeyah, the Larrakia traditional owners were invited to the commissioning ceremony and the Commissioning Lady for HMAS Larrakia was Donna Odegaard. It was a privilege to be there and see the pride in the Larrakia people who attended the commissioning of HMAS Larrakia, meeting a lot of the traditional owners and Donna, with the member for Port Darwin. I want to read into the Parliamentary Record the commissioning speech that Donna Odegaard gave to the assembled guests and Chief of Navy and to put it on the public record for the Larrakia people. I will start with the contribution from Donna Odegaard, the Commissioning Lady for HMAS Larrakia:
That is Donna Odegaard’s commissioning speech, given last Friday night. It really was a special occasion. In talking about reconciliation, then this was a very significant moment for the Larrakia people to not only have one of our Navy’s ships named after the Larrakia people, but to be really and truly included in all aspects of the ship’s commissioning and construction, and ongoing commitment from the Navy that they will continue that association between HMAS Larrakia and the Larrakia people and that is going to last for many years to come.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I wanted to put on record an activity that I witnessed at Clyde Fenton Primary School. I visited the school a couple of weeks ago to attend a full school assembly. It was great to see all the students in their colourful house T-shirts eagerly participating in the assembly. It was great to welcome new staff and students. I was most impressed by the Year 7 students who nominated for the prestigious and very responsible positions of house captains for 2006. Each student who nominated made a short presentation from the stage to the assembly. I was so impressed by the presentations of all of those students. It took courage for some of them to speak publicly about their personal attributes, and that was what made it even more impressive. All too often, we hear so many negative comments about young people, and do not always hear when positive things happen, so I just wanted to say how great it was to see these young people presenting so well.
I want to put on the Parliamentary Record the wonderful presentation of all of those Year 7 Clyde Fenton Primary School students, but especially the outstanding presentation by Eleanor Hayes and Courtney Dwyer. The eloquence with which these two young ladies addressed the assembly was outstanding. I know that I did not have the same confidence at that age to be able to stand up in front of so many people and speak so well. Well done, Eleanor and Courtney.
The teaching staff at Clyde Fenton had the unenviable role of selecting the successful students, and it would have been a very difficult decision. The successful applicant for female school captain was Eleanor Hayes; female vice-captain, Courtney Dwyer; male school captain, David Newton; and male vice-captain, Douglas Spafford. These four people, especially, have the great responsibility of representing Clyde Fenton Primary School for 2006, and I know that they will do their school community proud. I look forward to watching these young people as they mature into wonderful people who will shape the future of the Northern Territory and, hopefully, stay in the Katherine region to contribute to our community.
I would also like tonight to talk about the Rural Women’s Awards for 2006, which are being held this Friday. I want to place on the Parliamentary Record my disappointment in the very low recognition and acknowledgment that rural women are receiving. I went to the awards last year, which were in the Strangers’ Lounge. They were held during lunch and, I have to say, I was very surprised and disappointed at the lack of ceremony that was given to this award. There would have been no more than about 30 people present, and the official part of the awards was over and done with in such a short time. My opinion of the event held last year was that it did not adequately recognise and acknowledge the achievements of rural women.
This year, there has been some confusion about the date and the location of the event. It will finally be held at the Berrimah Research Farm at around lunchtime this Friday. This initially clashed with another program of workshops that had been organised for rural women to be held in Katherine. But rural women, being the enterprising people they are, juggled around the dates for the workshops so that as many of them as possible could come to Darwin to support the awards.
Most annual awards are given prestige by being presented during a lunch or a dinner function when their partners can be present. I urge the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries to ensure that the awards for next year are given the prestige and glamour that they so rightfully deserve, with a formal lunch or dinner function which is widely promoted. I look forward to attending such a function. I look forward to attending the function this Friday, and I know that rural women would appreciate being appropriately and rightfully acknowledged.
Mr BURKE (Brennan): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, as with many people resident at Darwin and Palmerston, I had the pleasure of attending the 64th anniversary of the Bombing of Darwin proceedings on the Esplanade. It was a wonderful event and I congratulate the Darwin City Council, the volunteers and the council workers who all worked to put it together. I should issue an apology to Mick Killick of the Maritime Union of Australia for not being able to get down to the service that they held on the wharf. I would have liked to have attended but, having already accepted the invitation from the Lord Mayor of Darwin, I was unable to do so. However, I will be talking to Mick Killick about what has been arranged for next year and the 65th anniversary.
There was a wonderful speech by Mr Monty Tuckerman as part of the proceedings. Mr Tuckerman was aboard HMAS Warrnambool on the day of the first bombing of Darwin and told of how he saw the bomb being dropped on the USS Peary and go down the funnel. It was fairly understated in what he said, but very telling, when he said that there were a few other crew mates who later experienced breakdowns and he thought it was because of what they had seen on that day. It was a very personal account of the cost that a conflict of that nature can have on individuals.
I would also like to acknowledge Mr Ray Chin who, on the day read the Ode of Remembrance. Many people will know Ray and his wife, Jade, long-time Darwin residents. Ray mentioned to my wife that on the day when Darwin was bombed in 1942 he was at Larrakeyah Barracks watching the planes coming in. Ray was serving with the Army at the time, I think, and his service did not finish at the end of World War II. He continued his service to the community, indeed, as many members will know, including a stint as the Clerk of this Legislative Assembly. I thought it was worth paying a special tribute to Ray Chin and his wife, Jade.
I was lucky to be able to lay a wreath with the member for Port Darwin. Many people laid wreaths and it was a fitting tribute to see the Cenotaph bedecked with flowers and tributes to those who fought for our generation and those before. There was a large crowd, it was well attended. It was good to see so many people making the effort to get there for the celebrations. I am sure that there will be an even bigger crowd next year for the 65th anniversary.
Last month, I participated along with the Mayor of Palmerston and the member for Blain, in the Dancing with the Politicians Extravaganza held at the Palmerston High School. Each of us were given an hour with a dancing instructor and told to learn a dance. I cannot remember what my fellow contestants had to do, but I had to learn the Cha Cha. As someone who has never been a ballroom dancer it was an experience, but a fun one. I must thank Bronwyn Graham, who was the instructor assigned to me, for not just her teaching and ensuring that I had at least some basic idea of what I was doing and would not cause myself or anyone else any major injury, but also for being a lot of fun into the bargain. It really made it a great time for me, and I enjoyed it immensely.
Moyston Wright, the Principal of Rat Race Dance Studios pulled it all together; he got the other dance studios involved. Bronwyn, for instance, is with the Darwin Dance and Drama Academy. It takes something like that to get a public performance together and try to whip up community support for it. Certainly, there was a reasonable crowd which turned up. Enough, in fact, to raise $1600 for Camp Quality, a very worthy cause.
As was reported in the Palmerston Sun, the Mayor took out the inaugural trophy, and deservedly so. She left the member for Blain and me somewhat in her wake. I should also say that, whilst I cannot remember what the member for Blain had to learn, I was told later it was the hardest of the three dances, therefore, he had a bit of a handicap.
I want to mention the volunteers from the Palmerston ALP Branch who manned the barbecue and drinks stall on the night and stayed there all night: Merv, Jaya and Sarah did a fantastic job and they contributed to the fun as well in their own way. The Palmerston Branch of the ALP is a vibrant branch; it has good people in it always up for anything and not afraid to volunteer. They are a friendly bunch and we always welcome new members. If any wants to join, they just have to contact anyone in the Labor Party, basically, and they will put you in contact with the right people. However, certainly contact my and the member for Drysdale’s offices.
I welcome some new teachers at Bakewell Primary School. Melanie Bulmer and Ranae Hamilton returned from maternity leave, welcome back. Karen Flannery, Sharon Sinclair, Susan Considine, Niamh ni Chillin, Stephanie Marcsik, Rebekah Sadowski, Carrie White, Jennifer Walker, and Nikki O’Gorman who is in the admin area: welcome to the school, or welcome back if you are returning to Bakewell Primary School. I hope you have a great year this year, as I am sure you will because Bakewell is such a great school. I always enjoy it very much when I go there. I want to say farewell to Lauren May, Kate Middleton, Nicky Honan, Michelle Waters, Adam Voigt, and Melinda Rowland. I wish you all the best wherever you have headed off to, and I thank you for your efforts at Bakewell Primary School.
I had the pleasure of having drinks with the Palmerston Raiders last weekend. I made a few gaffs whilst I was there, I am not afraid to say. I was told very quickly to simply refer to the code as League and forget the Rugby part, so I will not make that mistake again. It was a very enjoyable evening watching South Sydney playing and it was a good game, although I left a bit after half time. I want to say g’day to Scott Moy the coach and Greg Hansen the President, as well as Shawn Gottwaltz, Lorraine Robertson, Errol Edwards and Erika Moore who are the executive. I know the Palmerston Raiders are setting up for a big year this year, so I will certainly look forward to getting to a couple of games this season, and I will be supporting them all the way, of course, so watch out the rest of the teams in the League!
We had the launch of the Clean Up Australia Day on Friday. Clean Up Australia Day is on 5 March, and the Apex Club of Litchfield will be cleaning up in the area around the Palmerston RSL, the skate park and the surrounds. I encourage everyone, residents of Palmerston or not, to get down and join the Apex Club. I will certainly do everything I can to make sure I am there to assist them. In the past, I have been involved in Clean Up campaigns and, despite the fact you are handling rubbish, it is an enjoyable day of good fun and meeting people and the time really goes quickly.
The Palmerston Neighbourhood Watch is holding its meeting in the Blain electorate office, and I hope people will attend the Neighbourhood Watch program. It needs the support of the local community wherever it is operating, so I encourage Palmerston people to get behind that.
I understand the 1st Palmerston Venturers are holding a car boot sale fundraiser. The Venturers are heading off to New Zealand to represent the Northern Territory. The sale will be on at the Howard Springs Scout Den on Saturday from 9 am to 2 pm and the cost of entry is $10 per car.
I would also like to put in a plug for the Palmerston Cricket Club, whose juniors are having a sign-on day at the clubrooms on Woodroffe Avenue from 11 am to 1 pm. The Palmerston Cricket Club provides a sporting outlet for many juniors, and also has seniors grades as well. It is a great club that goes from strength to strength. Anyone with a youngster with an interest in cricket or who wants to get out and play sport should get down there and see the Palmerston Cricket Club.
The St John volunteers are having their open night on 26 March at the Palmerston Training Hall. We all appreciate the enormous job that St John do, and their volunteers are no exception. Without their volunteers, many events could not proceed. Of course, the volunteers give their time without thought of thanks, and certainly without thought of any payment. I am sure it can be an imposition in a personal sense on occasions, but the volunteers do it without complaint. I thank them wholeheartedly for that, because many of the public events in Palmerston do rely on the St John volunteers’ support.
I have been watching the Palmerston Library and the recreation centre taking shape at Palmerston. If people have not been to have a look at it, I encourage you to do so. Both will be fantastic facilities for the young people, especially all the residents of Palmerston.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I speak tonight about what I have been saying over the last sittings; that there is anarchy in the streets of Alice Springs. If nobody believes that, all you have to do is pick up any of the newspapers that are in Alice Springs and you will see evidence for yourself.
I have started to collect newspaper articles from every issue of the newspapers in Alice Springs, as well as the NT News, just on law and order matters - and this is only just a few months. We have had something like eight killings over the last six months – eight killings – multiple stabbings, robberies, rock throwing, windscreen smashing while people are driving their cars - and the list goes on and on and on. People in Alice Springs are saying: ‘What is the government doing about it?’ What is it doing about it? I have spoken to police officers who tell me openly: ‘We are losing the war in the streets. We have lost it’. I said: ‘The government tells me there are 100 more members on the police force’. He turned to me and said: ‘Where are they’? I said: ‘You are in the game, you should know. I do not know’. They are telling me the numbers are not there. Many of the new recruits, these new numbers in the police, are behind desks. On the streets there are not many police on the beat and there is a loss of respect for law and order.
Shopkeepers in the mall are now sending me e-mails and ringing me and saying: ‘We get people walking in, itinerants walking into our shop, brazen as daylight, pick up an article that they fancy in full view of me and they will walk out. They know that I have not the ability to stop them. They know that by the time I ring up the police and they get there, they would be long gone. There is absolutely nothing I can do. If I try to stop them, yes, I might get myself hurt’.
Talk to people who have had their house broken into. One in eight homes in the Territory are broken into - and this government tells me that things are better. They have broken into at least eight homes in every street in the Territory. They tell their neighbours: ‘No, everything is fine’. But one in eight homes in the Territory is broken into. If it is your home, as they did to me only a few months ago, it is a very devastating experience. When your wife’s wedding jewellery - things of great sentimental value to her – is taken, it is very devastating. That is the sort of thing that people do not like. No matter what statistics you give, what happens is that people say: ‘My privacy, my home is violated’, and it is just not on. Being masculine, maybe I do not empathise fully with the female mind but, when her bedroom is violated, her dresser is violated, it is like being physically raped. For weeks after that, my wife had difficulties coping with the intrusion that she suffered.
This is now on the increase. It was not that long ago when the newspaper published statistics reported by the Northern Territory Crime and Justice Statistics. Three people are assaulted everyday in Alice Springs. I will read this from the Centralian Advocate, of 16 December:
If this government is serious about dealing with law and order then it would put the uniformed policeman on the beat because that creates a visible presence which would be a deterrent. A policeman walking up and down the street will create a deterrent. I remember the government promising that they will have a mobile police unit for Alice Springs: ‘As soon as we get elected we will put a mobile unit there’. Well, July to now, that is eight months since they have been in government this time around. Where is the mobile police unit? We had a caravan which was rarely used but was stationed in the middle of the mall to create impressions. Occasionally, a uniformed officer would come in, go to the caravan and go in and walk straight back out again. However, it created impressions. That was a useful way to at least demonstrate to the public: ‘be on your best behaviour because we are around’. That caravan has not been seen for over a year. You have people starting to stab each other and committing bashings in broad daylight. You have to ask the question: what is happening to our society? There are many law abiding citizens in Alice Springs, and all they want is the town that they knew and loved, about six years ago.
These last two years, in particular, in Alice Springs has been particularly bad. What has happened, I believe, is that in the last five years more and more people are saying: ‘Yes, we can get away with it. No matter what we do, we can get away with it. This government has been very easy on us, so it does not matter; we can do it. And you know what? We can intimidate these white folk, and they do not dare touch us; for whatever reason they do not dare touch us so we can do things; we can get away with it’. When there is no police ready on hand it makes getting away very easy.
You have to ask the question regarding those three boys who attacked the girl: what gave them the right? What gave them the audacity, courage - call it what you like - what made them do it, in broad daylight? Something is wrong in society when teenagers go that far. Unless our society starts to draw the line and say ‘No more, we are not going to allow that to happen’, then it is going to keep on going.
There was an interview on a radio broadcast in Alice Springs. I forgot to bring the transcript with me unfortunately. However, I will read it another time. At the same time, there was the editorial in the Centralian Advocate dated 3 February. I will read it:
Mrs AAGAARD (Nightcliff): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I want to pay tribute to a very important part of the Darwin arts community, the Cavenagh Theatre Incorporated.
The Cavenagh Theatre is Darwin’s oldest theatre group, having begun life in 1950 as the Darwin Amateur Musical Comedy Group. Their name was changed to Cavenagh Theatre in the early 1970s as they moved away from their original focus on musical theatre and towards genre including melodrama, comedy and pantomime.
On Thursday, 9 February, I was delighted to attend the opening night of the Cavenagh Theatre’s latest production, Gasping, by Ben Elton at Browns Mart. Ben Elton, as you might know, is a British comedian, author and playwright and Gasping is a witty satire about corporate hot shots selling designer air. The Cavenagh Theatre production was directed by Nerida Robinson. Whilst Nerida has directed quite a number of productions for Cavenagh Theatre in the past, Gasping was her first show after having been away from the stage for the past eight years.
The show has only a small cast, four stage actors, Philip Tarl Denson, Kevin Gould who, I might add is the father of the Serjeant-at-Arms, Helen Allmich, Ambrose Nicholls-Skene and Kim Jackson. All have large roles to play. Each of them brought their characters to life and made the most of Ben Elton’s clever and amusing script. As well as the on-stage actors, the show involves several voice-overs extolling the virtues of designer air, and a live news cross to Africa where air was in short supply thanks to rapacious harvesting by the wicked Lockheart Corporation. These voice-overs and the news cross were provided by Scott Fraser, Peg Gellert, Darroch Robinson, Phoebe Robinson and Nerida Robinson and were very funny indeed.
Of course, as members of this Assembly would appreciate, there is far more to creating great theatre than just the people who appear on stage. In this instance, the actors were ably supported by Kevin Cook, Phil Ingram, Tony Mount, Peg and Des Gellert, Jon Robins, Graham Lockerbie, Liz Gammon, Sheila Rowe and Chrissie Fraser, all of whom undertook vital backstage roles. Together, this enthusiastic and committed bunch of Territorians came together to put on a show which was at once entertaining and thought provoking. Using comedy, they caused the audience to reflect on the possible effects of co-modification of the natural environment being taken to its extreme.
Unlike the greedy corporate hot shots who feature in Gasping, members of the Cavenagh Theatre are not motivated by financial gain. They are an amateur group motivated by a love of theatre. This love is evident in the theatrical skill and the intelligence that they brought to Ben Elton’s Gasping, and it is a credit to them and the long-established reputation of the Cavenagh Theatre.
I would also like to recognise and thank Mr Ian Winstanley. Mr Winstanley may well be known to quite a few members in this House, because he certainly moves from electorate office to electorate office, talking to members about various issues. Although Ian is not a member of the Nightcliff electorate, I am told that he wishes that he was. He spends a good deal of time in Nightcliff, and is a very regular visitor to my electorate office. He keeps me informed of goings-on in the neighbourhood and shares his views on the issues of the day. He is actually very community minded and often helps out others with everything from tying down tarpaulins to fixing computers.
In the early morning, Ian can usually be found riding his bike along the Nightcliff foreshore. However, this is one activity where Ian is, perhaps, not so community minded. In my opinion, his ‘no hands’ riding style is an unmitigated threat to public safety. I warn anyone who uses the foreshore in the early mornings to be ready to jump if you see him coming, although he usually does do a bit of a clapping gesture in case you are in the way.
Nevertheless, Ian is a wonderful supporter. For Seniors Month last year, he acted as a volunteer at a community breakfast which I held on the foreshore. This is typical of Ian’s generosity of spirit and his contribution to community. He is a tremendous asset to Nightcliff and I am grateful to him.
One of Ian’s passions is the University of the Third Age. U3A is shorthand for the University of the Third Age, a concept that began in Toulouse, France in 1972 and has since spread around the world. The term ‘third age’ refers to retirement, the ‘third age’ which follows the earlier ages of childhood and adolescence, then vocational employment. Indeed, most of us present here in the Chamber would be welcome in this group.
University of the Third Age is dedicated to lifelong learning and to ensuring that retirement remains a dynamic and inquiring time of life. U3A offers a very democratic type of university. You do not need any qualifications to join and there are no degrees. There are no firm distinctions between teachers and students. All members are encouraged to contribute based on their life experience and their learning.
U3A arrived in Australia in 1984 and in Darwin in 1989. Since 1989, U3A Darwin has grown to have about 190 members spread right across Australia. They have a regular calendar of events, which includes activities including mah-jong, guest lecturers, play readings which they do in my electorate office, outings and discussions, as well as a book group, a lunch club and a classical music interest group. One indicator of the vitality of U3A Darwin was the launch last year of U3A Darwin – The Story by Yvonne Forrest. Yvonne is the U3A Darwin Treasurer and, in her words, the book chronicles ‘15 years of learning, laughter and friendship’. I was honoured to be invited to the book’s launch and enjoyed the occasion very much.
On 8 December last year, I was again treated to U3A’s hospitality when I attended their Christmas lunch at Kantilla’s in Marrara. The luncheon was superb, as was the company. Groups like U3A rely on the dedication and efforts of their members.
Thanks and recognition are especially due to U3A President Judith Cooper, Vice-President Miess Wolff, Secretary John Knight, Treasurer Yvonne Forrest, immediate Past President Nan Bell and committee members Elizabeth Bignell, Bill Kerr, Jill Parker, David Swift, Anne Taylor and Betty Woods. Each of these people serve their community with distinction and make a real difference to the lives of Senior Territorians.
I will conclude this section with a poem from U3A Darwin, a story written by U3A member, Peter Stokes. It is called Food for Thought and neatly expresses the philosophy that inspires U3A Darwin:
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I also place on the record tonight my best wishes to Helen Campbell, a good friend of mine, and also the president of the Nightcliff Branch of the Labor Party. Helen had a very serious fall on Saturday night at her home and she is at the Royal Darwin Hospital with a very serious neck and back injury. I understand she can move her fingers and toes but we are still waiting to find out what her prognosis is. On behalf of my family and the members of the Nightcliff branch, I wish her all the best for a speedy recovery.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a few comments on the debate that took place in the House today about the Litchfield Shire and Humpty Doo tip. I sometimes feel that people do not understand where Litchfield Shire has come from and how that council works. It is not the same as a lot of other councils that people might be familiar with.
The council was started in 1985 with a ‘no or little regulation’ basis. It had small staff numbers, and most of the work was done by contract. It had a population of about 7000. The shire has now a population of about 16 000. It covers an area of 3000 km and has about 700 km of roads, seven recreation reserves, three transfer stations, and one landfill site. It uses the flat rating system and it also seals roads using a local rate. It does not take on other functions that some of the councils in the municipalities of Darwin and Palmerston take on. It only has a staff of about 10. Council has no by-laws and has a budget of about $7m to $8m. The councillors are very careful about extra costs foisted on the council as they are aware of the principles on which the council was started.
Sometimes, people move into the rural area expecting street lighting, dog patrol, mail deliveries and other things that they have been used to. However, Litchfield does not have these things. Litchfield has a motto ‘Community effort is essential’. This motto asks people to do things themselves where possible rather than always relying on the council. Every time you ask the council to do something it costs money so, if it is possible to do it yourself, do it. Freds Pass Reserve was started up using that motto.
Council has to deal with cleaning and environmental matters but it does not have power over those areas. The council is not a big council financially and concentrates most of its money on road construction and maintenance.
In relation to the tips, Litchfield Shire leased from the government three sites for their landfill, at Berry Springs, Howard Springs and Humpty Doo. Eventually, because of pollution issues, Berry Springs and Howard Springs landfill were closed and developed as transfer stations. Rubbish was dumped in bins and was picked up by a truck and taken to Humpty Doo landfill. Humpty Doo also has a transfer station.
The Humpty Doo site, which was originally meant for landfill, went under water during the Wet Season. Anyone who has been there during the Wet would see that, as you come to the present site, before you get there, all the land there in a big Wet goes under water. It is just like a lake. The council moved it back onto higher ground. The council always felt, with the growth of housing around Humpty Doo, that there should be an alternative site, and that site, they believed, would be Sunday Creek.
In the meantime, the Humpty Doo landfill site was used for most of the rubbish in Litchfield Shire Council. Rubbish was dumped in trenches and then covered with material dug from the trenches. The department of Environment said that the rubbish could not be dumped that way, and council then spent quite large sums of money building cells above the ground in which rubbish could be dumped and covered. Green waste is also dumped at Humpty Doo and, because it occasionally caught on fire, the government decided to enforce regulations which made the council cover the green waste with gravel at about a cost of $7000 a week. The Litchfield Shire must be the only council in Australia that has to cover the green waste.
With the council’s role to soon finish at the Humpty Doo tip, it will be up to the government to look after green waste and that will be interesting. I will just make the comment that, if the government is saying that the people in the Litchfield Shire must keep green waste on their properties, they are blowing in the wind. People are entitled to take their green waste to the tip just as people in Darwin and Palmerston are allowed to. If the government has plans to stop people taking green waste to Humpty Doo, then I say that there will be green waste dumped on every available piece of vacant Crown land in Australia. I say to the people who are thinking about that: think very carefully.
I thought I would address some of the issues the minister raised to date on both the ABC and in Question Time. The minister made the statements that Litchfield Shire does not want to take responsibility for collection of and disposal of rubbish. I should say from the outset I am not here to defend Litchfield Shire as if it is the most perfect council in the world. I have some arguments with Litchfield Shire at the present time about certain roads, car parks and a couple of other issues. However, I will defend them over certain things that have happened that they have not always been responsible for.
However, the minister said they will not take responsibility for the collection and disposal of rubbish. If you know Litchfield Shire, everybody takes their rubbish to the transfer station. If you do not want to take it to the transfer station, you have a private rubbish collector take it to the transfer station. The council then picks up the rubbish from the transfer station and takes it to the landfill site at Humpty Doo. They do undertake their responsibilities of collection and disposal of rubbish. They have been doing that since the council started.
You say there is a shambles at the Humpty Doo dump. I would be the first to say that dumps are not very pleasant places at all. The Humpty Doo tip has had problems. However, the Litchfield Shire did what the environment people asked them; they got rid of the trenches. They built the cells up high so it would be above the ground. They covered the green waste. As I said, no one else in Australia covers green waste at a cost of $7000 a week. It is a fair bit of money for the ratepayers. They did what was required. Again, the Humpty Doo tip site is not the perfect site. The council’s first president, John Maley, always felt that eventually that tip site had to go because of the movement of housing in the Humpty Doo district centre.
The minister also said that I have a bit of history and form on this one. However, when I think of form it is either I am a gangster with a criminal record, or something to do with the horses. I am not sure what it is. I know in my time we actually brought out the Litchfield Shire Waste Management Planning Study; the document I was talking about today. That was produced in May 1995, prepared for Litchfield Shire Council by Woodward and Clyde. That is what the council produced in my time. I believe my record for fighting for wetlands and the environment speaks for itself. I am just not sure what the minister is saying my form is on this one. If the minister would like to tell me one day, I am very interested. I was not a perfect councillor either, but one needs to realise that the president or a mayor of a council, does not speak for himself or herself; he speaks on behalf of the council. That is the difference between a dictatorship and a council. The council decides what policy is and the president or the mayor carries that out or speaks on their behalf.
The minister also continually raised the issue of the $6m reserves for the council. Since I have been on the council, Litchfield Council has always had a reserve. It should have reserves. The Palmerston Council found out just recently that, by not having reserves, they had to bump up their rate quite considerably because they did not have enough money to seal some roads. Litchfield Shire Council puts away money because it is required, under the Australian Accounting Standards, to have money set aside for the depreciation of assets. It does not put aside anywhere near enough money for those assets, because the council’s assets are about $800m because they have an enormous number of roads and some buildings on all their reserves, plus their own administration. They keep $6.6m of that for depreciation. It is not there to just throw away on anything because that would be foolish and the council would then have to find that money again at some other time. They can use it for one-off occasions, which they have for things like helping build the indoor equestrian and recreation centre at Humpty Doo.
The minister also said there was an onus on the council to carry out detailed evaluation of Howard Peninsula when, in 2000, it was identified. The Litchfield Planning Concepts and Land Use Objectives, which were released by this government, signed off by the then minister Vatskalis, showed a site on the Howard River for the proposed regional dump. Under the Howard Peninsula the words are - this is the planning words - ‘investigations with respect to potential to establishment a regional waste disposal facility’. In other words, where a regional waste facility would go is a planning matter. You would imagine that a government which wishes to put a regional waste facilities somewhere in the Darwin region would then spend the money on making sure that that site they selected was the correct site for a tip. It says ‘investigation with respect to’. In other words, that is saying the government should look at that.
Why would the Litchfield Shire Council look at paying for a detailed evaluation of a regional waste facility? I would not mind if all the councils threw a dollar in but, surely, Litchfield would not do it. I have doubts that this regional waste facility will be nothing but a pie-in-the-sky facility because Darwin is not going to leave Shoal Bay while it has all the facilities there. In fact, the word is that it is trying to increase the size of the tip leased from the Commonwealth government. It has put in methane plants and has just renewed or is renewing the recycling area. It does not need to move to a regional waste facility plant. Litchfield certainly is not going to go to that site which is expected to be a state-of-the-art site. Therefore, is the government is saying: ‘Oh yes, we are going to look at the Darwin regional site but, in actual fact, in the meantime you will take your rubbish to Shoal Bay’? If you take what the council has said, that will cost ratepayers somewhere between $400 and $500 per person per year to cover. That is an enormous strain on the council. They either tell people to pay that amount, which is doubling the rates, or they cut back on roads and their reserves.
I say to the government: please reconsider what you are doing. I would like the Humpty Doo landfill to be moved at some stage. Until there is a practical site in the Litchfield Shire, then allow that landfill site to continue until you pick a closer site in the Humpty Doo area, so that Litchfield can continue without the costs which are going to be burdened on that council over which they have absolutely no control. The government licenses tips and, at the end of this week, it is going to take away the licence for Humpty Doo landfill, basically wash its hand and say: ‘Take your rubbish to Shoal Bay’. Now the council has to find money to do that. Minister, you have said that this thing is not going to happen tomorrow, even though you wrote to me on 5 July 2004. There is not going to be an alternative site, I reckon, for ages.
On another couple of issues raised, it was surprising that the department released an e-mail yesterday, one day before the statement arrived. I have it here. They came out with the department talking about:
It is not as though the council sat on its hand, but the council had to do what it could within its own budget. In the end, the site for a new tip is a planning matter, similar to a district centre. Government identifies whether you can have your tip; the council then has to fund the facilities at that site. However, the government has to pick the site and say that it is suitable. Council does not own any land where the tips are.
There have been a lot of things said about the council which are unfair. A lot of people do not have an understanding of the council, and have never been on local government. It is not an easy thing to tell people their rates are going up, I can tell you - you would like to hang up the phone. It is not an easy job being a councillor, and it does not help if the government kicks the boot into them and says: ‘Send your rubbish to Shoal Bay’. I do hope the minister will say: ‘We will find you a site but, in the meantime, we will keep Humpty Doo landfill open’.
Mr NATT (Drysdale): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, it is with a great deal of pride that I inform the House that I was one of the very lucky and proud Northern Territory residents who ran in the Commonwealth Games Queen’s Baton Relay in Palmerston on Wednesday, 8 February 2006.
The Queen’s Baton is one of the great traditions of the Commonwealth Games, having been the curtain raiser to every games since 1958. The relay begins at Buckingham Palace in London with a ceremony, where Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II entrusts the baton containing her message to all the athletes in the games to the first honorary relay runner. In the case of the current baton, the first runners were Cathy Freeman and Elle McPherson.
The relay concludes at the opening ceremony of the Melbourne Games after the baton has travelled in excess of 180 000 km in a year and a day, visiting all 71 nations of the Commonwealth and passing through thousands of hands of baton relay runners. I had a wonderful leg to run. It started in Buscall Avenue at Bakewell and finished the leg running past the Bakewell Primary School in Forrest Parade. The feeling was exhilarating, especially when the entire enrolment of the Bakewell Primary School lined up three and four deep across the front of the school to cheer the baton, wave the Australian flag with pride, and savour a part of history they will remember forever. I was pleased to pass the baton over to my parliamentary colleague, the member for Blain, who I know was also extremely proud to be involved on the day.
The organisers of the relay need to be congratulated. The progress of the run was extremely well synchronised and ran exactly to plan and, what is more, on time. I particularly want to congratulate the Palmerston residents who were honoured to be involved. I know the Chief Minister named all the Northern Territory runners last week; however, it is important for the Palmerston residents to be recognised specifically for the part they played. I want to acknowledge the Mayor of Palmerston, Mrs Annette Burke, who started the relay in Palmerston that morning, Pam McLeod, Peter Wright, Fran Potter, Clifford Duncan, Erika Jankovic, the member for Blain, Mr Terry Mills, Robert Naumann, Marg Duminski, Judy Joyce, Rod Joyce, Beryl McIntosh, Lisa Naumann, Paul Mitchener, Jason Ivinson, Shane Hall, Damien Smith, Fiona Halliday, Paul Dale and Sophie Joynes-Hawken.
For me, the day was made even more special, and a day never to forget, because my father and mother, unknown to me, made the trip up on The Ghan from Adelaide, and the Adelaide to Darwin leg with the baton. I must thank them dearly for taking the trip to be part of the special day with me and my wife. However, the sneakiness and the close-kept secret I am still coming to grips with. Thank you must also go to my lovely wife, Jetta, for organising this surprise for me, and a special thanks to Des and Lou Fredricks, wonderful close friends of ours, who became involved in filming the event and snapping many photographs for the family.
I would particularly like to thank Telstra for nominating me for the run. It was totally unexpected, but very treasured by me and my family. Thank you to all those concerned at Telstra, and to all the well wishers who congratulated me on my selection. It was a wonderful occasion and the uniform, photos and replica baton will take pride of place in my office and home.
I take this opportunity to wish all the Australian competitors the very best of luck in Melbourne in March. A special congratulations to our Northern Territory combatants, who I know will take the pride of the Territory into their events. I was at a school presentation at the Durack Primary School prior to Christmas where a former student of the school, Crystal Attenborough, was present to hand out end-of-year awards to the Year 7 students. She was particularly looking forward to her qualification heats in January because, at that stage of her training, her fitness was progressing nicely and she was most optimistic of obtaining a place in the games squad. We all know now that she has achieved her ambition and I wish her well in her endeavours for gold in her personal and team events. Go, Crystal!
The Palmerston Magpies Football Club oval and clubrooms are beginning to take great shape at a great rate of knots at the Palmerston CDU Campus. The member for Wanguri and I were lucky enough to be shown through the new clubrooms construction by the Magpies coach, Darren Flanagan earlier this month. The rooms still have fixtures to be built in, but the building will develop with time and provide a wonderful base for the club in the years to come. The oval surface still needs some preparatory work in the way of top dressing to be finished, goal posts to be raised, and a fence around the playing surface to be erected. The club committee has undergone a large transformation in the last couple of weeks, with the past president and several committee members standing down from the club activities earlier this year.
I congratulate the new club President, Mr Gus Gale, on his appointment and other committee members, Senior Vice President Garry Pollock, Vice President Bob Hargreaves, Treasurer Carol Hargreaves and committee members Alan Walshe, Chris Murray and John Marshall for their commitment to the club’s future. Unfortunately, the club has not had the best of seasons this year. However, Mr Gale and his committee are determined to get the club back on track both on and off the field.
It is particularly disappointing to see the Under 18 grade forfeiting matches late in the season. Palmerston has always been a very strong sporting community with Australian Rules taking pride of place in the community. The junior grades are the future of the club and Mr Gale and his committee are very aware that the club will have to concentrate heavily in this area to ensure that there is a bright future for the club. I would like to state publicly tonight - and I have told Mr Gale and Mr Pollock of my intentions - that I am more than happy to become involved with the club to assist the planning, coaching, marketing or any other area that they see fit, in the hope that my previous experience in the sport may help them in some of these areas, to guide the club in a positive direction.
Last but not least, the Chung Wah Society Lion Dance Troupe visited the Drysdale electorate office on Saturday, 11 February, 2006 to offer a Chinese New Year blessing. It was a loud, bright and fantastic event that was enjoyed by all. The morning was made even more special with my mother and father attending the ceremony. We, along with many other spectators, enjoyed the display. The group did a wonderful job. It was pleasing to see several young children involved in the display, and these youngsters were ably educated by the senior and more experienced members of the troupe.
We followed the troupe from my office to the office of my colleague, the member for Brennan, in the Palmerston Shopping Centre where we handed out red balloons and sweets to the children who were celebrating the Chinese New Year while watching the lion in action.
I take this opportunity to thank the Chung Wah Society and all their volunteers for blessing us with such a great experience. I would just like to put it on the record that it would be nice if they would perhaps consider answering - it is something that my father suggested - a number of people who asked what the significance of the lion was. It would probably be nice for the Chung Wah Society to think about producing a small information brochure which they could hand around at these events to give people a bit of an idea of the history of the lion and what the significance of the lion visiting these places are. It may be something that the Chung Wah Society may wish to think about in the future.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I have to thank the member for Drysdale for his contribution. It was an honour for me too, to receive the baton from you, member for Drysdale.
I am also really pleased to hear your public statement tonight in support of Palmerston Magpies. I look forward to working with you, seeing I have tipped Magpies to win every single game this season. I will continue to tip the same next year and I am sure they will do their best and I will have the best result - a far better result than I had this year.
I would like to make reference to observations regarding the debate which occupied the better part of today on the approach to the issue of community public concern - drunkenness. That is a very deep and complex issue that needs to be considered very carefully, perhaps in another forum. Today’s discussion was largely about at what point we send the person who has a problem with alcohol through a door. On one side, we are offered six apprehensions within three months, and then, on the other three within six months. That is a reasonable debate and that was, basically, the focus of the debate. Behind that is the deeper social issue.
My concern is the door, Once the decision is made and the process has been activated and elevated to a new level, they proceed through a door. The issue we must all recognise with rehabilitation, is what programs are out there that are effectively addressing the problem? Once the person who has difficulty with alcohol and all the ensuing problems is brought before an authority - what then? That is where I urge honourable members - and I will take up the challenge after listening to today’s debate – that it is the next part of this that really is the most important part, the debate we must have: what are the effective rehabilitation programs? We can have the debate but, effectively, the ball is in government’s court because they have the capacity right now to deliver on that. However, I will do whatever I can in the area of policy debate contribution.
On the issue of policy debate and ideas, we must never underestimate the power of a good idea. I made reference last week in the sittings to the Australian Future Directions Forum. It has only met, I understand, once before a number of years ago. It was featured in an insert in the Sydney Morning Herald on Saturday, 4 February 2006:
The outcome of the deliberations of these 90 Australians was ending the disadvantage of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, and was declared to be the number one priority of the forum. They declared, as a group, that they would do this and commit to that as a policy priority because it is right:
A very interesting result. When you go through the deliberations of the forum, it is really quite compelling reading, very challenging. It covers a range of issues from Australia’s creative industries, economic issues, education, environment, foreign policy and regional engagement, health, indigenous issues, leadership and governance, national values and identity, society, communities and social cohesion, work and families. I commend honourable members, and anyone with an interest in the development of public policy to address the emerging needs of our nation, to consider looking at the web site where they have listed the priority. The consolidated outcomes are listed on the website, which would be found at www.afdf.net.au. They are available now for anyone who would like to consider.
There were 100 people chosen. Of that, 90 people were able to make it. Of that 90, there were three Territorians. There was Dr Ngaire Brown, the Assistant Director of Indigenous Health, Menzies School of Health; Phillip Leslie, the Executive Director of Sport and Recreation in the Territory; and Wing Commander Steve Roberton, Commanding Officer of 75 Squadron. The Territory was well represented. I pay specific reference to those three Territorians who participated in a very significant event. Believe me, honourable members, if you have an opportunity to read the consolidated outcomes, it makes quite compelling reading.
I move to another issue that I have come across in recent times. It was during the debate about skills shortage. In the midst of the deliberations about how we find our way out of a skills shortage and the many paths that we can tread, one of them was brought to my attention when I met African refugees. There are a number of the African refugees who are very well qualified, with quite unique and extensive experience, both academic and in the public sector generally, having great difficulty finding work. There needs to be, in my view, some creativity and will expressed by government at this particular point to find an entry point for some of these very highly-qualified men, in particular, into the public sector.
I had the opportunity to meet three in recent times who are at their wits end. They do not quite know how to find their way into meaningful employment. I heard their stories about where they have come from, and the hours and years they have put into study and the academic qualifications - some of them earned in the United States, some in the United Kingdom, some in Australia. One is from Uganda, one from Ethiopia and one from Zimbabwe - highly qualified, highly motivated but unable to find work. They present a very sad story. I place the story of these three men on the Parliamentary Record as a reference point for response from anyone in government - particularly the minister responsible for Public Employment - to consider creative ways to allow those mature refugees, who have extensive qualifications both within this country and internationally, to find entry points into the public sector.
John Bosco Odonga has a Master of Health Service Management from New South Wales, a Master of Health Administration, a Master of Public Health from New South Wales University, a Graduate Diploma in Public Health from Sydney University, a Master of Science from the London School of Hygiene Medicine, and Bachelor of Science. He wants more than anything to have meaningful employment and is prepared to take anything that is reasonable. At this point, he has not been able to find any work.
There is also Herman Androga Awola whose academic qualifications include: a Master of Education from Australian Catholic University, Master of Education and Work from Macquarie University, Sydney, Bachelor of Social Science and Human Services Management from Edith Cowan University, Certificate in English as a Second Language from Edith Cowan University, Postgraduate Certificate in Education Behaviour Management, University of Queensland, and a number of other listings.
Then there is Stanford Jubane. His first language is primarily English. He has come from Zimbabwe. He has taken any offer that has come his way. His qualifications are largely legal, but he is prepared to teach and work in classrooms. He has taken any position that has come his way. He has worked at Palumpa and at Pularumpi and at Anula Primary School. However, he has yet to find substantive work. He has his family in Zimbabwe waiting for him to be able to send some means back to them.
They present very sad stories, and they are just three that really are quite compelling. When we talk about skills shortages, they are motivated, qualified men wanting work and having difficulty finding access into the public sector to be able to discharge their qualifications and experience in the service of Territorians.
On a lighter note, the Palmlesstonnes has been a marvellous activity. It was tremendous to go last night, in preparation for the 6 pm walk. They all had their yellow shirts on, doing their stretches ready to go on the big walk. This was the end of the first week, and it was the beginning of week two. After the second weigh-in, the word passed around that, collectively, we had lost, as a community in one week, 98 kg. That was very focusing, and people thought: ‘Yes, I have made my contribution’. I said nothing, because I have not made a contribution yet.
However, what is just so wonderful is that there are over 300 people involved in this community activity, and there will be individual benefit because they will be motivated to achieve personal goals. As a community, it is very strengthening, because the wider community is observing, within the midst of our community, some significant action. I reckon it is going to have an impact on most families in Palmerston, and will make Palmerston a significantly different, healthier, stronger community.
I would like to pay specific reference to those organisers. I will not mention them by name because there will be updates as we increase, or lighten, the load on Palmerston, because I want to reserve just enough time for this.
I read this on behalf of Lyn Karlhuber, who is the area coordinator of Weight Watchers NT. She asked if I could present this before the parliament. Lyn writes:
Maybe we could have a plan here in the parliament that, collectively, we could decide how much weight we could lose as members of parliament, and just lighten the load on the whole Territory. That is a challenge I would make and maybe we could consider it. I know efforts were made in the past to lighten the load in certain portfolio areas. There was a lot of noise made about it with little result. Maybe it is something we could do collectively.
Anyway, I thank you, Lyn, for the great work you do in Weight Watchers, and maybe there is a challenge there that we could respond to.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I would like to talk about Wagaman Primary School. It was my pleasure late last year to attend Wagaman Primary School to celebrate with the kids who graduated from the school. They are great kids and I wish all them best for 2006 in high school and their future. I seek permission to incorporate the list of names in the Parliamentary Record.
Leave granted.
Shawal Ahmad Myra Leong-Tyson
Scott Bailey Thomas Long
Liam Birch Troy Nery
Lachlan Brown Jessica Parnell
Crystal Burnett April Phoneyiem
Leah Cantrill Jesse Pietersen
Hayley Casey Jack Polkinghorne
Dwayne Crosbie Amy Russell
Khayla de Ausen Clarice Snachez
Jacqui Deveraux Patricia Seden
Gabrielle Fry Ashley Tyson
Alex Godfrey Jaslyn Walton
Matthew Graetz Jaden Wauchope
Tyson Halupka Dale Williams
Andri Ladju Brody Wishart
Jazna Yep
Nathan Bundren-Saxelby
Dr BURNS: I thank my colleagues for that.
While I am talking about the Wagaman Primary School, I pay tribute to a tireless worker who has spent an enormous part of her busy life helping out with the school council and other community organisations over the past eight years. I am talking about Christina Birch, who lives in Wagaman, just over the road from the school. She first joined the Wagaman school council in 1997 as a preschool rep, and for the next two years she was a parent rep. Then, in 2000, Christina took on the onerous task of secretary until 2003 when she became president.
Christina has worked hard in all roles and was very well respected by her fellow parents, teachers and councillors. She has put in an enormous effort over many years. During these years on the council, Christina also did volunteer work with the school, such as planting trees on planting days, assisting with the barbecue during twilight sports events, and other fundraising events such as food stalls at election day at the school. She was also a volunteer helper at the school cross country at Dripstone Park, and has also generally helped out at various other school events, such as the multicultural event at the school, which is a great success every year, helping out in the food stalls. However, that is not all.
Christina is also on hand at NT Athletics, where she helps out with the time keeping. She fundraises for the Darwin School of Ballet, and she just completed two years on the Junior Triathlon Committee, as well as assisting with organising events.
Christina and her husband, Paul, have two children: Liam who finished Wagaman Primary School in 2005 and has now enrolled as a Year 8 student at Kormilda College, and Madeleine, who is currently in Year 6 at Wagaman Primary School.
Whilst Christina was so active at the school community and athletics, ballet and triathlon, she has a working life. From 1999 to 2001, she was engaged in community nursing, including school health surveillance. In 2001, she joined the Aged Care Assessment Team and, two years later, joined the Territory Palliative Care where she is a clinical nurse consultant (Nurse 4). In this life, Christina was a member of the hospice working party and also a member of the Wagaman Residents Group.
I have been to many meetings with Christina and many community events. She always makes a fantastic contribution to the community and to these meetings. She is a very committed person. She takes a very commonsense approach and has a lot of empathy and sympathy in her approach to people and issues. She has been a hard worker who follows through on issues to ensure the best possible results for all. I am sure the Wagaman school community and the House join me in thanking Christina for all her efforts over the past eight years or so, and the fantastic job that she has done. We certainly need more people like Christina and Paul Birch.
I want to speak tonight about the Greek Orthodox School. Another school not in my electorate is the Greek Orthodox School in Nightcliff. Towards the end of the 2005 school year, I was pleased to present achievement awards to students at the special end-of-year awards night. On behalf of my colleagues, Jane Aagaard and Kon Vatskalis, I presented the awards of high achievement to Nomiki Melas, Irene Nystazos and Maria Moussa of the Senior High School, and Konstandina Spiropoulou, Alexandros Tsirbas and Kalotina Halkitis of the lower school. It is always a great time at the Greek school and this was another great occasion to celebrate. It was a concert in which all the kids performed, and they were a talented lot. They were speaking the Greek language; there was a lot of fun, mirth and merriment. I compliment the children and the teachers at the Greek school.
Tonight I would like to talk about the Evatt Trophy 2005. I had the pleasure last December of helping to sponsor a couple of students, Kevin Kadirgamar and Alison Woodger, chosen as delegates to represent the Northern Territory the 4th Annual Australians School Model UN Security Council competition, known as the Evatt Trophy, which was held in Perth. Kevin wrote to me last month thanking me for the sponsorship and telling me about the delegation’s experience. Kevin wrote that they found, and I quote:
It was great to hear from Kevin and know that he and Alison found the experience both rewarding and enlightening. It is always fantastic to hear from the kids we sponsor to represent the Territory in interstate and international events such as this. I know that they are gaining special insights and skills to help them advance their knowledge of their chosen field of study or sport. I would especially like to thank Kevin for his letter.
Together with other members tonight, I would like to talk about the Chinese New Year, the Chung Wah celebrations at SkyCity. Along with Kon and Margaret Vatskalis, Elizabeth, my wife and I were hosted by Andrew Wilson, General Manager, Emmanuel Cruz, Assistant General Manager from SKYCITY Darwin at their Chinese New Year’s dinner on Saturday, 4 February celebrating the Year of the Dog. Two hundred and seventy guests enjoyed a lavish Chinese banquet with dishes such as crabmeat and shark fin soup, abalone with Chinese mushrooms and lobster tail with hot spicy sauce to name a few.
We were entertained by Ms Li Ling formerly of the Hunan province of China performing Chinese Opera as well as playing the Guzheng, a traditional Chinese instrument which dates back more than 2000 years. It started with just five strings and has been developed to the present 21-string instrument.
The lion dance was performed by the youth from the Chung Wah Society; the dancers ushered in the lunar calendar year of the fiery dog.
However, the highlight of the evening was the Acrobatic Troupe of Imperial China especially flown in from mainland China by SkyCity Darwin for this event. The three young ladies provided us with breathtaking routines such as gracefully balancing candelabras with their hands, feet, head and teeth; a single handstand with spinning plates; and the brilliant changing faces just to name a few. It was a dazzling display of showmanship and one we are not likely to forget.
I should also mention Melbourne’s top corporate cabaret band, Moondance, who were absolutely fantastic. They were also brought here by SkyCity and they had everyone up dancing as they played great music. Many local Darwinites were in attendance.
I would like to talk about citizenship and new Australian citizens tonight. At the latest citizenship ceremony held in Darwin on Australia Day, 26 January, eight Johnston residents were sworn in amongst our latest citizens. I am very pleased to welcome the Neome Williams of Alawa, Helbert Dante, Maria Florindo of Moil, Alexandre Da Silva, Benny Jong, Meas Kiv, Pedro Lay and Johan Pedersen of Wagaman. I also know that Mr Taek Fung Lay and his wife Siu Kim Tong, from the Casuarina electorate side of Alawa, also became citizens. They are a family that I met quite some time ago and I wish to sincerely congratulate them. They have had a difficult journey having to leave East Timor and settle here. However, I know that they will make great Australian citizens.
I have given a bit of a snapshot of my electorate tonight. However, in closing I would like to talk about Ted Durie. Ted lives on the Bellinger River in New South Wales. He operates Ted’s Oyster Shed. I happened to meet Ted when I was on holidays earlier this year. Ted was very interested in the Northern Territory pearling industry. He had a bit of a display of south sea pearls in the wall of his oyster shed and he is also interested in crabbing. I will be sending Ted some material on the Northern Territory pearling industry and crabbing.
However, it was interesting to hear about Ted’s life story. He is an old timber man from Briggsvale on the eastern Dorrigo plateau. He grew up in the area, from some of the material I have, in the 1930s. There is a section in a book written by Mary Gillett who talks about Briggsvale during the Depression years and walking to school with some of the kids there, and Bob and Ted Durie were amongst them. He grew up in the area, having to walk two miles to school from Briggsvale to Cascade.
Ted produces beautiful oysters. He loves to open them and give people a taste. He is a great salesman. He has two dogs. He used to call them Ned and Kelly. He calls them Red Dog and Black Dog now. He reckons that was a bit simpler. However, they follow him around. Ted works so hard; he is getting on in years. However, when he jumps onto his punt to go down the river and collect his oysters, Red Dog and Black Dog jump along with him and they are great helpers.
He is also a connoisseur of fine spirits but that is another story. I thank Ted for some of the conversations we had. I also thank him for allowing us to throw a couple of crab pots off his pontoon and pull up some monsters in the Bellinger River - some nice mud crabs. Ted made a very pleasant holiday for us. Thanks again, Ted, and keep up the good work producing those beautiful oysters.
Thanks for the opportunity, also, to talk tonight about the goings on in my electorate, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
DISTINGUISHED VISITOR
Mr Neville Perkins OAM
Mr Neville Perkins OAM
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise you of the presence in the Speaker’s Gallery of Mr Neville Perkins, OAM, former member for Macdonnell and Deputy Labor Leader in the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly from 1977 to 1981. On behalf of honourable members, I extend a warm welcome to our distinguished visitor.
Members: Hear, hear!
MINISTERIAL REPORTS
Australian Wilderness Tours
Australian Wilderness Tours
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I report that the New South Wales-based Australian Wilderness Tours has purchased Odyssey Tours and Safaris. Earlier this year, Voyages Hotels and Resorts announced the closure of its Darwin-based touring company, Odyssey Tours and Safaris, as part of the company’s rationalisation of its touring operations. In great news for the Territory, Grant Hunt, the Sydney-based CEO of Voyages, announced last week that a sale to Australian Wilderness Tours was successfully negotiated.
Australian Wilderness Tours is a four-wheel drive, soft adventure operation, with 25 years experience operating in all Australian states, as well as in Alice Springs and the Gulf country. John Alwyn-Jones, who is Director of Marketing and Development for both Australian Wilderness Tours and Odyssey, has advised that the company will continue to operate the full Odyssey program to its usual high standards.
The purchase of Odyssey complements the excellent Australian and overseas programs run by Australian Wilderness Tours. The company is a recognised luxury tour operator and can offer domestic and international operators and its clients the most comprehensive up-market four-wheel drive ecotour program available in Australia today.
Odyssey will continue to operate their day tours in Central Australia under the banner of Voyages Hotels and Resorts; however, the company will phase the name out over the next two years as the product is absorbed by Australian Wilderness Tours. Most of Odyssey’s staff have been offered ongoing employment. The company is set to invest heavily in luring more international tourists to the Top End for longer periods during what the company calls ‘the lush and green season’. They have identified Europe as their largest growth market over the past two years, particularly the French. The company believes that by strategically purchasing a complementary tour company in Darwin, they can dramatically increase the length of stay and dispersal throughout the Territory.
United Kingdom and Europe are key source markets for the Territory. Australian Wilderness Tours are already working closely with established NT supporters in the international market, such as Australie Tours, and we are confident that this investment will grow the market. They have also indicated a plan to reduce North Queensland and South Australian itineraries and increase the time our visitors spend in the Katherine region. That is great news for tourism in Katherine.
We are now working closely with the new Odyssey venture to ensure that the international distribution network is aware of this new and improved tour company. The purchase of Odyssey Tours and Safaris by Ralph Clissold is great news for Territory tourism, and an example of why the Territory’s economy keeps moving ahead. Ralph Clissold is the Australian Wilderness Tours Managing Director, who was born in Alice Springs and has worked in ecotourism for the last 28 years. With his partner, Meg, who is a horticulturalist, they have developed a unique experience for their increasingly discerning passengers. I certainly wish Ralph, Meg and their team all the very best in the future.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I thank the Chief Minister for her report this morning. Ecotourism, by far, has the most opportunity to develop in the Northern Territory, with our amazing parks and river systems throughout the Territory. It is encouraging to see that it is of a high standard.
I must confess, Chief Minister, I was a little concerned when Voyages announced their sale, because they usually invest in properties and enterprises that they have the potential to develop into the highest standard - a la Yulara. I was a little concerned to see that they had divested of this. However, I welcome the new owners and trust that they will be able to develop this area and show it off at the highest potential that is has for the Territory.
Desert Knowledge Australia
Mr HENDERSON (Regional Development): Madam Speaker, this morning I update the House on the latest developments with Desert Knowledge Australia. More than half a million Australians live in desert regions, and Desert Knowledge Australia is focused on building business networks and job opportunities across these regions, particularly for indigenous Australians.
One of the central issues identified at the recent 2015: Moving the Territory Ahead Economic Summit was the importance of developing the Territory’s regions and engaging indigenous Territorians in the Territory’s economic future. Desert Knowledge will play a central role in the economic development of Central Australia.
As the physical centre for Desert Knowledge, Alice Springs has a key role in, and will benefit from, driving this economic development and creating sustainable livelihoods in the desert. Desert Knowledge brings government, private sector and community organisations together. It is, therefore, essential that it has a highly experienced and well-regarded board in order to achieve its aims.
Last December, I was pleased to announce the Director of Reconciliation Australia and former federal minister, Hon Fred Chaney AO, as the new Chair of Desert Knowledge Australia. Mr Chaney has vast experience in both the public and private sectors at a national and state level, and has a strong understanding of the challenges and opportunities for inland Australia. He is passionate about building opportunities for indigenous Australians and has, for many years, been involved in both government organisations such as the National Native Title Tribunal, Reconciliation Australia, and community groups such as the Graham (Polly) Farmer Foundation.
Last week, I was pleased to announce the appointment of the remainder of the board, and had the opportunity to attend their first board meeting last Friday in Alice Springs. I am particularly pleased that five of the 11 members are from Central Australia, and I am sure will be well known to members of this House. Mr Des Rogers, former Chairperson of the ATSIC Alice Springs Regional Council and the Indigenous Housing Authority of the Northern Territory, is a local Alice Springs businessman who has owned and operated a number of businesses, including his present venture, Peppered Black. Mr John Baskerville, the Executive Director Southern of the Northern Territory government’s Department of the Chief Minister, is a long-term resident of Alice Springs with broad experience in the power and construction industries. Alice Springs resident, Ms Janet Turner, is a member of the Institute for Aboriginal Development and is fluent in the local Arrernte language. Ms Turner was nominated by the Lhere Artepe Aboriginal Corporation representing the native title holders of Alice Springs. Mr Harold Furber is the Chairman of the Desert Peoples Centre Board, a facility for providing post-secondary education for indigenous people, and has presented at conferences and workshops all over the world on various indigenous issues. Dr Bruce Walker is Director of the Centre for Appropriate Technology in Alice Springs, an organisation which delivers appropriate technology to indigenous communities, and is also a member of the Desert Peoples Centre Board. The other members of the board have been drawn from different sectors around Australia and all have experience living and working in desert regions: Ms Sharon Hocking from Broken Hill; Mr Daniel Tucker from Perth; Kalgoorlie businesswoman, Ms Kathy Finlayson; Queensland health educator and promoter, Ms Beryl Meiklejohn; and Mr Alwyn McKenzie from Port Augusta. It was great to be at their first board meeting in Alice Springs last Friday. Everybody is very keen and excited to be getting on with the job, and Fred Chaney is really relishing the challenge of chairing the board.
Last November, the government announced it was increasing its commitment to the Desert Knowledge Precinct from $27m to $30m to complete Stage 1 of the precinct, restaged over three years to complete priority elements first. This is one of the largest construction programs Alice Springs has ever seen and work is continuing on site even as I stand here. Local business, Sitzler Bros, is on track to completing its $2.6m second stage headworks by April this year. Installation of the headworks is about 40% complete, sewerage services have been completed, installation of electrical services is nearing completion, and sub-grade is in place for most of the roadworks.
The indigenous land use agreement for the precinct is being prepared by the Department of Justice and legal representatives of Lhere Artepe and is almost complete.
Design and documentation work on the $1.25m Business and Innovation Centre, the headquarters for Desert Knowledge Australia, is being undertaken by local architects Susan Dugdale and Stephen Lumb. Their work is due to be completed in June, with construction expected to start in July.
The government is also working with the Desert Peoples Centre on delivering Stage 1 of their facilities at the Desert Knowledge Precinct, including teaching facilities for the Centre for Appropriate Technology and Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education.
Madam Speaker, Desert Knowledge Australia holds great opportunities for job and business growth in desert Australia and, in particular, in Alice Springs. I look forward to seeing the project continuing to rollout, and I will make ongoing announcements to the House as to progress on their development.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his report this morning. I am pretty glad to hear it, because the Desert Knowledge Precinct has been a little cul-de-sac for some time that has been actually heading nowhere. It has been fairly fancy off the highway, but not going anywhere, so, it is very good to see that at long last that is rolling.
I believe that it was almost an illegal identity, minister. You have not had a board meeting since last March. I welcome the new chairman, Mr Fred Chaney, and the new board members, and I hope that the input that they have into this precinct will certainly see it developed into the standard that is expected of it.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Speaker, we are pleased that the minister gave us an update on the Desert Knowledge Precinct. I have to admit, we were beginning to think it got lost in the bureaucracy. It is also good to hear that funding has been committed. I believe the board is good. I am pleased to see representatives from Alice Springs. There are a lot of initiatives occurring already, as you know, in the Centre and, to take advantage of them by using the expertise and knowledge we have, is great.
We have many environmental issues in Australia today, not just from an environmental point of view, but from conservation and the wise use of our resources. We are looking forward to getting some positive outcomes from this Desert Knowledge Australia. Even though it is in the Centre and we are pleased with the input into our economy, on a global look I believe this is what is important for Australia. These are the things that make Australia great. We were brave enough to do the Adelaide to Darwin railway, and do the big things, and this, I hope, is going to go down that path so that it will stamp, not just Central Australia but the Northern Territory in the realm of Desert Knowledge. When you look around the world, at Israel, we could probably take advantage of the way they have done things there. We are not selling the things we already have.
Minister, we will appreciate your update as time goes by. Alice Springs people are going to be really pleased to hear this announcement, because they have been holding their breath. They can breathe a sigh of relief now that it is definitely on the agenda. We will all look forward to seeing development, particularly the design and architecture of the centre as it progresses.
Darwin Harbour Advisory Committee - Report
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, yesterday I had the pleasure of accepting a report from the Darwin Harbour Advisory Committee, which is a milestone in the management arrangements for the Darwin Harbour.
In late 2003, the advisory committee submitted to government its Darwin Harbour Regional Plan of Management. The plan was endorsed by government in February 2004. This was a groundbreaking plan which, for the first time, treated Darwin Harbour as a single entity and drew together the cultural, social, economic and environmental information about the region, identified the management issues, and made a number of significant recommendations about implementation.
The regional plan of management was the first formal articulation of a vision for the region, which reflected the range of values important in its management. The implementation of the plan of management is overseen by DHAC, and DHAC is required to prepare an annual status report. The committee has now submitted its first annual status report. The plan of management had five overarching goals, each with a number of strategies and actions, and made 15 recommendations for integrated management. The plan of management created high expectations and I am pleased to report that many of its actions have been achieved.
The establishment of three working groups, the Ecosystem Monitoring Group, the Ecosystem Research Group and the Indigenous Working Group were priority actions, and all three have been very active and have overseen a number of projects. Other actions have been implemented by relevant stakeholders, as detailed in the report. For example, a stormwater strategy for Darwin Harbour has been drafted and dispersion modelling of the effluent from the outfalls in the harbour has been undertaken by Charles Darwin University. In general, DHAC’s review of the 15 recommendations from the plan of management concludes that good progress is being made towards implementing the plan. There are areas where the number, timing and range of actions have not all been implemented as intended. More work needs to be done and I remain committed to the continuing work of the great work of the advisory committee.
The status report is publicly available and will be accessible on the department’s web site.
The Darwin Harbour Advisory Committee also takes an active role in engaging the wider community and increasing awareness and public awareness of management issues for the harbour.
On Tuesday, 21 February, I will be launching a seminar program for the advisory committee. This series of presentations and discussions will showcase some of the work being done by government under the Darwin Harbour Regional Plan of Management. Presentations are by various expert members of the advisory committee and cover such diverse topics as marine pests, groundwater resources, cultural sites, hydrodynamic modelling of the harbour, and coral and mudflats to name a few of the interesting topics covered.
Anyone interested in learning a bit more about the work of the Darwin Harbour Advisory Committee and the environment of the Darwin Harbour and meeting with the committee should consider going to this seminar series. It starts at 6.30 pm on Tuesday, 21 February, in the Museum and Art Gallery Theatrette.
The Darwin Harbour Advisory Committee is establishing a groundbreaking new approach to regional planning in the Northern Territory. It is a plan that the community called for, for over many decades, and the Martin Labor government has delivered. I take this opportunity to thank the outgoing chair, Mr John Bailey, for his energy, commitment and passion in driving the regional plan of management and overseeing the beginnings of its implementation.
Government will continue to protect our new unique Darwin Harbour. We have protected 96% of mangroves and given the community a real say over its management. I am confident that the committee will go from strength to strength and will become an increasingly significant body in the management of our iconic harbour and the whole of the Darwin region.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Madam Speaker, I welcome the minister’s report. I have two minutes to respond to what is a very important issue for the future of the Northern Territory. I have the pleasure, most mornings when I am at sittings, of being able to pull back the curtains and look across at our magnificent harbour. We do need to make sure that we have some very stringent plans in place to ensure that it stays looking as beautiful as it is. I look forward to having future briefings with the minister’s department. I am sure that it is going to take more than one or two briefings to be able to get my head around everything that we need to understand that is being done for this harbour to make sure that it is preserved for future generations.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for her statement about the Darwin Harbour. The Darwin Harbour is bigger than we see out there around Wickham Point. It also includes quite a bit of land around to the Howard River and out towards the Mandorah area. It is certainly bigger than people just see across from the port.
I also hope to get to the seminars; some of those are quite good. What the Darwin Harbour Advisory Committee is doing is what should continue for a long time if we are to make sure the harbour continues to be free from pollution and other detrimental effects that could occur.
Whilst the advisory committee seems to be looking at the condition of the harbour as it is now, there needs to be some real discussion over the future planning of Darwin Harbour. I have said time and time again that the industrial development in the middle of the harbour is inappropriate. I have supported Wickham Point, the LNG plant, but I do not believe there is a need to develop industrial land in the centre of the harbour. That will risk the things that you are saving; that is, the mangroves and the quality of water. We should try to move industry away from the harbour unless it needs to be close to the water.
I also think we need to bring in the Development Consent Authority for the full division for the area called East Arm. That is where most of the industrial development is occurring presently and, by involving the Development Consent Authority, we can make sure people are included in debates about the kind of industry that is being developed there. It is a very important area but one that could threaten the health of the harbour.
I congratulate the work that John Bailey and the Darwin Harbour Advisory Committee are doing. However, I do think there are other issues that need to be raised so that we can look after the future of the harbour as well.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, It is ongoing work. As I said there are recommendations and an evolutionary process that is happening through this. However, I want to say to the member for Nelson, in respect of some of his concerns, bear in mind development is what we all do and the environment is where we live. The balance between both is what needs to be found, and this report certainly does that.
New Procurement Framework for the Northern Territory Government
Dr BURNS (Corporate and Information Services): Madam Speaker, today I provide details of the new procurement framework for the Northern Territory government, which will be introduced on the 1 March this year.
With the Northern Territory government embracing procurement reform in 2002, a number of initiatives, including the 30-day payment policy, have already been announced and implemented. The reform process also involved a review of the legal framework, supporting the government procurement, and this commenced in 2004.
As a result of the Northern Territory government’s procurement reform agenda, the NTG procurement framework has been consolidated and simplified. The Department of Corporate and Information Services has already begun awareness sessions throughout the Territory involving all agencies and industries. While the Procurement Act stays in place, the new framework sees 26 new procurement directions, replacing the existing 38 directions, 34 procurement guidelines, procurement policy and strategy document. These changes were made after consultation with key procurement agencies and external stakeholders including representatives of government, the Territory Construction Association, the Contractor Accreditation Limited (CAL), the government Procurement Council, the Small Business Association, the Motor Trades Association, and the Northern Territory Industry Capability Network.
These changes have provided a simpler, clearer and consistent approach to procurement from an agency, as well as industry perspective while continuing to embrace the fundamental principles which exist in this government’s procurement practices. The procurement directions confirm the five fundamental procurement principles are: value for money; open and effective competition; enhancing the capabilities of local business and industry; environmental protection; and ethical behaviour and fair dealings.
Key changes to the procurement policies incorporated in the directions are:
- The implementation of the Buy Territory policy, which requires that when tenders are assessed, there is a minimum 20% weighting to promote growth and development of the Northern Territory economy and maximise opportunities for businesses.
Elements of this weighting may include: the business operates from a Northern Territory base; direct and indirect employment in the Territory; training and skills development for Territorians; and increased jobs for Territorians.
The Northern Territory Industry Capability Network needs to be consulted to source tenders or advertise tenders outside the Northern Territory up to a value of $50 000.
Contracts for variations have strengthened in the new directions, with any variation of 15% of the original contract or $50 000, whichever is the higher, are required to be approved by the accountable officers and reported to the Procurement Review Board.
A tenderer has 14 days from the request for tender close to upgrade their CAL accreditation within their existing category.
The complaints mechanism has now been formalised, with all complaints required to be submitted to DBERD, who will register, track and report outcomes. The principle responsibility for complaints rests with the agencies to investigate and resolve. There has also been the introduction of an independent facilitator to arbitrate complex complaints.
In closing, Madam Speaker, I would like to endorse the procurement framework, and I look forward to being able to report on the longer term outcome of these initiatives.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I welcome the report from the minister. Procurement, as always, has been a very vexed issue for many of our contractors in the Territory. Quite often, you will find that when one person misses out there is always a complaint to be made and you need to investigate fully what the causes were. I am glad the minister has streamlined the processes of procurement.
However, one of the vexed issues still continues; that of a panel list of preferred contractors. Once you get into the panel or list of contractor preferred tenderers, it is advantageous to the business. However, it locks out everybody else. For instance, a business might start up in the Territory tomorrow and, over the next six months, or even 12 months, perform extremely well and provide excellent service for Territorians. This new business cannot get onto the panel until the current panel term is completed. This business has absolutely no way of entering into competition for government contracts.
The other issue is, for instance, if a business person or a worker in a business decides that they want to go out in business on their own because they have a very special capability, there is no way that this new person can start up a business that can offer its services to government either, because it is locked out until the panel comes to an end. I believe that is something that the government must look at closely to allow fair and open competition. This is what private enterprise is all about: open competition. Panels do not allow open competition.
Dr BURNS (Corporate and Information Services): Madam Speaker, I take on board the comments made by the member for Greatorex. I offer the member for Greatorex a briefing on the new procurement guidelines, because part of the reform agenda that has taken place is to do away with panels within certain categories of contracts and to free the system up. As the member for Greatorex said, this was something concerning businesses which we have taken on board, and has been addressed within the reforms.
I offer the member for Greatorex a briefing. These are complex matters related to procurement and procurement directions which this government has moved to simplify and consolidate. Therefore, I am very happy for the member of Greatorex to receive a briefing and find out the detail of the changes and reforms that this government has implemented.
I also pay tribute to my colleague, the member for Wanguri, who led a lot of this reform. After the election, I took the challenge up. Thanks to him and to the agency staff and industry representatives who worked so hard to bring these reforms about.
Reports noted.
RACING AND BETTING AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 39)
(Serial 39)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr STIRLING (Racing, Gaming and Licensing): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
In 2002, I announced a number of changes affecting bookmakers including a reduction in the tax rates, the migration of Sportingbet.com Australia Pty Ltd to the Territory, and a proposal to the remove the restriction on bookmakers offering odds based on final totalisator dividends.
A bill addressing the latter of these issues was introduced at that time, but was deferred by agreement in good faith pending the outcome of various negotiations between agencies bookmakers and the industry. Although not all negotiations are yet concluded, it is an appropriate time to proceed with our previously notified legislation.
Currently, the Racing and Betting Act prohibits bookmakers from offering to pay winnings that are the equivalent to or based on a totalisator dividend. The prohibition does not extend to dividends offered by the Northern Territory licensed totalisator, NT TAB. This provision dates back to 1989. It is difficult to understand its rationale, particularly in today’s wagering environment, which is why the amendment bill was drafted.
Since the original introduction of the amendment bill, the restrictions have not been enforcement and all sports bookmakers currently offer products based on totalisator dividends. There has been no adverse impact on integrity, and bookmakers’ national and global competitiveness has been enhanced to the benefit of the Territory. As noted earlier, there appears little basis for the existing legislative restriction; its removal will legitimise current operations and continue to provide punters with greater flexibility and betting options consistent with National Competition Policy principals.
Madam Speaker, I commend the Racing and Betting Amendment Bill 2006 to honourable members and table copies of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
TERRITORY PARKS AND WILDLIFE CONSERVATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 40)
(Serial 40)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Parks and Wildlife): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
This bill amends the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act so that the offences of ‘failing to comply with a permit’ and ‘failing to comply with traffic signs’ are designated as regulatory offences. This bill also allows for by-laws to be designated as regulatory offences and subject to an infringement notice scheme. The retention period for a return or forfeiture of seized articles is to be made consistent across provisions within the act, and is set as a period of 60 days. This bill will enable Parks and Wildlife officers to better regulate the activities that occur on lands controlled under the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act.
In the year 2000, the Northern Territory received a report from consultant, Bill Wilson, titled, A Review of the Enforcement Capacity of the Northern Territory Parks and Wildlife Commission. The report made a number of recommendations, including amendments to the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act.
The Wilson review identified fundamental issues for the capacity of the legislative regime to encourage compliance. Currently, there is limited capacity to encourage greater compliance by issuing administrative or on-the-spot fines for offences against permit conditions and Territory Parks and Wildlife conservation by-laws. Unfortunately, this means that there may be significant levels of non-compliance with minor offences under the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act and by-laws. This bill will allow conservation officers to issue on-the-spot fines for appropriate offences against the by-laws.
Current enforcement mechanisms are complicated and expensive. The current scheme has also proven to be an administrative burden to conservation officers through its rigidity. For example, under the current section 56(3) of the act, a person who has been successfully prosecuted for a breach of permit conditions cannot be granted a new permit for five years. This penalty is additional to any imposed by the court, and applies irrespective of the nature or severity of the breach. For minor breaches, this is manifestly unfair and could result in instances of hardship and injustice.
The purpose of this bill is to make the existing offence, ‘breach of a condition of permit’ section 67D, Compliance with permit, a regulatory offence and to amend the act’s by-law making powers - that is, section 25AQ and 71 by-law - so that existing offences under the by-laws may be regulatory and may be infringable. Please note, this does not automatically make the by-laws regulatory or infringable. It does, however, allow by-laws to be appropriately constructed so that the offender’s intent is not an element of the offence, and for those by-laws that fall within the Department of Justice’s infringement notice policy to be made infringable.
Officers from my Department of Natural Resources, Environment and the Arts will soon prepare new by-laws which will take into account both of these factors so that the benefit of this bill can be fully implemented. The changes will be supported by a permit system that includes clear and precisely drafted obligations and conditions. The results of these changes will be to bring about greater compliance with the regulatory functions of the act.
At this stage, no new offences are proposed, but any by-law amendments will be approved by the Minister for Parks and Wildlife.
The introduction of infringement notices will streamline the enforcement process and allow for immediate punishment of people who commit offences in our parks. The ability to issue infringement notices during the hunting season, for example, will markedly increase the effectiveness of this program. Currently, a permit may be issued under the act to hunt waterfowl during the declared hunting season in line with the sustainable use of wildlife policy. While hunting is prohibited in parks, the by-laws permit the use of firearms to hunt on reserves during the waterfowl season. A permit to take waterfowl at specific times uses a combination of provisions under the act and the by-laws.
This bill makes non-compliance of a permit condition a regulatory offence that may be subject to an infringement notice, and will provide an effective and proportionate enforcement regime during the waterfowl hunting season. A condition of the waterfowl hunting permit is that returns are submitted indicating the number of waterfowl species hunted. For example, this enables Parks and Wildlife to monitor sustainable use of magpie goose which is a protected species. The biodiversity of Territory parks may be harmed if permit conditions are not adhered to, and breaches may threaten protected wildlife. The ability to issue infringement notices will enable minor offences to be dealt with on the spot and should encourage all hunters to do the right thing.
This government also wishes to support wildlife-based industries. These industries must report to the federal Environment minister for export approval. For example, the federal Environment minister can, under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, revoke the approval for exports of wildlife products such as the crocodiles or cycads if he or she believes that Northern Territory legislation has inadequate compliance measures. The amendments currently before this Assembly strengthen the Territory’s compliance regime.
I now turn to the important issue of road safety in our parks and reserves. Failure to comply with traffic signs, section 69, is the only offence within the act itself that attracts the maximum penalty of only five penalty units but, unlike other offences attracting higher penalties, it is not a regulatory offence. This bill amends the act so that failure to comply with a traffic sign is a regulatory offence and an infringement notice, combined with the proposed regulatory offence status of failing to comply with traffic signs, will enable conservation officers and police officers to enforce compliance. The use of infringement notices for regulatory offences is a cost-effective alternative to a costly prosecution process that does not guarantee positive results.
This bill also amends the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act to provide for operational and administrative consistency in respect of retention periods for return or forfeiture of seized articles. The retention periods for articles seized under the act and the by-laws are being changed. Currently, the retention periods for articles seized under the act is 60 days and, under the by-laws, 30 days. Articles seized under the by-laws - for example, firearms or explosives, vehicles and vessels - may be of a similar nature to those seized under the act. It is more appropriate that similar items are treated consistently. The changes in this bill will ensure that the retention period under the act and the by-laws is 60 days.
This bill provides for the proportionate and effective enforcement of offences under the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act and its by-laws. These changes are being supported by conservation officers and key industry groups so I am confident that this government’s initiatives to bring about greater compliance with parks management principles and the safe conduct of park activities will be well received by the community.
Madam Speaker, the Territory community is right to expect that the administration of parks and wildlife management is consistent with community values. This efficient enforcement regime maintains these values. I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
ALCOHOL COURT BILL
(Serial 33)
ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) BILL
(Serial 34)
(Serial 33)
ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) BILL
(Serial 34)
Continued from 1 December 2005.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Madam Speaker, there must have been millions of words spoken, reams of reports produced, and countless hours in many and varied community groups over many years talking about the abuse of alcohol and antisocial behaviour. Sadly, as I stand here today, I can see very little change in the situation in our communities throughout the Northern Territory. In some instances, it is much worse, and that is something that saddens and frustrates not only me, but I am sure many of us in this Assembly.
The situation has become so intolerable in some areas that I know people who have moved interstate to get away from what they see as a social problem that is escalating and not being addressed by this government.
Since I have been in the Legislative Assembly, I have talked many times and at length over the past two years about the abuse of alcohol and the effects of antisocial behaviour in our society - almost ad nauseam. Before that, and for most of the time I have lived in Katherine, I have been involved in discussions through many different forums about the problems that we are confronted with daily. There is not a day goes by when I am not confronted by these same problems in my own community, and that usually starts with my morning walk around 6 am. It is not a great way to start the day if you want to maintain a positive attitude for the remainder of the day. It is nothing for any early morning walkers and joggers in Katherine to come across groups of people sitting along the riverbank or seated under shelters around the town drinking wine from soft drink bottles, or beer from cans. Right in the heart of Parap last Saturday morning at the markets a man was sitting at the back steps of the pharmacy quite openly drinking alcohol from a long-neck bottle.
I am also one of those citizens who hate to see litter cluttering and spoiling our town, so I am one of several people in Katherine who, when I am walking, picks up rubbish and puts it in the bin. I also collect the cans and leave them at the back gate of one our great dedicated Katherine community citizens, Jenny Duggan who recycles the cans that are collected by the morning walkers and donates the money to charity. Over a three-year period, she has collected over 340 kg of cans. That is a lot of cans.
This might not seem anything really significant and remarkable, but the reason I mention this is that these early morning walks, picking up cans from around the walkways and pathways, highlights just how much alcohol is consumed each day in Katherine - not to mention the number of empty moselle cartons amongst the small number of empty food containers, stray thongs and occasional pieces of clothing. This mess which, in the main is empty alcohol containers, is created by pretty much the same people, to be repeated each day. A noticeably alarming thing is the number of containers that are showing up each day in the town’s parks that are being used to inhale substances. I can only assume that that is petrol.
The number of people who are getting away with drinking alcohol opening in our urban communities is definitely increasing. At the present time, it is even worse with many more people who have left their outlying community during the Wet Season to come into town. It just compounds the problems that already exist. Unfortunately, I have to now mention a couple of recent instances in Katherine that involve alcohol and antisocial behaviour, and it is likely that members of this Assembly will think these incidents are random and isolated, but I can assure them that that is not the case.
Within the past two weeks, an employee was leaving her workplace which, incidentally, happens to be the Katherine Visitor Information Centre. This young employee locked up the centre in the afternoon, walked to her car which was in the car park of the visitors centre, a very public place. When she reached her car, she was approached by two young men she had noticed in the car park. These two young blokes began intimidating her and making demands for money etcetera. When she refused, they proceeded to kick in her car door. It was during this time she was able to get into her car and, thankfully, get away unhurt. However, I do not need to tell you that she was very frightened and shaken by this incident.
This is not acceptable and the fact that these young blokes were loitering around the business centre car park indicates that they could not have cared less who they threatened. The scary thing is that this is the type of incident that we cannot afford to have our tourists experience. It is totally unacceptable for local residents who are going about their daily business to become victims of this intimidating behaviour which is accentuated by alcohol.
The Katherine Visitor Information Centre is a beautiful building. However, it is unfortunate that the surrounds look like the local dump because of the amount of litter that is left there. It is just disgusting. The shady area was designed for tourists to have a welcoming impression of Katherine, but has turned into an area where large numbers of loitering people gather, openly drinking alcohol which, in turn, leads on to the yelling, arguing and humbugging of tourists and locals alike. For the most part these days, the visitors centre area is a disgrace. Defecating and urinating is commonplace, and it is just not hearsay, Madam Speaker, I have seen it happening quite openly on my morning walks. Usually it is in the garden area which, I guess, is somewhat of a blessing. Katherine Town Council and the Tourist Association are taking steps to try to improve this area, and I am involved with that working group. However, it is very frustrating and very disheartening to face this day in and day out.
In another incident in Katherine on Saturday night in the Woolworths Shopping Centre, a woman stabbed a man in the leg which resulted in the police and ambulance attending. Just great for the shoppers to be witnessing a bleeding man, knife wielding woman; not to mention all the yelling that was part of this incident - again, alcohol related.
Also this last week, the new Catholic priest in Katherine, Father Vincent Nguyn, was so intimidated by the quarrelling itinerants around the Catholic Church precinct that he was too afraid to leave the church and go home. The police had to be called to remove the itinerants from the precinct. Father Nguyn is not unfamiliar with itinerants as he is a long-term resident of Australia and has previously lived in Darwin.
These are just a couple of examples of incidents that cause a great deal of stress and anxiety to the people who are involved in Katherine and, quite frankly, are just not acceptable. Everyone has the right to feel safe and protected and to have their properties secure. To have so much antisocial behaviour in our communities has become far too common and an everyday occurrence. The problem with that is that, when you are witnessing unpleasant situations daily, in the beginning you are outraged and you speak out loudly. As time goes by and the incidents continue on and on, people tend to become more complacent and that, unfortunately, is why it sometimes takes so long to get some action. However, to the people who care about where they live - and most members of this Assembly I would think fit that category - and those who live anywhere apart from Katherine they, obviously, witness plenty of drunken and antisocial behaviour on a regular basis. We do care, all of us, and want to see some improvement.
The Community Harmony program was launched in Katherine and involved representatives from a cross-section of the community to meet regularly to come up with strategies to combat antisocial behaviour. It is fair to say it was hailed as being the answer to our problems - or so we were told. I have listened over the time it has been in Katherine - which has been well over two years - to many and varied people’s comments who have said it will work, it would not work, it is a talk fest, it is another strategy development meeting, give it time, and so on. I sincerely hoped that the nay sayers in the community would be able to swallow their words by seeing some significant outcomes. After all, there has been a significant amount of money put into this program. However, what I have seen so far is an increase in the problems that we are facing in our communities, not a decrease.
The Return to Home scheme sure has not achieved its goal, with the people using it just moving from one place to another. There are certainly no less drunks on our streets; there are double the number, with 22 000 drunks apprehended throughout the Territory. With this there is no argument; it is fact.
The book-up system has caused so much angst and misunderstanding to both the user and the retailer, and not taught people how to manage their money at all; just given them a false sense of thinking that the plastic card is a bottomless pit. However, that will be another debate for another day.
To highlight how concerning the problems are, I would like to read into the Parliamentary Record today a letter to the Editor of the Katherine Times which was published in last week’s addition. It is written by Werner Sarny who has had a business and personal commitment to Katherine for over 40 years. What he wrote is, unfortunately, very true and echoed by a majority of seriously concerned people. What I respect and admire about Werner Sarny is that he is not afraid to speak his mind and to speak the truth. The letter’s heading was ‘Drunkenness out of control’ and I quote:
- I have lived in Katherine for 43 years. I have raised my family here and the monies from my business have stayed in Katherine. During this time, our social problems with mainly our indigenous people have gone up 100-fold. I want to relate what happened on the afternoon and the evening of Friday 20 February around BP Roadhouse in a four hour time slot.
I wish I could say it does not happen often, but that would not be true. Two Aboriginal men were fighting in the roadhouse. We removed them and then they continued to fight outside. The Greyhound driver had drunken Aboriginals on the bus with no tickets. He could not remove them, so he asked the police for assistance. After the police left, the same people smashed the Greyhound side window and, of course, the bus could not go on until a replacement was found. People were screaming and yelling around the roadhouse.
We have grown immune to this behaviour, but the tourists have not. They, the Aboriginals, were filling their soft drink bottles up out of a flagon. I could see three groups doing the same thing at the same time. When they see the police wagon coming, they run into the drain behind the roadhouse. They humbug my staff in the roadhouse, picking up things they have no intention of purchasing and just making nuisances of themselves. Yet, when they are not drunk you could not get nicer people.
It is very hard to keep staff under these conditions. In the early evenings, especially Friday and Saturday, you can see our overworked police going from one incident to another. They do not have time to come and remove drunks from my premises or remove wine casks.
It was not always like this. I can remember for 25 years we did corroborees at Springvale and had little problem getting 10 dancers to entertain. It was fantastic to work with them and to see what pride they had in their culture. Many other young Aboriginal people did work around the place as well. Get rid of this problem with grog and we may again see some pride return in doing a job well.
Tourists would love to see more Aboriginals in the tourist industry but, sadly, I cannot see it happening any time soon. The answer has to be with all of us, especially the Aboriginal elders and the government. I know that some of the Aboriginal people are as frustrated with the current state of affairs as I am. We have got something special to offer but we have to show it off in the best possible light.
Werner Sarny.
This same situation has become so intolerable in Port Augusta, South Australia, that the Port Augusta City Council has received support from the South Australian government to trial a 12-month alcohol-free ban on public drinking throughout the whole city. I applaud the mayor and council for taking such a strong stance to try to improve the social environment in Port Augusta, and am watching with a great deal of interest to see what a difference it makes there.
There is a downside to prohibition though, and I know this because of the trialling of restricted hours of trading that we carried out in Katherine over a period of 12 months. I have listened, on several occasions, when Labor government members have implied that I profited from selling alcohol and contributed to the problem in Katherine when I had a licensed general store. What those members did not take the time to find out - which, of course, would not have been advantageous to their cause - was that it was me who instigated and pursued the trialling of restricted hours against some very stringent opposition from some members of the Katherine community.
The records will show that it took 12 months of wide community consultation and Licensing Court hearings before the two six-month trials of restricted hours were put in place. One of the downsides of the restrictions was that the problem was removed from Katherine to another place and, in this case in particular, to Mataranka, Pine Creek and Timber Creek, where there were no restrictions in place. This, I fear, is highly likely to be the case with what Port Augusta is trialling. The problem drinkers will move to another location where it is easy to access alcohol and drink in a public place. Unfortunately, that will probably be, in the first instance now, Alice Springs. Now it is highly likely that the Northern Territory will have a considerably increased number of drunks to contend with.
One of the biggest problems that I believe we have in dealing with antisocial behaviour and alcohol abuse is that, while we all know what the problems are and what it will take to fix it, no one is prepared to take the serious step of making the hard decisions to change things. Decisions that are going to work are not going to be popular decisions. That is where the challenge lies, as far as I am concerned. No one in government is prepared to make the hard and unpopular decisions that will make it work.
We have before the House this amendment bill which has the opportunity to properly address and deal with habitual drunks and antisocial behaviour. What I read from the second reading speech and reading the legislation, this does not go anywhere near addressing the problem of public drunkenness.
Before the last Territory election, Labor promised to get tough on drunks. It sounded pretty good to the voters in the streets and the suburbs, and it was just what they wanted to hear. They were sick and tired of the growing problem and, let us face it, the Country Liberal Party had announced that we were not going to tolerate drunken and antisocial behaviour. It was very popular and well received by the voters. Following the election, what a backflip from Labor. It was amazing. I had looked forward to some serious steps being taken to finally address the serious social issues across the Territory, and I welcomed the prospect of this new bill. However, it does not address what I had first thought it was supposed to.
A well-respected lawyer with 24 years experience in criminal law, after looking at this legislation, said that the bill can accurately be called ‘a get out of gaol free card’. He said it was blindingly obvious that the intervention orders will be used by the defence counsel to avoid gaol. Just as alarmingly, this legislation will not only be soft on drunks, it will allow criminals who are, or claim to be, alcohol dependant to avoid gaol. The essential flaw in the legislation is contained in the criteria for referral to the alcohol court and the making of an alcohol intervention order. This is contained in sections 16 and 18 of the act. The offender must be facing gaol if an alcohol intervention order is to be made. This is reinforced by section 14 of the act, where a term of imprisonment has to be highly likely. Essentially, it means that the act will not be a part of a ‘get tough on drunks’ policy as was presented during the last election campaign. It will, in fact, be the absolute and complete opposite.
After completion of the program ordered by the intervention order, the offender will be able to avoid their gaol term outlined in section 20 of the act. The risk of failure to complete the program set out by the intervention order is fairly minimal - hardly a deterrent, as it is only a period of imprisonment of not exceeding 14 days, which would be served concurrently with the original sentence.
Prohibition orders involve the person also being sentenced for the offences they are facing. However, the sentencing can be adjourned for six months. This, too, will be used as an out by the defence lawyers as, if the person stays away from alcohol for six months, they will probably be dealt with more lightly for their offences.
While there are so many associated issues when talking about the abuse of alcohol, I would have thought that this government would have looked at how these habitual drunks could break the cycle of their dependency. Following on from the alcohol court proceedings, what is in place in regional and remote locations for an offender to receive treatment for their alcohol addiction? The alcohol court will be totally fruitless and, again, just another level of bureaucracy without meaningful outcomes unless rehabilitation is taken seriously and is available in regional and remote areas.
I have talked in this Assembly before about a rehabilitation centre called Dillinya, which is near Delamere. It is 231 km south of Katherine and is off the Top Springs road, or the Buntine Highway. I have talked on several occasions, if I recall, about this centre. I am very disappointed that this government has not contacted Sheila Miller about this centre to check it out thoroughly. However, with this new bill I am hopeful that the minister will be open to looking at this place of healing. Sheila prefers to call it a healing centre rather than a rehabilitation centre. At the risk of repeating myself, I am again going to talk about the work of Sheila Miller and what she has fought so hard and for so long to set up. It is to help Aboriginal people break the cycle of alcohol abuse.
Sheila trained at Batchelor College gaining a Diploma of Education and Science in Drug and Alcohol and is a qualified counsellor. This was following Sheila being a chronic alcoholic for 24 years, so she had the will and determination to make a difference, not only to her own life, but those of her people. She understands the needs of Aboriginal people and speaks and understands numerous dialects. Sheila has always been outspoken about the lack of complete healing for her people. She is outspoken on what is necessary for the success of turning drunks around, and has always claimed to me she could take 12 drunks off the streets of Katherine on any day and rehabilitate them through her healing programs.
First of all, they would have to be identified by their regular admittance to a sobering-up shelter, followed by habitual drunks being sent to a detox centre as those still intoxicated. We do not have one of those in Katherine either, minister. Then the person would be moved to a rehab centre to complete their healing. This is the area that Dillinya has had success in. At the September sittings, I tabled a document that detailed the activities of Dillinya Cultural Healing Camp, and I encourage the minister to look at that document. I also encourage the minister to talk to Sheila Miller to understand just what this strong and caring woman is trying to do for her people.
You would appreciate that it is understandable Sheila is sick and tired of political discussions and debates that do not include Aboriginal people who speak for their own. Sheila expresses her frustration at the amount of money spent on programs she knows are doomed because of the lack of involvement of Aboriginal people. One of those programs that Sheila has walked away from is the Community Harmony Group. One of the most important parts of turning someone around from being a habitual drunk is having the proper rehabilitation treatment. I believe Sheila has much to offer her people that has not been acknowledged or recognised by this government. I have no doubt the minister is very sincere in what he has put forward in this bill to try to make some inroads into what is a very serious problem throughout the Northern Territory. Please, I encourage you to look at what Sheila has to offer. I am still very much appalled by the amount of money the Community Harmony Group has received and, yet, Sheila has received no financial support for a program at Dillinya which we know works.
Another option - this is obviously going to be talked about at another time and debated in another issue but it intertwines - would be to establish a rehabilitation facility similar to a boot camp - but that word is not one that I particularly like. However, we need somewhere where people could be trained in a variety of skills that would give them meaningful work at the end of their rehabilitation. It is the only way to break the ongoing cycle of alcohol abuse and antisocial behaviour, otherwise we are going to see the same people over and over again.
As a matter of interest about training, a training provider was contacted to run a course in chainsaw handling in a community not very far from Katherine. He had a very enthusiastic group of trainees, who all fronted up and did the course, proudly gaining their certificates. The end result? There were no chainsaws for them to use in the community once the course was completed. It is pointless unless the training courses that we offer these people are appropriate and the trainees can utilise their newly-gained skills.
Getting back to the rehabilitation side of the alcohol issue, the next step following the rehabilitation from a centre like Dillinya or an established rehab centre is for these people to have meaningful work to go to. This amendment to antisocial behaviour, alcohol and tenancy covers so many of the problems that are experienced in the Territory. I have probably rambled from one area to the other of what I wanted to say. I find that they are all intertwined.
Like the minister and other members of this Assembly, I am anxious for successful outcomes to the antisocial problems we have throughout the Territory but, unfortunately, I do not see how this legislation addresses that in any significant way at all. As I have said earlier, there have been a lot of things tried over a very long time to improve the problems in our communities. I know there is much more that I could say about things that have resulted in this bill being presented for support. However, unfortunately, I do not believe it has gone anywhere near the mark of addressing our serious alcohol and antisocial behaviour issues.
I do, however, favour the amendments proposed to the Residential Tenancy Act. There is nothing worse than having the neighbour from hell living next door, and the amendment proposed will allow for a less complicated, but effective, process to evict those tenants who do not comply with acceptable behaviour agreements. I am sure, over the period of this term, there is going to be much more said about antisocial behaviour and alcohol abuse.
Mr STIRLING (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I support my colleague, the minister for Justice, concerning the Antisocial Behaviour (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2005. Before I go to those particular areas that I want to address to the bill, I listened closely to the member for Katherine.
The figures substantiate what she was saying - Katherine alcohol usage figures, the most recent that I have seen, appear very high. I want a little more work done on those figures, and I will be tabling those at some stage or making them public. However, the figures would back up or support some of the things she had to say today.
The fact is, we have a revolving door of alcohol abusers, probably measuring in the hundreds if we go right across the Territory - certainly not the thousands or tens of thousands as suggested by the Leader of the Opposition. The fact is, there is a relatively small number in the overall population who are doing nothing else but drinking - and drinking to excess. The question I always have - and I see it in my electorate and in Katherine, Tennant Creek and Alice Springs - is: where on earth do they get the money from to purchase such vast quantities of alcohol that they sit and consume every day and every night of the week? If they are awake, they are drinking. The only time they are not drinking is when they are comatose or the grog’s finished and they have gone to sleep.
We are not trying to suggest in any way that this is the be all and end all. This is another step on the path to working on antisocial behaviour right across the board. Government always will remain open to further suggestions, amendments, or legislation in itself, as suggestions and working groups put forward recommendations. We say this is another step in the right direction and let us test its veracity over a 12-month period or so and see how we are going.
In relation to the points made by the member for Katherine about the alcohol court being a soft option or the defence lawyers seeing this as a way of getting their clients out of going to prison if they say they are an alcoholic, I see it the other way. Prison for many of these people is a reprieve; it is a break from grog, a chance for them to get healthy. They get three good meals a day in prison; they get exercise and activity, probably lacking while they are out on the grog in the long grass. However, the problem with going to prison - in the sense that it is a reprieve, it keeps them alive, it gets them off the grog, they have food and activity and exercise in their life - is that nothing in the prison system challenges their behaviour. Nor does it, of course, skill them for anything they might do outside. On release from prison, they are back in the same location, in the same social situation, where they were abusing alcohol in before, and nothing is surer that they will abuse alcohol again and be part of that revolving door.
At least, under the alcohol court, there is a challenge to go through the treatment phase: challenge their behaviour and lifestyle, get them off the grog, get them to detox as the member suggests, get them thinking right in their head away from the grog for a few weeks, and actually look at their whole lifestyle and how it might be changed.
On the other hand, the member for Katherine was highly commending and praising of those treatment programs that involved training and giving useful skills and things, as long as they were relevant to the community the person came from; that they might be utilised in that place. On the one hand, to do this was a get out of gaol free but, on the other hand, she said it is good and they should do this. I am not quite sure where the member of Katherine sits in all of that, but I listened very closely to her knowledge and experience of the work being done south of Katherine. It may be a good model. I would like to see something of it for myself. However, to say that getting out of prison is the soft option, I believe it is probably the other way; that prison can be seen as the least soft option in many cases, particularly when you are lying drinking, not eating, not looking after yourself. At least in that place you do get looked after.
I will pick up several issues across the bill, as the Minister for Racing, Gaming and Licensing, because the Liquor Act itself is part of my portfolio responsibilities. However, before going into the elements of the legislation which relates most directly to that role as minister, I want to express a general view that, as I said before, we do not see it as the be all and end all that will fix everything; it is more part of an evolving response by government in dealing with this longstanding social issue which has been part of Territory life for many decades.
Unlike governments of the past, we have had the fortitude to tackle it up-front. We have targeted both the immediate causes and the underlining causes. Some programs have been more successful than others, but there is no doubt that our overall efforts do receive the broad support of the community.
As the minister for Justice has already outlined, the Antisocial Behaviour Bill impacts on several pieces of legislation, including the Liquor Act. In particular, this bill seeks to add a new part to that act which will enable the establishment of dry or restricted premises in urban areas. The restricted premises amendment to the Liquor Act is necessary to give both occupiers and owners of residential properties in urban areas, as well as interested persons, a clear option should they wish to have a residence declared to be a liquor-free area. The need for this option has arisen from ongoing and unacceptable antisocial behaviour in urban areas.
Mechanisms exist to address the impact of liquor in public places, such as the 2 km law, but these amendments will deal with liquor being taken on to individual residential premises. The restricted premises addition to the Liquor Act complements the existing Part VIII of the act which deals with restricted areas. Members will be aware there are currently more than 100 restricted areas. All of these, except one in Alice Springs, are on Aboriginal land and most cover smaller remote Aboriginal communities.
While the existing provisions of the Liquor Act can be used to establish a liquor-free area in any area, this amendment will allow for a simpler process for smaller residential areas and homes and other private areas that are open to the public. What is on offer is a completely dry area, which means that unlike restricted areas declared under Part VIII of Liquor Act, there will not be any liquor permits. All premises declared restricted will be completely dry, where bringing, possessing or consuming alcohol will be illegal.
An owner or occupier of a premises, or their representative, can make an application seeking declaration of a restricted premises. Also able to make an application for private premises that are open to and used by the public is an interested person. This includes a person residing in or conducting business in the neighbourhood, a community-based organisation in the neighbourhood, or a police officer of or above rank of Senior Sergeant. A restricted premises includes occupied premises and other private premises that are open to and used by the public - shopping centres, churches and schools, for example. Where an application is made to the Licensing Commission by an occupier - for example, a tenant - the owner of the premises must be notified by the occupier.
In considering an application, the Licensing Commission will undertake consultation in a manner the commission deems appropriate with the occupier and/or owners of the premises and the Commissioner of Police or the commissioner’s delegate. Provided the application is practicable to implement, the commission may declare the premises to be restricted as requested by the applicant. The commission may also make a declaration that is smaller or larger than the area requested - for example, all or part of a shopping centre - or refuse to make a declaration if the commission is satisfied the application is frivolous, irrelevant or malicious. In determining whether or not to make a declaration, the Licensing Commission must be satisfied that it is in the public interest, when it is made by an interested person, or an owner or occupier, that it will reflect the wishes of the majority of the occupiers of the premises.
I wish to point out that this new provision does not make it an offence to transport liquor through a restricted premises to a destination not covered by the restrictions. It is primarily to ensure persons who have purchased liquor in a shopping centre are not committing an offence while they continue shopping or leave the centre.
As I mentioned earlier, declaration of a restricted premises will be an outright restriction on bringing, possessing or consuming liquor at the restricted premises. There are penalties for those who break the law, with any liquor brought into the restricted premises being seized by police. Open liquor will be tipped out unless the police believe it unsafe to do so. Unopened liquor will be taken to the police station for destruction. A fine may also be imposed. This may occur by way of infringement notice or on-the-spot fine, most likely to be used in situations involving open liquor which has been tipped out, or through a contravention notice dealt with through a court of summary jurisdiction for situations where police have seized offending unopened liquor.
Once a declaration has been made, the Licensing Commission must arrange for a sign to be displayed at the premises that gives information about the declaration, the consequences of failing to comply with the declaration, and any other information that the commission considers appropriate. A restricted premises declaration will remain in force until the title of the land changes, any lease arrangements expire, or there is a change in tenancy. The person who applied for the declaration may request the commission to revoke a declared restricted premises, or the commission may revoke a declared restricted premises at its discretion.
The bill will also repeal the existing provisions of section 122 of the Liquor Act with respect to prohibition orders. Prohibition orders pertaining to individual persons will now be addressed through sections of the new Alcohol Court Bill. However, matters pertaining to licensees will still be contained in the Liquor Act. Licensees must not allow a person subject to a prohibition order to be on licensed premises. The Liquor Act will be amended such that when an alcohol court makes an order in relation to an individual and the court sends a copy of the order to the Director of Licensing, the director must give notice to all relevant licensees concerning the prohibition order. Contravention of a prohibition order by a licensee will be a contravention of the liquor licence held by the licensee.
The provisions I have outlined today have arisen from the government’s determination to eliminate the alcohol-fuelled antisocial behaviour that our community has had to suffer - and has had to suffer for too long. They provide individual Territorians with new options, support for protecting themselves from unwelcome and unacceptable intrusions and abuse. I commend these amendments and, indeed, the bill in its entirety to honourable members.
Mr McADAM (Local Government): Madam Speaker, communities across the Northern Territory are increasingly concerned about issues of safety, security and the right to the quiet enjoyment of one’s home and local surroundings. Feeling safe in one’s home and local environment is of paramount importance to the majority of people. This legislation package tackles the problems of antisocial behaviour head on. It recognises and attempts to deal with the impact of alcohol abuse upon individuals, their families and the rest of the community, as well as providing ways to better manage antisocial behaviour in our homes and local communities.
There are three key areas under the Antisocial Behaviour (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill that are directly relevant to my role as Housing Minister. The first are amendments to the Liquor Act to allow a private premise to be declared restricted premises under the act. Under these provisions, an owner or an occupier, including a tenant of private premises, may apply to the Liquor Commission for a declaration that the premises, or a specified part, are restricted premises. This means it would be an offence to consume or possess liquor at that place. The commission must consult with the occupiers and owners of the premise and the Commissioner of Police before making a declaration. It is important to note that the declaration can only be made by the commission if it is satisfied that the declaration will reflect the wishes of the majority of lawful occupiers, and I refer to clause 6.
What this means is that, while Territory Housing will be able to help a tenant to make an application if they wish to do so, Territory Housing cannot make a unilateral application itself to have one of its properties declared restricted premises where the majority of the people lawfully in the house do not want the restrictions in place. The provisions are not designed to be punitive or imposed on tenants against their will. Instead, we are seeking to support tenants who struggle with stopping unwelcome drinkers coming to their homes. This is something many of our tenants have reported to us.
The new provisions are designed to help tenants to take control back over their own houses by allowing them to stop problem drinkers drinking at their home where they do not want it to occur. Advice from regional officers suggest that these measures could have a significant impact on reducing antisocial behaviour. For public housing tenants who wish to go down this path, Territory Housing will support and assist them with the application if needed, and will work to help them manage their tenancy.
It is important to note, however, that it is the police who will enforce the new rules and respond if there is a breach of the declaration, while the commission itself will place the notices on the houses. Of course, it is not just public housing tenants who will benefit from the new provisions, but also people in private accommodation who experience difficulties caused by people drinking at their places of residence.
Arguably the most significant focus area for the housing portfolio under the antisocial behaviour legislation package is the introduction of new acceptable behaviour agreements. The bill introduces amendments to the Housing Act to give the CEO of Housing the power to require a tenant in public housing to enter into an ABA, which is clause 13. It should be noted that it is only public housing tenants who can be subject to an ABA. Key points about the new powers are: the request to enter an ABA must be made by giving the tenant a notice that describes the behaviour and the terms of the proposed agreement; the tenant has a period of less than 28 days in which to enter an agreement when required to do so - failure to do so can leave the tenant liable to be evicted; and a tenant can only be required to enter into an agreement if the CEO of Housing believes that the tenant or another person living at that premise is likely to engage in antisocial behaviour. That opinion must be based on the history of the tenant’s current lease or previous NT Public Housing leases;
ABAs will also operate in relation to the behaviour of other people occupying the premises. If a person who is residing in the dwelling with the consent of the tenant breaches the terms of the agreement then the tenant is also taken to have breached the agreement. However, where the breaches were due to someone other than the tenant - for example, visitors - and the court is satisfied that the tenant has taken all reasonable actions to prevent the breach, the court will have discretion not to terminate the tenancy.
The reality of public housing today is that it is provided for people most in need. It is the housing of last resort for many people. The vast majority of our tenants do the right thing, observe the terms of their lease and peacefully get on with their lives. The big but, however, is that some do not. Some tenants, or their visitors or guests, are disruptive, noisy, offensive and behave in ways that are unacceptable to the general community.
The key challenge we have in public housing is to manage the tension of being the housing provider of last resort, where people are evicted often fall into homelessness and, on the other hand, making sure that people who unreasonably disrupt the lives of those around them are effectively dealt with. The reality is though, it is not usually the very bad cases of noise nuisance that cause the difficult management problems for Territory Housing, it is the cases where the situation is not so clear cut and the incidents have been minor or intermittent and much more difficult to deal with. This is particularly so in the context that Territory Housing must have sufficient evidence to satisfy a court before a tenant can be evicted. We think the new ABAs provide a very useful tool that will help Territory Housing to help manage this grey area. It is not every public housing tenant who needs to be on an ABA and, as I have said before, most people in public housing do the right thing. Conversely, sometimes the behaviour is so serious only evictions are appropriate. However, where we have a tenancy that is getting into some trouble because of antisocial behaviour but could still be helped, then the ABA gives an opportunity to intervene early and spell out very clearly for the tenant what is needed from them if their tenancy is not to end in an eviction.
Of course, in some cases of serious noise and nuisance in the existing tenancy, Territory Housing will always reserve the right to seek termination through the court without the tenant entering into an ABA. This will always be a matter of operational discretion for Territory Housing, depending upon the circumstances of each particular case. ABAs will, therefore, be used in three distinct situations:
- (1) where there is serious noise and nuisance with an existing tenancy. In some very serious cases this may only be one incident but, in most cases, it would be when a pattern of behaviour has emerged evidenced by verbal or written complaints, police attendances and neighbourhood surveys by tenancy officers;
- (2) where it is uncertain whether the lease should be renewed because of concerns about some incidents of noise and nuisance; or
- (3) at the commencement of a tenancy where the applicant was a previous tenant with a track record of problems with antisocial behaviour or noise or nuisance.
ABAs may, therefore, give tenants who may otherwise be evicted or refused entry to public housing a second chance. The responsibility of the tenant will be clearly and transparently stated, and any extra support that they might need to help save the tenancy can be identified and mobilised.
Territory Housing will be taking a case management approach to each matter, drawing in expertise from the right support agencies. We are pretty good at bricks and mortar, but we also recognise that when it comes to support, a range of expert responses are needed to meet the complex issues that many of our tenants face.
We understand the risk of ABAs could be seen as oppressive or unfair for some tenants, particularly where English is a second language or the tenant has literacy or other problems. For this reason, interpreters will be called upon to help ensure that the tenant understands what the ABA means for them, and that their rights are fully explained. In addition, only senior officers within Territory Housing will be able to sign off on an ABA. Tenants will be able to appeal a decision to require them to enter into an ABA through Territory Housing administrative appeals processes, where the matter can, ultimately, be reviewed by external panel.
Some people have claimed that ABAs will simply provide another place for badly-behaved tenants to hide. This is simply untrue. The reality is that, ultimately, it is the court that decides whether a tenant can be evicted or not, and there are high standards of evidence needed. As I said, Territory Housing will continue to vigorously pursue eviction action against tenants causing severe noise and nuisance where there is sufficient evidence to do so. ABAs will provide another source of information for the courts to have regard to when it is making its decision. Indeed, this government is of the view that a proven breach of an ABA will be given greater weight by the courts. Therefore, ABAs are hardly likely to be some sort of an escape hatch for those tenants who supposedly wish to hide behind it.
The third and final element of the bill that is relevant to the housing portfolio is a provision that will amend the Residential Tenancies Act to allow a third party, not the landlord, to apply to terminate a tenancy agreement where they have been adversely affected by the conduct of the tenant, and I refer to clause 18. In some cases, Territory Housing or other landlords may only receive complaints about tenant behaviour from only one neighbour. For Territory Housing, where it is not possible to substantiate the complaint in a survey of other neighbours, it is generally not possible to take eviction action because there is not enough evidence for a court that a lease agreement has been breached. In such situations, the complainant can now apply directly to the court to terminate the tenancy if they believe they have sufficient evidence to show breach of the act.
In this case, the landlord will be given an opportunity to be heard by the court. If the landlord objects to the making of an order for possession, then the court can only make the order if exceptional circumstances justify it. These provisions are designed to allow a landlord to put their position to the court before any adverse findings as made against a tenant. The provision empowers people in a local neighbourhood to take direct action against tenants of other properties causing noise and nuisance. It also means that people who repeatedly make unfair or vexatious complaints against the tenants - and there are many of these people in this category – will, obviously, need to take responsibility for putting their cases before the court.
Madam Speaker, at no stage have we abandoned the critical role of our courts in determining, on the evidence, the course of tenancies in public housing in all the legislative changes I have discussed today. I commend the bill to the House.
Ms LAWRIE (Family and Community Services): Madam Speaker, I lend my support to this raft of legislation designed to tackle antisocial behaviour in our society. The true test of any significant legislative reform is whether it is fair, reasonable, or just. I commend the Attorney-General for his work, because the antisocial behaviour raft of legislative changes are, indeed, fair, reasonable and just when tackling a very problematic issue in our society.
I talk specifically in regard to the treatment aspects of dealing with people with alcoholism, because treatment aspects fall within my agency and, specifically, within the division of Alcohol and Other Drugs program. The reforms will give treatment services the chance to get in and make a difference, to break the cycle of alcohol abuse and antisocial behaviour on our streets. You have to see these reforms in the context of everything else we are doing: taking tough action on petrol sniffing, strengthening our Mental Health Services, and putting in place a proper system of family support services. The reforms are a part of proactive approaches across a range of social problems that build stronger communities. We are not going to just sit back and watch Territorians harm themselves and, indeed, their families.
Our new petrol sniffing laws give families, communities and police a way to make a difference. We have put in $1.4m in services on the table for treatment in rehabilitation services. Communities across the Territory, from Angurugu to Willowra, are working with government to stop petrol sniffing. On behalf of Territory communities, I am calling on the Commonwealth government to expand the roll-out of Opal fuel. We are intervening and putting treatment and rehabilitation services in place, but a regional roll-out of Opal in Central Australia needs to be part of the solution.
Our new investment in Mental Health Services means that more people can get the help they need to live safely in the community. We have put $835 000 additional to ensure people get the support they need – intensive support – if they have a relapse in their mental illness. We are putting in an extra 14 beds, with 24-hour support, for people who cannot live in the community.
This is the context for our approach to antisocial behaviour: intervention and treatment services that can make a difference in people’s lives. The government’s plan is a targeted and evidence-based approach. It is based on what the professionals are telling us works. It is about treatment and rehabilitation. We know there is a core group that cycle through the sobering-up shelter; people call it the syndrome. We are about putting a stop to the culture that says that that is okay. There are up to 200 long-term, habitual drunks who need help.
I have great confidence in the treatment programs we have in place. They are high quality programs. This is about getting the people who need those programs in the front door. It is a no excuses approach. If you are an offender and you have a problem with alcohol, then you need treatment. That is what we are saying. We are already spending $9m a year on treatment services across the Northern Territory. Now we are increasing that by another $560 000 a year, and the additional treatment and rehabilitation services that people need will be fully funded by this government.
The treatment agencies in the Northern Territory, run by government and the community sector, have very good experience in working with people with alcohol problems. They have experience in working with clients referred through the criminal justice system. We know that treatment is an effective means of preventing an escalation of alcohol and other drugs problems, providing new skills and new ways of coping, and they offer an opportunity for improved health and social functioning. There are very clear benefits for individuals and for families, and for the broader community, of getting people who need help into treatment. These benefits are realised in economic and social terms.
We have injected new funding of $550 000 in the next financial year, increasing to $640 000 in 2008-09, that will enable existing services to cater for the additional people who will require treatment when this program is in place. We will develop service options which build on the existing expertise and infrastructure available in the sector. We are talking to treatment agencies to look at options for expanded treatment places.
In addition, my department is working closely with the Department of Justice to develop a link between the specialist alcohol court and its clinicians, to make sure that people are assessed, case managed and referred to an appropriate range of treatment options. We will build on what we have learnt from the very successful Court Referral and Evaluation for Drug Intervention and Treatment, (CREDIT NT) program, which bails people who have committed illicit drug-related offences into drug treatment programs.
The people I speak to welcome the strong action government is taking to ensure that offenders who need treatment for alcohol dependency will get that treatment. They recognise the harm that occurs to communities, families and the individual if we turn a blind eye to the underlying cause of so much criminal behaviour in the Territory.
A minority hold the view that court mandated treatment is non-effective and that choice is a requisite requirement of treatment for alcohol and other drug problems. This philosophical view is not borne out in the evidence. Certainly, the service providers already working with clients with illicit drug dependency through the CREDIT NT program report good client outcomes as a result of coercive treatment. This is not a soft option. The soft option would be warehousing drunks, ignoring the problem, locking them up. This is about making a difference, giving people a wake-up call. Rehabilitation has never been a soft option; it is a real solution for habitual offenders and for their victims. Our approach is unashamedly tough, but it is also an approach that offers hope for families and communities ravaged by the burden of alcohol dependency.
In my community of Karama, I know that we will welcome the raft of reforms that the antisocial behaviour legislation introduces. When we came to government in 2001, Karama was somewhat notorious for the drunks and people lying around the shopping centre. The reforms that the government has introduced of additional police patrols, youth patrols, and our capacity to work with local business in a collaborative way, has made a significant difference to the community of Karama. It is a lot more peaceful community now. However, we needed to do more and go further. I really did welcome, in the lead-up to the 2001 election campaign, the announcement by the Chief Minister to tackle the core recidivist drunks living in our community, because it is distressing to see that, whilst some of them may not commit criminal offences, they are living such a destructive lifestyle. To have society allow that to continue to happen is distressing. To introduce a range of reforms that are before the House today to provide for an improvement in the treatment and rehabilitation services that we make available to alcoholics is a really important step.
Without such reforms, we would not have seen the growth and capacity of our rehabilitation services that we have seen now. My agency went to work very quickly with those services. First of all, they did a scoping study of the services to see exactly what rehabilitation services we had throughout the Territory and what the capacity of those services are. The agency then went into forums with the Alcohol and Other Drugs Rehabilitation Services looking at the quality of treatment programs and new treatment programs that exist throughout Australia. A very strong approach taken by my agency is to improve the capacity of the rehabilitation services that already exist right across the Territory, but also ensure that they are taking on board new best practice models of treatment for both alcohol and other drugs.
I commend the work done by Jo Townsend and the staff of Alcohol and Other Drugs programs. They are widely respected by the non-government agencies in the community which offer the treatment and rehabilitation services. We have taken a collaborative approach in the government in being able to work with the non-government sector in preparing them for what will certainly be their greater role in rehabilitation and treatment services right across the Territory, not only as I have said in drugs to date, but also through these legislative reforms in the area of alcohol as well. Service providers have been very concerned that, without coercive treatment, there was a catchment of people who they really were not getting to or able to keep in the scope of rehabilitation. Being able to have compulsory treatment orders as part of this raft of reforms is an essential element to what the community sector had been seeking for a while. Coercion, as I said, has seemed to work. The feedback we are getting from the drug treatment services is that the coercive aspect has seen some successful treatment outcomes.
What do we mean when we talk about successful treatment outcomes? We are actually saying that we are giving someone an opportunity to live a better life. We are giving someone an opportunity not to continue to destroy their health, their bodies where, in many instances in fact, the destruction goes to the family around them. Anyone who has lived with an alcoholic can start to understand why the government is taking such strong measures to deal with alcoholism in our community.
We are a government that is no longer prepared to say it is acceptable. We wanted to put in a range of measures that pick up some of the sorriest cases of people living in our society who start to become ostracised from society - people look at them and blame them. They have a significant addiction and health problem. I know the opposition have had a ‘lock them up’ mentality towards it. Professionals in the sector, on the strongest advice, say that that is a foolhardy approach that it is not actually treating the cause of the addiction and, in fact, treatment and rehabilitation services are the far better and more appropriate approach to take.
I commend the Attorney-General for the effort that he and his agency have gone to in proposing what is really greenfields legislative reform. It is bold, it is strong but, as I said before, it is very fair and reasonable and, fundamentally, it is extremely just. Surely, we are seeking justice when we propose law reform. I commend the Attorney-General for the effort that he is taking. However, I also know there are significant teams of people both in his agency, my own agency, in Police, and in Housing who have all worked together to bring this raft of reforms together. They are inter-related; each aspect of the reform is strong because another aspect of reform is sitting alongside it.
I commend the efforts taken by the Minister for Housing and his agency in looking at reforms when it comes to public housing tenants. As we know, many of our significant alcoholics are living in public housing. Through their addiction, their alcoholism, they are simply not successful at holding down a job or contributing to society, and those lucky few are living in public housing. We know some of them are not in public housing, some of them are in a homeless situation, sometimes referred to, locally, as long-grassers. We are a government that is saying that, as a civilised and mature society, these situations are intolerable and we will put the resources behind the actions required to clean up the mess we have inherited through decades of neglect by successive CLP governments.
Mrs Miller: You would have to mention that.
Ms LAWRIE: I hear the member for Katherine saying, ‘You would have to mention that’. Member for Katherine, I will mention that because it is to the shame of successive governments of many years. You chose to ignore significant sections of the Territory society, with one-way bus tickets south and monster and stomp. This is a new and bold approach …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Opposition members!
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, I know they do not like to hear the truth. I know the truth often hurts.
Mr Mills: It is a load of gobbledygook.
Ms Carney: You would be a fascinating Chief Minister, Delia.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Minister, please continue.
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, I know the opposition get riled very easily when you try to put on the public record a reality for the Territory, that this government is intent on dealing with generational problems which have evolved over decades of neglect.
Mrs Miller: Well, they have not improved much in the last four years either.
Ms Scrymgour: We are trying to pick up your neglect of 26 years.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Katherine! Order, Minister for Natural Resources and Environment and Heritage!
Ms LAWRIE: Madam Speaker, I know by the heated interjections that this is a sensitive subject. You press a few buttons for the opposition, when you start to go to areas they know that they were complicit in that neglect. It is a neglect that this Labour government is not prepared to continue with. We believe that the reforms we have introduced into the Chamber that we are debating will not only assist the individual but, more importantly, they will assist families struggling with the burden of alcoholism, which often brings abuse and aggression. I hope the reforms we are debating in the Chamber will, ultimately, mean that some children in the Territory do not have to live with such horrendous living situations as they have had to endure through the scourge of alcoholism in our society.
I know my agency is working as hard as possible in the area of neglected children which, in the past, they were under-funded to tackle. For 10 years under the CLP …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, members of the opposition!
Ms LAWRIE: … not one additional child protection worker was employed - 10 years without an additional child protection worker. That is an absolute disgrace! My agency is getting down to levels of neglect that were not able to be tackled in the past, because …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, opposition members, cease interjecting.
Ms Carney interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, Leader of the Opposition!
Ms LAWRIE: We have put in the resources. As I said, in these draft reforms there are many complementary additional resources that we have put into my agency which really will underpin the reforms that we are debating today.
Mental health reform is critically important. Many people dealing with substance abuse issues also have mental health issues. Therefore, the more strength and tenacity we put into our mental health system, the more people we are, obviously, able to assist. In assisting individuals, fundamentally, we are assisting their families and, importantly, our society to be a more harmonious society - a fairer and just society; a society that does not turn its back on the most disadvantaged people we have in our society.
I commend the Attorney-General for the work he has done in bringing these reforms. The people who have worked on the reform committee have done a lot of hard work and they have been bold. I see that they have brought together a package with a great deal of strength and tenacity to it. I commend my agency, particularly the Alcohol and Other Drugs program, for the work they have done in working with the community services sector, to be able to skill up the sector and prepare those important treatment and rehabilitation programs to take the clients in that will come out of these compulsory treatment orders.
Madam Speaker, I commend the raft of reforms to the House.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, once again, I have been subjected to the sheer agony of listening to the member for Karama rabbit on in the way that she does on so many occasions. I note in her speech that she said that ‘we believe this, we believe that’, speaking of her comrade friends in the Australian Labor Party. They are the true believers. The member for Karama and her friends are true believers, each and every one of them, who believed their Chief Minister during the last election. They believed, like a whole lot of other Territorians, media releases such as those dated 24 April 2005 all about antisocial behaviour, where the Chief Minister said: ‘I am going to have a bit of a crack at this, this is not good. The Territory is going to rack and ruin under Labor but, vote for us in 2005, give us a shot at it because we have some answers’.
I note that the Chief Minister. in the way that she does, issued a number of media releases at about that time. She issued another one, no doubt in anticipation of this so-called wonder package of the Australian Labor Party, on 29 April, which dealt with the housing problems. She said: ‘I want these matters to be treated urgently in the Housing and Justice portfolios for both public and private tenants’. Urgent? Urgent, Madam Speaker? I do not think so! It will be very interesting to see whether the Chief Minister, who has a certain flair, I will concede, for issuing media releases, talks in this debate because she has form. Her form is she will issue a media release, get her 30-second grab, and then run like hell and leave it to the troops.
Of course, what an interesting bunch of troops they are! Here was I thinking that the Leader of Government Business wanted to be the Chief Minister, that he would be the one knifing the current Chief Minister in the back in only a few months from now. However, I was wrong; it is the member for Karama who comes in here showing her bona fides and saying: ‘Pick me, pick me. I want to be the Chief Minister’. Over our dead bodies! I do not think that anyone in the Northern Territory will ever vote for you as Chief Minister but, if you fancy your chances - go for it!
I believe having a sense of humour in this job is very important; in fact, critical to the job of any politician – perhaps more critical to those in opposition. I look forward to the member for Karama carving out her credentials, carving out her bona fides, to show to her colleagues that, yes, she is the one - she is the one to take them to the election in 2009. I just cannot wait if that is going to be the case because I do enjoy a laugh - and my colleagues will attest to that. I do enjoy a giggle and, when the member for Karama steps up to the plate and she does all this hand-wringing and says, ‘I just want to help people. I know where the truth will lead us. I know we said this is only a few months ago. I know we have changed our minds, but I am the Chief Minister’. I do not think so, Madam Speaker.
We will watch with interest the interaction between the members for Wanguri and Karama. I do not think they are going to get on, Madam Speaker, because …
Members interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: … they both want to be Chief Minister. The member for Wanguri may be about three feet taller; however, the member for Karama will no doubt embark on covert and overt tactics to try to destabilise him and, together, they will assist the destabilisation of the current Chief Minister of the Northern Territory. I do enjoy a giggle and I look forward to that day.
There is not much else I can say in relation to the profoundly silly comments made by the member for Karama. I thought she was just filling up time, but she did not even do that very well. She fell a great deal short of what I expected. I suppose, when you do not have much to say, you should do the right thing and sit down, and how grateful I was when I saw the member for Karama take her seat. In fact, on this side of the House there was a collective sigh of relief. However, she does give us the entertainment that we so enjoy in this place. I could go on and on about the member for Karama. Tempting though it is, I will not because there is a job at hand.
The job at hand is to express our opposition to the current bill before us. This is the Northern Territory Branch of the Australian Labor Party’s answer to the serious social problems that are plaguing Territorians. This is the milk and the honey. This is the one that is going to fix, magically apparently, all of the problems. It is well intentioned, and I suppose we have to admire them for that; at least they are trying. However, they are not doing it very well and Territorians will attest to that at the next election, because these so-called reforms will do nothing to address the sorts of issues that our constituents - and let us face it, there are 25 of us - ring us, fax us, e-mail to us about on a daily basis.
I am sure it is not just because it is my electorate, I am sure it is happening in everyone’s electorates. These people vote and, in only three years time, they will see the Country Liberal Party actually provide some solution, as we do and as we will. The Australian Labor Party is just on planet Mars when it comes to coming up with solutions about these problems. It is evidenced by the media releases that the Chief Minister has issued. She said that antisocial behaviour and street offences were not on. Well, you would not know it if you had a close look at this legislation. She has said that it was urgent back in April 2005. I have grown older since then, as everyone has. If that was the Chief Minister’s definition of urgent, I would hate to be in a hurry.
In any case, we oppose these bills for many reasons. The best way of putting it is that the bills in their present form are inadequate to the task at hand. They fall short because of their lack of scope, and they give criminals a chance to escape sentence. I know that members opposite do not like this concept of people going to gaol for anything, because they do not believe, unlike my party, in individual responsibility and consequences. The irony is an obvious one, given that we have seen, under the Australian Labor Party, record highs of indigenous imprisonment in the Northern Territory. When crime is so rife, they have no choice. Even the members of the Labor Party have to say: ‘I suppose we had better lock up some of them’. The only reason people are in gaol is because there is so much crime being committed in the Northern Territory.
I refer back to the pre-election hype surrounding this package, and you could be forgiven for thinking that there was a brave new world of policy initiatives that would focus on and attack the drunks in our communities who plague our parks, public places and our streets, but that was then and this is now. The bills do not address those problems and there are many reasons for it.
One of them is by dint of section 128 of the Police Administration Act. That section was used 21 862 times last year. This section allows police to apprehend for protective custody a person who is drunk apparently by alcohol or a drug. The conditions that operate when this section is used mean that a person cannot be charged with a criminal offence. This is the vital flaw in the government’s approach to their antisocial behaviour package. The alcohol courts will only be able to make orders with respect to people who have been charged and plead guilt or signal their intention to do so to a court of summary jurisdiction. Only then will there be a referral to the alcohol court and a likelihood of a sentence of imprisonment.
Last year, we apprehended 22 000 people or thereabouts, and not one of them fulfilled the requirements of the government’s package. Let me say that again: 22 000 people were locked up, taken into protective custody last year, and not one of them will fall within this legislation. Stop kidding yourselves. You cannot pull the wool over everyone’s eyes all of the time.
Even if you add the handful of people who were convicted of behavioural offences in our streets - for instance, breaches of the Summary Offences Act - the last count we had was I think in 2003-04 and, in answer to a question I think the police minister said there were about 790 or thereabouts. At that time, out of about - being generous - if there were 20 000 drunks apprehended, only about 700 to 800 or thereabouts were prosecuted under the Summary Offences Act. Clearly, something is not working because all we are having is 22 000 people being rounded up, locked up, let go the next day. Then, we have the laughable situation of about a fortnight ago where the Police minister issued a media release at a media conference saying: ‘We have moved a whole lot of drunks’. I think the figure was about 7000. They moved 7000 drunks from somewhere in Darwin to somewhere else in Darwin. This is not a good outcome. Hello! This is seriously not a good outcome.
The thinking behind this bill is the government wants to go after people who breach the Criminal Code by breaking into people’s houses and stealing from Territorians. It is being dressed up by the $8m spin machine on the fifth floor of this place; that is, those people, almost 100 of them as I understand it, employed at a price of about $8m to provide spin doctoring services to this government. They are paid well and aren’t they earning it? Some people in the Northern Territory community actually believe that this legislation will do what the Australian Labor Party says it will do - and it will not. However, I take my hat off to the spin doctors because, by jingo, they earn their money.
When the average punter in the street thinks about antisocial behaviour, he or she is thinking about drunks who are upsetting the good social order of day-to-day life in our streets, our community. He or she is thinking about the drunks in our parks. There was an incident last week where someone dared to go into a park and ask people to be quiet. He had his head punched in. This is, again, not a good outcome.
The truth is that this bill cannot fix those problems and, indeed, they would be upset to hear that the alcohol orders are designed to sidestep sentencing. That is what average Territorians need to know and, by jingo, we plan on telling them. Many Territorians will be surprised to learn that an eligible person under Labor’s bill can sidestep being sentenced for an offence they have committed if they avail themselves of an alcohol intervention order.
Rather than headline ’government tough on antisocial behaviour’, the more accurate headline would be ‘government will give crims the choice of gaol or treatment’. That is what they are actually doing. The truth is, as we know, often the first casualty of war. In fact, it is the first and repeated casualty of the Labor government; they perpetrate deceits. They perpetrated one prior to the last election, and they continue to perpetrate the myth.
There is a difference between Labor and the CLP. Labor thinks that a person who commits a crime needs help and intervention, and that the underlying assumption is that they are, in their own right, somehow victims and, once they commit a crime, it is proof they are victims. We think that if you commit a crime you are a criminal. If treatment is appropriate - and often it is - it becomes or should become a part of your sentence and not a way to avoid sentence. That is the difference.
The reason, of course, for this is simple: under Labor’s model a person with an alcohol problem is identified after they commit an offence punishable with imprisonment of up to two years and they are likely to do real time. We say that an alcohol problem is identified if you are continually being locked up for being drunk. Under the Labor model, a person needs to commit a crime - a crime must be committed and a victim is created before you will get anywhere near this legislation. Commit a crime, create a victim, then you go under this and there are procedures whereby if you say: ‘I did do all of those nasty things, your Worship, but I have an alcohol problem’, this is the Labor Party’s sanctioning of not going to gaol. We think that that is not in line with community expectations. We also believe that it is not in line with what Labor promised before the last election. We are not asking too much. If you followed through with your headlines and your media releases, we would be sitting here as your fellow Territorians, applauding you. However, do not give us this rubbish: ‘We said this and now we are doing that’.
The CLP, unlike Labor, will not wait for a crime to be committed and a victim to be created before someone is dealt with by your so-called alcohol courts. That is the difference, and we are proud that we believe so strongly in our position.
Labor is going to wait until the person they are trying to help creates a victim and becomes a criminal before they move to medical intervention. We say, as I have said, that is the wrong approach. Once a person commits an offence they are a criminal and they should not be allowed to sidestep a criminal sanction. If you want a medical intervention, then intervene before a criminal offence has occurred; intervene before there is a victim. However, sadly, that will not happen under Labor’s proposal.
Of the 22 000 apprehensions for protective custody last year, how many were repeat apprehensions? In other words, frequent flyers. If you do the calculations of those 22 000 people, it represents about 11% of the Territory population being apprehended last year for being drunk. Or put another way, about one in 10 people you and I know were locked up last year. However, the truth is that most of those apprehended were the same people being caught again and again.
We say that we are not prepared to stand by and watch someone locked up again and again for being drunk and creating havoc. While you lot are happy with that, we are not, and we make no bones about it.
Mr Henderson: You were for 27 years.
Ms CARNEY: Madam Speaker, in relation…
Mr Stirling: Read the NT News 10 years ago.
Ms CARNEY: The Police minister - who is not in his seat and, therefore, should not be recognised by me or, indeed, you, Madam Speaker - interjects, but in the circumstances it is an interjection worth taking up: ‘Twenty-seven years’. I tell the Police minister, 27 years ago there, were not 22 000 drunks coming into our centres in the Northern Territory. Yet, under Labor in the last five years …
Members interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: In the last five years, it has gone from about 10, and you have the graph because it is in your own department’s report - it goes like that. That is under Labor. The gall that you display by saying: ‘Oh, 27 years under the CLP’. Pull the other one, sport! We know that you are given to being a bit creative with the truth, and that is why I suppose people do not like you. However, you cannot come in here and argue things that simply defy reality.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms CARNEY: Madam Speaker, I note the time, and I have quite a bit to go. I probably will take up the next 15 minutes. I thought I should flag that with you. Should I keep going or should we come back to it?
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, I will just ask members if there urgent business for members at lunchtime? Please continue. Leader of the Opposition, if you need an extension after 15 minutes though, we will do that after Question Time.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms CARNEY: Sure, that is unlikely, but I am happy to indicate that, Madam Speaker, thank you.
Madam SPEAKER: Please continue.
Ms CARNEY: What are we doing? What is Labor doing to catch the frequent flyers – silver, gold and platinum – nothing! Silver, gold and platinum - they are working their way up and if it were a proper reward system, my God, these people would be happy! They would all be platinum, in fact, they would probably be Chairman’s lounge members. Under Labor, they would think that was a good outcome. No, it is not. Do not talk to us about 27 years of the CLP because your own figures go up like that.
That is why today the CLP launched its own policy called Safe Streets. It is not riddled with $8m of spin doctoring language for this Labor Party and Chief Minister. It is real language for real people who have had more than enough of the garbage that is perpetrated by the Labor Party and the rubbish that they are seeing in their own communities.
I encourage the Police minister to look at page 157 of the police annual report last year. It shows that in the year 1999-2000. 11 395 people were apprehended for protective custody. Last year, as I said, it was - wait for it! - 21 862. I do not think that extends over the 27-year period that the CLP was around. In fact, most of it, Chief Minister, has gone up under your watch. Just in case you have forgotten, I thought I should point that out to you.
It is a crisis that these bills do nothing to address and that Territorians are seeing every day on our streets and in our parks. If you walk out of this House at night and across to Bennett Park, there is an even chance that you will see people drinking there, especially at night. These are exactly the same people who generate so many of the non-intentional homicides, murders and so on in our communities - drunks sitting around full of booze and bad manners …
Mr Henderson: Have you spoken to Peter Paroulakis lately?
Ms CARNEY: Not unlike the member of Wanguri - sitting around full of booze and bad manners who lose their tempers as, indeed, the member for Wanguri is given to do …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, Leader of the Opposition, I ask you to withdraw those last comments. It is highly improper to be referring to a minister in that way.
Ms CARNEY: I am happy to withdraw the reference to booze, if there is any implied suggestion - very happy to withdraw.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, Leader of the Opposition.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Please continue.
Ms CARNEY: Of course, that is fair enough if you talk about my apology, but I do stress and say again the comment in relation to bad manners of the member of Wanguri.
In any event, drunks sit around and get themselves into trouble. They are a risk to themselves, their friends, their communities, and their families. They are also a risk to their fellow Territorians and that is not on – it is just not on!
The government will defend themselves by saying, as the Police minister did, that they have a better resourced police force and, of course, with compliments of, I think, $7.2bn or thereabouts, in GST revenue that Labor has received since it came to office. Wouldn’t you spend it? Perhaps you would not spend all of it and create a budget crisis, but you certainly would spend some of it to improve health services and policing in the Northern Territory. The twist, however, is to deliver on those services, so you cannot just say: ‘Oh we have more police and more beds in hospital’, if that is the case these days. I am not entirely sure, I suspect it is not. You cannot say: ‘We have employed all these people, therefore, the outcomes are better’. That is not the case and Territorians want to see bang for the Commonwealth buck. They want to see you delivering services; that is why we live here. That is what you should be doing as a government of the Northern Territory.
However, this is a problem about antisocial behaviour; this is what offends the sensibilities of Territorians. Dressing up a piece of legislation that says convicted criminals can get a softer option than gaol is rubbish - complete rubbish. It is a line about antisocial behaviour, stuff on a media release and, somehow, a la, Labor think they have achieved the results. Not by a long shot. No doubt, there will be a bevy of press releases issued today. You will be there with your little media advisor. The government media advisors - all 10 of them - will be lined up badgering the journalist in the way that they will, and they will spin it. Welcome to my world!
However, we know what the truth is. We know what the truth is and so do the Territorians who ring my office and, presumably your offices, saying: ‘I have 30 drunks across the street from my house; what can you do about it?’ You know what I am going to tell them? I am going to tell them that Labor could have done a whole lot of things about it, but they chose to do nothing. In fact, I will be telling pretty much everyone in the Northern Territory that Labor chose not to act on the problem.
For the backbenchers who clearly share the delusion that is the Australian Labor Party in government in the Northern Territory, I ask them in their own minds or in their own homes, to actually read this stuff; have a look it. We have to; you do not have to because of your $8m staff and the ministers who have carriage of it. I commend, I urge you, to read this legislation. You ask yourselves whether it matches the media release and the election promises, because it does not. You also ask yourselves, through you, Madam Speaker, whether your electorates will be happy with the outcome. I will bet London to a brick that they will not be, and for very good reason.
In summary, before turning to the next part of the bill, it is a deceit, a disgrace. I will be farming this out, as I have done, indeed, to so many people in the Northern Territory who do share my views that this is just not okay. If you line it up with what we said prior to the election, the planets are just not aligned.
It is well-intentioned, but it will not address the problems. Labor sanctions crimes being committed and victims being created before drunks are dealt with under this proposal. There is a point of difference and, of course, in politics we know that Territorians, or voters, always look for a point of difference. The point of difference is, as the CLP, we are not prepared to wait for crimes to be committed and victims to be created. That is why we launched our policy today.
It is important that I deal, within the time I have left, the other part of this bill. However, before I do so, I need to ask why they are being heard cognate - which means that they are being heard together although they are separate in so many respects? They are not particularly related to each other in a legislative sense and, therefore, they should be debated separately. We are much more sympathetic to what that part of the bill is trying to achieve. We are a sensible opposition. We will shout from the rooftops where it is appropriate. We will also give you various indications of support and compliments where it is appropriate to do so.
I say again: we are supportive of what that part of the bill tries to achieve. However, because they are cognate, because they are linked together, we are in the invidious position of having to say we oppose your bill. We cannot excise them, we have to vote on it as a package. Therefore, because government - stupidly and unwisely in our view - linked them together, we are in a position of saying we are certainly more sympathetic in relation to the Residential Tenancies Act amendment, but we cannot go with you because of our deep-seated opposition to the alcohol court.
Nevertheless, it could be suggested that the reason Labor put these bills together is that, despite their numbers, they just do not like long debates. Last week, we had two or three pieces of legislation on the Notice Paper, this week, so far, we have one. This was a government that, eight months ago, went to Territorians and said: ‘We are a government with more to do’. Well, you would not know that there was anything else to be done because this government actually is not doing anything. One piece of legislation on the Notice Paper – how every strange! There will be a couple of others, on urgency, debated later this week. However, it shows, perhaps, why these bills are linked because they just do not like debate. We saw it last week when we were talking about the budget and the Leader of Government Business shut us down. Perhaps it was not him, it was the Treasurer, because he had a bit of a hissy fit. In any event, these bills should be separate.
Notwithstanding the reservations we have in relation to these bills being cognate, I repeat that we are with you, to a large extent, in what you are trying to achieve. However, there are some points which ought properly be made. It is appropriate, I suspect, that I talk about an area where I come from, although not in my electorate: Larapinta in Alice Springs. These are the people who might be described as some who do not expect very much from their government. They just want to live in safe homes, safe streets in a safe area in Alice Springs. Well, Larapinta is a disgrace, and it is a disgrace because of the antisocial behaviour that is happening there, and of the housing difficulties that continue to confront so many residents. Members will remember the meeting at Larapinta held a year or so ago, such was the level of concern in that community.
I raise Larapinta because I can only hope that some of these measures in the housing package will assist those poor people in Larapinta who are putting up with things that none of us should put up with. I am in receipt of regular e-mails from one person in particular, and I believe other members are as well. It almost makes you weep to read of the difficulties these people are experiencing, so we believe government should act.
I raise the following concerns. I do not expect anything to be done about them, but it is appropriate, where I have concerns about any issue, that I outline those concerns on the Parliamentary Record. I was told earlier by the Treasurer who said that the government would trial this proposal and perhaps have a look at it in 12 months. It may be that some of my concerns have been revisited there.
I need to be quick because I do want to finish when my time expires, Madam Speaker, rather than seek an extension. You have come up with something called an acceptable behaviour agreement. We hope that is not like the so-called good neighbour policy which, apparently, was Labor’s answer to having good neighbours. Clearly, it did not work. Territory Housing does have the power to evict people. You do ask the question: is it not the case that people undertake or enter into lease arrangements and, like any agreement or lease, the landlord in this case can evict people? I would be very interested to know how many people have been evicted. Given the problems that neighbours experience, they have a right to expect that vast numbers of people would be evicted. I do not think that that is the case. Perhaps we can pursue it in estimates. In any case, we hope that the acceptable behaviour agreement is much better than your so-called good neighbour policy, because a good neighbour policy that had atrocious neighbours, ergo, is not a good neighbour policy.
To a large extent, some of the proposals are just a re-badging of some things that presently exist. I refer again to people not complying with their lease arrangements, although I note that it is a tighter time frame under this bill; that is, if someone refuses to enter into an acceptable behaviour agreement, there is a 28-day period which can bring on either an eviction or, I gather, a refusal by Territory Housing to house people.
There are some concerns in relation to the definition of ‘interested person’ under clause 17 of the bill. I make the point …
Dr LIM: Madam Speaker, I move that the Leader of the Opposition be granted an extension of time to finish her remarks, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, I would ask that if we grant this leave that it happens after Question Time.
Ms CARNEY: Okay. Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Motion agreed to.
Debate suspended.
DISTINGUISHED VISITORS
Senate Community Affairs Reference Committee
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the Speaker’s gallery of members of the Senate Community Affairs References Committee: Senator Moore, Senator Humphries, Senator Adams, Senator Crossin, Senator Polley, Senator Webber and Senator Siewert. On behalf of all honourable members, I extend a very warm welcome to our distinguished guests.
Members: Hear, hear!
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: I also draw your attention to visitors in the galleries who are visiting parliament as part of the public tour program. On behalf of all honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
DISTINGUISHED VISITOR
Chief Magistrate, Mr Hugh Bradley
Chief Magistrate, Mr Hugh Bradley
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I also draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of the Chief Magistrate, Mr Hugh Bradley, On behalf of all honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
ALCOHOL COURT BILL
(Serial 33)
ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) BILL
(Serial 34)
(Serial 33)
ANTISOCIAL BEHAVIOUR (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) BILL
(Serial 34)
Continued from earlier this day.
Madam SPEAKER: We will continue with the Alcohol Court Bill 2005 and Antisocial Behaviour (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill. The Leader of the Opposition has a 10-minute extension.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, the member for Greatorex for jumping to his feet and moving that I receive an extension of time. I indicated before our luncheon adjournment that I did not expect to be much longer and I can confirm that is the case.
To continue with the comments I made in relation to the Alcohol Court Bill and the Antisocial Behaviour (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill being cognate, members will recall that I made some comments in relation to ‘interested persons’ under the proposed new section 100 of the bill. I note that the definition of ‘interested persons’ is similar to that used in the Liquor Act and includes local residents, community groups, police officers and so on. Up until now, the only possible applicant in an eviction proceeding has been a landlord. We welcome that part of the amendment because we see that it has a number of benefits.
As I was explaining to members prior to lunch, we are in a difficult position because the government has put together two separate pieces of legislation. We have real difficulty in relation to the Alcohol Court Bill. Because the residential tenancies amendments are linked to that bill, we have no choice other than to voice our opposition to the current bill before us, notwithstanding that we are supportive of some of the changes in the residential tenancies bill.
I stress that the concern being put to me by a number of people is that by extending the types of people who can make an application for eviction - this is the view more so of others than of me, but it is appropriate that as their representative I put this concern on the record and I would be surprised if the minister had not heard it as well - Territory Housing may abdicate their responsibility when it comes to eviction proceedings. If there are problem tenants, there is a view that Territory Housing rightly should evict them from the premises. It has been put to me that it is conceivable that Territory Housing may not take action in the hope that someone else will. I guess a good example is some of the difficulties experienced in the Larapinta area in Alice Springs. I do not, for a moment, reflect negatively on the hardworking public servants in Territory Housing. I know they work very hard, under very difficult circumstances. I simply make the point on behalf of others - a point I might say I have some sympathy with - that there is a concern that Territory Housing may abdicate some of its responsibility. I say to you, minister, that there are some misgivings about what, at its highest, could be an unanticipated consequence of this legislative change.
In relation to this point, I raise the issue of legal proceedings and legal costs. It seems that the Labor government, is encouraging neighbours of problem tenants to commence proceedings for eviction and those people are to pay for those proceedings themselves. Either someone can go and get a lawyer - I do not know what the going rate is these days, probably between $280 and $350 an hour for a lawyer – and sit down with the lawyer and get a couple of hours worth of advice to assist them in the proceeding or, alternatively, they may retain a lawyer to act for them. That is a cost that, in my view, Territorians should not be obliged to pay because if there are problem tenants, particularly public housing tenants, why should other people pay to get rid of them? I just wonder, regarding the private sector, whether government might consider - subject to the enormous budgetary constraints it faces - offering some sort of subsidy, incentive or assistance to those people who need to go off and get lawyers just because they have the neighbours from hell next door to them.
Having said that though, the new provision does enable the neighbours of troublesome tenants to finally take steps to have the premises emptied of difficult tenants. That will be warmly received by many people who will access this part of the legislation.
We want to support the miscellaneous amendments to the bill because it contains items that do seem to bring about improvements. However, once again, for political reasons the government has introduced a bill that is cognate with the other bill. Once again, the spin machine will go into overdrive to say that we opposed antisocial behaviour control legislation, and we also opposed reforms to the Residential Tenancies Act. A reading of the Parliamentary Record will, in fact, reveal what our position really is, and the misgivings we have in relation to these two bills being cognate.
Regarding the antisocial behaviour legislation, I thought it was very interesting, this afternoon in Question Time, to see the Chief Minister, who was far from comfortable in my view answering some of the questions. She said that those people who commit serious crimes will go to gaol. We will continue to monitor that. People, in our view, are sick and tired of putting up with drunks, many of whom commit a number of offences against their fellow Territorians. Our position - and I restate it - is that the Country Liberal Party will not wait for a crime to be committed and a victim created in order to deal with the problem of drunks. We will not stand by and sanction legislation which, in almost every respect, insists that a crime is committed and a victim created before someone falls within the domain of this so-called alcohol court.
It was put to me by someone a day or so ago that we already have alcohol courts in the Northern Territory. They are the courts in which most of the offenders appear. I do not know the exact figures, but magistrates and senior lawyers tell me that these days about 90% of matters, in our lower courts in particular, are crime and almost all of it is alcohol-related. Therefore, in a sense we already have our alcohol courts.
It will be very interesting, nevertheless, to see how this legislation operates. We think it will create difficulties for you. In conclusion, we know it will create difficulties for most people in the Northern Territory who expect much more from this government; who expect to rely on some of the promises that were made before the last election. However, sadly, because I feel the government has become drunk on its own power, obsessed with its own ability to do whatever it likes and consumed by its own arrogance, we now see a government that is just simply not delivering the results that it promised Territorians. As a Territorian and a person who represents Territorians, I feel incredibly sad about that. However, in conclusion, in relation to the residential tenancy amendments, we wish you well.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, the bill before us is an extremely important bill and one which I would ask the government to defer. I will explain my reasons as I go along.
Looking at the bill and listening to Question Time today, I believe what we really have here is the offence of public drunkenness by stealth. The reason I say that is because you have legislation here which says we will force these people to do something after they have committed an offence. That seems to me after the horse has bolted.
We do not seem to have anything in here, excluding perhaps prohibition orders - but that is the same thing; you have to commit an offence that is not gaol-able - which deals with those people who are the ones I heard of when I was on the substance abuse committee, that you see in the parks, who defecate or swear, are a nuisance or, sometimes, are asking for money and those sorts of things, that are generally not picked up for an offence, but are the people that drive you mad. They are a nuisance and, sometimes, you are scared to walk down the footpath because people are lying there, etcetera. They are a fact of life. I was in Katherine about three weeks ago on a Thursday night. I arrived there at 8 pm. I was going down to Andy McNeill’s funeral, and that street between Red Rooster and the Crossways Hotel, for me, was scary. I would say tourists who arrive in Katherine at that time of night, would be actually scared off from staying in Katherine. It was not a good feeling. They are the people that I believe we have to start with first.
What I cannot understand here is what I call a clashing of government philosophy. I will try to put it this way: we have created laws for petrol sniffing which have said the government has the power of apprehension, and you can then go before a magistrate and that magistrate can require you to get treatment. Of course, if you do not do that treatment then a warrant can be issued - I presume for your arrest for not submitting to that treatment. The reason the government did that - and I support what the government is doing and I might differ from the opposition - is because it said it did not want to make petrol sniffing illegal. In other words, you would not have a criminal offence. You could have a criminal offence for supplying alcohol, but you would not have a criminal offence for actually sniffing. What was the important reason? Because petrol is a legal substance. That is one of the reasons, I believe, that you have to make that distinction. If you are talking about drugs, drugs are already illegal, and you are committing an offence because the substance is illegal in itself for use.
Alcohol is legal. Why are we not applying exactly the same principle that we are applying for petrol sniffers to alcohol? In other words, those who misuse alcohol. The misuse would be drunk continually, going through sobering-up shelter many times - the CLP has mentioned three, I think there has been other talk about six times. It was interesting to talk to Sheila Miller from Dillinya, where I went on the weekend, who said that one person has been through the sobering-up shelter 302 times and it is increasing. You would have to ask where in your legislation you are going to force that person to have something done about their problem? Again, when I was on the substance abuse committee, I remember a very rowdy meeting in Alice Springs, where the now minister for NRETA and I were on that committee, and the minister was publicly scolded by some people for even thinking of this sort of thing. The issue of Stolen Generation, etcetera, came up and I went to the defence of the minister because I knew the minister was not talking about race, he was talking about human beings. That is what we have to make sure we keep in our mind. This is not about whether you are Aboriginal or not Aboriginal, it is about helping human beings get over a problem that they cannot get over themselves.
I have said it before that you need a process of compassion. You need some force behind what you are doing as well. I do not believe that the legislation before us has picked up that area. Instead, it says if you commit an offence, then we will consider putting to you the option of whether you have some treatment. I do not know how it would work in real cases, but talking to CAAPS, treatment there is six to eight weeks. If I was sentenced to three months gaol, I would probably take the option of CAAPS anyway, simply because it would be a shorter sentence. I can go to CAAPS, I can go home from CAAPS, I have fulfilled my rehabilitation and I do not do the punishment that was required for the offence.
It could be looked on the other way; that police might see this as an opportunity to get people into prohibition orders by picking them up for minor offences and, therefore, making those people the subject of a prohibition order. Again, you have to commit an offence to get some help. We should really be trying to get those people before they commit an offence. It just seems silly that this process is step three, instead of one and two coming first. The government needs to consider this a little more.
There is another possibility. If you look at the Mental Health and Related Services Act, under involuntary admissions, the criteria for the involuntary admission of a person on the grounds of mental illness are that the person has a mental illness and, as a result of the mental illness, the person requires treatment that is available at an approved treatment facility. Is it possible that, for a person with alcoholism which is a sickness and a health problem, we could not get those people through this type of legislation? I am not saying you use that mental health legislation. What I am saying is that there is the Volatile Substance Abuse Prevention Act, the Mental Health and Related Services Act, both of which allow you to pick up people who could be suffering from alcoholism and, through a court order or a magistrate, force them - that might be too harsh a word - but require them to take part in rehabilitation. That is what we are missing in this legislation. You have come in at chapter 3, and you have forgotten chapters 1 and 2. I put it to the government: you need to just stop a minute and look at this legislation again.
I also think you need to have wider consultation. You may have some answers to what I am going to say. I received a letter, and the minister would also have received the letter from the Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission. It gave support for some things but felt that there were questions about it being a coordinated approach. It said there were inadequate resources and I quote:
We are concerned at the level of resources allocated to the operation of the alcohol court. Firstly, we believe the amount to be approximately $762 000 of which $202 000 will be dedicated to the appointment of two court clinicians. The limitation of two clinicians will mean the court will only be able to process a maximum of 80 offenders per year. We have grave concern that this limited caseload will not have a sufficient impact on the large number of alcohol-related offences in the NT which was 2043 in the 2003-04 financial year.
- In relation to the remaining $560 000, we are concerned there has been insufficient consultation with rehabilitation services across the NT in relation to their current operations and their needs if they were to expand their services.
I rang CAAPS to check on that and they told me they have problems. They are actually full; they have a waiting list. If they have a waiting list, how is it going to operate? Is the government going to give them more money to expand CAAPS, to put on more staff? If you are going to have this system, you have to have the facilities and the people to cope with the extra people who are going to require rehabilitation.
I also quote from this letter, which I think most MLAs received, from the Darwin Regional Crime Prevention Council, which was one of those committees set up under the Alcohol Framework. This is under the same concept that the government has been putting forward. They say:
- We would like to express our concern at the level of alcohol-related crime and our support for a comprehensive initiative which supports this. However, we have apprehensions in relation to this package of legislation.
In particular, we are concerned:
1. This policy and legislation supporting it has been developed without the consultation of Crime Prevention Committees, the organisations we represent, or the key stakeholders affected by the proposed changes. We ask that a process of consultation be undertaken prior to the passage of the bill.
3. In some cases, it appears the package duplicates existing processes and procedures and we are unclear what will be the …
… through the passage of additional legislation.
They go on and they say at the end:
- We ask that the passage of this legislation is delayed until our concerns have been addressed.
That is from Richard Bowman, Chairperson of the Darwin Regional Crime Prevention Council.
There are people out there saying that they believe there is not enough community consultation presently and they would like a little more time. That is why I say let us look at deferring this. I have always felt - and the minister probably will be bored to tears hearing me say it again – and still think there are opportunities with rehabilitation of alcoholics to put them in a farm-type area where they can learn some skills, get some basic numeracy and literacy, can get assistance from people who they know are compassionate, and where there is space. I know the minister will say he has heard it all before, but I went to Dillinya on Saturday. I went out there to talk to Sheila Miller. It is a long way from anywhere is all you could say. It is certainly not next to your corner store. It actually won the Tidy Towns Award in several categories last year. You can see by the way the houses and the surrounds are maintained - although they were waiting for their lawnmower to come back from Katherine which, unfortunately, had broken down – that they have a lot of pride in that area.
One of the good things about that area is that they are isolated; there is time for those people who are chronic alcoholics in many cases to go out and go back to country. The people who are dealing with and looking after the people in the program have an understanding of Aboriginal thinking. Sheila Miller and her brother Paddy who speaks seven languages, are people who have been alcoholics themselves. They know how hard and difficult it is. That is what we should be putting more emphasis on: finding Aboriginal solutions to many of the itinerants, getting those people who might not fit into the you-beaut guidelines that departments sometimes have for people to have the right qualifications and have done the right work and filled out the right form.
People might not always agree with Sheila Miller; she is a tough nut - and I say that in the nicest term, Sheila. Obviously, she upsets people sometimes, but there is a great compassion in that woman. The same with Paddy and a whitefella called Brian who has been off the grog for 10 years who helps around the place. Those people have not only been through the experience, they have an understanding of how to get to those people they are trying to help. I cannot stand here and tell you how much success they have had. Sheila says they have had quite a bit of success,. They have the odd failure, for sure. However, Sheila said that, in many cases, in bringing Aboriginal people back to country that is not their country, culture has to be put aside sometimes when a person is in a state of alcoholism. Their culture has disappeared and we are trying to bring them back where they can appreciate their culture once again.
Dillinya might not serve all purposes. Although it does have arts and crafts, it might not have gardening and some of the other skills we might be able to develop in other areas, but it is a model that is worth looking at. We have Wildman River sitting out there in mothballs where no one lives except the caretaker. Perhaps there are opportunities there. We do have services in town, but when you look at CAAPS and FORWAARD - they are fine groups, they do a lot of good work - their rehabilitation programs are about six to eight weeks and you have them in the city where those pressures are going to come back on to people quickly.
Some people will argue that it is better to have rehabilitation in the city because people have to be able handle real life when they get back to it. However, listening to Sheila Miller at Dillinya, they have a process for bringing people back into the real world after being out there for some time which seems successful. They do not have a six to eight-week program because some of these people need a lot of time and space. I tell you if I wanted to get away from the rat race - sometimes from this place and all the issues we have to face from time to time - Dillinya would be the place. It is a beautiful area, it is peaceful and it is something a lot more politicians should make the effort and go and see. As far as I know - and I might be wrong and I stand to be corrected - there has only been two other politicians visit, Mike Reed and Tim Baldwin, and that was some time ago when they got funding for it. I think Anglicare also looked after them.
Ms Scrymgour: We know why that funding went there.
Mr WOOD: I am not making any judgments over the funding at this stage, because that is for another day. Today I say it is an example of what we should be doing. I do not necessarily see that being promoted.
It was mentioned that there will be rehabilitation for these people, but I thought it is worth me expounding the virtues of some of these places that do not necessarily get a lot of support. ANSTI is one, at Bees Creek. It has had its ups and downs. ANSTI is, at least, out in the bush. It has its own type of rehabilitation that is different from the others. It takes Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people. I have not been there for a while, although I am meant to go and judge the Goanna Games on 1 April – what a day to go. They have been around for a long time. I certainly think that they should be mentioned because they have done a lot of work in their time.
If I looked at this legislation by itself, I could say there are some issues there and it looks like you are starting to go down a certain path. However, what worries me is that we should be looking at this more in the context of the government’s own policy, the Alcohol Framework. We have taken one recommendation out of the Alcohol Framework, which is recommendation 25. That is what we have today. I will read recommendation 25:
- Government should amend legislation and develop services to make available the following range of coercive and compulsory options to respond to problem drinking:
- establish an ‘Alcohol Court’ in which suitable offenders are assessed and, where appropriate, referred to the most relevant treatment service prior to sentencing, or as part of their sentence;.
prohibiting a person from drinking ... ;
requiring a person to undergo assessment or treatment; or
- The government should commission a review of the treatment service system for people with drinking problems. The review should consider the following issues:
- whether current arrangements are consistent with the evidence of what constitutes an effective service system;
whether current arrangements respond adequately to regional and local needs;
how to ensure access to the full range of services from brief interventions to after care;
how to better integrate alcohol and other drug interventions with primary health care and other relevant services;
ways in which ongoing planning and review of alcohol and other drug treatment services can involve and be influenced by local and regional alcohol planning process; and
the likely effect of Framework proposals (in particular the coercive interventions proposed below) …
… on the demand for services.
We have a book here which is the framework. As someone said to me: ‘That is exactly what it is; a framework’. You have just gone and grabbed a piece of the framework and said: ‘Let us put that forward’, without the other piece of the framework - and quite a bit of the other framework.
I have mentioned things before like advertising of alcohol. It is mentioned in the recommendations that we ought to look at that but, really, has anything been done? The Chief Minister said, basically, it is okay to be drunk in Mitchell Street. I query the very essence of that statement as to whether being drunk in a public place by anybody, white or black, is really a good thing. You will hear people say they are frightened to walk down Mitchell Street. I can tell you it is not indigenous people who are drunk in Mitchell Street. The majority are non-indigenous, and people are frightened. That is why you have so many police and security people in Mitchell Street. I believe for too long we have presumed drunkenness is okay. If you presume that, then why would you want to go crook at an indigenous person in the park? You have to apply it evenly. There is a danger when the Chief Minister said: ‘We would not allow someone to be drunk in Mitchell Street’. I query whether we should be allowing people to be drunk - and I am talking about drunk that is a real pain in the neck, not just someone who is a little happy. I do not think we should be promoting it.
It is recorded that many young people go in for binge drinking and the statistics seem to show that. I believe it is the responsibility of government to be setting the benchmark a little higher, not lower, and saying: ‘We have a major problem with alcohol abuse in the Northern Territory, and we are not going out there to say drunkenness is a good thing; we are saying that is not necessarily a good thing. It is not good for your health, it is not good for the community, it is not good for your family. You can have a good time without getting sloshed. Yes, you can have some beer and some wine’. However, that is the difference and we ought to be clear that we are promoting the good use of alcohol.
Madam Speaker, the Alcohol Framework has 62 recommendations, and we pulled out one of them and said: ‘Let us make a bill’. What I would have preferred is a much bigger package. Again, that is why I say defer it. There are people saying we have not had enough consultation. I believe you have not picked up the people who need help as well, who are committing a major offence; that is, the people on our streets who need help. Before we introduce this legislation, we need facilities where they can go. If you do not have Dillinya-type set-ups, and CAAPS is full, then why are we introducing legislation? When we get these people, are we just going to do rehabilitation in the gaol and make the Correctional Services people our social workers? I do not think so. I do not think gaol is necessarily the best place to rehabilitate people.
If you are going to arrest them for an offence, I say, for sure; let them do their time for the crime and then, if they are problem alcoholics, then issue a court order to go through rehabilitation. The other way around is an approach that I do not believe is going to work. Some people will use it as a way around their punishment.
I would like to sum up with a couple of things. I heard the debate about whether the CLP is pushing public drunkenness, and I should say one thing about the CLP’s document. I would use the same argument against this as I am using against the government’s policy. There is nothing at the beginning and end of this, just a tough little bit in the middle. Where are the services to help? Where are chapters 1, 2, 9 and 10?
Ms Scrymgour: Monster and stomp!
Mr WOOD: Okay, but this is the bit that is here today, which is a tough approach to people who are drunk. However, again, my argument would be that you cannot just take one piece of policy and leave it like that.
The other thing that I will repeat is that I believe that the way in which this bill is set up - and I just need to look at the second reading. The minister has said ‘the legislative package underpins a coordinated whole-of-government approach for breaking the cycle of alcohol abuse’. Unfortunately, I do not believe it is applicable to the people we are talking about. It also set up what I call a pseudo-public drunkenness offence, by grabbing people who have committed an offence under the influence of alcohol. It seems a cute way of getting around what would be seen by the public as a public drunkenness offence.
Lastly, I believe that, after all these years I have been in parliament - I cannot say it was years, otherwise it would sound like I was old - I remember my first speech which talked about the boys at Daly River who died from alcoholism. I looked back then as I do now, and I do not really believe we are any better off. In fact, in many ways, we are worse. I was talking to Sheila Miller, and she said something similar; that she is not sure we are going anywhere at the present time.
The government might say that this is part of the package. It has its good qualities, but it does not have enough support both ends to make it work. I hope the government will defer it. The crime committee is saying defer it and the Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission is saying there should have been more work done on it. You could let this one sit and have a think about it and let more people debate it, because it certainly raised debate in this parliament. If nearly every person in this House is going to debate it, maybe that is another good reason to defer it. Now we are going into the community and telling the community there is this legislation and this is what it is about. Let us debate the issue of drunkenness and public drunkenness. Perhaps some of these issues really need to be debated in the broader area.
Finally, Madam Speaker, I have not spoken at all on the Antisocial Behaviour (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill because, unfortunately as someone said before, this is a cognate bill and it would have been much better to have split them considering the importance of the alcohol bill and of the antisocial behaviour bill. My understanding of the antisocial behaviour bill is that when you compare what we have done with what the New South Wales parliament has done, they are a bit like chalk and cheese. We have introduced something similar but we have not introduced the back-up for it; the management that should go with this legislation.
That has certainly happened in New South Wales; they have programs to help people. I will just see if I can find the section from the public housing bill. They have initiatives, response teams, and they do all sorts of things that assist with antisocial behaviour measures. I just wonder if we have introduced the support mechanisms that need to go with the tough-type bills we have introduced? I am interested to hear what the minister has to say. Madam Speaker, as I reiterated before, I would have preferred that this bill was deferred to another time.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I support the antisocial behaviour legislation. I sat here listening to the member Nelson and I disagree with some of the things that he said but there are some things that I do agree with. Last night, I was sitting down going through - from the time, and even before, I entered this parliament, in my position as a CEO of health services and I became a member sworn into this parliament - the number of speeches that either I had made, or debate we had found ourselves participating in on the issue of alcohol in this Chamber. Sometimes, when we do talk about those issues, those lines get blurred when we see the words ‘antisocial behaviour’. The member for Nelson certainly did pick that up. When we come to that issue of antisocial behaviour, the issue of alcoholism and drunkenness does seem to get lost in what that underlying issue really is. That certainly is something that has to be addressed.
When we shift our focus from the issue of alcoholism and drunkenness, and make excuses for that behaviour and regurgitate it in another form and call it antisocial behaviour, it suddenly becomes a different social set. That issue then shifts on a separate group of people; that that problem is only associated with those people. If we peel away all of those layers that people conveniently want to put there because they do not want to confront within themselves, we can see what that real issue is.
Alcoholism is not a black issue; it is a problem that affects everybody regardless of race, colour or creed. It is in our homes, it is in every home. I grew up in this town and had many non-indigenous friends. I grew up in a house with a father who was a chronic alcoholic, and faced the issues of alcoholism, and the violence and everything that came from that. I was certainly surprised, I suppose, as a child growing up in this town that many of my non-indigenous friends were also confronted with this same issue.
Every single one of us who is sworn into this parliament stands up here because we have a legal responsibility and an obligation to everybody out there – not only the ones who vote for us - to act responsibly. When we get to debates like this, that responsibility gets thrown at the wall and people tend to use their ‘let us get tough’ approach or ‘zero tolerance’ and ‘let us gaol the drunks’. I believe that that goes to the extreme and people lose sight of what those real issues are.
I reflect back on when I was the chair of the Select Committee on Substance Abuse. I know the member for Nelson talked about that meeting in Alice Springs. I remember before that meeting in Alice Springs when I was the CEO running Wurli WurlinjangHealth Services and Katherine West Health Services prior to coming into this parliament. In talking to those Aboriginal groups and my committee looking at the issue of mandatory treatment, I remember at that meeting when I said ‘mandatory rather than compulsory’. Member for Nelson, those people reacted because embedded in the mindset of Aboriginal people was the whole issue of mandatory sentencing, and I realised it was the wording.
Once we remove the shackles of the issue of mandatory and look at compulsory - I suppose I have always come from the point of my readiness and willingness to argue the case for compulsory treatment. I am not ashamed to stand up here and say that I have always been a supporter, and I have talked about compulsory treatment of alcoholism. However, I do not say that because I want it to sound good or that it should be in the media headlines. I say that based (1) on my own life experiences; (2) on the information and knowledge that I have been able to acquire from health professionals, and the many years that I worked in the field during my years as the CEO of Aboriginal medical services; and (3) on the published views of relevant authorities and experts.
The bottom line is that although alcoholism is an addiction with personally and socially destructive consequences, alcoholics never give up or moderate their consumption through the exercise of unpressured choice. The chemical hardwiring installed by alcohol dependency itself makes such rationality impossible. Professor Ross Fitzgerald, and psychologist Jim McLean, have recently explained why that is, and why governments need to adopt and implement policies that steer addicted individuals into programs and environments of enforced abstinence.
The Attorney-General has presented legislation and reforms that will break the cycle of alcohol abuse and antisocial behaviour on our streets. Yes, it will take time. I also listened to the member for Katherine during her speech. As well as that being her elected area, I also spent a number of years down there. This was a problem facing Katherine for many years. It has been a problem facing the Territory for many years. However, I remember being part of a group of individuals in Katherine trying to get the former member for Katherine, Mike Reed, and the former Minister for Health under the CLP government to work with those Aboriginal organisations to try to address this issue, and getting nowhere. The former CLP Chief Minister came out with ‘monster, stomp, whinging, whining, carping blacks, and that is all you should do with it’ as his approach. Society has a problem, not just here in the Northern Territory, but worldwide, and this is a huge issue.
I always maintain - and I know that the member for Nelson talked about it - that we are talking about an issue of a legal drug. Sometimes, it needs people to really face the consequences about changing policy about grog. If you look over the four years since we have come to government and at the Alcohol Framework, there have been many changes to try to deal with this.
I remember reading a speech here once which talked about one of the recommendations from the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody. One of their prime recommendations in 1991 was to implore with the then Territory government that the Liquor Commission should have representation of an indigenous person on that commission to try to address and be part of that decision-making process. I was very heartened by the Minister for Racing, Gaming and Licensing who said that there is now an indigenous person at that level on that commission. It has taken some time, but our government has made that decision and there is an indigenous representative at that level on the commission to start looking at some of these issues.
From our government’s point of view, we have instigated a number of initiatives and reforms. It is a long-term problem and they certainly are not going to work overnight. If people think the zero tolerance approach, the mandatory sentencing and gaoling of drunks is going to work - well, they are kidding themselves too, because they should get out and talk to more people rather than just sit at their desk in front of their computers writing utter rubbish, or stop playing gutter politics that continually is played with this issue.
Antisocial behaviour affects and interferes with the lifestyle of innocent neighbours and passers-by, and we are not denying that. That is, of course, unacceptable. Part of the purpose of this new legislation is to try to stop the humbug and harassment that everyday individuals and families who are not caught up in the whirlpool of an alcoholic lifestyle frequently have to put up with.
The legislation which the Attorney-General has presented has been worked across and involved the minister for Police, the Minister for Family and Community Services and the Minister for Housing as well. It has gone across all agencies because that is how this issue should be tackled. It should be a whole-of-government approach, and should be tackled in that way, and not seen as a criminalisation issue. We have to look at the many facets of it. The Attorney-General and all the officers from those departments who have worked on this and consulted, ought to be congratulated because it is broad sweeping.
Regarding the housing component of that, from my point of view, there are many people from the electorate of Arafura - the majority are my own countrymen from the Tiwi Islands - who are sent into and housed in Darwin, or forced to come here because of the high-level care that they require with dialysis. Yes, the Tiwi Islands does have its own renal facility, but that is at a different level. If you meet the guidelines and criteria for self-care haemodialysis, you can return back to the island, but if your level of care is the next level up and you require high-level dialysis care and treatment, you are brought back into Darwin and you have to stay here.
A lot of those dialysis patients come to my office a lot of the time. We are countrymen and, when families come in, unavoidably they stay with those families. We have made changes with those agreements. There are two examples where I have worked with both Territory Housing through the minister, and with those families who are in those flats where there have been calls from tenants because of the bad behaviour; where we have sat down with those families and worked through the issues. There is a sign put up in front of those flats. That problem is then removed away from that and those families are removed back to the island.
We cannot expect that things are going to change overnight. We have to work through these issues. Sure, there are going to be some gaps in all of this. Nothing is ever going to be 100% right. We will work through that process. It is a start and it will work.
During the election campaign, there was a lot of talk about the antisocial behaviour legislation and Labor’s position, and I remember at the time - and I do not know if this happened in any of the other bush electorates – in my own electorate it was run against me, that to support any sort of compulsory treatment or the policy we were proposing, that we were being discriminatory towards Aboriginal people. This was coming from the CLP. I often find it a bit rich when, on one hand, they say one thing outside, and then come in here and completely contradict themselves. The hypocrisy reeks when it comes to this issue.
I go back to what I said: alcoholism is not a black and white issue, it is one of the biggest social ills that needs to be tackled. For the reasons of legality - and we know how the politics is played at a federal level with the tax for volume on alcohol. I could keep going on this because if there is a favourite subject of mine it is grog and all of the problems that go with it, but I will not. What I maintain, have said publicly, and say quite openly when people question the government’s stance as being too tough or hitting a certain group, and it is their right to drink, has always been the real breach of human rights. This is what it gets down to, because it is often the voices of those people that do not get heard, and we often hear about the rights of people in this area.
The real racism lies in the fact that the victims of drunks are largely our Aboriginal women and children. This has been ignored for far too long and we need to stop ignoring it. They are the ones who go hungry and homeless, and suffer the violence. They are deprived of the cultural stability that has been destroyed by alcohol. Call it what you will - antisocial behaviour - it is, in their behaviour. We are not making excuses for that behaviour. It is appalling. John Ah Kit, the former member for Arnhem, stood in this House, but also very publicly outside this House, and talked about the embarrassment of the defecating, the urinating, the begging, and what that was doing and that we needed to deal with it.
We are not making excuses for it. I do not believe any of us in this House are- and me most of all. However, I will stand up and defy anyone who says that we are soft. I have certainly heard people say that everybody has a right. Yes, everybody has a right, but the rights of women and children often go unheard in this whole debate. Whenever we look at these issues, and particularly for my point of view and where I come from - and the members for Arnhem and Macdonnell, but all of us here - we do not have to be Labor or CLP or Independent to agree that it is an issue, it has to be dealt with. This package does.
I commend the Attorney-General, but I also commend those other ministers who have worked collaboratively, from the ministerial level down to those agencies, to pull together this package of reforms that will have some impact. I firmly believe that it will. It is a first for the Territory. You often watch the pendulum, and people see the pendulum goes this way and say you are being too extreme. Then the pendulum swings to the other side and you have the bleeding heart syndrome of humans rights being breached. This whole package is allowing the pendulum to stay in the middle, and it is neither to the extreme left or to the extreme right. It is balanced. We will get it right. Not everything is going to be right at the start, but we will work through it.
It is a start towards addressing, as I said, an issue that has been around for a long time. It is about those kids, and about the women. That is always in the back of my mind. It is because we owe it to them to bring in this legislation in the hope it will make a difference. I know that it will make a difference. I thank and commend the ministers and the officers. I acknowledge the work of Kate Halliday on the legislation. When I looked at this legislation I was a bit sceptical of it pulling together. I acknowledge Kate and her work, the Department of Justice and all of those officers, because it has been a job well done.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Speaker, this seems to be becoming a debate about alcoholism rather than the bills, but I guess that is why it is very difficult. We are not talking about these bills addressing alcoholism; we are talking about a bill that addresses the consequences of alcohol abuse, and that is what we need to bear in mind. As the minister has just said, she hopes it will make a difference, and I am certainly of that opinion.
It is a bit of a shame, minister, that you have so many different amendments to different bills all in the one bill. I would like to speak to some of them because it is important to address some of the amendments that he has put forward. They are the ones that I found myself calling for over a long time. I talk about the Liquor Act where you talk about enforcing a ‘no grog sign’ in the dry areas. It is certainly something that many people in Territory Housing have tried. Unfortunately, because it had no backbone, no law to it, it was easily abused. There are many people out there who want to live a peaceful life away from alcohol abuse. There are many people who want to say to their visitors: ‘No, you cannot come in here if you have alcohol’. If this, some way, addresses this problem, then it is a good thing. As I said, we have tried it, unofficially; now let us make it official.
What we need to do is to get a strong sign; a sign that spells it out really clearly for people on their premises, who need to send a strong message. Will you do some advertising on radio or Imparja to get the message out to people who come into town to say: ‘You cannot come into my house with alcohol, because I have this sign on it’? In fact, that takes the responsibility away from the tenant. Many tenants have cultural or relationship obligations and cannot say no to people who come to their house. This way, this is a sign that has come from the minister, that says no grog is allowed. It gives that officialdom which is really important, and gives people something to draw upon, because they can refer to the sign as something that has been put there officially. That is going to be a tremendous help to many of our tenants who find it hard to say no. I hope, somehow or other, we can get that message across, and do not just leave it up to the tenants to say: ‘I have a sign’; that we start letting people out there know that these signs really mean no grog. I just hope it means that many of those tenants have a more peaceful life and are not as humbugged as much as they are at the moment. I have seen people actually give up their tenancy rather than put up with the humbugging anymore; it is just often too hard to live with. Minister, I support that.
Regarding the acceptable behaviour agreements, if it helps let us do it. However, I have to ask you why we need it when we already have tenancy agreements? If a tenant signs this agreement, has support from different agencies like ASAUHA, and has been through a living skills program, surely that is enough to show them this is how you should behave; the way you should live. I am not sure whether you have grabbed the idea from New South Wales because, if you have, you certainly have not gone into the detail that they have put into their legislation about acceptable behaviour agreements. I wonder how you can justify putting in another step when you already had the first step, which is making sure people have signed tenancy agreements, they have been through probation periods, or they might have special references as are required now, and they seem to have done that right. However, now you are wanting acceptable behaviour agreements. Not that I am against them, but I just query why have you decided to go down this line and what are you hoping to achieve by putting in another layer? Are you, in actual fact, only delaying a process that is inevitable in the end? Are you delaying the eviction of a tenant who has a history of bad behaviour by introducing this step as well? Are we going to see people given chance after chance? Or are there some particular people you are targeting? Is it discriminatory? Perhaps the minister could explain to me exactly why he has introduced these acceptable behaviour agreements and just who is he targeting. I just hope it is not going to be a delaying mechanism for unruly tenants being allowed to stay longer and upsetting neighbourhoods.
I also want to ask the minister: it is all very well to sign these agreements but what support will be available? What agencies will you bring in to help these people succeed? Let us face it, although we complain about much of the unacceptable behaviour of tenants, the bottom line is we would like all tenancies to be successful. That means we would have a harmonious neighbourhood and that is something that we should all aspire to. However, many people cannot do it without support and propping. Perhaps the minister could tell us what agencies will be engaged in assisting these tenants who do have acceptable behaviour agreements. I also ask the minister if he could tell me if they are going to be for new tenants, tenants with prior history, or tenants who are already in public housing and need a little boot along or something to get them back on track? Perhaps the minister could explain to me just who he is targeting.
It seems to have been partly successful in New South Wales. It seems to me, though, to be a roundabout way of avoiding the inevitable, which is eviction eventually. Perhaps it is because the minister probably does not really like to see people thrown out of public housing. However, to be honest, quite often that is the end result that will only solve the problem for the neighbourhood. Minister, if you could answer those questions about that I would be very grateful.
Obviously, I am going to support the Residential Tenancies Act, particularly as it was my idea, because it does allow a third party to apply to the courts for termination of a tenancy agreement. I guess I could already name some people in the neighbourhood who might take advantage of this. We have had some rather horrific tenants. We have had Territory Housing talk to them, send letters to them, and we have even had one given an eviction notice, but they are still there. No matter what Territory Housing seems to say to them, they still seem to want to disrupt the neighbourhood. This particular avenue at least gives them a chance to have their say.
However, costs have been raised with me, and that is a fair comment from people in the neighbourhood. What sort of costs would we be looking at if someone was to take a tenant to court? Will they, in fact, be fighting Territory Housing who might stand up for the tenant and engage lawyers, which would then put enormous cost on the people in the suburbs who want to do it? Are you, in fact, looking at making it a quick, easy court system for people who want to do this? I believe it was the Minister for Housing who implied that many of the complaints are vexatious. I only know one group of complaints I have had that might be seen to be like that. Every other complaint I have had, I would have to say was a genuine case. I would not like to think that the minister is saying: ‘We have introduced this process, but Territory Housing will, in fact, get involved in this process and block any action by residents’. Again, these tenants who are causing all this misbehaviour in the neighbourhood will be allowed to stay on and on and on.
If we had a proactive department - and I fully understand that they have lots of tenants, and that they are probably overworked and understaffed - many of the problems we have would not be there. However, when you get week after week people causing disruption, entering people’s property, having loud parties, sleeping all day, drinking all night, you cannot blame people for getting fed up with it. If Territory Housing did the right thing and were equipped to act, then we would never have suggested this amendment. It is just in frustration from tenants that this has been suggested, because they really feel as though they are just not getting the action and, quite often, they do not get a response to know what Territory Housing has done.
I was told the other day in a briefing that this was against the Privacy Act; that, in fact, Territory Housing could not tell the complainant what they had done because it is a breach of privacy of the tenant that they are complaining about. I find that just an excuse. It is crazy. If I have a complaint to the town council about something, usually the council ranger gets back to me and tells me what they have done. There is no reason, in my mind, why Territory Housing should not also get back to people who complain and tell them what they have done. That is a very important point.
Regarding the alcohol court, I do not think we can go back to making being drunk an offence, as is suggested by the CLP. I have looked briefly at what they have put out. Being drunk is not the problem; it is being drunk and causing problems that is the problem. It is the behaviour that stems from uncontrolled drunkenness. There are many people, quite frankly, who get drunk and then just go to sleep and you hear no more about them. It depends on what you call drunk. Are we talking about over 0.05 or 0.08? There are probably a few people in this House who might be considered drunk if that is what we are using as a measure in that way.
Members interjecting.
Mrs BRAHAM: No, I am not pointing at anyone. The point is …
Mr Stirling: They lost their seats at the last election.
Mrs BRAHAM: What are we talking about?
It really concerns me that we are again trying to fix the problem once it has happened. Perhaps we have to start talking about addressing the problem before it has happened. I know I have said this over and over again, but you are always going to have indigenous people leaving their communities to drink in another place, and you are going to have them drinking in an unacceptable way, a way that is not conducive to healthy living, and then you are going to get bad behaviour. While you forbid Aboriginal people to drink in their own backyards, they will drink in my backyard.
They have the right to drink, we gave them that right many years ago, but we have put a scenario there that is aimed at making them become bad citizens. Anyone in Australia has the right to drink, unless you have a prohibition order against you. Why do we make it so difficult that the only way they can drink - and we are talking about the itinerants - is to come into town, drink hot wine, port or beer, usually in someone’s backyard and causes problems? Until we really start thinking about addressing where it starts, all these things that we want to do to stop this antisocial behaviour is a bit late, like after the horse has bolted we are trying to shut the gate. We should have been shutting the gate a long time ago, before it happened.
We had some great programs. Perhaps the minister could give us some idea of how many people in our gaols - and we are talking about those who have committed a criminal offence - are there because of alcohol problems. It would be interesting to know what sort of stats we are looking at. The feedback I get from Correctional Services is that many of these people who have committed violent crimes are, in fact, when they dry out in gaol, good decent people. They are pliable, easy, they like to learn in the horticultural part of the gaols - all those sort of things they like to get involved in. It is in that instant when they are too drunk that they cause the problems.
I also know that Correctional Services have some tremendous work programs. I do not know whether I have talked to you about this, but we seem also to need some sort of facility where these people are going to be nurtured. It is no point in going through this program, then opening the gaol door and letting them walk out because, sure as eggs, where do most of them end up now? Back in the creek. I had a great example of one who was on community work, who had a job lined up, who had been attending that job for many weeks, the employers were happy to have them, who was put out of gaol and into a hostel. His mates came around that night and he disappeared, and that was the end of him; he was a lost soul. That soul could have been, in fact, gainfully employed, off the grog and not causing problems.
This is what I mean: we are trying to do something after the problem. We need to look at how we can fix it before we get the problem. I commend the many practices in Correctional Services which try to assist these people when they are in gaol to change their way of life and become responsible citizens. However, I believe we need some sort of half-way house just to make sure they succeed. Why do we always set them up to fail? It is a shame.
When people are on these treatment programs, will they be in some sort of hostel accommodation? Will they be in accommodation like CAAPU that has accommodation where they are given meals and generally looked after, or will they be let into the communities and expected to come to these programs each day? I wonder whether that will work. Will it be a case of, they are returned to their community and still expected to front up for treatment each day, or what? Just give us an idea of the practicalities of what you are going to do and how it is going to happen, because there are already treatment programs: detox through DASA and CAAPU in Alice Springs. Voluntary entry into the program is already there, so I hope we are not just duplicating the system. If people can be ordered through the court, I take it that they still have to do it; it still has to be voluntary because, if they do not do it, there are repercussions. We already have a system in place for people who wish to go on these programs. I am wondering how you are going to do it.
As alcohol problems also affect families, will the families be involved in the rehabilitation? Will you get the family together so they can address the problem as a unit, rather than one person in isolation? Quite often, it is a family problem. I am interested to know how you will go about the treatment and the counselling that will be needed. What happens if an offender who is on one of these programs is given or offered alcohol by a relative and, basically, cannot say no? That happens quite often. Will that offender then be punished because of the coercion of a relative, or someone else? Will there be flexibility enough to know that that offender has been under a tremendous amount of stress from a relative or some sort of cultural relationship? I am interested, minister, in finding out exactly how carefully the offender in the program will be supported. Also, what agencies will be involved in ensuring these people are given the support they want? In anything we do, it is fine to have legislation to say ‘this it is, it is good’. However, if we do not implement it well, and put in the support measures, we could easily find we are not achieving anything at all.
I know the member for Nelson said this, but is it true you did not consult with your Regional Crime Prevention Committees? Or did you consult with them? That needs to be clarified. If you did not, perhaps you need to defer it a bit longer. Perhaps we should be looking at this bill in another month’s time to give us some time to get out there and make sure people understand.
I understand that the Legal Aid Commission has made comments to you. They are concerned that it may be targeting people. They are concerned at the fines that might come about as a penalty; that, again, people might get caught in the fine recovery. They are also unsure whether this is a good law and I believe they might even mount a legal challenge to it. I guess you will be able to fill us in on the detail of that because NAAJA have obviously fed that back to you; they said they had made these comments to you. I am interested to know your response to NAAJA and the concerns that they have raised.
Antisocial behaviour is one of those terms we are throwing around now that has almost become meaningless. Antisocial behaviour: what do you mean? What are we really talking about? All alcoholics do not engage in antisocial behaviour. Alcoholism is not necessarily a crime. To get drunk should not be a crime, in my opinion; it is only a crime when you commit a criminal offence. That is what we should be talking about. That is what I do not understand about the CLP’s policy. Perhaps they can explain exactly what they are doing. There is a lot of anguish in the community over problems of antisocial behaviour. There is a lot of anger in the community because they do not feel they are getting the protection and the help that they need.
In the last couple of weeks in Alice Springs, the crimes we have seen, which may or may not have been alcohol-related, have just been awful. There are far too many Aboriginal people killing Aboriginal people. There are far too many Aboriginal people hurting Aboriginal people - hurting their wives, their children, and each other. The Accident and Emergency Department at the hospital do some stats on how many of those cases are alcohol-related incidents. As well as that, have a look at your renal patients. How many have been brought about because of the abuse of alcohol? I keep not wanting to go down that road, but that seems to be a real problem for us to address.
Alcohol is causing distress in our neighbourhoods. It is destroying the lives of people and we just seem to be scratching the surface. We are saying: ‘Okay, if you do this we are going to fix you, dear’. I know many people in this House have said it many times: until the lifestyle in our communities and town camps is such that it makes people feel good about themselves, take pride in themselves, they will stay in this self-destruct mode that they seem to be in.
I support your bill and wish you luck with it. I am interested to see how it works out. Let us hope that the end result will be a good result for everyone. However, most of all, let us hope that we can prevent people getting to this stage before they need this assistance or this intervention. Let us see if we can get back to basics and start fixing it before it has begun.
Ms McCARTHY (Arnhem): Madam Speaker, I respond to the Alcohol Court Bill and antisocial behaviour legislation. I have listened to quite a few of the comments made here today. Perhaps it was the members for Nelson and Arafura where I heard the words that I was really waiting to hear amidst all this debate; that is, the word ‘compassion’ to recognise that the issue of antisocial behaviour goes far deeper. When we talk about the alcohol court and rehabilitation, we have to ask ourselves what it is that occurs in rehabilitation? What is it that occurs in places like CAAPU, CAAPS and FORWAARD in Darwin and Alice Springs? Rehabilitation begins with the self. It begins with understanding why you are who you are; why it is that you have been so addicted to a particular substance - in this case, alcohol; why it is that you have lived with alcohol to such a destructive point where your own families live with it as well. The core issue of what happens in rehabilitation is about the self; it is about the healing process of an individual.
I have heard the words ‘respected citizens’, ‘decent citizens’ ‘take your place as citizens in society’ and, believe me, most people want to do that. They want to be active citizens in society. However, most of these people do not have the start that many others do in life. I reflect upon my own constituents of Arnhem, and my own family in Borroloola, and recognise how strong the grog is, and how it chokes the very life of the future that we have and hold for our children.
I hear what is happening in Alice Springs. I have read the debates and the newspapers. I have heard the radio broadcasts. I am acutely aware, not only as the member for Arnhem but as a citizen here in the Northern Territory, of how deeply affecting it is for all people. I drive up and down the Stuart Highway to go out to my communities, and I experience it myself - not just as a politician, but as a traveller. I remind my parliamentary colleagues that what we have to be careful about within this debate is recognising that, as the political leaders of the Northern Territory, we also have a role, a duty, an obligation, to conduct ourselves and display leadership in such a way that it has an effect on the very people we are here to represent. It is our attitudes that speak volumes.
Going down the highway, I had an experience recently where a colleague was with me and I saw it first-hand. We say it is not just about Aboriginal people but, in this particular incident, I will focus on that. The attitudes against antisocial behaviour in places are such that you are no longer welcome to walk into a store, or to use their rest rooms. You are made to feel not like a citizen. These experiences are very real; it happened to me just a couple of weeks ago. It happened to me and my family. I observed the behaviour of those people in that particular service station, and I had to remind myself that, within all this debate about antisocial behaviour, it really reflects on our attitudes in society. People want governments - local governments, the Territory government, the Commonwealth government - to do something; to do more, and so we should. However, so too should other members of society who have businesses, whether it is tourism, the shopkeepers on the highway, the Aboriginal groups or legal services around the Northern Territory, or health centres - we all have a responsibility to care for those people in society who are less privileged and who have those problems that we see every day.
There are many report and investigations into the patterns of alcohol use and misuse. I would like to make comment on one by the Menzies School of Health Research, d’Abbs and Jones, in particular. They cautioned against the wholesale use of the term ‘antisocial behaviour’ saying we have to be careful about how we use that term. They recognise that public drunkenness is a serious problem and one that clearly causes frustration and anger among residents.
I commend the minister for his courageous position of trying to find the delicate balance - and it is a delicate balance - between what we see as obvious and very real concerns right across the Northern Territory with the housing concerns, and the alcohol court. It is to be commended.
However, as the member for Arnhem, I also call upon my parliamentary colleagues to look closer at the rehabilitation aspect - the whole healing component right throughout the Territory, not just in Darwin and Alice Springs, considerably more so in Katherine, and even more so in our remote communities – so that it is a process where all communities are a part of the rehabilitation that we so desperately need.
With the housing component, it is important for those who come from the communities and go into a Northern Territory Housing Commission place, to try to make a start and a life for themselves. However, the way it is with our Aboriginal families, with the cultural ties, the extended ties, we naturally welcome so many other people into our homes, more so than perhaps an non-Aboriginal person would. It is no criticism; it is just a reality of the way we live our lives. Those people bring with them addictions to alcohol or other substances. They also bring with them the lack of education they may have received; all the worries and troubles that they have; and sickness - whether it is to do with renal disease and other sorts of sicknesses that need attention in Darwin. Therefore, for them to be able to say that their houses can be dry is a really important step. Again I commend, in particular, the Housing Minister.
Within that, I also urge, through the housing process, that these families who experience such affliction have the real support of officers who come to the home to make sure they do not have to go beyond this new system of the acceptable behaviour agreement, which is the next step to eviction. I am confident, in talking with the Housing Minister, that there are things in place to ensure that that will not happen. However, I am confident that I will be watching those things very closely.
We have heard many times of the concerns of indigenous incarceration. I heard the member for Araluen mock the government for such a high incarceration rate. These are issues which are deeply concerning, but I say to the Leader of the Opposition and, indeed, the opposition: you are not blameless. Be very careful.
I remember covering the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody as a journalist in 1988, 1989 and 1990. I am acutely aware, as indeed are my colleagues, of those figures. I would like to reassure my constituents that I will be doing everything I can to ensure that your thoughts and your concerns are being heard.
In closing, Madam Speaker, I urge long-term planning so that we can review this process at a time that is appropriate to the minister to ensure that the goals of this legislation are met. I urge that we keep an open dialogue with community, legal groups, and indigenous groups across the Northern Territory. I must reiterate to all parliamentary members to be acutely aware of the leadership role you have in seeing genuine change in such an important social issue facing the Northern Territory. Be vigilant, be just, and do it with compassion.
Mr HENDERSON (Police, Fire and Emergency Services): Madam Speaker, I would like to outline how this legislation will give police extra tools to target antisocial behaviour and to combat the use of alcohol.
Of significance to police are provisions in the Antisocial Behaviour (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2005 to declare restricted premises which will prohibit the consumption or possession of liquor at private premises. There are existing provisions in the Liquor Act allowing an area of land to be declared a dry or restricted area. In urban areas, the existing 2 km law, which prohibits the consumption of alcohol within a 2 km radius of liquor outlets, only applies to public places. Police apply this law regularly, dispersing groups of drinkers, tipping out their alcohol, and moving them on before they commit crimes or engage in antisocial behaviour.
This new law will complement our existing dry area provisions, allowing people to declare their own private residence dry. The new laws will allow the Licensing Commission to make a declaration that prohibits the consumption or possession of alcohol at private premises. This includes privately-owned land and houses, rented premises or land and buildings open to use by the public such as shopping centres, churches, hospitals and schools. Once the Licensing Commission has made a dry declaration of a private premise, police will have the power to enter and search that premise and persons at the premise without a warrant if they believe, on reasonable grounds, that a person has contravened the declaration. Police may also seize any opened or unopened containers of alcohol found at the premise. The pecuniary penalty, maximum of $500, applies in contravention of the declaration, which can be dealt with by the court or by issue of a summary infringement notice.
Owners, occupiers, or their representatives, will be able to make application to declare private premises dry, allowing Territorians to take action with the full support of the courts and police to prevent alcohol-related problems occurring in their homes or business. Police will also be given input into this process. For example, interested persons can apply to have premises opened to and used by the public declared dry. This includes police officers. Police will also be among those parties consulted by the commission before they make a dry declaration. All too often, police are called in to sort out domestic and other disputes at private residences as a result of excessive alcohol consumption. These laws will arm them with a new tool that will allow them to prevent these sorts of incidents occurring in the first place if that residence has been declared dry. It will allow police to intervene before alcohol-fuelled trouble starts.
The Alcohol Court Bill 2005 will give legislative capacity for both alcohol intervention orders and prohibition orders to be issued by alcohol courts operating at Darwin and Alice Springs. Alcohol intervention orders can be instituted as a condition of release, or as a condition of a good behaviour bond pursuant to the Sentencing Act, or as a condition of bail pursuant to the Bail Act. Police will have the power to arrest an offender whom they believe has contravened an alcohol intervention order. Police may also arrest an offender for breach of a prohibition order when it is incorporated into the terms of the good behaviour bond or forms part of an existing bail condition. This arms them with a further tool to break the cycle of alcohol abuse and related crime.
The police are at the frontline of the campaign and are targeting violence and antisocial behaviour on a number of fronts. In Darwin at the last election, government announced $2.4m would be spent over four years to fund the new public place patrols which target antisocial behaviour hot spots. We have delivered on that commitment and 10 new Aboriginal Community Police Officers and two new police vehicles have now boosted the availability of police resources to run dedicated and proactive patrols of public spaces. These patrols are about getting people affected by excessive alcohol consumption off the streets before they harm themselves and others. In the first six weeks of operation, the new patrols, working with the general duties officers, achieved significant results. More than 2700 people were taken into protective custody to sobering-up shelters and the watch-house; more than 3000 litres of alcohol was tipped out; and more than 7000 people moved on before offences were committed.
This legislation is all about breaking the cycle of alcohol abuse that we saw all too often and for too many years now across the streets of the Northern Territory. It is not aimed at any one particular group, but is all about behaviour, and that is what the legislation targets.
The Leader of the Opposition, in a very schizophrenic contribution to the debate earlier today, really did not know whether she was Arthur or Martha on a number of issues. She accused the government of instituting this legislation that would provide a ‘get out of gaol free’ card and tried to run the line that people who were charged with serious charges of violence and assault could, somehow, plea bargain their abuse of alcohol to get out of gaol, and it was all part of the Labor government’s strategy to somehow be soft on violent crime. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is a sad day that our gaols are full across the Northern Territory, but the reality is that people who do commit crimes of violence and are convicted of those crimes will go to gaol for a term of punishment, but also further protecting the community and the families of those particular people.
She was also very dismissive of the alcohol court, said we did not need it, and that somehow it would be totally ineffective and, essentially, that there would be no improved outcomes as a result. Well, the opposition did not oppose the introduction of the drug court, and my colleague, the Attorney-General, can certainly point to very significant achievements as a result of that initiative. The alcohol court will be run along similar lines.
The opposition has also been very dismissive of the police moving people on. This is the same opposition that, when in government just prior to the 2001 election, introduced, in a very theatrical way, legislation that supposedly gave the police powers to move people on. At the time, the opposition’s argument was that the police did not have the powers to move people on and there needed to be very specific legislation to give police those powers to disperse groups of people before problems occurred. We argued at the time that police already had those powers. Over the Christmas/New Year period, over 7000 people were moved on before offences were committed. Alcohol was tipped out, people were dispersed before a problem was committed. We did not need theatrical legislation that the opposition introduced. Now they say that police should not be moving people on when they were the same party that tried to say the police did not have those powers and legislation had to be provided. It was a very schizophrenic contribution from the Leader of the Opposition.
She also said that, somehow, police were going soft on summary offences; that people were not being charged under that legislation. She talked about 700 or 800 people. The figures that I have - and she only has to go to the annual report - is that in 2004-05 there were 2898 public order offences across the Northern Territory. That is down from 3138 in 2002-03 largely as a result of increased police presence and moving people on before offences were committed.
Lastly, but not least, we are starting to see signs of improvement across the Northern Territory. We have a long way to go. However, I will go to an interview on Thursday the 16 February 2006 on Top FM, Territory Talk, Peter Perrin with Peter Paroulakis who, I recall, once stood for the seat of the Northern Territory for the CLP against Warren Snowdon back in - maybe the late 1980s was it? Or early 1990s; it was certainly one of Warren’s earlier campaigns. Peter Paroulakis has been trading in the mall for many years now and he is a very decent gentleman. Mr Paroulakis said:
- I have been involved with the structural building of Centrepoint since 1980 so I have been experiencing the problems …
That being the problems of drunkenness and itinerants:
- … for nearly 30 years.
- Reporter: And it is a real problem, Peter.
- Paroulakis: It is less of a problem now than it used to be.
- Reporter: So, okay, when you say that, over how long?
- Paroulakis: Last six months or so.
- Reporter: It has got worse or it has got less?
- Paroulakis: No, the problem has got less, the situation has improved quite considerably in the last six to 12 months.
He then went on to say that there has been a much higher level of police presence in the mall, mobile vans which were there two or three times a day, foot patrols and bicycle patrols. The reporter then said:
- So you still think there is a way to go?
He said:
Yes always, but the number of drunks has disappeared, the number of what you call itinerants in the mall has certainly reduced.
There are pockets around the Northern Territory where things are starting to improve as a result of the increased police presence. In the mall today, I was talking to some of the traders who are very happy with the cruise ships in the mall, the police, the Larrakia intervention service all working well together. It has been a huge improvement for the mall traders.
For the opposition to come in here and say it is doom and gloom, it is getting worse than it has ever been, here is one of their own members - I do not know if Peter Paroulakis is still a member of the CLP – who said he has been trading in the mall over the last 30 years and the situation has improved quite considerably.
The police are at the front end of a lot of the work in this particular issue across the Northern Territory, whether it is remote communities or our urban communities. I am confident that these additional powers the police have will lead to improved outcomes. However, what we want to see as a government is the cycle of alcohol abuse being broken; that people who are chronic alcoholics get the opportunity to look at themselves in the mirror and, through rehabilitation, have an opportunity to clean up their lives and get back on to the straight and narrow.
As I said during the election campaign on any number of occasions, if it was somebody in my family who was being picked up all of the time then I would want something to be done about it. This legislation gives the police and the courts the additional funding for the rehabilitation services. The Health Minister and the Attorney-General advised there was some $9m a year already spent on rehabilitation across the Northern Territory. An extra $560 000 a year is going in as a result of these initiatives. We should see further improvements across the Northern Territory.
We know that there are a lot of deep and complex issues that go to the heart of these problems. We do not have the time or the foresight to get into that particular debate tonight. However, the effort that this government is putting into improving education in the bush, in particular, in years to come is going to go a long way to reducing this sort of behaviour as well.
Madam Speaker, I commend the Attorney-General for bringing this legislation to the House today. This is a government that is making serious inroads into this problem that has been neglected for too many years. We will monitor this legislation as it takes effect. I am sure if we need to make further amendments in the years to come, we will do so.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I recall before the election the Chief Minister saying that she was going to get tough on drunks. She went public in the media in her advertising that she was going to gaol drunks. Literally within hours of announcing that she had won the election, she started to spin. She has been spinning ever since. It is suddenly now: ‘Oh no, we are not going to deal with them now, we are going to rehabilitate them’. Now we see this amendment that, effectively, does nothing. It says to somebody who has committed a crime: ‘You are going to gaol, or you do this’.
You can bet your last dollar, everybody who faces gaol will say: ‘I do not want to go to gaol. Let me go to this alternate treatment and I will try to dry out’. As the Leader of the Opposition said, you wait until somebody has become a victim of this drunk before you do anything. It is not appropriate. You should be dealing with drunks right from the very beginning, before they end up causing many victims around them. You should be dealing with them to try to prevent them from getting drunk. Try to get them off the streets as early as you can and put them in places where they can dry out; receive treatment and receive honest rehabilitation and come back to make some meaning out of their lives because, at the moment, they are absolutely not.
What concerns me about this amendment bill, which is in cognate with things that really need not be cognate, is the way it has been drafted. We had this fanfare at the launch of the Alcohol Framework 18 months, two years - perhaps even longer ago – then we saw nothing. Out of it came this, out of the wilderness.
The Darwin Regional Crime Prevention Council, which was formed from the recommendations from the Alcohol Framework, wrote a letter to all MLAs - so I assume the Chief Minister, the Attorney-General and every minister in this Chamber would have received this letter, and also members of the backbench in government. Not one of them has chosen to address this letter that was written to them. It is an indictment on the government for ignoring the committee they set up themselves. The first line says:
- We write to express our concerns in relation to the above policy and the legislation supporting it.
It goes on to say:
- We would like to express our concern at the level of alcohol-related crime …
The level of alcohol-related crime in the community is sufficient that the government’s committee, the Darwin Regional Crime Prevention Council, expressed the view that there is a lot of alcohol-related crime.
It says, and I will read again:
- We would like to express our concern at the level of alcohol-related crime and our support for a comprehensive initiative which supports this. However, we have apprehensions in relation to this package of legislation
In particular, we are concerned that:
1. this policy and the legislation supporting it has been developed without the consultation of crime prevention committees, the organisations we represent, or the key stakeholders affected by the proposed changes …
Unfortunately, I believe this letter is going to fall on deaf ears. Obviously, the Attorney-General is not going to defer this legislation this afternoon, and here is a committee that this government has set up which is now being completely ignored.
The letter went on to say:
2. The policy and the legislation supporting it have been developed with undue haste and there has been insufficient time for stakeholders to properly understand the package and the ramifications for their clients.
In your own electorate, Madam Speaker, you know about the case of the man who came out to address a group of drunks, asking them to desist what they were doing, because he was trying to get some sleep.
Madam SPEAKER: I would say that it is actually the electorate of Millner.
Dr LIM: I thought Coconut Grove was part of Nightcliff, anyway, member for Millner. This man was then followed home by people within the drinking group, suffered home invasion and severe injuries, not only to himself but also to his partner. People in the Northern Territory are sick and tired of this sort of behaviour in our community. They have been crying out to the government for a long time now, saying: ‘Do something about it and fix it’. Unfortunately, what this government has done is come up with this rhetoric that, in the end, will not address the issue of anarchy in our streets. Alcohol is one of the biggest problems we have. It is one of the causes of the antisocial behaviour that we witness every day.
A couple of hundred thousand dollars has been put aside for court clinicians, one in Alice and one in Darwin. How is the court clinician going to be able to assess these people? Who are they? This Health Minister cannot even get enough doctors for our hospitals. How is he is going to find two more doctors to be court clinicians? Give me a break! Where are you going to find them?
The Country Liberal Party came out with a policy that will deal specifically with the drugs. The member for Arafura said: ‘Oh, gee, this is a racist thing’. It is not about indigenous people, white people, or Chinese; it is about drunks. If it happens that there are more indigenous drunks than other drunks, then so be it. If there are more white drunks, then there will be the same consequence for them. It is not about racism, and if anybody dares to say that, then think about your own racist feelings, or how you try to diminish anybody’s argument by labelling them as being racist.
In the government’s own figures, 22 000 drunks have been put into protective custody in the last 12 months. That is a huge indictment on the government. Obviously, the policies they have to try to rehabilitate, or repatriate people who have come in from the bush, are not working. They are staying in town, getting drunk more and more, and it goes round and round in a circle. This is a revolving door business.
You said before that the alcohol court would only gaol people once they have committed an offence, and with a resulting victim. Do you want to do that every time? You are going to wait for a drunk to hurt somebody, damage somebody, or steal something, before you deal with it? Territorians expect safe streets to walk about anywhere without being molested or abused. I do not want my wife walking down the street and called a ‘white f’’ing c’. I do not want that …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex!
Dr LIM: I am not swearing.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, in parliamentary language when it is read it is obvious what the words are. It is considered unparliamentary, so I ask you to withdraw that.
Dr LIM: I withdraw that and say that I do not want my wife to walk down the street being sworn at by itinerants. I do not want that. They do not do that to me and I appreciate that because, obviously, I have a relationship with them. That is quite different. They see somebody white walking down the street and they swear at them. That is not acceptable - not acceptable at all.
The CLP says if you do the wrong thing you have to pay the penalty. If the Community Harmony program has worked then we will not see this huge rise in the number of drunks on our streets. Almost every day I get e-mails from constituents, business people, complaining about drunks lying around on the green parks of Alice Springs, in the middle of the mall, or next to the dry river bed. It poses huge problems for tourists. You heard the member for Nelson speak about driving to Katherine at 8 pm one night, two weeks ago. It worries him, if the environment is like that and he feels slightly intimidated, what it is like for somebody who is unaccustomed to such a public display of antisocial behaviour?
We need to be tough on drunks. It is time for this government to say: ‘Enough is enough, we are not going to put up with this anymore’. Particularly in Alice Springs, where I come from, people are saying we do not want to see anymore of this sort of thing. The CLP, briefly, would do this: if a person is apprehended and taken into a sobering-up shelter, their home, a police station, or to another place, they will have their name entered into a central register that is to be maintained by the commissioner. When a person’s name is entered upon the register and that individual’s name has entered in the register three times in a six-month period, then that person must be brought before court to be assessed by that court for the purposes of making an order. I will keep reading from the policy document:
- The Country Liberal Party will apply certain conditions upon a person and this includes conditions that compel a person to undergo treatment, undergo assessment, reside in a particular place for a specific period, or ban them from certain places.
If you treat the drunk as a person who can be rescued, put them in a place where they can dry out and undergo treatment, then I believe you are giving this person a chance to come back as a productive member of our society.
There is very little time having this cognate bill. This alcohol court business alone would take the full half-hour of debate. However, we have to deal with the housing and tenancy issues as well. Earlier in the debate, we heard the Minister for Housing speak about how this amendment will also help in dealing with Territory Housing tenants who are causing destruction to the community and huge disturbance with drinking parties and large groups of people occupying homes, and that this legislation will be able to deal with these tenants.
My first question is: how determined is Territory Housing to ensure the tenants they put into public housing are ones who will comply? We would not have received the number of complaints we have been getting in the last four years if Territory Housing was doing a better job. I know of complainants who have rung Territory Housing with their issues and, because they ring a lot and become nuisance complainers - if you would like to call it that as they ring so often - when they complain they are labelled racist by Territory Housing officers. If that is the case, if that is true, that is a problem. I do not believe any public servant should label a complainant a ‘racist’. It is important the public service takes the complaints objectively and then investigates objectively.
Because somebody complains every day, there might be other issues involved which brings the complaints about; it needs to be sorted out. If that is an issue then Territory Housing needs to try to mediate a meeting between the neighbours and try to resolve the difference. Sometimes, it is only cultural differences, or different cultural expectations that causes racist antagonism between neighbours. Sometimes, it is a cultural misinterpretation.
Take this instance: one night about 10 pm I was rung by a constituent complaining about a huge mob of people next door. He was concerned that he and his wife were the only ones at home. I went to visit the constituent and, when I got there, there were three or four cars of people next door; one car was driving around doing U-turns along the short street. The people who rang me were indoors; they were okay and when I talked to them they were fairly angry and said to me they felt intimidated. However, there was no overt activity that one could describe as being aggressive. I spoke to the people next door and asked if I could help them. One of them recognised me and said: ‘Oh, I know you. What is your name again?’ I told him my name and we talked and I asked him where he was from and what he was doing. It was a very hot evening and most of the family were outside sitting on bonnets of cars and on the lawns, talking and enjoying the cool breeze of the evening. There was no real issue, except that there were a lot of them there. When I broke the ice the whole issue disappeared.
I believe there are ways for Territory Housing to deal with that sort of thing - try to mediate a meeting and keep emotions out; try to work out an understanding between neighbours. More often than not, you can find a very easy path through that.
However, when the minister spoke about expecting tenants to sign an ABA, I do not know how easy that is going to be. First of all, Territory Housing has to determine that this particular tenant has been a troublesome tenant in the first place, which means somebody has to make a complaint. This complaint has to be made repeatedly before you would label somebody a problem tenant, which would then require that tenant to sign an ABA.
That is what is happening now: people are complaining about tenants of Territory Housing. Why do you not act on it straightaway, rather than going the ABA route? Granted, the ABA route will give you 28 days grace so you can act a lot more quickly than you would if you had to go through the normal court process, through which it may take years to evict somebody. Apart from that, I believe if Territory Housing were to be a bit more proactive and get on with training people and giving them the capacity to understand urban living in the first instance, you would not have as many of those issues.
I remember in our time we assisted tenants with a formal document that they could pin up on their front door saying that their tenancy or house was only available for certain people who were the only people allowed in the house. That document was pasted on the front door. At least, the tenant could say to uninvited guests: ‘I am sorry, your name is not on this list, you cannot come to this house’. That gave them some empowerment to be able to say no. If you do not give people the empowerment to say no, then you cannot stop relatives and friends from visiting and they come in large numbers.
The Minister for Housing said the ABA will apply not only to the tenants but their visitors. How are the visitors going to know that there is an ABA in the first place? You are also not giving the tenant any power to turn people away. The ABA does not help that; what helps is something to say ‘No, you are not allowed to come in’. That is, I believe, what was possible under the old system where we could put out a document under the letterhead of Territory Housing saying only the people on the list of names or legitimate tenants can be inside that house, and the rest have to leave.
When you get people coming from the bush to live in an urban situation - and I have said it time and time again - you have to give people the capacity or the ability to live in an urban setting. It is quite different. This might sound funny but, in my teenage years before I came to Australia, I was sat down at a table where there was a full setting - three knives, three forks, dessert spoons, dessert forks, the whole dinner setting - and taught how to use the dinner setting. That might be just a small thing but, if you do not know how to use a stove or a hot water system, and do not really understand a proper toilet cistern system, then you are bound to damage it before too long. You have to give these people some training; show them how to use an urban home.
Neighbours have rung me and said: ‘Limmy, new tenants have just moved in across the street. It is a man and a woman and a couple of children and a bag of clothes, and that is all they had. Not a stick of furniture, no crockery, no cutlery, nothing’. They expect to live in this urban home. It is no wonder they fail to become good neighbours, and this government does not put anything in place to provide that.
Last week, the minister spoke about the new group that he started with William Tilmouth and others to provide urban living skills. It has to get going straightaway. The sooner you do it, the better. The quicker you train people up so they know how to do it, the better. Otherwise, this will just keep on going and you will bring in neighbours who do not understand the environment or how to use the home. You will then continue to have issues with others living there trying to just have a peaceful life.
When you have Territory Housing putting a tenant in there who already has issues in the past, and you say to them: ‘Okay, you live there now. If the neighbour has an issue with you, the neighbour can put in a complaint or can put a complaint to court and take you to court and try to get you evicted’. If Territory Housing is not prepared to go through the evidentiary process to prove that a tenant is not doing the right thing, why does the government expect, if your agency is not prepared to do that, that you pass on the responsibility to the neighbour next door? Why are you putting that on the neighbour? This is, after all, Territory Housing’s responsibility. What I believe has happened here now is that it is really the government saying: ‘Territory Housing, you can sit back now. You do not have to worry about it, let them do their own thing’. What you do then is create a situation where a neighbour has to take out a court action against another, rather than saying: ‘Hang on, let the public service, the third party, objectively do that’. You are putting them into a situation where neighbours are at adversarial situations with each other. That is really not the right way to engender good neighbourhoods in our communities.
While landlords are not allowed to take this complaint to court, they are allowed to provide evidence. It is strange that you see Territory Housing being the major landlord with most of the problem tenants. That is the one body I would have thought would have the biggest responsibility to deal with those tenants. I recall early this year, the Labour Prime Minister of Britain announced that, in an effort to restore respect in society, his Labour government would establish a network of 50 units like a ‘sin bin’ for the most destructive families. What he was going to do was to say: ‘If you are disruptive, you can be out of the neighbourhood and you can live somewhere else in isolation for a while, and then earn the right to come back’. That is from a Labour Prime Minister. Maybe this government should really consider taking a leaf out of Tony Blair’s book and be a lot firmer with our neighbours from hell.
When you bring three different aspects of this raft of legislation into one bill, it makes it impossible for the opposition to support. There are some that have merit and could have been supported by the opposition, perhaps with some discussion. However, the opposition will have great difficulty supporting the alcohol court. It is not a serious attempt at dealing with drunks. Our community in Central Australia is screaming out every day now saying that they have had enough ...
Ms CARNEY: Madam Speaker, I move that the member be granted an extension of time, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Dr LIM: I will be very brief now, Madam Speaker. Our communities are saying enough is enough and we need to seriously get the drunks off our street, get our mall back, and get our suburban streets back so that we can walk in safety. We want that now. We do not want to wait any longer, until one of us gets hurt, before a drunk will be taken off the streets. Do it now. We want our community back so that we can live in Central Australia without all the humbugging that we have been faced with every day.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, when you look at the topic to hand, which is looking at antisocial behaviour in our communities and a government package that is designed to alleviate some of the negative effects that such behaviour has on a community, it is not surprising that we have heard such a diversity of debate over the last four or so hours from members. When you look at what could constitute antisocial behaviour in the community, it does span everything from disgusting acts in public such as defecating in public places and urinating against trees and that sort of thing, where it is aesthetically very confronting to the community but not of lasting damage to the community as a victim, through to quite serious acts of violence and illegal acts which could also be encompassed in the term antisocial behaviour. We have heard right across the spectrum about those types of behaviour in the community - everything from youths to adults, from a whole range of contexts in which such behaviour might be offered up by members of our community to the detriment of the community as a whole.
Therein lies the root of the problem we faced when we were looking at what our government could do in combating antisocial behaviour: what do you focus on, what are the most important priorities that a government might take to this type of report? We felt that one of the key and dominant factors in antisocial behaviour, of whatever level of impact on the community, was alcohol - alcohol abuse and the harm that it visits on other community members as well as the abuser themselves. Quite clearly, as Health Minister, I would be very interested in the self-abuse of alcohol but, beyond that, you have to protect the people from victimisation in the community.
The focus of this reform package is to alleviate some of the victimisation that stems from alcohol abuse by individuals in our community. There is always politics in these issues, and there is also a lot of emotion because any one of us in this House could picture both victims and perpetrators of this type of behaviour in our own communities. That is what we are here for; we are to represent the overall interests of the communities, the parts that elected us, the overall Northern Territory community. Therefore, it is not surprising that there will be politics and emotion in these issues. For that reason, it is not surprising also to see the opposition and, indeed, other members position themselves in political terms about what they want to say to the electorate. That is, I guess, inevitable given the nature of this reform. However, I remind members that when you are dealing with conflict social behaviours such as alcohol abuse and antisocial behaviour, politics is a very uncertain friend and so is emotion. While emotion might lead you to take some reform actions, it has to be evidence and proven practice that is going to inform a good policy.
Over the long period of time that this reform has been worked up, we have constantly referenced to the opinion of experts through the task force that was charged with developing the detail of this legislation, and to the accumulated experience around Australia and other parts of the world on what works and what does not work. That is why we have brought in a very strong theme of rehabilitation as the only way you can tackle alcohol dependency and addiction and all of the behaviours that flow from it, with any chance of having an effective intervention.
There is no convincing evidence that short-term removal from the community, for example, does anything to alleviate dependence on alcohol. You would only need to go to either of our prisons and talk to the prison officers there. One of the great frustrations is that they are seeing alcohol-related offenders whose offending is related to alcohol abuse, simply reappear time and time again at the front door of the prison to be, yet again, a customer of that facility. That really should indicate that prison, of itself, is not a proven way of breaking people out of the cycle of alcohol dependency and the behaviours that flow from it.
The other thing, by way of introduction to my comments, is that there has been commentary, probably over the last couple of weeks and some comments during the debate, about the need to slow down, have consultations, and to talk to everyone about this. We brought this package in, as announced and as presented to the Territory community during the election of last year. It was very clearly spelled out in a series of media releases, media events and public debate which was, at times, quite intense through the election campaign. Both sides of politics realised it was a defining issue and there was a lot of work put in by both sides to present themselves and their proposals to the electorate. We believe we have been mandated to bring this reform through the parliament. I can assure members that the contents of the package that we have brought here, in its legislative aspects, fully accords with what we said to the Territory electorate during the election campaign. As we all know, when politicians are out addressing the electorate they will talk to different groups with different emphasis. However, the details that were put in writing during the campaign are all honoured within the package we have before us today.
I feel bound to comment that part of the members’ positioning that has been going on over the last number of days, and particularly today, is dealing with who in our community is part of this problem. It was good to hear the member for Greatorex saying this is not a problem with race; this is a problem of drunks. Some of our contributions, from the members for Arnhem and Arafura, also made that point; that we are dealing with the harm and victimisation that flows from alcohol abuse. That is what the focus of this is. To simply say it is an itinerant or indigenous problem dishonours the intent of this legislation. We want to be just as concerned, for example, about three patrol cars attending Melanka Lodge during a late night drunken brawl of their patrons, as we are about itinerants abusing alcohol and behaving antisocially in the local park or in the long grass in Darwin. It is all part of the blight of alcohol in our community, and the provisions in these reform bills are framed to apply to every Territorian in our communities, without fear, favour or context. If there is harm being done as a result of alcohol abuse, that person should and can be brought before the court and ordered to confront the problems that their addiction is causing to other people as well as themselves.
Further to that point, it does not take very much acumen to work out - in one study of alcohol in Central Australia, based on the Liquor Commission records of grog sales in the alcohol outlets of that area of the Territory, six million litres of alcoholic beverages were consumed by Central Australians in a one 12-month period - that the Aboriginal population could not drink six million litres in a year and survive the experience. They would be drinking something in the order of 400 L each, man, woman, and child, let alone the adults who do drink, given that a lot of Aboriginal adults do not drink. It defies logic to say that this is purely an issue which exists as an itinerant and indigenous problem. It would dishonour the intent of this reform to contain the scope of the discussion purely to that, as the opposition has been trying to do today.
We are going to go with the member for Greatorex; he has quite rightly pointed out that we have to deal with drunks in the community. It is not a question of where they are drunk or who they are; it is a question of what harm and victimisation it causes within the community to which they belong.
Going to some of the points which were made in more detail, it is important - as I put forward in response to one of the questions during Question Time – to look at this reform package in the light of the responses which the government has put out before, or sees as being part of the overall response. There are different levels of victimisation which flow from the action of drunks in our community. The worst, of course, are things such as drunken rapes or killings, or extremely brutal assaults on victims in the community, as an adjunct to uncontrolled drinking and emotions which arise when that occurs. Those matters will go to the Supreme Court; they will be dealt with under the laws and with the full force of the law. There will not be any option of diversion into alcohol rehabilitation in those cases. The Supreme Court will deal with them; it is not the alcohol court.
The Magistrates Court will form the alcohol court, and that will have two levels at which it can choose to put orders on the offender. In all cases, the people before that court will have offended, but with different degrees of victimisation arising from the offences. For the more serious offences, the intervention orders are part of a suspended sentence arrangement which means that the sentence is still applied and hangs there, and the person escapes that sentence only to the point that they successfully continue and complete the rehabilitation which is ordered by the court. If they breach, they are back before the court and, if they breach in a way which shows they have no commitment to rehabilitating themselves, they go to gaol. That is the strong enforcing principle within the intervention orders.
Prohibition orders are designed to keep the offenders away from further abuse of alcohol in the life they return to in the community. They constrain liquor licensees from providing alcohol and they also constrain the individual on what they can do and where they can do it within the community. That would be applied to lower levels of victimisation in terms of whatever that person had done prior to coming before the court. Below that again are all the protective custody and summary-type offences and responses that we have in our communities through Night Patrols, wardens, ACPOs and police. There are many people being taken out of risk situations or prevented from offering violence and other antisocial behaviours to the rest of the community that are being dealt with day by day. The opposition has made much of the 21 800 and something apprehensions that have occurred each year, quite wrongly claiming that 21 800 separate individuals have come to the notice of one or another of our patrolling mechanisms. There are many high repeat protective custodies and the number of people actually abusing alcohol is, thankfully, nowhere near the figure the opposition has been claiming. I hope members can see that this reform package sits across that spectrum of offending and antisocial behaviour that does occur in our communities.
The three elements of the package are, obviously, the alcohol court and the ability to compel alcohol abusers into rehabilitation - take them out of circulation. One of the key offender groups that we would want to see taken in, in such a way, would be people who are offering violence, particularly domestic violence, to women and kids. The opposition might say: ‘Oh, it is only 80 people’. Well, it may be 80 people, it may be more; it is a question of how the assessment goes in the court processes as to how many offenders would be put into those arrangements. If this is targeted as well as we believe it is, we should see a considerable impact on violent offending in our communities, particularly towards family members and associates of people who are simply not able to handle their drinking habit. That is a pretty good place to target, because I cannot personally imagine many levels of victimisation above that that we should ignore or not deal with in our community.
In targeting that aspect of this reform package, we have been very aware of other undertakings that we have made to the Northern Territory electorate about the need to move beyond the very effective work that we have done on property crime, through its relationship to drug abuse, to violent crime and to alcohol. This is the next phase in trying to reduce the offending levels of antisocial behaviour in our community.
That is one aspect of this which is at quite a serious level of victimisation in our community, one of the most serious levels and one of the most concerning. If the Police minister can tell me, as a result of the new focus within the police work on domestic violence and some of these mechanisms, that the police can now take offenders out of circulation and into rehabilitation, I will be very happy to see some impact on this terrible area of offending. We have to preserve the integrity of our family life; there is no more important thing that a government should concern itself with.
With the other two elements, the member for Braitling has mentioned, and quite rightly, that many of the households in public tenanted housing and housing around units in Alice Springs, the occupants have become so confronted by the visitors who are abusing alcohol on their premises regardless of whether they want that to happen or not. I have seen many makeshift signs around saying ‘no alcohol in this house’ or ‘no alcohol in this spot’. She quite rightly pointed out that that needs some further authority put behind it by government. We will certainly look for a very easily understood, prominent sign that can be put up if the householders want to declare a dry area over their premises.
It was good to see the member for Katherine, quite rightly, trotting out some particular incidents that have happened in Katherine. I will point out what could be done under the provisions that we have brought forward today. The priest in the church would be able to move to declare the church as a dry area, which would give that church environment greater protection in that the police can be called to deal with any drink-related behaviour around or in that church. The shopping centre, similarly, could become a dry area. It could apply to get a declaration so that anyone inside that shopping area would be subject to the provisions that will now be in this act. Taking the case of the person who stabbed the woman, depending on the level of the violence and the victimisation, that could be taken to an intervention order on that individual for assaulting the woman with a weapon, and that person could be put into up to 12 months of rehabilitation. There are three impacts directly on the examples that you brought forward in the debate.
It will be encouraged in communities through a publicity campaign following the enactment of this legislation to let everyone know what they can do to protect themselves. In the tenancy arrangements, a third party application for tenants to be evicted is one of the key provisions, as are the behaviour agreements and the ability of Territory Housing to take action against unruly tenants. I have heard commentary over the last week or so – I think it was from NTCOSS and some of the meetings that they had been conducting. I have to point out that one of the things they threw up in their commentary about it is that the government has not consulted them. It would have been an ideal opportunity for them to invite a government member to inform their meetings, because there was a lot of misinformation being spread around those meetings. We would have been very happy to provide accurate information about what is in the packages rather than having uninformed debate about this. Be that as it may, the legislation will be there for all to see and to interpret, as will the process by which we roll out the provisions and apply them in the community.
We have heard a lot about what I, as a politician, would have to say is a good little slogan that the opposition has come up with, the ‘get out of gaol card’. You only have to talk to any of the alcohol rehabilitation program facilitators in the Territory to see that confronting your demons as an alcohol dependent or addicted person is anything but an easy option. To break that cycle and to come to terms, as the member for Arnhem said, with who you are and why you have become addicted or dependent on alcohol or other substances and, even more importantly, why that translates into total disrespect of people who could be respecting and loving around you, is not an easy process, either here or anywhere in the world. I have no doubt, as the member for Nhulunbuy asserted, that a time in gaol would be much easier than a time in an intensive rehabilitation process. There is no doubt that would be challenging to the person.
I have tried to cover, in broad brush terms, some of the points which have been made. It has been a very wide-ranging debate. I will make an offer to all members such as the member for Braitling who had quite a number of more detailed questions, we are happy to lay on a briefing, or an additional briefing in the case of the member for Braitling, because there is a lot of the …
Mrs Miller: Will you look at Dillinya?
Dr TOYNE: What I will say about that is that we will look at any model which is out there as to how it is performing and whether it would be able to make a contribution. I do not think rehabilitation will stand on one model in one place. I could point to Barry Cook’s outstation in Central Australia as another example which has had some success in getting people out of the grog cycle. There are examples out there and there are things we can build additional capacity around. No fear or no favour; if it is providing some benefit we will look at it.
Quite a number of the issues which have been brought forward are more of an operational nature that will only start to be detailed; for example where people undergoing rehabilitation will live, who will supervise them, and the details of the actual rehabilitation programs. These are things which will emerge as the process is put in place and the programs are put there to support them with the funding that we have allocated to rehabilitation and to the alcohol court. We are more than happy to share those through briefings as we roll out these initiatives. I make that offer to members; there are too many detailed questions which were offered up in this debate to deal with them in the short time I have to respond. It is more efficient to have people available. We can set a time and you can come along and ask questions and we will do our best to answer them for you.
Madam Speaker, that has covered as best I can the wide-ranging debate.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Alcohol Court Bill 2005 (Serial 33):
Mr CHAIRMAN: Is it the wish of the committee that the bill be taken as a whole?
Ms CARNEY: No.
Dr TOYNE: Are you moving an amendment or what?
Ms CARNEY: No, I am asking a question in relation to two clauses. Therefore, I do not move that it be read as a whole.
Dr TOYNE: We can do it within the bill as a whole.
Mr CHAIRMAN: You may proceed, Leader of the Opposition.
Ms CARNEY: I lost my bit of paper. I will not take long.
Mr CHAIRMAN: We will have to take it clause by clause until we get to the clauses that you …
Ms CARNEY: I can indicate in order to assist you, Mr Chairman, I will be asking questions in relation to clauses 11 and 12.
Mr CHAIRMAN: To seek clarification, only clauses 11 and 12? We will be able to take clauses 1 to 10?
Ms CARNEY: Yes.
Clauses 1 to 10, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 11:
Ms CARNEY: Attorney-General, I wanted to ask you some questions in relation to clauses 11 and 12 because they struck me as being somewhat unusual. In relation to clause 11 - these clauses, of course, deal with the proceedings to be in open court. Clause 12 deals with the restriction of …
Mr CHAIRMAN: Leader of the Opposition, could we just stick to clause 11 and then we will …
Ms CARNEY: Happy to, but thought it may put it in some context, Mr Chairman. I am happy to deal with clause 11. Attorney-General, that clause states that a proceeding must be held in open court, but enables a proceeding not to be heard in open court if, according to the bill, justice will be best served by closing the court. Can you explain why it was found necessary to include a clause of this nature in this legislation?
Dr TOYNE: Yes. My understanding is that the court is dealing with a combination of health, rehabilitation and offending issues. This structure allows the court to open or close the court according to its perception of what best suits the issue to hand. If they are talking purely in terms of the medical health aspects of rehabilitation, it may be that they want to preserve some confidentiality around that. However, if it is hearing the matters relating to the offences, as a general rule, we would want to see that as an open process that everyone can witness. I will just get some further advice.
I have had confirmation, yes.
Ms CARNEY: Does that mean that, on occasion, for privacy and confidentiality reasons, for reports relating to someone’s addiction or otherwise, the courts have the discretion to close the court but that, in relation to the offence generally, the courts will not be closed?
Dr TOYNE: Yes, it is up to the discretion of the court as to what they withhold from the public domain and what they keep within the closed court arrangement. The intention would be that matters regarding the offence, and its hearing and the sentencing of the court around the offence, would be open and matters regarding the details of the person’s status as an addict and the rehabilitation program that they may be referred to may be put into a closed court.
Ms CARNEY: It is the case, Attorney-General, that in the courts of the Northern Territory, details of pre-sentencing reports and counselling reports and so on are ordinarily and regularly tendered to magistrates on behalf of offenders by their solicitors. Why is it the case that the courts should not be closed on those occasions but should be closed on this occasion? What is the reason for the difference?
Dr TOYNE: I am informed that it is around the role of the court clinician, whose job it is to prepare and present a report to the court regarding the prospects of rehabilitation and the details of what would be involved in it. On occasion, the closed arrangement would be used to protect the clinician’s professional work to the court. They are not working for the defendant, they are working for the court, so they are in a different situation than, say, an expert witness that a defence or prosecution would call.
Ms CARNEY: Does the same provision apply in relation to the drug courts which also have court clinicians?
Dr TOYNE: There is no closed arrangement in the drug court, the difference being that credit is based on a bail arrangement. This is dealing with a suspended sentence arrangement and that changes, in the view of our policy section, the need for disclosure.
Ms CARNEY: This sort of provision is extremely uncommon, in my view, in Territory legislation. It exists in the Community Welfare Act, and rightly so. I believe it extends to – I may not have the wording right – the Sexual Offences (Evidence and Procedure) Act, or something like that, and the reasons for that are obvious.
This is my last question on this clause. Is it the case that you would anticipate clauses of this nature finding their way into legislation in the Northern Territory when dealing with what could normally be described as sensitive matters such as people’s counselling reports and so on?
Dr TOYNE: The last bit?
Ms CARNEY: Dealing with sensitive matters such as counselling reports and so on; that is, the sort of evidence that is usually tendered to magistrates?
Dr TOYNE: The whole purpose of these provisions is to visit on the court a degree of discretion about how they handle the work of the clinician informing the court. It very deliberately allows the court to take it on merit and case by case. It is not something you would make a policy about. Our policy is to give the court discretion.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12:
Ms CARNEY: These are similar questions in respect of clause 12 that deals with the restriction on publication. Again, it is an unusual provision to be found in Northern Territory legislation. To my knowledge, it exists in the Community Welfare Act and probably the Sexual Offences (Evidence and Procedure) Act. Can you advise why it is that you support legislation that restricts publication of the result of a proceeding, that is in clause 12(c).
Dr TOYNE: My understanding of this is that the intent of it is that we are trying to prevent the health assessment of the individual from being freely published. That is the target on restriction on publication as I understand it. However, I will check that.
Yes, I am further informed that the sensitivity here is that there will be probably other health issues involved in the person’s general report, not just the question of their alcohol dependency but, potentially, some other details of their health status which, like any other health information we handle in the health system, is under a policy of not making it publicly known. It really hinges on the details of what is in the report on the person’s health as to whether the court would say that they do not want this to go out in general because it is health information.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you for your answer but, with respect, it does not really relate specifically to clause 12(c). I accept that there may be a good reason to restrict publication of the matters that fall under the wording of clause 12(a) which is ‘a report of or information relating to a proceeding’ although it does not expressly say so. You would, ordinarily, I guess, expect that to be the clause that deals with a person’s private and confidential information. Arguably, clause 12(b), the specific details of the proceeding could, at a stretch, incorporate that. However, clause 12(c) is very specific. It does not refer to health reports or anything like that; it is ‘the result of a proceeding’. Do you accept that this is a potential difficulty? In the alternative, what might results of a proceeding be that should not be published?
Dr TOYNE: I can give you one example. If you had a person who was abusing alcohol and, obviously, had to deal with an addiction as a result of the court’s sentence and attachment of the order, but they may also have a condition where they may be diabetic or they might have gone into end-stage renal failure, the court would, as a matter of course, I would imagine, say that this person should undergo rehabilitation, but they should also have the care regarding the other health condition that they may be manifesting. That gets you squarely into the domain of privacy of health information. That is certainly what is envisaged; it is not to withhold the sentencing outcome from the community. It is just that, in some cases, the sentencing outcome and its associated order may actually contain provisions which deal with the health condition.
Ms CARNEY: You do not envisage a situation where the result of a proceeding, such as a person was not sent to gaol today, they copped an intervention order, is not published?
Dr TOYNE: I can only say that we have given the court discretion on such matters because, as in all court processes, the possibilities are virtually infinite as to what combination of things a court is going to have in front of it. If the court feels that there is purely offending and related dependence on alcohol and that is the only elements of the sentence, they probably will not close the court and withhold publication. However, if there is some element of health information involved in either the court proceedings or in the final content of the order - because the order may well say they have to be at rehabilitation five times a week and twice a week they have to go to the renal unit or whatever - that will be part of the deposition of the offender. That is health information. You do not go around anywhere else in the health system saying that this person has diabetes and he is off being treated somewhere. That is simply privacy principals.
Ms CARNEY: There are a couple of points that arise. I am trying not to be difficult, but the fact is that in courts in the Northern Territory orders are made as to people’s rehabilitation and treatment on a fairly regular basis. Why is it that the courts are not players in relation to those matters? What makes matters that fall under this legislation fundamentally different? Is there a difference? I cannot see one. Perhaps I will ask you to answer that before I get onto the next point. I should not be too much longer.
Dr TOYNE: I can only say that with the client group that we are talking about, there will be, on many occasions, overlying health issues. It is our judgment that we need to offer the court discretion to deal with those. There was mention of other issues like psychiatric/mental health which is very common with heavy drinkers.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you. As Health Minister, you would be aware that under what is loosely described as the ‘sniffing legislation’ there is the ability for compulsory treatment orders to be made where a sniffer is brought before a court. Are the courts to be closed in relation to those matters? Can you answer that question before I take it to the next step?
Dr TOYNE: We will have to get back to you on that one because I did not carry that legislation through to that detail. It was done by my colleague, the Minister for Family and Community Services.
Ms CARNEY: Thank you. If you could get back to me. I suspect your answer will be the same in relation to this one. If it is the case that the courts are not to be closed or the discretion is not available for the compulsory treatment orders for sniffers which, of course, would require detailed sensitive and confidential information, the type you have been talking about to be put before the court, why do you close the court or provide for the discretion in an alcohol court but that discretion is not provided in other courts in the case of sniffers? Would you give me an undertaking that you will come back to me, perhaps by the end of the sittings, with the answers to those two questions which, I am sure you would agree, are pretty important questions?
Dr TOYNE: I am more than happy to look into the consistency of the different court arrangements. My personal view would be that, if you have concerns about privacy of sensitive health information in one context, it has to be applied consistently. We will have a look.
Ms CARNEY: That is it.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Mrs BRAHAM: Mr Chairman, in the minister’s second reading speech, he said:
- Offenders are not eligible for referral to the alcohol court if they are subject to a parole order, subject to a community service order, serving a suspended term of imprisonment or undertaking a home detention order.
Clause 14(4)(b) we raised at the briefing …
Mr CHAIRMAN: Member for Braitling, if I may just hold you up for a moment. I have not cleared clause 13. If I could just …
Mrs BRAHAM: I thought you gave me the nod.
Mr CHAIRMAN: I did give you the nod, but I was caught off-guard. If you would just give me a moment, and you can get back up.
Mrs BRAHAM: Did you give me the nod or not? No?
Mr CHAIRMAN: I told you I gave you the nod, and I consider you have your question prepared, so I am sure it will be fine.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14:
Mrs BRAHAM: Mr Chairman, clause 14(4)(b) says: ‘a person is not eligible for referral to the court if any of the following circumstances apply …’. I believe you have left out section 7(f) from the Sentencing Act which would include the community service order. We raised it at the briefing and you were going to amend it so, instead of having a sentencing order under section 7(g) or section 7(h), it should also include section 7(f).
Dr TOYNE: I thank the member for Braitling, as I completely omitted to include in my speech in response a correction to the second reading speech. In the second reading speech as it stands, community service orders were excluded. In fact, within the legislation, the alcohol court includes offenders who are subject to community service orders. They can be put on both intervention orders and prohibition orders, so they are not excluded.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill to be reported without amendments.
Antisocial Behaviour (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill (Serial 34):
Bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill to be reported without amendment.
Bills reported; report adopted.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General) (by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bills read a third time.
MOTION
Note Paper - Remuneration Tribunal and Determination No 1 of 2005 for Members
of the Legislative Assembly, Members of the Executive Council and Ministers of the Territory
Note Paper - Remuneration Tribunal and Determination No 1 of 2005 for Members
of the Legislative Assembly, Members of the Executive Council and Ministers of the Territory
Continued from 29 November 2005.
Dr LIM (Greatorex):
[Editor’s Note: On the motion of the Chief Minister, by leave, contribution to debate by the member for Greatorex was expunged.]
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Greatorex. I am not quite sure whether he was specifically talking about this RTD. However, thank you for your comments.
This is part of the regular review of our remuneration by the tribunal, and I thank them for the 2005 report. It goes through a number of different issues, ranging from travel allowances generally, and travel by the opposition. A new determination has now addressed opposition travel, which is something that I hope you support. It is a fair way of dealing with it, and means that there is a scale established that will cover any variation inside of the opposition in the future.
The decision to have mobile phones for electorate officers is a good one, and I thank the tribunal for that. Also, the way that they will be paid for, I believe, is a very accountable one. Some of the other clarification issues that have been dealt with in this RTD, are again, effective for the working of parliamentarians. With those few brief comments, this RTD has widespread support because it has not created any controversy, which is excellent. Again, I thank the tribunal for the work.
Dr LIM: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I was advised wrongly as to what the bill was, and what I said should be expunged from the Parliamentary Record because I was talking about the wrong thing altogether. I seek leave for that.
Madam SPEAKER: I have to seek advice on that, I do not think you can expunge things from the record.
Dr LIM: I seek leave of the House, if that is possible. Obviously, it does not make sense.
Ms Martin: It does not.
Dr LIM: I was talking about a completely different bill.
Madam SPEAKER: The Clerk is suggesting that I seek agreement of the Chamber for the member for Greatorex’s comments to be removed from the Parliamentary Record.
Ms MARTIN: In all due fairness to the member for Greatorex, he was given the wrong advice on what this was about, so I agree with him - fair cop, let us get on with business.
Madam SPEAKER: Would you like to move that, Chief Minister?
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister)(by leave): I move that the contribution to the RTD debate by the member for Greatorex be expunged from the record on the basis that he was given wrong advice about what it is about.
Dr LIM: Thank you, Chief Minister.
Motion agreed to; debate expunged.
Motion agreed to; paper noted.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Darwin City Waterfront Project
Darwin City Waterfront Project
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, last August in my statement on the Darwin City Waterfront project, I outlined in considerable detail the arrangements we had put in place with the successful development partner, the Darwin Cove Consortium, for the next 10 to 15 years. It is my pleasure this evening to provide this House, members and Territorians with an update on the considerable progress being made on the waterfront project. It is an appropriate time to do so.
There is no doubt that the waterfront is starting to capture the imagination of Territorians. Key elements of the project are starting to emerge, with hundreds of thousands of tonnes of fill and armour rock being delivered for the sea wall and convention centre pad. The project is building momentum, just as another major project, the Darwin LNG project, shifts to long-term operations after almost three years of construction.
Members of this House would recall that we first announced the Darwin City Waterfront project with the release of the expressions of interest document in mid-2003. It followed on from discussions at the Territory’s first Economic Development Summit in 2001, where the focus was firmly on key projects that could bring a step change to our economy.
We followed this up with several fundamental economic studies into the best solution and model for development, as well as project delivery. Members would recall that, over the years, there were a number of unsuccessful attempts to bring a convention centre to Darwin. Neither previous governments nor the private sector could find an acceptable option for development. As well, various concepts for the redevelopment of the old industrial land at the port had also been mooted. But again, nothing eventuated. Behind the scenes, senior government staff were hard at work investigating the economic viability and optimal scale for a possible convention centre for Darwin, as well as the options for the future development of the waterfront site. We reviewed the analysis, concepts and experiences of the past, but quickly came to the conclusion that something altogether bolder and more in tune with the lifestyle of the Territory was needed. Out of this work emerged Darwin City Waterfront and the rest, as they say, is now history.
The work generated from the waterfront project will feed into our economy over the next 10 to 15 years, effectively providing a floor in general construction during that period. In parallel, new commercial opportunities will develop and new jobs will be created in hospitality, tourism and commerce. Overall, the economic benefits will be significant, measurable, and ongoing.
In the EOI, we clearly set out what we wanted to achieve with the redevelopment of the old industrial land alongside Darwin’s existing wharves. We wanted to leverage the best private sector creativity and, importantly, investment to recast this site into a world-class waterfront precinct. We knew we could do that through a competitive bidding process and by being very clear up-front that we would invest in this landmark infrastructure. We were determined to apply the very highest standards of environmental management to this project. After all, it was an old industrial site with more than 100 years of industrial activity occurring alongside Darwin’s wharves. All forms of trade and cargo had, at one time or another, passed through and across the waterfront. Knowing this, my government commenced the most wide-ranging environmental assessment of the site.
In the end, we delivered one of the most comprehensive environmental assessments seen in the Territory, which is part of the construction and environmental management plan prepared by the consortium members. The plan will go a long way to ensuring that the waterfront’s environmental values will be protected and improved.
Since 2004, more than 100 investigations have been undertaken including planned investigations, costing and risk analysis, contamination assessments, soil sampling, leach ability testing, vapour testing, noise and air quality monitoring, more than 20 studies into contamination treatment options, more than 20 investigations covering marine works, 15 groundwater modelling and hydrogeological studies, and UXO assessments and surveys. We are particularly proud to have achieved the right balance between a fast-tracked project and achieving high environmental standards.
From the very beginning, we have quite deliberately use the words ‘world-class’ to describe this project. That has been our vision from the outset, and to achieve this we wanted to encourage both innovation and creativity. In 2006, that means taking the best elements of similar projects around the world while, at the same time, remaining faithful to our heritage, history, culture, and climate. While the project can stand alongside other developments of excellence in Australia such as Darling Harbour, Southbank, and Docklands, it is, nevertheless, uniquely Territorian. There is no doubt the Darwin City Waterfront is one of the most innovative development projects currently under way in Australia, and stands alone in reflecting the unique values of the Territory. The project is also crucial to our continuing drive to expand the Territory economy.
The 10 to 15-year construction phase will deliver work to Territory businesses and jobs to Territorians and, when the convention centre and the crew ship terminal become operational, new economic activity will be generated. For example, the convention centre alone will generate in excess of $200m of new economic activity - that is in today’s dollars.
Let me remind members and Territorians of what the Darwin City Waterfront will offer: a 1500 seat, 4000 m convention centre similar in size to this building; a 2 km promenade almost double the length of Bicentennial Park; a new seawall creating a sea water lagoon immune from the major tidal movements of Darwin Harbour; 10 ha, or 40% of the site, will be allocated as public space including significant parklands; new water recreational facilities which will include a new wave pool; a $4.5m cruise ship terminal; a new residential community and marina; a pedestrian bridge from the escarpment with elevators connecting to the public domain and a shaded walkway connecting the site to the mall; commercial and retail facilities will include a new hotel; there will be significant investment by the developer and the government in public art and culture in recognition of our heritage and cultural values; and the project includes essential infrastructure such as headworks, roads and a multi-storey car park. What this means is more opportunities and more jobs for Territorians.
The Darwin City Waterfront will have three components: the new Darwin convention centre delivered as a public/private partnership; a large community infrastructure component funded by government; and a long-term commercial and residential property development. The first stage of the project takes in the convention centre along with the $94m of community infrastructure in the form of the seawall, wave pool, parklands and public art, as well as the hotel, commercial space, car park and the first multi-storey apartment complex. Stage 1 has been valued at $300m and will be completed by early 2008. The next stage incorporates a further $64m in community infrastructure along with progressive construction of the residential and commercial developments, planned to be completed within the next 10 to 15 years.
Importantly, this project is founded on the principle of partnership. I am sure that, from time to time, the partnership will be tested but it will be the collective innovation and energy that will deliver the result we are after. It is a partnership that will add $1.1bn of new investment in the Territory economy. Importantly, the government’s contribution will leverage some $800m to $900m of investment from the private sector over the life of the project.
Since financial close on this project, an enormous amount of work has been completed by the Darwin Cove Consortium. One of the most visible signs is, undoubtedly, the convention centre building pad. That is just the first of many. My ministerial colleagues will take you through much of the details surrounding progress on this project. In particular, the minister for Planning and Infrastructure will provide a detailed update and the progress of works including approval, permits, design and construction. The minister for Business, Economic and Regional Development will also spend time this evening speaking about our strong commitment to local content and the successes we are seeing on this front across the Darwin City Waterfront project.
I will now provide a summary of construction projects to date. The construction of the $100m-plus Darwin convention centre is advancing well. The building will be developed over the next two years by a joint venture of local firms, Sitzler Bros and Barclay Mowlem. In recent times, the joint venture has constructed the accident and emergency facility at Royal Darwin Hospital and the Palmerston Medical Centre, which demonstrates their construction credentials. Another local firm, Macmahon NT, which is responsible for constructing community infrastructure, has recently completed the building pad and revetment walls for the convention centre. Almost 400 000 tonnes of fill was positioned by Macmahon to complete the convention centre building pad. Shortly, Sitzler/Barclay Mowlem joint venture will commence piling as the first element of their building program. From that point on, the Darwin exhibition and convention centre will rise from the site to become one of Darwin’s landmark structures. It is scheduled to open for conventions in 2008.
Macmahon is also the contractor responsible for the community infrastructure component of the project. Each day, Territorians can see the progress of the sea wall, one of the key elements of this package, extending into Kitchener Bay.
One of the first tasks required was clearance of the site for unexploded ordnance. Thankfully, no explosives were discovered. However, several objects of interest were identified which have now been stored for future display. Construction work is progressing at a rapid rate. It is an interesting project; the construction team needs to work within the limits of Darwin’s significant tidal movements. They will eventually place about 360 000 m of fill and armour rock on the sea floor to create the wall and, in doing so, create the 4 ha recreational water space or lagoon for the Darwin City Waterfront. When complete, the wall will be 650 m long, three storeys high, and 70 m wide at the base under the sea - which is a very substantial structure by any measure. Using GPS equipment mounted on earthmoving equipment, Macmahon are in the process of placing the fill and armour rock while dredging continues to remove mud in some places up to 14 m deep.
One of Australia’s largest private companies, TOGA, will develop the hotel apartments and commercial spaces of the Darwin City Waterfront. Planning approval for Stage 1 has been secured and design is progressing for the hotel, residential and commercial development.
I would like to take a moment to offer my condolences to the family of Cameron Bradley who tragically lost his life recently while working on the dredging barge. I believe all members will join me in saying how sorry we are for the their loss.
Everyone involved in the project has committed to the highest standards of occupational health and safety. Because of the number of different contractors and subcontractors, a site-wide occupational health and safety coordination committee is to be established. It will include the key contractors from Darwin Cove alongside WorkSafe, relevant unions and government representation. While contractors working on-site have obligations to meet the requirements of government legislation in the work, health and safety area, the committee will provide a focal point for all OH&S issues across the various elements of the project, and be a vehicle for continuous improvement on safety.
It was only two-and-a-half years ago that Darwin City Waterfront was still a functioning and active industrial site. Shell supplied the Territory’s bitumen from a plant opposite Fort Hill Wharf, Coogee Chemicals still operated their acid storage facility close by, and Shell, Caltex, Mobile and BP still received all their fuel supplies over at the old Iron Ore Wharf. Old Fort Hill Wharf stood there condemned, the old sheds were still there and, at low tide, the mud stretched out from Kitchener Bay almost to Stokes Hill Wharf. Cruise ship and Navy R&R visits competed with live cattle and break bulk and container vessels for access to the wharves. Sadly, Territorians and visitors alike were excluded from much of the other area.
At the same time, Darwin city itself was transforming with new commercial and residential projects and maturing parklands. However, our wonderful harbour sat alone with the old industrial site constraining any ambition people had in reconnecting to the harbour. This project will give Darwin a special place down at the waterfront and one which will contribute to the lifestyle of all Territorians.
Territorians have much to look forward to as the Darwin City Waterfront unfolds. The Darwin convention centre will be the iconic heart of the waterfront development; its on-water location will provide a dramatic backdrop for future events, and I am sure that Territorians will grow to love the new building. Both its design and location will prove to be great attributes in marketing the Darwin convention centre in the national and international conventions and exhibitions marketplace. The main spin-off will be a significant increase in business tourism to the Territory. The Alice Springs Convention Centre has experienced that already, and this facility will do likewise. It is well accepted that convention centres only capture a fraction of the revenue they generate, and there is no doubt that this centre will generate demand across the tourism and hospitality sector in the form of airline seats, hotel rooms, tours, meals, taxis and souvenirs, to name just a few. Importantly, the centre will also be a means of continuing our push to promote the sophistication of Territory business to a national and international audience.
The convention centre operators will be Ogden IFC. They have opened an office in Darwin and have appointed Malu Barrios as their local manager. Ogden have extensive experience in this field; they currently manage a range of centres across Australia including the Brisbane and Cairns Convention Centres and Suncorp Stadium, as well as the new convention centre in Kuala Lumpur. In partnership with government, they have commenced their pre-opening marketing aimed at securing new events for Darwin, and have already indicated there is strong interest in booking events once the centre opens in 2008. In the run-up to the official opening of the centre in early 2008, Ogden will start the process of recruiting Territorians to fill the new permanent and casual positions needed to run a successful convention and exhibition centre.
Darwin convention centre will be a striking part of the city landscape and will draw people to Darwin who previously may have never contemplated a visit here. It will also be a new option for our larger local events where the only real option currently is to hold those events at outdoor locations. Both Ogden and the government anticipate that the Darwin convention centre, with 4000 m2 of exhibition space protected from the elements, will be a catalyst for the development of a number of new local events over time.
Water is the drawcard for this development. It will bring people back into the city and be a key feature of precinct-wide events designed to celebrate living in the Territory. Territorians will be able to swim all year round at the wave pool. The final design is being developed, but I can assure you it will be something really special with around 3000 m2 of pool and a variety of wave types that will be suitable for all ages. Children will be able to play in the lagoon created by the sea wall and indulge in a variety of water sports. Various watercraft will be a feature of the lagoon, along with yachts anchored at a short distance away in the marina linked to the residential development. For those not so keen on water, the beach will provide a great place to sit or lie back and watch the world go by or, if you are feeling more active, a game of beach volleyball or cricket.
Shade is a crucial element in our tropical climate; it brings comfort and relief during the harsher periods of the year. Shade will be a key component of the planning and building of walkways and the precinct as a whole. The waterfront will offer Territorians substantial areas of new parklands, providing recreational areas, performance spaces, and a variety of sites to reflect on our heritage and culture. In time, these areas will complement the existing parks in the remainder of the city, and we all expect to see families rushing to their favourite spot of an evening or on a weekend, just as they do now at East Point, Nightcliff, Casuarina and the Esplanade. We will also have the opportunity to bring a blanket or deckchair to the waterfront to either listen to or watch a variety of music sessions or public performances from the soundshell, a key element of the parklands development in Stage 1.
The connection between the city and the harbour will also be a great drawcard for tourists visiting Darwin. In much the same way as Southbank does for Brisbane, or Darling Harbour for Sydney, the Darwin City Waterfront will be a great place to have fun and relax within the city.
The cultural plan for the precinct will bring together the art, history and heritage of the area, creating points of interest for visitors and locals alike. We have guaranteed the presence of public art and the developer has agreed to invest 1% of the project cost on achieving this. From the outset, provision of integrated public art as a part of the waterfront project was a priority. We funded the appointment of a public arts consultant to prepare and deliver a public art and culture master plan. This cultural plan was delivered in late 2005 and provides a vision, framework and strategies for the integration of a range of art and cultural strategies for the waterfront development. The vision is for art to be a big part of the public domain, and places have been designed to cater for both permanent and temporary installations, as well as art exhibitions and the performing arts. We will talk to the arts and cultural sector to make sure their views and expertise are incorporated.
Cities located alongside great harbours try to build as many connections as possible with the water for the enjoyment of their people. I believe it is fair to say that Darwin does not offer enough opportunities for both locals and visitors to our city. Darwin City Waterfront will change that dramatically. Firstly, the shaded linkage from the mall to the edge of the waterfront will take people to a new bridge over the escarpment. We want this walkway to celebrate the rich heritage of the area through interpretation, and we want it to be aesthetically pleasing and complement the existing design of the Smith Street mall. The budget is $1.5m and construction is scheduled to start in mid-2006 and will be timed to minimise impact on current users of Smith Street. From the bridge, the shaded theme continues down to the waterfront. Once there, Territorians and visitors alike can wander along the seawall promenade, or around Stokes Hill, or through Goyder’s Park to the harbour edge near the old Iron Ore Wharf and the Deckchair Cinema.
The first meeting of the steering committee consisting of key stakeholders was held in January to ensure all parties are consulted on the overall concept development and design. The Darwin Cove Consortium has appointed HASSELL as the Smith Street connection architect. HASSELL is currently contacting stakeholders to determine issues and seek input before preparing a design concept for consideration by the steering committee. The work will well and truly be completed before the opening of Stage 1.
Stage 1 of the project will see approximately 138 new residential units constructed in the first development. I understand there has been strong market interest in these units, even though the formal marketing efforts are not yet under way. Over time, around 1300 more units will be constructed as the site is built out over the next 10 to 15 years. When that occurs, the population of Darwin CBD will have increased by around another 3000 people, either renting or working to pay off their inner city home. The benefits of such a substantial increase in inner city living will be good for all businesses in the city. It will also provide the important critical mass of people for the waterfront, ensuring vitality day in and day out, all year round. It will be a great place to live - a marina similar to the one at Cullen Bay, a vista across one of the world’s great harbours, and architecture in tune with the location and climate. I can imagine that both sunrise and sunset will be spectacular from key vantage spots across the precinct.
Stage 1 will also include a new hotel constructed for the Madina Hotel Group, a part of the TOGA Group of companies. It will service part of the accommodation demand for the convention centre and also add further depth to the accommodation market across the city. In addition, there will be a range of commercial spaces developed for retail and hospitality and a restaurant by the water. Every shop, restaurant and business will create new jobs for Territorians.
When Territorians drive down to the waterfront precinct in early 2008, they will see a new dual lane McMinn Street entrance to the precinct and have the choice of parking on the street or in the new multi-storey car park. Overflow parking will also be available above the escarpment in the city where people can then use the linkages into the precinct to access all the features I have just mentioned. It is important to restate, once again, that access to Stokes Hill Wharf will continue as it is today. If people are interested in viewing the latest cruise ship to visit Darwin or are lucky enough to be sailing, the new cruise ship terminal adjacent to Fort Hill Wharf will be what greets them. Passengers from these ships can choose to visit great tourist sites of the Territory or just spill into the waterfront and the rest of the CBD via pedestrian links, and make the most of our city. I just add that watching the Aurora leaving Darwin tonight about an hour ago was a spectacular sight in the sunset. It really is a most impressive ship.
The waterfront project is an integrated development. It is diverse and has something for everyone. This creates opportunities across the board. That is the key strength of the work that was first started some years back - high quality strategic thinking combined with creative and innovative project delivery will deliver an exciting new dimension for Darwin and the Territory.
We are not getting ahead of ourselves; we know there is still a lot to do. However, we have also come a long way already. It is important to take stock and recognise the progress we are making. It is also a good opportunity to keep Territorians informed about how we are going and involved in the ongoing development. In fact, we have kept Territorians up-to-date on the project’s progress since day one. I can reaffirm today that we will continue to do so through the 10- to 15-year life of the project. Public information is available through the project office at 43 Mitchell Street and through our web site, e-newsletters and newspaper columns. The scale model is being amended to reflect changes that have occurred since the original concept was launched, and the arrangements for its public display will be finalised in the near future. There will also be additional opportunities for community comment as each element of the project goes through the full development approval process required of all projects in the Territory.
When Stage 1 of the project is complete, it will be important to have the most effective local government arrangements in place to manage the precinct. At the same time, it will be crucial to hit the ground running and make sure that we have an exciting range of events, festivals and performances in place and linkages into wider activities across the Top End. I have previously advised this House that we intend to create a statutory corporation to fulfil this role. I can now tell you that legislation will be introduced for this purpose in the near future so that the corporation can be in place to receive community assets and commence all the necessary planning for a new community in early 2008. The key function of the corporation will be to own and manage land in the precinct and other property; promote the precinct and encourage people to live in it and visit; manage the parks and public spaces; carry out all necessary works, repairs and maintenance; work with the Territory government and Darwin City Council on the interface between the precinct and the wider city of Darwin; and take on all functions of a municipal council.
Darwin City Waterfront is an ambitious project and one this government is proud to have developed. It sits firmly within the true tradition of economic development in the Territory. It is now becoming a reality before our eyes. Darwin City Waterfront will bring real tangible change to Darwin when Stage 1 is complete in 2008 and ongoing economic stimulus for many years after. In time, this development will add to our growing reputation around Australia and internationally as a modern, dynamic and exciting city. Importantly, it will delivery lifestyle infrastructure and new jobs for Territorians. In just two-and-a-half years this project has gone from a concept to the exciting work in progress which we see today. Stage 1 including the Darwin convention centre, sea wall, lagoon, wave pool, parklands, promenades, hotel apartments, and retail and commercial spaces will be up and running in two short years, in early 2008.
Mr Deputy Speaker, it is an exciting time to be in the Territory. I certainly commend this statement to the House. I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the Chief Minister for her statement. I say at the outset that the CLP supports the development of the waterfront because, naturally enough, it was the CLP that planned to build it. Any criticisms we have about government in the course of this project should not be twisted and spun into ‘the CLP does not support this project’.
I see the member for Wanguri laughing. I do not know him well, but I suspect he does have a bit of sense of humour, and I know that sometimes he cannot even spin with a straight face.
It is the case that the CLP supports this. I still have the old diagrams upstairs if you want to have a look at them. It is an interesting picture that the Chief Minister paints. She puts on the radio voice and it is all sweetness and light, and families are sitting there happily at the waterfront. What she did not say is: ‘Oh well, under the Alcohol Court Bill, we will have all the drunks fixed up by then so if there are mums and dads sitting there you will not be humbugged by drunks; you will not have people falling around people’s legs; you will not need to step over the drunks as you are going to the waterfront’. We hope that that is the outcome of the alcohol court and other legislation, although we fear it will not be. Yes, the waterfront is a wonderful development - certainly has the potential to be a wonderful development. However, when the Chief Minister talks about our great Territory lifestyle she deliberately, in my view, concentrates on part of it with her fingers crossed behind her back, no doubt thinking to herself: ‘Oh God, I hope the drunks will not go down there. Oh God, I hope the drunks will not humbug everybody’. We feel that they will.
Notwithstanding those comments, I want to make it abundantly clear that we support it. The Chief Minister made mention in her statement of keeping people informed. It is appropriate, in the first sittings in 2006, that she brings this statement forward. However, the Chief Minister is always a bit twitchy about money. I will make some observations about that shortly. The Chief Minister said that she wants to keep people informed. Can you at least, Chief Minister, keep Territorians informed of the costs because they seem to be growing?
There are two major difficulties, as we see it at this stage with the project, and that is that it is a moving feast in two areas – first, in respect to design, and second, in relation to taxpayers’ exposure. We are now hearing in the language of government that this project will force deficit budgets for the next few years - not something that was put about prior to the election, or when we had all the glossy brochures printed, something about which Labor had a great deal to say prior to 2001. If the Chief Minister is going to be fair dinkum about keeping Territorians informed, please keep Territorians informed about the ongoing costs of this development. Those costs are clearly going to be significant.
The deficit budget for the next few years was not what was originally promised or contemplated by government on original projections of whether this project could be done from within the resources of government while they returned surplus budgets. Members will recall Budget Paper No 2 of 2002-03 and 2003-04 outlined our old friend the debt reduction strategy. Members on the Labor side will remember it, albeit distantly. There is a quote from page 23 of the 2003-04 budget which referred to:
- a commitment to a balanced budget through continuation of the deficit reduction strategy; and
I note that in the Chief Minister’s statement she referred to the road being widened, but the Chief Minister did not say how much that cost, and she also did not say who paid for it. It does not appear to be on the original design plans and, therefore, it is an extra - and what an expensive extra it must be. Clearly, the taxpayer paid for it. I suspect the minister who is going to talk next may know about this because it may have come from his budget - or certainly the sewerage headworks would have. We will need to be looking, as Territorians will need to be looking, pretty much across the agencies to see who is picking up the tabs for various works. If the Chief Minister wants to keep Territorians informed, then tell them who is paying for what, and how it boils down to the bottom line of how much this project is going to cost.
There is some ongoing concern in some quarters that the government was so desperate to say that it was going to build something prior to the last election that, perhaps, it was not in a stronger negotiating position, and the consortium partners were then able to increasingly get deals in their favour. That is, of course, the nature of any commercial negotiations. The word in some quarters in Darwin - and I have talked about this before - is that government did not negotiate as hard as it should have. Why is that significant? Because it means that the money spent by Territorians, or paid for by Territorians, has increased, and they would expect the government to go in hard and negotiate well on their behalf.
In relation to some design areas – and I would be grateful if the Chief Minister would comment on this and anything else I have had to say in her reply - there is now a marina and the lagoon. However, the problem is we do not know where the new marina is. It is not on the web site for either the government or the consortium so, if someone can tell us where the marina is, that would be good. In fact, the photograph on the consortium’s web site shows a ‘future representation’ of the water inside the sea wall with boats tied up alongside the outside of the sea wall. That could be interesting because it begs the question: does that mean the marina is outside the sea wall? If so, it will be subject to the 7 m tides, and the boats that are apparently floating around happily might look a bit different if some of them fall over. Elaboration on that would be good and, of course, why it is that the marina does not appear on the web site. It may be that nothing swings on it. That is fine but, given that the Chief Minister regards this statement as something of an information package for the benefit of Territorians, then that is not an unreasonable question to ask.
The promise of the retrofitted lock has apparently disappeared. The lock seems to be an ongoing issue but, no doubt, the Chief Minister will talk about that in the course of her reply. I hope she does.
They are just some of the observations we make. This is a project that, given this concept called commercial-in-confidence, members of the opposition and other Territorians cannot get access to. I make no comment about that. It just simply means that it makes the opposition’s role quite difficult when it comes to prosecuting various points that should be made on behalf of Territorians. No government is beyond reproach and all governments should, quite rightly, be questioned on pretty much everything they do. However, given the magnitude of this development, you would expect us as an opposition and Territorians, generally, to ask questions. Some of the questions might be uncomfortable. Well, do not shoot the messenger in the course of a reply or, indeed, a reply to any future questions; treat our questions on behalf of Territorians in the way that you think they deserve because, through the opposition, we pass on information to so many people in the Northern Territory. You cannot, on the one hand, say: ‘We are going to keep people informed’, but on the other say: ‘We will only tell you about the good bits and only give you the good bits of mums and dads sitting there having a nice time’.
This is a significant project, one which is clearly supported by the CLP. However, please do not think that you are beyond questioning; it is incumbent upon us to question. Some of the commercial arrangements are very complex, and the financial structures are also complex, not unlike the railway, I suppose, in that general sense. That did not stop Labor when it was in opposition asking questions. All of us, as individuals, need to ensure that we get a good night’s sleep so we, sensibly, will ask these sorts of questions. I ask the Chief Minister to take some of the matters I have raised and, in particular, a number of the matters that I know my colleague, the member for Blain will raise, seriously and reply to them sensibly. The member for Blain will talk about the nature of public/private partnership arrangements and I look forward to his contribution in that regard.
Once again, thank you for this statement, Chief Minister; it is timely. It is important that you keep this parliament informed, but please do not give us just the good bits, the happy snaps. Please give us the real information that we, on behalf of Territorians, should receive. It is not your money, or your waterfront; it is Territorians’ money and the waterfront belongs to everyone in the Northern Territory.
Dr BURNS (Planning and Lands): Mr Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to take this opportunity to inform the House of progress on the Darwin City Waterfront development. Before I do so, I express my profound sympathy and condolences to the family, friends and co-workers of Mr Cameron Bradley who tragically died a couple of weeks ago in the workplace within that particular project. I am sure all members join with me in extending those condolences, and regard the loss of life in the workplace as an unacceptable tragedy.
The waterfront is a fantastic project. I am incredibly enthusiastic about the project. I became even more so when I had cause to visit Townsville and Cairns, along with you, Mr Deputy Speaker, to look at, firstly in Townsville, the treatment of open spaces along The Strand - that is going to be an important part of the waterfront development here - and also the Convention Centre in Cairns. I recommend that to any members in the House.
It is great to see that facility in Cairns. It is very similar in scale to the one that will be built here. Its function is a little different, in that half of it is used for fixture games for the NBL. Government thought very clearly about why we are going to preserve approximately half of our floor space as an exhibition centre, which would be suitable for some fixtures of basketball, but not purpose built. It makes more possibilities for exhibitions, for large meals and banquets, etcetera, so there has been a bit of thought and market research go in there. It was great to see this modern facility in Cairns with the art work there, to visit the kitchens, to find out about the work behind the scenes within a convention centre, and the type of conventions that are attracted to Cairns. It is also great that the same company will be running the convention centre here. With the connections that they have, with both national and international conventions, will send a lot of business our way to the Territory. It was a great experience for me, and I suggest to any member in the House to have a look at that particular facility, how it operates, and what a plus it is for the city of Cairns.
The Leader of the Opposition talked about previous government’s plans for waterfront development. The plans that the previous government had, as I have seen them, really do not compare to a modern convention and exhibition centre development, as you see in Cairns and as will be built in Darwin. To some degree, we are not comparing apples with apples. The previous government may well have had a proposal, an idea, a concept, however, what is taking shape down there is very much different and it is very contemporary. It is in tune with the market and the people who are very experienced in operating convention centres and in attracting conventions. I do not think we should dwell there too long; let us move on. Let us look at what has to be built here: a modern convention centre which will be a great asset, as the Chief Minister said, to the people of Darwin and for the Darwin economy.
Before I move on to talk about the nuts and bolts of the project - the Chief Minister certainly has had a lead in developing the project and bringing it to fruition - my job as Minister for Infrastructure and Transport is to ensure that the project goes smoothly, that any risks or liabilities that government might have during that process are minimised, that it is managed well from a government perspective, and that the project comes to completion and is what government wants and has asked for. I see my role as attending to the detail, making sure that the incredible detail that is associated with the works that are going on there all fit together and are going on smoothly. I will go through some of that detail soon.
The Opposition Leader talked about the fact that there will be two deficit budgets associated with the construction of the waterfront project. That is quite true. She seemed to say it just dropped out of the box in the last couple of weeks. Well, if she went to the budget from May last year, she would see that the waterfront project was built into the May budget. It is not as if government is trying to hide something about the financials to do with this waterfront; they are there in the budget and the forward estimates. In terms of departmental responsibilities, they are there within the budget and also recorded in the Treasurer’s Mid-Year Financial Report. It is all in there.
In contrast to the previous government, when they were running into deficit budgets it was not about investment and infrastructure. Unfortunately, the previous government’s deficits were coming about because of ballooning recurrent expenditure. That is why this government, after surplus budgets over the past three budgets, is very intent on carefully managing the economy of the Territory and the Territory government budget. We are looking at recurrent expenditure. We are also looking at our capital works expenditure, and are managing that, in stark contrast to the CLP, particularly in their last term of government where they just let things get out of control. They were raiding every hollow log they could find, and their recurrent expenditure, the famous ‘crocodile jaws’, was a big menace to them. That is the difference in this government’s management of the budget and the previous government’s management.
The waterfront project has captured the interest of numerous Territorians. If you go down to the wharf precinct you often see people looking back to the city watching all the activity on site. I was privileged to visit the site early this month to look at the pad for the convention and exhibition centre as it reached a stage of practical completion. The mudflats have been dredged away and replaced with thousands of tonnes of landfill and armour rock. Work on the sea wall is now well under way, and piling for the convention centre will soon begin.
This is the public face of the project but, behind the scenes, some important milestones have been reached since the project achieved financial close in May last year. These have paved the way for the construction of the convention and exhibition centre, the sea wall and other community infrastructure, as well as the hospitality precinct and the first residential buildings which collectively comprise Stage 1 of the project. I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that there will be a lock. I do not know what pictures of boats she has been looking at, but everything will be catered for there, and this project is being well managed.
Amongst the milestones are, firstly, the sign-off of the remediation action plan by the independent contaminated land auditor on 9 August 2005. This plan provides:
- a blueprint for how any contaminants encountered on the site will be dealt with immediately and into the future;
the completion of the construction and environmental management plan framework by the consortium members. This provides the overarching plan that all contractors and developers must follow when undertaking work on the site to achieve the objectives of the EIS, the remediation action plan, and various conditions and plans required by the Development Consent Authority;
the establishment of Macmahon’s site facilities in September 2005, including offices and amenities, the access roads, a truck wheel wash-down facility and creation of the stockpile area for fill and rock armour for the convention centre, pad and the sea wall. The stockpile has enabled a steady flow of material to be trucked to the site allowing work to continue over the Christmas break when road train operations were suspended;
- I compliment Macmahon’s for the smooth operation in delivering that fill and armour rock onto the site with as little disruption as they could to motorists. As the road crosses the entrance to the wharf, their traffic control on that particular section has been exemplary and there has been a smooth conduct of trucks onto the site allowing traffic to get onto the wharf. Their traffic management plan and the people working there have done an exemplary job;
- the completion of the new bund wall at East Arm in September 2005 to create a new settlement pond for dredged material and the mobilisation and commissioning of the dredge booster pumps and pipeline from the waterfront to East Arm;
the completion of the identification and removal of metal objects and other potential unexploded ordnance from the marine areas of the site including the DCEC footprint on 27 September 2005. In fact, the dredging of silt from the convention and exhibition centre pad is now complete, as is the drenching of marine mud from the residential area one. The dredge has now moved towards Fort Hill Wharf and is removing marine mud to a depth of 14 m for the sea wall foundation;
a $2.1m contract was awarded to BMD Civil Contractors in December for construction of subsoil cut-off drains. This forms a significant component of the environment strategy to ensure groundwater is intercepted, and any hydrocarbons from the site are separated as to prevent contamination of the lagoon and the harbour. There has been some quite complex engineering going on here so that the water is channelled into the cut-off drains, and channelled away. This is a very important part of the remediation and control of the site;
the tender and award of the $1.9m contract to Wolpers Grahl Pty Ltd in November for the upgrade of works in McMinn Street. This is part of government’s commitment to provide a primary access road to the development site to a suitable standard, and will involve widening McMinn Street to a dual carriageway and upgrading services and landscaping to provide improved entry to the waterfront site. Work on McMinn Street is scheduled to be completed in June; and
the tender and award of a $1.7m contract to local company, Advance Civil Engineering Pty Ltd in December for the installation of a water main. The new water main will provide increased capacity of the precinct, ensuring continuity of water supply for residential and business purposes, and provide adequate water volumes for firefighting requirements. Work on the water main commenced earlier this month and will be complete by the end of June.
The consortium is progressing the design of both the convention and exhibition centre and the community infrastructure components as follows.
Engineering design for the sea wall and breakwater is complete.
The design development of the convention and exhibition centre has been reviewed by government officers and is now being moved into a detailed design of development and documentation. Importantly, this review provides a mechanism through which government can be satisfied that all functional and design elements required in the project deeds have been incorporated in the design and that the convention and exhibition centre operator is receiving a facility which meets expectations and is fit for purpose. Detailed design of the convention and exhibition centre is on track for completion by mid-2006.
The concept design for the wave pool and water recreation area has been improved. This involved changing the orientation of the wave pool for better interface with other public areas, and was approved by the Development Consent Authority in November. This paves the way for the details of the design development and documentation which is currently under way. The wave pool will cover an area of 3000 m and will provide waves of up to 1.2 m, offering a range of experiences for boogie board riders as well as safe swimming areas for families.
A revised concept design for the public domain incorporating the improved water recreation layout was also approved by the DCA in November.
The hospitality precinct developer, TOGA, will shortly be announcing a design competition inviting local architects to design the restaurant which will complement public amenities, and an open performance space. This is an exciting opportunity for local architects not currently involved with the consortium to take part in the design of a significant feature of the development.
Design of civil works such as roads, sewers, electrical and other site services is well under way. The first meeting of all parties involved in the Smith Street connection was held in January to ensure all relevant groups are consulted on the overall concept and design of this important element of the development.
A number of permits have already been issued to the Darwin Cove Consortium by the Development Consent Authority, and others are pending. As is the usual process with the Development Consent Authority, each development application was open to public comment and, in each instance, interested parties were able to attend DCA hearings. It is important to emphasise here that, despite some of the nay saying of the opposition during the last sittings regarding process, DCA and timelines, everything which has been done in this development has been done along statutory time lines and in line with statutory processes. There has been no shortcutting or short-circuiting of statutory processes in any of this; and it has all been open to the public to comment on. I completely refute any assertion by the opposition or anyone that this has not been an open and transparent process of consultation with the public.
Development permits issued so far include a permit for marine infrastructure works including the construction of the sea wall and dredging in the vicinity of Kitchener Bay. Four variation permits have also been issued: one to allow the realignment of the sea wall, one to allow minor additional dredging and earthworks associated with the first finger wharf; one to allow dredging operations to be undertaken 24 hours, seven days a week; and one to allow the use of McMinns Street intersection for works associated with the construction of remediation cut-off drains. A fifth variation for changes to the required earthworks to reflect proposed changes to the community infrastructure is pending subject to submission of documentation by the applicant, Macmahon NT.
There is also a permit for community infrastructure works, including public parklands, water play areas, a pedestrian bridge link, and multi-storey and service parking facilities which have been issued. Two variation permits have also been issued. One is to allow the permit to better reflect the project construction time frames, and remove perceived ambiguities. A second variation to revise the layout of recreation areas is pending subject to the submission of amended plans by the applicant, Macmahon NT. There is also a permit for the Darwin convention and exhibition centre which was issued on 6 October 2005. A variation permit was issued in November to allow the removal of the previously proposed construction staging area access by McMinn Street, and changes to construction hours to allow large concrete pours to occur overnight, except on Friday, Saturday or Sunday nights.
There is also a permit for Stage 1 hospitality development comprising a serviced apartment hotel complex, commercial areas and a budget accommodation operation. This was issued in December. There is also a permit for the Stage 1 residential development comprising 138 residential units and commercial areas at ground and first-floor level, which was also issued in December. There is also a development application for the construction of a lock, and this was considered by the DCA at its meeting on 7 September 2005. The granting of a permit is pending subject to submission of additional information and amended plans. Other development applications anticipated to allow the full development of Stage 1 include those for the waterfront restaurant and performance amphitheatre, and a Stage 1 mixed use parking reduction.
Local industry participation is a critical element of the waterfront development, and it is taken very seriously by this government. The consortium partners are required, under the project development deeds, to implement local industry participation plans. These plans set targets of 85% expenditure on local contractors and suppliers. Stage 1 alone will see about $300m in construction expenditure within the local economy. This is important for government, as we want to ensure that Territorians get their fair share of work on the waterfront project.
Most of the consortium main partners and consultants are Territory companies which have a strong commitment to growing the Territory’s economy and building local capacity. These partners include the Sitzler/Barclay Mowlem Joint Venture, Macmahon NT, which was formerly Henry Walker Eltin, HASSELL, Connell Mott MacDonald, MKEA Architects and Knight Frank. It makes sense to use local contractors who have a track record of working on local projects and who understand the unique challenges of working in the Top End.
To this end, I was pleased to present the opening address at the waterfront industry briefing held at SKYCITY in November. A large number of representatives from a broad range of industries attended …
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, I move an extension of time to allow my colleague to complete his remarks, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Dr BURNS: Thank you, Madam Speaker. A large number of representatives from a broad range of industries attended to hear how they can become involved in the Darwin City Waterfront project. The briefing included presentations from key staff of the waterfront project office within the Department of Planning and Infrastructure, as well as the consortium partners and the Northern Territory Industry Capability Network. I was pleased to attend and open those particular presentations. The briefing provided important information for local industry, and for anyone who missed it, all the presentations are available on the Darwin City Waterfront web site, which is www.waterfront.nt.gov.au.
The first major contracts relating to the waterfront development were awarded to Wagners NT and Gulf Transport whose road trains have been bringing 500 000 m3 of land fill and 120 000 tonnes of armour rock to the waterfront site since October. Gulf Transport has been bringing the armour rock from Mt Bundy, while Wagners have transported the fill from the Darwin Business Park. The multiplier effect of these contracts is significant. New drivers have been employed and the haulage companies have, in turn, awarded contracts to suppliers such as Australian Fuel Distributors and Gulf Transport, as a joint venture with Halkitis Brothers at Mt Bundy, where Gulf will drill, blast, sort and crush the rock. Maintenance is being undertaken at Gulf Transport’s workshop at Coonawarra Road, Winnellie. Contracts have been awarded to suppliers such as ABS for tyres and brakes, DAC Enterprises for plant hire, Paul Lewis Electric for electrical plant, crushers and screens, and Corroboree Tavern for accommodation and meals. Wagners NT is using six road trains from its fleet to cart fill from the Darwin Business Park and is also engaging the services of other Territory carriers to meet demand. Wagners NT staff of 40 has been boosted by another 10 drivers for the contract. All fuel, oil, tyres and spare parts are being procured locally.
As I have already mentioned, a number of other contracts have been awarded to local companies to undertake road works, install a water main and install the subsoil drain. More recently, a contract to undertake soil and water validation and testing for Stage 1 of the project was awarded to URS Australia, which has established an office in Darwin. URS personnel have worked with the contaminated land auditor previously on the waterfront project and are familiar with the testing work that is required. Testing began in early January and will continue over a period of eight months, with the option to extend beyond that time if required. The awarding of this contract, valued at $1.2m, to a local office is significant. It indicates that, for future major developments in the Northern Territory, local firms will be in a position to provide this testing service.
In addition to the $94.6m that government will invest in the community infrastructure, which is to be delivered with the project delivery deed, government has also awarded $5.7m-worth of contracts to local companies for headworks and remediation work, a boon for these Territory businesses. However, it must be stressed that work on the waterfront project is not a given. Companies wanting to win contracts will have to demonstrate that they are competitive, they have the appropriate quality standards, and they have the financial credentials and capacity to deliver on time and on budget. The consortium will work closely with the Northern Territory Industry Capability Network to get information on local companies with the capability to deliver on packages. In many cases, tenders will be packaged to suit the local market. Territory companies should ensure they are registered with the capability network to give them a better chance of being asked to quote on supply and service packages.
The consortium members are not precluded from awarding tenders from interstate companies for specialised work, or if their tenders are more competitive, although, there are financial penalties applicable should the consortium partners fail to reach the 85% target for the local industry participation.
Given the commitment and goodwill shown by the waterfront partners, as well as the Territory’s previous experience of major projects such as the AustralAsia Railway and the LNG plant at Wickham Point, I am confident that the consortium partners will not only meet these targets but exceed them. After all, many companies have grown on the back of those previous projects, putting them in the good position to tender for this new development. For example, Barclay Mowlem reached local industry participation rates of about 95% on the Mitchell Centre and TIO building. A similar level of success was achieved by Barclay Mowlem on the Palmerston Health Centre project where they achieved the local participation rate of 98%. The consortium signed a heads of agreement with the Larrakia Corporation, the Territory Construction Association and the Northern Land Council to provide meaningful employment and training for indigenous people. The first step in delivering on this commitment will be announced shortly when Sitzler/Barclay Mowlem take on four apprentices as a result of the agreement. The exciting thing about this agreement is that the waterfront project provides enough additional work to justify taking on these apprentices who can work on a range of projects as they earned their trade qualification, providing a long-term response to the Territory skill shortages.
I am pleased to say that trade contracts for locals are already starting to emerge. Structural steel packages will be sized to ensure local fabricators have the capacity to do the work. Air conditioning design and construct work is to be carried by Queensland company, AE Smith. However, most of their work, such as duct supply work and installation, is likely to be subcontracted to local companies. Other subcontracts will be available for chilled water installations, switchboard manufacture and installation, and electrical installation associated with mechanical equipment. Neilsen Electric, along with AE Smith, has been involved in the waterfront bid from the beginning and will do the electrical work for the convention centre. A Darwin company, Project Plumbing, will also be responsible for plumbing.
A number of local design professionals are also heavily involved in this project. These include the Darwin offices of engineers, Connell Wagner and its group of companies, and also Connell Mott MacDonald is engaged to Sitzler/Barclay Mowlem for the design of the convention exhibition centre, fire, engineering and civil works. CWDC Pty Ltd has engaged Macmahon NT for the detailed design and development of the community infrastructure work for the provision of traffic, civil and marine and structural hydraulic services as well as mechanical, electrical communications, lighting and fire protection, engineering and desktop geotechnical studies. This particular company has recruited and relocated staff from Adelaide and Brisbane to Darwin to undertake the immediate design tasks.
Most of the HASSELL architects are still working out of Sydney and travelling regularly into Darwin. However, as the project gets closer to the bricks and mortar stage HASSELL’s Darwin office is taking on an increasing role.
The public art and culture consultant has developed a strategy to incorporate art and culture in its various forms within this development, and that is very laudable. Darwin architectural firm, MKEA Architects, is the principal architect for the design documentation of the cruise ship terminal to be located near the eastern link jetty of Fort Hill Wharf. MKEA is currently progressing the detailed design following analysis of stakeholder and security requirements which will affect the final design.
As the Chief Minister outlined in her statement, the site is a former mixed-use industrial site which has been subject to a variety of contaminants over the time, mainly fuel products. The remediation is following well-established processes proven around Australia and we have commissioned URS environmental consultants to conduct field validation testing to meet the requirements of the environmental auditor. All work undertaken by individual developers will be conducted in accordance with construction environment management plans approved by the Office of Environment and Heritage and the environmental auditor. There is a remediation action plan and this identifies the scope of remediation to be undertaken for each element of the project. The auditor has been involved throughout the investigation and management plan preparation stages and will have a continuous monitoring role during the Stage 1 works which include excavation, treatment, and re-use and or treatment of the soil. We are paying a lot of attention to the environment and environmental requirements there. We have an independent auditor looking at that process, and we will be delivering a top class project at the end of the day.
Therefore, 2006 is going to be a significant year for this particular project with a number of milestones being met. I am taking an active interest in this project. I am incredibly enthusiastic about it, as I said, particularly after visiting the Cairns centre. I see my role as attending to the detail of the project to ensuring that the project runs smoothly.
Madam Speaker, I support the Chief Minister in her statement. It was the vision and the energy of the Chief Minister and the Department of the Chief Minister that brought this project to fruition. The baton has been passed to me to an extent and I intend to attend to that detail and make sure that this project comes in on time and on budget, and surpasses the expectations of Territorians who I think will be thrilled with the project in its finished form. It is going to be a great project for tourism in the Territory. It is already a great project for the economy in the Territory. I endorse the Chief Minister’s statement wholeheartedly.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, unfortunately, I cannot muster the same level of enthusiasm. At the outset of the former speaker’s contribution, he made reference to the visit to Cairns and Townsville and urged honourable members to go and have a look. I have done that a couple of times. Yes, it is worth a look.
I have also seen the glossy brochures and the scale model. However, what Territorians have not seen is the nature of the deal that we have been signed up to by this government. That is where I will be focusing my attention. In the light of current developments, particularly in public/private partnerships, there is a greater need than ever for clear disclosure as to the level of financial risk that the Territory is exposed to. I can understand that these matters may not draw the same level of enthusiasm as the former speaker, but they should because the deals that we are tied up to today will satisfy a short-term objective: being able to establish a major project. We will have achieved something and the glory and the brilliance of that great achievement will reflect directly on the architects, the current government - away they go, ride off into the sunset, name on a plaque or whatever.
However, the financial underpinnings of this deal will extend well beyond the term of a current government. That is why it is so important to have a greater level of accountability and transparency within this deal and the underpinnings of this deal. Simply put, we need to know the nature of the financial arrangements and obligations which will be carried by Territorians into the future. That is where I will be focusing my comments.
I draw honourable members’ attention to a very interesting article produced for the Australian Journal of Public Administration, December 2004. The article was entitled, ‘The risky business of public-private partnerships’. Those who listen to what is recorded here will have reason for concern and, out of this, may come genuine questions. They are genuine questions that, on behalf of Territorians, will warrant genuine answers. I will be quoting a couple of passages from this article. The author is Professor Graeme A Hodge, Director of Privatisation and Public Accountability Centre, Faculty of Law, Monash University in Melbourne. Going to the end of his paper, he analyses the current trend of what he describes as ‘third way governments’. That is governments where it is hard to tell whether they are actually Liberal or Labor; they are all fighting for this middle ground. Tony Blair is a good example of that.
The current Labor government is also, if you talk to the true believers. They are not sure whether this is a Labor government, or endeavouring to stand in some spot that was once occupied by a CLP government, because there is hardly any difference. That is a trend that is happening right around the world. Out of that trend has come PPPs, a new and modern way. However, the gloss has come off in recent times, as the Chief Minister undoubtedly has been aware of the dramas that have confronted Premier Iemma and, also, what have recently been brought to bear upon the former premier of Western Australia, Dr Geoff Gallop, who is, I must say, a relative of mine - but that aside.
The PPPs have exposed some problem. I will use, at this point in commencement of my comments, some words from this article ‘The risky business of public-private partnerships’:
- PPPs are the latest chapter in the privatisation of government services. Although having evolved from traditional contracts, they are quite different in that private finance is used. They typically involve complex contractual arrangements, and they also eschew different governance and accountability arrangements. PPPs may have the potential to provide infrastructure at a more reasonable price than comparative delivery through either the public sector or traditional contract arrangements, but experience to date has been mixed in Australia. Governments have tended to view the use of PPPs as a purchasing device and, with the objective of quick delivery, have risked due process and adequate public policy consideration in doing so.
The professor goes on to say:
- The real risk associated with this PPP, however, is judged not so much to be in the commercial domain, where risks were carefully defined and managed, but in the governance domain where government neglected traditional checks and balances afforded to major projects. Commercial and governance risks were confused. The real price paid by citizens for the private sector to bear these risks remains unclear. All purchases of infrastructure deals leave citizens open to political and commercial trade-offs, as has been clearly demonstrated in New South Wales. It is critical, with the huge financial resources at stake in future PPPs, and with contract decisions covering dozens of future government terms, these contracts need not only to be optimal in the technical sense but also accompanied by a priority for democratic debate, transparency and clarity.
They are the words of a well qualified academic.
Moving to the New South Wales experience with PPPs, I quote from The Australian Financial Review, of Friday, 3 February. In the wash-up and exposure of the problems that were uncovered in the recent PPP with the tollway, I quote an article by Stephen Scott, headlined, ‘Bureaucrats can’t be trusted with PPPs’:
- ‘The New South Wales government would keep paying too much for infrastructure projects because most departments did not have expert staff capable of striking the best deal with the private sector’, the New South Wales financial watchdog said yesterday.
- … recommended that the government’s blueprint for public/private partnerships working with government guidelines should be given legislative force to ensure the government tabled contract summaries of all deals with the private sector in parliament within a short time frame. The government has been criticised for delaying the release of information about the controversial deals with the private sector …
There is very good reason for this argument, because there is much to do with the financial accountability aspects of this waterfront development that we are unclear of. There has been information provided, but it is of insufficient nature to allow a sense of genuine accountability, to be able to test the finances, the deals, the arrangements that lock citizens in for an extended period of time. We need this.
When the Auditor-General in New South Wales said that the capacity of bureaucrats - and I would have to say, elected officials - to understand these complex arrangements is deficient, you only have to hear the strength of the comments, generally, from members opposite who are promoting this, talking largely in terms of how wonderful it is going to look, and how excited they are that all these things are being put in place, we are going to have wave pools and walkways. You can see the picture. However, we need more than that. There is an indication always coming through that there is a lack of ability to grasp the technical aspects of this. I have been to briefings, and it is very complex business, but I only want to know, on behalf of Territorians, what we have been signed up to. I know we are going to get a nice waterfront, and it has an important part to play in the economic development of the Northern Territory, but what is the nature of the deal we have been signed up to? I will continue.
On many occasions, the opposition and others have sought direct information on the processes used to settle the terms of the development and the costs agreed to for the Territory’s liabilities. The opposition and Independents have, rightly, questioned matters regarding design, the environment and costings - it is the responsibility of opposition to do so - cost sharing, ownership, and the benefit to the community. We have constantly been seeking clear, concise information. The Chief Minister has said the government made its decision subsequent to proceeding to the marketplace to seek a partnership arrangement and, in September 2003, called for expressions of interest. After the appointment of the Darwin Cove Consortium, the Chief Minister said that this will be a public/private partnership. For the government’s contribution towards the convention centre and Stage 1 of the community infrastructure, they will leverage a $1.1bn investment in the Northern Territory. The public must take on board the point that government, on behalf of Territorians, is a joint venture partner in this project, through well-known public/private partnerships.
So, what do Territorians know of their government’s liabilities from this partnership process? We know about the wave pool and all the glossy stuff that we can see, touch and feel, however, we do not know about the nature of the deal.
Firstly, the consortium will build, own and operate the convention centre, and then it will be transferred after 25 years. The Chief Minister detailed the process as the consortium’s cost for the convention centre being $102.85m, and that payments will be made for the convention centre for establishment costs prior to opening the government-owned construction.
What costs? How many millions? The Territory availability payment will be $12m annually paid over 25 years. That amounts to $300m, which includes capital, financing costs, maintenance, operational support and incentive-based payments, which includes overall financial costs of about $3m per annum for operational support and, importantly, security will be assured as no payments are made until the convention centre work is completed and ready for use, thus making, in today’s dollars - bear in mind, in today’s dollars - in the case of the convention centre, a cost of $115m. That is just for the convention centre.
It seems fair to say that the Chief Minister has allowed the consortium to build the convention centre for $102.85m, and then government will pay its partners another $12m, thus bringing the total to $115m, even before the doors open.
Mr Martin: No, no. That is the repayments.
Mr MILLS: You will have your opportunity in closing, Chief Minister. Government will then continue to pay its partners $12m per year for 25 years, or some $300m for capital, financing costs, maintenance, operational support and incentive-based payments. That is what the Chief Minister has informed us.
But there is more. Built by the Sitzler/Barclay Mowlem joint venture, with private sector finance, design and construct maintenance and operation, and asset management by Honeywell, government will be paying its partners around $3m per annum for financing costs, included in the $12m per annum for the operational support. But wait - for the construction and maintenance of the convention centre, Territorians must also acquire: (1) $41.8m for dredging, chemical containment and a sea wall; (2) $7.7m for site power, sewer, communications and water infrastructure; (3) $3.7m for roads, car parks and traffic management; (4) $3.8m for pedestrian linkage to Smith Street; (5) $11.1m for wave pool and children’s water park facilities and shade; (6) $11.4m for public open space; (7) $9.1m for multi-level car parking adjacent to hospitality precinct; (8) $4.5m for cruise ship facilities; and finally, (9) $1.5m for an avenue of honour connecting Smith Street - all totalling $94.6m. More has been revealed in the course of this discussion.
There is one more direct cost to Territorians and that is the value of the land. The Chief Minister assured parliament that the Australian Valuation Office had valued the land at $26m, valued for 1200 units and some commercial properties. The formula was noted as being a return of, for Stage 1, 12% of gross residential sales on 138 apartments, and 10% of gross commercial sales yielding, say, about $10.4m, and, secondly, for Stage 2, 18% of gross residential sales - that is 1302 apartments - and 10% of gross commercial sales yielding, say, $180.8m from the development.
A further unanswered issue is: will Territorians make no return where consortium partners develop units or commercial facilities for themselves - for example, the apartment hotel, hospitality business leased to others and other commercial properties leased by consortium partners?
Now to indirect costs. The Chief Minister has indicated indirect costs to be $11m for assessment and removal of land-based contaminants from the present site - that is $10m for removal and $1m for assessment; $6m for Territory costs; $1m to set up a new governing authority for the waterfront area and you would assume a further, say, perhaps $12m for 25 years running costs of that authority - and the list goes on. Subsequent to calling for detailed submissions of intellectual capital from three final tenderers - one dropped out - it seems government has already paid one corporation for that input and is negotiating with another. But what are these costs we may add to the accountability sheet for the convention centre project? Another $1m?
The development will cost Territorians some $252.6m to construct, being $115m for the convention centre, $94.6m for the public infrastructure, $26m for the land component and $18m for indirect costs. Then there is the $300m in ongoing payments over 25 years and $12m for the local authority management.
The Chief Minister has told this parliament payments will be made for the convention centre for establishment costs prior to opening and Territory-owned construction. Does this mean that the Martin government has arranged with Territorians to pay $300m over 25 years, $94.6m for the infrastructure, $26m for the land, $18m for indirect costs, at a total of some $438.6m? What are these establishment costs? What other millions have been added to this total? Will Territorians be paying for the cost of building the convention centre before opening its doors, then also pay for it again by paying it off over the next 25 years? The Chief Minister told this parliament that she could say with great confidence the convention centre will cost, in today’s value, $150m.
Further, the Chief Minister said the convention centre is like getting a home mortgage. Well, it looks like Territorians have a major commitment to pay for. The Chief Minister said in parliament that the Martin government expects to have a return of some $144m in gross sales formula. Yet that provides a nett loss, according to these calculations, of $294.6m. The government’s own projections also suggest an added income to the Territory of some $190m over 25 years in added numbers of specialist tourists due to the convention and exhibition centre and attached facilities.
Territorians are obviously saddled with another very heavy mortgage. So tell us the truth, Chief Minister, of the real costs of this convention and exhibition centre, without cluttering the reply with benefits from residential, commercial and community facility developments. Strip it back and let us talk in real terms. What is the real cost?
Take into account the residential development side of the deal is about the same scale as the DHA Delphin Development at Fairway Waters, where there are approximately 1300 blocks of land, we have about 40% open space with roads, parks, lakes and the golf course. That development, on the other hand, was not the best piece of land in the Territory given away for a development which could have taken place in the CBD under normal market conditions. The opposition and Independents have been calling for accountability from this Chief Minister and her government. Will Territorians hear the truth? Will we know exactly what we have been saddled with?
I requote the words of the New South Wales Auditor-General in light of the problems exposed by the PPP arrangements in New South Wales which the new Premier has backed away from …
Mrs Miller: Madam Speaker, I move an extension of time be granted for the member for Blain, pursuant to Standing Order 77.
Motion agreed to.
Mr MILLS: In closing, the New South Wales Auditor-General recommended that the New South Wales government blueprint for public/private partnerships working with government guidelines should be given legislative force to ensure the government tabled contract summaries of all deals with the private sector in parliament in a short time frame. This is more about long-term sustainability and knowing exactly what we have been saddled with. I want to make sure I discharged my responsibilities as a member of the opposition for the sake of the younger ones who will be growing up to inherit something that has been signed up today, of which we do not know the deal.
Mr HENDERSON (Police Fire and Emergency Services): Madam Speaker, I support the Chief Minister in her statement this evening. I have to make a few comments on the member for Blain’s contribution. My head is spinning with all the numbers he was throwing around. However, he talked about the transparency of the financial arrangements in regards to this project. The Chief Minister, in her previous statement in August last year, was fulsome in her details in regards to those arrangements. I am aware that the member for Blain, the shadow Treasurer, has been offered opportunities for full and detailed briefings in regards to these arrangements. I believe he has availed himself of those briefings. My understanding is that all the questions he asked were fully answered to his satisfaction at those briefings.
In regards to how we are, somehow, leaving a huge financial legacy for future Territorians, that is not substantiated at all. One thing he did say at the outset was that the financial arrangements for the waterfront project were, or are, very complex and detailed, much like the railway. I can certainly attest to that, having had the briefings on the financials for this project and, when we came to government, how the railway project was financed and structured. I have every confidence in the public servants who have worked very hard, diligently, and thoroughly, with the best advice available to them in structuring both the railway project and the waterfront. They are the same people.
If the member for Blain is asserting - and he quoted from a Financial Review article, I think - that somehow the bureaucrats do not have the capacity to put these details together, he, obviously, does not have confidence in the bureaucrats who assisted the previous government - the same bureaucrats who put together the financials for the railway are the same people who put together the financials for this project. The previous government did not come in here, table and detail all of those complex financial documents, and neither will we. I have every confidence in those public servants - I will not call them bureaucrats, they are public servants - who worked diligently in getting both projects up and running.
Following on from the Leader of the Opposition, what an interesting day it has been. They say a week is a long time in politics. The opposition, prior to the election, from the moment the government announced the waterfront project, is seeking to pull it down at every turn. The member for Blain, the Leader of the Opposition at the time prior to the former member for Brennan making a comeback, said that the CLP would scrap the project. They spent every single opportunity prior to the election trying to pull this project down. I will go through some of the comments that were made, not only in this forum and publicly, but also to the Development Consent Authority.
Yet, we have the now Leader of the Opposition tonight saying that they fully support the project and it is a wonderful development. Credit to the Leader of the Opposition. She finally found that, after the election where there was a resounding mandate for the government, that the public actually liked this project; they always did. It was a resounding mandate for the government. The Leader of the Opposition said it is a wonderful development, totally supported. Then the member for Blain continues the line of trying to undermine public confidence in this particular project by asserting that there are huge legacies for the taxpayer into the future. Never mind. The tension obviously still exists amongst the opposition about whether they support this project. The Leader of the Opposition said it is a wonderful development earlier today. That is why I was saying it has been a fascinating week in politics.
Just prior to the election, we had public comments by the then Leader of the Opposition saying they would never criminalise public drunkenness and what was required was health interventions. Today, the current Leader of the Opposition said they are going to criminalise public drunkenness. The CLP opposition really does not know whether they are Arthur or Martha on what are the two biggest issues that are around at the moment: the state of the economy and how it is roaring ahead, and support for the waterfront. Obviously, on the very vexed issue of how we deal with antisocial behaviour in our community, they are flip-flopping all over the place.
Let us revisit a bit of history today. Early on - and certainly the CLP attacked the project at every opportunity – was the formal submission from the then shadow minister for Transport, Mr Stephen Dunham, MLA to the Development Consent Authority. This document is dated – I am trying to find the date; it will be here somewhere. Anyway, this is a transcript from Stephen Dunham, shadow minister for Transport and Infrastructure, submission to proposed planning scheme amendment 040032:
- The CLP is opposed to the government’s plans to develop 25 ha of prime Darwin Harbour waterfront land on 14 counts.
They had 14 reasons to oppose this development. They must have spent thousands of dollars trying to damage public confidence in this particular project. They purported to say that they supported developments on the waterfront but not this particular type of development.
In the Leader of the Opposition’s current comments that this is a wonderful development, does she include the residential in that? The then spokesperson, Mr Dunham, certainly said:
- … the proposal for 1400 residential units in its planned location stands in stark contrast to the CLP’s preferred position of … as this area is for commercial use, permanent residential development is not compatible.
Again, regarding the 1400 residential properties that are going to be developed there over the next 10 or 15 years, I wonder if the current Leader of the Opposition now agrees with the government that residential development there is entirely appropriate.
The member for Blain launched into a long and deceitful scare campaign about building heights, saying that we were going to be building this wall of units around the harbour and nobody would be able to see the harbour. They must have spent many thousands of dollars on glossy brochures. I would like to know - it is very clever where you got the same artistic impressions that the developers were using for the proposal. It was very clever trying to put it into people’s letterboxes saying: ‘Hey, this really comes from the developers’. With building heights, it was very deceitful trying to say that we were going to build out the views around Darwin for an elite few. I am trying to say - here we go:
- This development will remain for generations long after the novelty of a wave pool fades. Under the current plan, we will have given away Darwin’s most valuable piece of land to a private developer, essentially in return for 1400 private units.
The politics of envy they tried to play, that somehow this Labor government was going to give away this wonderful asset for 1400 very privileged people to live in high rises. It was a very deceitful campaign.
If we look at what the CLP’s position was, in the Northern Territory News on Wednesday 11 May 2005, the editorial said:
- The CLP stands condemned for its opportunism and hypocrisy. Opposition Leader, Denis Burke has tried to scupper the whole development.
We have seen that the CLP has been all over the shop on this project. They were for a convention centre on the wharf in 1999, and then against it in 2003. The opposition went back to their proposals for the waterfront, and I am sure members will remember the glorified car park, spire, and some commercial developments, which was about the entire extent of the vision that the CLP had for the waterfront. It certainly did not contain a convention centre. If you look at the documents here, there is massive great car parking space here, a few commercial developments, a bit of a public art spire here, and that was about it.
What we have managed to do is to leverage about $900m of private sector investment in what is going to be a world-class waterfront precinct for the City of Darwin. As well as the mandate the government had at the last election, the Darwin business community is very supportive of this particular project. Chamber of Commerce CEO, Graham Poon said, on 2 November: ‘This is a great boost for the local job market, for tourism it spells the beginning of a new era’. Gateway Group CEO, Penny Tastula, said - and pardon the language, Madam Speaker: ‘It is bloody marvellous and about time’. Territory Construction Association General Manager, Jon Baker, said, ‘We are excited about the project’, as well as big Chris, the member for Johnston. Jon Baker is ‘excited by the project, it will provide sustained opportunity for training and employment’. However, the member for Blain is still trying to cast doubt in the public mind of the financials of this particular plan …
Mr Mills: Why don’t you remove the doubt by answering some of the questions?
Mr HENDERSON: I will pick up on the interjection. If the member for Blain has specific questions - and he himself has asserted, admitted and acknowledged that it is a very complex and intricate financial arrangement - all he has to do is request a briefing, bring his questions along with him, sit down with the same public servants that did all of the financials on the railway, and he will be taken through them.
Mr Mills: No, I am talking to you. This is parliament, I have put them on the record in parliament.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HENDERSON: All of the questions will be answered, and the member for Blain’s concerns can be allayed. After that briefing, if he still has concerns, if he wants to test those concerns, he can do that but …
Mr Mills: Why not in parliament? You cannot run it in parliament.
Mr HENDERSON: … to come in here and throw - I am sure if you were to read the Hansard, there must have been dozens of different numbers flung around. Goodness knows where they came from …
Mr Mills: We have Hansard. You can follow it through, give some answers.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Blain!
Mr HENDERSON: It is pretty hard to tease out complex commercial financial arrangements in a to and fro across the parliament. However, if you want to …
Mr Mills: That is why we have Hansard.
Mr HENDERSON: If you want to bring those questions to a briefing, as I say, from the same public servants …
Mr Mills: They have been placed on the Parliamentary Record.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Blain!
Mr HENDERSON: … the same public servants who …
Mr Mills: This is arrogant, totally arrogant!
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Blain, cease interjecting!
Mr HENDERSON: … the same public servants who did the work on the railway well, obviously, that will be happily provided.
He talked about the financial risk to the taxpayer. Let us again go back to the CLP’s plan. The CLP’s plan was that the waterfront should be taxpayer-owned and managed. It was to be entirely paid for and funded by the taxpayer - no contribution of $900m from the private sector - the whole thing. Even if it had half the attributes of the current waterfront, we would talk about $500m. Their car park, spire and little commercial precinct would have cost $500m; that was to be totally owned, managed and funded by the taxpayer.
What would a $500m commitment do to the budget? If the member for Blain wants to talk about financial risk, certainly a $500m capital works project would certainly hit the budget very hard. I am still aghast that a party that claims to be a conservative party, a champion of private enterprise, has so little faith and confidence in the private sector to develop the waterfront, that they would want to do the entire thing - publicly owned and managed through the bureaucracy, the public service, and entirely funded by the taxpayer. What would that have done to the Territory’s finances, our capacity to fund infrastructure, schools, hospitals, roads and sporting facilities around the Northern Territory! If you wanted to decimate the capital works budget for the regions of the Northern Territory, a $500m project over 10 years in Darwin would certainly do that. It would have decimated the regional capital works budget.
On the one hand, the Opposition Leader says it is a wonderful development, a great project, and they totally support it. Yet, the previous Opposition Leader but one, further back down the line, is on the public record as saying that they would scrap the project, and is still trying to undermine public confidence in this project.
If we go to the piece by Paul Dyer in the Northern Territory News on 3 December:
- Scrap waterfront …
CLP leader wants to revert to the 1999 model.
…
‘I do not want to see a project that is focused on a residential and convention centre’ …
said Mr Mills. He also went on to say he wanted to see a project that was taxpayer-owned and managed rather than the developer own and manage the project.
Here we go! Here are the champions of the private sector saying that the private sector should have no part of this; that it should be entirely owned, funded and managed by the public sector. Well, as I say, a week is a long time in politics. You certainly wonder when the CLP is going to get a straight line on this particular project.
It is a great project. It is a wonderful project for the Territory. We are pleased to be partnering with the Darwin Cove Consortium for a project that is going to come at a capital cost of around $1.1bn, with hundreds of jobs being created in Stage 1. As my colleague, the infrastructure minister said, for the local industry participation plan, there is a commitment from the consortium that 80% of this work is going to go to local Territory companies. It is going to underpin the construction industry for the next 10 to 15 years. We believe that over 1000 jobs are going to be created, and an enormous boost to our tourism industry. It really is a fabulous project, and is going to put Darwin on the map as a wonderful international and national destination.
As business minister in this government, I am very proud to say that we have no problems at all in involving the private sector in a project of this size. They will deliver a wonderful project for the people of the Northern Territory. Thousands of jobs will be created during the construction phase; and many hundreds of jobs and the multiplier effect in the operational phase, not only of the convention centre and the hotels, but the commercial precinct and the spin-off in the tourism industry for the Northern Territory into the future.
It is visionary. I join with my colleague, the member for Johnston, in commending the Chief Minister for her passion, commitment and drive to see this project come to fruition. It really is a vision of the Chief Minister’s that has brought this project to fruition. The people of the Northern Territory are going to benefit for many decades to come. It is good to hear that the Leader of the Opposition now supports this project and acknowledges it is a wonderful development. I urge her to speak to her colleague, the member for Blain, and get him to desist from continuing to try to undermine this project through the backdoor whilst she has changed her tune and is supporting it through the front door.
Mr NATT (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure that I have been given an opportunity to support the Chief Minister’s statement on the Darwin City Waterfront project.
The wharf precinct of Darwin is steeped in some wonderful history. The area, from early times, was utilised by the traditional owners, the Larrakia people, where they traded with the Macassans from Indonesia. The so-called modern wheels of progress began to roll in 1869 when G W Goyder landed with his survey team on the ship Moonta and placed a flag on Fort Hill. The original Government House was built atop the escarpment overlooking the harbour. However, the wooden construction could not stand the ferocity of our local termite population and was replaced by a stone construction, which now houses the Territory’s Administrator.
In 1886, a railway jetty was erected replacing the original Gulnare jetty to cater for the gradually increasing shipping trade. However, this jetty had to be upgraded in 1904 when the railway jetty began to rot with time. Many buildings began to rise in the vicinity of the wharf precinct and port to cater for the business and resident workers. These shanty constructions had to be replaced from time to time when the seasonal cyclones and strong winds struck. We are all aware that the most historical event for the harbour was during World War II on 19 February 1942 when intense Japanese bombing of allied ships and the surrounding areas took place. Many ships were sunk, the jetty destroyed and railway locomotives blown into the harbour.
The current Stokes Hill Wharf was rebuilt in 1956, and it was pleasing to hear in today’s statements that it will play a prominent role in the waterfront redevelopment.
I have only touched on a few of the highly publicised points of history of the area. However, it is pleasing to report the rich cultural heritage of the site will be maintained in the project. The new public car park planned for the area will be located on the original position of Goyder’s camp with art, craft and food market stalls constructed along the theme of the original campsite. Theme-based information and education areas covering aspects of the important history and culture of the site are to be erected for additional public interest in the areas around the old Warrego wreck in front of Stokes Hill, and around the pump house and pearling museum.
As has been the agenda of this government on all planning projects, public art will be employed to showcase the diverse cultural aspects and influences on the area. I understand this theme will extend to the Smith Street connection and the proposed pedestrian paths and bike trails. I am sure the Larrakia Corporation will have a heavy input into this popular section of the project, given their historical and cultural association with the site and surrounding country, and their relationship with the Lyons development and other projects around the Darwin area.
When I came to the Territory nearly six years ago, I had several dealings with companies and businesses within the Top End. My connections, at that stage, with these enterprises were predominantly seeking sponsorship for the AFLNT. It was a particularly difficult period of time then trying to negotiate a favourable outcome for the league and the interested businesses. Many industries had come off a boom period of a few years earlier and were feeling the pinch of a downturn in commerce, particularly the construction industry. The government of the time had neglected to establish long-term economic stability for the Territory, and sat back expecting things to happen without planning for future viability. Contractors and tradespeople were unable to cope with the uncertainty of the future and the poor showing of the government at the time, to the point where many tradespeople and businesses moved out of Darwin seeking greener pastures and a stable future.
It took this government to turn that trend in business around. The announcement of the waterfront project and several other innovative contracts with large business enterprises has turned the downtrodden economy around into one of the most buoyant in Australia. The waterfront project has created job certainty for Territorians for at least 15 years. The spin-offs have been enormous and the diversity of the development has introduced a highly-skilled labour force into the arena and created job certainty for many Territorians, young and mature. This skilled section is now assisting local industries by training our younger work force. Apprenticeship intake has risen markedly, with wonderful incentives and insights offered by this government. These apprentices will move through their trade with confidence and stay in the Territory, knowing that work will ongoing when they have completed their indentures. It is hopeful that many of these building tradespeople will become instructors on the job as another wave of apprentices follow on.
The interest in this project has been enormous. In late November last year, there was an industry briefing held at SKYCITY outlining the waterfront project to a broad range of industries: ‘Why don’t you become involved in the development?’ The presenters, the Northern Territory government, Darwin Cove Consortium and the Northern Territory Industry Capability Network, were overwhelmed with the attendance at the briefing, to a point where the industry can now make contact with these agencies seeking further information via a specific Darwin City Waterfront web site. As a response to these briefings and contract application processes, the Darwin City Waterfront project office has received an enormous number of inquiries from interested businesses seeking further information on the contractual arrangements. In keeping with this government’s commitment to the transparency with its dealings with industry on all fronts of development, a summary of the main contracts has been prepared and also placed on the waterfront web site for all to see under the heading of ‘About the Project’.
Local businesses have benefited greatly under the direction of this government’s mandate of ensuring 85% of the project has local industry input. The Darwin Cove Consortium worked closely with the Northern Territory Industry Capability Network to identify local companies with the capability of delivering resources and expertise to the project over a wide range of trade contracts. It is interesting to note that the NTICN is a private company owned by the Northern Territory Chamber of Commerce and the Territory Construction Association. It is heavily supported by DBERD, and its primary function is to support and promote the capabilities of local business in the industry sector. The NTICN, therefore, plays a very critical role in the identification of opportunities for Northern Territory businesses to participate in the waterfront and convention centre projects. It has an extensive register of companies with statements on their capabilities. The NTICN consultants assist those businesses wanting to buy goods or services to find competitive local suppliers.
Trade contracts available to interested industries are many and varied. Steel fabrication, roofing and cladding, concrete supply and finishing, window installation, airconditioning ducting, supply and installation, and various ranges of steel supply and steel works are a few of the industries involved. The flow-on effects of this work will, obviously, benefit other businesses in the Northern Territory. Work vehicles will need to be serviced and repaired, workers will need to be fed, tyres will have to be upgraded on a regular basis, fuel supplies will be supplied - and so the list goes on. These are the reasons the Territory long-term stimulus of the economy is great for Northern Territory business.
Contracts have already been awarded to local haulage companies; namely, Gulf Transport and Wagners NT. The Darwin office of URS won the contract to undertake all sampling and testing of soil and water. The local construction company, Wolpers Grahl Pty Ltd, has won the contract to upgrade the work required for McMinn Street. Advanced Civil Engineering has been awarded a $1.7m contract to install water mains to the convention centre. BMD Constructions has won a $2.1m contract to establish a sub-soil drain system.
The construction of the convention centre building, as such, will soon commence now that the compaction of the base works are close to being finished. This construction will enable many Territory businesses to enact their contracts. A number of further tenders are now in the marketplace for bids in several areas of the centre.
This waterfront development has been a wonderful innovation for the Territory. I, for one, am looking forward to a grand opening of the convention centre in 2008, and continued work to enhance the precinct. The finished product will be a fantastic spark for tourism, and establish a major attraction and community asset that will marry into the CBD and further enhance the wonderful lifestyle we enjoy in the Territory. I am also looking forward to taking my interstate and overseas visitors to the waterfront precinct to have a meal, enjoy a drink while watching the sunset, and perhaps go for a stroll throughout the new surrounds.
Madam Speaker, I am proud of this achievement and the economic benefits it has brought to the Territory and its local industries. For that reason, I am extremely pleased this afternoon to support the Chief Minister’s statement.
Ms SACILOTTO (Port Darwin): Madam Speaker, I support and commend the minister’s statement in relation to the Darwin City Waterfront project. Our Darwin Harbour is the most beautiful harbour in the world. It is, quite frankly, the jewel in the crown of the Northern Territory. The waterfront project will complement and enhance the usage of this fantastic natural asset. The development is exciting, and my constituents and I are fortunate that the project is right in the middle of our electorate of Port Darwin.
Not only will the facilities be a drawcard for locals and visitors alike, visitors to the waterfront will inject large sums into the local economy. From my real estate background, I can predict that people who own property in the CBD and surrounding areas will see financial benefits of the waterfront in their property valuations. One highly successful Darwin real estate agent, and winner of the 2004 REINT Salesperson of the Year Award, Marianne Martin of McGees, states this description of a property in the Port Darwin electorate:
- Supremely located in a very prestigious pocket of Darwin city, overlooking Frances Bay and Darwin wharf, soon to become the pinnacle of prime real estate when the new $1.1bn upgrade of the wharf precinct is completed, creating the new Darwin cove with its world-class convention centre.
Many constituents of Port Darwin have spoken to me, as their local member, in relation to the waterfront development with enthusiasm. Many people are eagerly awaiting the facilities that will be available at the completion of Stage 1. These facilities will include: the world-class convention centre; an approximately 3000 m2 pool, including the ability to produce a variety of waves in a pool suitable for all swimmers in which it will be fantastic to be able to swim all year round; parklands incorporating the shell; public art displays and water sports as part of Stage 1.
Many business people have provided comment in relation to the Smith Street connection, generally commenting that it is a crucial part of the development and that it is essential that the connections are comfortable and flowing from the waterfront to the greater city area. Paul Addison from TOGA Group was recently on air with Daryl Manzie from FM 104.1, saying that it is essential that the connection is created and maintained.
My vision for the Smith Street connection would be to utilise the area to serve as a fitting tribute to the traditional owners of this area, the Larrakia people, whilst also acknowledging the contributions by the many ethnic groups, community groups, individuals, waterside workers and pioneering families that have made the area and the city what it is today - a pleasant, interesting and comfortable pathway that visitors and locals alike could enjoy whilst making their way from the waterfront to the city in search of other treasures in the Darwin area.
A steering committee has been set up. The members of that committee include: Darwin Cove Consortium, Darwin City Council, Browns Mart, the Anglican Church, government representatives from Arts and Heritage, and the waterfront office. The purpose of the formation of this committee is to ensure that all parties are consulted on the overall concept and design of this important element of the development.
Madam Speaker, in closing, the Darwin wharf and city area are rich in history and culture, and this should be highlighted in the Smith Street connection. As you may be aware, on Sunday, 19 February, we commemorated the 1942 bombing of Darwin and remembered those who perished protecting our country’s honour and lifestyle. The ceremonies were well attended, and have reminded many people that the trauma and horror of war came right to our doorstep and was played out on the site of our new waterfront development.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I thank everyone for their contribution to this debate - some more enthusiastic than others. It is good to hear from the Opposition Leader that the opposition - I think, after listening to the contributions - supports the waterfront project. That is terrific because, as the minister for Business pointed out, there have been various positions on this over the last 12 to 18 months. You would probably have said 12 months ago, adamant opposition, particularly from the member for Blain when he was Opposition Leader. He cast aspersions in a most embarrassing way, really, on the ability of the private sector to build a development like this, saying: ‘Why would you trust them to do it; the only way it can be done is with public money’. He produced diagrams of very large car parks with spires to take the place of any development on the waterfront.
It is excellent, in theory, to have the support of the opposition with this project. I thank members on the government’s side for their enthusiasm. I notice there was some criticism from the member for Blain on the enthusiasm that members were showing, and I would not expect anything less. It is an exciting project. It is a complex and exciting project which will add a new dimension to the city we love. This is something to be enthusiastic about and not be embarrassed.
Just to pick up some points that were made by the Opposition Leader, the member for Araluen. She was critical of government for not being public about the costs of the convention centre, about the development, and said that we hid from the public before the last election that there were going to be deficits because of the building. Not at all. We said many times, and in this House, there would be deficits over three years that we had not planned on three years previously, but those deficits would go into the system and then be gone by 2008-09. Therefore, any attempt to say that we had not been public and accountable on that are simply rubbish. We were, and we were very clearly. If there was some sense that we were hiding it for the election - not at all. In fact, I am quite proud of it. The fact that we can identify deficits as being part of an infrastructure project like the waterfront development is something that we should be proud of, because it is not money spent - as we saw from the CLP when they were in government - which used to be on the credit card, putting recurrents on the deficit. This did happen, particularly in those late years of the 1990s. In 1999-2000, recurrent expenditure was deficit-funded. This is definitely a one-off deficit, over three years, and then it is gone. What will we be left with? Stage 1 of the magnificent waterfront development.
The Opposition Leader also said, to paraphrase her, that the word around town is that the government was so keen to get a project like this established before the election, that we rolled over to the consortium. I do not know where the Opposition Leader is getting her information from but, maybe if she wants to sort this out definitively, she might go to the consortium and ask them whether they felt that we ‘rolled over’. They might find it was actually the other way.
We got an excellent deal for Territorians. We got a great return from the development over 10 to 15 years for Territorians; that we could get 18% return on those Stage 2 developments - that is the most of the residential properties, not just on the land. We had a Valuer-General’s assessment of the land which went over three years, I think, from about $25m to about $30m. We are going to get, with current prices, probably the best part of $110m, and that is without taking into account how properties will increase in value over the next 10 to 15 years. Therefore, in getting that 18% return, that is an excellent result. If the Opposition Leader just wanted to test that element of this project, go to the real estate industry in Darwin and ask: ‘What do you reckon about a deal that gives Territorians an 18% return on the land and the development of the land?’ The developed land over that period of time. They will whistle in admiration.
I say to our negotiating team that they did a great job. We have public servants who worked on the railway project who know about these things. Where we needed specific expertise to deal with a project like this one - the convention centre part, the legal aspects, which are very complex - we got additional expertise in. That was very important. We had that expertise in accounting, in legal, in the running of a convention centre and, put together with the expertise that we have - and I am very proud of that expertise that we have in-house - the actual financial close deal was an excellent deal for Territorians.
I say to the Opposition Leader: do not come in and say ‘the scuttlebutt around town is’. Go and test some of the things that you are saying. Go and test the 18%. Do not come in here putting down those who are part of the project just because you feel like it and hear a bit of scuttlebutt.
The member for Blain went on at great length quoting from a newspaper article on public private/partnerships, virtually casting a slur on the entire $1.1bn development at the waterfront asking if we knew what we were doing. I just point out, in case the former Opposition Leader, the member for Blain, missed this – and he went back to the August debate which detailed the financial close detail - that we have put it on the record in here, that he has had a briefing. Therefore, to come in and say: ‘We need to know the financial details’ - he has had them. He has had the appropriate details. Of course, he cannot see every single sheet of paper, there are commercial-in-confidence aspects. However, anything to do with the expenditure of public money has been detailed quite appropriately.
However, he needs to also understand there are three components to the waterfront development. There is a public/private partnership of developing the convention and exhibition centre. There is a very large capital works project; that is, the public infrastructure for Stage 1 such as the seawall, the wave pool, the other aspects of that public infrastructure which is $94m. It is a capital works project, so what is the risk to the Territory? Like any other capital works project we have, this is a series of capital works projects from marine works of $41m, bridge link and stairs at $3.8m, the cruise ship terminal at $4.5m, to the Smith Street extension at $1.5m. To come in and say you have not identified the risk, well, it is the same risk as you would have with a capital works program we do every year. That is a capital works project. Then, the final part of the waterfront is a private development and that is in the hands of TOGA.
If he wants to talk more about that and potential risks to government, it is only an advantage to government because part of the development of those 1300 or so units is the fact that we will get $64m worth of public infrastructure for free. That is the kind of risk I like. You get the lock and other aspects of the public infrastructure as part of Stage 2 of the waterfront at $64m - for no expenditure from our capital works program. I believe that is terrific. In terms of a risk that the member for Blain can identify, it is actually to do - with regard to the newspaper article he was reading - with the convention and exhibition centre. He read out the details from my last speech which actually itemised all the aspects, but then he added the numbers together to get a totally wrong number because he had not carefully gone through the speech. We are not paying for anything until we actually have it built and, then, very clearly we pay between $11m and $12m from 2008-09 when the convention centre is going to be open - like you do with a mortgage, like you do in the nature of public private partnership - over 25 years, and then the building is ours.
It is very straightforward. The member for Blain implied somehow or other we were hiding costs from him. We itemised those, he has had briefings and the costs are there. We have given the costs in today’s dollars, we have given them in dollars over the life of the project, and we have tried to be as consistent and open as we can. The nature of buying a house is the same as this building of the convention centre. You put the deposit down for your house and pay it off to the bank over a period of time, usually 25 to 30 years. It is the same with this convention centre and, as when you buy a house, it is yours in the end. We build this convention centre, it is the Territory’s in the end. The flow-on effect over those years of the convention centre is something like $200m to the Darwin economy. It is very significant, and that is probably a fairly conservative estimate.
The member for Blain can cast all the aspersions he likes, but the figures are out. Our Auditor-General is keeping a watch. He has done a first assessment of this and given it a tick. He will continue to watch this project. He will report to this parliament, as he is duty bound, to say whether he thinks this project is a good deal for Territorians. He will give those details as appropriate. If the member for Blain thinks that something else is hidden, he should identify it rather than just simply adding up figures and coming to the wrong conclusion.
Madam Speaker, it is an exciting project. It will add a new dimension to the Territory and to Darwin. It means enormous numbers of jobs. It means great business opportunities. When you look at the current predictions of organisations like Access Economics, at the Housing Industry Association’s five-year future, what underpins that confidence in the Territory economy, partly, are ventures like the Darwin City Waterfront project. They will underpin construction for the next 10 to 15 years here in Darwin. On all levels that you look at it - a big flow into the economy, boosting tourism, great recreation for locals, great jobs, great business opportunities - this is a terrific project.
I say to both members of the opposition who spoke on this: if you have any more outstanding questions about this that you want us to brief you on, just tell us. We are very open and very happy to do those briefings. Just let me know. Send your list of questions, if that is easier. This is a very important project and we want to deal with all aspects, rather than have members of the opposition casting aspersions like, ‘the Territory basically got screwed on this one because they were in a hurry to get it done’. Not so, Opposition Leader.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Indigenous Housing
Indigenous Housing
Mr McADAM (Housing): Madam Speaker, in generational terms, we face a major watershed in indigenous affairs, just as we did 40 years ago. This year, 2006, sees the anniversaries of events that echo down the decades in influencing the present. They are events that have affected all Australians, both indigenous and non-indigenous. However, they have affected us here in the Northern Territory more than anywhere else, and they have affected indigenous people more than anyone else. They are also events which leave the Territory and the nation with much unfinished business.
In March 1966, 40 years ago, the Conciliation and Arbitration Commission brought down its decision on equal wages for Aboriginal people working in the pastoral industry. Up until then, Aboriginal men were paid $6.32 a week in today’s currency, and women $3.52 per week, while non-Aboriginal workers were paid between $34 and $46 a week.
In May 1966, 40 years ago, Aboriginal stockmen at Newcastle Waters went on strike; that action sparked by urgent desires for equality with other Australians, and in protest at the miserable living and work conditions they faced.
In August 1966, 40 years ago, saw the famous Wave Hill walk-off - a strike by the Gurindji and others, an event which was, arguably, the beginning of the modern land rights movement.
In a very direct sense, 30 years ago, the passing in December 1976 of the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act by a Liberal federal government, saw the beginnings of a resolution of the inequities faced by indigenous Territorians.
However, as I said, these historic events still leave us with much unfinished business and huge challenges. More than that, there are issues that face us here in the Northern Territory and, indeed, nationally that, if left untouched, will sow the seeds of future tragedy for us all.
I know the word ‘crisis’ is often ill-used, but in speaking out today on indigenous housing in the Northern Territory, I cannot think of a better term. While rapid technological changes were already leading to a decline in Aboriginal employment in the pastoral industry, there is little doubt that the equal wages decision accelerated a process which led to a collapse in Aboriginal employment in Northern Australia. Related to this was an exodus of hundreds of Aboriginal people to a life of unemployment and under-employment in missions and government settlements, and a string of destitute fringe camps along the length of the Stuart Highway.
Arguably, the promise of industrial equality was an illusion in the face of no work for Aboriginal Territorians, and absolutely no realistic attempt by federal governments to invest in creating alternative ways and new economies, especially in regional and remote areas.
The passing of land rights legislation was a profound act of social justice but, again, was not matched by any serious attempt by federal governments to undo the material wrongs faced by indigenous Territorians, and for two very important and interrelated reasons. First, the things that go with land rights, such as self-determination, were never backed by a proper commitment to build the capacity of people to take over - in other words, to build the human capital of Aboriginal Territorians. As the late Bangardi Lee pointed out: ‘Things fell to pieces … went down … The government did not train people to take over responsibility’. Second, the promise of land rights has never been matched by any coherent attempt to build financial capital on the traditional lands of indigenous Territorians, from either public or private sources.
Arguably, the heroism, vision and determination of those leaders of 40 years ago has been allowed to trickle away. We might have different political viewpoints, ideologies and interpretations of history in this House, and that is as it should be; that is politics as normal. Because I am an unusual politician in a way, I do not seek to engage in such discussions today. I want to abandon politics as normal. I am not really interested in arid and pointless debate, name calling or finger pointing in the face of what I have described as a crisis in indigenous housing. I, like many of my colleagues in this House, just want to get on with the job. That is why I seek bipartisan support in this place and, indeed, from our parliamentary colleagues from both sides of the political fence in the federal arena.
While we do face a crisis, we can create great opportunities. I want to build on the work started by the previous CLP government in their establishment of the Indigenous Housing Authority of the Northern Territory, otherwise known as IHANT. As well as the consolidations which we have achieved since that time, I believe that in organisational and practical terms, we in the Northern Territory have made great advances in getting our house in order. As a nation, we should now join together in building homes for our fellow Australians.
I would be misleading this House if I were to express optimism about the current situation. In fact, we are going backwards and, as good as our efforts are, we are being defeated by the catastrophic mathematics of our current situation, let alone what we can expect in the future. In 2004, it was estimated that the unmet need for indigenous housing in the Northern Territory was $850m; nationally at $2.5bn. This is the result of 35 years of underdevelopment in indigenous housing. With even modest allowances for cost inflation in the construction industry, that figure must now be nudging very close to $1bn in the Northern Territory alone.
In broad terms, that means we must build 4000 new houses to meet that need. Yet, despite the rolling together of Commonwealth and Territory housing funds under the overarching agreement that our Chief Minister signed with the Prime Minister, John Howard, and confirmed through the Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Agreement, even with a modest increase in funding, our projections are that we will only be able to build approximately 120 new houses a year from 2006 to 2007. At that rate, it will take the Northern Territory 33 years to fulfill current housing needs. That depends on the heroic assumption that all existing houses survive those 33 years, and that none have to be replaced or substantially renovated over that period.
We simply know this will not happen. We know that hundreds of houses already face replacement or major work because they are already uninhabitable, or on the verge of being so, and the average life of existing houses is considerably less than 33 years. It also assumes that there will be no population increase in the foreseeable future. Again, we know that this is not the case. The indigenous population of the Territory is estimated to rise by 100% over the next 25 years, and the level of household formation will rise around 25% in the next 10 years alone. In other words, the current rate of new construction is barely matching the birth rate.
We are not talking here about tiny communities. There are already 20 remote towns with a population greater that 500. In the next 25 years, both Wadeye and Maningrida will be more populous than present day Nhulunbuy. By that time, the number of Aboriginal population centres with populations greater than 2000 is likely to be eight or nine times the current number, with at least three above 3000 people.
Mathematics is defeating us now and will continue to do so unless radical changes are enacted. Even on absurdly conservative projections, in 33 years time at the current construction rates, we would still be lagging unmet needs by 16 years - and probably much more than that. In fact, in 33 years time at current new construction rates, our backlog is likely to be 33 years. We face the cascading effect of severely limited resources being swamped by rising needs. We are, indeed, going backwards.
So far, I have only spoken of the financial consequences of the prices in indigenous housing. The social costs are more threatening and are only destined to deteriorate. You can tick every box: health, education, training, employment, community harmony, substance abuse, violence, and criminal behaviour. With all our best efforts and despite great financial outlays, without decent housing our chances of solving these problems are likely to be largely futile.
It is an unfortunate fact that on the very few occasions in recent years that the media has chosen to report on indigenous conditions in the Northern Territory, it has become almost routine reportage that three- and four-bedroom houses in remote towns and communities house anything from 16 to 20 residents. Such numbers are also seen as normal for houses in our towns. There can be nothing normal about this state of affairs.
I cite the situation of our Territory children, for they must be judged the most vulnerable and least responsible for the appalling conditions they face. It is to these kids we owe our united commitment. Such living conditions have devastating effects on health, particularly for our young children. Take this example. From time to time, kids in suburban centres get a middle ear infection known as otitis media. It is relatively easy to treat with antibiotics but, for kids living in such massive overcrowding, it escalates and is prolonged and is known as chronic suppurative otitis media or CSOM. Put simply, the disease laid on these kids comes from a host of infections rather than a single source and requires far greater medical intervention, only to see immediate re-infection after treatment as a result of overcrowding. The result is that hearing damage through CSOM is at such levels that the World Health Organisation has defined these rates as being a major medical emergency.
You do not have to be a rocket scientist to gauge the effect of so many kids arriving at school who are mildly to profoundly deaf through living in such conditions. More than a decade ago, researchers at the Menzies School of Health showed that overcrowding is directly link to acute childhood admissions to hospital. More recently, it has become apparent that the greatest toll is actually through chronic disease. Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory have among the highest rates of kidney failure and rheumatic heart disease in the world. The requirement for kidney dialysis is escalating at an alarming rate and will take an increasing proportion of the health budget.
Rheumatic heart disease has been eradicated from non-indigenous populations in the rest of the country. However, in the Northern Territory, it too frequently leads to cardiac failure and early death. Both diseases can be prevented. There is an irrefutable link between skin sores and childhood kidney disease, and mounting evidence linking skin sores to rheumatic heart disease. Local researchers at Menzies have shown a direct relationship between children having skin sores and crowded housing. They believe that provision of proper housing would have a profound impact on the long-term health of these people. Aboriginal health and Aboriginal housing are inseparable issues.
These kids face intolerable further effects on their schooling through apparently simple challenges such as getting enough sleep on school nights. Such overcrowding is also strongly linked with massive exposure to substance abuse and household violence, not to mention sexual abuse and other violence directed towards our children.
What is often missed or misunderstood in this discussion of chronic overcrowding is the effect on the houses themselves, what we call ‘health hardware’. Toilets, food storage spaces, washing and cooking facilities simply wear out in the face of such overwhelming use by so many people. With the best of care and intentions, the fabric of buildings inevitably falls apart far more quickly than might be the case in suburban Darwin or Alice Springs, with all the consequent effects on health.
Current overcrowding and homelessness, both in town as well as the bush, already has a direct effect on antisocial behaviour, substance abuse and violence. Unless we act as a nation, the mathematics as I have outlined will lead to greater levels of antisocial behaviour in our cities, towns and communities. To put it bluntly, the social problems we currently face in the struggle against antisocial behaviour will get dramatically worse if we do not act.
We must look at the social and economic opportunity costs of acting sooner rather than later. The only conclusion that can possibly be drawn is that the longer we postpone tackling the indigenous housing crisis, the greater the ultimate costs will be. We should, effectively, look at the costs of meeting indigenous homelessness and housing need as part of the national debt. As I have outlined, it is a part of the national debt we are not paying off.
I do not wish to be endlessly gloomy about the future, despite the enormous challenges we face. Turned around properly, with proper resources, indigenous housing can, in fact, offer us solutions to broader problems related to health, training and employment and indigenous economic enterprise. The real trick for the partnership between the Commonwealth and the Territory and indigenous towns and communities, will be to turn the overwhelming adversity of indigenous housing to sustainable economic development in remote areas of the Territory. In a sense, properly funded housing programs can be transformed into a sort of Marshall plan for the bush.
IHANT, pioneered by previous governments, remains as a primary source of advice to government. Since the abolition of ATSIC, we have reconstituted the board and I announced its new membership just after Christmas last year. As well as five indigenous representatives, there are also representatives of the Commonwealth and Territory governments on the new board. Their first meeting was held in Tennant Creek earlier this month. In my discussions with the new IHANT Board, I raised the issues of escalating costs of remote area housing, as well as the huge difficulties that we face in simultaneously strengthening housing management capacity while, at the same time, increasing the number of houses being built. IHANT’s role will be to advise on the progress of combined indigenous housing programs which is the subject of expenditure through the Northern Territory and Commonwealth governments.
For the first time in Australia, following the overarching agreement signed last year and the subsequent Indigenous Housing Infrastructure Agreement, this has allowed the Northern Territory to roll all major housing funds into a single funding pool comprising: the Aboriginal Rental Housing Program, $20m; the Community Housing and Infrastructure Program, $39.3m; the National Aboriginal Housing Strategy (NAHS), $22m; and the new Healthy Indigenous Housing initiative, $4.73m annually until 2008. Thus, for the first time, from 2006-07 we will be able to avoid duplications that overlap between the Commonwealth and the Territory.
The agreement will improve indigenous housing service delivery through greater efficiencies and delivery of coordinated programs, as there have been previous occasions where the Australian government and former IHANT construction plans have overlapped; a greater focus on longevity of dwellings through strategic housing maintenance programs; effective housing management, repairs and maintenance and life skill programs; more appropriate indigenous housing design to improve efficiencies in construction while maintaining flexibility and individual community choice; and greater opportunities for the development of employment and training initiatives.
The IHIA program also has provision for the funding of an additional $80m per year currently administered by the Australian government for the delivery of essential services, power, water and sewerage, and municipal infrastructure to communities outside the 72 main communities serviced by the Territory government. The agreement specifies that both parties will clarify responsibility for these communities for the delivery of these services in order to work towards a better integrated model and service delivery in these areas. The agreement also includes a common policy framework which outlines the commitment of both governments to jointly discuss and negotiate responsibilities for the delivery of essential services and municipal infrastructure and services outside the 72 communities serviced by the Territory government. The outcomes pursued in the common policy framework include: greater effectiveness in coordination of services; better housing; better housing services; more housing; improved partnerships; and improved performances linked with accountability.
The Territory government is committed to increasing indigenous community housing stock across the Territory. The position paper presented to the Australian Housing Minister’s Conference in 2004 proposed that the nation has to renew its commitment to addressing indigenous housing shortfalls if it is to have any hope of impacting on general indigenous disadvantage. We have made considerable progress in achieving some of these goals. These include partnerships with the Australian government, indigenous housing organisations and other stakeholders. The introduction of the new IHANT Board allows the government to receive strategic advice from informed and representative members of the indigenous community.
The Territory government takes the issue of overcrowding and poor conditioned dwellings seriously and we are committed to a long-term and sustained effort to provide the housing infrastructure that is required. As the Territory cannot meet the extraordinary unmet need of indigenous housing alone, we are currently working in a constructive partnership with the Australian government, the Indigenous Community Housing and, of course, the private sector. The Territory government has worked collaboratively to provide remote area housing and essential services to communities such as power, water, sewerage, aerodromes and barge landing services; improved consultation and interaction with the indigenous community through facilitating indigenous community housing workshops and the IHANT Board; constructed dwellings and provided employment and training opportunities to local indigenous people through the central remote construction model which has been expanded into two other communities and is planned to progressively extend into other areas; negotiated an agreement with the Australian government to upgrade power, water and sewerage services in Aboriginal urban living areas; and the transfer of responsibility for these services to the Northern Territory government.
The Northern Territory government is also committed to improving the standard of existing stock through improved repairs and maintenance programs and upgrade schedules. The additional income resulting from the agreement will also allow for increased activities through repairs and maintenance and upgrade programs, therefore, increasing the life of remote community housing stock. In fact, since housing has been subject to rigorous approaches to high standards and quality control, as well as well-run repairs and maintenance programs, the life of the houses is rapidly lengthening.
The current lifespan of indigenous community housing, as I said previously, is significantly lower than for mainstream housing in urban areas. This low number is the result of a number of variables such as chronic overcrowding, poor living skills and a lack of community capacity to provide adequate housing management and maintenance services. The Northern Territory government recognises the need to increase the longevity of the housing stock and, as such, has implemented a new life skills program aimed at teaching new residents of indigenous communities the skills required to maintain their houses and their tenancies. As I have noted, we are moving in the right direction with regards to increasing the life of the housing stock.
The Northern Territory government is also committed to improving housing management and maintenance programs by reviewing operational policies and standards in 2006. It is anticipated changes to these processes will result in more appropriate allocations of funding to indigenous community housing organisations to equip them with adequate resources to provide a higher quality service to indigenous community housing tenants. The Northern Territory government has also been successful in attracting $4.73m a year for the next four years from the Australian government under the Healthy Indigenous Housing initiative which targets measures to enhance governance within the indigenous community housing sector.
Strategies implemented under this significant allocation will be focused on implementing reforms to improve the performance of indigenous community rental housing providers, focusing primarily on corporate governance. This funding is provided to implement reforms to improve the performance of indigenous housing community organisations, as I said previously, on corporate governance. A proposed outcome of this activity would be a very strong self-managing, self-governing sector, with organisations accredited, housing managers, and effective systems supporting business and asset management.
In order to deliver on this commitment, the Northern Territory government will work intensively with the indigenous community housing organisations (ICHOs) to improve government’s frameworks, to improve and implement effective planning and performance management processes, build a whole-of-community capacity in housing services, and develop effective information management systems and capacity to provide accurate information.
The Northern Territory government is currently developing an employment and training strategy for the indigenous community housing sector. This strategy is in response to the government’s acknowledgement that the indigenous community housing management and construction industry is an essential element in facilitating the economic and social development of the Northern Territory. The strategy will support current NT government employment and training directions outlined in the Building the Territory Work Force, Building Stronger Regions, Stronger Futures, The Indigenous Economic Development Strategy and Agenda for Action, a whole-of-government approach to indigenous affairs in the Northern Territory 2005-2008. The strategy will aim to increase employment and outcomes for indigenous Territorians; achieve greater indigenous economic and enterprise development generated through the housing management and construction areas; develop partnerships between government, communities, training providers and industry groups; ensure better matching of training programs to the requirements of industry and the work force; and an improved structured industry training apprenticeships program taking into account the unique requirements of the participants.
There is a simple choice to take about the future of indigenous housing in the Northern Territory and nationally. We can continue our current levels of effort and do our very best and, ultimately, fail because of the legacy of under-expenditure over a period of 35 years and the inexorable pressure of future needs. Or we can view indigenous housing as a national priority I have already dubbed a Marshall plan for the bush. In the Territory alone, this would mean an extra $180m a year for the next 10 years.
The Territory cannot do it alone. Even if we could take the economic consequences on such a tiny jurisdiction and a minuscule tax base, we could not raise the extra funds needed. We need a national effort, a national partnership. The face of the indigenous service delivery environment has changed significantly, both across sectors and governments. The abolition of ATSIC and the agency, ATSIS, paved the way for new arrangements for the management of indigenous affairs.
With the elevation of Mal Brough to the federal ministry, the portfolios of Indigenous Affairs and Family and Community Services, with responsibility for Housing, are finally under the one roof. I have written to Mr Brough congratulating him on his new role in indigenous affairs and housing, and am seeking to meet with him at the earliest opportunity – indeed, tomorrow along with the Chief Minister. Clearly, I ask other members of this House to take up that opportunity should it arise.
I was born in Elliott some years ago in an old Sidney Williams hut at the side of the Stuart Highway. I guess I get some ironic pleasure out of the fact that this site is now called Bicentennial Park. Life was pretty tough back then, with no mod cons and pretty well everyone out bush did it hard those days, both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people. When I now see so much of Aboriginal housing being not much better and, in many cases, a lot worse than it was even 50 years ago, I have to ask myself: what is wrong with us as a relatively rich nation that we cannot find the resources to house our fellow Australians? I have outlined the consequences of ignoring the problem, if for no other reason than enlightened self-interest. It is up to us as Territorians and as a nation to get it right.
I began my remarks today talking about significant anniversaries that we will celebrate this year. It is my hope that 2006 can be celebrated in the future as a year where the nation joined together in starting to meet the housing needs of our fellow Australians.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Deputy Speaker, this statement delivered by the Minister for Housing could be delivered by any minister for housing from any political persuasion. No one disputes the fact that there is a huge shortage of housing for indigenous Northern Territorians. When I was the minister for Housing, I said the same things. We approached the federal government, just as this minister is doing, seeking national support to rectify this situation.
Members may recall that I, in fact, took out participants of the Ministerial Council on Housing to visit one of our nearby communities in Central Australia when we met back in 2001. What the Minister for Housing from Tasmania saw in the communities drove her to tears.
We all agree that there is a huge problem with trying to provide adequate housing for indigenous Northern Territorians. But how do we go about doing it? The minister spoke about increasing the longevity of homes, so the homes would last a bit longer than the average 33 years. It is a big issue. When we visited the community with the ministerial council, we saw homes that were newly built, homes that were there less than five years, and homes that were there for longer than 30 years. Even the new homes showed great signs of disrepair. One has to ask the question: why do these homes have such major signs of disrepair so soon after they have been completed?
When the minister gave his history of what happened with indigenous people over the last 40 years or so, he spoke about the accelerated process which led to collapsed employment because of the issue of equal wages and the desire to be equal Australians. I believe also that there was another accelerated process. There was the true accelerated housing of poorly prepared people living in those homes. Blame whoever you like for that. It led to a huge acceleration of deterioration of residential homes. However, in today’s terms, in the suburbs, accelerated housing of poorly prepared people living in the suburbs has also led to the collapse of mainstream goodwill towards Aboriginal tenants. That must be addressed by this government also.
The minister spoke about the necessity to ensure that there is a means of employment, of capacity training, of industry training using housing as a means or vehicle to bring this about. Yet, he lamented that there is not going to be enough money to ever catch up on the shortage that we have.
The minister spoke about how much money the Northern Territory government puts into the pool that IHANT can direct into housing development, and how much the federal government contributes towards this as well. However, I ask the minister to also look outside the square, and look at the Aboriginal Benefits Account. This is the first time that I have really looked at the ABA in great detail. This Annual Report 2004-05 was sent to all of us within the last week.
The total ABA income for 2005 was $57 259 247, some $7m more than in 2004. This money is earned as royalties; it is in the ownership of indigenous people in the Northern Territory. You think about it. Whilst the Northern Territory is one-sixth of the Australian land mass and indigenous people own 50% or 51% of it, it is 650 000 km2. If that land were fully utilised; it would be making more than $57m from mining royalties. Imagine, if these royalties were used wisely by the land council that controlled the money, and they used that money to develop the land for agriculture, animal husbandry or tourism. There would be all sorts of opportunities out there. Imagine how much this $57m that was earned last year, could convert to. It could be $500m. It could be even more than. Think of the amount of land. Think of all the pastoralists who are currently working on pastoral leases and how much money they generate from their properties. There will be more money than you could poke a stick at. You could actually use that money to buy your own home.
If I had a block of land or a pastoral property, and somebody wanted to mine on my property, there will be royalties paid to me. I would use the money for capital improvement on the property; whether it would be building myself a house or building my children a house on the property. The same can be done with indigenous people with this sort of income. The minister needs to consider this. It is a group of people making huge income but not using it in a way that will further their benefit from the money.
There are many houses out there facing rapid deterioration and, as a consequence of that, we do not have enough houses for everybody living out bush. We also see a lot more communities or outstations, with many houses in them that are underutilised or uninhabited. Ask anybody who has travelled to the bush and they will tell you: ‘Oh yes, we have driven through community A, B, C and there is a cluster of houses; not a soul inside - generators, new solar hot water systems, etcetera’. While on the one hand, we have a huge shortage of homes for people, we then have that wasted resource. Somehow, we need to be able to match that up. I do not know how you are going to that because, if a family, a group of people or a small community decide they are not going to live there anymore, for whatever cultural reasons they have, what do you do with that infrastructure you have laid down on the ground? What do you do with it? I hope the minister, who is an indigenous person himself, can bring this within the cultural context and try to resolve it. I do not understand their culture, and no way in the world would I be able to get anywhere near to understand the concepts that, obviously, are major issues for many of the people living out bush.
Overcrowding, without a doubt, causes problems. We know that overcrowding is one of the associated factors in rheumatic heart disease, multiple skin infections and kidney diseases. We know that you can get chronic suppurative otitis media as well. When I said it several years ago, the members for Stuart and Wanguri slammed me by saying that I was anti-Aboriginal because I said hygiene has a huge impact on people’s health. Here, the minister says exactly the same thing I have said, and it is fine. Well, let me repeat that overcrowding and hygiene, all bundled into one, are the reasons why we get such high incidences of chronic illnesses. If you can spread people out so they are not living in such high density, obviously it is going to be a lot better. Sometimes you wonder. I, obviously, understand the urban system better than I do the bush system. When you move a small family into a Territory Housing residence in Alice Springs or in Darwin, before long, you see others moving in with the family. How do you stop that?
Do not say because there are not enough houses, that is why they are crowding in it. The house is provided for the family. The rest of the people who have come to this house were not there initially and, suddenly, they appear as if from nowhere. Obviously, they have come in from the bush or wherever else, and they take up residence in the property and the tenant is powerless to do anything about it. It does not appear to me, anyway, that Territory Housing works particularly hard to support those tenant families, to empower them in a way that they can say to the visitors: ‘Okay, come and visit if you wish to, and with our blessing, but you cannot stay here’. We have to be able to give them some sort of support to do that, otherwise they will continue to be under social pressures. They have been suffering this for many years.
IHANT money is finite, and no matter how much you put into it, unless you can contain the cost of construction, you are going to end up fighting a losing battle. I recall that, when I was a minister for Housing, the average home built out bush was about $250 000; today it is closer to $500 000. That is only five years, and that is a real problem. Where are you going to find the money? If the price of a house built out bush has doubled in the last five years, something is wrong somewhere. The price of building a home in the suburbs has not doubled in the last five years. Something is wrong somewhere and you need to address that. Until you can control that, you are going to always be short of money. With the money that you have, you can only build half the number of homes today that you built five years ago. You are behind the eight ball immediately.
I believe that rolling all the major housing funds into one is a good initiative. I would be very keen to hear how that has been going. Now that the minister has put down those figures, I am very pleased to see that. Bringing the NAHS funding into the one pool as well allows standardisation of the homes, the nature of the construction and also the cost. Before this occurred, there was always an issue of inequality of types of homes that were being built by IHANT versus NAHS.
With time, I am sure there will be more designs that are appropriate or appreciated by indigenous people. We started off with the Papunya model quite a few years ago. It was a start in the right direction. I understand, talking to quite a few people in IHANT, that that Papunya model has been modified somewhat, but going in the right direction and providing designs that are much wanted by the residents.
I want to come back now to the urban areas. While the minister’s statement is mostly about indigenous housing in the bush, housing in the suburbs is greatly impacted by the lack of adequate housing in the bush. Without a doubt, there is a significant urban shift of people to Territory Housing properties in the suburbs and that is causing quite a major problem for many people. I have said it before and I will say it again: there are many people who are ill prepared, poorly prepared, for urban lifestyle. We can change that. We can fix that by teaching people how to deal with the urban mod cons. We can do that by appropriate training and teaching.
When I was talking to William Tilmouth recently, I suggested to him that maybe there should be a program where we have a home economics-type teacher who would come to a home and provide instruction - not labour, but instruction: this is how you manage your budget; this is what you do when you go shopping; this is the type of food that you would buy; this is how you would use a stove; this is how you would cook; this is how you use a washing machine. Do that, maybe for a whole month - a full-time job for a month. That person returns to the same family every day, five days a week - or seven days a week, it is up to the program - making sure that the family understands what it is like in terms of daily living in the suburbs. Children get up each morning, and go to school each day after breakfast. Tell the parents about shopping and show them what it is like to live in the suburbs and ensure that they at least have those skills there. Hopefully, after a month, those people will have picked up those skills and then the home economics instructor moves onto the second family and spends a month with the second family.
Perhaps, once a week, they return to the first family to see how they are doing, to ensure that they are still maintaining those skills. In 12 months, you can influence, affect, train, and teach, 12 families, 12 households. That is a start. Then have a competition, if you like, to see how they manage with the skills that they learned. That will be a way of ensuring that the longevity of the homes that they are occupying, their health, nutrition, education - all those things improve. All you need is one full-time officer at a time to do this. Twelve homes in a year is not many but it is 12 more than you would otherwise have. It would be a good thing.
This urban drift - what are we going to do about it? The Alice Springs News of 16 February reported and I quote:
- A senior public servant says the Territory government seems set to move 5000 to 7000 Aboriginal people from bush communities to Alice Springs.
- He says remote councils are being ‘starved out of existence’. Under the euphemistic motto ‘meeting new needs’, the government is withdrawing funds, realising its policy of amalgamating small councils is failing.
Let us concentrate on this 5000 to 7000 people from the bush coming into town. If that is the case, then I am really concerned. Alice Springs has, at best, 30 000 people, and you are going to bring 5000, or one-sixth of the population, in a very short space of time into the town. The cultural impact will be just humungous - absolutely humungous! In the same way, you would not want to bring in 5000 Americans to live in Palmerston or in Darwin all in one hit. You would not agree to have 5000 Americans living in Darwin. Nor would you want 5000 Shanghai-native Chinese people to come to Darwin to live in a short space of a year. You could not do it. You would cause such huge cultural turmoil …
Mr McAdam: What about 2000 Australians moving to Alice Springs?
Dr LIM: I am not talking about Australians or Americans. The minister misinterprets what I am attempting to describe.
I am trying to impress on the minister that no matter who they are – okay, let us use what has been demonised. We talk about Muslims, imagine 5000 Muslims living in Alice Springs all in one hit. As a government you would say: ‘Let us not try to do that. Let us spread people out a bit at a time’. You do not move in a huge mob of people who are not prepared for urban living, and suddenly plonk them there. That is why you are having so many problems in the suburbs. You do not accept that, but that is why it is causing the problems. If you abandon the bush people and say: ‘No, you cannot stay there anymore, you have to come into town, it is cheaper’, then there are going to be huge problems.
If a senior public servant confirms that to the Alice Springs News and it is prepared to print it, then there has to be a huge element of truth in there. Five thousand people in Alice Springs. No wonder Alice Springs people are concerned. You wonder why you have such cultural upheaval in Alice Springs. People complain all the time about neighbours from hell. You have heard about it. Every member would have heard about it. Your constituents have complained to you about it, time and time again. We need to ensure that people are adequately prepared for urban living. If not, you are just creating a situation that will just deteriorate beyond your control and that would be a tragedy.
I am not sure whether the minister is aware about an indigenous housing forum that is going to be occurring in March. I understand the conference will be titled ‘What is wrong with indigenous housing’. I understand this has been organised by a university in New South Wales. If the minister is not aware, then I suggest he finds out about it. I am sure, like me, he will be interested in attending …
Mr McAdam: I am aware.
Dr LIM: It is good to hear the minister is aware. I hope he will be attending, as I will be, to see what the workshop will provide in ideas to improve indigenous housing in the Territory.
The statement as delivered by the minister can be delivered by any minister of any political persuasion. Nobody disputes the fact that there is a huge problem with housing for these people in the Territory. We want to see this improve. We want to see more money put towards it. However, the money does not have to be government sources only. There are other sources. In particular, if the land was to be developed, appropriately, adequately, there will be more money than would ever be needed. In fact, people in the bush could buy their own homes with the money that they would receive from royalties - not only from mining, but from all the other avenues of business.
If you look at the total ABA income of $57.259m in 2005 and $50.402m in 2004, the way it is divided up 40% of the money is paid to the four Northern Territory land councils in a proportion of Northern Land Council, 23%; Central Land Council, 14%; Tiwi Land Council, 2%; and the Anindilyakwa Land Council, 1%, which translates to something like $19m. Then, there is another 30% of the royalties which is paid to land councils for distribution, in accordance with section 35(2) of the act, to Aboriginal organisations in areas affected by mining operations. That is something in the total of $14.3m of which the Northern Land Council picks up about $4.74m, the Central Land Council $2.7m, and Anindilyakwa Land Council picks up nearly $7m. There is money there.
It could be used, instead of putting it away in trust or buying lots of capital property, which does not appear to me to be returning the benefits into welfare for the direct beneficiaries of the land trust, which is a real pity. The remaining 30% of the royalties are available for the benefit of Aboriginals leaving the Northern Territory under section 64(4), also for the administrative costs of the ABA, which appears to be about $500 000. Under section 64(8), where the land council cannot meet its administrative costs, they can be topped up at the minister’s discretion.
There is a substantial amount of money. Let us see that money used to grow itself. Let us see the money being used to develop the land which the people own so they can then use that money to buy their own homes, or top up the money that governments provide to develop enough housing to satisfy the Territory’s needs. The minister talked about $180m a year. With the money that is available, that is over $50m more. If you can increase that with other industries combined with mining, you will have more money than is needed to develop the housing that is required out bush, or even in the urban areas.
Debate adjourned.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
I want to speak briefly this evening in relation to the commissioning ceremony that I and the member for Port Darwin attended last Friday for the two new Naval patrol boats, HMAS Larrakia, and HMAS Bathurst. It was a very special evening, particularly for the Larrakia people after whom HMAS Larrakia was named. Given that the Naval base is in the suburb of Larrakeyah, the Larrakia traditional owners were invited to the commissioning ceremony and the Commissioning Lady for HMAS Larrakia was Donna Odegaard. It was a privilege to be there and see the pride in the Larrakia people who attended the commissioning of HMAS Larrakia, meeting a lot of the traditional owners and Donna, with the member for Port Darwin. I want to read into the Parliamentary Record the commissioning speech that Donna Odegaard gave to the assembled guests and Chief of Navy and to put it on the public record for the Larrakia people. I will start with the contribution from Donna Odegaard, the Commissioning Lady for HMAS Larrakia:
- Chief of Navy, Maritime Commander, guest of honour, distinguished guests.
It is a great honour, as a member of my community, Larrakia, to be present as guest of honour and Commissioning Lady for HMAS Larrakia.
I must firstly pay respect and give thanks to our Larrakia people, our ancestors and spirits of Larrakia country for allowing us to be here today for this important ceremony. I also pay tribute to the memory of my late father, a senior Larrakia man, Leo Odegaard, represented today by my mother, Edith LeFrancois.
Larrakia are the traditional Aboriginal owners of this country here in Darwin, and the surrounding regions and across our beautiful Darwin Harbour to Kenbi (Cox Peninsula), where I live with many of our Larrakia and indigenous people present today.
I am reminded of the importance of protocol and respect for Larrakia country, Larrakia culture and all Larrakia who are guided by it. Also, to remind everyone that we are connected both spiritually and physically to Larrakia country and have done so since time immemorial. My late father often remarked - we are proud people - we stand up for our beliefs and values, we fight for our land, our people and, most importantly, keep culture alive for all our children and for the future.
I was taught that respect rises above everything and that integrity and the ability to negotiate fairly is most important for our survival. I am also mindful that Aboriginality and being Larrakia cannot be represented by one person alone. Rather, it is the collective of individual’s association within our community and our responsibilities we have that it is important to consider, and that defines who we are as people.
It is not the colour of our skin, or the different levels of knowledge and understanding that measures one’s Larrakia-ness or Aboriginality - it is about inner spirituality and maintaining strong connection to our country, abiding by our laws, protecting cultural heritage and respecting kinship that is most important to our survival.
Larrakia are saltwater people who have fought for many decades for recognition, rights, and rights to our land and resources against insurmountable poverty, injustice and the effects of Stolen Generations of our people.
We are presently experiencing a new phase of growth as we are gradually achieving success at a number of levels. We are a formidable community in our own right through hard work and dedication of many Larrakia and non-Larrakia across the region.
Many of you are aware that the Larrakia Nation is the peak Larrakia organisation with a governing committee representing eight Larrakia family groups. We have developed a number of community services caring for our elderly, parents and children, and improving the skill and employment opportunities in art, education and ranger programs, and as professionals in the community. We have achieved international recognition in many areas. We are working with communities, governments and the wider community to create direct benefits for Larrakia and the wider indigenous community.
Our key partners are the Northern Land Council and the Larrakia Development Corporation, the commercial arm for the Larrakia, responsible for major residential developments in the region for the benefit of the overall Larrakia community.
Today marks a quantum leap towards recognition of our people and our goals, and especially the enjoyment of being included at the highest level in the defence and protection of Australia.
Our motto on our ship is ‘United as One’. We see the commissioning of our ship as an occasion that represents a milestone in developing the relationship between HMAS Larrakia and the Larrakia community - the benefits of which will be lasting and time honoured. Through our association with Commander Tony Powell and the crew of HMAS Larrakia, we are looking forward to a long and enriched relationship.
In closing, I would like to say I am especially honoured to be here since I have dedicated my work and my life to the memory of my late father, Leo Odegaard, for the benefit of the Larrakia community.
On behalf of the Larrakia Nation and the wider Larrakia and indigenous community, thank you for allowing us to be present at this special occasion and for allowing us to share our culture and our community with the Royal Australian Navy. Welcome to Larrakia country.
Thank you. Mamak!
That is Donna Odegaard’s commissioning speech, given last Friday night. It really was a special occasion. In talking about reconciliation, then this was a very significant moment for the Larrakia people to not only have one of our Navy’s ships named after the Larrakia people, but to be really and truly included in all aspects of the ship’s commissioning and construction, and ongoing commitment from the Navy that they will continue that association between HMAS Larrakia and the Larrakia people and that is going to last for many years to come.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I wanted to put on record an activity that I witnessed at Clyde Fenton Primary School. I visited the school a couple of weeks ago to attend a full school assembly. It was great to see all the students in their colourful house T-shirts eagerly participating in the assembly. It was great to welcome new staff and students. I was most impressed by the Year 7 students who nominated for the prestigious and very responsible positions of house captains for 2006. Each student who nominated made a short presentation from the stage to the assembly. I was so impressed by the presentations of all of those students. It took courage for some of them to speak publicly about their personal attributes, and that was what made it even more impressive. All too often, we hear so many negative comments about young people, and do not always hear when positive things happen, so I just wanted to say how great it was to see these young people presenting so well.
I want to put on the Parliamentary Record the wonderful presentation of all of those Year 7 Clyde Fenton Primary School students, but especially the outstanding presentation by Eleanor Hayes and Courtney Dwyer. The eloquence with which these two young ladies addressed the assembly was outstanding. I know that I did not have the same confidence at that age to be able to stand up in front of so many people and speak so well. Well done, Eleanor and Courtney.
The teaching staff at Clyde Fenton had the unenviable role of selecting the successful students, and it would have been a very difficult decision. The successful applicant for female school captain was Eleanor Hayes; female vice-captain, Courtney Dwyer; male school captain, David Newton; and male vice-captain, Douglas Spafford. These four people, especially, have the great responsibility of representing Clyde Fenton Primary School for 2006, and I know that they will do their school community proud. I look forward to watching these young people as they mature into wonderful people who will shape the future of the Northern Territory and, hopefully, stay in the Katherine region to contribute to our community.
I would also like tonight to talk about the Rural Women’s Awards for 2006, which are being held this Friday. I want to place on the Parliamentary Record my disappointment in the very low recognition and acknowledgment that rural women are receiving. I went to the awards last year, which were in the Strangers’ Lounge. They were held during lunch and, I have to say, I was very surprised and disappointed at the lack of ceremony that was given to this award. There would have been no more than about 30 people present, and the official part of the awards was over and done with in such a short time. My opinion of the event held last year was that it did not adequately recognise and acknowledge the achievements of rural women.
This year, there has been some confusion about the date and the location of the event. It will finally be held at the Berrimah Research Farm at around lunchtime this Friday. This initially clashed with another program of workshops that had been organised for rural women to be held in Katherine. But rural women, being the enterprising people they are, juggled around the dates for the workshops so that as many of them as possible could come to Darwin to support the awards.
Most annual awards are given prestige by being presented during a lunch or a dinner function when their partners can be present. I urge the Minister for Primary Industry and Fisheries to ensure that the awards for next year are given the prestige and glamour that they so rightfully deserve, with a formal lunch or dinner function which is widely promoted. I look forward to attending such a function. I look forward to attending the function this Friday, and I know that rural women would appreciate being appropriately and rightfully acknowledged.
Mr BURKE (Brennan): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, as with many people resident at Darwin and Palmerston, I had the pleasure of attending the 64th anniversary of the Bombing of Darwin proceedings on the Esplanade. It was a wonderful event and I congratulate the Darwin City Council, the volunteers and the council workers who all worked to put it together. I should issue an apology to Mick Killick of the Maritime Union of Australia for not being able to get down to the service that they held on the wharf. I would have liked to have attended but, having already accepted the invitation from the Lord Mayor of Darwin, I was unable to do so. However, I will be talking to Mick Killick about what has been arranged for next year and the 65th anniversary.
There was a wonderful speech by Mr Monty Tuckerman as part of the proceedings. Mr Tuckerman was aboard HMAS Warrnambool on the day of the first bombing of Darwin and told of how he saw the bomb being dropped on the USS Peary and go down the funnel. It was fairly understated in what he said, but very telling, when he said that there were a few other crew mates who later experienced breakdowns and he thought it was because of what they had seen on that day. It was a very personal account of the cost that a conflict of that nature can have on individuals.
I would also like to acknowledge Mr Ray Chin who, on the day read the Ode of Remembrance. Many people will know Ray and his wife, Jade, long-time Darwin residents. Ray mentioned to my wife that on the day when Darwin was bombed in 1942 he was at Larrakeyah Barracks watching the planes coming in. Ray was serving with the Army at the time, I think, and his service did not finish at the end of World War II. He continued his service to the community, indeed, as many members will know, including a stint as the Clerk of this Legislative Assembly. I thought it was worth paying a special tribute to Ray Chin and his wife, Jade.
I was lucky to be able to lay a wreath with the member for Port Darwin. Many people laid wreaths and it was a fitting tribute to see the Cenotaph bedecked with flowers and tributes to those who fought for our generation and those before. There was a large crowd, it was well attended. It was good to see so many people making the effort to get there for the celebrations. I am sure that there will be an even bigger crowd next year for the 65th anniversary.
Last month, I participated along with the Mayor of Palmerston and the member for Blain, in the Dancing with the Politicians Extravaganza held at the Palmerston High School. Each of us were given an hour with a dancing instructor and told to learn a dance. I cannot remember what my fellow contestants had to do, but I had to learn the Cha Cha. As someone who has never been a ballroom dancer it was an experience, but a fun one. I must thank Bronwyn Graham, who was the instructor assigned to me, for not just her teaching and ensuring that I had at least some basic idea of what I was doing and would not cause myself or anyone else any major injury, but also for being a lot of fun into the bargain. It really made it a great time for me, and I enjoyed it immensely.
Moyston Wright, the Principal of Rat Race Dance Studios pulled it all together; he got the other dance studios involved. Bronwyn, for instance, is with the Darwin Dance and Drama Academy. It takes something like that to get a public performance together and try to whip up community support for it. Certainly, there was a reasonable crowd which turned up. Enough, in fact, to raise $1600 for Camp Quality, a very worthy cause.
As was reported in the Palmerston Sun, the Mayor took out the inaugural trophy, and deservedly so. She left the member for Blain and me somewhat in her wake. I should also say that, whilst I cannot remember what the member for Blain had to learn, I was told later it was the hardest of the three dances, therefore, he had a bit of a handicap.
I want to mention the volunteers from the Palmerston ALP Branch who manned the barbecue and drinks stall on the night and stayed there all night: Merv, Jaya and Sarah did a fantastic job and they contributed to the fun as well in their own way. The Palmerston Branch of the ALP is a vibrant branch; it has good people in it always up for anything and not afraid to volunteer. They are a friendly bunch and we always welcome new members. If any wants to join, they just have to contact anyone in the Labor Party, basically, and they will put you in contact with the right people. However, certainly contact my and the member for Drysdale’s offices.
I welcome some new teachers at Bakewell Primary School. Melanie Bulmer and Ranae Hamilton returned from maternity leave, welcome back. Karen Flannery, Sharon Sinclair, Susan Considine, Niamh ni Chillin, Stephanie Marcsik, Rebekah Sadowski, Carrie White, Jennifer Walker, and Nikki O’Gorman who is in the admin area: welcome to the school, or welcome back if you are returning to Bakewell Primary School. I hope you have a great year this year, as I am sure you will because Bakewell is such a great school. I always enjoy it very much when I go there. I want to say farewell to Lauren May, Kate Middleton, Nicky Honan, Michelle Waters, Adam Voigt, and Melinda Rowland. I wish you all the best wherever you have headed off to, and I thank you for your efforts at Bakewell Primary School.
I had the pleasure of having drinks with the Palmerston Raiders last weekend. I made a few gaffs whilst I was there, I am not afraid to say. I was told very quickly to simply refer to the code as League and forget the Rugby part, so I will not make that mistake again. It was a very enjoyable evening watching South Sydney playing and it was a good game, although I left a bit after half time. I want to say g’day to Scott Moy the coach and Greg Hansen the President, as well as Shawn Gottwaltz, Lorraine Robertson, Errol Edwards and Erika Moore who are the executive. I know the Palmerston Raiders are setting up for a big year this year, so I will certainly look forward to getting to a couple of games this season, and I will be supporting them all the way, of course, so watch out the rest of the teams in the League!
We had the launch of the Clean Up Australia Day on Friday. Clean Up Australia Day is on 5 March, and the Apex Club of Litchfield will be cleaning up in the area around the Palmerston RSL, the skate park and the surrounds. I encourage everyone, residents of Palmerston or not, to get down and join the Apex Club. I will certainly do everything I can to make sure I am there to assist them. In the past, I have been involved in Clean Up campaigns and, despite the fact you are handling rubbish, it is an enjoyable day of good fun and meeting people and the time really goes quickly.
The Palmerston Neighbourhood Watch is holding its meeting in the Blain electorate office, and I hope people will attend the Neighbourhood Watch program. It needs the support of the local community wherever it is operating, so I encourage Palmerston people to get behind that.
I understand the 1st Palmerston Venturers are holding a car boot sale fundraiser. The Venturers are heading off to New Zealand to represent the Northern Territory. The sale will be on at the Howard Springs Scout Den on Saturday from 9 am to 2 pm and the cost of entry is $10 per car.
I would also like to put in a plug for the Palmerston Cricket Club, whose juniors are having a sign-on day at the clubrooms on Woodroffe Avenue from 11 am to 1 pm. The Palmerston Cricket Club provides a sporting outlet for many juniors, and also has seniors grades as well. It is a great club that goes from strength to strength. Anyone with a youngster with an interest in cricket or who wants to get out and play sport should get down there and see the Palmerston Cricket Club.
The St John volunteers are having their open night on 26 March at the Palmerston Training Hall. We all appreciate the enormous job that St John do, and their volunteers are no exception. Without their volunteers, many events could not proceed. Of course, the volunteers give their time without thought of thanks, and certainly without thought of any payment. I am sure it can be an imposition in a personal sense on occasions, but the volunteers do it without complaint. I thank them wholeheartedly for that, because many of the public events in Palmerston do rely on the St John volunteers’ support.
I have been watching the Palmerston Library and the recreation centre taking shape at Palmerston. If people have not been to have a look at it, I encourage you to do so. Both will be fantastic facilities for the young people, especially all the residents of Palmerston.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I speak tonight about what I have been saying over the last sittings; that there is anarchy in the streets of Alice Springs. If nobody believes that, all you have to do is pick up any of the newspapers that are in Alice Springs and you will see evidence for yourself.
I have started to collect newspaper articles from every issue of the newspapers in Alice Springs, as well as the NT News, just on law and order matters - and this is only just a few months. We have had something like eight killings over the last six months – eight killings – multiple stabbings, robberies, rock throwing, windscreen smashing while people are driving their cars - and the list goes on and on and on. People in Alice Springs are saying: ‘What is the government doing about it?’ What is it doing about it? I have spoken to police officers who tell me openly: ‘We are losing the war in the streets. We have lost it’. I said: ‘The government tells me there are 100 more members on the police force’. He turned to me and said: ‘Where are they’? I said: ‘You are in the game, you should know. I do not know’. They are telling me the numbers are not there. Many of the new recruits, these new numbers in the police, are behind desks. On the streets there are not many police on the beat and there is a loss of respect for law and order.
Shopkeepers in the mall are now sending me e-mails and ringing me and saying: ‘We get people walking in, itinerants walking into our shop, brazen as daylight, pick up an article that they fancy in full view of me and they will walk out. They know that I have not the ability to stop them. They know that by the time I ring up the police and they get there, they would be long gone. There is absolutely nothing I can do. If I try to stop them, yes, I might get myself hurt’.
Talk to people who have had their house broken into. One in eight homes in the Territory are broken into - and this government tells me that things are better. They have broken into at least eight homes in every street in the Territory. They tell their neighbours: ‘No, everything is fine’. But one in eight homes in the Territory is broken into. If it is your home, as they did to me only a few months ago, it is a very devastating experience. When your wife’s wedding jewellery - things of great sentimental value to her – is taken, it is very devastating. That is the sort of thing that people do not like. No matter what statistics you give, what happens is that people say: ‘My privacy, my home is violated’, and it is just not on. Being masculine, maybe I do not empathise fully with the female mind but, when her bedroom is violated, her dresser is violated, it is like being physically raped. For weeks after that, my wife had difficulties coping with the intrusion that she suffered.
This is now on the increase. It was not that long ago when the newspaper published statistics reported by the Northern Territory Crime and Justice Statistics. Three people are assaulted everyday in Alice Springs. I will read this from the Centralian Advocate, of 16 December:
- New crime figures for the September quarter revealed that there has been an increase in assaults, sexual assaults, break-ins, car thefts, murders and property damage during the period.
- The latest NT crime statistics reveal there were 259 assaults, 58 break-ins to businesses, and 59 house break-ins in the three months to September.
- Assault up by 15% or 32 offences;
If this government is serious about dealing with law and order then it would put the uniformed policeman on the beat because that creates a visible presence which would be a deterrent. A policeman walking up and down the street will create a deterrent. I remember the government promising that they will have a mobile police unit for Alice Springs: ‘As soon as we get elected we will put a mobile unit there’. Well, July to now, that is eight months since they have been in government this time around. Where is the mobile police unit? We had a caravan which was rarely used but was stationed in the middle of the mall to create impressions. Occasionally, a uniformed officer would come in, go to the caravan and go in and walk straight back out again. However, it created impressions. That was a useful way to at least demonstrate to the public: ‘be on your best behaviour because we are around’. That caravan has not been seen for over a year. You have people starting to stab each other and committing bashings in broad daylight. You have to ask the question: what is happening to our society? There are many law abiding citizens in Alice Springs, and all they want is the town that they knew and loved, about six years ago.
These last two years, in particular, in Alice Springs has been particularly bad. What has happened, I believe, is that in the last five years more and more people are saying: ‘Yes, we can get away with it. No matter what we do, we can get away with it. This government has been very easy on us, so it does not matter; we can do it. And you know what? We can intimidate these white folk, and they do not dare touch us; for whatever reason they do not dare touch us so we can do things; we can get away with it’. When there is no police ready on hand it makes getting away very easy.
You have to ask the question regarding those three boys who attacked the girl: what gave them the right? What gave them the audacity, courage - call it what you like - what made them do it, in broad daylight? Something is wrong in society when teenagers go that far. Unless our society starts to draw the line and say ‘No more, we are not going to allow that to happen’, then it is going to keep on going.
There was an interview on a radio broadcast in Alice Springs. I forgot to bring the transcript with me unfortunately. However, I will read it another time. At the same time, there was the editorial in the Centralian Advocate dated 3 February. I will read it:
Where are our black leaders?
The vicious cycle of stabbings, bashings, sexual assault and murder continues - yet there is barely a word being uttered about it within the indigenous community.
Central Australia has had a horror run in the past six months with extraordinary levels of violence which have largely been confined to indigenous Territorians.
The toll for the past week has been nothing short of extraordinary.
There were two stabbings at the weekend and a young girl was viciously raped and bashed outside a high school.
Just a day before this death, another indigenous man was found bashed to death in an abandoned house. In a case of the two murders in one week, police remain very confident of catching those responsible.
When police do, no doubt the attackers will appear in court and, if found guilty, sentenced to life imprisonment. It would be too easy to say that that should be the end of the story.
The sad fact is that nobody seems to be too concerned about two more lives lost.
This newspaper has sought reaction to the violence - and the related issue of public drunkenness - from a handful of our indigenous leaders this week.
Very few wanted to discuss it off the record, let alone make a public comment. Is this a case of not in my backyard?
This attitude is a far cry from the days of the firebrand leaders like the late Mr Perkins.
His provocative comments on indigenous social justice served to inspire and lead the movement for change, not just in the Territory, but around the country.
Now is not the time for silence.
How many more people have to die and how many more offenders jailed for life terms before the indigenous community makes a stand against such violence?
Mrs AAGAARD (Nightcliff): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I want to pay tribute to a very important part of the Darwin arts community, the Cavenagh Theatre Incorporated.
The Cavenagh Theatre is Darwin’s oldest theatre group, having begun life in 1950 as the Darwin Amateur Musical Comedy Group. Their name was changed to Cavenagh Theatre in the early 1970s as they moved away from their original focus on musical theatre and towards genre including melodrama, comedy and pantomime.
On Thursday, 9 February, I was delighted to attend the opening night of the Cavenagh Theatre’s latest production, Gasping, by Ben Elton at Browns Mart. Ben Elton, as you might know, is a British comedian, author and playwright and Gasping is a witty satire about corporate hot shots selling designer air. The Cavenagh Theatre production was directed by Nerida Robinson. Whilst Nerida has directed quite a number of productions for Cavenagh Theatre in the past, Gasping was her first show after having been away from the stage for the past eight years.
The show has only a small cast, four stage actors, Philip Tarl Denson, Kevin Gould who, I might add is the father of the Serjeant-at-Arms, Helen Allmich, Ambrose Nicholls-Skene and Kim Jackson. All have large roles to play. Each of them brought their characters to life and made the most of Ben Elton’s clever and amusing script. As well as the on-stage actors, the show involves several voice-overs extolling the virtues of designer air, and a live news cross to Africa where air was in short supply thanks to rapacious harvesting by the wicked Lockheart Corporation. These voice-overs and the news cross were provided by Scott Fraser, Peg Gellert, Darroch Robinson, Phoebe Robinson and Nerida Robinson and were very funny indeed.
Of course, as members of this Assembly would appreciate, there is far more to creating great theatre than just the people who appear on stage. In this instance, the actors were ably supported by Kevin Cook, Phil Ingram, Tony Mount, Peg and Des Gellert, Jon Robins, Graham Lockerbie, Liz Gammon, Sheila Rowe and Chrissie Fraser, all of whom undertook vital backstage roles. Together, this enthusiastic and committed bunch of Territorians came together to put on a show which was at once entertaining and thought provoking. Using comedy, they caused the audience to reflect on the possible effects of co-modification of the natural environment being taken to its extreme.
Unlike the greedy corporate hot shots who feature in Gasping, members of the Cavenagh Theatre are not motivated by financial gain. They are an amateur group motivated by a love of theatre. This love is evident in the theatrical skill and the intelligence that they brought to Ben Elton’s Gasping, and it is a credit to them and the long-established reputation of the Cavenagh Theatre.
I would also like to recognise and thank Mr Ian Winstanley. Mr Winstanley may well be known to quite a few members in this House, because he certainly moves from electorate office to electorate office, talking to members about various issues. Although Ian is not a member of the Nightcliff electorate, I am told that he wishes that he was. He spends a good deal of time in Nightcliff, and is a very regular visitor to my electorate office. He keeps me informed of goings-on in the neighbourhood and shares his views on the issues of the day. He is actually very community minded and often helps out others with everything from tying down tarpaulins to fixing computers.
In the early morning, Ian can usually be found riding his bike along the Nightcliff foreshore. However, this is one activity where Ian is, perhaps, not so community minded. In my opinion, his ‘no hands’ riding style is an unmitigated threat to public safety. I warn anyone who uses the foreshore in the early mornings to be ready to jump if you see him coming, although he usually does do a bit of a clapping gesture in case you are in the way.
Nevertheless, Ian is a wonderful supporter. For Seniors Month last year, he acted as a volunteer at a community breakfast which I held on the foreshore. This is typical of Ian’s generosity of spirit and his contribution to community. He is a tremendous asset to Nightcliff and I am grateful to him.
One of Ian’s passions is the University of the Third Age. U3A is shorthand for the University of the Third Age, a concept that began in Toulouse, France in 1972 and has since spread around the world. The term ‘third age’ refers to retirement, the ‘third age’ which follows the earlier ages of childhood and adolescence, then vocational employment. Indeed, most of us present here in the Chamber would be welcome in this group.
University of the Third Age is dedicated to lifelong learning and to ensuring that retirement remains a dynamic and inquiring time of life. U3A offers a very democratic type of university. You do not need any qualifications to join and there are no degrees. There are no firm distinctions between teachers and students. All members are encouraged to contribute based on their life experience and their learning.
U3A arrived in Australia in 1984 and in Darwin in 1989. Since 1989, U3A Darwin has grown to have about 190 members spread right across Australia. They have a regular calendar of events, which includes activities including mah-jong, guest lecturers, play readings which they do in my electorate office, outings and discussions, as well as a book group, a lunch club and a classical music interest group. One indicator of the vitality of U3A Darwin was the launch last year of U3A Darwin – The Story by Yvonne Forrest. Yvonne is the U3A Darwin Treasurer and, in her words, the book chronicles ‘15 years of learning, laughter and friendship’. I was honoured to be invited to the book’s launch and enjoyed the occasion very much.
On 8 December last year, I was again treated to U3A’s hospitality when I attended their Christmas lunch at Kantilla’s in Marrara. The luncheon was superb, as was the company. Groups like U3A rely on the dedication and efforts of their members.
Thanks and recognition are especially due to U3A President Judith Cooper, Vice-President Miess Wolff, Secretary John Knight, Treasurer Yvonne Forrest, immediate Past President Nan Bell and committee members Elizabeth Bignell, Bill Kerr, Jill Parker, David Swift, Anne Taylor and Betty Woods. Each of these people serve their community with distinction and make a real difference to the lives of Senior Territorians.
I will conclude this section with a poem from U3A Darwin, a story written by U3A member, Peter Stokes. It is called Food for Thought and neatly expresses the philosophy that inspires U3A Darwin:
- Dust if you must, but wouldn’t it be better,
To paint a picture or write a letter,
To bake a cake or plant a seed,
Ponder the difference between want and
need?
Dust if you must, but there’s not much time
With rivers to swim and mountains to climb,
Music to hear and books to read,
Friends to cherish and life to lead.
Dust if you must, but the world’s out there,
With the sun in your eyes, the wind in your
hair,
A flutter of snow, a shower of rain,
This day will not come around again.
Dust if you must, but bear in mind
Old age will come and it’s not kind.
And when you go, and go you must
You, yourself, will make more dust
A house becomes a home when you can
write
‘I love you’
On the furniture …
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I also place on the record tonight my best wishes to Helen Campbell, a good friend of mine, and also the president of the Nightcliff Branch of the Labor Party. Helen had a very serious fall on Saturday night at her home and she is at the Royal Darwin Hospital with a very serious neck and back injury. I understand she can move her fingers and toes but we are still waiting to find out what her prognosis is. On behalf of my family and the members of the Nightcliff branch, I wish her all the best for a speedy recovery.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a few comments on the debate that took place in the House today about the Litchfield Shire and Humpty Doo tip. I sometimes feel that people do not understand where Litchfield Shire has come from and how that council works. It is not the same as a lot of other councils that people might be familiar with.
The council was started in 1985 with a ‘no or little regulation’ basis. It had small staff numbers, and most of the work was done by contract. It had a population of about 7000. The shire has now a population of about 16 000. It covers an area of 3000 km and has about 700 km of roads, seven recreation reserves, three transfer stations, and one landfill site. It uses the flat rating system and it also seals roads using a local rate. It does not take on other functions that some of the councils in the municipalities of Darwin and Palmerston take on. It only has a staff of about 10. Council has no by-laws and has a budget of about $7m to $8m. The councillors are very careful about extra costs foisted on the council as they are aware of the principles on which the council was started.
Sometimes, people move into the rural area expecting street lighting, dog patrol, mail deliveries and other things that they have been used to. However, Litchfield does not have these things. Litchfield has a motto ‘Community effort is essential’. This motto asks people to do things themselves where possible rather than always relying on the council. Every time you ask the council to do something it costs money so, if it is possible to do it yourself, do it. Freds Pass Reserve was started up using that motto.
Council has to deal with cleaning and environmental matters but it does not have power over those areas. The council is not a big council financially and concentrates most of its money on road construction and maintenance.
In relation to the tips, Litchfield Shire leased from the government three sites for their landfill, at Berry Springs, Howard Springs and Humpty Doo. Eventually, because of pollution issues, Berry Springs and Howard Springs landfill were closed and developed as transfer stations. Rubbish was dumped in bins and was picked up by a truck and taken to Humpty Doo landfill. Humpty Doo also has a transfer station.
The Humpty Doo site, which was originally meant for landfill, went under water during the Wet Season. Anyone who has been there during the Wet would see that, as you come to the present site, before you get there, all the land there in a big Wet goes under water. It is just like a lake. The council moved it back onto higher ground. The council always felt, with the growth of housing around Humpty Doo, that there should be an alternative site, and that site, they believed, would be Sunday Creek.
In the meantime, the Humpty Doo landfill site was used for most of the rubbish in Litchfield Shire Council. Rubbish was dumped in trenches and then covered with material dug from the trenches. The department of Environment said that the rubbish could not be dumped that way, and council then spent quite large sums of money building cells above the ground in which rubbish could be dumped and covered. Green waste is also dumped at Humpty Doo and, because it occasionally caught on fire, the government decided to enforce regulations which made the council cover the green waste with gravel at about a cost of $7000 a week. The Litchfield Shire must be the only council in Australia that has to cover the green waste.
With the council’s role to soon finish at the Humpty Doo tip, it will be up to the government to look after green waste and that will be interesting. I will just make the comment that, if the government is saying that the people in the Litchfield Shire must keep green waste on their properties, they are blowing in the wind. People are entitled to take their green waste to the tip just as people in Darwin and Palmerston are allowed to. If the government has plans to stop people taking green waste to Humpty Doo, then I say that there will be green waste dumped on every available piece of vacant Crown land in Australia. I say to the people who are thinking about that: think very carefully.
I thought I would address some of the issues the minister raised to date on both the ABC and in Question Time. The minister made the statements that Litchfield Shire does not want to take responsibility for collection of and disposal of rubbish. I should say from the outset I am not here to defend Litchfield Shire as if it is the most perfect council in the world. I have some arguments with Litchfield Shire at the present time about certain roads, car parks and a couple of other issues. However, I will defend them over certain things that have happened that they have not always been responsible for.
However, the minister said they will not take responsibility for the collection and disposal of rubbish. If you know Litchfield Shire, everybody takes their rubbish to the transfer station. If you do not want to take it to the transfer station, you have a private rubbish collector take it to the transfer station. The council then picks up the rubbish from the transfer station and takes it to the landfill site at Humpty Doo. They do undertake their responsibilities of collection and disposal of rubbish. They have been doing that since the council started.
You say there is a shambles at the Humpty Doo dump. I would be the first to say that dumps are not very pleasant places at all. The Humpty Doo tip has had problems. However, the Litchfield Shire did what the environment people asked them; they got rid of the trenches. They built the cells up high so it would be above the ground. They covered the green waste. As I said, no one else in Australia covers green waste at a cost of $7000 a week. It is a fair bit of money for the ratepayers. They did what was required. Again, the Humpty Doo tip site is not the perfect site. The council’s first president, John Maley, always felt that eventually that tip site had to go because of the movement of housing in the Humpty Doo district centre.
The minister also said that I have a bit of history and form on this one. However, when I think of form it is either I am a gangster with a criminal record, or something to do with the horses. I am not sure what it is. I know in my time we actually brought out the Litchfield Shire Waste Management Planning Study; the document I was talking about today. That was produced in May 1995, prepared for Litchfield Shire Council by Woodward and Clyde. That is what the council produced in my time. I believe my record for fighting for wetlands and the environment speaks for itself. I am just not sure what the minister is saying my form is on this one. If the minister would like to tell me one day, I am very interested. I was not a perfect councillor either, but one needs to realise that the president or a mayor of a council, does not speak for himself or herself; he speaks on behalf of the council. That is the difference between a dictatorship and a council. The council decides what policy is and the president or the mayor carries that out or speaks on their behalf.
The minister also continually raised the issue of the $6m reserves for the council. Since I have been on the council, Litchfield Council has always had a reserve. It should have reserves. The Palmerston Council found out just recently that, by not having reserves, they had to bump up their rate quite considerably because they did not have enough money to seal some roads. Litchfield Shire Council puts away money because it is required, under the Australian Accounting Standards, to have money set aside for the depreciation of assets. It does not put aside anywhere near enough money for those assets, because the council’s assets are about $800m because they have an enormous number of roads and some buildings on all their reserves, plus their own administration. They keep $6.6m of that for depreciation. It is not there to just throw away on anything because that would be foolish and the council would then have to find that money again at some other time. They can use it for one-off occasions, which they have for things like helping build the indoor equestrian and recreation centre at Humpty Doo.
The minister also said there was an onus on the council to carry out detailed evaluation of Howard Peninsula when, in 2000, it was identified. The Litchfield Planning Concepts and Land Use Objectives, which were released by this government, signed off by the then minister Vatskalis, showed a site on the Howard River for the proposed regional dump. Under the Howard Peninsula the words are - this is the planning words - ‘investigations with respect to potential to establishment a regional waste disposal facility’. In other words, where a regional waste facility would go is a planning matter. You would imagine that a government which wishes to put a regional waste facilities somewhere in the Darwin region would then spend the money on making sure that that site they selected was the correct site for a tip. It says ‘investigation with respect to’. In other words, that is saying the government should look at that.
Why would the Litchfield Shire Council look at paying for a detailed evaluation of a regional waste facility? I would not mind if all the councils threw a dollar in but, surely, Litchfield would not do it. I have doubts that this regional waste facility will be nothing but a pie-in-the-sky facility because Darwin is not going to leave Shoal Bay while it has all the facilities there. In fact, the word is that it is trying to increase the size of the tip leased from the Commonwealth government. It has put in methane plants and has just renewed or is renewing the recycling area. It does not need to move to a regional waste facility plant. Litchfield certainly is not going to go to that site which is expected to be a state-of-the-art site. Therefore, is the government is saying: ‘Oh yes, we are going to look at the Darwin regional site but, in actual fact, in the meantime you will take your rubbish to Shoal Bay’? If you take what the council has said, that will cost ratepayers somewhere between $400 and $500 per person per year to cover. That is an enormous strain on the council. They either tell people to pay that amount, which is doubling the rates, or they cut back on roads and their reserves.
I say to the government: please reconsider what you are doing. I would like the Humpty Doo landfill to be moved at some stage. Until there is a practical site in the Litchfield Shire, then allow that landfill site to continue until you pick a closer site in the Humpty Doo area, so that Litchfield can continue without the costs which are going to be burdened on that council over which they have absolutely no control. The government licenses tips and, at the end of this week, it is going to take away the licence for Humpty Doo landfill, basically wash its hand and say: ‘Take your rubbish to Shoal Bay’. Now the council has to find money to do that. Minister, you have said that this thing is not going to happen tomorrow, even though you wrote to me on 5 July 2004. There is not going to be an alternative site, I reckon, for ages.
On another couple of issues raised, it was surprising that the department released an e-mail yesterday, one day before the statement arrived. I have it here. They came out with the department talking about:
- Dear all,
In November 2005, Mr Palmer provided a written briefing updating the Chief Minister, Minister for Planning and Lands …
- … the Minister for Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage, and the Minister for Local Government on the proposed regional waste management facility in the Humpty Doo dump.
It is not as though the council sat on its hand, but the council had to do what it could within its own budget. In the end, the site for a new tip is a planning matter, similar to a district centre. Government identifies whether you can have your tip; the council then has to fund the facilities at that site. However, the government has to pick the site and say that it is suitable. Council does not own any land where the tips are.
There have been a lot of things said about the council which are unfair. A lot of people do not have an understanding of the council, and have never been on local government. It is not an easy thing to tell people their rates are going up, I can tell you - you would like to hang up the phone. It is not an easy job being a councillor, and it does not help if the government kicks the boot into them and says: ‘Send your rubbish to Shoal Bay’. I do hope the minister will say: ‘We will find you a site but, in the meantime, we will keep Humpty Doo landfill open’.
Mr NATT (Drysdale): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, it is with a great deal of pride that I inform the House that I was one of the very lucky and proud Northern Territory residents who ran in the Commonwealth Games Queen’s Baton Relay in Palmerston on Wednesday, 8 February 2006.
The Queen’s Baton is one of the great traditions of the Commonwealth Games, having been the curtain raiser to every games since 1958. The relay begins at Buckingham Palace in London with a ceremony, where Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II entrusts the baton containing her message to all the athletes in the games to the first honorary relay runner. In the case of the current baton, the first runners were Cathy Freeman and Elle McPherson.
The relay concludes at the opening ceremony of the Melbourne Games after the baton has travelled in excess of 180 000 km in a year and a day, visiting all 71 nations of the Commonwealth and passing through thousands of hands of baton relay runners. I had a wonderful leg to run. It started in Buscall Avenue at Bakewell and finished the leg running past the Bakewell Primary School in Forrest Parade. The feeling was exhilarating, especially when the entire enrolment of the Bakewell Primary School lined up three and four deep across the front of the school to cheer the baton, wave the Australian flag with pride, and savour a part of history they will remember forever. I was pleased to pass the baton over to my parliamentary colleague, the member for Blain, who I know was also extremely proud to be involved on the day.
The organisers of the relay need to be congratulated. The progress of the run was extremely well synchronised and ran exactly to plan and, what is more, on time. I particularly want to congratulate the Palmerston residents who were honoured to be involved. I know the Chief Minister named all the Northern Territory runners last week; however, it is important for the Palmerston residents to be recognised specifically for the part they played. I want to acknowledge the Mayor of Palmerston, Mrs Annette Burke, who started the relay in Palmerston that morning, Pam McLeod, Peter Wright, Fran Potter, Clifford Duncan, Erika Jankovic, the member for Blain, Mr Terry Mills, Robert Naumann, Marg Duminski, Judy Joyce, Rod Joyce, Beryl McIntosh, Lisa Naumann, Paul Mitchener, Jason Ivinson, Shane Hall, Damien Smith, Fiona Halliday, Paul Dale and Sophie Joynes-Hawken.
For me, the day was made even more special, and a day never to forget, because my father and mother, unknown to me, made the trip up on The Ghan from Adelaide, and the Adelaide to Darwin leg with the baton. I must thank them dearly for taking the trip to be part of the special day with me and my wife. However, the sneakiness and the close-kept secret I am still coming to grips with. Thank you must also go to my lovely wife, Jetta, for organising this surprise for me, and a special thanks to Des and Lou Fredricks, wonderful close friends of ours, who became involved in filming the event and snapping many photographs for the family.
I would particularly like to thank Telstra for nominating me for the run. It was totally unexpected, but very treasured by me and my family. Thank you to all those concerned at Telstra, and to all the well wishers who congratulated me on my selection. It was a wonderful occasion and the uniform, photos and replica baton will take pride of place in my office and home.
I take this opportunity to wish all the Australian competitors the very best of luck in Melbourne in March. A special congratulations to our Northern Territory combatants, who I know will take the pride of the Territory into their events. I was at a school presentation at the Durack Primary School prior to Christmas where a former student of the school, Crystal Attenborough, was present to hand out end-of-year awards to the Year 7 students. She was particularly looking forward to her qualification heats in January because, at that stage of her training, her fitness was progressing nicely and she was most optimistic of obtaining a place in the games squad. We all know now that she has achieved her ambition and I wish her well in her endeavours for gold in her personal and team events. Go, Crystal!
The Palmerston Magpies Football Club oval and clubrooms are beginning to take great shape at a great rate of knots at the Palmerston CDU Campus. The member for Wanguri and I were lucky enough to be shown through the new clubrooms construction by the Magpies coach, Darren Flanagan earlier this month. The rooms still have fixtures to be built in, but the building will develop with time and provide a wonderful base for the club in the years to come. The oval surface still needs some preparatory work in the way of top dressing to be finished, goal posts to be raised, and a fence around the playing surface to be erected. The club committee has undergone a large transformation in the last couple of weeks, with the past president and several committee members standing down from the club activities earlier this year.
I congratulate the new club President, Mr Gus Gale, on his appointment and other committee members, Senior Vice President Garry Pollock, Vice President Bob Hargreaves, Treasurer Carol Hargreaves and committee members Alan Walshe, Chris Murray and John Marshall for their commitment to the club’s future. Unfortunately, the club has not had the best of seasons this year. However, Mr Gale and his committee are determined to get the club back on track both on and off the field.
It is particularly disappointing to see the Under 18 grade forfeiting matches late in the season. Palmerston has always been a very strong sporting community with Australian Rules taking pride of place in the community. The junior grades are the future of the club and Mr Gale and his committee are very aware that the club will have to concentrate heavily in this area to ensure that there is a bright future for the club. I would like to state publicly tonight - and I have told Mr Gale and Mr Pollock of my intentions - that I am more than happy to become involved with the club to assist the planning, coaching, marketing or any other area that they see fit, in the hope that my previous experience in the sport may help them in some of these areas, to guide the club in a positive direction.
Last but not least, the Chung Wah Society Lion Dance Troupe visited the Drysdale electorate office on Saturday, 11 February, 2006 to offer a Chinese New Year blessing. It was a loud, bright and fantastic event that was enjoyed by all. The morning was made even more special with my mother and father attending the ceremony. We, along with many other spectators, enjoyed the display. The group did a wonderful job. It was pleasing to see several young children involved in the display, and these youngsters were ably educated by the senior and more experienced members of the troupe.
We followed the troupe from my office to the office of my colleague, the member for Brennan, in the Palmerston Shopping Centre where we handed out red balloons and sweets to the children who were celebrating the Chinese New Year while watching the lion in action.
I take this opportunity to thank the Chung Wah Society and all their volunteers for blessing us with such a great experience. I would just like to put it on the record that it would be nice if they would perhaps consider answering - it is something that my father suggested - a number of people who asked what the significance of the lion was. It would probably be nice for the Chung Wah Society to think about producing a small information brochure which they could hand around at these events to give people a bit of an idea of the history of the lion and what the significance of the lion visiting these places are. It may be something that the Chung Wah Society may wish to think about in the future.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I have to thank the member for Drysdale for his contribution. It was an honour for me too, to receive the baton from you, member for Drysdale.
I am also really pleased to hear your public statement tonight in support of Palmerston Magpies. I look forward to working with you, seeing I have tipped Magpies to win every single game this season. I will continue to tip the same next year and I am sure they will do their best and I will have the best result - a far better result than I had this year.
I would like to make reference to observations regarding the debate which occupied the better part of today on the approach to the issue of community public concern - drunkenness. That is a very deep and complex issue that needs to be considered very carefully, perhaps in another forum. Today’s discussion was largely about at what point we send the person who has a problem with alcohol through a door. On one side, we are offered six apprehensions within three months, and then, on the other three within six months. That is a reasonable debate and that was, basically, the focus of the debate. Behind that is the deeper social issue.
My concern is the door, Once the decision is made and the process has been activated and elevated to a new level, they proceed through a door. The issue we must all recognise with rehabilitation, is what programs are out there that are effectively addressing the problem? Once the person who has difficulty with alcohol and all the ensuing problems is brought before an authority - what then? That is where I urge honourable members - and I will take up the challenge after listening to today’s debate – that it is the next part of this that really is the most important part, the debate we must have: what are the effective rehabilitation programs? We can have the debate but, effectively, the ball is in government’s court because they have the capacity right now to deliver on that. However, I will do whatever I can in the area of policy debate contribution.
On the issue of policy debate and ideas, we must never underestimate the power of a good idea. I made reference last week in the sittings to the Australian Future Directions Forum. It has only met, I understand, once before a number of years ago. It was featured in an insert in the Sydney Morning Herald on Saturday, 4 February 2006:
- Imagining Australia in 25 years.
Ninety of Australia’s best young minds met to spell out a vision for the nation’s future. At the Australian Future Directions Forum in Yarra Valley, emerging leaders in business, politics, academia, religious, community and environment groups, unions, the media, indigenous organisations, the public service, creative industries, sport, law enforcement and the military came together to design a better future for Australia. Over three days, the forum generated detailed policy recommendations to solve entrenched problems and invest in future prosperity, sustainability and social cohesion.
To create a better nation over the next 25 years, Australia must resolve questions of national identity, secure our place in the world, invest in our people, achieve economic and environmental sustainability and build a more cohesive society. This will require principal leadership focused on the long-term challenges facing the nation.
The outcome of the deliberations of these 90 Australians was ending the disadvantage of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, and was declared to be the number one priority of the forum. They declared, as a group, that they would do this and commit to that as a policy priority because it is right:
- By not doing this we stand too witness the irreversible loss of one of the most ancient cultures in the world.
A very interesting result. When you go through the deliberations of the forum, it is really quite compelling reading, very challenging. It covers a range of issues from Australia’s creative industries, economic issues, education, environment, foreign policy and regional engagement, health, indigenous issues, leadership and governance, national values and identity, society, communities and social cohesion, work and families. I commend honourable members, and anyone with an interest in the development of public policy to address the emerging needs of our nation, to consider looking at the web site where they have listed the priority. The consolidated outcomes are listed on the website, which would be found at www.afdf.net.au. They are available now for anyone who would like to consider.
There were 100 people chosen. Of that, 90 people were able to make it. Of that 90, there were three Territorians. There was Dr Ngaire Brown, the Assistant Director of Indigenous Health, Menzies School of Health; Phillip Leslie, the Executive Director of Sport and Recreation in the Territory; and Wing Commander Steve Roberton, Commanding Officer of 75 Squadron. The Territory was well represented. I pay specific reference to those three Territorians who participated in a very significant event. Believe me, honourable members, if you have an opportunity to read the consolidated outcomes, it makes quite compelling reading.
I move to another issue that I have come across in recent times. It was during the debate about skills shortage. In the midst of the deliberations about how we find our way out of a skills shortage and the many paths that we can tread, one of them was brought to my attention when I met African refugees. There are a number of the African refugees who are very well qualified, with quite unique and extensive experience, both academic and in the public sector generally, having great difficulty finding work. There needs to be, in my view, some creativity and will expressed by government at this particular point to find an entry point for some of these very highly-qualified men, in particular, into the public sector.
I had the opportunity to meet three in recent times who are at their wits end. They do not quite know how to find their way into meaningful employment. I heard their stories about where they have come from, and the hours and years they have put into study and the academic qualifications - some of them earned in the United States, some in the United Kingdom, some in Australia. One is from Uganda, one from Ethiopia and one from Zimbabwe - highly qualified, highly motivated but unable to find work. They present a very sad story. I place the story of these three men on the Parliamentary Record as a reference point for response from anyone in government - particularly the minister responsible for Public Employment - to consider creative ways to allow those mature refugees, who have extensive qualifications both within this country and internationally, to find entry points into the public sector.
John Bosco Odonga has a Master of Health Service Management from New South Wales, a Master of Health Administration, a Master of Public Health from New South Wales University, a Graduate Diploma in Public Health from Sydney University, a Master of Science from the London School of Hygiene Medicine, and Bachelor of Science. He wants more than anything to have meaningful employment and is prepared to take anything that is reasonable. At this point, he has not been able to find any work.
There is also Herman Androga Awola whose academic qualifications include: a Master of Education from Australian Catholic University, Master of Education and Work from Macquarie University, Sydney, Bachelor of Social Science and Human Services Management from Edith Cowan University, Certificate in English as a Second Language from Edith Cowan University, Postgraduate Certificate in Education Behaviour Management, University of Queensland, and a number of other listings.
Then there is Stanford Jubane. His first language is primarily English. He has come from Zimbabwe. He has taken any offer that has come his way. His qualifications are largely legal, but he is prepared to teach and work in classrooms. He has taken any position that has come his way. He has worked at Palumpa and at Pularumpi and at Anula Primary School. However, he has yet to find substantive work. He has his family in Zimbabwe waiting for him to be able to send some means back to them.
They present very sad stories, and they are just three that really are quite compelling. When we talk about skills shortages, they are motivated, qualified men wanting work and having difficulty finding access into the public sector to be able to discharge their qualifications and experience in the service of Territorians.
On a lighter note, the Palmlesstonnes has been a marvellous activity. It was tremendous to go last night, in preparation for the 6 pm walk. They all had their yellow shirts on, doing their stretches ready to go on the big walk. This was the end of the first week, and it was the beginning of week two. After the second weigh-in, the word passed around that, collectively, we had lost, as a community in one week, 98 kg. That was very focusing, and people thought: ‘Yes, I have made my contribution’. I said nothing, because I have not made a contribution yet.
However, what is just so wonderful is that there are over 300 people involved in this community activity, and there will be individual benefit because they will be motivated to achieve personal goals. As a community, it is very strengthening, because the wider community is observing, within the midst of our community, some significant action. I reckon it is going to have an impact on most families in Palmerston, and will make Palmerston a significantly different, healthier, stronger community.
I would like to pay specific reference to those organisers. I will not mention them by name because there will be updates as we increase, or lighten, the load on Palmerston, because I want to reserve just enough time for this.
I read this on behalf of Lyn Karlhuber, who is the area coordinator of Weight Watchers NT. She asked if I could present this before the parliament. Lyn writes:
- I read in the NT News earlier in the year that a number of politicians and public figures nominated their new year resolution as getting fit and losing weight.
- Throughout the Territory, Weight Watchers holds weekly meetings in all centres from Nhulunbuy to Alice Springs.
- No excuses for missed meetings if you are out of your electorate. A phone call to 131997 will tell you where your nearest meeting is.
- Our new program, ‘Eat Think Move’, which now has two plans, will accommodate all lifestyles.
- Healthier, fitter politicians can only be beneficial to themselves and to all Territorians.
Maybe we could have a plan here in the parliament that, collectively, we could decide how much weight we could lose as members of parliament, and just lighten the load on the whole Territory. That is a challenge I would make and maybe we could consider it. I know efforts were made in the past to lighten the load in certain portfolio areas. There was a lot of noise made about it with little result. Maybe it is something we could do collectively.
Anyway, I thank you, Lyn, for the great work you do in Weight Watchers, and maybe there is a challenge there that we could respond to.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I would like to talk about Wagaman Primary School. It was my pleasure late last year to attend Wagaman Primary School to celebrate with the kids who graduated from the school. They are great kids and I wish all them best for 2006 in high school and their future. I seek permission to incorporate the list of names in the Parliamentary Record.
Leave granted.
Shawal Ahmad Myra Leong-Tyson
Scott Bailey Thomas Long
Liam Birch Troy Nery
Lachlan Brown Jessica Parnell
Crystal Burnett April Phoneyiem
Leah Cantrill Jesse Pietersen
Hayley Casey Jack Polkinghorne
Dwayne Crosbie Amy Russell
Khayla de Ausen Clarice Snachez
Jacqui Deveraux Patricia Seden
Gabrielle Fry Ashley Tyson
Alex Godfrey Jaslyn Walton
Matthew Graetz Jaden Wauchope
Tyson Halupka Dale Williams
Andri Ladju Brody Wishart
Jazna Yep
Nathan Bundren-Saxelby
Dr BURNS: I thank my colleagues for that.
While I am talking about the Wagaman Primary School, I pay tribute to a tireless worker who has spent an enormous part of her busy life helping out with the school council and other community organisations over the past eight years. I am talking about Christina Birch, who lives in Wagaman, just over the road from the school. She first joined the Wagaman school council in 1997 as a preschool rep, and for the next two years she was a parent rep. Then, in 2000, Christina took on the onerous task of secretary until 2003 when she became president.
Christina has worked hard in all roles and was very well respected by her fellow parents, teachers and councillors. She has put in an enormous effort over many years. During these years on the council, Christina also did volunteer work with the school, such as planting trees on planting days, assisting with the barbecue during twilight sports events, and other fundraising events such as food stalls at election day at the school. She was also a volunteer helper at the school cross country at Dripstone Park, and has also generally helped out at various other school events, such as the multicultural event at the school, which is a great success every year, helping out in the food stalls. However, that is not all.
Christina is also on hand at NT Athletics, where she helps out with the time keeping. She fundraises for the Darwin School of Ballet, and she just completed two years on the Junior Triathlon Committee, as well as assisting with organising events.
Christina and her husband, Paul, have two children: Liam who finished Wagaman Primary School in 2005 and has now enrolled as a Year 8 student at Kormilda College, and Madeleine, who is currently in Year 6 at Wagaman Primary School.
Whilst Christina was so active at the school community and athletics, ballet and triathlon, she has a working life. From 1999 to 2001, she was engaged in community nursing, including school health surveillance. In 2001, she joined the Aged Care Assessment Team and, two years later, joined the Territory Palliative Care where she is a clinical nurse consultant (Nurse 4). In this life, Christina was a member of the hospice working party and also a member of the Wagaman Residents Group.
I have been to many meetings with Christina and many community events. She always makes a fantastic contribution to the community and to these meetings. She is a very committed person. She takes a very commonsense approach and has a lot of empathy and sympathy in her approach to people and issues. She has been a hard worker who follows through on issues to ensure the best possible results for all. I am sure the Wagaman school community and the House join me in thanking Christina for all her efforts over the past eight years or so, and the fantastic job that she has done. We certainly need more people like Christina and Paul Birch.
I want to speak tonight about the Greek Orthodox School. Another school not in my electorate is the Greek Orthodox School in Nightcliff. Towards the end of the 2005 school year, I was pleased to present achievement awards to students at the special end-of-year awards night. On behalf of my colleagues, Jane Aagaard and Kon Vatskalis, I presented the awards of high achievement to Nomiki Melas, Irene Nystazos and Maria Moussa of the Senior High School, and Konstandina Spiropoulou, Alexandros Tsirbas and Kalotina Halkitis of the lower school. It is always a great time at the Greek school and this was another great occasion to celebrate. It was a concert in which all the kids performed, and they were a talented lot. They were speaking the Greek language; there was a lot of fun, mirth and merriment. I compliment the children and the teachers at the Greek school.
Tonight I would like to talk about the Evatt Trophy 2005. I had the pleasure last December of helping to sponsor a couple of students, Kevin Kadirgamar and Alison Woodger, chosen as delegates to represent the Northern Territory the 4th Annual Australians School Model UN Security Council competition, known as the Evatt Trophy, which was held in Perth. Kevin wrote to me last month thanking me for the sponsorship and telling me about the delegation’s experience. Kevin wrote that they found, and I quote:
- … the Evatt Trophy 2005 to be a truly worthwhile experience, as it offered an in-depth understanding of the UN Security Council Operations.
We were given the opportunity to debate on resolutions which are of utmost importance to the world issues of today. These included issues such as expansion of the Security Council to improve the efficiency of the council; UN measures to combat terrorism; comprehensive plans for the reduction of poverty in Africa; and the creation of a separate Palestinian state. Through participation in model Security Council debates on these crucial world issues, we were able to explore the techniques and diplomacy and understand its great power. We were also able to meet and get acquainted with 28 other young people from around Australia who all share a passion to discuss ways to resolve issues of international significance.
The Evatt Trophy 2005 was a memorable and insightful experience, through which we have been confronted with the many issues in today’s world that need attention, and the intricacies involved in finding the right solutions.
It was great to hear from Kevin and know that he and Alison found the experience both rewarding and enlightening. It is always fantastic to hear from the kids we sponsor to represent the Territory in interstate and international events such as this. I know that they are gaining special insights and skills to help them advance their knowledge of their chosen field of study or sport. I would especially like to thank Kevin for his letter.
Together with other members tonight, I would like to talk about the Chinese New Year, the Chung Wah celebrations at SkyCity. Along with Kon and Margaret Vatskalis, Elizabeth, my wife and I were hosted by Andrew Wilson, General Manager, Emmanuel Cruz, Assistant General Manager from SKYCITY Darwin at their Chinese New Year’s dinner on Saturday, 4 February celebrating the Year of the Dog. Two hundred and seventy guests enjoyed a lavish Chinese banquet with dishes such as crabmeat and shark fin soup, abalone with Chinese mushrooms and lobster tail with hot spicy sauce to name a few.
We were entertained by Ms Li Ling formerly of the Hunan province of China performing Chinese Opera as well as playing the Guzheng, a traditional Chinese instrument which dates back more than 2000 years. It started with just five strings and has been developed to the present 21-string instrument.
The lion dance was performed by the youth from the Chung Wah Society; the dancers ushered in the lunar calendar year of the fiery dog.
However, the highlight of the evening was the Acrobatic Troupe of Imperial China especially flown in from mainland China by SkyCity Darwin for this event. The three young ladies provided us with breathtaking routines such as gracefully balancing candelabras with their hands, feet, head and teeth; a single handstand with spinning plates; and the brilliant changing faces just to name a few. It was a dazzling display of showmanship and one we are not likely to forget.
I should also mention Melbourne’s top corporate cabaret band, Moondance, who were absolutely fantastic. They were also brought here by SkyCity and they had everyone up dancing as they played great music. Many local Darwinites were in attendance.
I would like to talk about citizenship and new Australian citizens tonight. At the latest citizenship ceremony held in Darwin on Australia Day, 26 January, eight Johnston residents were sworn in amongst our latest citizens. I am very pleased to welcome the Neome Williams of Alawa, Helbert Dante, Maria Florindo of Moil, Alexandre Da Silva, Benny Jong, Meas Kiv, Pedro Lay and Johan Pedersen of Wagaman. I also know that Mr Taek Fung Lay and his wife Siu Kim Tong, from the Casuarina electorate side of Alawa, also became citizens. They are a family that I met quite some time ago and I wish to sincerely congratulate them. They have had a difficult journey having to leave East Timor and settle here. However, I know that they will make great Australian citizens.
I have given a bit of a snapshot of my electorate tonight. However, in closing I would like to talk about Ted Durie. Ted lives on the Bellinger River in New South Wales. He operates Ted’s Oyster Shed. I happened to meet Ted when I was on holidays earlier this year. Ted was very interested in the Northern Territory pearling industry. He had a bit of a display of south sea pearls in the wall of his oyster shed and he is also interested in crabbing. I will be sending Ted some material on the Northern Territory pearling industry and crabbing.
However, it was interesting to hear about Ted’s life story. He is an old timber man from Briggsvale on the eastern Dorrigo plateau. He grew up in the area, from some of the material I have, in the 1930s. There is a section in a book written by Mary Gillett who talks about Briggsvale during the Depression years and walking to school with some of the kids there, and Bob and Ted Durie were amongst them. He grew up in the area, having to walk two miles to school from Briggsvale to Cascade.
Ted produces beautiful oysters. He loves to open them and give people a taste. He is a great salesman. He has two dogs. He used to call them Ned and Kelly. He calls them Red Dog and Black Dog now. He reckons that was a bit simpler. However, they follow him around. Ted works so hard; he is getting on in years. However, when he jumps onto his punt to go down the river and collect his oysters, Red Dog and Black Dog jump along with him and they are great helpers.
He is also a connoisseur of fine spirits but that is another story. I thank Ted for some of the conversations we had. I also thank him for allowing us to throw a couple of crab pots off his pontoon and pull up some monsters in the Bellinger River - some nice mud crabs. Ted made a very pleasant holiday for us. Thanks again, Ted, and keep up the good work producing those beautiful oysters.
Thanks for the opportunity, also, to talk tonight about the goings on in my electorate, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016