2006-08-31
Madam Speaker Aagaard took the Chair at 10 am
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table the sitting schedule for the Legislative Assembly for 2007. Sittings will be held in Alice Springs from 17 to 19 April. The budget will be introduced during the sittings commencing the week of 1 May and the Estimates Committee and the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee hearings will be held during the week commencing 19 June.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of students from Fu Jen Catholic University, Taiwan, visiting Charles Darwin University, accompanied by Terry Pailthorpe. On behalf of honourable members, I extend a very warm welcome to you.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr VATSKALIS (Mines and Energy): Madam Speaker, today I report on the proposal for McArthur River Mining Pty Ltd to change its mining method from underground to open cut. I have been advised by my colleague, the Minister for Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage that the open cut project can be approved provided it protects the environment and delivers real benefits to Territorians for generations to come.
I have referred Environmental Protection Agency Assessment Report 54 McArthur River Mine Open Cut Project to officers in my department for advice. I also note that the Commonwealth Minister for the Environment and Heritage has to consider the assessment report under Commonwealth legislation, and he has up to 30 business days to advise of his decision on this matter.
Before I am able to make a decision on this project, the company, McArthur River Mining Pty Ltd, will need to submit a mining management plan which includes details on how effective environmental safety and management will be incorporated into the open cut mining process. This plan will be reviewed by my department, which will consult with the Environmental Protection Agency before the mining management plan is finalised.
For operational mine sites, updated mining management plans are required to be submitted to my department annually. These updates provide the opportunity to constantly review environmental performance and, when required, to incorporate improved environmental management strategies. The material supplied by the Minister for Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage and the environmental assessment report will also be considered in the assessment of the mining management plan.
Minister Scrymgour has advised that the mining management plan should consider a substantial bond, including provision for post-mine environmental management, as well as several other conditions. Any deficiencies identified in the mining management plan submitted by McArthur River Mining Pty Ltd will be referred back to the company for consideration and incorporation in the plan. It is expected that the assessment of the mining management plan will take no longer than 28 days once all the information has been received. Timing issues, in fact, are largely in the proponent’s hands.
In addition, an assessment of rehabilitation liabilities will be done to determine the level of security required to be provided by McArthur River Mining. The Security Assessment Board, whose members include representatives of the EPA, will need to endorse the level of security required. Once assessment of the mining management plan is completed, securities finalised and the Commonwealth minister has provided his advice, I will be in a position to consider the proposal and make a decision.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, it is about time that the minister reported to this parliament about what can only be described, and what will go down in history, as a debacle when it comes to the way this government has handled the McArthur River Mine. Members will remember, only in March I think it was, when ministers Vatskalis and Scrymgour – sorry, we know who we are talking about …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister for Mines and Energy, Leader of the Opposition.
Ms CARNEY: … completely mucked up the process. There remain questions about the independence of the EPA to the extent that the opposition found it necessary to put a motion before the parliament last week about the EPA. The minister for Mines is, as usual, having a bob each way, trying to play tough, good cop-bad cop. I wonder whether the minister, in his reply, might wish to comment on one of the comments made by the minister for the Environment at the media conference earlier this week when she said that Xstrata is a big company and can afford this – referring to the significant bond of about 100%; the up-front bond that is apparently going to be applied. That shows Labor’s natural prejudice and hatred of business and mining.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms CARNEY: We had the Chief Minister hopping all over the place with respect to uranium. This is not a government that is committed to anything other than itself. It is not committed to the future of the mining industry, and Xstrata has every right to feel very aggrieved by the way it has been treated.
As usual with this government, the devil is in the detail. I know McArthur River representatives or executives are looking closely at it. This will go down in history, Madam Speaker, as a debacle.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I had difficulty hearing all you were saying, minister, but I did notice a couple of issues. One of the important issues is that of regulation of the mine, especially from an environmental point of view. Minister, could you explain what is the role of the mining department’s environmental section? I am told, when I used to argue that that section should be in the department of the Environment, that your department needed that section because they have people who have expertise in the environmental side of mining. What is their role in relation to McArthur River? If an EPA does not exist - because we have an interim board going out asking the public what kind of EPA they want - how is an EPA going to be involved? It really does not exist.
Members interjecting.
Mr WOOD: Well, it does not exist. You have had public meetings with an interim board to find out what kind of EPA we want. How can the EPA be involved when we have not worked out what it is going to be? Finally, do you believe it is fair and consistent with normal mining practice, notwithstanding Ranger Uranium, that a mine be asked to pay for an independent regulatory agency? Why, when you have a section of your own department which does that, and why, when we have NRETA, which can do that as well?
Mr VATSKALIS (Mines and Energy): Madam Speaker, I would like to comment about the Leader of the Opposition’s comment that we are anti-business. Was it the CLP member for Goyder who put a motion against the LNG plant in the previous parliament? I recall it very well. So, who is anti-business? We actually helped Xstrata to pass the hurdle because, to put it bluntly, if the minister had advised me to approve the previous plan for Xstrata, I would have had great difficulty under the Mining Act to approve it.
They overcame a lot of the problems. We had significant problems with the realignment of the river. All the other risks can now be incorporated in the mine management plan. With regard to environmental regulations, the current regulation with regard to mining takes into account mining practices, environmental issues within a mining lease, and occupational health and safety within a mining lease. I am very pleased that Xstrata came here and put a revised proposal which actually now can free us to give the tick of approval.
As for the other issue about paying for the regulation, investigations and monitoring, every other company does it in the Territory, in Australia and the world. Why shouldn’t Xstrata?
Ms LAWRIE (Sport and Recreation): Madam Speaker, I report to the House on a whirlwind trip I made recently to Malaysia and Vietnam to promote the Arafura Games.
Arafura 2007 starts on 12 May next year and it is now that we need to promote the event to our Asian and regional neighbours. Just prior to my trip, the Chief Minister promoted the games successfully in Brunei and the Minister for Multicultural Affairs hosted a promotion in Singapore.
The games are a wonderful event for Darwin. They not only promote sporting friendships, but strengthen links between Darwin and South East Asia. The games are a great sporting and cultural event, but also open up a range of tourism and business opportunities. A quote from an NT News editorial says it best:
My trip started in Kuala Lumpur. Malaysia was one of the countries central to the inception of the Arafura Games and they have regularly sent the largest delegation, about 350 in 20 sports for Arafura 2005. My first meeting was with Dato Dr Ramian, the Director of the National Sports Council of Malaysia. The National Sports Council uses the Arafura Games as a key part of their development program for their athletes and they are again keen to send a large team. We gave them a very extensive presentation.
Next, I met with Dato Azalina, the Malaysian Minister for Youth and Sports. The minister had to shuffle around several other meetings in order to meet with me, and I am very grateful that she did. Her desire to meet underscores the importance of the Arafura Games in Malaysia.
In the afternoon, I met with Tunku Imran who, apart from being a member of the Royal family, is also the President of the Olympic Council of Malaysia. He reiterated his support for Arafura as a key part of their development program.
Members may be aware that there are seven sports at Arafura next year for which we have included paralympic events. I met with Zainal Abu Zurin, who is not only President of the Malaysian Paralympic Committee but also President of the Asean Paralympic Committee, and a governing board member of the International Paralympic Committee. He is probably the most influential person in the region in terms of Paralympics. It was an honour to meet with him and promote this new aspect of the Arafura Games. He was delighted to hear that as well as being minister for Sport, I am also minister for disability. We had a very long exchange.
My trip to Malaysia received very positive media coverage there, as they are very proud to consider themselves a pioneer country of the Arafura Games. We received a commitment to another large Malaysian team coming to Darwin next year.
Vietnam has not had quite the same history of involvement in Arafura as Malaysia, but they are very keen to increase their involvement. This is evidenced by the fact that the Vietnamese government specifically invited me to Vietnam and the Vietnam Sports Committee covered our costs. Vietnam is developing at an enormous rate, and there is great potential for them to become a major Arafura participant.
The introduction of Tiger Airlines makes it much more affordable for them to get to Darwin. We spent a day in Hanoi and a day in Ho Chi Min City. In Hanoi, I met with several members of the Committee of Sport and Physical Culture, and met with the Deputy Sports Minister, Mr Hunyh Vinh Al.
In Ho Chin Min, I met the Director of Ho Chi Min City’s Sport Department, Mr Nguyen Hoang Nang and with the Vice-President of the Ho Chi Min People’s Committee, Mr Nguyen Thanh Tai. He is the equivalent to the Deputy Mayor of Ho Chi Min City. I was very privileged to have such high level meetings. Out of that developed a friendship, and Vietnam is very seriously considering using Darwin as a training base pre-Arafura, but also in a broader sense for developing their athletes.
In almost every meeting I attended, the subject of Australia’s excellent result at the recent World Cup was mentioned. Both Malaysia and Vietnam are football mad, and there is a great deal of excitement about Australia joining the Asian Cup and being a member of the Asian zone. We were able to promote the new football stadium we are building in Darwin that will be available for the Arafura Games. We showed them diagrams.
The Arafura Games are growing, but we must be aware that we are operating in an increasingly competitive market with a larger number of games in Asia and around the world coming onto the calendar. We have some great competitive advantages in Darwin and it is very important that we get out there into the region to let our Asian neighbours know about our games as the opportunities they provide for the Northern Territory are endless. We look forward to a fantastic Arafura 2007.
I have to say that you can never take anything for granted. Malaysia has been a big partner, but there have been changes in the key senior people making the decisions about who comes and how many will come, so it was critical that we went there, re-formed the relationship and met with the new key senior officials there.
In Vietnam, I feel there will be an emerging growth between the links of the Vietnamese sporting people and the Territory. Both trips were very valuable and I am working with the Arafura Games team to work out the next priority for promoting the games.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, it must be difficult for the minister to stand and speak of the virtues of the Arafura Games with the knowledge that it originated from that place in history from whence no good thing ever came. That was when the CLP …
Members interjecting.
Mr MILLS: There were many fine initiatives that were wisely implemented that are bearing fruit today. This is for the benefit of the Northern Territory, for the families that live here - not just now, but into the future. We must all work very hard to ensure that we take advantage of our strategic place within the region. We must make sure we leave no stone unturned. I am pleased that there has been no resorting to a rewriting of the past and ensuring that those fine initiatives are built upon.
I ask the minister to reflect upon another initiative that was in place, that is the Arafura School Games, the junior version of the Arafura Games, that took place within the Eastern provinces of Indonesia very successfully over a number of years and that brings another plank upon which we can build towards achieving that very important objective of building stronger relations within our region.
Arafura Games; excellent stuff. I appreciate your activity within the region. It is good to hear that Vietnam is now more engaged. I can assure you, minister, that in West Timor we also demonstrated our commitment to the future of the Northern Territory and promoted the Arafura Games. We would ask you to consider harmonising the program in terms of the Pan Pacific Games. You have already given your response on that, but I think we do need to acknowledge the competition within our region for sports. We can organise our schedule perhaps a little more wisely.
Ms LAWRIE (Sport and Recreation): Madam Speaker, I thank the shadow spokesperson for his support of Arafura. I have never failed to acknowledge that Arafura has been a long-standing, fantastic event in the calendar of the Territory. I have no difficulty with that whatsoever.
The timing and nature of the Arafura Games is really guided by the Heads of Delegation. They are the key representatives of all the participating nations. As host, it is quite appropriate that the Northern Territory pays heed to what the Heads of Delegation request. They have requested that we keep it in May, as we have, that we keep it every second year, and it would be foolish of us not to heed that request of our regional neighbours. It is a working formula and the only request that they made to change was to set that minimum standard of four competing nations, which we have done for Arafura 2007, and they are all very excited about the fact that we have events now for athletes with a disability. They are happy with the formula, they are happy with the timing and they are happy with the way we are enhancing Arafura 2007.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
Mr McADAM (Housing): Madam Speaker, in early June, important aspects of the Antisocial Behaviour (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act came into effect. Though still early days, I would like to report on how Territory Housing is using the new initiatives to good effect to reduce antisocial behaviour in public housing.
I want to highlight, first, that the overwhelming majority of Territory Housing clients do the right thing by their neighbours and their community. I have attended a fair share of community barbeques at unit complexes, visited our seniors villages, and I have seen some of the most beautiful gardens in the Territory at the homes of public tenants. As I said, most public tenants are responsible neighbours and they make the Territory community a better community.
However, this government is tough on public tenants who do the wrong thing. The new antisocial behaviour legislation has provided for Acceptable Behaviour Agreements and restricted premises, and these complement Territory Housing’s existing strategies for reducing antisocial behaviour. Territory Housing was quick to implement the new legislation. Since 15 June, five Acceptable Behaviour Agreements have been entered into, two in Darwin and three in Alice Springs. Another three are being negotiated with public tenants across the Northern Territory.
The agreements are being used to assist tenants to sustain their tenancies as they set out clear guidelines for appropriate behaviour. Territory Housing does not take Acceptable Behaviour Agreements lightly. Other avenues of assistance through community liaison officers, support agencies and the Community Justice Mediation Centre are pursued before Acceptable Behaviour Agreements are considered. Similarly, Territory Housing will assist clients to apply to have their homes declared as restricted premises under the Liquor Act. Madam Speaker, I know of six tenancies that Territory Housing has assisted to date, and many more want to take control of alcohol consumption in their neighbourhood through this amendment.
This government is empowering public tenants to take control of their homes and say no to antisocial behaviour and alcohol abuse. As I said, Acceptable Behaviour Agreements and restricted areas enhance Territory Housing’s strong and varied approaches to antisocial behaviour.
Funding for security patrols at urban hot spots has increased to $850 000 this year. Work is under way to develop an effective Living Skills program to help people with the upkeep of their homes. This initiative is in train and will complement the existing Indigenous Housing Assistance Service, which assists clients across the Northern Territory to gain and maintain public tenancies.
The employment of Indigenous Community Liaison Officers has been a success for Territory Housing; four officers have now been employed across the Territory and they work very closely with indigenous clients.
Territory Housing is also piloting a new administrative structure at its Palmerston office. The structure is geared to improve support services and intensely manage at-risk tenancies. Last month, this government announced an expression of interest for $2.03m to provide a managed accommodation service in Alice Springs. This initiative, coupled with the upgrade of the 33 bed Stuart Lodge facility, will significantly improve the capacity to assist short-term visitors to Alice Springs.
Supported and managed accommodation initiatives, sustainable models that meet the diverse needs of Territorians are a key aspect of this government’s approach to housing. These initiatives go hand in hand with other projects that are in the early stages of development, one that I am calling the Pride in Your Place project. It is really about encouraging people to take pride in their homes and in their community. It will take an approach through community renewal that is about more than just bricks and mortar. This government’s approach to antisocial behaviour is fair dinkum. It is strong and, importantly, our initiatives and ideas are fair. I commend Territory Housing for the work it has done to implement the antisocial behaviour legislation.
Madam Speaker, I will continue to provide the Assembly with updates in respect of this matter over time.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I welcome the minister’s report. I am glad to hear that the minister’s department is now attempting to fix many of the difficulties we have had with neighbours from hell. Obviously, all the people who live in a neighbourhood want to have reasonable lives, and neighbours from hell have become very intrusive over recent months.
The problem of the burden of neighbours having to make complaints to Territory Housing has become quite onerous. The fact is that when one’s neighbour complains, it never seems to be sufficient. What happens is when a neighbour complains, the neighbour from hell starts to target that complainant. It gets to a stage where people are intimidated; they are not prepared to continue to complain. Territory Housing officers need to be more responsive, take on the complaint and investigate it quickly. The sooner the investigation starts, the more compliant the neighbour from hell will be in behaving themselves.
I am pleased to see that Acceptable Behaviour Agreements have been used, although only on a small number of tenants. I am sure a lot more of these agreements could be used to at least enforce a standard of behaviour amongst people who live in Territory Housing properties. At the end of the day, it is important that we give them some sort of empowerment to deal with visitors because it is usually the visitors who cause the problems. If they have the power to deal with them, we would be a lot better off.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Speaker, it is all very fine for the minister to stand in the House and tell us what you are going to introduce. However, I do not believe it is happening on the ground.
I was very cross this morning when I received a copy of a letter from Territory Housing to a resident in Bokara Street - and you and I talked about this particular incident - that says again the tenant has been informed the behaviour is not acceptable and, if it continues, then Territory Housing will have to do something about it. I thought we were going to take some strong action on these particular premises. I really thought that you would at least put an Acceptable Behaviour Agreement in place, or something to put the tenant on notice. However, there are still five young people staying in that house, even though the parents only have two. There is mother and a baby and, last night - and I hope the minister for Police is listening - the police actually dropped off a male to that house because the male told them he lived there. He does not live there. Worse, what are the police doing providing a taxi service?
Mr Henderson: Yes! I will look in to it.
Mrs BRAHAM: Yes, that is something you should follow up.
Mr Henderson: I will.
Mrs BRAHAM: The police have been notified on numerous occasions about this particular house, and they turn around and give this guy a lift to the premises that has been causing problems.
Minister, it is nice to hear what you think you are going to do, but let us see some action on the ground. Let us see it actually happening. It is a joke at the moment. Until you get real about really expecting better things of your tenants, we are going to have these continual disruptions in our neighbourhood. Minister, not good enough as yet.
Mr McADAM (Housing): Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the member for Braitling, but there is an important issue to realise here. Part of the problem is the overcrowding, of course, the lack of housing stock. As you would very well know – and you are both party to this - you sold off $266m worth of Territory Housing stock from 1995 to 2001. So do not start getting up in this House saying it is an important issue and we have to resolve it – you were part of the problem ...
Mrs Braham: Tell them to go back bush where they live. Tell them to live there.
Mr McADAM: I want to say something else, Madam Speaker. Regardless of who you are, if you are a public tenant, you are entitled to certain rights …
Mrs Braham: But not …
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr McADAM: … and they have primacy. The fact that you mentioned Bokara Street this morning is very unbecoming of you, member for Braitling …
Mrs Braham: So, we have a town and a country house, do we?
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Braitling!
Mr McADAM: It is inappropriate. I have worked very constructively with you on this matter and will continue to do so. I can assure you that we are taking appropriate steps in respect of Bokara Street. However, the fact that you took the liberty to raise in this House, in a public forum, matters which have, essentially, been ongoing discussions between ourselves - natural justice must always occur and we must always respect the Privacy Act.
Mrs Braham: People are fed up, minister. The answer is not good enough.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Braitling!
Mr McADAM: Member for Braitling, I ask you to be a little more considered in your views.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
Mr VATSKALIS (Mines and Energy): Madam Speaker, I have another piece of great news for the mining industry from the Labor government which, according to the Leader of the Opposition, is not business friendly.
I rise today to report on a Mining Opportunities Road Show that I attended on 25 and 26 July. First, I must thank the member for Daly, Rob Knight, for organising and coordinating what I consider to have been an extremely successful event that was well received by the local communities at Berry Springs, Batchelor, Pine Creek and Katherine. The road show was designed to inform local communities about mining developments which are planned to occur in their area in the next 12 months. Information was also provided on employment opportunities, and goods and service supply opportunities which will be available as a result of the mining developments.
Three companies delivered presentations on their respective developments. Representatives from Compass Resources spoke about the Browns Oxide project at Batchelor. GBS Gold personnel spoke about Union Reef’s processing plant at Pine Creek and regional satellite mines in the Adelaide River, Pine Creek and Katherine area. Representatives from Territory Iron spoke about the proposed re-opening the Frances Creek iron ore mine near Pine Creek.
A number of Territory government departments including my Department of Primary Industry, Fisheries and Mines, the Department of Employment, Education and Training, and the Department of Business, Economic and Regional Development also attended the forums to answer questions and explain what they could do to help local communities take advantage of these mining opportunities.
The forums were all well attended with approximately 30 people at Berry Springs, 40 at Batchelor, 40 at Pine Creek, and 60 at Katherine. A larger crowd had been expected at Pine Creek, but due to the fact that 40 locals had already started work at the Union Reef mine at the time of the forum, numbers were down. However, the 40 employees at Union Reef are a tangible illustration of the immediate benefits of new mines in the local communities.
For the benefit of the Assembly, I will now provide a brief overview of the three mining projects.
First, the development of the Browns Oxide project near Batchelor by Compass Resources: this is an open pit mine which is about to commence construction. Capital expense of construction is estimated at nearly $70m. The project will employ approximately 150 people during the six month construction period and approximately 80 people during the life of the oxide mining operations. Employees will be sourced from the Batchelor, Adelaide River and Darwin areas.
The next project involves GBS Gold. The company is in the process of recommissioning the Union Reef gold plant, just north of Pine Creek. It will be developing two open pits and one underground resource over the next six months in the Adelaide River/Pine Creek area. GBS is scheduled to commence gold production in the last quarter of 2006. It currently employs about 60 people at Union Reef, and this will expand to approximately 150 people once mining and processing operations commence.
The third development is the reopening and expansion of the Frances Creek iron ore mine near Pine Creek by Territory Iron. The project is currently undergoing an environmental assessment as a Public Environmental Report. The project proposes to directly employ about 70 people during mining operations and to rail its iron ore to Darwin for export to China through the Port of Darwin. Mining is proposed to commence in late 2006.
These three mining developments in the Batchelor, Pine Creek and Katherine regions will result in at least 300 direct jobs and will become a major contributor to the regional local economies. All three companies are committed to local employment and local supply of goods and services wherever possible.
I congratulate the member for Daly for organising these highly successful forums which highlighted the opportunities that mining development will provide and I commend the mining companies - Compass Resources, GBS Gold and Territory Iron - as well as the participating government departments for their efforts to ensure that mining development will result in maximum local employment and input to local and Territory economies.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, the mining industry in the Territory is doing well despite this government. You can go on your road shows, and no doubt they have a particular value, but it is galling to most people in the Territory to hear government claiming responsibility for the great economic prosperity that we see here in the Territory. The mining industry is a significant, a major contributor to economic activity in the Northern Territory and the best you lot can do is stand in the way. Well, it is not good enough.
I wonder whether the 100% up-front bond that is going to apply to MRM is going to be applied to, say, the mine at Maud Creek. I note that the minister did not refer to that in his speech, to the extent that I heard him correctly. Perhaps you could tell us whether it is now going to be the policy of the Labor government to impose up-front bonds. A straight answer, yes or no, would be appreciated, minister.
In relation to uranium, since you are talking about mining, I note that you tend to be like your colleagues: incredibly selective. Minister, can you advise, yes or no, what you will be saying in the event that you go to the Labor Party conference, which I think is in April next year? What will you as the Territory minister for mines be saying at that conference? If you are not going to go there, what representations will you make? Minister, it is time to come clean. Your Chief Minister has been all over the place, and her latest position is that yes, she supports an expansion. Minister, given that you are the minister for mines, would you be good enough to tell us here and now what your position is on uranium mining?
Mr VATSKALIS (Mines and Energy): Madam Speaker, following the fiasco of Mt Todd and the $900 000 environmental bond that was a result of Territorians paying in excess of $30m, it is a government decision that all new mines will have a 100% bond. That will apply to GBS Gold, to Territory Iron and all the new mines.
Of course, if you had taken the time to study the legislation, because you are a qualified lawyer, you would find that the bond is evaluated every year, and every year it can be reduced if the company actively rehabilitates the site.
As for taking part in the Labor Party conference, I am entitled as a Labor Party member to attend any conference, and I am entitled as a member of the Labor Party to express my opinion freely. My opinion about uranium is well known to the industry, is well known to the community.
Ms Carney: What is it? What is it?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Reports noted.
Bills presented and read a first time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a second time. The purpose of these bills is to continue the government’s reform of the Criminal Code by revising the offences and defences related to homicide. The bills constitute a significant reform to Northern Territory criminal law.
As members would be aware, the government commenced its reform of the Criminal Code in 2005 with the Criminal Code Amendment (Criminal Responsibility Reform) Act 2005. This act, which I refer to as the ‘reform act’, created a new Part IIAA to the Code and introduced new general principles of criminal responsibility. This act also establishes a foundation upon which, over a proposed period of approximately five years, the new criminal responsibilities principles will be applied to all Criminal Code offences.
The reform act also repealed the existing manslaughter and dangerous act provisions. These were replaced with a revised manslaughter offence, and by the offences of recklessly endangering life, recklessly endangering serious harm, negligently causing serious harm, and dangerous driving causing death. It also amended the existing rape offence. The new criminal responsibility principles will immediately apply to all of these offences upon the commencement of the reform act later this year.
The bills I introduce today are an important next step in the reform of the Criminal Code. They will ensure that all offences related to homicide will function appropriately within the new principles of criminal responsibility. This is an important consideration in the reform process because offences that are likely to attract alternative charges should be dealt with under the same principles of criminal responsibility.
The government wants to ensure that these reforms cause as little disruption as possible to stakeholders in the criminal justice system. One way to achieve this goal is for each stage of the reforms to include as many related offences as possible.
Madam Speaker, I now set out the detailed aspects of the Criminal Reform Amendment Bill (No 2) (Serial 71).
The distinction between murder and manslaughter is a part of the law in all Australian jurisdictions and exists to reflect the degree of seriousness of the unlawful homicide committed by the offender. As I noted earlier, the manslaughter offence was dealt with in the reform act. This bill now deals with the offence of murder, the partial defences to murder, and the offence of assisting or encouraging suicide.
As an important first step, the bill defines what can be unlawfully killed by providing that a person against whom an offence may be committed under the Code is a person who has been born, and who has not already died. The bill then defines ‘birth’ by adopting the model code provision, which sets out a helpful and relevant test for juries. This complements the definition of ‘death’, which is contained in the reform act.
In line with the recommendations of the Model Criminal Code Committee, the bill reformulates the offence of murder to remove the constructive form of murder from the Code. This type of murder involves an unintentional killing by an act of violence, for example, where an act of violence causing death is committed in an effort to resist, prevent or escape from lawful arrest and custody. Constructive murder has been extensively criticised because it involves the imputation of the fault element required for murder when the violent death occurs in the context of other criminal conduct. If these elements exist, a murder conviction follows as a matter of course, even if there is no evidence of intentional recklessness on the part of the accused. This is a particularly critical issue in light of the Northern Territory’s mandatory life sentence penalty for murder. To equate an accidental killing with murder is directly contrary to the fault-based approach to determining culpability. In the absence of intention or recklessness where the death is truly accidental, the government considers that it is not appropriate or just for a person to be convicted of murder. However, it is important to note that, in the absence of the offence of constructive murder, an offender may nevertheless be criminally responsible for manslaughter on the basis of reckless or negligent conduct.
Because the Territory’s Criminal Code has not previously recognised fault elements of recklessness and criminal negligence, constructive murder arguably fills a gap in the criminal responsibility where an accused engaged in specific forms of conduct. With the introduction of fault grounds for manslaughter in the reform act, there is no further need for a constructive homicide offence.
I move now to the reform of the Code’s homicide defence provisions. Although the existing partial defences of provocation and diminished responsibility are not contained in the Model Criminal Code, it is necessary to retain them in Northern Territory criminal law because of the existence of the mandatory life imprisonment penalty for murder. However, the defences have been redrafted to clarify and, in the case of provocation, to restrict their operation. Under the current Territory code, provocation operates as a partial defence to murder. That is, murder can be reduced to manslaughter due to the existence of provocation.
Provocation also currently exists as a total defence in matters not resulting in death or, in the old terminology, grievous harm. Provocation is a complex doctrine which has been the subject of much debate. It consists of a union of two tests: a subjective test which asks whether the defendant was actually provoked to the point where he lost self-control, and whether he committed the killing as a result of that loss; and an objective test, which asks whether the provocation was sufficient to make a reasonable ordinary person behave as the defendant did. Notably, the current provision in the Territory code extends the ordinary person test to an ordinary person similarly circumstanced. This has been interpreted to include reference to and consideration of the defendant’s cultural or ethnic background.
The High Court reviewed the ordinary person test in the case of Stingel v R and decided that although it was relevant to determining the gravity of the provocation, the subjective characteristics of the defendant are irrelevant to the standard of self control imposed by the law. This standard, the High Court concluded, should be determined by reference to the hypothetical ordinary person facing that degree of provocation - in other words, a completely objective test.
The redrafted provocation provision in this bill restricts the application of the defence to cases of murder only and adopts the High Court’s recent statement on the appropriate test. The revised provision also removes the requirement for the defendant to have acted ‘on the sudden and before there was a time for his passion to cool’. This requirement has to date made the defence unavailable in cases where there has been a history of serious abuse inflicted on the defendant, which ultimately leads them into attacking their abuser. This is the situation in what is commonly referred to as ‘battered women’ cases.
The bill also clarifies that the defence is available in circumstances where the provocation is directed at someone other than the accused, for example towards children of the defendant. The government considers that this revised provision will reflect the best law on this defence.
The bill also revises the diminished responsibility partial defence to murder. This defence also operates to reduce murder to manslaughter, and the amended provision will provide increased flexibility in dealing with defendants who display some kind of mental dysfunction which is not serious enough to establish the complete defence of insanity, known under our criminal law as mental impairment. This defence is based on the fault element necessary to find a murder conviction being of a diminished quality. The bill will replace the defence of diminished responsibility with the new defence of substantial impairment by abnormality of the mind. It is still a partial defence and it must still be proved on the balance of probabilities by the accused.
The specific changes to the defence contained in this bill are: first, that the complex and often confusing concept of mental responsibility is removed. The new defence will instead turn on the accused’s capacity to understand events, to judge actions as right or wrong, or to control himself; second, the impairment has to be so substantial as to warrant liability for murder being reduced to manslaughter; and third, the current defence of abnormality of mind arises from a condition of arrested or retarded development of mind, any inherent causes or causes induced by disease or injury. The new defence provision requires the accused to prove that the abnormality of mind arises from an underlying and not transitory condition.
This revised defence is based on the recommendations of the New South Wales Law Reform Commission. The provision makes it clear that the jury has a specific role once the evidence has established the existence of the defence in determining whether, by community standards, the impairment is of such an extent that the defendant should not be convicted of murder, but should be convicted of manslaughter. Notably, the new provision clarifies that self-induced intoxication is to be disregarded from any consideration of the impairment.
This bill also inserts two further defence provisions. The first is for the protection of persons whose conduct causes serious harm or gives rise to a danger of death or serious harm during conduct engaged in by the person for the purpose of benefiting another or pursuant to a socially acceptable function or activity where the conduct is reasonable in the circumstances. This covers Good Samaritan situations and sporting pursuits. The second covers police, prison and law enforcement officers acting in the course of duty where the conduct is reasonable in the circumstances.
The reform act already contains a number of general defences which apply to fatal offences against the person. They are duress, sudden and extraordinary emergency, and self-defence, and a defence of lawful authority which applies to all offences, including fatal offences. Where a defendant wishes to deny criminal responsibility under these provisions, he or she bears the evidential burden in relation to the matter.
The bill contains some repetition of contents of the reform act. This is unavoidable, as each new offence and provision will affect the numbering of the Code. Consequently, the offence and punishment of manslaughter reappears in this bill so that necessary transitional numbering can be reordered appropriately. The bill also reorganises the homicide related offences to group them more appropriately in one part of the code.
The bill also redrafts the child concealment offence, which is an alternative charge to homicide of a child, to ensure that new principles of criminal responsibility will apply. Section 317 of the code, which provides that an alternative offence is available, has been amended accordingly.
The current Criminal Code offence of procuring, counselling, inducing and aiding suicide has been redrafted as an offence of aiding and encouraging suicide, which is a composite of the two Model Code suicide provisions. The amended offence is intended to capture the same behaviour as the current offence, and the penalty of life imprisonment is retained. The offence requires that a person must have intended that his or her conduct would assist or encourage the other person to commit suicide and that, as a result of that encouragement or assistance, the other person does commit suicide or attempts to commit suicide. As the act of suicide or attempted suicide must result from encouragement or assistance, an attempt at assisting or encouraging is not an offence. The redrafted offence provides very clear guidance to this complex area of law.
The Criminal Code’s homicide and related offences division also covers abortion provisions and are, accordingly, part of this reform package. The offences of procuring abortion and supplying drugs to cause abortion have simply been revised in accordance with the principles of criminal responsibility. The penalties, being a maximum of seven years imprisonment, are retained. The current section 174, which deals with lawful medical terminations, is more appropriately dealt with in the health legislation, not in the Criminal Code. This historical anomaly is repealed in this bill and redrafted in the Medical Services Amendment Bill. I will address the reason for this amendment in more detail shortly.
The bill also includes some minor consequential amendments to replace division headings and renumber offences as part of the necessary restructuring of the Criminal Code. This will be an ongoing process as each new stage of the reforms is introduced.
Madam Speaker, I turn now to the cognate Medical Services Amendment Bill, Serial 70. As I outlined earlier, this bill makes a technical change by transferring a provision currently located in the Criminal Code into a more appropriate location, the Medical Services Act. This provision sets out the matters relevant to lawful medical terminations in hospitals and the allowance for conscientious objections by health staff. It ensures that the duty of care in relation to medical treatment and the need for consent are preserved. These matters are all retained in the redrafted provision.
The purpose of the bill is threefold: first, to remove the historical anomaly of a non-criminal matter being located in the Criminal Code; second, to restructure and simplify what is currently a very convoluted provision; and third, to remove the absolute requirement for a specialist to perform a medical termination where it is determined that that termination must be performed within the first 14 weeks of a woman’s pregnancy. Currently, medical treatment to procure a termination in this early stage of pregnancy can only be performed by a gynaecologist or obstetrician in accordance with the requirements set down in the existing provision. The amendment will allow, within the same requirements, a properly credentialed and qualified medical practitioner to give that medical treatment in a hospital. The Northern Territory’s requirement for a specialist to carry out this procedure is out of line with every other Australian jurisdiction. It was inserted as a committee stage amendment in the Criminal Law Consolidation Bill in June 1973 when it was considered that such a requirement was necessary. Senior clinicians in Territory hospitals have raised this issue with government and explained that there is no medical reason for this provision. They note this requirement also puts an unwarranted pressure on one medical specialty which already faces a significant workload in the Territory. If this provision was allowed to stand unamended, it could create a workforce issue for Territory hospitals at some point in the future.
Registration of medical practitioners in the Northern Territory is mandatory for clinical practice and occurs through the Medical Board under the Health Practitioners Act. The Director of Medical Services determines, according to qualifications, demonstrated skills and experience, what a medical practitioner is credentialled to do clinically at a hospital. This occurs in both private and public hospital systems. I note that the amendment to this provision also inserts a requirement that where practicable, at least one of the two medical practitioners who are required to authorise a medical termination is a gynaecologist or obstetrician.
These amendments are sensible, safe and bring the matter into line with current medical technology and knowledge. The government has received advice from senior clinicians that they do not expect the amendments contained in this bill to alter the number of terminations carried out in the Territory and that the safety and scrutiny currently surrounding the procedure would be maintained at their current very high levels.
I am pleased to present these cognate bills to the Assembly. This is a substantial, important and long overdue revision of the Northern Territory’s criminal law. The government expects to present a further comprehensive reform bill in the first half of next year.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bills to honourable members and table copies of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the Speaker’s Gallery and the public galleries of visitors to the Assembly to listen to debate on the carer’s bill. On behalf of all honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Continued from 14 June 2006.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Speaker, my query to the minister is: why do we need to have this bill? Is it just to be warm and fuzzy for people out there in communities? We recognise our carers in many other ways. Perhaps the minister could explain to me why we need a Carers Recognition Bill. I am not quite sure why.
I wanted to raise with the minister a case that I have come across over which I cannot get any sense out of Centrelink. We have an elderly lady who is 79, I think. She had a friend who was her carer, who is 76. The carer decided to move in with the elderly lady to look after her, but the carer is a male so as soon as he moved in with the lady concerned, the 79 year old, and he was 76, Centrelink decided they were in a marriage-like relationship and changed their independent, individual pensions to a married couple pension, although Centrelink acknowledged that he was her carer and continued to pay him a Carer’s Allowance. Why would you impose this burden upon two elderly people who are only there to look after each other?
The horrible part about it is that I am informed if these two people were both female, they would still get their individual pensions, but because they happen to be male and female, it was assumed that they were in a marriage-like relationship. I consider that to be so discriminatory, I cannot believe it. I have spent months trying to get sense out of Centrelink over this matter.
I say to the carers who are here: if you are going to have someone move in with you to look after you, you’d best not let them be of the opposite sex because it may affect your pension as it has done to these two elderly people. It is a ridiculous situation to treat elderly people in this way, particularly, as I say, when they recognise this person is a carer by continuing to pay them a Carer’s Allowance.
It is one of those absurd discriminatory situations they have got themselves into. There is no place in Frontier Services in Alice Springs for this elderly lady to go to get care. We all know we have a limited number of places in the Territory so if you are an elderly person needing care and support, you go on a waiting list. The waiting list at Frontier Services in Alice Springs is quite long.
What does she do? If she continues to live on her own, Centrelink or the health department have to provide her with care in the morning to get her up, to help her with her meals, to help to clean her house, to help her with her washing, to get her into bed at night. The cost of providing that full-time care would be enormous. So she gets a friend who is willing to live with her, but suddenly they find themselves short – I think it is $90 a fortnight and I might be wrong; it might be $90 between them a week. That is a lot of money for seniors. Money does not go far these days, particularly with the increase in food and fuel costs.
We have two people who are willing to care for each other who are now penalised by this bureaucratic decision that because they are male and female, they must be in a marriage-like situation. I have never come across it before. I have taken legal advice. If you are two males and you move into together and one looks after the other, that is okay. If you are two females, and one moves in to look after the other, that is okay, but because this situation is male and a female, it is assumed you are in this marriage-like situation.
Minister, perhaps next time you go to your ministerial council, you might raise this because it is discriminatory, particularly because in the Territory, we do not have places for our frail aged people to go to be cared for. We want them to stay in the home. We all say that. It is good for them to stay in their home. How can you continue to want them to stay in the home but discriminate against them in this manner?
My comments perhaps do not relate entirely to your bill, but I thought it worthwhile putting on public record that there are some stupid situations that occur by Centrelink’s decisions and it causes a lot of stress, a lot of unnecessary heartache about what is happening. This particular couple do not know whether he should just move out and find some accommodation elsewhere and that she should battle on her own, or what. When you are 76 and 79, do you really need that additional stress? I do not think so at all. It is a sad case.
Carers do a great job. I believe your last move to introduce the card so that they get benefits as well is a great idea. I am a bit bemused by the purpose of this bill. I do not see any other funding going towards support for carers. I am not sure whether that was the intent of the bill. Quite often, we see dollars and cents in bills, you know, we are going to give support, but there is nothing there that mentions that. Perhaps in your reply you could tell me just why do we need this bill when we recognise carers anyway?
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I support what the member for Braitling said. I would like to say at the outset that I support carers - who would not support carers? I might get old one day and need a carer, so it would be pretty silly of me to say I do not support carers. They might leave me with a very lonely life. There are many carers in the rural area and I know they do a wonderful job. I need to say that because my question today certainly is not meant to put carers in a light that I never intended to; it is simply that I would like to ask questions to the minister, again, why have you put this in an act? I mean, that is all nice, there are no penalties really in the act, there is some connection with the Health and Community Services Complaints Act, but if you are to put something in official legislation, you would expect there to be some way to enforce it.
I ask the minister to explain how you would enforce things, for instance, that are written in the Northern Territory’s Carers Charter. For instance, section 6 of the Carer’s Charter reads:
Very subjective. Someone says: ‘Look, they did not take my views into consideration’, or it might be that they did, but they did not agree with them - how would you enforce that?
That is in number three. Again, a very subjective thing. It is a great charter, but when you put it into legislation, one would expect that that would be enforced. How do you enforce a charter that is – well, it is not like ‘you shall not park outside the fire hydrant otherwise you will be fined $20’. It is not that kind of thing; it is a much more philosophical approach to how we should deal with carers with practical outcomes, but if we put it into legislation, my question is: so what? Could it have been, for instance, put into the public service act as a requirement for all government departments that they must take into consideration the Carers Charter?
I spoke with Gary Halliday this morning about the issue, and he certainly is a great supporter of it being in the act, so in no way am I saying I will not support what is before us today, but I believe it is worthy of questioning the minister as to why it has gone into an act, and how that will actually make that Carers Charter enforceable.
A couple of issues have been raised and need to be answered: how will agencies be educated in the charter? How will they know about it? How do we get down to those members of the staff of various departments to know that it exists? In the case of Western Australia, $10m was given to the carers, the Caring for Carers initiative, as it was called, and admittedly Western Australia has 246 800 carers. I am not saying you give $10m to carers - although they would appreciate that much money - but I believe there should be a reasonable amount of money given to the carers so that they can go out and explain to different organisations what is in this bill and - which is the most important part of the bill - the Carers Charter. What is in that Carers Charter is about common decency to our fellow human beings. You put that in eight forms and have explained it a bit more in detail, and that is very good.
I will support the bill, but it is important to question the government when it comes to bringing legislation before us whether the legislation can work, what will enforce it, whether we need it, and whether it can be done some other way. They are the questions I leave with the minister. In summing up, as I said, I will support the bill and wait for the minister’s response.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I support this bill. I will not answer some of the questions because that is up to the minister.
When I had carriage of Community Services, I had meetings with the various non-government organisations and different peak groups and the community itself; there is agreement and consensus. We all know and recognise carers as the unsung heroes in our community, and this bill goes a long way to recognising that. It is enshrining it in legislation. There are many issues and problems. The member for Braitling pointed out the one with Centrelink, and I know that the minister is keen to talk to her federal counterparts and other ministers because it is a real issue. However, it is a Commonwealth issue and has to be addressed, I agree, at that national level. I know that the minister is actively pursuing that.
We know that there have been issues with carers of people with disabilities. Enshrining in legislation the role of carers and recognising the importance of their role reinforces their role to those agencies and ensures that everyone adheres to and recognises it is the ultimate recognition of those people who carry that role. I see carers, in my own electorate - and I have talked to the minister about this – where there are many indigenous families, particularly in some of our remote communities, who do not have that recognition or support. It is hard, particularly when it falls on the shoulders of a lot of our grandmothers in those communities. They either become the carer for children who are placed in care or for other reasons. There are a lot of children in our remote communities with disabilities, and a lot of that is left to those grandmothers to carry that burden. Any support, whether it is via legislation or other means, in relation to the role that these people play should be enshrined in legislation so that it gives that ultimate recognition.
In my own family, we are preparing to care for and look at the whole issue of a brother who has terminal cancer. The impact that has on a family in terms of who the caring falls to - I know that does not fall within the ambit of this, but I often think of people who have to go through the day-to-day work of having to care for their loved ones or other people because that job falls on them.
I applaud the minister for this bill. It does meet our election commitment, a commitment I know that everyone wants. I acknowledge the role of every carer here. You are fantastic and most admired because being a carer for 24-hours a day is not something that you can stop; you are there every day around the clock. I recognise that, as does everyone else, and it is not an easy task. I often see some of the women in my own electorate and the trials they go through with their caring. I take my hat off to you; I applaud you. The work you do is fantastic. There is no monetary compensation or anything that could pay for any of the work and love. All of it is done with love and without that, the people receiving the care would not be able to go that next step forward. I thank you. You do a wonderful job. Minister, I fully support this bill.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, at the outset, let me say that the opposition supports the bill but also supports the comments made by the members for Braitling and Nelson. There are some issues that need to be addressed.
Nobody denies that we need to officially recognise the self-sacrifice that many of our carers make to care for their loved ones. More and more, elderly people are the ones who have come in and filled the role of carer. They are the ones who seem to be left with the burden, perhaps because our younger people are too involved in their own personal lives to be able to devote time to another who needs care.
As our population continues to age, we will see 65-, 70-, 80-year-olds caring for their companions or others who are similarly of their age, if not older. That burden has to be somehow respected and shared by our society. Having this bill officially recognises the role and the sacrifice of our carers - at very little cost to the taxpayer. The amount of financial support that governments provide for carers could be more generous. It would make their lives a lot easier, and it is a way for government, taxpayers, and people in Australia showing their regard for the work that many carers do.
The bill, with its Carers Charter, contains the eight points, motherhood statements, and no one in their right mind would object to any of those eight points. It is good that we do that officially and it is in some form of legislation. Whether it needs to be in a primary act is a question we can debate at another time. It does not make any difference to me whether recognising the role of a carer is in a primary act or subordinate legislation. The important thing is that we publicly acknowledge the contribution that carers make in our society.
I propose to take this bill to the committee consideration stage later because I want the minister to clearly explain some aspects of the bill. She defines who a carer is, and a carer is someone who provides care for a list of people with disabilities, etcetera, but then it goes to defining what person is not a carer, and there I have difficulties, particularly in clause 5(3) when the bill defines that:
Most of our carers are in fact spouse or partners of the disabled person – a parent, child of the disabled person. I cannot understand why the minister would exclude these categories of people as carers. These are the unsung and unpaid heroes of our society, and we exclude them as not being carers. I do not understand that. At the briefing, I asked for an explanation and it was not clear why you would exclude a spouse or partner, parent or guardian of the person to whom care is being provided.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, excuse me. Honourable members I draw your attention to the presence in the ministerial officers gallery of the federal member for Lawler, the opposition spokesperson on health, Ms Julia Gillard. On behalf of all honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I support the comments of the member for Braitling when she said you create a problem when there is no problem. Sometimes it is a person living in the same home. For some reason only known to Centrelink or others who decide to say that person is the de facto partner when in fact they are not. So let us try to break it up and say that a spouse should be defined as a carer if the spouse is actually providing the care; a de facto partner likewise, or a child or a parent.
The other one is in clause 3(b), which says a person is not a carer because that person:
(b) provides care to a child who has been placed in the care of that person under the Community Welfare Act.
They are carers, whether they be foster parents or otherwise. They are carers.
A child who is a ward of the state is placed in a home that is not his or her own family home. Whether it is a relative of the child or an outside family, they are still carers and they provide a lot of care - in fact more care than most FACS officers can provide themselves, more care than what the parent can provide for the child. That is why the child is in foster care. They should be recognised and their concerns then taken into consideration.
Let us go to the charter and talk about point No 6:
I suppose it is very much the same as point eight, which is about complaints made by carers about services that impact on them and the role of carers must be properly considered. I ask the minister whether officers in her department take the views of carers into consideration because if they did, the complaint by the member for Braitling would not be there, nor the complaints made by many people who help Family and Community Services to look after foster children, wards of the state.
I have in here a litany of complaints and I am sure some of the complainants would welcome the attention of the media who should try to find out from them what their complaints are. When you say the views and needs of carers must be taken into account and when the carer of a ward of the state cannot have any input into the child’s care, cannot have any reasonable dialogue with officers and provide feedback to the officers as to how the child is being taken care of. Remember, the child is not just an average five- or three-year-old. There are many wards of the state who have mental disabilities, physical disabilities and behavioural problems. The foster parents are carers and have to go through a lot of adjustment with the child in their home. They have a lot to contribute to the wellbeing of the child, therefore their input should be valued. They should be listened to. When they try to complain through the relevant authorities, they are not heard.
I say again, I am sure some of the complainants would welcome the media’s attention. If the media is prepared to contact me about it, some of them are prepared to have their names released to the media so that they can be contacted. They will then make their complaints known.
I believe that the exclusion in this clause is not appropriate. I do not understand it so I will be asking the minister in committee why she has excluded them and then we can come to some sense.
Madam Speaker, I said at the outset that the opposition will support this bill. I believe that, in principle, it is good that we recognise our carers, the contribution they make to all of us in the Territory. We should continue to encourage them to do their work in the most respectful and respected manner possible. Yes, we can always plead for more money, and I am sure that our federal colleagues would be drawing the attention of the federal minister to ensure that that does happen.
Mr BURKE (Brennan): Madam Speaker, if I can start by also acknowledging the carers who have made it into the Assembly today - thank you; it is a pleasure to have you in here.
The Northern Territory is the third jurisdiction to introduce carers’ recognition legislation. South Australia and Western Australia, of course, were ahead of us in this area, but not for want of commitment. I am sure the carers here will remember that this was an election commitment of the government and one we are very pleased to be delivering on, and one which, I would also like to say, we are very pleased to have developed in consultation with Carers NT, the peak organisation representing carers. It is important legislation because it is recognition of the valuable work that carers perform.
I have had some personal experience, as I am sure a number of people here have. When I was a teenager, a good friend of mine was involved in a tragic accident. It left my friend with extremely limited mobility, extremely limited control of his arms and no control whatsoever over the lower part of his body. His brother studied the necessary courses interstate in order that he might look after his brother and care for him.
Events such as that have a major impact on family structures, not just immediate family, but extended family. It is important to be trying to provide as much assistance and support for families that find themselves in these situations because it is often from within the family a carer is found.
I recognise the absolute commitment that I know all carers have, whether it is of a family member or not. It takes a special person to give their personal resource in terms of their emotional commitment, not just time, to dedicate to someone else. It is something that I struggle to put into words because it is an extremely generous gift that carers provide.
This bill provides for the inclusion of carers in case management so that their rights to be heard and the needs that they have can be incorporated into care plans of the person who requires that care. Therein is a very tangible recognition of the role that a carer plays in case management. To ignore the rights and needs of a carer in someone else’s care plan, when they are so intimately involved in that person’s life, seems to be missing out on a resource of information and feedback. I am very pleased that the bill before us today incorporates recognition of the carer in the care plan.
I also note that this bill brings into place an appeal process to the Health Complaints Commissioner. In my previous role as a personal injuries solicitor, talking to families of people who have been injured or to the people themselves, a common theme that kept coming back was about the system working against the person who needed care or the people who were involved in the care of that person. I can remember one case in particular of a young baby who had been injured as a result of a motor vehicle accident. The father ended up having to work two jobs just to pay the bills and the cost of treatment. The mother, who was also injured in the accident, had a very limited ability to work but could not exercise even that ability because all of her time was taken up looking after her severely injured young child. To have people like that say: ‘The system is working against us. What can we do? We are struggling,’ has a great impact on one. I should say in relation to that matter, there was a successful outcome after a struggle of some several years. It was great that there was a successful outcome and the life of the family was made a great deal easier.
Coming back to the appeal process for carers to the Health Complaints Commissioner, anything that can make the system better for the people who are accessing it and caught up in it is a great plus. Things can be hard enough without an unresponsive system placing hurdles in your path. That is another key part of this bill, and I encourage all carers to consult your local member or the minister directly and give us feedback on how this bill is operating if it is passed here today, which I am sure it will be.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to the Assembly. I hope it brings the great advantages that it is intended to bring.
Ms LAWRIE (Family and Community Services): Madam Speaker, first I want to thank the carers for taking the time out of their busy and demanding life to witness the passage of this legislation. It is purely designed to give them the rights to be heard, rights that should have been recognised for many years.
I will start by responding to the specific queries of the members opposite. The member for Braitling asked why we need the bill. We need the bill because it is not always the case that the views of carers have been taken into account. Carers are often the expert about the person they are caring for. If that person is terminally ill, carers get to understand every aspect of that terminal illness; or if the person they are caring for has a disability, the carers get to understand in intrinsic detail every aspect of that disability. What happens is, in negotiating their pathway through the system of service provision, often the experts ignore what the carer is saying. Now, that could be at a very high level, about their medication needs, about their physical needs, their OT needs, all of those things, or it could be at the level of how best to move a person when they are hospitalised, or how best to move a person when they are attending an activity centre.
This bill says that in law, it is enshrined that the views of the carers must be heard and must be taken into account. If they are not, and if the carer believes they are not, they have recourse to the Health Complaints Commission to put in a formal complaint to address their concerns. In a perfect world, you are right; legislation such as this would not be needed. However, carers are not operating in a perfect world. They are navigating their way through a system which includes government service provision and largely non-government organisations which are funded to provide the services they need. They navigate their way through education systems, a variety of services, transport systems, trying to access aids and equipment, in all of those pathways.
No one puts their hand up when they are born and says: ‘I am going to spend a large portion of my life being a carer’. Carers become carers owing to circumstances in their life, whether they are the parent of a child with a disability or whether they have loved someone enormously and the person they love acquires a disability, acquires a mental illness or becomes aged and frail. It is life circumstances that create a carer. There is no prescribed notebook of how to be a carer and how to navigate your way through what is an incredibly complex system. The amount of service provision and the various agencies that are different and provide services in different ways is an incredibly complex area. Anything the government can do to assist carers in the legitimate role that they provide as carers, to be heard and to be understood and to be taken into account, particularly in the important area of case management plans, we should do.
Member for Braitling, I understand that you have a genuine care for carers, and we share that, but they are not operating in a perfect world. They do need their rights enshrined in law. The experience in both Western Australia and South Australia is that it has brought benefits, it has been beneficial - so much so that the various carers’ organisations across each jurisdiction have been actively lobbying for this legislation across each jurisdiction in Australia.
The member for Arafura was the previous Minister for Family and Community Services who heeded their call and put forward the election commitment of introducing this legislation if we were returned to government in 2005.
Regarding the Centrelink payments, I wish I could stand here and say Centrelink gets it right all the time. We know they do not. I am more than happy as Minister for Family and Community Services to write to Centrelink in regard to this issue. Please feel free to forward the information through to my office and I am more than happy to write to Centrelink to try to rectify what is obviously an absurd take on a caring role. I trust the bona fides of what you have outlined.
The member for Nelson raised some legitimate issues. How will we enforce this? Each government agency will be required in their annual reports to report on how they are adhering to this legislation, just as we will have consistent feedback from the NGOs about how they are adhering to this legislation. If this is not being adhered in any way, carers will raise those concerns. We have a close working relationship with Carers NT. They will be very aware of where people are not adhering to this law, and the Health Complaints Commission ultimately is the recourse for redress.
The public service act was a suggestion of yours; why bother with separate legislation; why not just put these rights in to the public service act? Member for Nelson, the majority of service providers are not public servants. The majority of service providers in this sector are non-government organisations so if we were to simply change the public service act, we would not be capturing the majority of service providers that we need to capture, hence this stand alone legislation.
How will agencies be educated and know about the Charter? The Department of Health and Community Services will proactively embark on a sustained campaign with both government and non-government agencies, which will include written information, website information, and education sessions. This education and awareness campaign will be done in consultation with Carers NT. It is good timing because we have introduced the carer’s concession card, so we can expand our efforts of informing people and making them aware of both initiatives.
The member for Greatorex raised a few issues. He said financial support the government provides for carers could be more generous. I could not agree more. Could you talk to your mates in Canberra, your Liberal mates, because they actually set the level of payments to carers?
Dr Lim: I said that in my comments. I said that.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: I urge you to join with me in calling for an increase in carers’ payments. That would be a good thing to do. Let the Commonwealth spend some of its $11bn surplus on carers. That would be a good thing to do, so we are in accord on that one, member for Greatorex.
Your concern in regard to Clause 5(3) about the description of who is not a carer, I took you through that in a briefing, and I will take you through that again in detail in Committee. I am more than happy to, but I want to set the context to this. The framing of the legislation means that everyone who is a carer is in. We define those aspects out so that in the case of a spouse, if they are estranged - that is, if they are not the carer any more - they cannot enforce what they would like to see on their estranged partner. So if you are a carer, if you are a spouse or if you are a parent or in a de facto relationship, any of those things, you are in; you are covered by this legislation. If, however, you are a parent estranged from your child, then, no, you cannot impose your will as enshrined by this legislation, or if you are a spouse estranged, then, no, you cannot.
For example, a couple is living together. One of the partners has an accident or acquired a motor neurone disease and degenerated and needed physical care - and this is not an absurd case because it does happen - the strain of caring leads to marital breakdown. For the individual with the disability, the system picks up their care requirements - and we can have another debate at another time as to how adequately that occurs - and the spouse is estranged, but they are not divorced. It would be inappropriate in that scenario to give rights enshrined in this legislation to that estranged spouse, just as if a parent is estranged from their child, or their adult child, if you like.
I can think of a situation I came across when I worked in the disability sector in Victoria: we had a mother who was estranged from her adult disabled son. They completely disagreed on the adult disabled son’s care needs. The mother wanted the son institutionalised and a whole range of things. The adult disabled son did not want any of that and was negotiating his own way through the service system. Now, it would be inappropriate for that estranged parent to be able to impose their will on their estranged disabled son. That is why we have defined within the exclusions those who actually are carers. Yes, they have a relationship, borne of a pre-existing relationship, be it parent, spouse, there was marriage at some stage, there was a de facto partnership at some stage, but they are no longer together, they are estranged. So, in a snapshot, everyone who is a carer, whether they be a parent, a de facto or spouse, member of the family, a friend, they are a carer, they are in and they are covered by this legislation. I urge you not to be mischievous about this, member for Greatorex, I urge you not to create confusion amongst the carers. Carers are covered by this legislation.
You queried why we excluded guardians. Guardians are covered by another item of legislation, the Adult Guardianship Act. Quite appropriately, all their rights and responsibilities are enshrined in other legislation. It would not be appropriate to confuse it and mix it up into this legislation, just as it is the case with foster carers. I wish you had spent as much time in your response on carers as you spent in your response on the child protection system. I am happy to debate the child protection system with you any day, but this is not about the child protection system today. It is not about paid foster carers, who are legitimately defined and enshrined in our Community Welfare Act.
We are working to reform that act, as you know. We have done community-wide consultations on that. There will be a Care and Protection Act coming, which will deal with the rights of foster carers, it will deal with the rights of parents who have had their children removed from them. That is a separate issue; that is not the issue of carers.
This legislation represents a major development for carers across the Northern Territory. As you have heard, we have become only the third jurisdiction in Australia to pass such legislation. The bill seeks to assist formal carers across the Northern Territory by ensuring that their needs and interests are considered by the service providers. Take, for example, a young mother of three children providing ongoing assistance for her husband living with schizophrenia. This legislation means that she can expect to be treated with both respect and dignity by her husband’s case manager. Services will need to consider her own needs for information and assistance, and involve her in the process of the care plan. She can expect to be listened to by services if her husband is unwell and have her role recognised, even when he is doing better. The bill is about setting a legislative standard for informal carers to be acknowledged by our service providers.
We will discuss the definition of a carer and its exclusions in the committee stage of the bill. I have already gone through that. I am proposing a committee stage amendment for clause 5 (1), which seeks to achieve the aims of the bill by bringing all people providing ongoing care and assistance within the scope of the act. This includes carers of people with a disability, chronic illness, mental illness, or who are frail and aged and need assistance. The exclusions that are contained in clause 5 exist to ensure that this legislation retains its primary focus on our informal carers. People employed to provide care are excluded on the grounds that this is a wholly different relationship from that of informal carers supporting their loved ones. The rights and interests of employed people to provide care are industrial matters more appropriately dealt with in that sphere.
While collaboration between service providers should be promoted, there are other mechanisms for achieving joint care planning between service providers. It is not necessary to provide additional legislation to promote shared care planning between providers. People who provide care as volunteers for charity or community organisations are also excluded for similar reasons. This legislation should not treat individuals who volunteer through a charity in the same way as we would treat a husband or a wife who is caring for their spouse. Like paid employees, the interests of volunteers can be represented by the organisation to which they contribute.
The bill also states that a person is not a carer only because they are a spouse or other family member. As I have explained, this is an important protection against vexatious misuse of this legislation to override either the consent of the person being cared for or the interests of other family members who have taken on the primary caring role.
Finally, the bill also excludes foster carers providing care only by virtue, as I have said, that this is dealt with under the Community Welfare Act, which is separate legislation and governs the unique and valuable work of foster parents. It is preferable for this act to stand alone in defining the relationship between foster parents and children in care, rather than overlay this legislation as well. There are already mechanisms to ensure that foster parents’ views, interests and needs are recognised and planned for in the same way that this bill will achieve for our informal carers.
Madam Speaker, I thank all members who have contributed to this debate this morning. It is certainly a privilege to be the minister sponsoring this legislation in parliament. I have a background of caring for people with a disability, of advocating for people with disability, of having worked for the NT Carers. I understand the daily struggles that carers confront, and anything we can do as a government to lighten that burden, we should do and we must do. I support the legislation and propose we go to committee stage.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Clauses 1 to 4 taken together and agreed to.
Clause 5:
Ms LAWRIE: Mr Chairman, if you do not mind, I will move the committee stage amendment first and then we can get into the debate on clause 5.
Mr Chairman, I move amendment 10, that subclauses 1(b) and (c) be omitted and substituted with:
This amendment comes before us to more clearly state that mental illness should be understood as a subset of chronic illness for the purposes of this act. Mr Chairman, I present this amendment at the request of the friends and family of people with a mental illness, NT ARAFMI, who have been very supportive of the legislation. It is recognition that they thought there could be some ambiguity around the recognition of mental illness. This technical amendment defines very clearly the role that carers play for people with a mental illness.
Dr LIM: Mr Chairman, I support the minister on this. We had a discussion at a briefing about this matter. Obviously, mental illness can be in an acute phase or in the well phase; it could be a chronic situation. By combining chronic illness including mental illness into the definition covers the whole gamut of mental illnesses from being well to during periods of being unwell.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr CHAIRMAN: The question is that the clause stand as amended.
Dr LIM: No, I have other issues to raise with clause 5.
Mr CHAIRMAN: We are talking to clause 6.
Ms LAWRIE: Just to clarify, we have not actually moved that it stand as printed. What we have done is we have amended my committee stage clause. We have not moved that it stand as printed, so it provides and allows for the debate between the member for Greatorex, who is the shadow minister, and myself as minister, around the issues he has raised in regard to clause 5. So until you read and we pass that last sentence, we can debate clause 5. It is my desire as minister to allow the debate on clause 5.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Thank you, minister.
Dr LIM: Thank you, Mr Chairman. The minister has suggested that I was mischievous in raising my concerns about a person who is not a carer. I would now like to read in toto clause 5 so that those who are listening and are concerned about the status of who are carers and who are not will understand clearly from the legislation.
Clause 5 reads:
Now, 5(2) reads:
I take on board the minister’s comments that in respect of wards of the state, it is a different act altogether, and I accept that, but 3(a) is quite clear.
The minister in her response to the second reading speech talked about an estranged spouse. Nowhere in this bill do you mention ‘estranged spouse’ - not in definitions. Nowhere in this bill does it say that if a spouse is estranged, or a child in fact is estranged from the family, they cannot be considered a carer. I agree with you that I could be the carer of my parent. I have been caring for my parent for many years. In trapezes a sibling and says: ‘I am a sibling. I am a child of the frail person. I am also a carer’. Yes, that person needs to be at least put through a process where they can justify that they do have a caring role. If they do not, maybe they do not then have the right to interfere or intervene with any decision made about the frail person.
In this bill, it is not clear, minister, because if you read it through, it excludes a person because that person is a spouse, de facto partner, parent or guardian. If you say ‘estranged’, then put it in somewhere. I spoke to your officers about that at the briefing and I suggested that the government should bring an amendment to ensure that the definition is clearer. Now, by your words in the second reading speech in reply, you made that clear. Your second reading speech was not clear.
I would like to see it in the legislation so that at a future date we do not have some smart alec lawyer come along and say: ‘No, this man is a carer for his parent’, when in fact he has had no contribution to make during the period of the parent’s frailty. That is an important distinction that you need to make. If you do not make that distinction, then legitimate carers could be excluded in this bill. That would be a tragedy because people spend a lot of their lives caring for their loved ones.
You say that you have been in the care profession before. Heck, I have been a general practitioner for nearly 30 years and I have been in a caring role. I have been in a profession that understands that, too, probably better than you do, however, there is a time for another debate on that matter. Let us not stand here and claim that I am better than you are or you are better than me. Let us talk about the carers and let us make sure that the carers are the ones that we make legislation to protect, and let us make the definition clearer.
Ms LAWRIE: I will step through this again for the member for Greatorex:
5. Who is a carer.
The exclusions are there because there may be examples where people are married or de facto but do not actually provide the care. One of those scenarios is estranged, but it may be an individual’s choice that they are married, not estranged, but through their individual choice choose not to be a carer, choose not to provide the care. So if we were to use the description of estranged only, we would not capture the variety of scenarios that exist across our society where, quite legitimately, someone has said: ‘I married this person, I love this person, but I only want to be their husband or their wife; I do not want to be their carer’. That happens, member for Greatorex. I have met people in those scenarios. It can happen in de facto relationships, too.
I welcome the fact that you understand our exclusion of foster carers. I hope you understand, similarly, our exclusion of guardians. We have separate legislation that covers guardians. On this point, I will reiterate because of the definitions in clause 5(1), a person who is a carer is covered by this legislation. Anyone who is providing that carer role informally, not paid to do it, but they are doing it out of love, is covered by this legislation, absolutely covered, but if they are not a carer - they might be a spouse, they might be a de facto, estranged or otherwise - they are not covered by this legislation. This is legislation for carers.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6:
Dr LIM: Minister, when you say that all practical measures to ensure organisations and officers will be made aware of the charter, how do you propose to do this? Could you give us a rundown as to what you are going to do?
Ms LAWRIE: Member for Greatorex, we will be providing written information and distributing that to government and non-government agencies. We will provide website information and education sessions, and that work will be done by my agency, the Department of Family and Community Services, which has the Aged and Disability Division, and it will be done in consultation with Carers NT. There will be a public awareness campaign specifically targeting service providers, both government and non-government agencies, to inform them of the legislation, inform them of the rights enshrined in the legislation for carers, inform them of their redress to the Health Complaints Commission so that people are made aware of this, and we will be requiring government agencies to report back within their annual reports about their adherence to this legislation.
Dr LIM: Mr Chairman, I need guidance here because I do not need to go on past clause 6 if I need to ask some questions about the charter itself. Where would I fit those questions into this committee stage?
Mr CHAIRMAN: We will get to that. We will move through the bill.
Ms LAWRIE: Mr Chairman, I am happy to take these questions now so that we can then deal with the bill as a whole.
Mr CHAIRMAN: You wish to speak to Schedule 1?
Dr LIM: Yes, that is correct. Minister, because there are no sanctions within the bill, how do you propose that you will insist that the views and needs of carers will be taken into account, particularly by, say, the public service, whether it be in hospitals or wherever else that a disabled person would go with their carer? If the carer’s views and opinions are not taken note of, what sanction will be placed on the treating facility?
Ms LAWRIE: Member for Greatorex, the redress to the Health Complaints Commission is an important component of this legislation. First of all, in answer to the first part of your question, the requirement for agencies to report in their annual report is a mechanism within government, if you like, for ensuring agencies adhere to the legislation.
Second, in terms of both government and non-government agencies, if a carer feels as though their rights enshrined in this legislation are not being met, they can complain to the Health Complaints Commission, and that can be appropriately dealt with by any decision of the Health Complaints Commission.
There will be publicity around this legislation and the rights that we are providing to carers enshrined in law. There will be the reporting process through our annual reports when it comes to government agencies and, within the normal service agreement, monitoring and evaluation that our agency does on non-government organisations, clearly adherence to this law is part of those discussions. The government’s monitoring role for the non-government service providers includes this law which will be a part of meeting the test of our service agreements.
As well, there is the ultimate sanction, if you like, of taking a matter to the Health Complaints Commission.
Dr LIM: Thank you for the response, minister. That makes it clearer. Will you please confirm for me that the Health Complaints Commission can also deal with NGOs and private providers?
Ms LAWRIE: Yes.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported with amendment; report adopted.
Ms LAWRIE (Family and Community Services): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of delegates to the Australasian Parliamentary Educators Conference: from the Commonwealth, Dr Rick Williams; from New South Wales, Mr Graham Spindler and Ms Daniela Georgi; from Norfolk Island, Ms Gaye Evans; from New Zealand, Ms Jodie Willison; from South Australia, is Ms Penny Cavenagh; from Western Australia, Ms Jane Gray; from the ACT, Ms Linzi Lamont; and from the Northern Territory, Ms Raine Calwell, Ms Anna-Maria Socci, Ms Renee Manley and Mrs Jan Sporn. On behalf of all honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: I also advise honourable members of the presence in the gallery of visitors to the parliament who are here as part of the Parliament House public tour program. On behalf of all honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr STIRLING (Racing, Gaming and Licensing): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Liquor Amendment Bill 2006 (Serial 63) passing through all stages at this sitting.
It is not the general rule of government to pass bills on urgency. We do so only under exceptional circumstances and I believe the case fits here.
Alcohol-related antisocial behaviour remains the biggest single challenge for us all in the Northern Territory. We have responded in a broad fashion. We have undertaken a range of measures, most of which go to empowering local communities to take action themselves rather than top down from the government. We developed the Alcohol Framework which had many of these measures. We are rewriting the Liquor Act, and we have issued a moratorium on new takeaway licences for the next 12 months. We have put new licence conditions in place in Tennant Creek and Nguiu, and the alcohol permit system at Groote Eylandt. We have established Alcohol Courts in Alice Springs and Darwin and in the last session of parliament, restricted premises provisions were added to the Liquor Act.
In this session, we intend a public restricted areas provision to be further added to the act. These actions have all been in response to calls from the community for further action to address alcohol-related problems in their communities. We are committed to working with communities at the grassroots level on these issues and we want to develop mechanisms that support people in the community to address these alcohol problems. That is why in the last session, the restricted premises declaration provision was added to the Liquor Act and why we want to bring forward the public restricted area provisions this time, because both these measures give the communities, individual community organisations, local councils, further options to deal with unacceptable alcohol-related behaviour.
We do not pretend that any one of these is the silver bullet that will fix it all and put it all behind us. They are a range of measures designed to be complementary and to empower people at the grassroots level. We want to be able to continue to respond as quickly as possible to ensure that our communities are safe places.
In relation to the consultation process, an information paper, The Public Dry Areas Discussion Paper, was placed up on the website on 19 July 2006. The information paper with an invitation to respond was posted to all members of this Assembly, to the Local Government Association of the Northern Territory, the North Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service, Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service, the Law Society, the Council of Social Services, the Australian Hotels Association, and the Liquor Stores Association. It was advertised in the Northern Territory News on 21 July 2006, the Centralian Advocate on 21 July 2006, the Tennant and District Times on 21 July 2006, the Katherine Times on 26 July 2006, and the Arafura Times on 26 July 2006. The closing date for comments on the public dry area information was pushed out from 1 August to 11 August 2006.
Written responses were received from the Darwin and Palmerston City Councils, the Alice Springs Town Council, the Local Government Association of the Northern Territory, the Peoples Alcohol Action Coalition in Alice Springs, and Tangentyere Council. Briefings were provided to the Palmerston City Council, Palmerston business people in a meeting organised by the member for Brennan, and Independent and opposition members of parliament.
We know there are communities, and I will refer to Alice Springs for one, which were actively involved in the visit to Port Augusta to look at dry areas legislation and how it operated there. There has been continued interest in and around further legislation on alcohol measures.
I accept that urgency is not something that governments really want to do, but in this case where we have had it out for about three weeks, we got solid responses in. There is a clear understanding - particularly in Alice Springs, which is the one community that is waiting for this legislation - from council and people who were on that visit to Port Augusta about how this legislation will work.
This is not about declaring great slabs of land dry. It is empowering local communities to take such steps if they so wish. If they did proceed with an application, and it goes to the Licensing Commission, then there is a further process of public hearings where people are invited to make submissions or indeed appear at such a hearing as to whether they think it is a good idea or a bad idea or needs to be amended in some way.
So this is simply the vehicle for further change by local government councils or the Commissioner of Police or indeed the head of the Licensing Commission itself. It is not government moving in an ad hoc rushed way to declare areas itself; it is simply the process by which those three entities ought to be able to apply. I used to rail against urgency in the years I was in opposition if I did not think it was justified - and I never won; I never won any one of those arguments - but I put my arguments and I suppose on balance, the majority of times that the previous government sought urgency, it was probably was justified. I think there were a handful of instances where it probably was not necessary.
I see this one in the sense that if it does not go through these sittings, we are out until October before a community such as Alice Springs is able to process an application under this. Matt Conlan on 8HA today said it is a good idea, it should go through. He is not someone who is prone to say positive things about me or indeed the government, but there is a person in Alice Springs who says it should go through, it is a good idea and we want to see this legislation.
You will not have me quoting Matt Conlan in here on very many occasions, but there is a voice in Alice Springs with a different view, so I just put that on the floor. I am prepared, obviously, to hear people out on this issue, but I think the case is there.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, the minister is asking for the consent of this parliament to permit this matter to be pushed through on urgency. That is a request that will be rejected by the Territory opposition, not because we are opposed to the intent of the legislation, but in the view of the opposition, it is unwise to proceed in this manner because if you want to effect change, which we all desire, change of this nature which comprehensively alters the way we can deal with a problem of concern to all of us, you must have the full support of the community.
In order for the community to provide that full support, minister, it must be understood by the community. For those members of this Chamber who are members of the Substance Abuse Committee, we have visited different places within the community that are dealing with the same issue and, though not directly related to the essence of the act, the issue as explored by the people of Groote Eylandt demonstrate that unless you have the community with complete ownership of every aspect of the plan, you are doomed to fail.
The object of the exercise is to make a noticeable difference to a problem, a social problem that concerns all of us. You need to enlist the cooperative support of members of this community. You can list the places where you have posted information on this matter, but this is a community issue that requires the community to buy into, to discuss, to consider, to own and therefore you then have the capacity to deliver the change desired. By putting it through on urgency, you eliminate that possibility. It is hamstrung from the beginning. If your objective is to create an impression, you will achieve that, but there are members of this Chamber who are more interested in creating a difference and promoting real and sustainable change.
For a community to understand this, they need to have it fully explained. There are members of this parliament who went through a briefing a few days ago, which gave rise to further questions, and answers were provided, but I have spoken with other members, stakeholders within our community across the Territory who have only started to enter this discussion. They are at the stage of throwing up questions. They are at the preliminary stages. They are aware of what you want to do, they understand the intent, they are all aware of the need, but the mechanism is not properly grasped. Until it is grasped, until it is understood, you cannot even articulate or formulate a proper question, as happened in our briefing, before you can come to terms with the mechanics of the legislation.
It is not just a mechanical issue. This is social change. You cannot have social change unless you have ownership from the community, from the stakeholders, from the town councils, from the aldermen, and business owners across every sector of our community need to be involved.
Going back to Groote Eylandt, as members of the Substance Abuse Committee will tell you, they have an excellent solution. However, it did not happen because someone just announced change and then implemented it because they had the weight of numbers; they had the wisdom to walk carefully through that process, with 12 or 13 alterations and adjustments to the mechanism to change the attitude to and the management of alcohol on Groote Eylandt, they went through 12 or 13 different stages until every stakeholder was happy with it. They enlisted full support from every stakeholder, therefore it works.
You are missing that process. Just because you have 19 here, you will not have a voice of dissent across there, they will all chorus in agreement, and whacko, you will have it done. You will create exactly what you want. You will create an impression that you have done something because you need to do that. That is your political issue. You need to create the impression that you are on top of an issue. That perception, created through bullying, through this Chamber, will serve you only to a political end and will leave no satisfaction.
I am interested in long-term change. Members of the opposition are. I know that members across from me also want to see significant, substantial change, as do members on the cross benches. I urge you, minister, to slow it down so that we can ensure the community is taken along. We can bring it back in October, but you take the phone calls. You make the phone calls and ask the questions. You will find that you will not have the community with you. You will achieve your objective. You can push it through. You have the numbers. You can do the things that offended you when you were in opposition. It will be on your conscience. You will settle a political issue, but you will not make any noticeable or long-term change.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I do not believe this bill needs to go through on urgency. I remind the minister and other members of standing orders …
Mr Stirling: It is your community that wants it, Loraine.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mrs BRAHAM: I am sure, minister, you may recall that Standing Order 178 deals with time limits on the passage of bills, and bills should not be read a second time before the lapse of one month from the day on which it was read a first time. The October sittings are in five weeks’ time. It is not as though we have a three month gap in sittings. We are going to be back here in five weeks, and we will all have had a chance to digest exactly what you have.
Standing Order 179 says that you, Madam Speaker, may declare a bill urgent if you are satisfied that the delay of one month could result in hardship being caused. I am not sure what hardship is going to be caused by waiting for a month.
You have had hardship out there for a long time, but you may create more hardship by rushing this through. The trouble is the devil is in the detail. It is not completely understood, and that was obvious at the briefing we had the other day. You have an amendment because of what the Independents raised, something that was incorrect in your bill. Who knows how many more errors are in that bill? We asked for a copy of the Liquor Act with the amendments written into it so we could see it as a whole. What was the answer? You can have it once it has been assented to. We need it now. We need to see exactly where these amendments fit in the Liquor Act. All the members on the other side, you need to know them, too - where they fit and how they affect the entire bill. We do not know. It might be all very well for the minister. He has a team of advisors to go and do it, but obviously sometimes even his advisors miss out on certain points, because they had to go back to the drawing board.
How can we see the effects of these amendments if we do not have the act with these amendments consolidated into it so that we can see the end result?
Minister, I do not believe this is essential; that we need to rush it through. You admitted yourself there was a fairly short consultation time. I do not know exactly what all these words are. Some of them are very minor, but I do not know the effect on the overall act. That is why I would like more time to be able to go through it, read it, and see exactly what is being implemented through the Liquor Act.
The trouble is we are doing these Liquor Act amendments, and you are doing these things piecemeal, bit by bit. We are not getting the whole picture, and this is the trouble. This is what we really should be seeing. I agree that many of the things you have introduced so far have been great, but there are questions.
Nothing in what you have said to date tells me what happens to the two kilometre law and its implementation in any town like Alice, which you keep mentioning, that implements these provisions. You have not told us how this bill will affect places like Special Purpose leases, town camps. If the Alice Springs Town Council goes ahead and tries to impose restrictions right across the town, obviously, the town camps are not going to be included and the drinkers will go to the town camps. There is too much detail missing and this is what concerns me. I really believe we need more time to look at it, to go through it.
Madam Speaker, you have the right to say no if you do not believe it is urgent, because you do not believe that hardship can be caused by it not going through it this stage. I suggest that you seriously think about that because I cannot think of any reason - and the minister has not given me any reason – for hardship that will be caused by this going through ...
Mr Stirling: Your community wants it, Loraine. Alice Springs wants it. Your constituents want it.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mrs BRAHAM: We all want lots of things, minister, but you do not rush in and do it for us. To say ‘Alice Springs wants it’, who is Alice Springs? Who have you been talking to? How many of the population gave you some feedback? How many of the population know what you are talking about? You will find in your three-week consultation period that you had very few people who understood exactly what you are trying to do.
Minister, I say slow down. Slow down; it is not as though five weeks until the next sittings is going to make much difference. It is not as though any major things are going to happen in five weeks. Give us time to go through it and make sure, even now, that we will be able to find all the loopholes in it that we are able to point out the other day.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, this bill is not urgent. It is important, but it is definitely not urgent. It is a pity this government has not even explained to the public why this bill needs to be rushed through. It is an important bill that needs careful debate before it is passed. I pick up on what the Chief Minister said during Question Time when I asked her about why certain bills had not come through parliament. She said it was because we need to give them more time.
This is a bill that restricts people’s rights. As the minister said in his second reading speech, we are successfully walking a fine line between social harmony and ensuring people can have a good night out. That fine line is the very reason this legislation should not be rushed through. The government claims it had widespread consultation with councils and other bodies about this legislation, and that is good, but that consultation was only about the proposed legislation. If councils had seen the actual legislation, would they not have seen the same problems as the Independents saw arising from who could get a permit to drink in a park?
If this legislation had gone through as it is, and a family at, say, Knuckey Lagoon had wanted to have a wedding on the Esplanade - if that were a restricted a public area - with a few wines to toast the happy couple, they would not have been able to secure a permit. Why? Because in the proposed act under clause 89A(1)(a) and (b) it says:
(a) an individual who lives or works, or proposes to live or work, in the area;
That would have meant that if you lived in Karama or Alice Springs or Elliott and you did not work in the area of the public restricted place, you could not get a permit to have a few wines.
Lord knows how one would have proved that one ‘proposed’ to live or work in the area. Do you put your hand up and say: ‘I am thinking of living near the Esplanade in 20 years time when I retire’? I mean that is airy fairy stuff. This is a classic example of why the bill should not have been rushed through.
I wonder how many councils or attendees at the public meeting that the member for Brennan organised actually saw this legislation that was introduced into parliament only last Wednesday. They only saw the proposed legislation. Did they know about section 89A? Was that explained to them at the meeting? Were councils or the public told about the ramifications of 89A? I doubt it. Did the minister check out the definition of the word ‘area’? If you read clause 89A, the use of the word ‘area’ seems to mean public restricted area, which would mean that you had to live or work in the restricted area. That would make no sense at all - another example of rushing the bill.
If the Independents can find a few mistakes in just a week, one has to ask how many other mistakes there are. The bill needs more scrutiny.
How much will a permit system, for instance, cost to run? What other practical implications will there be for the Liquor Commission, the police, or the councils? Minister, you mentioned all the people you discussed it with. I do not believe, as is usual with the government, that the Police Association has been asked. It would happen if it was the Miscellaneous Workers Union or the CFMEU or any other union affiliated with the Labor Party, but I do not believe the Police Association was consulted.
You forget our role as parliamentarians. You may claim that you have consulted widely, but where is the opportunity for us on this side of the House to consult with various groups? There is very little. We are part of the parliamentary process, minister. Does the minister now set a precedent that all bills will be passed as urgent because it has had widespread public consultation? Why not get rid of parliament all together and just put advertisements in the paper explaining the bills? That could be classed as consultation.
This urgency motion is a serious matter because of precedence and because of the seriousness of the legislation. Not only is this urgency motion an insult to us on this side, but it is an insult to the people of the Northern Territory. They expect to be consulted properly. That is, the actual legislation, not the proposed legislation. I, as a parliamentarian, expect to be given the normal time to check on the details of the bill.
We only have one House of parliament. We do not have a House of review. That means that we should be more cautious about rushing bills through. This bill is not about trying to thwart a terrorist attack. It is not about something that just fell out of the sky unexpectedly and landed on the government’s head. Drinking problems have been around in the Northern Territory for 30 years or more. As I said before, you have not given a reason to this House why you have regarded this bill as urgent. You have softened the public and media up by saying: ‘We had widespread consultation’. I hope you do that with bills that are not urgent.
One can only surmise why the minister wants to rush this bill through parliament, so I will have a stab. He is in government, he can do what he likes, or the Cabinet told him to do so, or he can say: ‘My government is tough, ruthless and determined’ at the next election, or this is his last day as Minister for Racing, Gaming and Licensing and it would be nice to get this bill through, the swansong before he becomes the minister for sport and red Corvettes. Whatever the mystery reason, it is not good enough.
This bill should not be rushed through. This bill restricts people’s rights, and there may be very good reason for doing that, and that is what we need to debate. However, this bill also restricts my rights as a parliamentarian to properly scrutinise legislation. I want time to see if this legislation is not duplicating legislation that already exists - for instance, the two kilometre law. I want to see if this is impinging too much on people’s rights. I want to see if there are any other mistakes. I know I am not here for my good looks otherwise I would never have even got through the front door of this place, but I am here to try to do a job.
People often say to me: just keep the bastards honest. Well, I am certainly no Don Chipp …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, please withdraw.
Mr WOOD: It was a quotation. All right, Madam Speaker. People say to me just keep the illegitimate children honest. I am certainly no Don Chipp, may he rest in peace, but I will try to make the government stick with what it promised. I will quote from its 2001 election policy on good governance:
Also, referring to the previous government:
…
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, my colleagues are very eloquent. I picked up the standing orders and referred to Standing Order 179 as well. As the member for Braitling said, you, Madam Speaker, have the right to deny this if you so wish.
I listened to the minister carefully when he pleaded his case that this should go through on urgency. He was not convincing. He was not convincing to himself that this bill needs to go through all stages today.
The member for Blain said the opposition supports the intent of the bill today. We think that the dry areas legislation is good. In fact, it is something that we released ourselves a while ago – I think it was April of this year when we released a dry areas proposal, which proposed essentially that a council may ask the Minister for Local Government to have their town declared a dry area, which is encompassed in the bill today.
The minister did not explain why we need to have this haste to push it through today when members have not consulted with their own communities. This new legislation, if it got through, would be placed side-by-side with the so-called two kilometre law. We know how difficult it has been to enforce the two kilometre law. There have not been enough police resources made available for that, so how are you now going to enforce the dry areas legislation?
It is well and good to say: ‘We will put this legislation in place. Town councils and community councils can then apply to the Licensing Commission for areas to be designated as dry areas’, but then who is going to enforce it? That is not clear in this legislation. I assume it has to be the police that will enforce it. If they have not the resources to enforce the two kilometre law, how are they going to do this? Let us give ourselves time to think this through a bit more and find out for sure.
I contacted several councils and they do not yet have their list of public areas organised. They do not know for sure which public areas they want to declare dry. The councils are not ready, so rushing this legislation through today will not help anyone. It will not help to fast-track any dry area to be imposed in communities. Let us give ourselves time and, as the member for Nelson put so eloquently …
Mr Stirling: What? Twenty-seven years. Is that long enough?
Dr LIM: … there are more things that need to be looked at before this bill becomes law. I will not go into the detail of the bill at the moment because I don’t think it is appropriate. This motion is about urgency.
The Labor Party often criticised the Country Liberal Party for being arrogant and forcing legislation through when the numbers were on their side. This minister admitted just a while ago that he railed against that. Well, he should be railing against himself because his intentions to push this through are not clear. He was not convincing in his plea. I suggest he seek defeat of this motion.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I will be brief. Much of what needs to be said has been said. I was pleased that the member for Nelson referred to the ‘old’ document by the Australian Labor Party about good governance, so I will not repeat what he said.
The Labor of old would not have done this. The Labor of old would have undertaken sufficient consultation. I note, if I heard correctly, the Deputy Chief Minister say: ‘Oh well, it is 27 years and you do not want us to rush’. With respect, Deputy Chief Minister, that is not the point. The point is that after about 30 years, you are proposing a significant change, the spirit of which, I might say, we agree with and, in fact, much of it we proposed as well, but you do yourself a disservice by trying to rush this through on urgency. The government does itself a disservice.
These changes are significant. Does the community generally want them? I think so, but, like any change, you need to take the community with you. Almost every day I see a pretty large ad in the Northern Territory News from the Chief Minister …
Mr Stirling: They do not have to use it if they do not want to.
Ms CARNEY: Deputy Chief Minister I ask that you listen to what I am saying. Almost every day I see a very big ad, no doubt at much expense, with the Chief Minister’s picture on it, about the Census, encouraging, both before and after the Census, for people to get involved and fill out their Census forms. I wonder then, in that context, whether government might consider advertising the bill. We have seen it with other legislation, the Care and Protection of Young People Bill is one example. There have been others where government comes up with proposed legislation, and then farms it out to a lot of people in the Northern Territory.
That is about good governance, and that is about good government. There are forums that government has established in the past. We also know that government encourages Territorians to have a look at the relevant website. In other words, on occasions, to its credit, this government encourages people to get involved and participate. If they have something to say, then their views will be taken on board.
I am genuinely surprised that, notwithstanding the general support I have of the intent of the legislation, having regard to some of the good things government has done when it comes to consulting with Territorians, that this very obviously stands on its own. Why would you not seek broad input on what is a very significant change to the cultural landscape of the Northern Territory? Surely members of government must be asking themselves: ‘Why aren’t we doing it?’ Are these serious issues? Absolutely, and that, more than anything else, I suggest, illustrates why a considered approach needs to be taken. Any politician, especially those in government, I would have thought, would know that when it comes to big changes, it is important to take the people with you.
I know in Alice Springs there has been an alcohol task force. I do not know how many people are on that task force - let us say 15. However, there are many people who do not know anything about this bill. This bill will affect a lot of people in the Northern Territory, and yet this government, mistakenly - and I do believe it is a mistake - and arrogantly is rushing it through. I have said before that this government, in my view, is drunk on its own power. So be it. Is that good? I do not think so. Surely, a considered approach to significant legislation is required.
I imagine the media releases upstairs are all ready to go. The minister may have a bit of a road show planned to talk to people. I ask: is it not a better position to start from when you are asking people what they think as opposed to telling them what they should think?
As a member of parliament with an electorate in Alice Springs, I thought it was very important to put my comments on the Parliamentary Record. I oppose this bill being rushed through. I do not understand why another five weeks could not have gone by. It seems to me that it would have been a great opportunity to consult with so many people in the Northern Territory. Instead, Territorians are going to wake up tomorrow knowing that a bill that affects their lives, about which they know very little, has been passed. In fairness, the government has signalled …
Mr Stirling: It does not affect anyone.
Mr Henderson: Not anyone if they do not want it.
Ms CARNEY: Hang on, hang on; you will have your shot. In fairness, government has signalled some of its changes, but we all know that there is a significant difference between what is contained in our media releases - and in particular, government media releases - and legislation. There are too many examples of that.
Minister, you and your colleagues in government are so arrogant. The fact that you have been muttering throughout my contribution should convince anyone in any doubt that you are a profoundly and inherently arrogant government.
Members interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: Now the member for Wanguri is having a sigh. I might just keep going, Madam Speaker. This is not good government; this is a profoundly arrogant government wanting to have its way, but the process is all wrong.
In opposition, Labor spoke long and loud about processes and transparency. In fact, when Labor got in, it got in pretty much on the line – what was it? - open, honest, transparent government. We do not even hear those words any more from this government. With the departure of the member for Stuart, the remaining social conscience of this government, in my view, is leaving and they will be an even worse government.
Madam Speaker, you and others will observe that my contribution has been measured, provoked, towards the end of it, by the inane, stupid, and profoundly arrogant mutterings of those on the other side; in particular the member for Wanguri. You can look all you like, member for Drysdale. We do not see you having a go or opening your mouth very often during parliamentary debates. If you are not concerned, member for Drysdale …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms CARNEY: If you are not concerned, member for Drysdale …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! All comments should be addressed through the Chair, and the Leader of the Opposition, talking about arrogance, should reflect on her own performance.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Leader of the Opposition, I ask you to direct your comments through the Chair.
Ms CARNEY: Madam Speaker, the member for Drysdale contributes very little to this parliament. My hunch is that he is going to be made a minister tomorrow. We will expect significantly more from the member for Drysdale when and if he does become a minister. I have a $1 on him getting a job. It is highly questionable that he would seem indignant about even the right I have to rise to oppose this motion.
The member for Drysdale and his arrogant colleagues can show as much indignity as they like, but they are left with a basic fact: this bill is being rushed through. This bill is being imposed on Territorians and they are not being given an opportunity to see the significance of it. They are not being given an opportunity to ask any questions in relation to it. If that is not blind arrogance, I do not know what is.
For very obvious reasons, this motion should not be supported. Clearly, government has become so arrogant it will not even listen to an alternative view and that says a lot about this government. They used to say they were consulting. Under the Australian Labor Party in 2006, gone are the days of consultation. They are long gone. So Territorians, those who voted for Labor, many of whom no doubt are rueing their decision to do so, now have a government for whom they overwhelmingly voted that is blinded by its own arrogance and drunk on its own power. That is not the democracy that all of us want in the Northern Territory.
Madam Speaker, the motion should not be supported.
Mr HENDERSON (Business and Economic Development): Madam Speaker, I will try not to respond to the offensive parts of the Leader of the Opposition’s comments that go to the content of why we have this bill on urgency. I am astounded that the members, particularly from Central Australia, are seeking to deny the right of this parliament to respond with legislation that goes right to the heart of so much of the …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HENDERSON: … that goes right to the heart of so much of the distress, grief and trauma …
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker! This is an urgency debate. It is not about whether we support the bill. The minister has to defend the urgency of the bill.
Mr HENDERSON: Give me a chance, I just started!
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Nelson. There has been a fair bit of latitude in the debate. However, minister if you could get to the point, thank you.
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, if there is not the issue of dealing with antisocial behaviour and the effects that it has on the broader community across the Northern Territory, if this is not urgent, I do not know what is. The issue of excessive alcohol consumption and the impacts that it has at every level of our society, if that is not urgent, I do not know what is. There has been significant …
Mr Wood: Private residence wasn’t hurried. The restricted premises declaration wasn’t hurried through.
Mr HENDERSON: Look, member for Nelson, I listened in silence when you were speaking. I ask you to give me the …
Mr Wood: Yes, all right.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Nelson.
Mr HENDERSON: I do not care. I am a pretty tough sort of bloke. If you rabbit on, I will just talk over the top of you, but I am trying to be considerate here.
There has been extensive consultation with the key stakeholders and my colleague, the minister for licensing, went through that consultation. We received submissions in a number of areas. Essentially, the only comments against the proposal were more that we should be doing more in other areas, particularly in taxation regimes that we do not have power for. That was the People’s Alcohol Action Coalition in Alice Springs.
The Alice Springs Town Council want us to bring this on as soon as possible. For the people who represent electorates in Alice Springs to be saying: ‘Look, this is really important and we support it, but do not do it today, do it in five weeks time’, I cannot believe. ‘We support it, we support the bill’. It would be interesting to see whether they support the bill when we get to debating the bill later this evening. ‘We support the bill, but do not do it now’. It does not make sense.
The Leader of the Opposition was saying that people are going to wake up tomorrow morning and their lives will change dramatically. What a load of nonsense. What a load of absolute nonsense! No one is going to force people to take up the intent and effects of this legislation if the community does not want it. If the community does not want to use these powers, they will not be imposed. The Leader of the Opposition saying that people are going to wake up tomorrow morning and the Territory is going to be a totally different place and people’s rights are going to be restricted and removed is absolute nonsense. The only way this legislation will come in to effect is if a request has been made through a local government council, the Commissioner of Police, or the Director of Licensing. Then there is a whole series of consultation that has to occur, and a series of factors that must be taken in to account, and we will go to those during the debate of the bill …
Mr MILLS: A point of order Madam Speaker. I am listening carefully to be persuaded to the member’s view as to why the urgency - not an explanation of the bill, but why urgency. I am not hearing that argument prosecuted at all.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Blain …
Mr HENDERSON: I am getting – well, maybe I am not …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Are you speaking to the point of order, Leader of Government Business?
Mr Wood: You are defending the bill.
Mr HENDERSON: No, I am not defending the bill. The reason this is being brought through on urgency is that I do not think that we can wait any longer, Madam Speaker.
Members interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: Five weeks gained, Madam Speaker, means that local councils, the Commissioner of Police, the Director of Licensing, wherever we think there is a significant problem, are five weeks closer to tackling the problem. In five weeks, a whole heap of grief can be caused in terms of individuals, the broader community, and the consequences of it.
As the Leader of the Opposition said, she thinks the community supports it. The people I talk to in the community support it. There is no huge leap of policy change here. The notion of dry communities in the Northern Territory has been here for 30 years. People know what dry communities are. It is not some whole new concept which has come from Mars that people need time to think through.
Mr Wood: We need time to scrutinise the bill. We need it.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HENDERSON: The member for Nelson says he needs time to scrutinise the legislation. In the briefing, the Independents picked up a couple of issues, and we have incorporated those in amendments, like any legislation.
Any legislation is open to be amended at any time. Whether we introduce this bill and pass it today or in five weeks time or five years time or in 27 years time, where the opposition did nothing when they were in government, if at any point there are significant issues or unintended consequences as a result of the drafting of this legislation, we will come back and amend it.
The basic premise of giving local community councils, particularly the Alice Springs Town Council, which is red hot and ready to go and has been urging the government to get on with this and pass the legislation, to deny them the opportunity to make applications for …
Mr Mills: Five weeks.
Mr HENDERSON: People say five weeks. What is going to be gained by waiting an extra five weeks? If they support the legislation, let us get in there and give the people of the Northern Territory the opportunity to use it if they so wish. It is not going to be forced on people.
The member for Nelson said it is important, but not urgent. I defend its urgency any day because the grief caused by excessive consumption of alcohol - if there is not one more urgent problem in the Northern Territory than that particular issue, the member for Nelson is living in a different Northern Territory from the one that I am living in.
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I find that insulting. The minister knows where I come from at Daly River and how many of the young people I looked after have died from alcohol. This is about process. It is not about my non-concern for people affected by alcohol. I find that offensive.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, I ask you to withdraw the remarks of a personal nature about the member for Nelson.
Mr HENDERSON: I withdraw, and I apologise if I have offended the member for Nelson. He says this is about process. It is not about process; it is about outcomes. It is giving another tool in the kit for our community to deal with the types of grief that he was talking about. It gives us another tool in the kit to deal with these issues. This is not going to be a government tied up in process when the community at large is urging the government to do this.
The member for Nelson asked about the Police Association and what comment they had. The Police Association have had an opportunity to make comment. This has been a public domain debate for quite an extensive period of time. The Cabinet process is that all agencies, including police, have commented on this legislation, and the police obviously support this legislation.
The member for Nelson asked how it works in conjunction with the two kilometre law, well, the two kilometre law stays. The two kilometre law will still apply. We are not repealing the two kilometre law, we are not amending it. The two kilometre law stays.
The member for Greatorex carried on with his usual misinformation about police not enforcing the two kilometre law. I just refer you to …
Dr Lim: I never said that!
Mr HENDERSON: Go back to the Hansard …
Dr Lim interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: I have made a note here: ‘the police do not enforce’. That is the note I wrote down as you were speaking. ‘There are not enough police. It is difficult for them to enforce the two kilometre law. The police don’t enforce it’. I can tell the member for Greatorex that the police find these comments - and they are run by the CLP clique on the Alice Springs Town Council all the time, and I have pulled them up about it - you only have to ask police how much grog they tip out on a shift …
Dr Lim: That’s right, and the mayor is a Labor candidate.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HENDERSON: The member for Greatorex does not like the truth because he would not know if it hit him between the eyes. Police tip out thousands of litres …
Dr Lim interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HENDERSON: The police tip out thousands of litres of alcohol across the Territory on an ongoing basis. For the CLP and their mates on the Alice Springs Town Council to continue to run the lie that the police in Alice Springs do not enforce the two kilometre law because they do not have enough coppers out there is arrant nonsense. People have been told it over and over again, but they choose not to take that into account because it ruins the political line that they are running.
He said there are not enough police. There are a hell of a lot more police out there now than when the CLP was in office.
The issue is that we have consulted extensively with the key stakeholders about this proposed legislation. There is extensive community support for us to bring this legislation in on urgency.
Mrs Braham: We are not arguing about that.
Mr HENDERSON: There is extensive community support. The member for Braitling was arguing that we should defer this for another five weeks to deny Alice Springs Town Council the opportunity to make application to use this legislation when they have called on the government to bring this in as quickly as possible. Given the issues with public alcohol-related offences and behaviour in Alice Springs, for members from Central Australia to argue that this is not urgent, that we should not be doing it on urgency and we should put it through another process where we will all get to the same outcome in five weeks, we will all be sitting in here saying, yes, this is good legislation, it is now time to pass it through the parliament, we are not prepared to waste five weeks. We want to give our community another piece of the tool kit to get on and deal with the issues of alcohol-related harm and grief across our community. It will be interesting to see whether members are going to support the legislation when it is debated later this evening.
Members interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: It is process, process, process. Madam Speaker, there has been extensive consultation. Let us go through the consultation process again. An information paper with an invitation to respond was posted to all members of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly on 19 July, the Local Government Association of the Northern Territory, the North Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service, the Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service, the Law Society, the Council of Social Services, Australian Hotels Association, Liquor Stores Association. advertisements in the Northern Territory News, Centralian Advocate, Tennant Creek and District Times, Katherine Times, Arafura Times. How much more consultation do we need?
Members interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: All bar the People’s Alcohol Action Coalition in Alice Springs, who did not disagree that we should do this but thought we should be doing more in other areas, said: ‘Yes, this is a good idea, let us give it a go’. Yet members opposite want to go through another round of consultation, more process, to get to the point where everyone has to say: ‘It is time to bring it on’. This issue, alcohol and the harm caused by alcohol across our community, is debated in here over and over again …
Mr Mills: It is not the issue.
Mr HENDERSON: The member for Blain says it is not the issue ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HENDERSON: If it is not the issue to give our community the opportunity to access this legislation if they want to …
Mr MILLS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! This is not the issue. The issue is urgency, not the content of the bill.
Mr HENDERSON: That is the point I am getting to, Madam Speaker. The issue is …
Mr Mills: In a clumsy and rude way. It is rude. It is wrong.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order, but if you could keep to the motion, please, minister.
Mr HENDERSON: Absolutely. If the issue is urgency, if we all agree with the bill, if everyone who has been publicly consulted agrees with the legislation, if everybody agrees with the intent of it, if everyone agrees and we all agree it is an urgent issue, then passing it through on urgency is certainly the best way to give effect to the intent of the legislation and give people in our community, particularly our town councils, the opportunity to access this bill if they so choose as quickly as they can. This government is certainly going to be passing this urgency motion because we think this is urgent legislation; it is desired by the community. It has been called for, particularly in Central Australia.
We do not use the urgency provisions very often. I can count on the fingers of one hand in the six years that we have been in government that we have used the urgency provisions of the standing orders. It is not something that we do lightly. We believe in this case in terms of ongoing attempts to tackle the causes and the consequences of alcohol abuse across the Northern Territory, in effecting better outcomes in those areas, passing this bill on urgency tonight is something that the government is going to do.
Mr STIRLING (Racing, Gaming and Licensing): Madam Speaker, I thank members for their comments. I do understand the issues, in the main, put by members opposite with the exception of one to which I want to respond. That was: ‘What will happen if we wait five weeks?’ How many more women get slammed around, raped, assaulted, belted, hospitalised? How many more guys are in there hanging on for their lives because they have overdosed on alcohol yet again? How many more kids …
Members interjecting
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: A point of order, Madam Speaker.
Mr STIRLING: … are belted in their home, thrown out of their house, nowhere to live because of this?
Madam SPEAKER: Minister! Order! What is your point of order?
Mr MILLS: Madam Speaker, I respectfully present to you that is deeply offensive.
Mr Stirling: Well, you asked the question!
Mr MILLS: It is deeply offensive. It has nothing to do with the issue that we are being asked to discuss.
Mr Stirling: Absolutely. Of course, it is the issue. You are going to wait another three months.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: It is offensive. I do not believe the member is genuine.
Mr Henderson: He is genuine.
Mr STIRLING: The member for Blain can find it offensive, Madam Speaker but the question was raised: ‘What is the damage done if we wait another five weeks?’ That is what the damage is! How many more drunks locked up? How many weeks - five weeks, eight weeks, 10 weeks - before you decide this is a fit and proper time to pass this bill, before the Alice Springs Council or any other council that wants to anchor on this gets an application through, then the Licensing Commission has to take it through all of their steps? Months! Months!
That is the reality. Every day you delay, another woman gets raped, another woman gets belted, another person dies in hospital, lies on the road, goes to sleep because they are drunk, gets run over …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr STIRLING: That is the reality and that is the strongest case for urgency there is. It is a pity you cannot see it. I move that the motion be put.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Motion agreed to.
Continued from 15 June 2006.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I support the initiative of the Commonwealth and Territory governments. It is a good initiative. I thank the minister for the briefing we received, which was very informative.
I raised a few issues in relation to the application of some of the water saving devices that might be used in the Territory. As you know, some people in the Territory live in areas where they have hard water, especially if they are pumping out of streams. Some of those water saving devices are basically mechanisms to reduce the flow of water.
I hope that there is not a move to remove some water saving devices, for instance shower heads, which can be used in certain places in the Northern Territory simply because you need large holes in shower heads which will not block up from the calcium in the bore water. It is a fact of life. If you have lived on the Daly River, people might have used little hot water systems where you pull the little string and you get hot water on a very cold morning. They clog up very quickly with the bore water and some water from rivers.
Whilst I support what the minister is introducing, I hope there is flexibility enough within the system, even though some of those - for instance shower heads - might be given a no star rating or a one star rating, I hope that does not mean people cannot use them and they go out of production. We have to realise there are different places throughout the Territory. As I said before, I operate from an overhead tank, gravity feed. We do not get much pressure. Some of the water saving devices are not suitable because it takes half an hour to have a shower. I am not sure that achieves the purpose of the device.
It is a case of horses for courses. I hope the government runs an advertising campaign as it would be good to explain to people what it is all about. It is okay, minister; I did have a shower this morning. I did not waste much water, either. In fact, I was in the Power and Water energy saving competition. I think I came about third. We did try to save water.
Mr Kiely: You would save on shampoo, wouldn’t you?
Mr WOOD: Yes! Minister, I would be interested in hearing what sort of education program you will run in the community, especially for Aboriginal communities, because stars on a shower head package are probably not going to mean much to people who live at Yuendumu. It would be good to roll out to those areas what you are doing.
In many communities, not only do you need to be selling the concept of water saving devices, it would be good to make sure that the government is making sure that water is not wasted. I know a special community - I probably have an interest in that community – which has had a toilet cistern leaking since Christmas. I know what needs to be done. It needs to have the insides taken out and the cistern replaced, but it is being looked after by a housing association. In the meantime, it is wasting water and it has been wasting water for nearly eight months. There needs to be a campaign as well to try to reduce wastage of water in some communities, to make sure there is good, ongoing maintenance in those communities. There is no good introducing a water saving device on a shower if the garden tap is dripping continuously.
It is an approach that we need. In certain areas we need to look at it more holistically by saying that we need to save water because water in many parts of the Territory is a scarce resource. A widespread education program - not only in the city but in our remote areas - that people can understand will be very appropriate.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I welcome the minister’s statement. I also thank the Commonwealth for introducing it. We will see how it goes as we go along. If there are any issues, I am sure they can be raised with the department.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Mr Deputy Speaker, in this day and age when we are so concerned about and aware of the conservation of water it is, in my opinion and I am sure that of my colleagues, important to introduce an efficiency standard.
Consumers are much more aware of the need to conserve water, and with constant talk in the media of global warming, people in general are starting to take more notice and realise that each and every one of us has to take some responsibility for the amount of water we use.
There is no doubt that water usage in other Australian states and territories is very regulated at this time because of the levels of water storage facilities due to ongoing low rainfall and droughts. The increase in population to coastal areas of eastern Australia has placed additional pressure on these supplies.
I attended a conference on Growing Regions in Brisbane late in July, and the water restrictions that are in place throughout the CBD in Brisbane have certainly left their mark on many park areas. Once they were lush and green; they are now brown and dry due to the lack of water and the restrictions that are in place. That is just one area that was so very obvious.
While the Voluntary Water Efficiency Labelling Standards Scheme has been in place since 1988, as with a lot of schemes that are voluntary, there will only ever be a percentage of people who will be conscientious enough to take up the challenge. I guess it is human nature that people do whatever is easiest. Unless there is some serious reason as to why they should comply with a voluntary scheme, most people will wait until that scheme is enforced upon them before they comply. The pace of life is fast for most people and to calculate how much water that lovely new appliance that they are about to purchase will take to operate, it is all too hard and sometimes they cannot be bothered working that out.
The Water Efficiency and Labelling Standards Bill will make provision to provide the information that consumers need when making a decision about a new domestic purchase. If the supplier is compelled to clearly mark the appliance with details of water efficiency, then the consumer can make an informed decision from that information and make a decision about what purchase they will make.
The WEL scheme was implemented on a voluntary basis in July 2005, with a 12-month trial period to enable suppliers to test and register their appliances with a mandatory period for the WEL scheme coming into effect in July 2006. Consumers therefore should be aware that now they have an obligation to ensure that they purchase an efficient product. It is also very important, as with any significant changes that government introduces, that there is an education process for consumers to raise awareness of their obligations to the environment. That educational process can, of course, can be through the trained sales personnel who make consumers aware of the importance of the WEL scheme and also through the media.
One of the challenges that could make water labelling of appliances seem a bit way out there to Northern Territorians, especially those living in the Top End, is that we can be blinded by the fact that we have such high rainfall during our Wet Seasons. Why would people in the Top End even have to think about water consumption when we have billions of litres of water flowing off our roofs into underground drains and out to sea every year?
It always intrigues me: why there are no gutters on domestic dwellings, and where are the rain water tanks that should be installed on house blocks? Why should we have to be restrictive in our household appliances, including showers and toilets, when in even during the Wet Season, during heavy down pours of rain, sprinklers can still be seen pouring out thousands of litres of water unnecessarily? It is double standards, is it not? It is also a very good argument that a lot of community members have put to me. I am sure the minister can see the point that I am making.
All the same minister, I do support this bill for the WEL scheme. It is very important to address water conservation, especially so in the rural, remote and desert regions of the Northern Territory.
I note from the minister’s second reading speech that there have been and are incentives for Alice Springs and the Tennant Creek communities for those purchasing water safety devices, and that is important. I trust that the same incentive applies to remote communities through the Cool Communities program.
Considering the development in the Top End of the Northern Territory, and the additional demands on water resources, I suggest to the minister that she talks to her colleagues about a new dam to supply water to the Top End. The Darwin dam will not be able to sustain future demands for water resources, so I would hope that this government has had the vision to plan for an additional dam to take the water supply well into the future. Adding a metre to the height of the Darwin dam is piecemeal and not going to resolve the issue in the long term.
We certainly have the rainfall here to fill a new dam, so why not capitalise on the abundance of water that we receive every year and prepare well for the future? Water conservation, yes, we need to be very conscious of it and practice it, but we as elected members of parliament also need to be visionary in planning for the future so that there is no doubt about water supplies when we have an abundance of water coming out of our sky every year.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for this legislation, and I support the bill on water efficiency labelling and standards.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thought there might have been some members of government who wanted to speak on this bill because many of them know the problems of water and the conservation of water in, not just Central Australia but, many areas of the Territory.
Yes, of course we will support this bill, but we need to make a few comments. The minister must have a warm, good feeling that she is introducing a bill whose aim is to conserve water by reducing water consumption. The bill is to provide for water efficiency labelling, the making of water efficiency standards and for related purposes. The labelling is going to help us conserve water. Really? I mean, get real.
Already, people when they build houses or whatever they do, are very aware of the products they buy, and if the minister, when she has passed on from this portfolio, looks back and thinks to herself: ‘What have I done to conserve water in the Northern Territory?’, what will she be able to stand up and say? What has she done for communities, for Darwin, for Central Australia? She has introduced the water labelling act, and she introduced the $50 incentive. Perhaps the minister in her summing up can tell us how many people have taken up that incentive, and how many new shower roses have been bought or whatever, with the bonus she gave us before Christmas. How much water does she think she has saved?
I want to ask the minister: is she still shipping drinking water to Yuelamu? That is Mt Allan. I know it has cost Power and Water thousands upon thousands of dollars. This water problem has not been addressed, whereas it could have been addressed by installing water tanks on the homes. I know the water tank issue is something ministers throw their hands in the air about and say: ‘Oh no, they will all die of the germs that we collected in the water tanks from the bird droppings’, regardless of the fact that Australian outback people survived on water tanks for years.
The minister knows there are filters these days that you can add to water tanks, and she knows it is recommended that you put water through the hot water system so you kill any bugs. To say that it could make them ill is crazy. Minister, would it not be good if you could stand back and say: ‘I have been minister for the environment and I have introduced rainwater tanks for every new home built out on the communities’, and ‘For Yuelamu that is suffering from the water supply, I have given subsidies to people in towns’?. It applies to Darwin, not just in Alice Springs. We had some rain in Alice at the beginning of this week. How wonderful if we had water tanks to collect it - and I do have one, minister, so I am doing my bit for water consumption.
What else have you done, minister? You dodge the plastic bag issue; you do not want to have anything to do about banning them. You do not want to do anything about CDL. You keep saying: ‘I have given some money to communities to do this and that’. They are doing things and that is good, but you have not taken on the big issues Territory-wide. So when you step back and look at what you achieved, won’t you be disappointed? Won’t you say: ‘No, I really could have done more’?
Water efficiency labelling is a nice thing to do, but it is not really going to solve the problem of water conservation. It is not going to solve the problem that the water supply in Alice Springs is finite and they are looking for a new bore field because, obviously, the deeper down they go down to collect water, the more it costs.
Minister, yes, we do support this, but why do you not get a bit more creative and come up with some other ideas that will really say that you are reducing water consumption and conserving water? At the end of the day, how much water will this water efficiency labelling act actually save? I doubt whether it will save very much.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Mr Deputy Speaker, I have listened to a few responses by the member for Braitling in relation to a number of areas about which I know she is passionate, and she has a lot of input, but I have never heard anything so patronising.
I thank all members because this is important. Whilst it is minor legislation, it is about efficiency and labelling standards. In the Northern Territory, we are a small jurisdiction but we get the benefits of what is happening nationally. It is only one tool, member for Braitling, among a number of other initiatives we need to put in place so we get the benefits …
Mrs Miller: So what are they?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Hold on, I listened to you, member for Katherine and also the member for Nelson.
Mrs Braham: Tell us what you are going to put in.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: We get the benefits of what is happening nationally. We are not a jurisdiction that imports whitegoods from overseas and we do not have manufacturing businesses. Those businesses are down south. We get the benefits of when those appliances are manufactured down south and they come up, they will have those labelling standards. That can only be a good thing.
I know that both you and the member for Nelson had quite a good briefing by my office to inform you of the scheme, how we are informing the public, how the scheme will replace the voluntary scheme that was in place, and introducing a mandatory water efficiency label on all showers, toilets, domestic washing machines, dishwashers, urinals, and some types of taps. That was all part of the briefing. As I said, because we do not have those manufacturers up here, we will get the benefits of those appliances coming up from those manufacturers down south.
Remember, member for Braitling, this is Commonwealth legislation. This is national, so this is all part of what we are moving towards …
Mrs Braham: I am not against your legislation, minister.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: You were saying: ‘What else are you doing?’ We are doing a lot more than what the previous government was doing.
Let me talk about Cool Communities. In 2006, the Northern Territory government doubled its funding grant to Cool Communities to $100 000 a year. That was a program that simply was not there under the previous government. In 2006, the Darwin program will conduct approximately 50 home energy and water audits in addition to community education events, market stalls, media events and school workshops.
We also have the Environment Grant Program. I know the member for Braitling was belittling that grants program. We get very positive responses from the community, particularly from schools, so we are starting at the school level where our kids in those schools are engaged in those projects, looking at conservation of the environment. It is not just about water.
Some of the environment grants for water conservation issues are: the Alice Springs Home Water Audit, which is under Cool Communities; Enviro Girl; the two Greening Australia projects focusing on water-wise gardening plants and techniques, which is with the Arid Zone; and the book Gardening and Landscaping with Native Plants in the Northern Territory. Then there are all the school projects where we have funded various schools to look at water management, replacing lawns and exotic plants with water-wise native gardens, and sprinklers with drip irrigation systems.
There is the Darwin Harbour water quality initiative which NRETA is currently in the very early stages of developing. The NT WaterWise Rebate Scheme, which we will be launching on 11 September 2006 in Alice Springs, will consist of $50 per household rebate in Alice Springs and Tennant Creek that can be redeemed at one of the seven participating retail outlets. There are five in Alice Springs and two in Tennant Creek. The government is trialling the WaterWise Rebate Scheme, with $50 000 in 2006-07 in preparation for doubling its commitment in 2007-08 and beyond.
Then there is the water efficiency program, which you did mention as did the member for Katherine, about rain water tanks. I would like to draw your attention to the Institute for Sustainable Futures, which has just prepared their draft stage 3 report on the implementation of the water efficiency program for Alice Springs. Some of the details of that report are still being worked through by government and the Power and Water Corporation. I will quickly read a quote:
Part of the work we are doing is targeting high water users, particularly high garden water users, as being a more efficient way to spend money to save water by raising awareness. The Water Management Branch, through its water conservation officers in Alice Springs, is planning some activities and events about awareness of water conservation in Alice Springs during National Water Week, which will run from 15 to 21 October, member for Braitling, if you are interested.
You said that I am introducing minor legislation without looking at all the other areas, but there are a number of initiatives happening. This legislation is complementary to them. As I said, it does not have a huge impact on the Northern Territory. If anything, as a small jurisdiction, we receive the benefits of what is happening nationally.
I thank you, and the members for Katherine and Nelson for your support. The member for Nelson talked about some of the issues in relation to remote communities. There are issues with some of the older appliances out there. That is where better education and working with councils through local government and the work that we do out there with communities, but at the end of the day, indigenous housing organisations certainly will be made aware of those areas.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage)(by leave): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
Continued from 23 August 2006.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Mr Deputy Speaker, it looks like all my colleagues have deserted me. I should not say that - I withdraw that.
Minister, I do want to make some comments about the bill. The comments I was making earlier, do not confuse them, were about the process of this parliament and the standing orders. As you know, I am a believer in sticking to standing orders. I believe in the parliamentary process and that is why I keep plugging it.
My difficulty with this bill is being able to read it within the entire Liquor Act framework. It is hard to go from this bill to the Liquor Act to see where it fits and how it reads. We did ask if we could have the Liquor Act with these amendments incorporated so we could see the whole picture; we were informed yes, it is available after the Administrator has given assent, and that was not much good to us.
This is why I find it difficult to read your bill. For instance, the definition of a ‘council area’ for a local government council means the ‘municipality of community government area for the council’. We had a queried whether that includes community councils or councils that fall under the Local Government Act. Perhaps you could clarify whether that is so.
One of the clauses says the Commissioner may delegate his powers to certain members including, say, the CEO of a local council. I take it that is referring to a permit so the CEO of the Alice Springs Town Council can grant a permit, but I would like to know whether the CEO has to go to the Liquor Commission as part of the process, or can they issue these permits without going back to the commission at all? That may be a strange question, but I was trying to read the bill, and I admit I did not get through everything.
The format that your advisory staff gave us in relation to this bill was very helpful, seeing the general restricted areas, public restricted areas and restricted premises declaration - pardon me if I am fumbling, but we have had so many papers on this.
I have been saying for a long time that it would be good if people, particularly in public housing, are able to put up a big sign that says: ‘No alcohol’. Your officers sent me a copy of the sign, which is really clear. I will be interested to see some of those appearing because I think it gets the message through very simply, it is a very good sign. All we need to do is to say to some of our people who have visitors who cause the problems: ‘This sign may help you control your visitors. This sign will allow you to say to them: “You cannot drink alcohol here because the government has put this sign on my house”,’ even if it is not totally true. That sign gives them something to fall back on, and that is good. I will be pleased when we see those signs up.
It may be that Alice Springs Town Council talks about making the town dry. However, the municipality of Alice Springs, if that declaration is made, does not include town camps. As you know, this has been raised on a number of occasions. Will, then, each of the town camps have to apply to become restricted? If they are not part of the municipality because they are special purpose leases, they will not be included in anything the town council does. If they do not go through the process of being granted a restricted area, then grog will flow into the town camps as the police implement this bill and push them off the streets and parks. That is a worry for people in town camps because that is the last thing we want to see happen.
How will the process of covering town camps by this bill occur? Each camp has an association and many of them are managed by the Tangentyere Board. Will there be consultation with the people who are designated residents of the town camps or will it go to their committee? Who will make the decision to have an area declared dry? I cannot glean that from this legislation because it is not spelt out. It has been raised many times by people in Alice. Does it mean the town council is going to declare the Alice Springs municipality dry, and the town camps will be sitting ducks for all the drunks? We hope that is not going to happen. It is a concern.
I have also been asked about tourists. Tourists drive into our town at sunset. They might go down to the Todd River, sit on the bank and have a bottle of beer or a glass of wine. How are we going to get the message through to them, without having big, gaudy signs all around our town, that this is a dry town? I do not want to spoil the image of our town by having big signs that are getting messages through to people who are not the abusers of alcohol. How are we going to do that? Please show some flexibility by saying: ‘This person did not know about this law. We will just tell them this is the law and then ask them not to do it in this spot’. There are many spots around Alice Springs where tourists pull up and perhaps unwittingly, break the law. We need to make sure we do not let that happen. Most of all, we need to ensure the entrance to our town does not have big ugly signs saying ‘No grog’. It is all about education.
Mr Henderson: A can with a red line through it.
Mrs BRAHAM: Yes, I know, but even so, does that mean I cannot drink grog anywhere in that town? You have to be careful how you do it. It is about education.
We talked about the two kilometre law. Will that still be enforced in a town if they become restricted, or does the new law override it? There is nothing to say the Summary Offences Act is overridden if this bill comes into play and an application for a restricted area is made. I do not know whether the bill will need another amendment, minister, or how the two kilometre law will become subordinate law if an application for a restricted area is made. Perhaps you could explain that to me. I am not sure how you are going to get around that.
I am worried that the restricted areas legislation we have at the moment, and we have so much of it in Central Australia, is not working all that well. They call it the ‘green can gate’ at Santa Teresa. They have shade and chairs and tables, and people come to the gate and drink their booze before they go into the community. The ACPO there is pretty good. He says: ‘No, you stay here and sleep’, or ‘Yes, you can go home’. It is still not educating Aboriginal people to drink in the proper way. You should not have to buy a carton and drink the lot at once because you cannot take it home. You should not have to buy a cask of wine and drink it when it is warm all at once because you cannot take it home. I still say that education is the way to go. I do not believe that restricted areas have won the war against alcoholism.
I was going to ask the Police minister how many litres of wine have been confiscated in Central Australia or tipped out in the communities? How many vehicles have been confiscated? How many alcohol-related assaults have occurred on communities? Have restricted areas stopped all that in dry communities or is it still there? It is my understanding that it is still there. Yes, there are some communities where it is good and the alcohol has not taken over, but there are still grog runners. I am sure the member for Macdonnell knows about Ntaria where there often seem to be grog runners. The concept of the ‘green can gate’ is a reaction to the fact that people cannot take their drink home. That is one of the saddest things that we have imposed upon Aboriginal people. I am certainly not saying we should allow carte blanche on communities. I am well aware of the consequences that alcohol has had on Aboriginal lives, but where are people going to go when Alice Springs is declared restricted?
Mr Stirling: No pubs in Alice?
Mrs BRAHAM: Outside of Alice; on the way home. We are going to have more road accidents and more assaults. It is not a solution. Education is a solution and you should know that, minister. Until we teach people to drink with commonsense in a socially acceptable way, no legislation is going to cure it. Your two kilometre law has not stopped it and your restricted areas dry legislation has not stopped it.
I turn to cause and effect. What effect will this legislation have? We know the intent and spirit of it but, when you do restrict people from drinking in these areas, what is the effect? There will be an effect; there will be a consequence of this bill. That, I am afraid, is probably the downside of the legislation because we will need police to police it; families will suffer; and public tenants will have too many visitors who will be abusive. Perhaps, as you say, they will move elsewhere with their liquor. If you could address the consequences of this legislation, it would be good.
This legislation needs to be implemented in cooperation with other service providers. I am thinking about the Night Patrols, ACPOs, the town council wardens, Family and Children’s Services Department and Territory Housing. How are we going to make sure this legislation does not have consequences for them?
The ideal would be that you introduce this legislation, areas would be declared restricted and it will solve the problem, but it is not going to go away; it is not going to be like that. People will still drink. We have seen that. Restrictions have not stopped people from drinking. Restricted hours have not stopped people from drinking. Restriction on the number of litres that you can buy has not stopped people from drinking. Cause and effect, minister, and consequences: where do you see this going? What do you think will be the result of this legislation? Will it be good or bad or will it just create more problems in different areas? We need to be forearmed for the consequences of this bill.
Minister, I did have certain issues to raise, but, to be honest, when I tried to mark places that I wanted to ask you about, it was too complicated. I understand the spirit of your legislation. I do not understand how it is going to work. I do not understand how it is going to fix the problem. I do not understand the consequences of the bill. It worries me that you have brought this in so quickly, in isolation without thinking it through, and without safeguards so that you will end up with another problem.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Mr Deputy Speaker, as stated previously, the Territory opposition supports the intent of this bill. We have a fact sheet called the Dry Areas Proposal which was released by the Territory opposition in April. It sits very well with the thrust of this bill. The arguments that were raised in the previous debate on urgency still hold, nonetheless.
The issue is the practical matters of implementing this change so that it can be sustained and produce the result that we all want to see. By choosing to present a mechanism or a means to address the problem of drinking in public places and in certain residences, we are left now to adjust to the express will of government and it loses the friendliness and cooperation you have if it is done in a manner whereby key stakeholders are included.
I am not speaking from the point of view of preciousness as a parliamentarian, but I speak principally in this respect from the lessons learnt at Groote Eylandt. That was one of the most significant exercises for me, as a parliamentarian, to see how you can have change brought into a community and sustained and strengthened because that community was involved in every aspect of it. If you had taken this approach where the idea seems to be good, says Cabinet, and then you impose it upon a community, and then we start to work it out as we go along, you already have a problem.
There is a group in Palmerston called the Crime Prevention Committee which has been together for a long time and involves very senior stakeholders. The member for Drysdale is a member of that committee, an active member, too. It is a sincere and genuine committee that is interested in the proposition. However, that committee is of the view that they have not had time to properly assess the implications of the bill and how it can perhaps be improved, how it can marry some of the specific needs of that jurisdiction and have them carried through into the bill. If you had that exercise, you would have an immense amount of good will and social capital strengthened just within that community. The member for Drysdale, I am sure, will not be reporting to the minister in this parliament that the committee of which he is a member requests slowing this down so that community can buy in, thereby releasing the social capital which is in fact the necessary ingredient for bringing about sustained social change.
Yes, the intent is fine and supported. Concerns remain, however, about the manner in which government has done this. Passing this legislation now requires an impost upon the good will of members opposite, members of the community, and more broadly, stakeholders, councils, committees, crime prevention committees, who now must adjust to a process that has been ramped up, put in place as government has now shifted from seeking cooperation to telling people what the solution is.
There is an element of care missing from this. That element of care probably cannot be captured in legislation; it is captured in the process and communicated in the time and the care taken. Legislation in its mechanical sense is probably okay. I have not had the time to weigh up all the aspects of it. I really would like to have discussed aspects of this with the Crime Prevention Committee in Palmerston. I am not able to do so now. We now have to work with it. You have presented us with the tool, the machinery, and we will have to work with it. About that, I am disappointed.
I cannot say much more, minister. You have left us now with a situation that we are drawing upon good will to ensure that we put in our best efforts to bring about change to a problem that concerns all of us.
The member for Wanguri read a list of all those who had been consulted, and when you read a list, it can sound quite impressive, but behind that list of groups and names, the true story, if you are honest, would be a little different. I know of one exercise - and credit to the members for Drysdale and Brennan who worked very hard in the CBD to encourage people to come along if they wanted to hear more about this. I know that their efforts were genuine. They were in the business of seeking to tick off the consultation box, but from my reports, there were not that many local people who came to the consultation. So you can tick the box. You have done it, but it may have been a little warning that we need to slow down so that people know what it is that you are talking about, and the Crime Prevention Committee is a case in point.
Anyway, it is your decision. You have the numbers. We will do the best we can to ensure that positive outcomes are achieved which are hopefully far more than political.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, at the outset, I apologise for a phrase I used today in the opening debate where I replaced a certain word that Don Chipp used with a phrase about illegitimate children. I might have been too smart by half. It was an inappropriate statement for me to make.
Mr Stirling: Accepted.
Mr WOOD: I was just quoting basically what Don Chipp had once said, alluding to the party’s role of holding the balance of power in the Senate. I apologise for that. Sometimes you say things that you regret after you have had a moment’s peace.
Turning to the Liquor Amendment Bill, there has been much said. I have difficulty supporting this bill not because I do not support the intent of the bill. My problem is that I do not believe that I have had time for proper scrutiny. I feel that I would be doing the wrong thing supporting a bill when I do not believe I have had time for proper scrutiny. So I will not vote on this bill. If I vote against it, people will say: ‘He does not support this’. I have heard said that if you do not support this and the urgency, you are saying you support that Aboriginal people will be beaten up and killed. That is really bad. I do not want to see that happen.
When we had the restricted premises declaration pass through this parliament, it went through the normal process. No one said: ‘We must rush that through because Aboriginal people in public housing could be killed or injured’. I was not arguing anything different from what has happened here before. Surely it would be irresponsible of me to vote on serious legislation where life and death is important.
Mr Stirling: The urgency debate has been had. You questioned relevance before.
Mr WOOD: Yes, I am just pointing out …
Mr Stirling: The urgency debate has been had. You are dealing with the bill.
Mr WOOD: I am just pointing out where I stand …
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! The member for Wanguri was constantly interjected on for failing to refer, in the views of members opposite, to arguments around urgency. Now we are getting urgency, urgency, urgency. I ask you to direct him to the contents of the bill.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, I will rule on the point of order. The Deputy Leader raised a point of order on relevance. There is a degree of latitude here, but I will ask that you confine your remarks to the bill at hand.
Mr WOOD: May I speak to the point of order? I am confining my remarks to the bill. I am explaining why I will not vote on this bill. That is what this is about. I need to give my reasons and my reasons are that there has not been enough scrutiny. I am explaining that on other bills, we have had scrutiny as per the normal process of government. I am giving my reasons why I will not support this bill – not so much not support it, I support the principle behind the bill, but I am abstaining from the vote because I have not had enough time to scrutinise the bill.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Nelson. There is a degree of latitude, but we did have quite a lengthy debate about urgency and you provided a great deal of commentary on your reasons, however, I draw your attention to the legislation. Please proceed.
Mr WOOD: All right. Somewhere in this debate, I have to decide what I will do when it comes to voting on this legislation. I can tell people at the beginning of this debate or I can tell them at the end of this debate. I am saying that I will abstain, not because I do not support the principle, but because I believe such an important bill needs more scrutiny, and I have not had time for scrutiny of this bill. The bill is 22 pages long. It amends various other bills. This bill had mistakes in it, and those mistakes were brought up on Monday, four days before this bill came into being, by the Independents. An important amendment was made. This was within a week of looking at it. We had other bills to do, we had statements to write, we have normal political things to do like anyone else.
The Independents looked at this bill and found that an important amendment was required. Otherwise, quite a few people would have not been able to, for instance, have a wedding on the Esplanade if it is a restricted area. They simply would have been told: ‘You do not live or work, or propose to live or work, or you are an incorporated body or not an incorporated body, who lives or works or proposes to live or work in the area’. That meant people from Katherine who might have wanted to come to Darwin to have a wedding on the Esplanade, who wanted to have some wine, and therefore ask for a permit, would not have been allowed unless the Independents had looked at the bill and suggested an amendment.
That is just one example. Surely that is a good enough example to ask: have we thoroughly scrutinised the bill? A little group of Independents who went to a briefing on Monday found out there was an error. In fact, the government has another amendment, a good amendment, broadening the scope of people who should be taken into account by the Liquor Commission. That is good. The changes the government proposes are good. Does it not alarm you that when you have a bill 21 pages long with amendments to other acts, amendments to this, amendments to that - it is not about my lack of concern for people who will be affected by this bill. It is not. It is about being careful with the process, the same process that we had for the restricted premises declaration. Government passed that through due process, and I am saying the same process should have applied in this case.
That is why I do not believe there has been enough scrutiny, and that is why, in relation to this bill, I do not wish to vote on it. I want to make it clear that it does not mean I do not support the principle.
The minister has said that he has spoken to the community. I do not know how much community consultation was involved. Was it meetings at every place like the member for Drysdale had? Was it a letter? I have worked on councils. They give you a letter. Maybe we will look at it. You know the council process, a meeting on the second Wednesday of the month, the main meeting on the fourth Wednesday of the month. If a letter comes just before the main meeting, you will not see it for another five weeks. It might be just a matter of: ‘Oh, yes, government is passing some information on’. So what? Is that the consultation that is needed here?
Darwin is the biggest centre in the Territory. If Dripstone Beach was a declared area, did people know that was going to happen? Would they be happy about that happening? I am told lots of people go out to the Dripstone cliffs, have a wine and watch the sun go down. Has that part of the community been consulted? You can have the formal consultation, but has the general community been consulted? I do not think so. I have not had people coming up and saying: ‘Gee, this is interesting legislation. I wonder what the council thinks’. I have not had any feedback from our council. I do make the point that, even if the government sent out communications to, say, Litchfield Shire Council, it would have sent out a proposal like a media release saying: ‘This is what we propose to do. Here is a document you can discuss. This is what we want to do’. That is fine and good; I have no problem with that. In the end, it is this bill – these 20-odd pages of legislation - that is here today, not what was discussed out bush. In the end, the little booklet or paper they sent out is not the legislation that we discuss today; it was a discussion paper. This is not a discussion paper; this is the real McCoy. I am not even sure whether this completely mirrors what people were told. I do not know that, and I do not think people do.
Can someone tell me if this legislation was sent to Darwin City Council - this legislation, not a discussion paper? Did this go to Yuendumu and other community groups? Were they told: ‘This is it. Quickly have a look at it and say this is exactly what you agreed to’? Did the Darwin City Council know when they had the discussion paper that people who live in Karama would not be permitted to have a wedding where wine was involved on the Esplanade if the Esplanade is declared a restricted area? That is what this bill said originally. This is the bill now. When the amendments come in, thankfully, we will change it, but did those councils know the bill had that clause in it? I do not think they did. If there is any good argument for asking for more scrutiny of this, it is that. If you can miss a simple point like that, one would argue: what else have you missed?
I did not find the urgency debate the greatest debate in the world. Maybe I am to blame for that as well, but I find it hard to believe that you can be accused of playing with people’s lives on an issue that has been around for 30 years at least. No one did anything 30 years ago. I would be the first to support legislation that will help, but what kind of politician am I if I do not have a chance to scrutinise legislation properly to see exactly what this legislation will do? To be told that I have put lives at risk simply because I wish to scrutinise this properly is a terribly indictment of the government. They are politicking on an issue that does not need politicking ...
Mr Stirling: Who is opposing it?
Mr WOOD: It is not a matter …
Mr Stirling: Who is playing politics here?
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please!
Mr WOOD: I am not playing politics. I am asking …
Mr Stirling: Who is opposing it?
Mr WOOD: Speaking to the interjection …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment. You will direct your remarks to me. I ask the Deputy Chief Minister to cease interjecting and allow the member to speak.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. There is a falsehood in that argument, a total falsehood. Because people support legislation does not mean that it should not come back to parliament for scrutiny. If you accepted that to the nth degree, why have parliament? People elect me to scrutinise bills before this parliament. They do not elect the Darwin City Council as the representative of the Northern Territory. They may represent the people on the Darwin City Council, but they do not represent them when it comes to taking a vote on whether this bill is something that should be passed.
If you want to go down that path of saying: ‘We consulted everybody and they all agreed’, who needs parliament? Go down that path. What a waste! Why do we not have a benevolent dictator who says: ‘This is a good bill. It will help people and they all agree, so I will now pass it’. So much for the Westminster system. Mussolini got the trains to run on time and they all thought that was terrific. They did not have a democracy, but the people wanted their trains to run on time, and they all cheered when they ran on time, but did they have democracy? No, they didn’t, and there is an important principle here.
If you can say the principle of making sure that we have good legislation as in good governance, if you can allow normal scrutiny to apply to a very similar bill - we have three types of restricted areas in the Northern Territory and if you count the two kilometre law, we have four. We have the general restricted area, Aboriginal communities, we all know that. We have the two kilometre law, a restriction on where you can drink in relation to our licensed premises. We have restricted premises declaration where you can stop someone coming into your house with liquor, or a public estate, like a housing estate. That legislation went through this parliament under the normal process. No one screamed it was urgent. It is just as important, possibly more important …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment, member for Nelson. You have had your attention brought to relevance. You are drifting back into that urgency argument. We have dealt with that debate. I ask you to come back to the matter at hand, which is the legislation, and not the matter of urgency which we have already dealt with.
Mr WOOD: I was not. I was speaking to the minister’s interjection.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: That was a long time ago, member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD: He should not have interjected.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: He has not interjected in the last five minutes.
Mr WOOD: I have been in parliament and seen many a politician take an extra 10 minutes when someone interjected, but I am not doing it for that purpose. I am explaining why I think the ...
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Nelson. The point is that you are drifting back into that area of debate not relevant to the legislation.
Mr WOOD: All right. I will just sum up on that bit to say …
Mr WARREN: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! The member for Nelson is showing a little disrespect to the Chair. I ask that he show the appropriate respect.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Goyder. Please continue, member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD: I was simply arguing the case that because something is popular, and because the government says it put it out in the public arena and people agreed with it - and don’t forget, they put out a discussion paper; they did not circulate this legislation. Let’s be very careful. So, if you take that premise, for the next bill we have to consider, let’s put out a discussion paper. All right, speed limits for the Stuart Highway. So …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! You have requested on a number of occasions that the member speak to the content of the bill. We are now back to hypothetical areas in regard to speeding legislation and the urgency debate. I urge you to remind the honourable member to get back to debating the content of this legislation.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, I appreciate your passion. You have made the point in previous arguments about urgency. I draw your attention to relevance and ask that you to speak to the legislation and finalise your remarks.
Mr WOOD: I am actually speaking about a process that this bill is going through that the minister said was not …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, the process that you are talking about is urgency and that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about the legislation.
Mr WOOD: Mr Deputy Speaker, the bill is an important bill. I find it difficult to say that because I disagree with the way the government has treated this bill – I have great difficulty with this. Surely processes and how this bill will affect others and what sort of consultation the government undertook is part of this bill. The government argued in its second reading that they had consultation. Now they are arguing, because they had that consultation, we need to pass it today. That is fair enough, surely, to talk about. It was in the second reading, which is what this bill is based on. All I am saying is that just because you have consultation, just because you think people support it, it does not negate proper scrutiny.
I will sum up, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will not get extra repetitive. It is a sad day for such important legislation to go through here, to be laughed at because you simply ask for the proper process of government to occur. That shows that this is about passing legislation to say to people: ‘Look what we did’. The end does not justify the means and unfortunately this process is about that. The end does not justify the means. You will get what you want but I do not think you should be proud of it.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Deputy Speaker, my sympathies go with the member for Nelson. He is a man of honour; he tried to explain himself as to why he found it difficult to support the bill. The opposition has already said that in principle, we support the bill. In fact in April of this year, we released a policy saying that we would like to see dry areas legislation across the Territory, which will enable local government to then apply to the Licensing Commission to designate areas as alcohol free.
I have tried to engage with the detail of the legislation over the last few days. I thank the minister in the first instance for releasing the documents early. I attempted to read it and try to understand it. I am not a lawyer and it is not easy for a non-lawyer to read these papers where amendments refer to the principal act and, unless you have the full act in front of you to cross-reference one to the other, it is well nigh impossible to fully understand.
Going back to the minister’s second reading speech and some papers that I have received help me understand what the bill is about. Obviously, it is about creating an environment where local government, the Police Commissioner or his delegate and the Director of Licensing are able to declare areas under this legislation. Because it is hard to understand the detail, one needs to be a bit cautious about how supportive one can be.
I would like to see it happen in Alice Springs because the two kilometre law has failed to a large degree to prevent public drinking of alcohol. It is not that the police are not doing their work; I believe they do the best they can. It is difficult, and I have seen it with my own eyes: a police officer or two officers will go down into the Todd River in the paddy wagon, confront some people who are drinking and tip out what alcohol they can see - what is buried under the sand they do not know unless they accidentally kick the cask or whatever it is. If they do not see the alcohol that is buried, that alcohol is left alone. When the paddy wagon drives off, the people in the river bed go to their hidden cache, pull out the cans or the cask and go back to drinking again. It is very difficult to enforce the two kilometre law unless you have enough police on the beat regularly, one following the other, literally, to make sure that people do not abuse alcohol in public.
Police resources are not adequate. That is not just my word; it is the word of police officers who have spoken to me privately. You have heard the police union saying publicly that police resources are not adequate. Now we are going to have more legislation, which is going to be passed today, irrespective whether members on this side of the House plead for more time to consider it, and will be sitting side-by-side with the two kilometre law.
The legislation will be passed and assented to, and then councils and other interested bodies and individuals will then apply to the Licensing Commission to declare the areas that they want as dry areas. I assume that those councils, whether they be municipal or community councils, will consult with their local community, whether it be the municipality of Darwin, Palmerston, Alice Springs, you name it. I assume that those councils will consult with the community and find out from the community whether the areas that they suggest are the areas that are appropriate to be declared dry. After the consultation, I assume that the councils will then write to the Licensing Commission with a request that these are the areas that the Licensing Commission should declare dry. The Licensing Commission will then have to advertise the application in much the same way as doing as a Development Consent Authority type application. Perhaps a sign will be posted on the site so that people are aware an application has been made to declare it a dry area.
I assume, after a reasonable period of advertising, that there will be a hearing where the public can turn up to voice their support or objection to declaring that area dry. The Licensing Commission has to make a decision after that. How long that will take - well, how long is a piece of string? I do not know. It will take a while, of course. What happens after that? Okay, an area is declared dry. Now it comes down to the police, according to this three-page document I have here. It says:
I ask the question: if the police are under-resourced now and are struggling to enforce the two kilometre law as well as they would like to see it enforced, where are they going to find the resources to then enforce this law? Now, that is the $64 000 question. Where are they going to get the resources to enforce this law? Or is the government going to say: ‘We have given you the law. Councils, you are on your own. You have your own council rangers, officers or inspectors to do that’. That is going to create a lot of conflict between community governments, local governments, the police and, through them, the government. The second reading speech does not tell me what the government proposes to do, except in a blanket statement which says the police will enforce it. If the two kilometre law is not now adequately enforced, I question how well this legislation will be enforced.
Then we come to the section where the minister says if a person is apprehended for breaching this legislation, there will be up to a $500 fine. The member for Braitling asked what happens if a tourist comes into town and breaches the law. I assume that at the entry to each community that has dry areas, there will be a large enough sign to tell people, much like signs as people are approaching in a northerly direction to Darwin on the Stuart Highway there is a sign that says 110 km limit or a 50 km limit in the suburbs. Maybe there would be a sign such as that at the entry point in each of the regional centres so that people are aware, and at the airports perhaps, railway stations, so that these people who come to town are aware.
Let us say somebody comes into town, whether they are from the bush or on The Ghan or on an aeroplane, and they breach the law. I assume in the first instance a police officer who sees that breach would advise the person that this is not on and they cannot do that in this area, ask them to desist and that will be it. If that person continues to breach the law, I assume they will be arrested and there will be a fine. The question is: are we able to get the fine paid? That is a big question. If you are an habitual drinker, if you are an alcoholic, a drunk, and you drink in public places regularly and you get picked up regularly, what happens? Are you going to clog up the courts to try to recover this $500 per fine. It is not clear in the second reading speech, nor in the legislation.
I am not going to talk about putting this off or inviting defeat or deferring the legislation because that will fall on deaf ears. The member for Nelson made a very compelling case, asking for his position to be understood and respected. We have legislation that needs a bit of time.
We have a problem now with the two kilometre law and this law side-by-side, and a lack of police resources to enforce it. I have spoken to some of the councils, and they have told me they do not have their areas worked out yet. They have not consulted their own community about what areas they are going to declare dry. So even if this legislation was assented to tomorrow, nothing will happen. For the minister to get up - and I do not know who he yelled at earlier – and say that people will die because of the alcohol abuse is a little far fetched. This law, even if it is assented to tomorrow, would not be implemented in a practical way for several weeks to several months. In fact, if you waited - and I know I am drifting into the issue of urgency – these five weeks until the next sittings, the councils could be in the consultation phase with their own communities so that, when the law is assented to, the councils would be ready to apply immediately and due process takes place. You would not have lost any time at all and you would have satisfied a lot more people. This legislation could be taken out to all interested parties for proper consultation.
Minister, I said that we have given cautious support for this legislation. Alice Springs probably was one of the first municipal councils to push hard for it. The aldermen and the mayor were the ones who were convinced to go down to Port Augusta to study what happened there. I understand that you were there with them and, when you came back, you were initially a bit circumspect about the whole matter; that you were not entirely convinced that it was the right thing to do. You have become the sponsor of this, well and good. There is still divided opinion within the council itself about whether this is the right thing to do. That debate in the council has yet to occur fully. If there was division within the council and the council, for some reason or other, decided not to go with it, then what is this for? This rush …
Mr Stirling: It is for the whole of the Territory, not just for Alice Springs. It is for other communities as well.
Dr LIM: Therefore, this rush may appear to be quite unnecessary. Another minister, the member for Wanguri, accused the CLP clique within the town council for frustrating things. They have not. In fact, some of them supported this idea and travelled with the mayor to Port Augusta to have a look. For the member for Wanguri to get up and slag into respected members of the Alice Springs community who are elected by the people to be on the town council is most unnecessary.
The cautious support is there, minister, and …
Mr Stirling: Thank you for that.
Dr LIM: … you can take heart from that. There are many items that we are not sure about. The member for Nelson has raised many of the issues that he was concerned about, and I support him. He makes a lot of good sense. If there is anything else I can say, it is that maybe you ought to, at least if not publicly, then privately go to the member for Nelson and apologise to him for accusing him of deeds that he had never ever …
Mr Stirling: I never accused him of anything.
Dr LIM: … something that he would never have thought …
Mr Stirling: He owes me an apology.
Dr LIM: He deserves an apology. He deserves an apology.
Members interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Members interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Dr LIM: The member for Nelson deserves an apology. I feel terribly sorry for what he felt. I think he was very hurt. It is most unnecessary for our debates to descend to the level of personalities.
Mr STIRLING (Racing, Gaming and Licensing): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank members for their contributions. I thank the support, albeit cautious, from the member for Greatorex. When he talked about those very words, cautious support, I am taken all the way back to the early 1990s with former Chief Minister, Marshall Perron, and his first foray into Living with Alcohol approaches, some of which were eminently effective over those years. He said: ‘We don’t think this is the answer to everything, but we are going to give it a go, and if it needs amending we will bring it back and we will amend it at the next parliament. If it needs amending beyond that, we will bring it back to parliament after that’. That always struck me as a very commonsense approach and something he did do. Unfortunately, after the former Chief Minister left parliament, the eye was off the ball when it comes to the former government and alcohol.
In relation to the member for Nelson, is he the only member in here who thinks he has a conscience? Is he the only one who can afford to be self righteous when it comes to friends and acquaintances and people who have died? People who went on the election campaign trail with me in October 1990 are no longer living. They are no longer living because they succumbed to the ravages of alcohol over those years - people who were in their early 40s, about an average age for indigenous people to die. He thinks he is the only person in this Chamber who goes to Aboriginal funerals for people who die from alcohol abuse. Well, I have a thing to tell him: every rural member in this Chamber attends funerals on a regular basis, many of them as a result of the ravages of alcohol abuse.
He has the hide to stand in here and be offended by what I said to him. I have to tell him other members in this House have a conscience. Other members in this House go to Aboriginal funerals for people who have died from alcohol and he sits there and says: ‘Don’t pick on me, I am offended’. The member for Blain, another self-righteous little contributor here, the same thing, although in his case he has probably never been to an indigenous funeral in his life, let alone the very many that each of us on this side of the House have attended for people who could not control their alcohol intakes.
So if I get a bit emotional, Mr Deputy Speaker, I make no apology for that. If anyone is owed an apology in here it is me: from the member for Blain for referring to me as a bully; and from the self-righteous member for Nelson who thinks he is the only one affected by these things in our communities when we live with it on a daily basis, all of the members on the rural side. I am looking at the member for Macdonnell. I am looking at the member for Stuart, the member for Barkly - all of us. The member for Arnhem is going to get used to it and she is going to have to toughen up the way we have over those years because she will be out there going to funeral after funeral after funeral as well. So I make no apology. That is the attitude I bring to this …
Mrs BRAHAM: A point of order. Mr Deputy Speaker! I thought the minister was supposed to be responding to the second reading speech, not making personal attacks on members of the House who do feel offended by his remarks and his screaming. Mr Deputy Speaker, I think you should also pull up the minister for the screaming at members on the other side seeing you pull us up many times. The minister should be aware that some people do have feelings.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Braitling. I do not think there is any standing order against volume, but the minister is commenting on the statement made by other members …
Mrs Braham: No, he was making personal attacks on people.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Please continue.
Mr STIRLING: I am responding to comments that were made both in the former debate about urgency and the second reading speech. I was told I had to apologise. It is in fact me who is due apologies from that side of the House. I am simply responding to that, member for Braitling, and if you take offence, so be it. I am responding to comments made earlier in the debate.
In relation to the comments made by the member for Braitling, I share a view with her when it comes to amendment bills and the difficulty of setting them up and the effect overall. In all my years in opposition, it used to be much harder. These days, you can simply go to the computer and pull off a copy of the Liquor Act in its entirety, and you can be confident that that is, as amended, up to date. In the old days, when we were in the Leader of the Opposition’s office, before we had that facility, you used to have to go and get the act from the back shelf, dust it off, probably it had not been looked at in five years, depending on how often the bill was amended, and it may well be out of date, which again complicated the process of picking up the amendment bill - which you still can do, of course - going from that clause to the clause in the bill, deleting, physically writing out where it says ‘omit’, scrub it out of the bill, write in the new words. Of course, the new sections are easy. It is just cut and paste. Where it says ‘add new Section 86’, or ‘86D’ or whatever, you add it on. It is not an easy task. I do not pretend it is, but that is the process in order to make sense of any amending legislation, whatever its nature.
Whilst I share that concern, the best way to do it is to physically go through the amendment yourself, and you could never do that with the old hard copies because they had to wait to be amended by office staff further down the track when the amendment had gone through the process.
The delegation to the CEO of council was raised by the member for Braitling. Let us take the example of Alice Springs. It has been used as an example often enough tonight. If the Alice Springs Council were to apply to the commission for delegation in relation to the Chief Executive Officer having the ability - we have to assume that the whole process has been gone through and the place declared dry, and your son wants to get married at the Telegraph Station. The council could apply to the commission for delegation to the CEO of the council so that they do not have to go back to the commission every single time to issue a permit, so it is a standing delegation in that respect.
On town camps, I have notes on how the town camp situation would work. Abbotts Camp, you would know, applied under the general dry areas legislation. That is the other point about this bill; this is not a new concept. It has been around 30 years in relation to rural and remote communities. Abbotts Camp has already gone that way under general dry areas legislation. How would they fit in? Any lease arrangements would need to be investigated on a case-by-case basis to determine whether the camp is public or private. Some town camps have formal tenure through lease arrangements and some do not. If there is a lease, generally town camps are private premises so only the owner or occupier can make an application, but the legislation does provide a mechanism so that some types of private premises may be able to be covered in a public declaration where it is appropriate, and I have given an example here of the town footy oval in Nhulunbuy. It is covered under the town lease.
On the issue of tourists and public signage, arterial roads could be covered. I share your concern about great garish road signs. We have enough signage around the Territory as it is now. Nonetheless, the legislation calls for clearly visible public signage and that would be, I imagine, depending on the area – and, again, we are assuming that Alice Springs Council does apply; that is not clear from the comments from the member for Greatorex. If they did and it was approved, depending on the nature of the dry area, how big it is, whether you would have arterial road signage in and out of Alice, or whether you would just have it on the particular parts that were declared dry is an issue between, I guess, Alice Springs Council and the licensing commission in order to ensure that the act is complied with in relation to signage.
The public restricted areas provisions do not replace the two kilometre law at all. Police will continue to enforce that, but what the public restricted areas provision does is give police a range of options, more discretion in relation to this type of behaviour and how they deal with it in places where a public restricted area has been declared.
Cause and effect is the key to this. The question was raised by the member for Braitling, and it is the same with anything that is done in this area because you are dealing with social behaviour, you are dealing with human behaviour. As soon as there is one action, there is a reaction further down, and we saw that in Alice Springs when a particular product was banned some years ago, and there was a substitution to a product of an even higher alcohol content, which meant people got more sick more quickly and, in fact, very much sicker than they were on the previous products. So, over a period of time, there was an adverse effect in relation to the banning of that product at that time.
It is incumbent on councils, the licensing commission and police to follow very closely the effects coming from this legislation. The first area that the member for Braitling pointed to, and there would be no surprise, I suppose, is if this type of behaviour was to go into the town camps and the situation become worse. Of course, town camps have the ability to declare themselves dry. If they did, what then becomes of drinking in Alice Springs? There are always licensed premises. There are licensed premises in Alice Springs, there are licensed premises in every urban area in Darwin. If people choose to drink their alcohol in licensed premises, at least they are in premises where their behaviour is regulated, and they cannot continue to drink if they are at a point of intoxication. There are safety measures in place when drinking within a licensed premises that simply do not exist in the long grass, over the sand dunes, or anywhere out in the public area.
These are the effects that everyone will have to be vigilant about and look for in a way, I would suggest, that perhaps was not happening in the situation in Port Augusta, where a group of us travelled earlier this year. I thank the member for Braitling for her comments because overall, there is support for the legislation from her, albeit a few questions.
The member for Blain quoted the Groote Eylandt example as a very good outcome and, in terms of its sustainability, now over 12 months on, but said there is a difference between that legislation and this legislation because the Groote Eylandt situation was worked through with community consultation and community input, whereas this is legislation being imposed. What is being imposed on the public, member for Blain? What is being imposed? This is a vehicle. This is a piece of machinery that local government councils can use to have a part of their local council area or, in fact, all of the area that they control, the public areas they control, declared dry. Where is the imposition on a council to do it? Where is the imposition on anyone to do anything under this legislation? The actions required to make this legislation effective are entirely voluntary. They are entirely voluntary so there is no imposition on the public at all, member for Blain.
You will say that six days is not long enough to read the bill, in which case you have a problem. It is simply a further tool that local communities can apply if they are faced with intractable alcohol-fuelled social problems such as we see. No imposition, voluntary usage, and if the process is adhered to and an application is made, it will be robustly tested by the licensing commission through public hearings all of the way through to ensure that it has public support. Why would they do that? Because the licensing commission knows that measures such as these are only going to work with community support as, indeed, the member for Blain himself agreed is the case in Groote, where it has been supported by the community to great effect. The same thing will occur here. So, there is no imposition.
To refer to the legislation as an insult, as he did, I find that pretty appalling. This is legislation that, in fact, communities have been waiting for. Dry areas, as I made the point, have been in place for 30 years in the Northern Territory, and it is an application of a concept that has been around for 30 years, albeit applied to rural and remote indigenous communities to good effect. Now there is the ability to apply it to urban areas. It is not a new idea. It is not revolutionary. It is not an imposition on communities.
My favourite contribution, of course, was the member for Nelson, who said nothing about the bill at all, but railed against the case for urgency and repeated that in his second reading contribution. The member for Nelson is provided with research assistance by this parliament. I just wonder what is made of that research assistance, with six days – seven days, in fact - to get across legislation that is not all that complicated. It is easy for the member for Nelson to sit on the fence and say: ‘Really, I do support this bill. I think I support this bill, but I cannot bring myself to vote for it’. That is the luxury of Independents. Where would parliament and legislators be if they all decided to sit on the fence and say: ‘I cannot support this legislation; I cannot bring myself to vote for this’ and exercised that little self-indulgent luxury? In all of that debate from the member for Nelson, there was not one question - not one question - about the bill itself; simply that it should not be done today.
I picked up some of the issues that the member for Greatorex raised. You made the same comment as the member for Braitling in reading amendment bills. For those of us who are not lawyers, it is not an easy task; it is something I had to get used to many years ago. As I said, it is made easier today with electronic info-tech equipment where you can simply push a button, drop a copy and know that it is up to date and that the amendments have not been left to slide. It is necessary, of course, to drop a copy of the principal act and try to fit the amendment bill against it.
It is the member for Greatorex’s view that the police are under-resourced. That is not the view of the Police Commissioner, the government or the minister for Police. Police have had considerable resourcing improvements since we came to government. Some of it, of course, was made even more urgent by the fact that the former government had a recruitment freeze in place for some time. However, we do not see it as an issue. It has not been put as an issue to us.
The member for Greatorex did ask about process and what occurs. I will add this because it might give the member for Greatorex more understanding: how would the public restricted area law be enforced? It will give police, as I said, that flexibility and range of tools in order to address antisocial behaviour in public restricted areas. They can, depending on the circumstances they are faced with, in the first place seize any alcohol and give a contravention notice and a warning that the behaviour should not continue.
The contravention notice would be a notice to the effect that the person wanted to challenge that they were not, in fact, breaking the law, they could put their claim in court in relation to the confiscated alcohol. In the second place, they could seize the alcohol and go on to serve an infringement notice, which is effectively an on-the-spot fine. The person would then have to pay the infringement notice fine, up to $100, or elect to have the matter dealt with by a court. In the third place, seize the alcohol and take the person to court. The court can impose a maximum fine of $500. In Darwin and Alice Springs, the court can also refer a person to the Alcohol Court where a Prohibition Order may be made. A Prohibition Order can restrict a person’s access to alcohol or prohibit a person drinking alcohol and require the person to undertake treatment for alcohol dependency. The public restricted areas provisions do not replace the two kilometre law, which police will continue to enforce. What the public restricted areas provision does is give police that range of options as to how they deal with instances of alcohol-related antisocial behaviour in places where a public restricted area has been declared.
One of the most visible traits with police officers, if they have been around for a while, is their ability to apply commonsense because it is something they learn very quickly. If they want to get through their job, and are doing a difficult job day by day, they become used to applying discretion where they can and loads of commonsense with it. It would seem to me that the police officers in this situation who have any experience or any commonsense at all will go through an educative …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, you have one minute left.
Ms LAWRIE: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the minister be granted an extension of time in order that he may complete his remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Mr STIRLING: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the House for allowing me to continue. I will finish up.
Police officers will have that discretion applied with commonsense. Generally, police officers in a community like Nhulunbuy and even Alice Springs, are going to know pretty well the bulk of the offenders who are repeat offenders, and they would go through an educative process of saying: ‘I am tipping out your grog today, but if I spot you here tomorrow, you could be up for a fine’, and generally up the ante on these people until the lesson gets through in the same way that people have learnt the lesson about the two kilometre law.
The Port Augusta police said to us when we were down there earlier this year that they know when they have come across a group of Northern Territory itinerant drinkers because they start tipping out the grog before the police even get to them. That is because they have been educated about the two kilometre law. The same process will occur here. I imagine we will see a continued application of the two kilometre law, at least in the initial stages until person A or person X is such a problem that they are going to find themselves, hopefully, down that route to an Alcohol Court where a Prohibition Order can be made or the person required to undertake treatment for alcohol dependency. They are two actions that simply cannot occur under the two kilometre law, so it seriously strengthens the ability to make meaningful interventions into these people’s lives and hopefully, in some cases, turn those otherwise sad and very much wasted lives into much better ones for them and everyone else.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the two amendments were the only substantive part of the bill the member for Nelson spoke to. I am looking at proposed section 86D. These are the matters that the commission must take into account. They include information about the consumption of liquor in or near the relevant area, instance of crime in or near the area and the views of any of the following in relation to the application: an individual who lives or works or proposes to live or work in the area; a body that has or proposes to have an address in the area; each local government council mentioned in relation to the area; the police force; an agency or any other authorities established by law of the Territory. And we add (v):
That is a broad, and intended to be very inclusive, amendment so that no one is ruled out from having an opportunity to put their views on an application before the commission. The amendment is healthy and by being inclusive, leads to a much stronger process.
In relation to clause 20, standing at amendment 11.2, the proposed section 89A(1):
This amendment deletes (a) and (b) and simply inserts:
I understand that amendment arose out of a briefing between officers of Racing, Gaming and Licensing and alcohol policy and the Independents, and I think the member for Blain was there as well. I thank the members for their input into that. I thank RGL for coming back with these committee stage amendments, which not only serve to strengthen the bill; I think the bill would have been unworkable or very difficult without the second amendment.
It was a robust debate in and around whether this bill should proceed on urgency. I make the final point that government does not do it lightly and will not in the future ever take this parliament for granted in relation to urgency, but we do know that there is strong interest in this legislation. There were views that it ought to proceed on urgency, that it had, albeit within a short time, consultation before those who are waiting for this legislation and, in the words of Marshall Perron, if there are flaws, if there are deficiencies, if it can be strengthened and improved, we will do it and we will amend it every sittings if necessary, as we will with all of the legislative tools that we are bringing to bear on antisocial behaviour as a result of alcohol abuse. You have to move with it to stay on top of it. I am not embarrassed by these committee stage amendments. I am glad that they were raised and we have had the opportunity to correct them before the bill goes through.
With those comments, Mr Deputy Speaker, I understand we will go into committee, but I ask all members to support the bill.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Clauses 1 to 15 taken together and agreed to.
Clause 16:
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 11.1.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 17 to 19 taken together and agreed to.
Clause 20:
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 11.2.
Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Mr STIRLING (Racing, Gaming and Licensing): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Telecommunications
Dr BURNS (Communications): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise today to inform the House of recent activities and achievements within the Territory’s telecommunications sector.
Following statements made by the Prime Minister last week, we know we are faced with a fully-privatised telecoms environment. Canberra’s decision to dump $8bn worth of Telstra shares on to the market makes this hybrid privatisation an almost irreversible decision. Outcomes will now be based on commercial decisions made in the interests of Telstra shareholders. While this ultimately will be good news for long-suffering shareholders, it is a sad day for Territorians, especially those living in remote areas.
The major concern is that market conditions here are simply not conducive to any of the benefits that might be attributed to the privatisation of Telstra. Our circumstances highlight the contradictions between the Prime Minister’s ideologically driven desire to achieve full privatisation and the practical application of providing services to remote and rural areas.
Members ought to note that during these entire proceedings, the CLP’s recently endorsed senator, Mr Nigel Scullion, has been missing in action. Although Senator Scullion could have influenced the decision to benefit Territorians, he has instead chosen to toe the party line and the National Party line at that. He is, after all, the National Party Whip.
It is worth noting the recent media commentary about the rushed sale. The Australian of 28 August 2006, in an article headlined Fury over Telstra shareholder polling, indicates that the sale of Telstra has become urgent as a result of Telstra commissioning the Liberal Party’s pollsters to mount a campaign among shareholders. The Financial Times of 28 August 2006 predicts a further decline in share prices after the 4% loss in the preceding week, with investors concerned by the overhang created by so many Telstra shares being parked in the Commonwealth’s future fund.
Newspaper editorials variously describe the federal government’s decision as a fiasco, a fire sale and a job half done, all of this because the government does not want to sell shares in an election year. The federal government’s decision is bad for existing shareholders, bad for customers, bad for taxpayers in general, and bad for Territorians in particular.
Once again, the needs of Territorians are being ignored in favour of the Prime Minister’s political ideology and ambition. The fire sale known as T3 adds further impetus to the arguments for securing the telecommunication needs of the Territory. It is now essential that our telecom requirements are met before the introduction of the cut-throat world that comes with full privatisation. In an environment where commercial decisions will dictate decision-making, it is highly unlikely that Northern Territory needs and requirements will be supported.
As members of this Assembly will be aware, this time last year the Martin government made representations to the federal government seeking funding for improved telecommunication services for all Territorians. I moved a motion in this parliament seeking support for funding the Territory’s needs, as established by the analysis of the consultants ACIL Tasman. In the 12 months since then, we have heard nothing reasonable in response from the CLP. The Howard government allocated $3.1bn under the Connect Australia package and Future Fund to ensure the passage of the bill for the sale of Telstra through both Houses of federal parliament. The $3.1bn is committed funding and is not dependent on the sale of Telstra.
Connect Australia and the Future Fund now form the Australian government’s singular response to the funding of all telecom initiatives. It is clear from our numerous communications with the Commonwealth and its responsible agency, the Department of Communications, Information, Technology and the Arts, that no other funding is available for telecom initiatives. This means that the Northern Territory will compete with other jurisdictions for funding for critical telecommunications infrastructure, services and support. Those other jurisdictions will not be as disadvantaged by a deregulated environment as the Northern Territory.
The telecom needs of the Territory are extensive, as well as being significantly more expensive because of the distances involved and the presence of limited competition. The success of the Territory in competing for funding depends on our capacity to fight to be heard. In terms of telecommunications, the Northern Territory is already the most disadvantaged jurisdiction in Australia. Territorians living in remote communities do not have access to adequate infrastructure for either business or personal communications. These people, comprising around a quarter of our growing population, are the ones who would benefit most from accessing broadband services at metropolitan prices, allowing them to participate in interactive distance learning, receive competitive financial and business services, and take part in an economic environment that is broader than the boundaries of their community. If the Australian government simply emphasises the immediate sustainability without looking to the future where sustainability might be achieved in five to 10 years, then these remote communities will miss out.
I have been continually impressing on the federal Minister for Communications, Information and the Arts, Senator Coonan, the Territory’s telecommunications needs. On 22 March this year, I met with Senator Coonan and stressed the core elements of the Territory’s case; namely, first, bringing a 110 remote indigenous communities up to an urban parity with basic broadband and mobile services; and, second, bringing the Territory up to parity with all other jurisdictions by building a competitive interstate back-haul transmission capability into the Territory. Senator Coonan indicated the Territory’s requirements are closely in line with the intent of the Connect Australia program. The Territory government will raise these issues once again with Senator Coonan’s office at the Online and Communications Council in Canberra next month.
We are working hard to ensure that the Northern Territory does benefit beyond the per capita rate of funding so that the necessary infrastructure and services can be delivered to these remote areas. The Department of Corporate and Information Services is working closely with Telstra Country Wide, the Local Government Association of the Northern Territory, and major commercial organisations to ensure that the Territory’s needs are presented to the Australian government as conspicuously as possible.
DCIS, in close consultation with Telstra Country Wide, has placed an expression of interest under the Broadband Connect program of the Connect Australia package for infrastructure to provide broadband and mobile telephony services to 60 remote communities. LGANT has also lodged an expression of interest for the support of online access centres in 45 remote communities. DCIS consulted closely with LGANT and provided much of the work and the model central to the expression of interest.
I am also aware that the commercial sector has demonstrated considerable interest in putting expressions of interest to the Australian government to deal with the back-haul of telecommunications traffic. These large pipes are the central component for all telecom carriers. In October last year, I referred to the need for a competitive interstate fibre cable link to ensure the long-term economic health of the Territory telecom sector, and to provide consumers with expanded choices at competitive pricing.
I will now take a moment to reflect on some activity in the telecommunications sector over the past 12 months. As this Assembly is aware, the contract with Telstra to provide all government agencies with their telecommunications needs has now been in place for some 12 months. As a result of the contract, we have seen 56 new sites connected to the government-wide area network, allowing agencies to access more timely and relevant information to better support their communities. The bandwidth available to the agencies, which is the size of the telecommunication pipe, has been improved by a factor of eight at no additional cost. This provides agencies with significantly faster access to the Internet and business systems. In addition, 150 jobs have been created in the Territory as a result of Telstra’s new call centre located in Darwin.
Six months ago, DCIS let a contract for the provision of government desktop computing services to Fujitsu, strongly supported by locally grown company, Connected Solutions Group better known as CSG. As I mentioned in my Ministerial Report on 13 June, as part of that contract with government, Fujitsu and CSG have introduced visits to communities to proactively maintain computer and other equipment in government agencies. This program has been under way now for some eight weeks and, by all accounts, is being received in a very positive way by staff in those communities. In the final quarter this year, these visits will provide support to community members and organisations at no charge other than the cost of parts and equipments. Ensuring that the computers are working also means greater Internet participation. This is a very positive outcome for our remote communities.
Over the past 12 months we have seen the programmed roll out of mobile phone services to remote communities that were funded under the previous Australian government program. In these 12 months, there have been an additional 10 mobile sites activated, bringing the total number of communities able to access mobile services to 43. This is a substantial increase since 2001 when only Darwin and the major regional centres - that is, six sites including Yulara and Jabiru - were able to use mobile services. Given that pre-paid mobiles are a product of choice for remote communities where the service is available, there is still a long way to go before we can say the majority of our remote communities have the product they want.
It cannot have escaped members’ attention that Telstra is converting its GSM and CDMA mobile services to the new and more capable 3G GSM technology. This commercial decision from Telstra will provide the same coverage but reduce costs to Telstra by reducing their maintenance and running costs. Users will need to buy a new handset for this new technology, but that handset will work everywhere Telstra has mobile services. The 3G GSM network is scheduled to be turned on in the first half of 2007.
I am sure that members have heard of Telstra’s recent announcement that it will not proceed with its Fibre to Node project. This would have provided a substantial increase in the capacity of broadband services provided to households, enough to deliver movies, videos and other speed intensive services. This initiative was the subject of significant negotiation and debate between Telstra and the ACCC. While the project was predominantly aimed at the eastern seaboard where the population density is highest, the decision to shelve it may affect the Territory in the longer term.
Certainly, Telstra’s national pricing policy for an initiative such as Fibre to the Home has affected the new Darwin residential development in Lyons. It would appear that Telstra has priced the Fibre to the Home offerings nationally and at a price point that is not acceptable to the Lyons developers. In the case of Lyons, the developers have called for tenders for a solution for the necessary infrastructure capable of serving the community into the future and able to provide the highest capacity broadband services today. This is far short of the Smart Homes proposal that was initially intended for Lyons, and that I spoke of in October last year.
In an economic environment when new housing is in high demand, the developers have made an economic decision that it is unnecessary to differentiate their product with additional features at the cost required. I am, however, hopeful that we will facilitate the delivery of state-of-the-art technology to such suburbs in the new future.
In the debate on telecommunications this time last year, demand for ADSL broadband services was raised. I am pleased to inform this Assembly that a significant number of localities now have access to ADSL. The RAAF Base at Tindal is now connected, as is Darwin RAAF Base. Access for the Darwin RAAF Base can largely be attributed to the persistent efforts of the member for Millner on behalf of his constituents.
Bayview Haven, Tipperary Waters, The Narrows, the trade zone and Howard Springs and the outer metro area all now have access. Humpty Doo is to be commissioned by the end of August, which should greatly please the member for Goyder. There are still some gaps in coverage in Darwin and Palmerston, in particular Robertson Barracks where families want to keep in contact with loved ones posted abroad.
At a recent Community Cabinet meeting at Groote Eylandt, residents made direct representations to government about slow response times they are experiencing. I am sure the member for Arnhem will be taking up their cause with the same vigour that the member for Millner has done with his constituents.
The major regional communities such as Alice Springs, Nhulunbuy, Jabiru and Yulara all have ADSL services. Work will now begin on extending the coverage into our smaller communities.
It is through the good work of DCIS officers and others that a focus on regional and remote telecommunications in the Territory has been so evident. As I said earlier, the Territory will be represented at the Online Communications Council next month. On the agenda are two topics that have special significance for Territorians. First, the Connect Australia program is extremely important for the Territory, and I will be reiterating the Territory’s position as forcefully as possible. The other significant agenda item is the Broadband Blueprint. This strategic document is intended to replace existing National Broadband Strategy. It is Senator Coonan’s view, one with which we concur, that the National Broadband Strategy needs revitalising in light of the rapidly and continually changing telecommunications environment. My aim is to ensure that the strategy focuses on the more remote areas of Australia. People who live in these areas must be adequately recognised in the blueprint.
The Territory simply must be an integral part of the Australian broadband competitive network so we can participate on an equal footing with the rest of Australia as part of the strategy. I can assure this Assembly that my department and I will continue to fight for the Territory’s right to telecommunications services that are on a par with the rest of Australia.
I take this opportunity to invite those members opposite to support the Northern Territory government in seeking its fair share of Commonwealth funds available to address our telecommunication needs. CLP support would demonstrate that its members are prepared to stick up for the Territory rather than following the lead of the federal CLP members and becoming servants of the federal government.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Deputy Speaker, unfortunately we are a bit rushed tonight, knowing that we had other arrangements for more than an hour ago.
I will take the minister’s last comments first, that he seeks members opposite, particularly the Country Liberal Party, to support him in his bid in Canberra. Never could it be said that the CLP does not support as many resources as possible from the Commonwealth government for the Territory to support all Territorians. With that principle, I have no problems at all in supporting any government who will deliver for the Northern Territory, but let me say this statement is the ALP Northern Territory branch doing what its Canberra masters have ordered it to do: get stuck into Telstra, get stuck into John Howard about the T3 sale.
Dr Burns: I did not mention him once.
Dr LIM: That is what it is all about. Nothing about needs; he is just regurgitating what he told us in this Chamber some 10 months ago, October last year, when he tried to make a bid for a quarter of a billion dollars from the federal government. No wonder they laughed him out of Canberra. No wonder, when he asked for such a ridiculous amount from the federal government with very little justification.
Yes, people living in remote areas of the Territory deserve to have as many facilities that we have in the urban areas, but if the minister wants to talk about parity of services across the Northern Territory, but only for services that can be delivered by the federal government, he is being a little cute.
Would he also plead for parity across the Territory on services that the Northern Territory government delivers? Take the petrol crisis alone. The disparity between petrol prices between Alice Springs and Darwin is something like 10 cents. Will the Northern Territory government, under this minister for communications who is also minister for transport, guarantee parity of petrol price across the Territory? Of course he would not. For him to say, on the one hand, the Commonwealth has to deliver parity for everyone in the Territory, and not doing his own bit when he is a minister of the government is highly unfair.
He said: ‘Telstra is going to be sold off, we are going to have troubles, there is going to be a share price drop’. Did you see the papers this morning, minister? In fact, the Telstra price went up four cents overnight. So it is not in trouble. The minister laughs, so the minister’s …
Dr Burns: Four cents!
Dr LIM: … whole statement …
Dr Burns: What did they start at?
Dr LIM: … you know, is an error.
I have looked at the papers, I will wait until tomorrow morning to see what the price has done today, but I understand, according to the economic pundits, that Telstra prices are going up so, there you go. The reality is that the minister’s statement quotes incorrect information, not that I want to labour the point.
We were in another forum talking about sticking to our statements and, in your statement, minister, you were to congratulate the member for Nelson, and you did not.
Dr Burns: A typo.
Dr LIM: A typo! Oh, I see. You did not bring a piece of paper into the Chamber here to correct it.
You talk about the perfect government that it is going to give us all these facilities, but you do very little to try to get it yourself. Remember some 10 months ago, in October, we talked about what you have delivered or not delivered for the Territory in terms of communications. I told you that Education and Health failed to apply to the Commonwealth government when it had lots of money to provide for increased bandwidth into remote Northern Territory. It was only the police that did it, and that was the department that got the funding. Nobody else did because your department, minister, failed to apply for the funding, and it was actually being chased by both local industry personalities as well as federal officers to seek applications from your department, and you did not react to it in time and thus you lost out.
Let us come back again to trying to roll out stuff across the Territory. Is it not your colleague sitting next to you, the member for Stuart, who said, and I quote from his comments made on 19 October last year:
Jumping one sentence, he then said:
You cannot just get up and say: ‘Okay Commonwealth government, give us this $0.75bn and we are going to spread it out right across the Territory. You cannot do that, and you know full well that what you just said was intellectually dishonest. For a man who is supposedly an intellect, a PhD, I would expect some sort of honesty out of that.
Halfway through your statement, you suddenly swung into saying: ‘Look at me, look at all the wonderful things we have delivered for the Territory’. You talked about new sites getting Broadband, more mobile phone sites being activated and a substantial increase since 2001. Suddenly, Telstra has delivered for you all these services that you said they were not going to deliver. You are being inconsistent, minister, and you need to be intellectually honest when you say: ‘I have a problem with communications in the Territory. I believe the Commonwealth should deliver’. When you say that, I will support you, but when you start knocking it for not giving you things when, in fact, it has, because you yourself admit that they have delivered for the Territory, then you are being dishonest.
Let us go back a little to when we said that your departments were slow in reacting, that they did not apply. I do not know why. The industry was pushing your departments very hard to make sure that Health and Education, in particular, applied for federal funding. Why they did not do it, no one knows.
This time around, the federal government is going to commit a fair bit of money. It is something like $1.1bn over the next four years for Connect Australia: $878m for Broadband Connect to provide all Australians with affordable broadband services; $150m for Clever Networks to roll out new broadband networks for innovative applications and infrastructure to improve the delivery of health, education and other essential services; and $90m for backing indigenous ability to deliver a comprehensive package addressing phones, Internet and video conferencing in remote indigenous communities, and improved indigenous radio and television.
You have to get your act together and make sure that you get yourself in the ballpark and apply for these funds. Do not expect the Commonwealth government come to you and say: ‘Here is the money, do what you want’. No way in the world are they going to do that. Make sure that you are awake, that your applications are in, and that you seek strong support from our four federal members in parliament to lobby and support your case. Put your case together. If you do not, do not expect to get anything out of it. You know that Broadband Connect will see sustainable, open, stable broadband infrastructure beyond just the metropolitan areas. It is going to go across regional and rural areas as well. Let us put our bid in, and I will support you on that.
No one in the country would deny that remote Australia needs to be connected because this is one of the best ways we can possibly get all the services that we now enjoy in our urban areas out into the remote areas. If Education and Health, particularly health education and education itself can be delivered, mostly it is going to do people a lot of good. Under the Clever Networks program, $150m I said would be dedicated to this for regional areas to improve the delivery of health, education and other essential services. It will be directed towards higher speed advanced networks and applications targeting health clinics, emergency services, schools, training colleges, including homesteads, distance learning and for universities.
I believe the Commonwealth will be looking towards the Territory government to at least match funds with it so if you want a lot of money, for every $1 you spend, you will get at least another $1 from the Commonwealth and that will be worthwhile. Put your money where your mouth is - do not go around saying: ‘Give me, give me, give me’, because you will not get it if you do it that way.
As regards the Mobile Connect program, I said before $30m will be available. That money is dedicated to smaller regional communities along highways where the governments can put in a case to demonstrate that an area is a worthwhile and strategic location to locate the mobile facility. If you can do that, I am sure you will get a better spread of services across the Territory.
As for the $90m for Backing Indigenous Ability, that program will target the deficiencies in telecommunications in remote indigenous communities. The program will provide community phones to hundreds of remote communities, upgrade and support a public Internet access point, and replace ageing and unreliable radio infrastructure.
When the minister was talking about what CSG has done since it had the contract, providing an aerial service out in the bush, I thought it was a very good move by CSG to do that. I have said before that if you give someone who has no technical knowledge about computers a computer, as long as the computer works, everything is fine. However, the day the computer refuses to boot up, that computer becomes a dirty old door stop. That is all it is. Unless you have some ability to maintain the computer, then giving a computer to someone is a pointless exercise. Now with this aerial service that CSG has introduced and will be moving into the bush on a regular basis to maintain the computers and other associated infrastructure, it will be good for the communities because then the computers will continue to work, the expertise that is required to maintain them will be brought in without cost to them, and will ensure that they will be able to continue to use the communication tools without any bother in a very seamless way.
Minister, I said if you want the CLP to support you when you seek funding from the Commonwealth government, be reasonable about it, but also demonstrate that while you want the Commonwealth government to demonstrate parity for the Territory with other states and territories, you should demonstrate that you are prepared to do that yourself, that you provide parity across the Territory. I know there is disparity in power, water, but show it to me food prices, show it to me in petrol prices. If you can do that, then this government is genuinely trying to do something for all of us. It is not just because it is someone else’s money. You can ask for it as much as you like, but if it is your own money, no, you will not spend it.
When you spoke about Telstra delivering 150 jobs into the Territory; it is not entirely accurate, is it? When Telstra got the contract, many of the 150 jobs were actually jobs migrated from the previous contractor to the new contractor. So it has not delivered 150 new jobs. This is not what you actually said, but the implication was there. You know: ‘Look at me. With this new contract we deliver 150 new jobs. Aren’t we clever?’ Well, it is not 150 new jobs. I know that. You know that. Again, I say be intellectually honest when you make such statements, otherwise you lose credibility.
On the issue of the contract with new service providers, with Telstra, Fujitsu and CSG, your department was very up-front in what a fantastic job it has done: ‘We have saved the government a lot of money. This contract has cost us a lot less for a lot more services’, but day by day, as the contract goes on, we start to uncover all the hidden costs. The classic one, and I mention it because it applies to us in this Chamber, with the old contract, members of the Legislative Assembly and the staff were provided with so called VIP support, and for that there was only something like a $6 charge per month. I recently found out that for us now, if we are going to have the same level of VIP support, we will be charged $7 a day – a day. Now, imagine 25 members of parliament with 25 electorate offices at $7 a day each. We are talking about thousands of dollars extra that this parliament will incur. That is not built into the contract. So if you were to add all this variation to the price of the contract, suddenly you will see that the price that you awarded, which is supposed to be cheaper than the last one, is starting to blow out. That is a worry that we should not be too proud to boast too much that you have done such a good job.
When you talk about the residential development at Lyons and that the Fibre to the Home project is now not going to deliver fibre optic cabling to residences in that development, I believe the member for Nelson asked some 12 months ago why should government provide this sort of infrastructure when normally it would be the developer who provides that infrastructure and then sells his subdivision to recoup the cost that he incurred. I remember in the early 1980s when the Desert Springs Estate in Alice Springs, that is the golf course area, had fibre optic cable connected to every block of land. It was paid for by the developer and he recouped his cost from people who bought the blocks of land from him. That is the normal course of events.
The Commonwealth government or Telstra did not renege on any deal; this is something that really should be at cost to a developer and if the developer is refusing to pay for it, why should any agency, Telstra or anyone else, have to pay for it? I do not believe that that is correct.
I come back to the praises that you have sung about how Telstra has delivered many ADSL connections across the Territory, including in urban areas such as the Air Force residential area, whether it be due to the efforts of the member for Millner or whether there are efforts made by every member of parliament, lobbying companies like Telstra to deliver ADSL connection is a moot point. We all do our bit to ensure that our electorates have the service that we need, and well and good for that. The member for Nelson contributed his efforts to delivering it to the Humpty Doo area, and he ought to be recognised. It was definitely not a typo, as you intimated in your earlier interjection.
Minister, if you want the CLP to support you in bidding for more funding for the Northern Territory, you need to do it in an intellectually honest manner. Senator Nigel Scullion has worked very hard with his federal colleagues. He has obviously a direct entre with Minister Coonan, and has lobbied her fairly intensively to ensure that funds do come to the Territory, but you have to do your part. You have to make sure that you are aware of what projects are on stream and that you make sure that your department applies for those funds so that at least they have something to consider. If they do not, then they cannot.
To finish, because I know you are all waiting, there were words attributed to me by the member for Wanguri who said I uttered words which in fact were words uttered by the member for Stuart. I just want to put on record that they were the words I repeated from the member for Stuart and Hansard will now have it on record that that is what he said and not what I said.
Debate adjourned.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly at its rising adjourn until Tuesday, 10 October 2006 at 10 am or such other time and/or date as may be set by Madam Speaker pursuant to Sessional Order.
Motion agreed to.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Stuart, before I call you, honourable members I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of ministerial staff of the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General and the Minister for Health, member for Stuart, and departmental staff from both of those portfolio areas. On behalf of all honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: I also extend a very warm welcome to Mrs Thea Toyne. I hope you have a wonderful retirement with the Attorney-General.
Members: Hear, hear!
Dr TOYNE (Stuart): Madam Speaker, the time has come for me to leave this House. Members will be aware that it is on medical advice and, I guess, to summarise, the cumulative effects of many long hours, lots of travel and dealing with many issues has led me to this position.
All us old pulkas, we have to go and sit down with our families at one stage or another of our careers and, like so many of the old men in my electorate, I will be very pleased to do that. When I approached this moment, I thought: what do you say in your last speech as a parliamentarian? I found it impossible to think about myself, really. My career in this House has been so much about other people and about the institutions of the parliament itself and of the government. That is where my thoughts turned.
They turned, first, to my lovely wife, Thea, and the enormous support she has given me, and to my family, because we are on loan in this job from our families. They have every expectation and right to call that loan in, to see us back in our roles that families all through the Northern Territory - we celebrate this all the time about families and lifestyle, but we ourselves often find it really difficult to keep those family contacts as strong as they should be, to support our kids, to repay the loyalty and support of our spouses and partners. That is something I intend to pay very careful attention to from this day on, and I really look forward to doing that. It is part of my healing process that I will be able to sustain those relationships the way they should be.
Turning to my life over the last 10 years, it has been an incredible privilege to serve in this parliament, to represent the people of the Northern Territory, whether they be my constituents, whether they be Central Australians, or whether they be people who are dependent on the roles that I have had as a minister. It is an amazing privilege to take part in the processes that we have through parliament and government as a whole, and see things delivered to people.
I do not believe leadership in the form of parliamentary membership is a case of leading; it is a case of serving. I pay tribute to the upbringing that my parents gave me; it is not about getting a big head over thinking you know what is good for other people; it is about listening carefully and serving them, whether that community be the people of Stuart who have been so loyal to me over the 10 years I have held the seat, or whether it is the people of Alice Springs and Central Australia that have depended, on many occasions, to have their voice heard into the government processes, or whether it is the health or justice community, there are people whose views I have been very proud and privileged to represent as best as I can through the work that I have done over my time in this House.
Whichever day you look in on debates here, we are all members of the House of the people, and we all owe each other respect. While it might not be a badge of honour in some circles that I have never been thrown out of parliament, I actually genuinely respect the processes and the need to respect each other because if we do not respect each other in this House, we cannot expect the respect of the community. I am not trying to moralise; I just feel that there is very serious business brokered through this Assembly. People’s lives literally depend on us, in many cases, and they are certainly affected by what we do in here. I have been able to do my work here for 10 years without having to disrespect people. The House of the people, the parliament, has to concentrate on its core business, which is serving the people of the Northern Territory. I hope my colleagues, whether they be on that side of the House or on this side, never lose sight of that because I never will.
It has not stopped me putting 131 bills through this House. For many of them, I have sat down with the opposition and the Independents and we have worked things out for the good of the community. I do not see why politics needs to be all combative; it certainly has its combative side and we all know that. We will disagree on things; we will have interests that we bring in here that we defend to the death. I do not think there is a member in this Assembly who is not passionate about the things they believe in. They would not be here if they felt they did not have a position to put, defend and represent for the people in their electorates. I always want to see that respected. I have tried to do that to the best of my ability.
It is good to see my two CEOs – well, they used to be my CEOs, but they will not be by about 11.45 am tomorrow. Greg and Robert, it has been absolutely fantastic working with you. Ministers, given the sort of relationship you have with your chief advisors and your CEOs, we should all be charged with bigamy because it is a very intimate and intense relationship that you have with these people. We have to trust each other. Sometimes, we have to take different positions on an issue, but the relationship has been very intense, very trusted and very creative in both Justice and Health. I really appreciate that.
Beyond that, there are some 6000 people out there - 5500, I should not exaggerate - public servants who have given magnificent service in my current agencies, and the others I have served in since we came to government. Having been around and seen so much of their work over the last five years, I am always lost in admiration at the high points that you can see through the agencies. We are all, quite rightly, constantly probed to see whether things should have gone better or need to be fixed, but I have never lost sight of the quality of the work that is done by our public servants in the Northern Territory.
Both Health and Justice have led national processes and initiatives on a regular basis since I have been minister of those two agencies. We are the smallest jurisdiction in Australia other than the ACT, yet we are leading national processes in many areas: consumer affairs, indigenous consumer affairs, book-up, infectious disease control, preventable chronic disease, renal, child maternal health, just to name a few – and indigenous justice to take another area of the Justice agency.
We have to keep that pride in what we do achieve. It is certainly a feature of the last five years. I have seen such a change in the respect that we are getting from other jurisdictions. When you go to national meetings of the ministers or other national gatherings, the Territory is now seen in many regards as a leading light in areas of national importance. Despite the recent publicity directed at the Territory, that is not the impression around Australia these days. We are well thought of. We are admired for a lot of the things that we are doing by those who know and those who make it their business to know. That is something of which people in our agencies and this House can be very proud because we have come an awful long way in five years from the situation that we were in when we came to government.
I will remember lots of powerful moments. We have times in this House when the real challenge is to stay awake - on late nights, of course; it is not the quality of the debate – but I have lived through some incredibly powerful moments in this Chamber. I can still remember the absolute emotion that accompanied the Gender Reform legislation and the 11-hour debate over the Freedom of Information Bill. We come in here and we all think it is a bit of theatre and we play our prescribed role, but sometimes debates cut through all that and they come down to what you stand for, what you live for and who you are as a person. Those occasions - and I have seen it in every member of this House at one time or another - have real power. You have to think to yourself: ‘What are you standing here representing and who are you representing, and what is the right thing to do - not simply the expedient or political thing to do?’ That is one of the most challenging things of representation as a parliamentarian. I have not lost my respect for people in here for those moments. In fact, they are the moments that come to mind when I think about the other members of the Legislative Assembly.
Speaking of people, I have to mention my staff. It has been a very tough time for the last couple of weeks. When I realised that I was coming to a conclusion in my career, the hardest thing of all was to go to your staff and say: ‘We are not going to be working together any more’. I want to take a moment to put their names into Hansard.
The electorate office: Peter Brooke, Marg Riley, Pam Shanks and my lovely wife have all worked in the Stuart electorate office. The Office of Central Australia: Andrea Martin, Mandy Taylor, Bob Dernan, Peter Brooke again, Karl Hampton, Kelsey Rodda, John Gaynor, and Ngaire Slater. In the ministerial office – I must be hard on people, Madam Speaker, because we have a hell of a big list for five years: Mark Nelson started off as my senior advisor when we first came to government; Lyn Ashpole was my next senior advisor; and Laurene Hull, currently; Pippa Rudd, Naomi Parravechio, Michael Tatham, Richard O’Leary, Mark Ramjan, Sonia Peters, Michael Cook, Andrea Adlam, Edward Tilton, Marita Hallam, Hayley Miles, Karen Baldwin, Deirdre Logie, Carol Smith, Gabrielle Mullins, Pam Gray, Rebecca Rowsell, Christine Jeffkins, Jodi Anderson, Jade Carroll, and Nuala Murphy.
Those people who know the fifth floor will know that there has been a hell of a lot of poaching from my office over the last five years, but then we all poach from each other; it is a bit like cattle duffing. I do not how to thank my staff. Who else do we have? Oh, my God! Yes, I am going to be in real strife - and Louise Scanlan. She is very bumptious and I knew I would leave someone off. You can pay me back later, okay?
My staff work ridiculous hours. They have dealt with some crushingly difficult issues over the time that I have been so demanding of them, and it is the enormous attention to detail that they have put in to those 131 items of legislation, the numerous initiatives that we have put through the Cabinet process and out through our agencies. Ours have been difficult portfolios, and it is only my staff who have kept me out of real strife and I will love you forever.
I wish all my colleagues absolutely the best for the future in whatever this parliament does take on and particularly to my Labor colleagues, my comrades. Labor governments always have traditional responsibilities and whatever you try to accomplish for the Northern Territory and for Territorians in the future, always remember the vulnerable and always remember the disadvantaged and always remember the need for equity in our community. There is no tougher context to apply those core values of the Labor Party than the Northern Territory. We have a very polarised society in the sense of disadvantage and vulnerability and we have to work towards a situation where every Territorian has a proud and supported place in the Northern Territory, and every Territorian can realise their potential and we must not leave some of them behind.
The Territory is going in great strides towards a fantastic future and the economic development that is going on at the moment is at a very defining time in the overall development of this part of Australia, but we cannot leave anyone behind. We have to find answers for the whole of the Territory population. Anyone who calls themselves a Territorian deserves to have an equal place in the thoughts and actions taken in this House.
I wish my comrades and colleagues all the best in what are ongoing and very tough issues that I know you will be grappling with beyond my time. This is a relay race, Madam Speaker. I have no concerns about handing on my particular roles to my colleagues. I know they will do a great job and I wish the ministers who take my portfolios all the best. I have tried to fix as much as possible for you, but you are going to have to do some of it yourself, whoever it may be.
My part in the race is over. I am returning to my lovely wife, and good luck to those who carry the baton on. Thank you.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: On behalf of all honourable members, I thank you for your 10 years of contribution to this parliament, member for Stuart, and wish you a very happy and healthy retirement with your family and friends.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, perhaps we will just take a moment. I will give him a hug later.
Madam Speaker, what to say about the member for Stuart? Five years ago, I would have said: ‘Not much’. A man I did not know, I only saw him around town in Alice Springs. He was Labor, I was CLP. The traditional wisdom was you do not think much of people on the other side. However, now that I have got to know the member for Stuart, I regard him very highly indeed, which he knows. It is often said, of course, in opposition: ‘What can you do?’ The member for Stuart and I have worked on a number of things together. We do not always agree, and we passionately disagree about some things, but that is why he sits on one side of the House and I sit on another. It is great that not everyone shares my views about everything, and I am sure that is a position that the member for Stuart would also adopt.
Having got to know him, I have seen his capacity for hard work - a wish that no one in my view would ever want to come true is to have the Health and Justice portfolio together. Indeed, I have said on many occasions that it is not humanly possible to do well in both. I think you have done quite well, Mr Attorney-General as an Attorney-General.
Dr Toyne: Rare praise!
Ms CARNEY: No doubt you heard my comments on radio the other day, but I will come to your position as Attorney-General shortly. I said on radio the other day that my view, as member for Araluen, is that you are the last bastion of decency in this government. I feel very strongly that is the case and it is a loss to your colleagues that you are going. It is a loss to the parliament. Most importantly, it is a loss to the people of the Northern Territory because you are a decent man, Peter Toyne, and all of us like decent people. We all behave badly. We all make mistakes. We all get it wrong. We all have a job to do, but decency is something that, when we look in the mirror at the end of the day, we should look at whether we are decent human beings, and the member for Stuart is a decent man, Madam Toyne – I am sorry - Madam Speaker.
He is a man who takes his integrity seriously, as he should, because he has much of it. I remember once I offended his sense of integrity, and he told me about that, and I was very sorry and I apologised. I do not think I have done it again. We have certainly played hard on occasion, but we have played well. I have been your shadow for some time, both in the portfolios of Attorney-General and Health, and it is a testament to the member for Stuart that he can do, to the extent that he does, the theatre of the parliament - he is not one of our most theatrical members - and I was not all surprised when I heard on the news the other day that he had never been thrown out of parliament. I would have fallen off my seat had he been. It is a testament to him that, to the extent he does, he plays the game as he sees fit. He plays it hard on occasion. I think his staff play it harder, but we have always had a very good relationship.
The member for Stuart is guided by a sense of decency. I will never be privy to the very difficult decisions you have made over a long period of time, but my hunch, member for Stuart, is that, at the end of the day, you have ticked the boxes. You have ticked the decency box. You have ticked the integrity box. Even though we have had our disagreements, I know that you have always done your best. Again, as I said on radio the other day, I do not think people can expect much more than that. I think you have done your best. You have worked very hard and you leave a lasting legacy. Most importantly, in my view, you have left a legacy of decency and integrity, and we will all learn from that and have it in the forefront of our minds to the extent that we are able in the course of our employment.
I remember, Attorney-General, at the Alice Springs sittings - it was the first sittings we had there. Being from Alice Springs, I needed to accordingly strut my stuff. You knew that, I knew that. I remember something came up about the crime figures. I still have some contacts at the local court house in Alice Springs. I remember ringing someone, very inappropriately, and getting a court list …
Dr Toyne: I remember that.
Ms CARNEY: I knew, as a lawyer in Alice Springs, that the court lists on Tuesdays and Thursdays are enormous. I spent the weekend at home sticky-taping all the pages together, and I remembered the 15 feet-long list. I remember practising in the lounge room, tossing it out. I was waiting for the opportunity, and I was not shadow Attorney-General then. I did not think much of that decision, but I was not shadow Attorney-General. Peter Maley was shadow Attorney-General. You talked in Ministerial Reports about crime in Alice Springs, and I remember almost having to elbow Maley out of the way to have the opportunity of following through with the spreadsheet, if you like, of the court list, all very carefully sticky-taped together on the Saturday. I served it up to you and, in reply, you served it up to me. It was a fairly vigorous reply, as I recall. Then Ministerial Reports finished and, as we so often do, everyone leaves when something boring was coming on. Because the layout of the Alice Springs parliament is very different from this, we all meet each other in the corridor. We looked at each other after giving each other a very hard time – Maley, of course, was lying bruised on the floor of the parliament because I elbowed him out of the way - and you said: ‘I feel better. Do you?’ I said: ‘I feel great. Do you?’ Then we walked off.
The reason I tell that story, Madam Speaker, is that there is very much an acknowledgement of the theatre of parliament. People like Peter Toyne and I take our jobs very seriously. I know that it was suggested to you on an aeroplane last Friday that we do have a few things in common, and one of them is decency. I am aware that you made a number of other suggestions as to how I could do better. Can I say that they are duly noted and taken on board, because the person with whom you spoke said very much the same thing the day before.
However, the esteem in which I hold you is very high – higher, I might say, than any of your colleagues because I regard you as a fundamentally decent man. There are measures of decency, and I reckon you score a 10 out of 10. I said on radio the other day that you had been, in my view, notwithstanding our political differences - and who can forget the Evidence Reform Bill about my favourite subject, victims of crime. That was a very passionate debate, and you knew why I felt strongly about it for some additional reasons. I still maintain the difficulties I have in relation to that legislation. I still strongly maintain my position in relation to customary law. I believe you have a different position. When you knock off, I will ask you what your personal position is just for the sake of it, but you have been, and will be regarded as a reforming Attorney-General.
As a lawyer, I know that when you come to office, the relationship with the legal profession was at a very low ebb, a very low ebb. This will not be of any media interest at all, and possibly of no interest whatsoever to anyone else, but it is of interest to me and, I suspect, of interest to you: partly through your personality and partly through your commitment to your job, you have built a much better relationship between the Territory’s first law officer and the legal profession. That is very important. I know the make-up of the Law Society. I know that they tend to be, for whatever reason, traditionally rock-solid Labor people, and that is okay. However, the fact is that when you came to office, the relationship with the profession was very bad. I absolutely admire you for the way you have rebuilt that relationship because it goes to the heart of the administration of justice. That is something that I take very seriously. For the administration of justice to be working better and relationships to be better as a result of you as Attorney-General is one of your lasting legacies given how low certain relationships were when you took office. I can take my political hat off very comfortably and say that as a member of the legal profession, I regard that as very, very important.
Notwithstanding our difficulties, you will be regarded as a reforming Attorney-General. I am a little concerned that if pundits are right, and we have some bets going in my office, but if one of my bets is right, the member for Wanguri is likely to become Attorney-General. Of course, I am terribly worried, and you will appreciate this and why I cannot resist it, on 1 December 2005 he said of the separation of powers - I am not sure if there are any lawyers in the gallery tonight, but lawyers in particular will appreciate this: he said in relation to the separation of the powers that it was between the parliament, the judiciary and the police. I am sure that in the event that he becomes Attorney-General, he will fix that up.
I do respect the way you have adhered very properly to the doctrine. It is not a concept. It is the doctrine of the separation of powers. I am not sure that was not a little blurred under the Country Liberal Party, and I would be less than nave in saying otherwise.
I respect the way that you have tackled your position as Attorney-General not only with dignity, decency and integrity, but the way it should be handled, regardless of a person’s politics, regardless of whether they are Labor or conservative. It is just the right thing to do and you have done it. As a lawyer as well as a politician, I thank you very much for that.
I regard your lasting legacy to be the gay law reform legislation. I was pleased to hear you refer to it. That was difficult for both of us. One day, we will talk to each other about the difficulties we had. We have talked a little about it but not too much because notwithstanding a pretty honest relationship, we were both, I guess, a bit circumspect. That was extremely difficult for me, and I have a feeling that it was extremely difficult for you. For me, it was the best thing I have ever done in this parliament. I have a sense that you might regard it as one of the best things you have ever done. I look forward to talking to you about that in due course. Of course we both live in the same place, so I will not be like a constituent and bail you up in aisle 7 at Woollies, but perhaps on another occasion we might very freely discuss and share our stories about what was the most difficult but the best thing that I have ever done. I suspect it went pretty close for you.
Your advocacy for Central Australia has been impressive. Again, have we disagreed on things? Absolutely we have, and that is okay. Part of your legacy will be that you have been a very keen and passionate advocate, and in this job if you are not passionate about half a dozen things, then you should not be here. I am not sure that everyone in this Chamber has passion about half a dozen things, but you certainly are passionate about Central Australia.
You will be missed on those fronts. I told you the other day that I wanted to say that you are a decent man and I wish you well, and that is exactly what I will say on the Parliamentary Record. You are a decent man. You are a good bloke and I do wish you well, both you and Thea. Enjoy your retirement.
I know I am running out of time, Madam Speaker, but I would like to present you with - and can members please indulge me? This is not possible in 10 seconds - the CLP, Jodeen Carney MLA, member for Araluen wine. I almost forgot about it. I have written on it:
This is a sleeper. It might be worth a fortune in due course. You never know. I would like to present you with this. Drink it or not drink it at your leisure. Thank you. I look forward to seeing you around town.
Dr Toyne: And me.
Ms MARTIN (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, we are here to say goodbye to Pete, and I suppose we are allowed to call him Pete, even though this is the parliamentary Chamber.
Madam SPEAKER: I will not pull you up Chief Minister.
Ms MARTIN: We can? Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Dr Toyne: Member for Pete.
Ms MARTIN: He can be the Member for Pete or he can be Madam Toyne, as it was earlier on from the Leader of the Opposition.
I was thinking about what to say when someone has been here 10 years and made such a substantial and unique contribution to this parliament, and I thought probably going back to the time that Peter first came into the House, we had Brian Ede who had been the member for Stuart forever. Brian decided to call it quits and there was this youngish fellow who Brian said: ‘He is anointed. Peter Toyne is going to be the next member for Stuart’. That is when I met Pete, and it was good to meet you through that by-election time.
They were learning times for everyone. We got Pete across the line. He did a lot of the work himself. Thea did a lot of the work as well. Peter joined the very small opposition team in 1996. I remember at that stage there were three newies: I was fairly new the year before, Jack Ah Kit was the year before as well, just after me, and Peter. We decided that we had to bring a new approach to opposition. We always thought it would be the endless opposition, but I remember we went out and had dinner and Pete and Jack and I decided that we were going to be the faction for government. We were not aligned anywhere, we were just determined that we would change the eternal opposition of the Labor Party.
You probably have lots of memories from those years. There were five years that you had in opposition, or six. Syd had been 11 years in opposition and others - Hendo was briefly there. It was intense work, those years in opposition. There were just seven of us and there was a lot of work to do.
Ms Carney: What a luxury!
Ms MARTIN: We can appreciate what it is like to be four, let me tell you! Seven was not much.
Mrs Miller: Four is less.
Ms MARTIN: Yes. Each and every one of us became a jack of all trades. You could never say: ‘That is not my task’, whether it was going to an event, writing policy, having those long and intense arguments in the little caucus room, that little round table on the fourth floor in the Opposition Leader’s office. There are probably still things coming off the walls from those times because they were at times very long discussions, they were volatile discussions, they were intense. Sometimes they were loud, sometimes people left and came back, but there was a lot of work done around that little round table in the Opposition Leader’s Office.
What we all had was a determination to win, and Pete was very much part of that. We all have different skills. Luckily, Peter’s was a love of policy development so we hand-balled it to him. If you remember back to those days, we had policy papers on so many different aspects of what Labor would do in government. I want to thank you, Peter, for all the work you did and the tireless way you went about that policy work. We all had to be part of it, but there is always a driver, and I pay tribute to the work you did.
Like all of us in that little opposition, we were shocked to win in 2001, and I do not think that sets it back any. There is no pretending; we were shocked. If I had known the determination you had to get so many bills through this parliament I might not have said: ‘Would you like to be Minister for Justice?’ I had forgotten how many bills there were, and when you said 131 in your speech, each and every one of those bills went through sometimes very long Cabinet processes. Even though we often had long discussions in here, through the Cabinet and caucus process, let me assure everyone there were also long discussions.
Led by the Attorney-General, there was a lot of legislation that needed either reviewing, amendment, throwing out and starting again and it seemed for a while that every rock we turned over, something needed review. Many times in this House we were asked how many things this young government was reviewing. There was a whole list. A lot of that was legislation, and I pay tribute to Peter for the work you have done on that. Legislation demands great attention to detail, a determination to carry it through, and we all pay tribute to the way that you did that.
You also balanced those years in Justice, then followed by Health, and I will talk about that, with the needs of a very large electorate. The size of your electorate is one-and-a-half times the size of Victoria. Is that still right?
Dr Toyne: Roughly, yes.
Ms MARTIN: That is a lot of land to cover. There were great worries when the redistribution included the Top End of your electorate, and the only thing that Peter could say that justified that was that he had always wanted to catch a barramundi in his electorate and he had finally got the Victoria River.
Dr Toyne: Never caught a barra, though.
Ms MARTIN: And you never caught a barra. You are challenged in retirement with actually going fishing. Would the member for Johnston take you fishing on the Vic River so you can catch a barra? He is very good at it and he has done it already.
It is a very large electorate. The tales of Peter in the four-wheel drive travelling those long dusty roads always entertained us. For people like me, and the member for Wanguri, with our pocket handkerchief electorates, there was often a bit of: you do not know what it is like to have to travel and change 12 tyres between point A and point B. Peter was always happy to share his electorate stories, the delights and frustrations of it, with us. I certainly learnt, and I am sure others did, a lot about the electorate of Stuart from Peter over those years.
I pay tribute to what you have done in Health. The focus on child and maternal health has been absolutely critical. I mentioned today some of the results that have been achieved. Even though they are hard yards to be gained, particularly with Aboriginal health, we are starting to see some good signs of change and, again, I pay tribute to you for that.
We, as a Cabinet, really worked hard to make sure that we could support that aspiration. We often say that Health has most of the Territory budget. It is true. You do not get results like this unless you put significant funds into Health, and I am proud to say that we have done that. So thank you for your work in Health. It is something that this government is charged to do and will continue to do.
Over the last few days, we have been talking to a few people, Pete. I am just going to share some of things with you, the House and those in the gallery because people have been honest about you. Your colleagues will have things to say, but I thought I would add some of the reactions to your retirement. We have been told that your mum always said that you were a quiet achiever, and that is probably how many of us have found you. There are other aspects that your mum does not know about, but we will give you quiet achiever, whose actions always speak louder than his words. Judging from the community’s response to your retirement, that quiet man of action will be greatly missed. We have talked to your electorate office and the Office of Central Australia, who have taken dozens of calls from people around Central Australia saying farewell. Each of the callers expressed regret at your departure and wanted to pass on their thanks to you.
Madam Speaker, some of the comments were things like, which is a bit sad for us in Darwin: ‘He is not afraid to take on Darwin’ – he was the Minister for Central Australia. ‘He is a man of integrity. He always stood up for the Centre’; ‘Might not have agreed with everything he said, but always knew his heart was in the right place’; ‘Always impressed by his commitment’. The main sentiment, though was that ‘Peter was a decent bloke’ - and we heard the Leader of the Opposition say that - ‘who always went into bat for Alice’.
It was good to hear the Leader of the Opposition recognising his contribution and his personal qualities. As the Leader of the Opposition said, Peter’s legacy is a broad one, but above all else, he will be remembered as a decent man. Paul Bauert, AMA’s Territory President - and you had a few stoushes over time, so thank you, Paul, for your positive comments – said:
So that was a battle you won. Well done, Pete.
Yvonne Falckh from the Australian Nursing Federation said:
Alice Springs Mayor, Fran Kilgariff summed up your passion for your home in Alice Springs and said:
meaning the Labor Party
In case you did not know in here, Peter is actually a fan of AC/DC …
Dr Toyne: Yes.
Ms Carney: Now you tell me!
Ms MARTIN: Okay, this is revelation time. There is nothing secret about this one, he loves motor sport, hence his title as Minister for the Finke. We describe him as Finke Tragic. He has taken up competing in off-road racing and has finished the last two Finke Desert Races as a navigator. He has recently been seen behind the wheel of an off-road race car. Anyone who has driven out bush with him knows that he has, obviously, spent the years driving on bush roads as practice for off-road driving. ‘Driving a few hundred kilometres on a dirt road with Peter is an extreme sport’. That is from your friends!
He is described as well as ‘a compassionate intellectual, all-round decent bloke with a strong streak of Aussie yobbo’. Certainly the intellectual, again, is shared by your small team in opposition. Remember when you were writing the PhD - getting up at 4 am, was it?
Dr Toyne: Five.
Ms MARTIN: Five, okay. Thea knows this. He was getting up early in the morning, putting time into a PhD that was getting dramatically overdue, and then putting in a hard day’s work. To do that while being a member of parliament, we take our hats off to you, Dr Toyne.
Other feral things about Peter: the staff in the Alice Springs office were taken aback to find a pirate flag hanging up behind his seat after a Cabinet video conference. These are the kinds of things that happen in Alice Springs. He also has a passion for vintage motorcycles. He is a familiar sight around Alice Springs in his leather jacket on his rebuilt Triumph. Now that you are retiring, you will be able to rebuild your vintage Norton, which must be slowly taking shape.
Dr Toyne: That is overdue, yes.
Ms MARTIN: Yes, that is an overdue project. Something that we do know in here is that Peter is an accomplished athlete, a world record holder and a keen cyclist. He won his first professional foot race at the age of 32. Was it 32 when you won that?
Dr Toyne: Yes.
Ms MARTIN: He has not stopped running in his professional life since. He also - and this is something you might not be aware of - makes beautiful stained glass and has recently started the hobby again. We want to see some of this.
I must also make special mention of Thea, Peter’s wife, who has supported Peter from the time he was a school teacher in Melbourne, a principal in Yuendumu, and his final incarnation for the last 10 years as member for Stuart, living in Alice Springs.
Dr Toyne: It is not the final one!
Ms MARTIN: Thea would often not see Peter for days or even weeks on end. There is a story she tells of driving along a remote outback road one day and, purely by chance, coming across Peter driving the other way. They both pulled over for a quick chat while the bemused academic Peter was travelling with looked on in total wonder at this unusual encounter between a husband and wife in the middle of nowhere. After five minutes, they both headed on their way. The moral to the story is: when you are a workaholic in one of the world’s largest electorates, you have to take every opportunity to catch up with your loved ones. Thea’s story gives a good idea why your marriage has stood the test of time and why the smile has not come off Thea’s face since you announced your decision to retire.
From all of us, all your colleagues, we wish you better health, and we certainly wish you good luck and best wishes for the future. I hope you build the Norton. I hope you continue to cycle and run in the Masters Games. You still have that world record, whatever happens. They stopped running the 600.
I hope that life post-politics is very satisfying. You can look back with great satisfaction at how hard you have worked and what you have achieved. So from all of us, our best wishes. Take a lot of satisfaction, hard work and what has been gained over this time, 10 years in politics, with you. If you had been adding ticks to things, give yourself a big tick.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, just a few words. My wife read the NT News to me the other day, and she read the passage that quotes Thea: ‘delirious with joy’. My wife read that to me.
Mr Wood: It is a hint!
Mr MILLS: I congratulate you, Peter, on a loving wife. You have served and you now move on to the next phase. You can move on with comfort because you have served, and served well. May the times that you spend together now be doubly blessed for the contribution you have made to the Northern Territory.
I admire you, Peter, because you are a man who has played the ball, not the man. You are a man who has demonstrated care, and accompanied that care with thought. You have thoughtfully considered issues, with care driving your thought process. You are a man who is built for speed. I had heard that you are a legendary fast runner, and you often hear of people skiting about things that they have done. I put on my runners at Parap Primary School a couple of years ago, and you passed me in a flash and I was trying my best. You are built for speed. There was not one additional fibre I could muster to even come close to closing that gap.
A member: Did you pull a hamstring?
Mr MILLS: It was only 100 m, and I was sore for sometime afterwards, I tried so hard. I was impressed. It was not just words. You passed me.
Peter, I remember - excuse me, I am not going to be pulled up by the member for Sanderson for using …
Madam SPEAKER: No, you will not be pulled up. It is all right.
Mr MILLS: Member for Stuart, there is something that sticks in my mind, as a new member of this parliament, the member for Blain, sitting over there where the member for Brennan sits now. You were sitting just over here. There were seven members in the opposition and I was new to the game at the same time as the member for Wanguri. As a man of integrity and honesty, you mustered the necessary claim of an opposition aspiring to take government, and you said in a way that feigned confidence but you did not carry it off and it was something to the effect of ‘When we are in government’. There were howls of laughter from the other side. I remember it well, because the proposition of the Labor opposition winning government at that point seemed impossible. You made the statement, and I remember that moment because only 12 or 18 months later, new to parliament, I was sitting in the same place, but the majority was on that side and it was not CLP. It sticks in my mind that such a statement made at that particular time seemed outrageous, seemed impossible, but it was not. It was possible, and it was a moment in history. If that statement were made today, or in a year’s time, it may be met with a similar response. Anything is possible and that is the lesson I take from that.
One thing I have judged of your performance in parliament and at public forums is that you are a man of integrity. That has been reinforced by previous speakers, and I believe that to be the case: a man who is principled, who has a core and at the core is a true believer. That is why you have played the ball and not the man; you love the principles that guide your life and that has made the difference to you. That is a lesson we can all draw upon as parliamentarians. That is why you can go off - as you mentioned the other day when I wished you well - to the north of Greece and enjoy ouzo or Retsina, and enjoy your time because you have closed a chapter and you can close it with some comfort.
The issue is an interesting one from this perspective: the strength of your core and the impact that you have had upon government, upon Cabinet, I know from my own observations and from the comments of others, is significant and it poses a challenge for those who remain with the task of governing until the next Territory election.
Member for Stuart, I wish you the best. I think there is possibly some resemblance not just in looks, but in character to John McDouall Stuart. There are some similarities, not just in appearance.
Dr Toyne: I did not walk as far as he did.
Mr MILLS: No. May you ride your Triumph the same distance as John McDouall Stuart. I wish you, your wife and your family every blessing.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I won’t be too long, but I need to say to the member for Stuart that when you first rose, I became quite emotional, but then I thought: ‘This is stupid. Don’t be sad; this is a time for celebration’. Fancy going out after five years in opposition and five years in government on a high! It is far better to go out now when you have created such a legacy within this parliament. You will be able to look back and say: ‘I have done such good things for the Northern Territory within this parliament’.
Peter, that is going to stay with you for a while because you are going away knowing you are an achiever. You are going away knowing that you have won the respect of people.
He is a very sincere person, Madam Speaker, very quiet. I am sorry that I did not throw you out, but it probably reflects the fact that he is pretty unflappable.
Madam SPEAKER: I could do it tonight.
Mrs BRAHAM: He does not, as the member for Blain said, play the man in this parliament. He respects parliamentary procedure and that is what we admire about him. He is unflappable. I sit across this side of the House and look at different people and try to get a reaction out of them. The Chief Minister has said: ‘I am not going to look at you because you make me laugh’. The member for Stuart is very hard to get a reaction from, but now and again you get a smile. When he smiles, it is a different person.
I have just the right job for you when you retire. I reckon you will be a good poker player because no one would ever know whether you had a good hand.
I know he has a sense of humour, and that is great. The member for Stuart tells me his mother is coming to join him in Alice Springs. Can I just say, Thea: good luck! I had my mother-in-law for 17 years, and I have more mother-in-law jokes than anyone. So if you need to know them, come and see me. It is wonderful that you are doing that, Peter, because, too often, our elderly parents are by-passed by our ambition and our professions. The fact that you are taking your mother into your home now is a wonderful reflection of the man that he is. She must feel wonderful about spending time with you now that you will not be here.
There are a few things that are funny, and you will not get away with having a pee at the Finke Desert Race at that bush. People will have their eye on you forever more. That was one of your personal highlights because you do not often do naughty things.
Dr Toyne: Oh, yes?
Mrs BRAHAM: You are such a good person. I have never seen him drunk. I do not know whether he does get drunk. I have never seen him outrageous. He is such a good citizen.
When I was in Education and Peter was the principal of Yuendumu School, I visited one day, but he was conveniently missing. I wish he had been there just one time when I went out there so I could say to him: ‘Okay, show me this, show that, show me a bit more’. I know that he left Yuendumu with a good reputation and he was valued as a teacher. Being a teacher also has enabled him to have a good grasp of what this parliament is all about. If I am a schoolmarm, then he is an old school teacher as well in this parliament, and you can see it so often when he speaks and when he delivers what he has to deliver. He does it in a clear, logical way.
So, Peter, I wish you well. I know I will see you in Alice Springs, and it is great that you are staying there. Too often, people leave parliaments and go away, but the fact that you are still going to be a resident of Alice Springs is really great.
You will be missed on the Labor side of the House and you will be hard to replace because you worked so hard at what you had to do and you have achieved so much. Let me just say, though, good on you for making the decision to go. It is a brave person that does it. You are going to cause a by-election, you are causing a bit of kerfuffle on your side of the House, but you are going for all the right reasons and you are leaving a great legacy behind you. I wish you, Thea and your family all the best.
Mr HENDERSON (Wanguri): Madam Speaker - Peter, what can I say? I have known Peter since he was elected in 1996. I had run in the 1994 election. I think it was around 1996 I might have been Vice-President of the party, but I was on the Administration Committee and was very excited when you were elected to this parliament in 1996. It is amazing, just watching the Channel 9 footage the other night of you and Maggie walking up towards Parliament House and thinking: ‘Gee, that is 10 years ago. What has changed in 10 years!’ There has been enormous change. All of us who come into public life, and I can speak obviously from the Labor Party, come here as conviction politicians and we enter into public life wanting to make a difference.
Your great legacy, Peter, is that you can look back on your 10 years in public life, the time in opposition, serving your electorate, and the five years that you have had as a very hard-working minister and know that you have made a difference in so many ways. That is what all of us want to do when we enter into public life. I do not think we are here on a crusade; we all just want to be able to make difference in the areas we are given and with great responsibility to the people who put us here.
When I put speeches together, I try to hang them around a few words. The words that I would use to describe Peter are passionate, compassionate with a huge capacity for hard work. The people who have worked closely with Peter over the years have seen all of those qualities. Inside the Labor Party, we are like a really big family. In any big family, from time to time we have our differences in views, and over the last few years as Attorney-General and as Police minister, we have had our issues, but they are natural tensions, and that is why the Westminster system and Cabinet systems work. There are policy tensions. People come with different views, but the great thing with Peter is that you know you are always going to be dealing with someone who has a very grounded view based on all those principles that we all uphold in the Labor Party, which are equity and doing everything we can to make life better for people who are not so well off as others. You always knew you were in a battle if you were having a battle with Peter on a policy issue.
Reflecting on the years in opposition, I did two years around that little table there on the fourth floor. I was new to parliament, and Peter was always there with advice and assistance in respect of the slog of opposition. The faction for government had been formed. When we went into by-elections at which the member for Blain and I were elected to this parliament, it really was the faction for government. I was thrown straight in as shadow Health minister, which was purely because I had worked in the IT department in Health. Anyway, shadow Health minister was a good thing …
Ms Martin: And you did very well.
Mr HENDERSON: The thing I remember about that time and the hard work that we did in the lead-up to the 2001 election was that Peter was the driver in the policy engine room. We had the politics and the day-to-day issues that we had to deal with, but there was always Peter on our back. We were all assigned policies that we had to work up. I do not envy the opposition, because I have been there. You do not have huge research staff. You have to do your own research, sit at the computer and bash out the policy detail. At every caucus meeting, Peter was on our back about where we were at with the health policy or the business policy. He had his Gantt chart with time lines on it, and he drove us ruthlessly. One of the defining features of that 2001 campaign, as opposed to previous campaigns, was that we had done the policy work. Peter drove us to do that. It was not done at the last minute; it was done with broad consultation with the community.
They were very special times. It was a time that the team came together. We were all really focused and Peter was at the engine room of that policy development process. When you are in opposition and you are looking to win government, you are looking to gain new ground.
One area that Peter was passionate about - which is quite strange for someone who represented Central Australia - was the recreational fishing base. He went after the AFANT mob. We were sitting there thinking how AFANT was stitched up by the CLP. They were funded, they had CLP people on their board and AFANT was basically a cheer squad for the government and pretty much did not want to know us at all. Peter was absolutely persistent and we thought he was mad. We thought it was somewhere that we would never get any real traction. It just goes to show that fortune favours the brave. Peter, the man from the desert, got in there and won the fishermen over. That is the courage in the face of quite difficult circumstances, Peter, you showed in opposition.
Then, as the Chief Minister said, we worked really hard and the mood for change was there. The 2001 election came. We will never forget that night when the faction for government had worked hard and we had won the trust of the people. We were all absolutely over the moon, and also as apprehensive as all get-out: ‘Gee, we are running the show now and it is a huge responsibility’.
In the five years that I have had the privilege of working with Peter in the Cabinet room, I can attest to his big picture policy thinking that he brought. He has had carriage of 131 bills. I suppose A-Gs always throw up a whole mish-mash of issues and areas, but to my mind, when the Health portfolio came to him, he very quickly and clearly painted the broad policy framework that he has worked through the Cabinet process and is now part of public policy. He has a great eye for the big picture policy, but also an intense eye for detail. Those are qualities that not all of us have, but Peter has had in spades.
The Chief Minister has mentioned the achievements as a reforming Attorney-General and in areas of health, especially child and maternal health. In that first four years in government, it seemed that everywhere we looked there were issues. Every rock we turned over, there were issues. We did a lot of reforming work in those first four years at the heart of which was Peter.
I will go back to Peter’s time in the opposition, and tell me if I wrong, Peter, but I think you had shadow for Education for all of that period?
Dr Toyne: Yes.
Mr HENDERSON: Yes, for the five years. On the issue of being in opposition and planning the tactics for Question Time and strategies for sittings and policy development, Peter was absolutely passionate about education policy. For whatever reason - the Chief might decide to tell all in her memoirs one day - that portfolio did not go your way. I might be putting words into your mouth, but I think one of the things around the Cabinet table, the work that we have done in education has been the large part of the policy process and what we took to 2001. They were issues of equity in educational delivery to the bush, the fact that we now have, for the first time, secondary education being rolled out in the bush, and the fact that this year we had 25 students graduate from Year 12 in their home communities is something that you have been chasing all of your professional life.
Peter, when you look back at not only the contributions you have made specifically in your portfolios, but the changes and the differences that we have made as a government, and you have been part of that push, the reform to education and giving those kids in the bush an opportunity that was not there previously, is something about which you can be very proud. It is certainly something that drives us all the time.
Peter, we have had a lot of good times. Pete has a great sense of humour. The member for Braitling was saying he does not smile very often, but I can tell you, he has a very wicked sense of humour. We have had some fabulous times. I remember with Kon sitting around drinking Sippero with Thea, the Greek connections, and with the Greek community in Darwin, I know ‘the man from the desert’ won over the Greek community in Darwin. There have been a lot of good days.
I certainly wish you all the best in whatever you choose to do with the rest of your life. I know you will not be sitting still and idle; you will find something to do. To Thea, keep smiling. The good times are certainly here again. From all of your colleagues, we wish you all the best for the future. Whenever we are in Alice Springs, we will certainly be looking you up.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, there have been many nice things said about the member for Stuart.
Dr Toyne: I thought you had to die for this to happen.
Mr WOOD: Yes! I was thinking there must be some scandal I can dig up on him, but unfortunately, I cannot.
I admire the member for Stuart and I have for a long time. I cannot say that I am a personal friend of the member for Stuart. I live in the Top End and Peter lives in Central Australia, but since I came to parliament I have admired his hard work, his intellect and his compassion. He had two enormously difficult portfolios, Attorney-General and Health. He has shown great leadership in the way he dealt with those portfolios.
I was Deputy Speaker in the last Assembly, and I have sat in that chair when we went through the committee stages of many of those legal bills. I have seen what the Attorney-General had to put up, if I can put it that way: Peter Maley, Steve Dunham, the now Leader of the Opposition and others who would be checking out every dot, every spelling error, every clause. The minister, whose background is a teacher and who was dealing with people with legal backgrounds, was able to handle all those questions remarkably well.
He was able to keep a logical mind. I admired that because some of the bills you introduced to this parliament were not simple. I really believe you did a wonderful job. I may not have always agreed, but being the person sitting in the chair during committee stages, I did not have the opportunity to speak on some of those issues, but I know you did a great job. You were sincere in what you did, and I will always remember that.
When I think about the amount of work you must have put into your job that I would not have seen - simply because the legislation sometimes was so complex and, as you said, you gave us 131 items of legislation, so we had to look at it, too - but to prepare that legislation must have required a lot of hard work.
You have left a legacy, and even though there are some things with which I did not agree, that is part of parliament. I am glad we are getting an oncology unit. That will be one of your legacies. It is important for Territorians that we have that facility. I know it has taken a long time and we had political debates about it, but it was good to hear you announce that we will have an oncology unit. That is great. We have a palliative care unit, which was long overdue. It was terrific, the day you opened it. It is one of the best facilities we have in Australia, and that, again, will be a great legacy of the member of Stuart.
Prisons are an area I have some concern about. We recently opened the low-level security prison. I was hoping when I spoke to you at the opening that you were going to go to Marysville to look at some therapeutic communities. I spoke to some prisoners of that community, and they said: ‘What are you going to do when you get back to the Northern Territory?’ I said: ‘I am going to try to convince the Minister for Justice to come over to Marysville, Ohio and see what has been done’. Unfortunately, it will not be you, but I am certainly hoping that whoever the next person is will.
On that side of the Northern Territory, the prison side, there is a lot to be done. We need to do a lot more, but I know the work you did. It was a difficult job. On one hand, law and order is an issue in the Northern Territory. On the other hand, I know that you have compassion for some of those people who find themselves in trouble. You mentioned yourself that we do have disadvantaged people and sometimes disadvantage lends itself to people being in prison. There is a long way to go, but when you dealt with those issues of incarceration and law and order, you tried to find the balance.
I am a bit worried about you going into retirement because that will give you more time to run. I do remember the Dave Tollner so-called charity day at Stuart Park Primary School. I think you were actually put in the next property. It was a handicap! Delia Lawrie, who was three months pregnant, was up the front, I was somewhere in the middle, Dave Tollner was a bit behind me, and the member for Stuart, he was just about over the fence in the neighbouring property. Off we went, and you could hear him coming! He cleaned up half of us. He did not quite win because Delia Lawrie cheated. She only had to run about 50 m. By gee, he can run. I have seen him run at the Masters. I am glad of one thing: I am not in his age bracket because there is no way in the world I could ever beat Peter Toyne. He is fantastic.
Peter, I wish you all the best. I am sure I will see you around. You have left a legacy in parliament. Regardless of whether we are on different sides of parliament, you did a great job and I will always admire you for the work you have done.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr McADAM (Barkly): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, Thea, ministerial staff of Justice and Health, public servants of Health and Justice, by any measure, Peter Toyne is an outstanding person, an outstanding Territorian. He has given the best years of his life to the Northern Territory, starting with his outstanding career as a teacher, adult educator and community development worker in the Warlpiri lands. I especially note his work with Warlpiri Media where he and Warlpiri colleagues virtually pioneered community television in Australia.
As well as his work with teacher education and two-ways education, it is particularly noteworthy that he gave invaluable support to the development of the Yapa Yapa Teaching Group. He continued to provide cogent advice on the way forward for educating remote indigenous children of the Northern Territory. His election to parliament meant that he had a larger forum in which to operate, and even more opportunities to instruct and to educate.
His focus has always been the bush, but his ministerial career allowed him to become a very effective and passionate supporter of Alice Springs. His strong commitment to the Finke Desert Race and the development of the Desert Knowledge Centre are prime examples of his desire to grow the Alice in an innovative and clever way.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I am proud to have served with Peter in the Martin government. I know that his change of life will not in any way lessen his contribution to the Territory and he will always be on our backs to do something better, especially for the bush.
On behalf of Barb and my family, Peter, we wish you, Thea and your children all the very best in your retirement. I know it will not be retirement as such, because you have many other things to achieve. All I can say to you and to you, Thea and the children is take care, and God bless.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise to say a few words as someone who does not know the minister terribly well. I have been in parliament since 2003, and I have to say that, at times when this place is like a bear pit and it is supposed to be all political, there has been one thing that I have really admired about Peter - I can call you Peter tonight - he stays cool and calm and he has always been a perfect gentlemen.
Not everyone is really rude and calls out, so I have the greatest amount of respect for you, and 10 years of service in this Assembly is an absolutely incredible amount of work. I can appreciate the work that you have done, especially considering the size of the electorate that you represent. The amount of travelling that you have to do and the time that you are away from your family makes it quite remarkable to have been in that seat for 10 years because it does take a lot out of you; that is for sure.
You have chosen now to leave the parliament. The time is right for you, so I am going to read you a little poem called Time.
I will finish with these wise words, not mine, but they are very wise.
Never regret a day in your life.
Good days give you happiness.
Bad days give you experiences;
both are essential to life.
I wish you and your family all the very best in your retirement. Well done.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I have known Peter for quite a while now and the person who introduced us was the member for Wanguri, my friend Paul Henderson.
After he won the by-election, he came to my place and said: ‘I would like you to meet a nice guy. He is married to a Greek wife, too’. I said: ‘Oh, well, bring him along’. So they came home, and here comes Paul with Peter, and I looked at Peter and said: ‘I’m pretty sure I know this person. Where have I met him before?’ Then I realised I had seen him in my grandmother’s house. She had a Greek icon of John the Baptist. The only difference was Peter was wearing trousers and a suit rather than the big ancient Greek robe, but the hair and the beard and the wrinkles were exactly the same. When he spoke to me, I thought: ‘Jesus! This is John the Baptist’; he was speaking like him, too.
We had some really good and memorable times in my house. I remember he came for dinner and we drank some wine. Of course, we started with Sippero. It was late at night and he had to catch a place the next morning. He went to Alice Springs. I turned on the television news. There was Peter in Alice Springs, looking pale and haggard with dark circles under his eyes. A few moments later I received a phone call from the electorate officer threatening to kill me if I give him Sippero ever again.
Peter was the one who spoke to me before I put my hand up for preselection, and he gave me the good news and bad news of becoming a politician. I did not listen to him and put my hand up for preselection. Of course, it was a thrill in June 2001 when we won the election. I found myself, being in the same party, the same side of parliament, the winning party in the government, and then I found myself to be with Peter in Cabinet. Peter was the one who spoke to us many times - not only to me but to the other newies - and gave us advice and information. We very much respected him for his wisdom and knowledge.
Peter is a very complex personality. One day he would be very meticulous, very methodical, analysing everything, going very slowly through his documents and legislation, and the next morning you would find him zooming down a dirt track at 180 km/h in a flimsy car in the Finke Desert.
Let me tell you another story about his sense of humour. We are always welcome in his house in Alice Springs. Every time we go there, Thea and Peter welcome us and we would have dinner. Two years ago we were in Alice Springs having dinner. We had a few wines and, of course, at the end of the night, as always, we got stuck into Sippero again. We noticed that Michael, my son, was sitting there really grumpy. Peter said: ‘What is wrong with you?’ He said: ‘Oh, it is my birthday. You forgot my 10th birthday’. Peter looked at me and I looked at Peter. We dipped our fingers in the Sippero and lit them and were singing ‘Happy birthday to you’, and our wives were looking on, terrified. They didn’t know what was happening until Michael blew our fingers out. He said: ‘Do it again, it was fun’. By that time, our fingers were just a bit hot. We did it twice more, though, before we finished.
Peter is a man of integrity. Peter is an honest, hard-working person; a person with vision, who knew what he wanted to do and what he wanted to achieve. When he got the portfolio for Health and Attorney-General and Justice, we knew that he was going to achieve what he wanted to achieve.
I am very privileged to be his friend and for him to be my friend and that he was there when we really needed him. We have had our arguments; we always have, especially about Alice Springs and Darwin – which one is the best place in the world. He insists that Alice Springs is, but there is no water there. I do not know what he is talking about.
I am sorry he is leaving parliament, but I am very glad. I am very glad that Thea will have him at home now, 100% of time rather than 20% of time. I know many wives are envious of Thea, getting Peter back. As Peter said, he was on loan to politics. Now it is time to return home. I am pretty sure we will see each other again. I am glad he is going to northern Greece because I know what he is going to bring back and I am looking forward to sharing it with him when he returns. Have a good time, and we will catch up again.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight’s tribute to our retiring member has really put a - I had a whole stack of medical stuff to talk about in adjournment, but I will put it off for another time.
Peter, I was here before you arrived and you are going before I am. In these short 12 to 15 months that I have been your shadow in Health, we have had many adversarial occasions. I tried to think of the things that you have done and whether you could have done it better or differently. Rather than me talking about what I think you should have done or not done, first I should say in a different way: welcome to the electorate of Greatorex. You moved in some 16 months ago. Welcome back or welcome again to the electorate. I assume that your mum is going to come and live with you, not that I expect you will ever vote for me, but that is all right. Around 40% of the electorate do not vote for me so you will be one of those.
Thea, I cannot see because you are probably behind a pillar somewhere. Anyway, you are going to be one of my constituents and, if you have any issues, I anticipate that you will come and have a chat and see what I can do.
Yes, you have left a legacy as the Health minister, without a doubt. As Attorney-General, I am not able to comment much because I have not taken much interest in that portfolio, but in your Health portfolio, yes, you have left a legacy. The fact that we are now going to see an oncology unit is positive news for Territorians and Central Australians will also rejoice the fact that an oncology unit will be developed. We hope that it will be developed as quickly as possible so that we do not have to wait any longer.
You have tried genuinely to ensure that Health is looked after well across the Territory. Many a time I would think that, yes, you could have done many things a lot better and a lot faster, and prod as I might, sometimes you just seemed not to want to respond. There was not much I could do about that, but what you have responded to is the cord blood stem cell harvesting project. I am very glad that that has happened. I would add that to the list that the member for Nelson has credited you with as a legacy. Cord blood stem cell harvesting will benefit many Aboriginal people in Australia. I do not know if people understand what it means and perhaps I should spend a little of my time in paying tribute to you to explain what cord blood stem cell harvesting is about.
When an Aboriginal person suffers from a bone marrow disease, trying to find bone marrow that could be used to transplant into the patient is very difficult because of the very small gene pool of Aboriginal people in Australia. There are only 400 000 of them and so to find a person that can match the recipient’s tissue profile is very difficult. If we were to be able to harvest as many of the cord blood stem cells as possible from all the deliveries in the Northern Territory, those stem cells, because they are so primitive, can be used for transfusion into a patient who needs what would otherwise be a bone marrow transplant. That way, we can save the patient. The more we can harvest of the cord blood stem cells, the better it would be because we can use it more freely for patients who require it.
While we are only a harvesting point in Alice Springs, the blood will be stored in Sydney and patients requiring treatment will then have to go to Sydney. We do have a high number of Aboriginal births, therefore we can be a significant source of cord blood for the whole program. Peter, I thank you for getting that project up. It is going to be good for all Aboriginal people in Australia and Alice Springs will play a very significant part in it. For your successor, if there is a need for further funding to ensure that this project keeps going, Dr Ian Fraser, the Australian of the Year, has undertaken to follow up on it if we write to him and ask him to provide some help.
Recently, the media quoted a time when someone in the gallery noticed that every time I rose to speak, you removed your hearing aid. I do not know whether you did. I never noticed, actually, that you had a hearing aid and when they said that you had removed it, that was the very first time that I learned that you had the use of one. After that, I took more notice of it and I suppose you did that a couple of times just to demonstrate that you do it, but most times, you appear to hear me quite well so obviously that is not an issue there.
I wish you well in your retirement. Ten years in politics is a long time, and some days when I look at the member for Nhulunbuy, I think: ‘Gee, you have been here a long time; I have been here a long time. When do we find the right time to go?’ It is a very brave thing for anyone to do, and your retirement will be to spend a lot of time with your family, including your mother. That is very admirable.
I suppose the day will come that I will be looking at doing that myself, too, but that is a while away yet. Peter, I wish you well in Alice Springs. I am sure we will run into each other from time to time. Thea, good luck; enjoy your husband.
Mr STIRLING (Nhulunbuy): Mr Deputy Speaker, it is one of those rare occasions when we farewell a member who has been very near and dear to us over the past decade.
If we go all the way back to the long march through opposition, it is only the Chief Minister that is ahead of Peter, and then all the way back to myself. Peter shared some five years of the long march in the wilderness for the Northern Territory Labor Party before 2001. I remember the by-election like yesterday. Maurice Rioli and me, and some of the memories we had – and they are not all that pleasant, some of those memories, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will not go into them this evening, but I do remember sleeping on the banks of the Plenty River in the company of Maurice Rioli. We were headed out to a little place called Bonya the next day for the voting. I reckon the last time the Plenty River saw water, Burnsie, was when Noah was floating around. That is how dry that country is. It is a long time since it saw a fish.
I want to reflect on some of the things Peter brought to caucus and the Labor team. Peter had a particular perspective on politics and it had nothing to do with being a politician. It had nothing to do with being the member for Stuart. He brought a passion for wanting to see things put right that were wrong. He brought a passion for trying to correct all of the things, whether it was justice, inequity - just putting things right.
In a sense, that is what all politicians want to do at their heart, but Peter brought a particular passion and a particular drive to it, and it is not always easy. It is not always easy to achieve, no matter how admirable the aim, and Peter would be the first to acknowledge that. Of course, in driving on, it is not always easy to maintain the balance around you as well.
In the second term, and I am referring after the 1997 election through to 2001, Peter picked up the policy development side of the Labor Party caucus with an absolute vengeance. We were driven along this process where we each had our responsibilities as shadow ministers to develop policy for the next election, and, by God, if you did not have it done at the next caucus meeting and the report back of where you were up to - and matrix charts and tick the box across and ‘Why haven’t you?’ and it was a bit like the head master, Mr Deputy Speaker. If you had not happened to consult with a particular group or had not happened to have the next stage of your policy development done - I do not want to go there; it was just far easier, no matter how difficult it was to do, to do it and to get to caucus and say: ‘Yes, Peter, we can tick that off. I have talked to that group and we have agreement around that particular policy area’.
That was a measure of the perspective that Peter brought to the team as an individual, and it was a very strong influence on the Northern Territory Labor caucus, from the time he was elected until this very evening. It was a brand of discipline, a passion, and always absolutely right in his views, and anyone who disagreed, well, they simply did not know what they were talking about, I suppose.
That is the measure of Peter. He has been an outstanding Attorney-General for the Northern Territory. I sat here with a great deal of pride in one of the early sessions of the new Labor government following the 2001 election when Peter, as Attorney-General, rose to introduce the repeal of the Mandatory Sentencing Act. I will always remember that because I had been shadow Attorney-General for quite some years, and I thought: ‘If ever we get to government that is going to be my job’ - and it wasn’t.
I could not have been more proud if it had been me delivering that legislation, as, indeed, I know Peter was enormously proud. We are all proud of his efforts as Minister for Health as well. He has done an outstanding job and made a great contribution to looking after the health system in the Northern Territory, and policy development - not policy development in the sense that we were doing in 1997 to 2001 because it was all a bit academic because we never got there, but in fact he has implemented Labor Party policy and brought it to fruition.
So, Peter, on behalf of the Labor caucus, in the years you have been with us, on behalf of the Labor Party and indeed the entire Labor movement of the Northern Territory, I salute you for your contribution to the party. I salute you for your contribution as a minister in government. We have been extremely well served by your efforts and I wish you, your loved ones and your family all the very best in your retirement.
Members: Hear, hear!
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
TABLED PAPER
Sitting Schedule for 2007
Sitting Schedule for 2007
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I table the sitting schedule for the Legislative Assembly for 2007. Sittings will be held in Alice Springs from 17 to 19 April. The budget will be introduced during the sittings commencing the week of 1 May and the Estimates Committee and the Government Owned Corporations Scrutiny Committee hearings will be held during the week commencing 19 June.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I advise of the presence in the gallery of students from Fu Jen Catholic University, Taiwan, visiting Charles Darwin University, accompanied by Terry Pailthorpe. On behalf of honourable members, I extend a very warm welcome to you.
Members: Hear, hear!
MINISTERIAL REPORTS
McArthur River Mine Open Cut Proposal
McArthur River Mine Open Cut Proposal
Mr VATSKALIS (Mines and Energy): Madam Speaker, today I report on the proposal for McArthur River Mining Pty Ltd to change its mining method from underground to open cut. I have been advised by my colleague, the Minister for Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage that the open cut project can be approved provided it protects the environment and delivers real benefits to Territorians for generations to come.
I have referred Environmental Protection Agency Assessment Report 54 McArthur River Mine Open Cut Project to officers in my department for advice. I also note that the Commonwealth Minister for the Environment and Heritage has to consider the assessment report under Commonwealth legislation, and he has up to 30 business days to advise of his decision on this matter.
Before I am able to make a decision on this project, the company, McArthur River Mining Pty Ltd, will need to submit a mining management plan which includes details on how effective environmental safety and management will be incorporated into the open cut mining process. This plan will be reviewed by my department, which will consult with the Environmental Protection Agency before the mining management plan is finalised.
For operational mine sites, updated mining management plans are required to be submitted to my department annually. These updates provide the opportunity to constantly review environmental performance and, when required, to incorporate improved environmental management strategies. The material supplied by the Minister for Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage and the environmental assessment report will also be considered in the assessment of the mining management plan.
Minister Scrymgour has advised that the mining management plan should consider a substantial bond, including provision for post-mine environmental management, as well as several other conditions. Any deficiencies identified in the mining management plan submitted by McArthur River Mining Pty Ltd will be referred back to the company for consideration and incorporation in the plan. It is expected that the assessment of the mining management plan will take no longer than 28 days once all the information has been received. Timing issues, in fact, are largely in the proponent’s hands.
In addition, an assessment of rehabilitation liabilities will be done to determine the level of security required to be provided by McArthur River Mining. The Security Assessment Board, whose members include representatives of the EPA, will need to endorse the level of security required. Once assessment of the mining management plan is completed, securities finalised and the Commonwealth minister has provided his advice, I will be in a position to consider the proposal and make a decision.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, it is about time that the minister reported to this parliament about what can only be described, and what will go down in history, as a debacle when it comes to the way this government has handled the McArthur River Mine. Members will remember, only in March I think it was, when ministers Vatskalis and Scrymgour – sorry, we know who we are talking about …
Madam SPEAKER: Minister for Mines and Energy, Leader of the Opposition.
Ms CARNEY: … completely mucked up the process. There remain questions about the independence of the EPA to the extent that the opposition found it necessary to put a motion before the parliament last week about the EPA. The minister for Mines is, as usual, having a bob each way, trying to play tough, good cop-bad cop. I wonder whether the minister, in his reply, might wish to comment on one of the comments made by the minister for the Environment at the media conference earlier this week when she said that Xstrata is a big company and can afford this – referring to the significant bond of about 100%; the up-front bond that is apparently going to be applied. That shows Labor’s natural prejudice and hatred of business and mining.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms CARNEY: We had the Chief Minister hopping all over the place with respect to uranium. This is not a government that is committed to anything other than itself. It is not committed to the future of the mining industry, and Xstrata has every right to feel very aggrieved by the way it has been treated.
As usual with this government, the devil is in the detail. I know McArthur River representatives or executives are looking closely at it. This will go down in history, Madam Speaker, as a debacle.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I had difficulty hearing all you were saying, minister, but I did notice a couple of issues. One of the important issues is that of regulation of the mine, especially from an environmental point of view. Minister, could you explain what is the role of the mining department’s environmental section? I am told, when I used to argue that that section should be in the department of the Environment, that your department needed that section because they have people who have expertise in the environmental side of mining. What is their role in relation to McArthur River? If an EPA does not exist - because we have an interim board going out asking the public what kind of EPA they want - how is an EPA going to be involved? It really does not exist.
Members interjecting.
Mr WOOD: Well, it does not exist. You have had public meetings with an interim board to find out what kind of EPA we want. How can the EPA be involved when we have not worked out what it is going to be? Finally, do you believe it is fair and consistent with normal mining practice, notwithstanding Ranger Uranium, that a mine be asked to pay for an independent regulatory agency? Why, when you have a section of your own department which does that, and why, when we have NRETA, which can do that as well?
Mr VATSKALIS (Mines and Energy): Madam Speaker, I would like to comment about the Leader of the Opposition’s comment that we are anti-business. Was it the CLP member for Goyder who put a motion against the LNG plant in the previous parliament? I recall it very well. So, who is anti-business? We actually helped Xstrata to pass the hurdle because, to put it bluntly, if the minister had advised me to approve the previous plan for Xstrata, I would have had great difficulty under the Mining Act to approve it.
They overcame a lot of the problems. We had significant problems with the realignment of the river. All the other risks can now be incorporated in the mine management plan. With regard to environmental regulations, the current regulation with regard to mining takes into account mining practices, environmental issues within a mining lease, and occupational health and safety within a mining lease. I am very pleased that Xstrata came here and put a revised proposal which actually now can free us to give the tick of approval.
As for the other issue about paying for the regulation, investigations and monitoring, every other company does it in the Territory, in Australia and the world. Why shouldn’t Xstrata?
Arafura Games – Promotion in
Malaysia and Vietnam
Malaysia and Vietnam
Ms LAWRIE (Sport and Recreation): Madam Speaker, I report to the House on a whirlwind trip I made recently to Malaysia and Vietnam to promote the Arafura Games.
Arafura 2007 starts on 12 May next year and it is now that we need to promote the event to our Asian and regional neighbours. Just prior to my trip, the Chief Minister promoted the games successfully in Brunei and the Minister for Multicultural Affairs hosted a promotion in Singapore.
The games are a wonderful event for Darwin. They not only promote sporting friendships, but strengthen links between Darwin and South East Asia. The games are a great sporting and cultural event, but also open up a range of tourism and business opportunities. A quote from an NT News editorial says it best:
- They put the NT on the map as an exciting, vibrant community – the true gateway to Asia.
My trip started in Kuala Lumpur. Malaysia was one of the countries central to the inception of the Arafura Games and they have regularly sent the largest delegation, about 350 in 20 sports for Arafura 2005. My first meeting was with Dato Dr Ramian, the Director of the National Sports Council of Malaysia. The National Sports Council uses the Arafura Games as a key part of their development program for their athletes and they are again keen to send a large team. We gave them a very extensive presentation.
Next, I met with Dato Azalina, the Malaysian Minister for Youth and Sports. The minister had to shuffle around several other meetings in order to meet with me, and I am very grateful that she did. Her desire to meet underscores the importance of the Arafura Games in Malaysia.
In the afternoon, I met with Tunku Imran who, apart from being a member of the Royal family, is also the President of the Olympic Council of Malaysia. He reiterated his support for Arafura as a key part of their development program.
Members may be aware that there are seven sports at Arafura next year for which we have included paralympic events. I met with Zainal Abu Zurin, who is not only President of the Malaysian Paralympic Committee but also President of the Asean Paralympic Committee, and a governing board member of the International Paralympic Committee. He is probably the most influential person in the region in terms of Paralympics. It was an honour to meet with him and promote this new aspect of the Arafura Games. He was delighted to hear that as well as being minister for Sport, I am also minister for disability. We had a very long exchange.
My trip to Malaysia received very positive media coverage there, as they are very proud to consider themselves a pioneer country of the Arafura Games. We received a commitment to another large Malaysian team coming to Darwin next year.
Vietnam has not had quite the same history of involvement in Arafura as Malaysia, but they are very keen to increase their involvement. This is evidenced by the fact that the Vietnamese government specifically invited me to Vietnam and the Vietnam Sports Committee covered our costs. Vietnam is developing at an enormous rate, and there is great potential for them to become a major Arafura participant.
The introduction of Tiger Airlines makes it much more affordable for them to get to Darwin. We spent a day in Hanoi and a day in Ho Chi Min City. In Hanoi, I met with several members of the Committee of Sport and Physical Culture, and met with the Deputy Sports Minister, Mr Hunyh Vinh Al.
In Ho Chin Min, I met the Director of Ho Chi Min City’s Sport Department, Mr Nguyen Hoang Nang and with the Vice-President of the Ho Chi Min People’s Committee, Mr Nguyen Thanh Tai. He is the equivalent to the Deputy Mayor of Ho Chi Min City. I was very privileged to have such high level meetings. Out of that developed a friendship, and Vietnam is very seriously considering using Darwin as a training base pre-Arafura, but also in a broader sense for developing their athletes.
In almost every meeting I attended, the subject of Australia’s excellent result at the recent World Cup was mentioned. Both Malaysia and Vietnam are football mad, and there is a great deal of excitement about Australia joining the Asian Cup and being a member of the Asian zone. We were able to promote the new football stadium we are building in Darwin that will be available for the Arafura Games. We showed them diagrams.
The Arafura Games are growing, but we must be aware that we are operating in an increasingly competitive market with a larger number of games in Asia and around the world coming onto the calendar. We have some great competitive advantages in Darwin and it is very important that we get out there into the region to let our Asian neighbours know about our games as the opportunities they provide for the Northern Territory are endless. We look forward to a fantastic Arafura 2007.
I have to say that you can never take anything for granted. Malaysia has been a big partner, but there have been changes in the key senior people making the decisions about who comes and how many will come, so it was critical that we went there, re-formed the relationship and met with the new key senior officials there.
In Vietnam, I feel there will be an emerging growth between the links of the Vietnamese sporting people and the Territory. Both trips were very valuable and I am working with the Arafura Games team to work out the next priority for promoting the games.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, it must be difficult for the minister to stand and speak of the virtues of the Arafura Games with the knowledge that it originated from that place in history from whence no good thing ever came. That was when the CLP …
Members interjecting.
Mr MILLS: There were many fine initiatives that were wisely implemented that are bearing fruit today. This is for the benefit of the Northern Territory, for the families that live here - not just now, but into the future. We must all work very hard to ensure that we take advantage of our strategic place within the region. We must make sure we leave no stone unturned. I am pleased that there has been no resorting to a rewriting of the past and ensuring that those fine initiatives are built upon.
I ask the minister to reflect upon another initiative that was in place, that is the Arafura School Games, the junior version of the Arafura Games, that took place within the Eastern provinces of Indonesia very successfully over a number of years and that brings another plank upon which we can build towards achieving that very important objective of building stronger relations within our region.
Arafura Games; excellent stuff. I appreciate your activity within the region. It is good to hear that Vietnam is now more engaged. I can assure you, minister, that in West Timor we also demonstrated our commitment to the future of the Northern Territory and promoted the Arafura Games. We would ask you to consider harmonising the program in terms of the Pan Pacific Games. You have already given your response on that, but I think we do need to acknowledge the competition within our region for sports. We can organise our schedule perhaps a little more wisely.
Ms LAWRIE (Sport and Recreation): Madam Speaker, I thank the shadow spokesperson for his support of Arafura. I have never failed to acknowledge that Arafura has been a long-standing, fantastic event in the calendar of the Territory. I have no difficulty with that whatsoever.
The timing and nature of the Arafura Games is really guided by the Heads of Delegation. They are the key representatives of all the participating nations. As host, it is quite appropriate that the Northern Territory pays heed to what the Heads of Delegation request. They have requested that we keep it in May, as we have, that we keep it every second year, and it would be foolish of us not to heed that request of our regional neighbours. It is a working formula and the only request that they made to change was to set that minimum standard of four competing nations, which we have done for Arafura 2007, and they are all very excited about the fact that we have events now for athletes with a disability. They are happy with the formula, they are happy with the timing and they are happy with the way we are enhancing Arafura 2007.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
Public Housing – Antisocial
Behaviour Legislation
Behaviour Legislation
Mr McADAM (Housing): Madam Speaker, in early June, important aspects of the Antisocial Behaviour (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act came into effect. Though still early days, I would like to report on how Territory Housing is using the new initiatives to good effect to reduce antisocial behaviour in public housing.
I want to highlight, first, that the overwhelming majority of Territory Housing clients do the right thing by their neighbours and their community. I have attended a fair share of community barbeques at unit complexes, visited our seniors villages, and I have seen some of the most beautiful gardens in the Territory at the homes of public tenants. As I said, most public tenants are responsible neighbours and they make the Territory community a better community.
However, this government is tough on public tenants who do the wrong thing. The new antisocial behaviour legislation has provided for Acceptable Behaviour Agreements and restricted premises, and these complement Territory Housing’s existing strategies for reducing antisocial behaviour. Territory Housing was quick to implement the new legislation. Since 15 June, five Acceptable Behaviour Agreements have been entered into, two in Darwin and three in Alice Springs. Another three are being negotiated with public tenants across the Northern Territory.
The agreements are being used to assist tenants to sustain their tenancies as they set out clear guidelines for appropriate behaviour. Territory Housing does not take Acceptable Behaviour Agreements lightly. Other avenues of assistance through community liaison officers, support agencies and the Community Justice Mediation Centre are pursued before Acceptable Behaviour Agreements are considered. Similarly, Territory Housing will assist clients to apply to have their homes declared as restricted premises under the Liquor Act. Madam Speaker, I know of six tenancies that Territory Housing has assisted to date, and many more want to take control of alcohol consumption in their neighbourhood through this amendment.
This government is empowering public tenants to take control of their homes and say no to antisocial behaviour and alcohol abuse. As I said, Acceptable Behaviour Agreements and restricted areas enhance Territory Housing’s strong and varied approaches to antisocial behaviour.
Funding for security patrols at urban hot spots has increased to $850 000 this year. Work is under way to develop an effective Living Skills program to help people with the upkeep of their homes. This initiative is in train and will complement the existing Indigenous Housing Assistance Service, which assists clients across the Northern Territory to gain and maintain public tenancies.
The employment of Indigenous Community Liaison Officers has been a success for Territory Housing; four officers have now been employed across the Territory and they work very closely with indigenous clients.
Territory Housing is also piloting a new administrative structure at its Palmerston office. The structure is geared to improve support services and intensely manage at-risk tenancies. Last month, this government announced an expression of interest for $2.03m to provide a managed accommodation service in Alice Springs. This initiative, coupled with the upgrade of the 33 bed Stuart Lodge facility, will significantly improve the capacity to assist short-term visitors to Alice Springs.
Supported and managed accommodation initiatives, sustainable models that meet the diverse needs of Territorians are a key aspect of this government’s approach to housing. These initiatives go hand in hand with other projects that are in the early stages of development, one that I am calling the Pride in Your Place project. It is really about encouraging people to take pride in their homes and in their community. It will take an approach through community renewal that is about more than just bricks and mortar. This government’s approach to antisocial behaviour is fair dinkum. It is strong and, importantly, our initiatives and ideas are fair. I commend Territory Housing for the work it has done to implement the antisocial behaviour legislation.
Madam Speaker, I will continue to provide the Assembly with updates in respect of this matter over time.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I welcome the minister’s report. I am glad to hear that the minister’s department is now attempting to fix many of the difficulties we have had with neighbours from hell. Obviously, all the people who live in a neighbourhood want to have reasonable lives, and neighbours from hell have become very intrusive over recent months.
The problem of the burden of neighbours having to make complaints to Territory Housing has become quite onerous. The fact is that when one’s neighbour complains, it never seems to be sufficient. What happens is when a neighbour complains, the neighbour from hell starts to target that complainant. It gets to a stage where people are intimidated; they are not prepared to continue to complain. Territory Housing officers need to be more responsive, take on the complaint and investigate it quickly. The sooner the investigation starts, the more compliant the neighbour from hell will be in behaving themselves.
I am pleased to see that Acceptable Behaviour Agreements have been used, although only on a small number of tenants. I am sure a lot more of these agreements could be used to at least enforce a standard of behaviour amongst people who live in Territory Housing properties. At the end of the day, it is important that we give them some sort of empowerment to deal with visitors because it is usually the visitors who cause the problems. If they have the power to deal with them, we would be a lot better off.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Speaker, it is all very fine for the minister to stand in the House and tell us what you are going to introduce. However, I do not believe it is happening on the ground.
I was very cross this morning when I received a copy of a letter from Territory Housing to a resident in Bokara Street - and you and I talked about this particular incident - that says again the tenant has been informed the behaviour is not acceptable and, if it continues, then Territory Housing will have to do something about it. I thought we were going to take some strong action on these particular premises. I really thought that you would at least put an Acceptable Behaviour Agreement in place, or something to put the tenant on notice. However, there are still five young people staying in that house, even though the parents only have two. There is mother and a baby and, last night - and I hope the minister for Police is listening - the police actually dropped off a male to that house because the male told them he lived there. He does not live there. Worse, what are the police doing providing a taxi service?
Mr Henderson: Yes! I will look in to it.
Mrs BRAHAM: Yes, that is something you should follow up.
Mr Henderson: I will.
Mrs BRAHAM: The police have been notified on numerous occasions about this particular house, and they turn around and give this guy a lift to the premises that has been causing problems.
Minister, it is nice to hear what you think you are going to do, but let us see some action on the ground. Let us see it actually happening. It is a joke at the moment. Until you get real about really expecting better things of your tenants, we are going to have these continual disruptions in our neighbourhood. Minister, not good enough as yet.
Mr McADAM (Housing): Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the member for Braitling, but there is an important issue to realise here. Part of the problem is the overcrowding, of course, the lack of housing stock. As you would very well know – and you are both party to this - you sold off $266m worth of Territory Housing stock from 1995 to 2001. So do not start getting up in this House saying it is an important issue and we have to resolve it – you were part of the problem ...
Mrs Braham: Tell them to go back bush where they live. Tell them to live there.
Mr McADAM: I want to say something else, Madam Speaker. Regardless of who you are, if you are a public tenant, you are entitled to certain rights …
Mrs Braham: But not …
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr McADAM: … and they have primacy. The fact that you mentioned Bokara Street this morning is very unbecoming of you, member for Braitling …
Mrs Braham: So, we have a town and a country house, do we?
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Member for Braitling!
Mr McADAM: It is inappropriate. I have worked very constructively with you on this matter and will continue to do so. I can assure you that we are taking appropriate steps in respect of Bokara Street. However, the fact that you took the liberty to raise in this House, in a public forum, matters which have, essentially, been ongoing discussions between ourselves - natural justice must always occur and we must always respect the Privacy Act.
Mrs Braham: People are fed up, minister. The answer is not good enough.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Braitling!
Mr McADAM: Member for Braitling, I ask you to be a little more considered in your views.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
Mining Road Show
Mr VATSKALIS (Mines and Energy): Madam Speaker, I have another piece of great news for the mining industry from the Labor government which, according to the Leader of the Opposition, is not business friendly.
I rise today to report on a Mining Opportunities Road Show that I attended on 25 and 26 July. First, I must thank the member for Daly, Rob Knight, for organising and coordinating what I consider to have been an extremely successful event that was well received by the local communities at Berry Springs, Batchelor, Pine Creek and Katherine. The road show was designed to inform local communities about mining developments which are planned to occur in their area in the next 12 months. Information was also provided on employment opportunities, and goods and service supply opportunities which will be available as a result of the mining developments.
Three companies delivered presentations on their respective developments. Representatives from Compass Resources spoke about the Browns Oxide project at Batchelor. GBS Gold personnel spoke about Union Reef’s processing plant at Pine Creek and regional satellite mines in the Adelaide River, Pine Creek and Katherine area. Representatives from Territory Iron spoke about the proposed re-opening the Frances Creek iron ore mine near Pine Creek.
A number of Territory government departments including my Department of Primary Industry, Fisheries and Mines, the Department of Employment, Education and Training, and the Department of Business, Economic and Regional Development also attended the forums to answer questions and explain what they could do to help local communities take advantage of these mining opportunities.
The forums were all well attended with approximately 30 people at Berry Springs, 40 at Batchelor, 40 at Pine Creek, and 60 at Katherine. A larger crowd had been expected at Pine Creek, but due to the fact that 40 locals had already started work at the Union Reef mine at the time of the forum, numbers were down. However, the 40 employees at Union Reef are a tangible illustration of the immediate benefits of new mines in the local communities.
For the benefit of the Assembly, I will now provide a brief overview of the three mining projects.
First, the development of the Browns Oxide project near Batchelor by Compass Resources: this is an open pit mine which is about to commence construction. Capital expense of construction is estimated at nearly $70m. The project will employ approximately 150 people during the six month construction period and approximately 80 people during the life of the oxide mining operations. Employees will be sourced from the Batchelor, Adelaide River and Darwin areas.
The next project involves GBS Gold. The company is in the process of recommissioning the Union Reef gold plant, just north of Pine Creek. It will be developing two open pits and one underground resource over the next six months in the Adelaide River/Pine Creek area. GBS is scheduled to commence gold production in the last quarter of 2006. It currently employs about 60 people at Union Reef, and this will expand to approximately 150 people once mining and processing operations commence.
The third development is the reopening and expansion of the Frances Creek iron ore mine near Pine Creek by Territory Iron. The project is currently undergoing an environmental assessment as a Public Environmental Report. The project proposes to directly employ about 70 people during mining operations and to rail its iron ore to Darwin for export to China through the Port of Darwin. Mining is proposed to commence in late 2006.
These three mining developments in the Batchelor, Pine Creek and Katherine regions will result in at least 300 direct jobs and will become a major contributor to the regional local economies. All three companies are committed to local employment and local supply of goods and services wherever possible.
I congratulate the member for Daly for organising these highly successful forums which highlighted the opportunities that mining development will provide and I commend the mining companies - Compass Resources, GBS Gold and Territory Iron - as well as the participating government departments for their efforts to ensure that mining development will result in maximum local employment and input to local and Territory economies.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, the mining industry in the Territory is doing well despite this government. You can go on your road shows, and no doubt they have a particular value, but it is galling to most people in the Territory to hear government claiming responsibility for the great economic prosperity that we see here in the Territory. The mining industry is a significant, a major contributor to economic activity in the Northern Territory and the best you lot can do is stand in the way. Well, it is not good enough.
I wonder whether the 100% up-front bond that is going to apply to MRM is going to be applied to, say, the mine at Maud Creek. I note that the minister did not refer to that in his speech, to the extent that I heard him correctly. Perhaps you could tell us whether it is now going to be the policy of the Labor government to impose up-front bonds. A straight answer, yes or no, would be appreciated, minister.
In relation to uranium, since you are talking about mining, I note that you tend to be like your colleagues: incredibly selective. Minister, can you advise, yes or no, what you will be saying in the event that you go to the Labor Party conference, which I think is in April next year? What will you as the Territory minister for mines be saying at that conference? If you are not going to go there, what representations will you make? Minister, it is time to come clean. Your Chief Minister has been all over the place, and her latest position is that yes, she supports an expansion. Minister, given that you are the minister for mines, would you be good enough to tell us here and now what your position is on uranium mining?
Mr VATSKALIS (Mines and Energy): Madam Speaker, following the fiasco of Mt Todd and the $900 000 environmental bond that was a result of Territorians paying in excess of $30m, it is a government decision that all new mines will have a 100% bond. That will apply to GBS Gold, to Territory Iron and all the new mines.
Of course, if you had taken the time to study the legislation, because you are a qualified lawyer, you would find that the bond is evaluated every year, and every year it can be reduced if the company actively rehabilitates the site.
As for taking part in the Labor Party conference, I am entitled as a Labor Party member to attend any conference, and I am entitled as a member of the Labor Party to express my opinion freely. My opinion about uranium is well known to the industry, is well known to the community.
Ms Carney: What is it? What is it?
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Reports noted.
MEDICAL SERVICES AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 70)
CRIMINAL REFORM AMENDMENT BILL (No 2)
(Serial 71)
(Serial 70)
CRIMINAL REFORM AMENDMENT BILL (No 2)
(Serial 71)
Bills presented and read a first time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a second time. The purpose of these bills is to continue the government’s reform of the Criminal Code by revising the offences and defences related to homicide. The bills constitute a significant reform to Northern Territory criminal law.
As members would be aware, the government commenced its reform of the Criminal Code in 2005 with the Criminal Code Amendment (Criminal Responsibility Reform) Act 2005. This act, which I refer to as the ‘reform act’, created a new Part IIAA to the Code and introduced new general principles of criminal responsibility. This act also establishes a foundation upon which, over a proposed period of approximately five years, the new criminal responsibilities principles will be applied to all Criminal Code offences.
The reform act also repealed the existing manslaughter and dangerous act provisions. These were replaced with a revised manslaughter offence, and by the offences of recklessly endangering life, recklessly endangering serious harm, negligently causing serious harm, and dangerous driving causing death. It also amended the existing rape offence. The new criminal responsibility principles will immediately apply to all of these offences upon the commencement of the reform act later this year.
The bills I introduce today are an important next step in the reform of the Criminal Code. They will ensure that all offences related to homicide will function appropriately within the new principles of criminal responsibility. This is an important consideration in the reform process because offences that are likely to attract alternative charges should be dealt with under the same principles of criminal responsibility.
The government wants to ensure that these reforms cause as little disruption as possible to stakeholders in the criminal justice system. One way to achieve this goal is for each stage of the reforms to include as many related offences as possible.
Madam Speaker, I now set out the detailed aspects of the Criminal Reform Amendment Bill (No 2) (Serial 71).
The distinction between murder and manslaughter is a part of the law in all Australian jurisdictions and exists to reflect the degree of seriousness of the unlawful homicide committed by the offender. As I noted earlier, the manslaughter offence was dealt with in the reform act. This bill now deals with the offence of murder, the partial defences to murder, and the offence of assisting or encouraging suicide.
As an important first step, the bill defines what can be unlawfully killed by providing that a person against whom an offence may be committed under the Code is a person who has been born, and who has not already died. The bill then defines ‘birth’ by adopting the model code provision, which sets out a helpful and relevant test for juries. This complements the definition of ‘death’, which is contained in the reform act.
In line with the recommendations of the Model Criminal Code Committee, the bill reformulates the offence of murder to remove the constructive form of murder from the Code. This type of murder involves an unintentional killing by an act of violence, for example, where an act of violence causing death is committed in an effort to resist, prevent or escape from lawful arrest and custody. Constructive murder has been extensively criticised because it involves the imputation of the fault element required for murder when the violent death occurs in the context of other criminal conduct. If these elements exist, a murder conviction follows as a matter of course, even if there is no evidence of intentional recklessness on the part of the accused. This is a particularly critical issue in light of the Northern Territory’s mandatory life sentence penalty for murder. To equate an accidental killing with murder is directly contrary to the fault-based approach to determining culpability. In the absence of intention or recklessness where the death is truly accidental, the government considers that it is not appropriate or just for a person to be convicted of murder. However, it is important to note that, in the absence of the offence of constructive murder, an offender may nevertheless be criminally responsible for manslaughter on the basis of reckless or negligent conduct.
Because the Territory’s Criminal Code has not previously recognised fault elements of recklessness and criminal negligence, constructive murder arguably fills a gap in the criminal responsibility where an accused engaged in specific forms of conduct. With the introduction of fault grounds for manslaughter in the reform act, there is no further need for a constructive homicide offence.
I move now to the reform of the Code’s homicide defence provisions. Although the existing partial defences of provocation and diminished responsibility are not contained in the Model Criminal Code, it is necessary to retain them in Northern Territory criminal law because of the existence of the mandatory life imprisonment penalty for murder. However, the defences have been redrafted to clarify and, in the case of provocation, to restrict their operation. Under the current Territory code, provocation operates as a partial defence to murder. That is, murder can be reduced to manslaughter due to the existence of provocation.
Provocation also currently exists as a total defence in matters not resulting in death or, in the old terminology, grievous harm. Provocation is a complex doctrine which has been the subject of much debate. It consists of a union of two tests: a subjective test which asks whether the defendant was actually provoked to the point where he lost self-control, and whether he committed the killing as a result of that loss; and an objective test, which asks whether the provocation was sufficient to make a reasonable ordinary person behave as the defendant did. Notably, the current provision in the Territory code extends the ordinary person test to an ordinary person similarly circumstanced. This has been interpreted to include reference to and consideration of the defendant’s cultural or ethnic background.
The High Court reviewed the ordinary person test in the case of Stingel v R and decided that although it was relevant to determining the gravity of the provocation, the subjective characteristics of the defendant are irrelevant to the standard of self control imposed by the law. This standard, the High Court concluded, should be determined by reference to the hypothetical ordinary person facing that degree of provocation - in other words, a completely objective test.
The redrafted provocation provision in this bill restricts the application of the defence to cases of murder only and adopts the High Court’s recent statement on the appropriate test. The revised provision also removes the requirement for the defendant to have acted ‘on the sudden and before there was a time for his passion to cool’. This requirement has to date made the defence unavailable in cases where there has been a history of serious abuse inflicted on the defendant, which ultimately leads them into attacking their abuser. This is the situation in what is commonly referred to as ‘battered women’ cases.
The bill also clarifies that the defence is available in circumstances where the provocation is directed at someone other than the accused, for example towards children of the defendant. The government considers that this revised provision will reflect the best law on this defence.
The bill also revises the diminished responsibility partial defence to murder. This defence also operates to reduce murder to manslaughter, and the amended provision will provide increased flexibility in dealing with defendants who display some kind of mental dysfunction which is not serious enough to establish the complete defence of insanity, known under our criminal law as mental impairment. This defence is based on the fault element necessary to find a murder conviction being of a diminished quality. The bill will replace the defence of diminished responsibility with the new defence of substantial impairment by abnormality of the mind. It is still a partial defence and it must still be proved on the balance of probabilities by the accused.
The specific changes to the defence contained in this bill are: first, that the complex and often confusing concept of mental responsibility is removed. The new defence will instead turn on the accused’s capacity to understand events, to judge actions as right or wrong, or to control himself; second, the impairment has to be so substantial as to warrant liability for murder being reduced to manslaughter; and third, the current defence of abnormality of mind arises from a condition of arrested or retarded development of mind, any inherent causes or causes induced by disease or injury. The new defence provision requires the accused to prove that the abnormality of mind arises from an underlying and not transitory condition.
This revised defence is based on the recommendations of the New South Wales Law Reform Commission. The provision makes it clear that the jury has a specific role once the evidence has established the existence of the defence in determining whether, by community standards, the impairment is of such an extent that the defendant should not be convicted of murder, but should be convicted of manslaughter. Notably, the new provision clarifies that self-induced intoxication is to be disregarded from any consideration of the impairment.
This bill also inserts two further defence provisions. The first is for the protection of persons whose conduct causes serious harm or gives rise to a danger of death or serious harm during conduct engaged in by the person for the purpose of benefiting another or pursuant to a socially acceptable function or activity where the conduct is reasonable in the circumstances. This covers Good Samaritan situations and sporting pursuits. The second covers police, prison and law enforcement officers acting in the course of duty where the conduct is reasonable in the circumstances.
The reform act already contains a number of general defences which apply to fatal offences against the person. They are duress, sudden and extraordinary emergency, and self-defence, and a defence of lawful authority which applies to all offences, including fatal offences. Where a defendant wishes to deny criminal responsibility under these provisions, he or she bears the evidential burden in relation to the matter.
The bill contains some repetition of contents of the reform act. This is unavoidable, as each new offence and provision will affect the numbering of the Code. Consequently, the offence and punishment of manslaughter reappears in this bill so that necessary transitional numbering can be reordered appropriately. The bill also reorganises the homicide related offences to group them more appropriately in one part of the code.
The bill also redrafts the child concealment offence, which is an alternative charge to homicide of a child, to ensure that new principles of criminal responsibility will apply. Section 317 of the code, which provides that an alternative offence is available, has been amended accordingly.
The current Criminal Code offence of procuring, counselling, inducing and aiding suicide has been redrafted as an offence of aiding and encouraging suicide, which is a composite of the two Model Code suicide provisions. The amended offence is intended to capture the same behaviour as the current offence, and the penalty of life imprisonment is retained. The offence requires that a person must have intended that his or her conduct would assist or encourage the other person to commit suicide and that, as a result of that encouragement or assistance, the other person does commit suicide or attempts to commit suicide. As the act of suicide or attempted suicide must result from encouragement or assistance, an attempt at assisting or encouraging is not an offence. The redrafted offence provides very clear guidance to this complex area of law.
The Criminal Code’s homicide and related offences division also covers abortion provisions and are, accordingly, part of this reform package. The offences of procuring abortion and supplying drugs to cause abortion have simply been revised in accordance with the principles of criminal responsibility. The penalties, being a maximum of seven years imprisonment, are retained. The current section 174, which deals with lawful medical terminations, is more appropriately dealt with in the health legislation, not in the Criminal Code. This historical anomaly is repealed in this bill and redrafted in the Medical Services Amendment Bill. I will address the reason for this amendment in more detail shortly.
The bill also includes some minor consequential amendments to replace division headings and renumber offences as part of the necessary restructuring of the Criminal Code. This will be an ongoing process as each new stage of the reforms is introduced.
Madam Speaker, I turn now to the cognate Medical Services Amendment Bill, Serial 70. As I outlined earlier, this bill makes a technical change by transferring a provision currently located in the Criminal Code into a more appropriate location, the Medical Services Act. This provision sets out the matters relevant to lawful medical terminations in hospitals and the allowance for conscientious objections by health staff. It ensures that the duty of care in relation to medical treatment and the need for consent are preserved. These matters are all retained in the redrafted provision.
The purpose of the bill is threefold: first, to remove the historical anomaly of a non-criminal matter being located in the Criminal Code; second, to restructure and simplify what is currently a very convoluted provision; and third, to remove the absolute requirement for a specialist to perform a medical termination where it is determined that that termination must be performed within the first 14 weeks of a woman’s pregnancy. Currently, medical treatment to procure a termination in this early stage of pregnancy can only be performed by a gynaecologist or obstetrician in accordance with the requirements set down in the existing provision. The amendment will allow, within the same requirements, a properly credentialed and qualified medical practitioner to give that medical treatment in a hospital. The Northern Territory’s requirement for a specialist to carry out this procedure is out of line with every other Australian jurisdiction. It was inserted as a committee stage amendment in the Criminal Law Consolidation Bill in June 1973 when it was considered that such a requirement was necessary. Senior clinicians in Territory hospitals have raised this issue with government and explained that there is no medical reason for this provision. They note this requirement also puts an unwarranted pressure on one medical specialty which already faces a significant workload in the Territory. If this provision was allowed to stand unamended, it could create a workforce issue for Territory hospitals at some point in the future.
Registration of medical practitioners in the Northern Territory is mandatory for clinical practice and occurs through the Medical Board under the Health Practitioners Act. The Director of Medical Services determines, according to qualifications, demonstrated skills and experience, what a medical practitioner is credentialled to do clinically at a hospital. This occurs in both private and public hospital systems. I note that the amendment to this provision also inserts a requirement that where practicable, at least one of the two medical practitioners who are required to authorise a medical termination is a gynaecologist or obstetrician.
These amendments are sensible, safe and bring the matter into line with current medical technology and knowledge. The government has received advice from senior clinicians that they do not expect the amendments contained in this bill to alter the number of terminations carried out in the Territory and that the safety and scrutiny currently surrounding the procedure would be maintained at their current very high levels.
I am pleased to present these cognate bills to the Assembly. This is a substantial, important and long overdue revision of the Northern Territory’s criminal law. The government expects to present a further comprehensive reform bill in the first half of next year.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bills to honourable members and table copies of the explanatory statement.
Debate adjourned.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the Speaker’s Gallery and the public galleries of visitors to the Assembly to listen to debate on the carer’s bill. On behalf of all honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
CARERS RECOGNITION BILL
(Serial 54)
(Serial 54)
Continued from 14 June 2006.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Speaker, my query to the minister is: why do we need to have this bill? Is it just to be warm and fuzzy for people out there in communities? We recognise our carers in many other ways. Perhaps the minister could explain to me why we need a Carers Recognition Bill. I am not quite sure why.
I wanted to raise with the minister a case that I have come across over which I cannot get any sense out of Centrelink. We have an elderly lady who is 79, I think. She had a friend who was her carer, who is 76. The carer decided to move in with the elderly lady to look after her, but the carer is a male so as soon as he moved in with the lady concerned, the 79 year old, and he was 76, Centrelink decided they were in a marriage-like relationship and changed their independent, individual pensions to a married couple pension, although Centrelink acknowledged that he was her carer and continued to pay him a Carer’s Allowance. Why would you impose this burden upon two elderly people who are only there to look after each other?
The horrible part about it is that I am informed if these two people were both female, they would still get their individual pensions, but because they happen to be male and female, it was assumed that they were in a marriage-like relationship. I consider that to be so discriminatory, I cannot believe it. I have spent months trying to get sense out of Centrelink over this matter.
I say to the carers who are here: if you are going to have someone move in with you to look after you, you’d best not let them be of the opposite sex because it may affect your pension as it has done to these two elderly people. It is a ridiculous situation to treat elderly people in this way, particularly, as I say, when they recognise this person is a carer by continuing to pay them a Carer’s Allowance.
It is one of those absurd discriminatory situations they have got themselves into. There is no place in Frontier Services in Alice Springs for this elderly lady to go to get care. We all know we have a limited number of places in the Territory so if you are an elderly person needing care and support, you go on a waiting list. The waiting list at Frontier Services in Alice Springs is quite long.
What does she do? If she continues to live on her own, Centrelink or the health department have to provide her with care in the morning to get her up, to help her with her meals, to help to clean her house, to help her with her washing, to get her into bed at night. The cost of providing that full-time care would be enormous. So she gets a friend who is willing to live with her, but suddenly they find themselves short – I think it is $90 a fortnight and I might be wrong; it might be $90 between them a week. That is a lot of money for seniors. Money does not go far these days, particularly with the increase in food and fuel costs.
We have two people who are willing to care for each other who are now penalised by this bureaucratic decision that because they are male and female, they must be in a marriage-like situation. I have never come across it before. I have taken legal advice. If you are two males and you move into together and one looks after the other, that is okay. If you are two females, and one moves in to look after the other, that is okay, but because this situation is male and a female, it is assumed you are in this marriage-like situation.
Minister, perhaps next time you go to your ministerial council, you might raise this because it is discriminatory, particularly because in the Territory, we do not have places for our frail aged people to go to be cared for. We want them to stay in the home. We all say that. It is good for them to stay in their home. How can you continue to want them to stay in the home but discriminate against them in this manner?
My comments perhaps do not relate entirely to your bill, but I thought it worthwhile putting on public record that there are some stupid situations that occur by Centrelink’s decisions and it causes a lot of stress, a lot of unnecessary heartache about what is happening. This particular couple do not know whether he should just move out and find some accommodation elsewhere and that she should battle on her own, or what. When you are 76 and 79, do you really need that additional stress? I do not think so at all. It is a sad case.
Carers do a great job. I believe your last move to introduce the card so that they get benefits as well is a great idea. I am a bit bemused by the purpose of this bill. I do not see any other funding going towards support for carers. I am not sure whether that was the intent of the bill. Quite often, we see dollars and cents in bills, you know, we are going to give support, but there is nothing there that mentions that. Perhaps in your reply you could tell me just why do we need this bill when we recognise carers anyway?
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I support what the member for Braitling said. I would like to say at the outset that I support carers - who would not support carers? I might get old one day and need a carer, so it would be pretty silly of me to say I do not support carers. They might leave me with a very lonely life. There are many carers in the rural area and I know they do a wonderful job. I need to say that because my question today certainly is not meant to put carers in a light that I never intended to; it is simply that I would like to ask questions to the minister, again, why have you put this in an act? I mean, that is all nice, there are no penalties really in the act, there is some connection with the Health and Community Services Complaints Act, but if you are to put something in official legislation, you would expect there to be some way to enforce it.
I ask the minister to explain how you would enforce things, for instance, that are written in the Northern Territory’s Carers Charter. For instance, section 6 of the Carer’s Charter reads:
- The views and needs of carers must be taken into account, along with the views, needs and best interests of people receiving care, when decisions are made that impact on carers in their caring role.
Very subjective. Someone says: ‘Look, they did not take my views into consideration’, or it might be that they did, but they did not agree with them - how would you enforce that?
- The diversity of carers’ individual needs must be acknowledged and identified
That is in number three. Again, a very subjective thing. It is a great charter, but when you put it into legislation, one would expect that that would be enforced. How do you enforce a charter that is – well, it is not like ‘you shall not park outside the fire hydrant otherwise you will be fined $20’. It is not that kind of thing; it is a much more philosophical approach to how we should deal with carers with practical outcomes, but if we put it into legislation, my question is: so what? Could it have been, for instance, put into the public service act as a requirement for all government departments that they must take into consideration the Carers Charter?
I spoke with Gary Halliday this morning about the issue, and he certainly is a great supporter of it being in the act, so in no way am I saying I will not support what is before us today, but I believe it is worthy of questioning the minister as to why it has gone into an act, and how that will actually make that Carers Charter enforceable.
A couple of issues have been raised and need to be answered: how will agencies be educated in the charter? How will they know about it? How do we get down to those members of the staff of various departments to know that it exists? In the case of Western Australia, $10m was given to the carers, the Caring for Carers initiative, as it was called, and admittedly Western Australia has 246 800 carers. I am not saying you give $10m to carers - although they would appreciate that much money - but I believe there should be a reasonable amount of money given to the carers so that they can go out and explain to different organisations what is in this bill and - which is the most important part of the bill - the Carers Charter. What is in that Carers Charter is about common decency to our fellow human beings. You put that in eight forms and have explained it a bit more in detail, and that is very good.
I will support the bill, but it is important to question the government when it comes to bringing legislation before us whether the legislation can work, what will enforce it, whether we need it, and whether it can be done some other way. They are the questions I leave with the minister. In summing up, as I said, I will support the bill and wait for the minister’s response.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Madam Speaker, I support this bill. I will not answer some of the questions because that is up to the minister.
When I had carriage of Community Services, I had meetings with the various non-government organisations and different peak groups and the community itself; there is agreement and consensus. We all know and recognise carers as the unsung heroes in our community, and this bill goes a long way to recognising that. It is enshrining it in legislation. There are many issues and problems. The member for Braitling pointed out the one with Centrelink, and I know that the minister is keen to talk to her federal counterparts and other ministers because it is a real issue. However, it is a Commonwealth issue and has to be addressed, I agree, at that national level. I know that the minister is actively pursuing that.
We know that there have been issues with carers of people with disabilities. Enshrining in legislation the role of carers and recognising the importance of their role reinforces their role to those agencies and ensures that everyone adheres to and recognises it is the ultimate recognition of those people who carry that role. I see carers, in my own electorate - and I have talked to the minister about this – where there are many indigenous families, particularly in some of our remote communities, who do not have that recognition or support. It is hard, particularly when it falls on the shoulders of a lot of our grandmothers in those communities. They either become the carer for children who are placed in care or for other reasons. There are a lot of children in our remote communities with disabilities, and a lot of that is left to those grandmothers to carry that burden. Any support, whether it is via legislation or other means, in relation to the role that these people play should be enshrined in legislation so that it gives that ultimate recognition.
In my own family, we are preparing to care for and look at the whole issue of a brother who has terminal cancer. The impact that has on a family in terms of who the caring falls to - I know that does not fall within the ambit of this, but I often think of people who have to go through the day-to-day work of having to care for their loved ones or other people because that job falls on them.
I applaud the minister for this bill. It does meet our election commitment, a commitment I know that everyone wants. I acknowledge the role of every carer here. You are fantastic and most admired because being a carer for 24-hours a day is not something that you can stop; you are there every day around the clock. I recognise that, as does everyone else, and it is not an easy task. I often see some of the women in my own electorate and the trials they go through with their caring. I take my hat off to you; I applaud you. The work you do is fantastic. There is no monetary compensation or anything that could pay for any of the work and love. All of it is done with love and without that, the people receiving the care would not be able to go that next step forward. I thank you. You do a wonderful job. Minister, I fully support this bill.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, at the outset, let me say that the opposition supports the bill but also supports the comments made by the members for Braitling and Nelson. There are some issues that need to be addressed.
Nobody denies that we need to officially recognise the self-sacrifice that many of our carers make to care for their loved ones. More and more, elderly people are the ones who have come in and filled the role of carer. They are the ones who seem to be left with the burden, perhaps because our younger people are too involved in their own personal lives to be able to devote time to another who needs care.
As our population continues to age, we will see 65-, 70-, 80-year-olds caring for their companions or others who are similarly of their age, if not older. That burden has to be somehow respected and shared by our society. Having this bill officially recognises the role and the sacrifice of our carers - at very little cost to the taxpayer. The amount of financial support that governments provide for carers could be more generous. It would make their lives a lot easier, and it is a way for government, taxpayers, and people in Australia showing their regard for the work that many carers do.
The bill, with its Carers Charter, contains the eight points, motherhood statements, and no one in their right mind would object to any of those eight points. It is good that we do that officially and it is in some form of legislation. Whether it needs to be in a primary act is a question we can debate at another time. It does not make any difference to me whether recognising the role of a carer is in a primary act or subordinate legislation. The important thing is that we publicly acknowledge the contribution that carers make in our society.
I propose to take this bill to the committee consideration stage later because I want the minister to clearly explain some aspects of the bill. She defines who a carer is, and a carer is someone who provides care for a list of people with disabilities, etcetera, but then it goes to defining what person is not a carer, and there I have difficulties, particularly in clause 5(3) when the bill defines that:
- Also, a person is not a carer only because the person:
(a) is a spouse, de facto partner, parent or guardian of the person to whom the care or assistance is being provided
Most of our carers are in fact spouse or partners of the disabled person – a parent, child of the disabled person. I cannot understand why the minister would exclude these categories of people as carers. These are the unsung and unpaid heroes of our society, and we exclude them as not being carers. I do not understand that. At the briefing, I asked for an explanation and it was not clear why you would exclude a spouse or partner, parent or guardian of the person to whom care is being provided.
_____________________
Distinguished Visitor
Ms Julia Gillard MHR
Distinguished Visitor
Ms Julia Gillard MHR
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Greatorex, excuse me. Honourable members I draw your attention to the presence in the ministerial officers gallery of the federal member for Lawler, the opposition spokesperson on health, Ms Julia Gillard. On behalf of all honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
______________________
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, I support the comments of the member for Braitling when she said you create a problem when there is no problem. Sometimes it is a person living in the same home. For some reason only known to Centrelink or others who decide to say that person is the de facto partner when in fact they are not. So let us try to break it up and say that a spouse should be defined as a carer if the spouse is actually providing the care; a de facto partner likewise, or a child or a parent.
The other one is in clause 3(b), which says a person is not a carer because that person:
(b) provides care to a child who has been placed in the care of that person under the Community Welfare Act.
They are carers, whether they be foster parents or otherwise. They are carers.
A child who is a ward of the state is placed in a home that is not his or her own family home. Whether it is a relative of the child or an outside family, they are still carers and they provide a lot of care - in fact more care than most FACS officers can provide themselves, more care than what the parent can provide for the child. That is why the child is in foster care. They should be recognised and their concerns then taken into consideration.
Let us go to the charter and talk about point No 6:
- 6. The views and needs of carers must be taken into account along with the views, needs and best interests of people receiving care when decisions are made that impact on carers and their caring role.
I suppose it is very much the same as point eight, which is about complaints made by carers about services that impact on them and the role of carers must be properly considered. I ask the minister whether officers in her department take the views of carers into consideration because if they did, the complaint by the member for Braitling would not be there, nor the complaints made by many people who help Family and Community Services to look after foster children, wards of the state.
I have in here a litany of complaints and I am sure some of the complainants would welcome the attention of the media who should try to find out from them what their complaints are. When you say the views and needs of carers must be taken into account and when the carer of a ward of the state cannot have any input into the child’s care, cannot have any reasonable dialogue with officers and provide feedback to the officers as to how the child is being taken care of. Remember, the child is not just an average five- or three-year-old. There are many wards of the state who have mental disabilities, physical disabilities and behavioural problems. The foster parents are carers and have to go through a lot of adjustment with the child in their home. They have a lot to contribute to the wellbeing of the child, therefore their input should be valued. They should be listened to. When they try to complain through the relevant authorities, they are not heard.
I say again, I am sure some of the complainants would welcome the media’s attention. If the media is prepared to contact me about it, some of them are prepared to have their names released to the media so that they can be contacted. They will then make their complaints known.
I believe that the exclusion in this clause is not appropriate. I do not understand it so I will be asking the minister in committee why she has excluded them and then we can come to some sense.
Madam Speaker, I said at the outset that the opposition will support this bill. I believe that, in principle, it is good that we recognise our carers, the contribution they make to all of us in the Territory. We should continue to encourage them to do their work in the most respectful and respected manner possible. Yes, we can always plead for more money, and I am sure that our federal colleagues would be drawing the attention of the federal minister to ensure that that does happen.
Mr BURKE (Brennan): Madam Speaker, if I can start by also acknowledging the carers who have made it into the Assembly today - thank you; it is a pleasure to have you in here.
The Northern Territory is the third jurisdiction to introduce carers’ recognition legislation. South Australia and Western Australia, of course, were ahead of us in this area, but not for want of commitment. I am sure the carers here will remember that this was an election commitment of the government and one we are very pleased to be delivering on, and one which, I would also like to say, we are very pleased to have developed in consultation with Carers NT, the peak organisation representing carers. It is important legislation because it is recognition of the valuable work that carers perform.
I have had some personal experience, as I am sure a number of people here have. When I was a teenager, a good friend of mine was involved in a tragic accident. It left my friend with extremely limited mobility, extremely limited control of his arms and no control whatsoever over the lower part of his body. His brother studied the necessary courses interstate in order that he might look after his brother and care for him.
Events such as that have a major impact on family structures, not just immediate family, but extended family. It is important to be trying to provide as much assistance and support for families that find themselves in these situations because it is often from within the family a carer is found.
I recognise the absolute commitment that I know all carers have, whether it is of a family member or not. It takes a special person to give their personal resource in terms of their emotional commitment, not just time, to dedicate to someone else. It is something that I struggle to put into words because it is an extremely generous gift that carers provide.
This bill provides for the inclusion of carers in case management so that their rights to be heard and the needs that they have can be incorporated into care plans of the person who requires that care. Therein is a very tangible recognition of the role that a carer plays in case management. To ignore the rights and needs of a carer in someone else’s care plan, when they are so intimately involved in that person’s life, seems to be missing out on a resource of information and feedback. I am very pleased that the bill before us today incorporates recognition of the carer in the care plan.
I also note that this bill brings into place an appeal process to the Health Complaints Commissioner. In my previous role as a personal injuries solicitor, talking to families of people who have been injured or to the people themselves, a common theme that kept coming back was about the system working against the person who needed care or the people who were involved in the care of that person. I can remember one case in particular of a young baby who had been injured as a result of a motor vehicle accident. The father ended up having to work two jobs just to pay the bills and the cost of treatment. The mother, who was also injured in the accident, had a very limited ability to work but could not exercise even that ability because all of her time was taken up looking after her severely injured young child. To have people like that say: ‘The system is working against us. What can we do? We are struggling,’ has a great impact on one. I should say in relation to that matter, there was a successful outcome after a struggle of some several years. It was great that there was a successful outcome and the life of the family was made a great deal easier.
Coming back to the appeal process for carers to the Health Complaints Commissioner, anything that can make the system better for the people who are accessing it and caught up in it is a great plus. Things can be hard enough without an unresponsive system placing hurdles in your path. That is another key part of this bill, and I encourage all carers to consult your local member or the minister directly and give us feedback on how this bill is operating if it is passed here today, which I am sure it will be.
Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to the Assembly. I hope it brings the great advantages that it is intended to bring.
Ms LAWRIE (Family and Community Services): Madam Speaker, first I want to thank the carers for taking the time out of their busy and demanding life to witness the passage of this legislation. It is purely designed to give them the rights to be heard, rights that should have been recognised for many years.
I will start by responding to the specific queries of the members opposite. The member for Braitling asked why we need the bill. We need the bill because it is not always the case that the views of carers have been taken into account. Carers are often the expert about the person they are caring for. If that person is terminally ill, carers get to understand every aspect of that terminal illness; or if the person they are caring for has a disability, the carers get to understand in intrinsic detail every aspect of that disability. What happens is, in negotiating their pathway through the system of service provision, often the experts ignore what the carer is saying. Now, that could be at a very high level, about their medication needs, about their physical needs, their OT needs, all of those things, or it could be at the level of how best to move a person when they are hospitalised, or how best to move a person when they are attending an activity centre.
This bill says that in law, it is enshrined that the views of the carers must be heard and must be taken into account. If they are not, and if the carer believes they are not, they have recourse to the Health Complaints Commission to put in a formal complaint to address their concerns. In a perfect world, you are right; legislation such as this would not be needed. However, carers are not operating in a perfect world. They are navigating their way through a system which includes government service provision and largely non-government organisations which are funded to provide the services they need. They navigate their way through education systems, a variety of services, transport systems, trying to access aids and equipment, in all of those pathways.
No one puts their hand up when they are born and says: ‘I am going to spend a large portion of my life being a carer’. Carers become carers owing to circumstances in their life, whether they are the parent of a child with a disability or whether they have loved someone enormously and the person they love acquires a disability, acquires a mental illness or becomes aged and frail. It is life circumstances that create a carer. There is no prescribed notebook of how to be a carer and how to navigate your way through what is an incredibly complex system. The amount of service provision and the various agencies that are different and provide services in different ways is an incredibly complex area. Anything the government can do to assist carers in the legitimate role that they provide as carers, to be heard and to be understood and to be taken into account, particularly in the important area of case management plans, we should do.
Member for Braitling, I understand that you have a genuine care for carers, and we share that, but they are not operating in a perfect world. They do need their rights enshrined in law. The experience in both Western Australia and South Australia is that it has brought benefits, it has been beneficial - so much so that the various carers’ organisations across each jurisdiction have been actively lobbying for this legislation across each jurisdiction in Australia.
The member for Arafura was the previous Minister for Family and Community Services who heeded their call and put forward the election commitment of introducing this legislation if we were returned to government in 2005.
Regarding the Centrelink payments, I wish I could stand here and say Centrelink gets it right all the time. We know they do not. I am more than happy as Minister for Family and Community Services to write to Centrelink in regard to this issue. Please feel free to forward the information through to my office and I am more than happy to write to Centrelink to try to rectify what is obviously an absurd take on a caring role. I trust the bona fides of what you have outlined.
The member for Nelson raised some legitimate issues. How will we enforce this? Each government agency will be required in their annual reports to report on how they are adhering to this legislation, just as we will have consistent feedback from the NGOs about how they are adhering to this legislation. If this is not being adhered in any way, carers will raise those concerns. We have a close working relationship with Carers NT. They will be very aware of where people are not adhering to this law, and the Health Complaints Commission ultimately is the recourse for redress.
The public service act was a suggestion of yours; why bother with separate legislation; why not just put these rights in to the public service act? Member for Nelson, the majority of service providers are not public servants. The majority of service providers in this sector are non-government organisations so if we were to simply change the public service act, we would not be capturing the majority of service providers that we need to capture, hence this stand alone legislation.
How will agencies be educated and know about the Charter? The Department of Health and Community Services will proactively embark on a sustained campaign with both government and non-government agencies, which will include written information, website information, and education sessions. This education and awareness campaign will be done in consultation with Carers NT. It is good timing because we have introduced the carer’s concession card, so we can expand our efforts of informing people and making them aware of both initiatives.
The member for Greatorex raised a few issues. He said financial support the government provides for carers could be more generous. I could not agree more. Could you talk to your mates in Canberra, your Liberal mates, because they actually set the level of payments to carers?
Dr Lim: I said that in my comments. I said that.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms LAWRIE: I urge you to join with me in calling for an increase in carers’ payments. That would be a good thing to do. Let the Commonwealth spend some of its $11bn surplus on carers. That would be a good thing to do, so we are in accord on that one, member for Greatorex.
Your concern in regard to Clause 5(3) about the description of who is not a carer, I took you through that in a briefing, and I will take you through that again in detail in Committee. I am more than happy to, but I want to set the context to this. The framing of the legislation means that everyone who is a carer is in. We define those aspects out so that in the case of a spouse, if they are estranged - that is, if they are not the carer any more - they cannot enforce what they would like to see on their estranged partner. So if you are a carer, if you are a spouse or if you are a parent or in a de facto relationship, any of those things, you are in; you are covered by this legislation. If, however, you are a parent estranged from your child, then, no, you cannot impose your will as enshrined by this legislation, or if you are a spouse estranged, then, no, you cannot.
For example, a couple is living together. One of the partners has an accident or acquired a motor neurone disease and degenerated and needed physical care - and this is not an absurd case because it does happen - the strain of caring leads to marital breakdown. For the individual with the disability, the system picks up their care requirements - and we can have another debate at another time as to how adequately that occurs - and the spouse is estranged, but they are not divorced. It would be inappropriate in that scenario to give rights enshrined in this legislation to that estranged spouse, just as if a parent is estranged from their child, or their adult child, if you like.
I can think of a situation I came across when I worked in the disability sector in Victoria: we had a mother who was estranged from her adult disabled son. They completely disagreed on the adult disabled son’s care needs. The mother wanted the son institutionalised and a whole range of things. The adult disabled son did not want any of that and was negotiating his own way through the service system. Now, it would be inappropriate for that estranged parent to be able to impose their will on their estranged disabled son. That is why we have defined within the exclusions those who actually are carers. Yes, they have a relationship, borne of a pre-existing relationship, be it parent, spouse, there was marriage at some stage, there was a de facto partnership at some stage, but they are no longer together, they are estranged. So, in a snapshot, everyone who is a carer, whether they be a parent, a de facto or spouse, member of the family, a friend, they are a carer, they are in and they are covered by this legislation. I urge you not to be mischievous about this, member for Greatorex, I urge you not to create confusion amongst the carers. Carers are covered by this legislation.
You queried why we excluded guardians. Guardians are covered by another item of legislation, the Adult Guardianship Act. Quite appropriately, all their rights and responsibilities are enshrined in other legislation. It would not be appropriate to confuse it and mix it up into this legislation, just as it is the case with foster carers. I wish you had spent as much time in your response on carers as you spent in your response on the child protection system. I am happy to debate the child protection system with you any day, but this is not about the child protection system today. It is not about paid foster carers, who are legitimately defined and enshrined in our Community Welfare Act.
We are working to reform that act, as you know. We have done community-wide consultations on that. There will be a Care and Protection Act coming, which will deal with the rights of foster carers, it will deal with the rights of parents who have had their children removed from them. That is a separate issue; that is not the issue of carers.
This legislation represents a major development for carers across the Northern Territory. As you have heard, we have become only the third jurisdiction in Australia to pass such legislation. The bill seeks to assist formal carers across the Northern Territory by ensuring that their needs and interests are considered by the service providers. Take, for example, a young mother of three children providing ongoing assistance for her husband living with schizophrenia. This legislation means that she can expect to be treated with both respect and dignity by her husband’s case manager. Services will need to consider her own needs for information and assistance, and involve her in the process of the care plan. She can expect to be listened to by services if her husband is unwell and have her role recognised, even when he is doing better. The bill is about setting a legislative standard for informal carers to be acknowledged by our service providers.
We will discuss the definition of a carer and its exclusions in the committee stage of the bill. I have already gone through that. I am proposing a committee stage amendment for clause 5 (1), which seeks to achieve the aims of the bill by bringing all people providing ongoing care and assistance within the scope of the act. This includes carers of people with a disability, chronic illness, mental illness, or who are frail and aged and need assistance. The exclusions that are contained in clause 5 exist to ensure that this legislation retains its primary focus on our informal carers. People employed to provide care are excluded on the grounds that this is a wholly different relationship from that of informal carers supporting their loved ones. The rights and interests of employed people to provide care are industrial matters more appropriately dealt with in that sphere.
While collaboration between service providers should be promoted, there are other mechanisms for achieving joint care planning between service providers. It is not necessary to provide additional legislation to promote shared care planning between providers. People who provide care as volunteers for charity or community organisations are also excluded for similar reasons. This legislation should not treat individuals who volunteer through a charity in the same way as we would treat a husband or a wife who is caring for their spouse. Like paid employees, the interests of volunteers can be represented by the organisation to which they contribute.
The bill also states that a person is not a carer only because they are a spouse or other family member. As I have explained, this is an important protection against vexatious misuse of this legislation to override either the consent of the person being cared for or the interests of other family members who have taken on the primary caring role.
Finally, the bill also excludes foster carers providing care only by virtue, as I have said, that this is dealt with under the Community Welfare Act, which is separate legislation and governs the unique and valuable work of foster parents. It is preferable for this act to stand alone in defining the relationship between foster parents and children in care, rather than overlay this legislation as well. There are already mechanisms to ensure that foster parents’ views, interests and needs are recognised and planned for in the same way that this bill will achieve for our informal carers.
Madam Speaker, I thank all members who have contributed to this debate this morning. It is certainly a privilege to be the minister sponsoring this legislation in parliament. I have a background of caring for people with a disability, of advocating for people with disability, of having worked for the NT Carers. I understand the daily struggles that carers confront, and anything we can do as a government to lighten that burden, we should do and we must do. I support the legislation and propose we go to committee stage.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Clauses 1 to 4 taken together and agreed to.
Clause 5:
Ms LAWRIE: Mr Chairman, if you do not mind, I will move the committee stage amendment first and then we can get into the debate on clause 5.
Mr Chairman, I move amendment 10, that subclauses 1(b) and (c) be omitted and substituted with:
- (b) a person who has a chronic illness including a mental illness as defined in the Mental Health and Related Services Act.
This amendment comes before us to more clearly state that mental illness should be understood as a subset of chronic illness for the purposes of this act. Mr Chairman, I present this amendment at the request of the friends and family of people with a mental illness, NT ARAFMI, who have been very supportive of the legislation. It is recognition that they thought there could be some ambiguity around the recognition of mental illness. This technical amendment defines very clearly the role that carers play for people with a mental illness.
Dr LIM: Mr Chairman, I support the minister on this. We had a discussion at a briefing about this matter. Obviously, mental illness can be in an acute phase or in the well phase; it could be a chronic situation. By combining chronic illness including mental illness into the definition covers the whole gamut of mental illnesses from being well to during periods of being unwell.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr CHAIRMAN: The question is that the clause stand as amended.
Dr LIM: No, I have other issues to raise with clause 5.
Mr CHAIRMAN: We are talking to clause 6.
Ms LAWRIE: Just to clarify, we have not actually moved that it stand as printed. What we have done is we have amended my committee stage clause. We have not moved that it stand as printed, so it provides and allows for the debate between the member for Greatorex, who is the shadow minister, and myself as minister, around the issues he has raised in regard to clause 5. So until you read and we pass that last sentence, we can debate clause 5. It is my desire as minister to allow the debate on clause 5.
Mr CHAIRMAN: Thank you, minister.
Dr LIM: Thank you, Mr Chairman. The minister has suggested that I was mischievous in raising my concerns about a person who is not a carer. I would now like to read in toto clause 5 so that those who are listening and are concerned about the status of who are carers and who are not will understand clearly from the legislation.
Clause 5 reads:
- 5. Who is a carer.
(1) A person is a carer if the person is an individual who provides ongoing care or assistance to:
(a) person who has a disability as defined in the Disability Services Act; or
(b) a person who has a chronic illness including a mental illness as defined in the Mental Health and Related Services Act; or
(c) a person who, because of frailty, requires assistance with the carrying out of everyday tasks; or
(d) a person of a class prescribed by regulation.
Now, 5(2) reads:
- However, a person is not a carer if the person provides the care or assistance:
- (a) under a contract for services or a contract of service; or
(b) in the course of doing community work organised by a community organisation.
(a) is a spouse, de facto partner, parent or guardian of the person to whom the care or assistance is being provided; or
(b) provides care to a child who has been placed in the care of that person under the Community Welfare Act.
I take on board the minister’s comments that in respect of wards of the state, it is a different act altogether, and I accept that, but 3(a) is quite clear.
The minister in her response to the second reading speech talked about an estranged spouse. Nowhere in this bill do you mention ‘estranged spouse’ - not in definitions. Nowhere in this bill does it say that if a spouse is estranged, or a child in fact is estranged from the family, they cannot be considered a carer. I agree with you that I could be the carer of my parent. I have been caring for my parent for many years. In trapezes a sibling and says: ‘I am a sibling. I am a child of the frail person. I am also a carer’. Yes, that person needs to be at least put through a process where they can justify that they do have a caring role. If they do not, maybe they do not then have the right to interfere or intervene with any decision made about the frail person.
In this bill, it is not clear, minister, because if you read it through, it excludes a person because that person is a spouse, de facto partner, parent or guardian. If you say ‘estranged’, then put it in somewhere. I spoke to your officers about that at the briefing and I suggested that the government should bring an amendment to ensure that the definition is clearer. Now, by your words in the second reading speech in reply, you made that clear. Your second reading speech was not clear.
I would like to see it in the legislation so that at a future date we do not have some smart alec lawyer come along and say: ‘No, this man is a carer for his parent’, when in fact he has had no contribution to make during the period of the parent’s frailty. That is an important distinction that you need to make. If you do not make that distinction, then legitimate carers could be excluded in this bill. That would be a tragedy because people spend a lot of their lives caring for their loved ones.
You say that you have been in the care profession before. Heck, I have been a general practitioner for nearly 30 years and I have been in a caring role. I have been in a profession that understands that, too, probably better than you do, however, there is a time for another debate on that matter. Let us not stand here and claim that I am better than you are or you are better than me. Let us talk about the carers and let us make sure that the carers are the ones that we make legislation to protect, and let us make the definition clearer.
Ms LAWRIE: I will step through this again for the member for Greatorex:
5. Who is a carer.
- (1) A person is a carer if the person is an individual who provides ongoing care or assistance to:
(a) person who has a disability as defined in the Disability Services Act; or
(b) a person who has a chronic illness including a mental illness as defined in the Mental Health and Related Services Act; or
(c) a person who has a chronic illness …
(c) a person who has chronic illness, including a mental illness as defined in the Mental Health and Related Services Act; or
(d) a person who, because of frailty, requires assistance with the carrying out of every day tasks; or
(e) a person of class prescribed by regulation.
The exclusions are there because there may be examples where people are married or de facto but do not actually provide the care. One of those scenarios is estranged, but it may be an individual’s choice that they are married, not estranged, but through their individual choice choose not to be a carer, choose not to provide the care. So if we were to use the description of estranged only, we would not capture the variety of scenarios that exist across our society where, quite legitimately, someone has said: ‘I married this person, I love this person, but I only want to be their husband or their wife; I do not want to be their carer’. That happens, member for Greatorex. I have met people in those scenarios. It can happen in de facto relationships, too.
I welcome the fact that you understand our exclusion of foster carers. I hope you understand, similarly, our exclusion of guardians. We have separate legislation that covers guardians. On this point, I will reiterate because of the definitions in clause 5(1), a person who is a carer is covered by this legislation. Anyone who is providing that carer role informally, not paid to do it, but they are doing it out of love, is covered by this legislation, absolutely covered, but if they are not a carer - they might be a spouse, they might be a de facto, estranged or otherwise - they are not covered by this legislation. This is legislation for carers.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6:
Dr LIM: Minister, when you say that all practical measures to ensure organisations and officers will be made aware of the charter, how do you propose to do this? Could you give us a rundown as to what you are going to do?
Ms LAWRIE: Member for Greatorex, we will be providing written information and distributing that to government and non-government agencies. We will provide website information and education sessions, and that work will be done by my agency, the Department of Family and Community Services, which has the Aged and Disability Division, and it will be done in consultation with Carers NT. There will be a public awareness campaign specifically targeting service providers, both government and non-government agencies, to inform them of the legislation, inform them of the rights enshrined in the legislation for carers, inform them of their redress to the Health Complaints Commission so that people are made aware of this, and we will be requiring government agencies to report back within their annual reports about their adherence to this legislation.
Dr LIM: Mr Chairman, I need guidance here because I do not need to go on past clause 6 if I need to ask some questions about the charter itself. Where would I fit those questions into this committee stage?
Mr CHAIRMAN: We will get to that. We will move through the bill.
Ms LAWRIE: Mr Chairman, I am happy to take these questions now so that we can then deal with the bill as a whole.
Mr CHAIRMAN: You wish to speak to Schedule 1?
Dr LIM: Yes, that is correct. Minister, because there are no sanctions within the bill, how do you propose that you will insist that the views and needs of carers will be taken into account, particularly by, say, the public service, whether it be in hospitals or wherever else that a disabled person would go with their carer? If the carer’s views and opinions are not taken note of, what sanction will be placed on the treating facility?
Ms LAWRIE: Member for Greatorex, the redress to the Health Complaints Commission is an important component of this legislation. First of all, in answer to the first part of your question, the requirement for agencies to report in their annual report is a mechanism within government, if you like, for ensuring agencies adhere to the legislation.
Second, in terms of both government and non-government agencies, if a carer feels as though their rights enshrined in this legislation are not being met, they can complain to the Health Complaints Commission, and that can be appropriately dealt with by any decision of the Health Complaints Commission.
There will be publicity around this legislation and the rights that we are providing to carers enshrined in law. There will be the reporting process through our annual reports when it comes to government agencies and, within the normal service agreement, monitoring and evaluation that our agency does on non-government organisations, clearly adherence to this law is part of those discussions. The government’s monitoring role for the non-government service providers includes this law which will be a part of meeting the test of our service agreements.
As well, there is the ultimate sanction, if you like, of taking a matter to the Health Complaints Commission.
Dr LIM: Thank you for the response, minister. That makes it clearer. Will you please confirm for me that the Health Complaints Commission can also deal with NGOs and private providers?
Ms LAWRIE: Yes.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill reported with amendment; report adopted.
Ms LAWRIE (Family and Community Services): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of delegates to the Australasian Parliamentary Educators Conference: from the Commonwealth, Dr Rick Williams; from New South Wales, Mr Graham Spindler and Ms Daniela Georgi; from Norfolk Island, Ms Gaye Evans; from New Zealand, Ms Jodie Willison; from South Australia, is Ms Penny Cavenagh; from Western Australia, Ms Jane Gray; from the ACT, Ms Linzi Lamont; and from the Northern Territory, Ms Raine Calwell, Ms Anna-Maria Socci, Ms Renee Manley and Mrs Jan Sporn. On behalf of all honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: I also advise honourable members of the presence in the gallery of visitors to the parliament who are here as part of the Parliament House public tour program. On behalf of all honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Pass all Stages
Pass all Stages
Mr STIRLING (Racing, Gaming and Licensing): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent the Liquor Amendment Bill 2006 (Serial 63) passing through all stages at this sitting.
It is not the general rule of government to pass bills on urgency. We do so only under exceptional circumstances and I believe the case fits here.
Alcohol-related antisocial behaviour remains the biggest single challenge for us all in the Northern Territory. We have responded in a broad fashion. We have undertaken a range of measures, most of which go to empowering local communities to take action themselves rather than top down from the government. We developed the Alcohol Framework which had many of these measures. We are rewriting the Liquor Act, and we have issued a moratorium on new takeaway licences for the next 12 months. We have put new licence conditions in place in Tennant Creek and Nguiu, and the alcohol permit system at Groote Eylandt. We have established Alcohol Courts in Alice Springs and Darwin and in the last session of parliament, restricted premises provisions were added to the Liquor Act.
In this session, we intend a public restricted areas provision to be further added to the act. These actions have all been in response to calls from the community for further action to address alcohol-related problems in their communities. We are committed to working with communities at the grassroots level on these issues and we want to develop mechanisms that support people in the community to address these alcohol problems. That is why in the last session, the restricted premises declaration provision was added to the Liquor Act and why we want to bring forward the public restricted area provisions this time, because both these measures give the communities, individual community organisations, local councils, further options to deal with unacceptable alcohol-related behaviour.
We do not pretend that any one of these is the silver bullet that will fix it all and put it all behind us. They are a range of measures designed to be complementary and to empower people at the grassroots level. We want to be able to continue to respond as quickly as possible to ensure that our communities are safe places.
In relation to the consultation process, an information paper, The Public Dry Areas Discussion Paper, was placed up on the website on 19 July 2006. The information paper with an invitation to respond was posted to all members of this Assembly, to the Local Government Association of the Northern Territory, the North Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service, Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service, the Law Society, the Council of Social Services, the Australian Hotels Association, and the Liquor Stores Association. It was advertised in the Northern Territory News on 21 July 2006, the Centralian Advocate on 21 July 2006, the Tennant and District Times on 21 July 2006, the Katherine Times on 26 July 2006, and the Arafura Times on 26 July 2006. The closing date for comments on the public dry area information was pushed out from 1 August to 11 August 2006.
Written responses were received from the Darwin and Palmerston City Councils, the Alice Springs Town Council, the Local Government Association of the Northern Territory, the Peoples Alcohol Action Coalition in Alice Springs, and Tangentyere Council. Briefings were provided to the Palmerston City Council, Palmerston business people in a meeting organised by the member for Brennan, and Independent and opposition members of parliament.
We know there are communities, and I will refer to Alice Springs for one, which were actively involved in the visit to Port Augusta to look at dry areas legislation and how it operated there. There has been continued interest in and around further legislation on alcohol measures.
I accept that urgency is not something that governments really want to do, but in this case where we have had it out for about three weeks, we got solid responses in. There is a clear understanding - particularly in Alice Springs, which is the one community that is waiting for this legislation - from council and people who were on that visit to Port Augusta about how this legislation will work.
This is not about declaring great slabs of land dry. It is empowering local communities to take such steps if they so wish. If they did proceed with an application, and it goes to the Licensing Commission, then there is a further process of public hearings where people are invited to make submissions or indeed appear at such a hearing as to whether they think it is a good idea or a bad idea or needs to be amended in some way.
So this is simply the vehicle for further change by local government councils or the Commissioner of Police or indeed the head of the Licensing Commission itself. It is not government moving in an ad hoc rushed way to declare areas itself; it is simply the process by which those three entities ought to be able to apply. I used to rail against urgency in the years I was in opposition if I did not think it was justified - and I never won; I never won any one of those arguments - but I put my arguments and I suppose on balance, the majority of times that the previous government sought urgency, it was probably was justified. I think there were a handful of instances where it probably was not necessary.
I see this one in the sense that if it does not go through these sittings, we are out until October before a community such as Alice Springs is able to process an application under this. Matt Conlan on 8HA today said it is a good idea, it should go through. He is not someone who is prone to say positive things about me or indeed the government, but there is a person in Alice Springs who says it should go through, it is a good idea and we want to see this legislation.
You will not have me quoting Matt Conlan in here on very many occasions, but there is a voice in Alice Springs with a different view, so I just put that on the floor. I am prepared, obviously, to hear people out on this issue, but I think the case is there.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, the minister is asking for the consent of this parliament to permit this matter to be pushed through on urgency. That is a request that will be rejected by the Territory opposition, not because we are opposed to the intent of the legislation, but in the view of the opposition, it is unwise to proceed in this manner because if you want to effect change, which we all desire, change of this nature which comprehensively alters the way we can deal with a problem of concern to all of us, you must have the full support of the community.
In order for the community to provide that full support, minister, it must be understood by the community. For those members of this Chamber who are members of the Substance Abuse Committee, we have visited different places within the community that are dealing with the same issue and, though not directly related to the essence of the act, the issue as explored by the people of Groote Eylandt demonstrate that unless you have the community with complete ownership of every aspect of the plan, you are doomed to fail.
The object of the exercise is to make a noticeable difference to a problem, a social problem that concerns all of us. You need to enlist the cooperative support of members of this community. You can list the places where you have posted information on this matter, but this is a community issue that requires the community to buy into, to discuss, to consider, to own and therefore you then have the capacity to deliver the change desired. By putting it through on urgency, you eliminate that possibility. It is hamstrung from the beginning. If your objective is to create an impression, you will achieve that, but there are members of this Chamber who are more interested in creating a difference and promoting real and sustainable change.
For a community to understand this, they need to have it fully explained. There are members of this parliament who went through a briefing a few days ago, which gave rise to further questions, and answers were provided, but I have spoken with other members, stakeholders within our community across the Territory who have only started to enter this discussion. They are at the stage of throwing up questions. They are at the preliminary stages. They are aware of what you want to do, they understand the intent, they are all aware of the need, but the mechanism is not properly grasped. Until it is grasped, until it is understood, you cannot even articulate or formulate a proper question, as happened in our briefing, before you can come to terms with the mechanics of the legislation.
It is not just a mechanical issue. This is social change. You cannot have social change unless you have ownership from the community, from the stakeholders, from the town councils, from the aldermen, and business owners across every sector of our community need to be involved.
Going back to Groote Eylandt, as members of the Substance Abuse Committee will tell you, they have an excellent solution. However, it did not happen because someone just announced change and then implemented it because they had the weight of numbers; they had the wisdom to walk carefully through that process, with 12 or 13 alterations and adjustments to the mechanism to change the attitude to and the management of alcohol on Groote Eylandt, they went through 12 or 13 different stages until every stakeholder was happy with it. They enlisted full support from every stakeholder, therefore it works.
You are missing that process. Just because you have 19 here, you will not have a voice of dissent across there, they will all chorus in agreement, and whacko, you will have it done. You will create exactly what you want. You will create an impression that you have done something because you need to do that. That is your political issue. You need to create the impression that you are on top of an issue. That perception, created through bullying, through this Chamber, will serve you only to a political end and will leave no satisfaction.
I am interested in long-term change. Members of the opposition are. I know that members across from me also want to see significant, substantial change, as do members on the cross benches. I urge you, minister, to slow it down so that we can ensure the community is taken along. We can bring it back in October, but you take the phone calls. You make the phone calls and ask the questions. You will find that you will not have the community with you. You will achieve your objective. You can push it through. You have the numbers. You can do the things that offended you when you were in opposition. It will be on your conscience. You will settle a political issue, but you will not make any noticeable or long-term change.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I do not believe this bill needs to go through on urgency. I remind the minister and other members of standing orders …
Mr Stirling: It is your community that wants it, Loraine.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mrs BRAHAM: I am sure, minister, you may recall that Standing Order 178 deals with time limits on the passage of bills, and bills should not be read a second time before the lapse of one month from the day on which it was read a first time. The October sittings are in five weeks’ time. It is not as though we have a three month gap in sittings. We are going to be back here in five weeks, and we will all have had a chance to digest exactly what you have.
Standing Order 179 says that you, Madam Speaker, may declare a bill urgent if you are satisfied that the delay of one month could result in hardship being caused. I am not sure what hardship is going to be caused by waiting for a month.
You have had hardship out there for a long time, but you may create more hardship by rushing this through. The trouble is the devil is in the detail. It is not completely understood, and that was obvious at the briefing we had the other day. You have an amendment because of what the Independents raised, something that was incorrect in your bill. Who knows how many more errors are in that bill? We asked for a copy of the Liquor Act with the amendments written into it so we could see it as a whole. What was the answer? You can have it once it has been assented to. We need it now. We need to see exactly where these amendments fit in the Liquor Act. All the members on the other side, you need to know them, too - where they fit and how they affect the entire bill. We do not know. It might be all very well for the minister. He has a team of advisors to go and do it, but obviously sometimes even his advisors miss out on certain points, because they had to go back to the drawing board.
How can we see the effects of these amendments if we do not have the act with these amendments consolidated into it so that we can see the end result?
Minister, I do not believe this is essential; that we need to rush it through. You admitted yourself there was a fairly short consultation time. I do not know exactly what all these words are. Some of them are very minor, but I do not know the effect on the overall act. That is why I would like more time to be able to go through it, read it, and see exactly what is being implemented through the Liquor Act.
The trouble is we are doing these Liquor Act amendments, and you are doing these things piecemeal, bit by bit. We are not getting the whole picture, and this is the trouble. This is what we really should be seeing. I agree that many of the things you have introduced so far have been great, but there are questions.
Nothing in what you have said to date tells me what happens to the two kilometre law and its implementation in any town like Alice, which you keep mentioning, that implements these provisions. You have not told us how this bill will affect places like Special Purpose leases, town camps. If the Alice Springs Town Council goes ahead and tries to impose restrictions right across the town, obviously, the town camps are not going to be included and the drinkers will go to the town camps. There is too much detail missing and this is what concerns me. I really believe we need more time to look at it, to go through it.
Madam Speaker, you have the right to say no if you do not believe it is urgent, because you do not believe that hardship can be caused by it not going through it this stage. I suggest that you seriously think about that because I cannot think of any reason - and the minister has not given me any reason – for hardship that will be caused by this going through ...
Mr Stirling: Your community wants it, Loraine. Alice Springs wants it. Your constituents want it.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mrs BRAHAM: We all want lots of things, minister, but you do not rush in and do it for us. To say ‘Alice Springs wants it’, who is Alice Springs? Who have you been talking to? How many of the population gave you some feedback? How many of the population know what you are talking about? You will find in your three-week consultation period that you had very few people who understood exactly what you are trying to do.
Minister, I say slow down. Slow down; it is not as though five weeks until the next sittings is going to make much difference. It is not as though any major things are going to happen in five weeks. Give us time to go through it and make sure, even now, that we will be able to find all the loopholes in it that we are able to point out the other day.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, this bill is not urgent. It is important, but it is definitely not urgent. It is a pity this government has not even explained to the public why this bill needs to be rushed through. It is an important bill that needs careful debate before it is passed. I pick up on what the Chief Minister said during Question Time when I asked her about why certain bills had not come through parliament. She said it was because we need to give them more time.
This is a bill that restricts people’s rights. As the minister said in his second reading speech, we are successfully walking a fine line between social harmony and ensuring people can have a good night out. That fine line is the very reason this legislation should not be rushed through. The government claims it had widespread consultation with councils and other bodies about this legislation, and that is good, but that consultation was only about the proposed legislation. If councils had seen the actual legislation, would they not have seen the same problems as the Independents saw arising from who could get a permit to drink in a park?
If this legislation had gone through as it is, and a family at, say, Knuckey Lagoon had wanted to have a wedding on the Esplanade - if that were a restricted a public area - with a few wines to toast the happy couple, they would not have been able to secure a permit. Why? Because in the proposed act under clause 89A(1)(a) and (b) it says:
- (1) The Commissioner may, for a public restricted area, grant a permit to any of the following:
(a) an individual who lives or works, or proposes to live or work, in the area;
That would have meant that if you lived in Karama or Alice Springs or Elliott and you did not work in the area of the public restricted place, you could not get a permit to have a few wines.
Lord knows how one would have proved that one ‘proposed’ to live or work in the area. Do you put your hand up and say: ‘I am thinking of living near the Esplanade in 20 years time when I retire’? I mean that is airy fairy stuff. This is a classic example of why the bill should not have been rushed through.
I wonder how many councils or attendees at the public meeting that the member for Brennan organised actually saw this legislation that was introduced into parliament only last Wednesday. They only saw the proposed legislation. Did they know about section 89A? Was that explained to them at the meeting? Were councils or the public told about the ramifications of 89A? I doubt it. Did the minister check out the definition of the word ‘area’? If you read clause 89A, the use of the word ‘area’ seems to mean public restricted area, which would mean that you had to live or work in the restricted area. That would make no sense at all - another example of rushing the bill.
If the Independents can find a few mistakes in just a week, one has to ask how many other mistakes there are. The bill needs more scrutiny.
How much will a permit system, for instance, cost to run? What other practical implications will there be for the Liquor Commission, the police, or the councils? Minister, you mentioned all the people you discussed it with. I do not believe, as is usual with the government, that the Police Association has been asked. It would happen if it was the Miscellaneous Workers Union or the CFMEU or any other union affiliated with the Labor Party, but I do not believe the Police Association was consulted.
You forget our role as parliamentarians. You may claim that you have consulted widely, but where is the opportunity for us on this side of the House to consult with various groups? There is very little. We are part of the parliamentary process, minister. Does the minister now set a precedent that all bills will be passed as urgent because it has had widespread public consultation? Why not get rid of parliament all together and just put advertisements in the paper explaining the bills? That could be classed as consultation.
This urgency motion is a serious matter because of precedence and because of the seriousness of the legislation. Not only is this urgency motion an insult to us on this side, but it is an insult to the people of the Northern Territory. They expect to be consulted properly. That is, the actual legislation, not the proposed legislation. I, as a parliamentarian, expect to be given the normal time to check on the details of the bill.
We only have one House of parliament. We do not have a House of review. That means that we should be more cautious about rushing bills through. This bill is not about trying to thwart a terrorist attack. It is not about something that just fell out of the sky unexpectedly and landed on the government’s head. Drinking problems have been around in the Northern Territory for 30 years or more. As I said before, you have not given a reason to this House why you have regarded this bill as urgent. You have softened the public and media up by saying: ‘We had widespread consultation’. I hope you do that with bills that are not urgent.
One can only surmise why the minister wants to rush this bill through parliament, so I will have a stab. He is in government, he can do what he likes, or the Cabinet told him to do so, or he can say: ‘My government is tough, ruthless and determined’ at the next election, or this is his last day as Minister for Racing, Gaming and Licensing and it would be nice to get this bill through, the swansong before he becomes the minister for sport and red Corvettes. Whatever the mystery reason, it is not good enough.
This bill should not be rushed through. This bill restricts people’s rights, and there may be very good reason for doing that, and that is what we need to debate. However, this bill also restricts my rights as a parliamentarian to properly scrutinise legislation. I want time to see if this legislation is not duplicating legislation that already exists - for instance, the two kilometre law. I want to see if this is impinging too much on people’s rights. I want to see if there are any other mistakes. I know I am not here for my good looks otherwise I would never have even got through the front door of this place, but I am here to try to do a job.
People often say to me: just keep the bastards honest. Well, I am certainly no Don Chipp …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, please withdraw.
Mr WOOD: It was a quotation. All right, Madam Speaker. People say to me just keep the illegitimate children honest. I am certainly no Don Chipp, may he rest in peace, but I will try to make the government stick with what it promised. I will quote from its 2001 election policy on good governance:
- Labor believes that it requires vigilance by the Parliament and the people to ensure that democracy is protected not whittled away.
Also, referring to the previous government:
- Governing in the Northern Territory has become based on entrenchment of power for the Government of the day. Our system is not open, nor is it accountable and democracy is reduced as a result. There is contempt for well-accepted parliamentary procedures used elsewhere in Australia and thorough scrutiny of government decision-making cannot occur.
- Labor’s New Direction on Good Government outlines initiatives that will enhance the functioning of the Northern Territory parliament and provide a framework for the future good governance for all Territorians.”
…
- The primary role of the Legislative Assembly is to make laws for the good of the people. Currently, the progress of legislation is not given the attention and the priority it deserves.
…
We will move quickly to make sure respect for the Parliamentary process…
We will seek to overturn the long held, entrenched processes that do nothing to ensure government openness and accountability.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Madam Speaker, my colleagues are very eloquent. I picked up the standing orders and referred to Standing Order 179 as well. As the member for Braitling said, you, Madam Speaker, have the right to deny this if you so wish.
I listened to the minister carefully when he pleaded his case that this should go through on urgency. He was not convincing. He was not convincing to himself that this bill needs to go through all stages today.
The member for Blain said the opposition supports the intent of the bill today. We think that the dry areas legislation is good. In fact, it is something that we released ourselves a while ago – I think it was April of this year when we released a dry areas proposal, which proposed essentially that a council may ask the Minister for Local Government to have their town declared a dry area, which is encompassed in the bill today.
The minister did not explain why we need to have this haste to push it through today when members have not consulted with their own communities. This new legislation, if it got through, would be placed side-by-side with the so-called two kilometre law. We know how difficult it has been to enforce the two kilometre law. There have not been enough police resources made available for that, so how are you now going to enforce the dry areas legislation?
It is well and good to say: ‘We will put this legislation in place. Town councils and community councils can then apply to the Licensing Commission for areas to be designated as dry areas’, but then who is going to enforce it? That is not clear in this legislation. I assume it has to be the police that will enforce it. If they have not the resources to enforce the two kilometre law, how are they going to do this? Let us give ourselves time to think this through a bit more and find out for sure.
I contacted several councils and they do not yet have their list of public areas organised. They do not know for sure which public areas they want to declare dry. The councils are not ready, so rushing this legislation through today will not help anyone. It will not help to fast-track any dry area to be imposed in communities. Let us give ourselves time and, as the member for Nelson put so eloquently …
Mr Stirling: What? Twenty-seven years. Is that long enough?
Dr LIM: … there are more things that need to be looked at before this bill becomes law. I will not go into the detail of the bill at the moment because I don’t think it is appropriate. This motion is about urgency.
The Labor Party often criticised the Country Liberal Party for being arrogant and forcing legislation through when the numbers were on their side. This minister admitted just a while ago that he railed against that. Well, he should be railing against himself because his intentions to push this through are not clear. He was not convincing in his plea. I suggest he seek defeat of this motion.
Ms CARNEY (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I will be brief. Much of what needs to be said has been said. I was pleased that the member for Nelson referred to the ‘old’ document by the Australian Labor Party about good governance, so I will not repeat what he said.
The Labor of old would not have done this. The Labor of old would have undertaken sufficient consultation. I note, if I heard correctly, the Deputy Chief Minister say: ‘Oh well, it is 27 years and you do not want us to rush’. With respect, Deputy Chief Minister, that is not the point. The point is that after about 30 years, you are proposing a significant change, the spirit of which, I might say, we agree with and, in fact, much of it we proposed as well, but you do yourself a disservice by trying to rush this through on urgency. The government does itself a disservice.
These changes are significant. Does the community generally want them? I think so, but, like any change, you need to take the community with you. Almost every day I see a pretty large ad in the Northern Territory News from the Chief Minister …
Mr Stirling: They do not have to use it if they do not want to.
Ms CARNEY: Deputy Chief Minister I ask that you listen to what I am saying. Almost every day I see a very big ad, no doubt at much expense, with the Chief Minister’s picture on it, about the Census, encouraging, both before and after the Census, for people to get involved and fill out their Census forms. I wonder then, in that context, whether government might consider advertising the bill. We have seen it with other legislation, the Care and Protection of Young People Bill is one example. There have been others where government comes up with proposed legislation, and then farms it out to a lot of people in the Northern Territory.
That is about good governance, and that is about good government. There are forums that government has established in the past. We also know that government encourages Territorians to have a look at the relevant website. In other words, on occasions, to its credit, this government encourages people to get involved and participate. If they have something to say, then their views will be taken on board.
I am genuinely surprised that, notwithstanding the general support I have of the intent of the legislation, having regard to some of the good things government has done when it comes to consulting with Territorians, that this very obviously stands on its own. Why would you not seek broad input on what is a very significant change to the cultural landscape of the Northern Territory? Surely members of government must be asking themselves: ‘Why aren’t we doing it?’ Are these serious issues? Absolutely, and that, more than anything else, I suggest, illustrates why a considered approach needs to be taken. Any politician, especially those in government, I would have thought, would know that when it comes to big changes, it is important to take the people with you.
I know in Alice Springs there has been an alcohol task force. I do not know how many people are on that task force - let us say 15. However, there are many people who do not know anything about this bill. This bill will affect a lot of people in the Northern Territory, and yet this government, mistakenly - and I do believe it is a mistake - and arrogantly is rushing it through. I have said before that this government, in my view, is drunk on its own power. So be it. Is that good? I do not think so. Surely, a considered approach to significant legislation is required.
I imagine the media releases upstairs are all ready to go. The minister may have a bit of a road show planned to talk to people. I ask: is it not a better position to start from when you are asking people what they think as opposed to telling them what they should think?
As a member of parliament with an electorate in Alice Springs, I thought it was very important to put my comments on the Parliamentary Record. I oppose this bill being rushed through. I do not understand why another five weeks could not have gone by. It seems to me that it would have been a great opportunity to consult with so many people in the Northern Territory. Instead, Territorians are going to wake up tomorrow knowing that a bill that affects their lives, about which they know very little, has been passed. In fairness, the government has signalled …
Mr Stirling: It does not affect anyone.
Mr Henderson: Not anyone if they do not want it.
Ms CARNEY: Hang on, hang on; you will have your shot. In fairness, government has signalled some of its changes, but we all know that there is a significant difference between what is contained in our media releases - and in particular, government media releases - and legislation. There are too many examples of that.
Minister, you and your colleagues in government are so arrogant. The fact that you have been muttering throughout my contribution should convince anyone in any doubt that you are a profoundly and inherently arrogant government.
Members interjecting.
Ms CARNEY: Now the member for Wanguri is having a sigh. I might just keep going, Madam Speaker. This is not good government; this is a profoundly arrogant government wanting to have its way, but the process is all wrong.
In opposition, Labor spoke long and loud about processes and transparency. In fact, when Labor got in, it got in pretty much on the line – what was it? - open, honest, transparent government. We do not even hear those words any more from this government. With the departure of the member for Stuart, the remaining social conscience of this government, in my view, is leaving and they will be an even worse government.
Madam Speaker, you and others will observe that my contribution has been measured, provoked, towards the end of it, by the inane, stupid, and profoundly arrogant mutterings of those on the other side; in particular the member for Wanguri. You can look all you like, member for Drysdale. We do not see you having a go or opening your mouth very often during parliamentary debates. If you are not concerned, member for Drysdale …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Ms CARNEY: If you are not concerned, member for Drysdale …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! All comments should be addressed through the Chair, and the Leader of the Opposition, talking about arrogance, should reflect on her own performance.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Leader of the Opposition, I ask you to direct your comments through the Chair.
Ms CARNEY: Madam Speaker, the member for Drysdale contributes very little to this parliament. My hunch is that he is going to be made a minister tomorrow. We will expect significantly more from the member for Drysdale when and if he does become a minister. I have a $1 on him getting a job. It is highly questionable that he would seem indignant about even the right I have to rise to oppose this motion.
The member for Drysdale and his arrogant colleagues can show as much indignity as they like, but they are left with a basic fact: this bill is being rushed through. This bill is being imposed on Territorians and they are not being given an opportunity to see the significance of it. They are not being given an opportunity to ask any questions in relation to it. If that is not blind arrogance, I do not know what is.
For very obvious reasons, this motion should not be supported. Clearly, government has become so arrogant it will not even listen to an alternative view and that says a lot about this government. They used to say they were consulting. Under the Australian Labor Party in 2006, gone are the days of consultation. They are long gone. So Territorians, those who voted for Labor, many of whom no doubt are rueing their decision to do so, now have a government for whom they overwhelmingly voted that is blinded by its own arrogance and drunk on its own power. That is not the democracy that all of us want in the Northern Territory.
Madam Speaker, the motion should not be supported.
Mr HENDERSON (Business and Economic Development): Madam Speaker, I will try not to respond to the offensive parts of the Leader of the Opposition’s comments that go to the content of why we have this bill on urgency. I am astounded that the members, particularly from Central Australia, are seeking to deny the right of this parliament to respond with legislation that goes right to the heart of so much of the …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HENDERSON: … that goes right to the heart of so much of the distress, grief and trauma …
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker! This is an urgency debate. It is not about whether we support the bill. The minister has to defend the urgency of the bill.
Mr HENDERSON: Give me a chance, I just started!
Madam SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Nelson. There has been a fair bit of latitude in the debate. However, minister if you could get to the point, thank you.
Mr HENDERSON: Madam Speaker, if there is not the issue of dealing with antisocial behaviour and the effects that it has on the broader community across the Northern Territory, if this is not urgent, I do not know what is. The issue of excessive alcohol consumption and the impacts that it has at every level of our society, if that is not urgent, I do not know what is. There has been significant …
Mr Wood: Private residence wasn’t hurried. The restricted premises declaration wasn’t hurried through.
Mr HENDERSON: Look, member for Nelson, I listened in silence when you were speaking. I ask you to give me the …
Mr Wood: Yes, all right.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, member for Nelson.
Mr HENDERSON: I do not care. I am a pretty tough sort of bloke. If you rabbit on, I will just talk over the top of you, but I am trying to be considerate here.
There has been extensive consultation with the key stakeholders and my colleague, the minister for licensing, went through that consultation. We received submissions in a number of areas. Essentially, the only comments against the proposal were more that we should be doing more in other areas, particularly in taxation regimes that we do not have power for. That was the People’s Alcohol Action Coalition in Alice Springs.
The Alice Springs Town Council want us to bring this on as soon as possible. For the people who represent electorates in Alice Springs to be saying: ‘Look, this is really important and we support it, but do not do it today, do it in five weeks time’, I cannot believe. ‘We support it, we support the bill’. It would be interesting to see whether they support the bill when we get to debating the bill later this evening. ‘We support the bill, but do not do it now’. It does not make sense.
The Leader of the Opposition was saying that people are going to wake up tomorrow morning and their lives will change dramatically. What a load of nonsense. What a load of absolute nonsense! No one is going to force people to take up the intent and effects of this legislation if the community does not want it. If the community does not want to use these powers, they will not be imposed. The Leader of the Opposition saying that people are going to wake up tomorrow morning and the Territory is going to be a totally different place and people’s rights are going to be restricted and removed is absolute nonsense. The only way this legislation will come in to effect is if a request has been made through a local government council, the Commissioner of Police, or the Director of Licensing. Then there is a whole series of consultation that has to occur, and a series of factors that must be taken in to account, and we will go to those during the debate of the bill …
Mr MILLS: A point of order Madam Speaker. I am listening carefully to be persuaded to the member’s view as to why the urgency - not an explanation of the bill, but why urgency. I am not hearing that argument prosecuted at all.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Blain …
Mr HENDERSON: I am getting – well, maybe I am not …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Are you speaking to the point of order, Leader of Government Business?
Mr Wood: You are defending the bill.
Mr HENDERSON: No, I am not defending the bill. The reason this is being brought through on urgency is that I do not think that we can wait any longer, Madam Speaker.
Members interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: Five weeks gained, Madam Speaker, means that local councils, the Commissioner of Police, the Director of Licensing, wherever we think there is a significant problem, are five weeks closer to tackling the problem. In five weeks, a whole heap of grief can be caused in terms of individuals, the broader community, and the consequences of it.
As the Leader of the Opposition said, she thinks the community supports it. The people I talk to in the community support it. There is no huge leap of policy change here. The notion of dry communities in the Northern Territory has been here for 30 years. People know what dry communities are. It is not some whole new concept which has come from Mars that people need time to think through.
Mr Wood: We need time to scrutinise the bill. We need it.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HENDERSON: The member for Nelson says he needs time to scrutinise the legislation. In the briefing, the Independents picked up a couple of issues, and we have incorporated those in amendments, like any legislation.
Any legislation is open to be amended at any time. Whether we introduce this bill and pass it today or in five weeks time or five years time or in 27 years time, where the opposition did nothing when they were in government, if at any point there are significant issues or unintended consequences as a result of the drafting of this legislation, we will come back and amend it.
The basic premise of giving local community councils, particularly the Alice Springs Town Council, which is red hot and ready to go and has been urging the government to get on with this and pass the legislation, to deny them the opportunity to make applications for …
Mr Mills: Five weeks.
Mr HENDERSON: People say five weeks. What is going to be gained by waiting an extra five weeks? If they support the legislation, let us get in there and give the people of the Northern Territory the opportunity to use it if they so wish. It is not going to be forced on people.
The member for Nelson said it is important, but not urgent. I defend its urgency any day because the grief caused by excessive consumption of alcohol - if there is not one more urgent problem in the Northern Territory than that particular issue, the member for Nelson is living in a different Northern Territory from the one that I am living in.
Mr WOOD: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I find that insulting. The minister knows where I come from at Daly River and how many of the young people I looked after have died from alcohol. This is about process. It is not about my non-concern for people affected by alcohol. I find that offensive.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, I ask you to withdraw the remarks of a personal nature about the member for Nelson.
Mr HENDERSON: I withdraw, and I apologise if I have offended the member for Nelson. He says this is about process. It is not about process; it is about outcomes. It is giving another tool in the kit for our community to deal with the types of grief that he was talking about. It gives us another tool in the kit to deal with these issues. This is not going to be a government tied up in process when the community at large is urging the government to do this.
The member for Nelson asked about the Police Association and what comment they had. The Police Association have had an opportunity to make comment. This has been a public domain debate for quite an extensive period of time. The Cabinet process is that all agencies, including police, have commented on this legislation, and the police obviously support this legislation.
The member for Nelson asked how it works in conjunction with the two kilometre law, well, the two kilometre law stays. The two kilometre law will still apply. We are not repealing the two kilometre law, we are not amending it. The two kilometre law stays.
The member for Greatorex carried on with his usual misinformation about police not enforcing the two kilometre law. I just refer you to …
Dr Lim: I never said that!
Mr HENDERSON: Go back to the Hansard …
Dr Lim interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: I have made a note here: ‘the police do not enforce’. That is the note I wrote down as you were speaking. ‘There are not enough police. It is difficult for them to enforce the two kilometre law. The police don’t enforce it’. I can tell the member for Greatorex that the police find these comments - and they are run by the CLP clique on the Alice Springs Town Council all the time, and I have pulled them up about it - you only have to ask police how much grog they tip out on a shift …
Dr Lim: That’s right, and the mayor is a Labor candidate.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HENDERSON: The member for Greatorex does not like the truth because he would not know if it hit him between the eyes. Police tip out thousands of litres …
Dr Lim interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HENDERSON: The police tip out thousands of litres of alcohol across the Territory on an ongoing basis. For the CLP and their mates on the Alice Springs Town Council to continue to run the lie that the police in Alice Springs do not enforce the two kilometre law because they do not have enough coppers out there is arrant nonsense. People have been told it over and over again, but they choose not to take that into account because it ruins the political line that they are running.
He said there are not enough police. There are a hell of a lot more police out there now than when the CLP was in office.
The issue is that we have consulted extensively with the key stakeholders about this proposed legislation. There is extensive community support for us to bring this legislation in on urgency.
Mrs Braham: We are not arguing about that.
Mr HENDERSON: There is extensive community support. The member for Braitling was arguing that we should defer this for another five weeks to deny Alice Springs Town Council the opportunity to make application to use this legislation when they have called on the government to bring this in as quickly as possible. Given the issues with public alcohol-related offences and behaviour in Alice Springs, for members from Central Australia to argue that this is not urgent, that we should not be doing it on urgency and we should put it through another process where we will all get to the same outcome in five weeks, we will all be sitting in here saying, yes, this is good legislation, it is now time to pass it through the parliament, we are not prepared to waste five weeks. We want to give our community another piece of the tool kit to get on and deal with the issues of alcohol-related harm and grief across our community. It will be interesting to see whether members are going to support the legislation when it is debated later this evening.
Members interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: It is process, process, process. Madam Speaker, there has been extensive consultation. Let us go through the consultation process again. An information paper with an invitation to respond was posted to all members of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly on 19 July, the Local Government Association of the Northern Territory, the North Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service, the Central Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service, the Law Society, the Council of Social Services, Australian Hotels Association, Liquor Stores Association. advertisements in the Northern Territory News, Centralian Advocate, Tennant Creek and District Times, Katherine Times, Arafura Times. How much more consultation do we need?
Members interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: All bar the People’s Alcohol Action Coalition in Alice Springs, who did not disagree that we should do this but thought we should be doing more in other areas, said: ‘Yes, this is a good idea, let us give it a go’. Yet members opposite want to go through another round of consultation, more process, to get to the point where everyone has to say: ‘It is time to bring it on’. This issue, alcohol and the harm caused by alcohol across our community, is debated in here over and over again …
Mr Mills: It is not the issue.
Mr HENDERSON: The member for Blain says it is not the issue ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr HENDERSON: If it is not the issue to give our community the opportunity to access this legislation if they want to …
Mr MILLS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! This is not the issue. The issue is urgency, not the content of the bill.
Mr HENDERSON: That is the point I am getting to, Madam Speaker. The issue is …
Mr Mills: In a clumsy and rude way. It is rude. It is wrong.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order, but if you could keep to the motion, please, minister.
Mr HENDERSON: Absolutely. If the issue is urgency, if we all agree with the bill, if everyone who has been publicly consulted agrees with the legislation, if everybody agrees with the intent of it, if everyone agrees and we all agree it is an urgent issue, then passing it through on urgency is certainly the best way to give effect to the intent of the legislation and give people in our community, particularly our town councils, the opportunity to access this bill if they so choose as quickly as they can. This government is certainly going to be passing this urgency motion because we think this is urgent legislation; it is desired by the community. It has been called for, particularly in Central Australia.
We do not use the urgency provisions very often. I can count on the fingers of one hand in the six years that we have been in government that we have used the urgency provisions of the standing orders. It is not something that we do lightly. We believe in this case in terms of ongoing attempts to tackle the causes and the consequences of alcohol abuse across the Northern Territory, in effecting better outcomes in those areas, passing this bill on urgency tonight is something that the government is going to do.
Mr STIRLING (Racing, Gaming and Licensing): Madam Speaker, I thank members for their comments. I do understand the issues, in the main, put by members opposite with the exception of one to which I want to respond. That was: ‘What will happen if we wait five weeks?’ How many more women get slammed around, raped, assaulted, belted, hospitalised? How many more guys are in there hanging on for their lives because they have overdosed on alcohol yet again? How many more kids …
Members interjecting
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: A point of order, Madam Speaker.
Mr STIRLING: … are belted in their home, thrown out of their house, nowhere to live because of this?
Madam SPEAKER: Minister! Order! What is your point of order?
Mr MILLS: Madam Speaker, I respectfully present to you that is deeply offensive.
Mr Stirling: Well, you asked the question!
Mr MILLS: It is deeply offensive. It has nothing to do with the issue that we are being asked to discuss.
Mr Stirling: Absolutely. Of course, it is the issue. You are going to wait another three months.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr MILLS: It is offensive. I do not believe the member is genuine.
Mr Henderson: He is genuine.
Mr STIRLING: The member for Blain can find it offensive, Madam Speaker but the question was raised: ‘What is the damage done if we wait another five weeks?’ That is what the damage is! How many more drunks locked up? How many weeks - five weeks, eight weeks, 10 weeks - before you decide this is a fit and proper time to pass this bill, before the Alice Springs Council or any other council that wants to anchor on this gets an application through, then the Licensing Commission has to take it through all of their steps? Months! Months!
That is the reality. Every day you delay, another woman gets raped, another woman gets belted, another person dies in hospital, lies on the road, goes to sleep because they are drunk, gets run over …
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order! Order!
Mr STIRLING: That is the reality and that is the strongest case for urgency there is. It is a pity you cannot see it. I move that the motion be put.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Motion agreed to.
WATER EFFICIENCY LABELLING
AND STANDARDS BILL
(Serial 59)
AND STANDARDS BILL
(Serial 59)
Continued from 15 June 2006.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I support the initiative of the Commonwealth and Territory governments. It is a good initiative. I thank the minister for the briefing we received, which was very informative.
I raised a few issues in relation to the application of some of the water saving devices that might be used in the Territory. As you know, some people in the Territory live in areas where they have hard water, especially if they are pumping out of streams. Some of those water saving devices are basically mechanisms to reduce the flow of water.
I hope that there is not a move to remove some water saving devices, for instance shower heads, which can be used in certain places in the Northern Territory simply because you need large holes in shower heads which will not block up from the calcium in the bore water. It is a fact of life. If you have lived on the Daly River, people might have used little hot water systems where you pull the little string and you get hot water on a very cold morning. They clog up very quickly with the bore water and some water from rivers.
Whilst I support what the minister is introducing, I hope there is flexibility enough within the system, even though some of those - for instance shower heads - might be given a no star rating or a one star rating, I hope that does not mean people cannot use them and they go out of production. We have to realise there are different places throughout the Territory. As I said before, I operate from an overhead tank, gravity feed. We do not get much pressure. Some of the water saving devices are not suitable because it takes half an hour to have a shower. I am not sure that achieves the purpose of the device.
It is a case of horses for courses. I hope the government runs an advertising campaign as it would be good to explain to people what it is all about. It is okay, minister; I did have a shower this morning. I did not waste much water, either. In fact, I was in the Power and Water energy saving competition. I think I came about third. We did try to save water.
Mr Kiely: You would save on shampoo, wouldn’t you?
Mr WOOD: Yes! Minister, I would be interested in hearing what sort of education program you will run in the community, especially for Aboriginal communities, because stars on a shower head package are probably not going to mean much to people who live at Yuendumu. It would be good to roll out to those areas what you are doing.
In many communities, not only do you need to be selling the concept of water saving devices, it would be good to make sure that the government is making sure that water is not wasted. I know a special community - I probably have an interest in that community – which has had a toilet cistern leaking since Christmas. I know what needs to be done. It needs to have the insides taken out and the cistern replaced, but it is being looked after by a housing association. In the meantime, it is wasting water and it has been wasting water for nearly eight months. There needs to be a campaign as well to try to reduce wastage of water in some communities, to make sure there is good, ongoing maintenance in those communities. There is no good introducing a water saving device on a shower if the garden tap is dripping continuously.
It is an approach that we need. In certain areas we need to look at it more holistically by saying that we need to save water because water in many parts of the Territory is a scarce resource. A widespread education program - not only in the city but in our remote areas - that people can understand will be very appropriate.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I welcome the minister’s statement. I also thank the Commonwealth for introducing it. We will see how it goes as we go along. If there are any issues, I am sure they can be raised with the department.
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Mr Deputy Speaker, in this day and age when we are so concerned about and aware of the conservation of water it is, in my opinion and I am sure that of my colleagues, important to introduce an efficiency standard.
Consumers are much more aware of the need to conserve water, and with constant talk in the media of global warming, people in general are starting to take more notice and realise that each and every one of us has to take some responsibility for the amount of water we use.
There is no doubt that water usage in other Australian states and territories is very regulated at this time because of the levels of water storage facilities due to ongoing low rainfall and droughts. The increase in population to coastal areas of eastern Australia has placed additional pressure on these supplies.
I attended a conference on Growing Regions in Brisbane late in July, and the water restrictions that are in place throughout the CBD in Brisbane have certainly left their mark on many park areas. Once they were lush and green; they are now brown and dry due to the lack of water and the restrictions that are in place. That is just one area that was so very obvious.
While the Voluntary Water Efficiency Labelling Standards Scheme has been in place since 1988, as with a lot of schemes that are voluntary, there will only ever be a percentage of people who will be conscientious enough to take up the challenge. I guess it is human nature that people do whatever is easiest. Unless there is some serious reason as to why they should comply with a voluntary scheme, most people will wait until that scheme is enforced upon them before they comply. The pace of life is fast for most people and to calculate how much water that lovely new appliance that they are about to purchase will take to operate, it is all too hard and sometimes they cannot be bothered working that out.
The Water Efficiency and Labelling Standards Bill will make provision to provide the information that consumers need when making a decision about a new domestic purchase. If the supplier is compelled to clearly mark the appliance with details of water efficiency, then the consumer can make an informed decision from that information and make a decision about what purchase they will make.
The WEL scheme was implemented on a voluntary basis in July 2005, with a 12-month trial period to enable suppliers to test and register their appliances with a mandatory period for the WEL scheme coming into effect in July 2006. Consumers therefore should be aware that now they have an obligation to ensure that they purchase an efficient product. It is also very important, as with any significant changes that government introduces, that there is an education process for consumers to raise awareness of their obligations to the environment. That educational process can, of course, can be through the trained sales personnel who make consumers aware of the importance of the WEL scheme and also through the media.
One of the challenges that could make water labelling of appliances seem a bit way out there to Northern Territorians, especially those living in the Top End, is that we can be blinded by the fact that we have such high rainfall during our Wet Seasons. Why would people in the Top End even have to think about water consumption when we have billions of litres of water flowing off our roofs into underground drains and out to sea every year?
It always intrigues me: why there are no gutters on domestic dwellings, and where are the rain water tanks that should be installed on house blocks? Why should we have to be restrictive in our household appliances, including showers and toilets, when in even during the Wet Season, during heavy down pours of rain, sprinklers can still be seen pouring out thousands of litres of water unnecessarily? It is double standards, is it not? It is also a very good argument that a lot of community members have put to me. I am sure the minister can see the point that I am making.
All the same minister, I do support this bill for the WEL scheme. It is very important to address water conservation, especially so in the rural, remote and desert regions of the Northern Territory.
I note from the minister’s second reading speech that there have been and are incentives for Alice Springs and the Tennant Creek communities for those purchasing water safety devices, and that is important. I trust that the same incentive applies to remote communities through the Cool Communities program.
Considering the development in the Top End of the Northern Territory, and the additional demands on water resources, I suggest to the minister that she talks to her colleagues about a new dam to supply water to the Top End. The Darwin dam will not be able to sustain future demands for water resources, so I would hope that this government has had the vision to plan for an additional dam to take the water supply well into the future. Adding a metre to the height of the Darwin dam is piecemeal and not going to resolve the issue in the long term.
We certainly have the rainfall here to fill a new dam, so why not capitalise on the abundance of water that we receive every year and prepare well for the future? Water conservation, yes, we need to be very conscious of it and practice it, but we as elected members of parliament also need to be visionary in planning for the future so that there is no doubt about water supplies when we have an abundance of water coming out of our sky every year.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the minister for this legislation, and I support the bill on water efficiency labelling and standards.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thought there might have been some members of government who wanted to speak on this bill because many of them know the problems of water and the conservation of water in, not just Central Australia but, many areas of the Territory.
Yes, of course we will support this bill, but we need to make a few comments. The minister must have a warm, good feeling that she is introducing a bill whose aim is to conserve water by reducing water consumption. The bill is to provide for water efficiency labelling, the making of water efficiency standards and for related purposes. The labelling is going to help us conserve water. Really? I mean, get real.
Already, people when they build houses or whatever they do, are very aware of the products they buy, and if the minister, when she has passed on from this portfolio, looks back and thinks to herself: ‘What have I done to conserve water in the Northern Territory?’, what will she be able to stand up and say? What has she done for communities, for Darwin, for Central Australia? She has introduced the water labelling act, and she introduced the $50 incentive. Perhaps the minister in her summing up can tell us how many people have taken up that incentive, and how many new shower roses have been bought or whatever, with the bonus she gave us before Christmas. How much water does she think she has saved?
I want to ask the minister: is she still shipping drinking water to Yuelamu? That is Mt Allan. I know it has cost Power and Water thousands upon thousands of dollars. This water problem has not been addressed, whereas it could have been addressed by installing water tanks on the homes. I know the water tank issue is something ministers throw their hands in the air about and say: ‘Oh no, they will all die of the germs that we collected in the water tanks from the bird droppings’, regardless of the fact that Australian outback people survived on water tanks for years.
The minister knows there are filters these days that you can add to water tanks, and she knows it is recommended that you put water through the hot water system so you kill any bugs. To say that it could make them ill is crazy. Minister, would it not be good if you could stand back and say: ‘I have been minister for the environment and I have introduced rainwater tanks for every new home built out on the communities’, and ‘For Yuelamu that is suffering from the water supply, I have given subsidies to people in towns’?. It applies to Darwin, not just in Alice Springs. We had some rain in Alice at the beginning of this week. How wonderful if we had water tanks to collect it - and I do have one, minister, so I am doing my bit for water consumption.
What else have you done, minister? You dodge the plastic bag issue; you do not want to have anything to do about banning them. You do not want to do anything about CDL. You keep saying: ‘I have given some money to communities to do this and that’. They are doing things and that is good, but you have not taken on the big issues Territory-wide. So when you step back and look at what you achieved, won’t you be disappointed? Won’t you say: ‘No, I really could have done more’?
Water efficiency labelling is a nice thing to do, but it is not really going to solve the problem of water conservation. It is not going to solve the problem that the water supply in Alice Springs is finite and they are looking for a new bore field because, obviously, the deeper down they go down to collect water, the more it costs.
Minister, yes, we do support this, but why do you not get a bit more creative and come up with some other ideas that will really say that you are reducing water consumption and conserving water? At the end of the day, how much water will this water efficiency labelling act actually save? I doubt whether it will save very much.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage): Mr Deputy Speaker, I have listened to a few responses by the member for Braitling in relation to a number of areas about which I know she is passionate, and she has a lot of input, but I have never heard anything so patronising.
I thank all members because this is important. Whilst it is minor legislation, it is about efficiency and labelling standards. In the Northern Territory, we are a small jurisdiction but we get the benefits of what is happening nationally. It is only one tool, member for Braitling, among a number of other initiatives we need to put in place so we get the benefits …
Mrs Miller: So what are they?
Ms SCRYMGOUR: Hold on, I listened to you, member for Katherine and also the member for Nelson.
Mrs Braham: Tell us what you are going to put in.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: We get the benefits of what is happening nationally. We are not a jurisdiction that imports whitegoods from overseas and we do not have manufacturing businesses. Those businesses are down south. We get the benefits of when those appliances are manufactured down south and they come up, they will have those labelling standards. That can only be a good thing.
I know that both you and the member for Nelson had quite a good briefing by my office to inform you of the scheme, how we are informing the public, how the scheme will replace the voluntary scheme that was in place, and introducing a mandatory water efficiency label on all showers, toilets, domestic washing machines, dishwashers, urinals, and some types of taps. That was all part of the briefing. As I said, because we do not have those manufacturers up here, we will get the benefits of those appliances coming up from those manufacturers down south.
Remember, member for Braitling, this is Commonwealth legislation. This is national, so this is all part of what we are moving towards …
Mrs Braham: I am not against your legislation, minister.
Ms SCRYMGOUR: You were saying: ‘What else are you doing?’ We are doing a lot more than what the previous government was doing.
Let me talk about Cool Communities. In 2006, the Northern Territory government doubled its funding grant to Cool Communities to $100 000 a year. That was a program that simply was not there under the previous government. In 2006, the Darwin program will conduct approximately 50 home energy and water audits in addition to community education events, market stalls, media events and school workshops.
We also have the Environment Grant Program. I know the member for Braitling was belittling that grants program. We get very positive responses from the community, particularly from schools, so we are starting at the school level where our kids in those schools are engaged in those projects, looking at conservation of the environment. It is not just about water.
Some of the environment grants for water conservation issues are: the Alice Springs Home Water Audit, which is under Cool Communities; Enviro Girl; the two Greening Australia projects focusing on water-wise gardening plants and techniques, which is with the Arid Zone; and the book Gardening and Landscaping with Native Plants in the Northern Territory. Then there are all the school projects where we have funded various schools to look at water management, replacing lawns and exotic plants with water-wise native gardens, and sprinklers with drip irrigation systems.
There is the Darwin Harbour water quality initiative which NRETA is currently in the very early stages of developing. The NT WaterWise Rebate Scheme, which we will be launching on 11 September 2006 in Alice Springs, will consist of $50 per household rebate in Alice Springs and Tennant Creek that can be redeemed at one of the seven participating retail outlets. There are five in Alice Springs and two in Tennant Creek. The government is trialling the WaterWise Rebate Scheme, with $50 000 in 2006-07 in preparation for doubling its commitment in 2007-08 and beyond.
Then there is the water efficiency program, which you did mention as did the member for Katherine, about rain water tanks. I would like to draw your attention to the Institute for Sustainable Futures, which has just prepared their draft stage 3 report on the implementation of the water efficiency program for Alice Springs. Some of the details of that report are still being worked through by government and the Power and Water Corporation. I will quickly read a quote:
- It is clear that rainwater tanks have the longest pay back period and are the least efficient way of spending money to save water in Alice Springs.
Part of the work we are doing is targeting high water users, particularly high garden water users, as being a more efficient way to spend money to save water by raising awareness. The Water Management Branch, through its water conservation officers in Alice Springs, is planning some activities and events about awareness of water conservation in Alice Springs during National Water Week, which will run from 15 to 21 October, member for Braitling, if you are interested.
You said that I am introducing minor legislation without looking at all the other areas, but there are a number of initiatives happening. This legislation is complementary to them. As I said, it does not have a huge impact on the Northern Territory. If anything, as a small jurisdiction, we receive the benefits of what is happening nationally.
I thank you, and the members for Katherine and Nelson for your support. The member for Nelson talked about some of the issues in relation to remote communities. There are issues with some of the older appliances out there. That is where better education and working with councils through local government and the work that we do out there with communities, but at the end of the day, indigenous housing organisations certainly will be made aware of those areas.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Natural Resources, Environment and Heritage)(by leave): Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
LIQUOR AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 63)
(Serial 63)
Continued from 23 August 2006.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Mr Deputy Speaker, it looks like all my colleagues have deserted me. I should not say that - I withdraw that.
Minister, I do want to make some comments about the bill. The comments I was making earlier, do not confuse them, were about the process of this parliament and the standing orders. As you know, I am a believer in sticking to standing orders. I believe in the parliamentary process and that is why I keep plugging it.
My difficulty with this bill is being able to read it within the entire Liquor Act framework. It is hard to go from this bill to the Liquor Act to see where it fits and how it reads. We did ask if we could have the Liquor Act with these amendments incorporated so we could see the whole picture; we were informed yes, it is available after the Administrator has given assent, and that was not much good to us.
This is why I find it difficult to read your bill. For instance, the definition of a ‘council area’ for a local government council means the ‘municipality of community government area for the council’. We had a queried whether that includes community councils or councils that fall under the Local Government Act. Perhaps you could clarify whether that is so.
One of the clauses says the Commissioner may delegate his powers to certain members including, say, the CEO of a local council. I take it that is referring to a permit so the CEO of the Alice Springs Town Council can grant a permit, but I would like to know whether the CEO has to go to the Liquor Commission as part of the process, or can they issue these permits without going back to the commission at all? That may be a strange question, but I was trying to read the bill, and I admit I did not get through everything.
The format that your advisory staff gave us in relation to this bill was very helpful, seeing the general restricted areas, public restricted areas and restricted premises declaration - pardon me if I am fumbling, but we have had so many papers on this.
I have been saying for a long time that it would be good if people, particularly in public housing, are able to put up a big sign that says: ‘No alcohol’. Your officers sent me a copy of the sign, which is really clear. I will be interested to see some of those appearing because I think it gets the message through very simply, it is a very good sign. All we need to do is to say to some of our people who have visitors who cause the problems: ‘This sign may help you control your visitors. This sign will allow you to say to them: “You cannot drink alcohol here because the government has put this sign on my house”,’ even if it is not totally true. That sign gives them something to fall back on, and that is good. I will be pleased when we see those signs up.
It may be that Alice Springs Town Council talks about making the town dry. However, the municipality of Alice Springs, if that declaration is made, does not include town camps. As you know, this has been raised on a number of occasions. Will, then, each of the town camps have to apply to become restricted? If they are not part of the municipality because they are special purpose leases, they will not be included in anything the town council does. If they do not go through the process of being granted a restricted area, then grog will flow into the town camps as the police implement this bill and push them off the streets and parks. That is a worry for people in town camps because that is the last thing we want to see happen.
How will the process of covering town camps by this bill occur? Each camp has an association and many of them are managed by the Tangentyere Board. Will there be consultation with the people who are designated residents of the town camps or will it go to their committee? Who will make the decision to have an area declared dry? I cannot glean that from this legislation because it is not spelt out. It has been raised many times by people in Alice. Does it mean the town council is going to declare the Alice Springs municipality dry, and the town camps will be sitting ducks for all the drunks? We hope that is not going to happen. It is a concern.
I have also been asked about tourists. Tourists drive into our town at sunset. They might go down to the Todd River, sit on the bank and have a bottle of beer or a glass of wine. How are we going to get the message through to them, without having big, gaudy signs all around our town, that this is a dry town? I do not want to spoil the image of our town by having big signs that are getting messages through to people who are not the abusers of alcohol. How are we going to do that? Please show some flexibility by saying: ‘This person did not know about this law. We will just tell them this is the law and then ask them not to do it in this spot’. There are many spots around Alice Springs where tourists pull up and perhaps unwittingly, break the law. We need to make sure we do not let that happen. Most of all, we need to ensure the entrance to our town does not have big ugly signs saying ‘No grog’. It is all about education.
Mr Henderson: A can with a red line through it.
Mrs BRAHAM: Yes, I know, but even so, does that mean I cannot drink grog anywhere in that town? You have to be careful how you do it. It is about education.
We talked about the two kilometre law. Will that still be enforced in a town if they become restricted, or does the new law override it? There is nothing to say the Summary Offences Act is overridden if this bill comes into play and an application for a restricted area is made. I do not know whether the bill will need another amendment, minister, or how the two kilometre law will become subordinate law if an application for a restricted area is made. Perhaps you could explain that to me. I am not sure how you are going to get around that.
I am worried that the restricted areas legislation we have at the moment, and we have so much of it in Central Australia, is not working all that well. They call it the ‘green can gate’ at Santa Teresa. They have shade and chairs and tables, and people come to the gate and drink their booze before they go into the community. The ACPO there is pretty good. He says: ‘No, you stay here and sleep’, or ‘Yes, you can go home’. It is still not educating Aboriginal people to drink in the proper way. You should not have to buy a carton and drink the lot at once because you cannot take it home. You should not have to buy a cask of wine and drink it when it is warm all at once because you cannot take it home. I still say that education is the way to go. I do not believe that restricted areas have won the war against alcoholism.
I was going to ask the Police minister how many litres of wine have been confiscated in Central Australia or tipped out in the communities? How many vehicles have been confiscated? How many alcohol-related assaults have occurred on communities? Have restricted areas stopped all that in dry communities or is it still there? It is my understanding that it is still there. Yes, there are some communities where it is good and the alcohol has not taken over, but there are still grog runners. I am sure the member for Macdonnell knows about Ntaria where there often seem to be grog runners. The concept of the ‘green can gate’ is a reaction to the fact that people cannot take their drink home. That is one of the saddest things that we have imposed upon Aboriginal people. I am certainly not saying we should allow carte blanche on communities. I am well aware of the consequences that alcohol has had on Aboriginal lives, but where are people going to go when Alice Springs is declared restricted?
Mr Stirling: No pubs in Alice?
Mrs BRAHAM: Outside of Alice; on the way home. We are going to have more road accidents and more assaults. It is not a solution. Education is a solution and you should know that, minister. Until we teach people to drink with commonsense in a socially acceptable way, no legislation is going to cure it. Your two kilometre law has not stopped it and your restricted areas dry legislation has not stopped it.
I turn to cause and effect. What effect will this legislation have? We know the intent and spirit of it but, when you do restrict people from drinking in these areas, what is the effect? There will be an effect; there will be a consequence of this bill. That, I am afraid, is probably the downside of the legislation because we will need police to police it; families will suffer; and public tenants will have too many visitors who will be abusive. Perhaps, as you say, they will move elsewhere with their liquor. If you could address the consequences of this legislation, it would be good.
This legislation needs to be implemented in cooperation with other service providers. I am thinking about the Night Patrols, ACPOs, the town council wardens, Family and Children’s Services Department and Territory Housing. How are we going to make sure this legislation does not have consequences for them?
The ideal would be that you introduce this legislation, areas would be declared restricted and it will solve the problem, but it is not going to go away; it is not going to be like that. People will still drink. We have seen that. Restrictions have not stopped people from drinking. Restricted hours have not stopped people from drinking. Restriction on the number of litres that you can buy has not stopped people from drinking. Cause and effect, minister, and consequences: where do you see this going? What do you think will be the result of this legislation? Will it be good or bad or will it just create more problems in different areas? We need to be forearmed for the consequences of this bill.
Minister, I did have certain issues to raise, but, to be honest, when I tried to mark places that I wanted to ask you about, it was too complicated. I understand the spirit of your legislation. I do not understand how it is going to work. I do not understand how it is going to fix the problem. I do not understand the consequences of the bill. It worries me that you have brought this in so quickly, in isolation without thinking it through, and without safeguards so that you will end up with another problem.
Mr MILLS (Blain): Mr Deputy Speaker, as stated previously, the Territory opposition supports the intent of this bill. We have a fact sheet called the Dry Areas Proposal which was released by the Territory opposition in April. It sits very well with the thrust of this bill. The arguments that were raised in the previous debate on urgency still hold, nonetheless.
The issue is the practical matters of implementing this change so that it can be sustained and produce the result that we all want to see. By choosing to present a mechanism or a means to address the problem of drinking in public places and in certain residences, we are left now to adjust to the express will of government and it loses the friendliness and cooperation you have if it is done in a manner whereby key stakeholders are included.
I am not speaking from the point of view of preciousness as a parliamentarian, but I speak principally in this respect from the lessons learnt at Groote Eylandt. That was one of the most significant exercises for me, as a parliamentarian, to see how you can have change brought into a community and sustained and strengthened because that community was involved in every aspect of it. If you had taken this approach where the idea seems to be good, says Cabinet, and then you impose it upon a community, and then we start to work it out as we go along, you already have a problem.
There is a group in Palmerston called the Crime Prevention Committee which has been together for a long time and involves very senior stakeholders. The member for Drysdale is a member of that committee, an active member, too. It is a sincere and genuine committee that is interested in the proposition. However, that committee is of the view that they have not had time to properly assess the implications of the bill and how it can perhaps be improved, how it can marry some of the specific needs of that jurisdiction and have them carried through into the bill. If you had that exercise, you would have an immense amount of good will and social capital strengthened just within that community. The member for Drysdale, I am sure, will not be reporting to the minister in this parliament that the committee of which he is a member requests slowing this down so that community can buy in, thereby releasing the social capital which is in fact the necessary ingredient for bringing about sustained social change.
Yes, the intent is fine and supported. Concerns remain, however, about the manner in which government has done this. Passing this legislation now requires an impost upon the good will of members opposite, members of the community, and more broadly, stakeholders, councils, committees, crime prevention committees, who now must adjust to a process that has been ramped up, put in place as government has now shifted from seeking cooperation to telling people what the solution is.
There is an element of care missing from this. That element of care probably cannot be captured in legislation; it is captured in the process and communicated in the time and the care taken. Legislation in its mechanical sense is probably okay. I have not had the time to weigh up all the aspects of it. I really would like to have discussed aspects of this with the Crime Prevention Committee in Palmerston. I am not able to do so now. We now have to work with it. You have presented us with the tool, the machinery, and we will have to work with it. About that, I am disappointed.
I cannot say much more, minister. You have left us now with a situation that we are drawing upon good will to ensure that we put in our best efforts to bring about change to a problem that concerns all of us.
The member for Wanguri read a list of all those who had been consulted, and when you read a list, it can sound quite impressive, but behind that list of groups and names, the true story, if you are honest, would be a little different. I know of one exercise - and credit to the members for Drysdale and Brennan who worked very hard in the CBD to encourage people to come along if they wanted to hear more about this. I know that their efforts were genuine. They were in the business of seeking to tick off the consultation box, but from my reports, there were not that many local people who came to the consultation. So you can tick the box. You have done it, but it may have been a little warning that we need to slow down so that people know what it is that you are talking about, and the Crime Prevention Committee is a case in point.
Anyway, it is your decision. You have the numbers. We will do the best we can to ensure that positive outcomes are achieved which are hopefully far more than political.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Mr Deputy Speaker, at the outset, I apologise for a phrase I used today in the opening debate where I replaced a certain word that Don Chipp used with a phrase about illegitimate children. I might have been too smart by half. It was an inappropriate statement for me to make.
Mr Stirling: Accepted.
Mr WOOD: I was just quoting basically what Don Chipp had once said, alluding to the party’s role of holding the balance of power in the Senate. I apologise for that. Sometimes you say things that you regret after you have had a moment’s peace.
Turning to the Liquor Amendment Bill, there has been much said. I have difficulty supporting this bill not because I do not support the intent of the bill. My problem is that I do not believe that I have had time for proper scrutiny. I feel that I would be doing the wrong thing supporting a bill when I do not believe I have had time for proper scrutiny. So I will not vote on this bill. If I vote against it, people will say: ‘He does not support this’. I have heard said that if you do not support this and the urgency, you are saying you support that Aboriginal people will be beaten up and killed. That is really bad. I do not want to see that happen.
When we had the restricted premises declaration pass through this parliament, it went through the normal process. No one said: ‘We must rush that through because Aboriginal people in public housing could be killed or injured’. I was not arguing anything different from what has happened here before. Surely it would be irresponsible of me to vote on serious legislation where life and death is important.
Mr Stirling: The urgency debate has been had. You questioned relevance before.
Mr WOOD: Yes, I am just pointing out …
Mr Stirling: The urgency debate has been had. You are dealing with the bill.
Mr WOOD: I am just pointing out where I stand …
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! The member for Wanguri was constantly interjected on for failing to refer, in the views of members opposite, to arguments around urgency. Now we are getting urgency, urgency, urgency. I ask you to direct him to the contents of the bill.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, I will rule on the point of order. The Deputy Leader raised a point of order on relevance. There is a degree of latitude here, but I will ask that you confine your remarks to the bill at hand.
Mr WOOD: May I speak to the point of order? I am confining my remarks to the bill. I am explaining why I will not vote on this bill. That is what this is about. I need to give my reasons and my reasons are that there has not been enough scrutiny. I am explaining that on other bills, we have had scrutiny as per the normal process of government. I am giving my reasons why I will not support this bill – not so much not support it, I support the principle behind the bill, but I am abstaining from the vote because I have not had enough time to scrutinise the bill.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Nelson. There is a degree of latitude, but we did have quite a lengthy debate about urgency and you provided a great deal of commentary on your reasons, however, I draw your attention to the legislation. Please proceed.
Mr WOOD: All right. Somewhere in this debate, I have to decide what I will do when it comes to voting on this legislation. I can tell people at the beginning of this debate or I can tell them at the end of this debate. I am saying that I will abstain, not because I do not support the principle, but because I believe such an important bill needs more scrutiny, and I have not had time for scrutiny of this bill. The bill is 22 pages long. It amends various other bills. This bill had mistakes in it, and those mistakes were brought up on Monday, four days before this bill came into being, by the Independents. An important amendment was made. This was within a week of looking at it. We had other bills to do, we had statements to write, we have normal political things to do like anyone else.
The Independents looked at this bill and found that an important amendment was required. Otherwise, quite a few people would have not been able to, for instance, have a wedding on the Esplanade if it is a restricted area. They simply would have been told: ‘You do not live or work, or propose to live or work, or you are an incorporated body or not an incorporated body, who lives or works or proposes to live or work in the area’. That meant people from Katherine who might have wanted to come to Darwin to have a wedding on the Esplanade, who wanted to have some wine, and therefore ask for a permit, would not have been allowed unless the Independents had looked at the bill and suggested an amendment.
That is just one example. Surely that is a good enough example to ask: have we thoroughly scrutinised the bill? A little group of Independents who went to a briefing on Monday found out there was an error. In fact, the government has another amendment, a good amendment, broadening the scope of people who should be taken into account by the Liquor Commission. That is good. The changes the government proposes are good. Does it not alarm you that when you have a bill 21 pages long with amendments to other acts, amendments to this, amendments to that - it is not about my lack of concern for people who will be affected by this bill. It is not. It is about being careful with the process, the same process that we had for the restricted premises declaration. Government passed that through due process, and I am saying the same process should have applied in this case.
That is why I do not believe there has been enough scrutiny, and that is why, in relation to this bill, I do not wish to vote on it. I want to make it clear that it does not mean I do not support the principle.
The minister has said that he has spoken to the community. I do not know how much community consultation was involved. Was it meetings at every place like the member for Drysdale had? Was it a letter? I have worked on councils. They give you a letter. Maybe we will look at it. You know the council process, a meeting on the second Wednesday of the month, the main meeting on the fourth Wednesday of the month. If a letter comes just before the main meeting, you will not see it for another five weeks. It might be just a matter of: ‘Oh, yes, government is passing some information on’. So what? Is that the consultation that is needed here?
Darwin is the biggest centre in the Territory. If Dripstone Beach was a declared area, did people know that was going to happen? Would they be happy about that happening? I am told lots of people go out to the Dripstone cliffs, have a wine and watch the sun go down. Has that part of the community been consulted? You can have the formal consultation, but has the general community been consulted? I do not think so. I have not had people coming up and saying: ‘Gee, this is interesting legislation. I wonder what the council thinks’. I have not had any feedback from our council. I do make the point that, even if the government sent out communications to, say, Litchfield Shire Council, it would have sent out a proposal like a media release saying: ‘This is what we propose to do. Here is a document you can discuss. This is what we want to do’. That is fine and good; I have no problem with that. In the end, it is this bill – these 20-odd pages of legislation - that is here today, not what was discussed out bush. In the end, the little booklet or paper they sent out is not the legislation that we discuss today; it was a discussion paper. This is not a discussion paper; this is the real McCoy. I am not even sure whether this completely mirrors what people were told. I do not know that, and I do not think people do.
Can someone tell me if this legislation was sent to Darwin City Council - this legislation, not a discussion paper? Did this go to Yuendumu and other community groups? Were they told: ‘This is it. Quickly have a look at it and say this is exactly what you agreed to’? Did the Darwin City Council know when they had the discussion paper that people who live in Karama would not be permitted to have a wedding where wine was involved on the Esplanade if the Esplanade is declared a restricted area? That is what this bill said originally. This is the bill now. When the amendments come in, thankfully, we will change it, but did those councils know the bill had that clause in it? I do not think they did. If there is any good argument for asking for more scrutiny of this, it is that. If you can miss a simple point like that, one would argue: what else have you missed?
I did not find the urgency debate the greatest debate in the world. Maybe I am to blame for that as well, but I find it hard to believe that you can be accused of playing with people’s lives on an issue that has been around for 30 years at least. No one did anything 30 years ago. I would be the first to support legislation that will help, but what kind of politician am I if I do not have a chance to scrutinise legislation properly to see exactly what this legislation will do? To be told that I have put lives at risk simply because I wish to scrutinise this properly is a terribly indictment of the government. They are politicking on an issue that does not need politicking ...
Mr Stirling: Who is opposing it?
Mr WOOD: It is not a matter …
Mr Stirling: Who is playing politics here?
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please!
Mr WOOD: I am not playing politics. I am asking …
Mr Stirling: Who is opposing it?
Mr WOOD: Speaking to the interjection …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment. You will direct your remarks to me. I ask the Deputy Chief Minister to cease interjecting and allow the member to speak.
Mr WOOD: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. There is a falsehood in that argument, a total falsehood. Because people support legislation does not mean that it should not come back to parliament for scrutiny. If you accepted that to the nth degree, why have parliament? People elect me to scrutinise bills before this parliament. They do not elect the Darwin City Council as the representative of the Northern Territory. They may represent the people on the Darwin City Council, but they do not represent them when it comes to taking a vote on whether this bill is something that should be passed.
If you want to go down that path of saying: ‘We consulted everybody and they all agreed’, who needs parliament? Go down that path. What a waste! Why do we not have a benevolent dictator who says: ‘This is a good bill. It will help people and they all agree, so I will now pass it’. So much for the Westminster system. Mussolini got the trains to run on time and they all thought that was terrific. They did not have a democracy, but the people wanted their trains to run on time, and they all cheered when they ran on time, but did they have democracy? No, they didn’t, and there is an important principle here.
If you can say the principle of making sure that we have good legislation as in good governance, if you can allow normal scrutiny to apply to a very similar bill - we have three types of restricted areas in the Northern Territory and if you count the two kilometre law, we have four. We have the general restricted area, Aboriginal communities, we all know that. We have the two kilometre law, a restriction on where you can drink in relation to our licensed premises. We have restricted premises declaration where you can stop someone coming into your house with liquor, or a public estate, like a housing estate. That legislation went through this parliament under the normal process. No one screamed it was urgent. It is just as important, possibly more important …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: One moment, member for Nelson. You have had your attention brought to relevance. You are drifting back into that urgency argument. We have dealt with that debate. I ask you to come back to the matter at hand, which is the legislation, and not the matter of urgency which we have already dealt with.
Mr WOOD: I was not. I was speaking to the minister’s interjection.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: That was a long time ago, member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD: He should not have interjected.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: He has not interjected in the last five minutes.
Mr WOOD: I have been in parliament and seen many a politician take an extra 10 minutes when someone interjected, but I am not doing it for that purpose. I am explaining why I think the ...
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Nelson. The point is that you are drifting back into that area of debate not relevant to the legislation.
Mr WOOD: All right. I will just sum up on that bit to say …
Mr WARREN: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! The member for Nelson is showing a little disrespect to the Chair. I ask that he show the appropriate respect.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Goyder. Please continue, member for Nelson.
Mr WOOD: I was simply arguing the case that because something is popular, and because the government says it put it out in the public arena and people agreed with it - and don’t forget, they put out a discussion paper; they did not circulate this legislation. Let’s be very careful. So, if you take that premise, for the next bill we have to consider, let’s put out a discussion paper. All right, speed limits for the Stuart Highway. So …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker! You have requested on a number of occasions that the member speak to the content of the bill. We are now back to hypothetical areas in regard to speeding legislation and the urgency debate. I urge you to remind the honourable member to get back to debating the content of this legislation.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, I appreciate your passion. You have made the point in previous arguments about urgency. I draw your attention to relevance and ask that you to speak to the legislation and finalise your remarks.
Mr WOOD: I am actually speaking about a process that this bill is going through that the minister said was not …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Nelson, the process that you are talking about is urgency and that is not what we are talking about. We are talking about the legislation.
Mr WOOD: Mr Deputy Speaker, the bill is an important bill. I find it difficult to say that because I disagree with the way the government has treated this bill – I have great difficulty with this. Surely processes and how this bill will affect others and what sort of consultation the government undertook is part of this bill. The government argued in its second reading that they had consultation. Now they are arguing, because they had that consultation, we need to pass it today. That is fair enough, surely, to talk about. It was in the second reading, which is what this bill is based on. All I am saying is that just because you have consultation, just because you think people support it, it does not negate proper scrutiny.
I will sum up, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will not get extra repetitive. It is a sad day for such important legislation to go through here, to be laughed at because you simply ask for the proper process of government to occur. That shows that this is about passing legislation to say to people: ‘Look what we did’. The end does not justify the means and unfortunately this process is about that. The end does not justify the means. You will get what you want but I do not think you should be proud of it.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Deputy Speaker, my sympathies go with the member for Nelson. He is a man of honour; he tried to explain himself as to why he found it difficult to support the bill. The opposition has already said that in principle, we support the bill. In fact in April of this year, we released a policy saying that we would like to see dry areas legislation across the Territory, which will enable local government to then apply to the Licensing Commission to designate areas as alcohol free.
I have tried to engage with the detail of the legislation over the last few days. I thank the minister in the first instance for releasing the documents early. I attempted to read it and try to understand it. I am not a lawyer and it is not easy for a non-lawyer to read these papers where amendments refer to the principal act and, unless you have the full act in front of you to cross-reference one to the other, it is well nigh impossible to fully understand.
Going back to the minister’s second reading speech and some papers that I have received help me understand what the bill is about. Obviously, it is about creating an environment where local government, the Police Commissioner or his delegate and the Director of Licensing are able to declare areas under this legislation. Because it is hard to understand the detail, one needs to be a bit cautious about how supportive one can be.
I would like to see it happen in Alice Springs because the two kilometre law has failed to a large degree to prevent public drinking of alcohol. It is not that the police are not doing their work; I believe they do the best they can. It is difficult, and I have seen it with my own eyes: a police officer or two officers will go down into the Todd River in the paddy wagon, confront some people who are drinking and tip out what alcohol they can see - what is buried under the sand they do not know unless they accidentally kick the cask or whatever it is. If they do not see the alcohol that is buried, that alcohol is left alone. When the paddy wagon drives off, the people in the river bed go to their hidden cache, pull out the cans or the cask and go back to drinking again. It is very difficult to enforce the two kilometre law unless you have enough police on the beat regularly, one following the other, literally, to make sure that people do not abuse alcohol in public.
Police resources are not adequate. That is not just my word; it is the word of police officers who have spoken to me privately. You have heard the police union saying publicly that police resources are not adequate. Now we are going to have more legislation, which is going to be passed today, irrespective whether members on this side of the House plead for more time to consider it, and will be sitting side-by-side with the two kilometre law.
The legislation will be passed and assented to, and then councils and other interested bodies and individuals will then apply to the Licensing Commission to declare the areas that they want as dry areas. I assume that those councils, whether they be municipal or community councils, will consult with their local community, whether it be the municipality of Darwin, Palmerston, Alice Springs, you name it. I assume that those councils will consult with the community and find out from the community whether the areas that they suggest are the areas that are appropriate to be declared dry. After the consultation, I assume that the councils will then write to the Licensing Commission with a request that these are the areas that the Licensing Commission should declare dry. The Licensing Commission will then have to advertise the application in much the same way as doing as a Development Consent Authority type application. Perhaps a sign will be posted on the site so that people are aware an application has been made to declare it a dry area.
I assume, after a reasonable period of advertising, that there will be a hearing where the public can turn up to voice their support or objection to declaring that area dry. The Licensing Commission has to make a decision after that. How long that will take - well, how long is a piece of string? I do not know. It will take a while, of course. What happens after that? Okay, an area is declared dry. Now it comes down to the police, according to this three-page document I have here. It says:
- Who enforces the restricted area laws? Northern Territory Police.
I ask the question: if the police are under-resourced now and are struggling to enforce the two kilometre law as well as they would like to see it enforced, where are they going to find the resources to then enforce this law? Now, that is the $64 000 question. Where are they going to get the resources to enforce this law? Or is the government going to say: ‘We have given you the law. Councils, you are on your own. You have your own council rangers, officers or inspectors to do that’. That is going to create a lot of conflict between community governments, local governments, the police and, through them, the government. The second reading speech does not tell me what the government proposes to do, except in a blanket statement which says the police will enforce it. If the two kilometre law is not now adequately enforced, I question how well this legislation will be enforced.
Then we come to the section where the minister says if a person is apprehended for breaching this legislation, there will be up to a $500 fine. The member for Braitling asked what happens if a tourist comes into town and breaches the law. I assume that at the entry to each community that has dry areas, there will be a large enough sign to tell people, much like signs as people are approaching in a northerly direction to Darwin on the Stuart Highway there is a sign that says 110 km limit or a 50 km limit in the suburbs. Maybe there would be a sign such as that at the entry point in each of the regional centres so that people are aware, and at the airports perhaps, railway stations, so that these people who come to town are aware.
Let us say somebody comes into town, whether they are from the bush or on The Ghan or on an aeroplane, and they breach the law. I assume in the first instance a police officer who sees that breach would advise the person that this is not on and they cannot do that in this area, ask them to desist and that will be it. If that person continues to breach the law, I assume they will be arrested and there will be a fine. The question is: are we able to get the fine paid? That is a big question. If you are an habitual drinker, if you are an alcoholic, a drunk, and you drink in public places regularly and you get picked up regularly, what happens? Are you going to clog up the courts to try to recover this $500 per fine. It is not clear in the second reading speech, nor in the legislation.
I am not going to talk about putting this off or inviting defeat or deferring the legislation because that will fall on deaf ears. The member for Nelson made a very compelling case, asking for his position to be understood and respected. We have legislation that needs a bit of time.
We have a problem now with the two kilometre law and this law side-by-side, and a lack of police resources to enforce it. I have spoken to some of the councils, and they have told me they do not have their areas worked out yet. They have not consulted their own community about what areas they are going to declare dry. So even if this legislation was assented to tomorrow, nothing will happen. For the minister to get up - and I do not know who he yelled at earlier – and say that people will die because of the alcohol abuse is a little far fetched. This law, even if it is assented to tomorrow, would not be implemented in a practical way for several weeks to several months. In fact, if you waited - and I know I am drifting into the issue of urgency – these five weeks until the next sittings, the councils could be in the consultation phase with their own communities so that, when the law is assented to, the councils would be ready to apply immediately and due process takes place. You would not have lost any time at all and you would have satisfied a lot more people. This legislation could be taken out to all interested parties for proper consultation.
Minister, I said that we have given cautious support for this legislation. Alice Springs probably was one of the first municipal councils to push hard for it. The aldermen and the mayor were the ones who were convinced to go down to Port Augusta to study what happened there. I understand that you were there with them and, when you came back, you were initially a bit circumspect about the whole matter; that you were not entirely convinced that it was the right thing to do. You have become the sponsor of this, well and good. There is still divided opinion within the council itself about whether this is the right thing to do. That debate in the council has yet to occur fully. If there was division within the council and the council, for some reason or other, decided not to go with it, then what is this for? This rush …
Mr Stirling: It is for the whole of the Territory, not just for Alice Springs. It is for other communities as well.
Dr LIM: Therefore, this rush may appear to be quite unnecessary. Another minister, the member for Wanguri, accused the CLP clique within the town council for frustrating things. They have not. In fact, some of them supported this idea and travelled with the mayor to Port Augusta to have a look. For the member for Wanguri to get up and slag into respected members of the Alice Springs community who are elected by the people to be on the town council is most unnecessary.
The cautious support is there, minister, and …
Mr Stirling: Thank you for that.
Dr LIM: … you can take heart from that. There are many items that we are not sure about. The member for Nelson has raised many of the issues that he was concerned about, and I support him. He makes a lot of good sense. If there is anything else I can say, it is that maybe you ought to, at least if not publicly, then privately go to the member for Nelson and apologise to him for accusing him of deeds that he had never ever …
Mr Stirling: I never accused him of anything.
Dr LIM: … something that he would never have thought …
Mr Stirling: He owes me an apology.
Dr LIM: He deserves an apology. He deserves an apology.
Members interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Members interjecting.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!
Dr LIM: The member for Nelson deserves an apology. I feel terribly sorry for what he felt. I think he was very hurt. It is most unnecessary for our debates to descend to the level of personalities.
Mr STIRLING (Racing, Gaming and Licensing): Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank members for their contributions. I thank the support, albeit cautious, from the member for Greatorex. When he talked about those very words, cautious support, I am taken all the way back to the early 1990s with former Chief Minister, Marshall Perron, and his first foray into Living with Alcohol approaches, some of which were eminently effective over those years. He said: ‘We don’t think this is the answer to everything, but we are going to give it a go, and if it needs amending we will bring it back and we will amend it at the next parliament. If it needs amending beyond that, we will bring it back to parliament after that’. That always struck me as a very commonsense approach and something he did do. Unfortunately, after the former Chief Minister left parliament, the eye was off the ball when it comes to the former government and alcohol.
In relation to the member for Nelson, is he the only member in here who thinks he has a conscience? Is he the only one who can afford to be self righteous when it comes to friends and acquaintances and people who have died? People who went on the election campaign trail with me in October 1990 are no longer living. They are no longer living because they succumbed to the ravages of alcohol over those years - people who were in their early 40s, about an average age for indigenous people to die. He thinks he is the only person in this Chamber who goes to Aboriginal funerals for people who die from alcohol abuse. Well, I have a thing to tell him: every rural member in this Chamber attends funerals on a regular basis, many of them as a result of the ravages of alcohol abuse.
He has the hide to stand in here and be offended by what I said to him. I have to tell him other members in this House have a conscience. Other members in this House go to Aboriginal funerals for people who have died from alcohol and he sits there and says: ‘Don’t pick on me, I am offended’. The member for Blain, another self-righteous little contributor here, the same thing, although in his case he has probably never been to an indigenous funeral in his life, let alone the very many that each of us on this side of the House have attended for people who could not control their alcohol intakes.
So if I get a bit emotional, Mr Deputy Speaker, I make no apology for that. If anyone is owed an apology in here it is me: from the member for Blain for referring to me as a bully; and from the self-righteous member for Nelson who thinks he is the only one affected by these things in our communities when we live with it on a daily basis, all of the members on the rural side. I am looking at the member for Macdonnell. I am looking at the member for Stuart, the member for Barkly - all of us. The member for Arnhem is going to get used to it and she is going to have to toughen up the way we have over those years because she will be out there going to funeral after funeral after funeral as well. So I make no apology. That is the attitude I bring to this …
Mrs BRAHAM: A point of order. Mr Deputy Speaker! I thought the minister was supposed to be responding to the second reading speech, not making personal attacks on members of the House who do feel offended by his remarks and his screaming. Mr Deputy Speaker, I think you should also pull up the minister for the screaming at members on the other side seeing you pull us up many times. The minister should be aware that some people do have feelings.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, member for Braitling. I do not think there is any standing order against volume, but the minister is commenting on the statement made by other members …
Mrs Braham: No, he was making personal attacks on people.
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: There is no point of order. Please continue.
Mr STIRLING: I am responding to comments that were made both in the former debate about urgency and the second reading speech. I was told I had to apologise. It is in fact me who is due apologies from that side of the House. I am simply responding to that, member for Braitling, and if you take offence, so be it. I am responding to comments made earlier in the debate.
In relation to the comments made by the member for Braitling, I share a view with her when it comes to amendment bills and the difficulty of setting them up and the effect overall. In all my years in opposition, it used to be much harder. These days, you can simply go to the computer and pull off a copy of the Liquor Act in its entirety, and you can be confident that that is, as amended, up to date. In the old days, when we were in the Leader of the Opposition’s office, before we had that facility, you used to have to go and get the act from the back shelf, dust it off, probably it had not been looked at in five years, depending on how often the bill was amended, and it may well be out of date, which again complicated the process of picking up the amendment bill - which you still can do, of course - going from that clause to the clause in the bill, deleting, physically writing out where it says ‘omit’, scrub it out of the bill, write in the new words. Of course, the new sections are easy. It is just cut and paste. Where it says ‘add new Section 86’, or ‘86D’ or whatever, you add it on. It is not an easy task. I do not pretend it is, but that is the process in order to make sense of any amending legislation, whatever its nature.
Whilst I share that concern, the best way to do it is to physically go through the amendment yourself, and you could never do that with the old hard copies because they had to wait to be amended by office staff further down the track when the amendment had gone through the process.
The delegation to the CEO of council was raised by the member for Braitling. Let us take the example of Alice Springs. It has been used as an example often enough tonight. If the Alice Springs Council were to apply to the commission for delegation in relation to the Chief Executive Officer having the ability - we have to assume that the whole process has been gone through and the place declared dry, and your son wants to get married at the Telegraph Station. The council could apply to the commission for delegation to the CEO of the council so that they do not have to go back to the commission every single time to issue a permit, so it is a standing delegation in that respect.
On town camps, I have notes on how the town camp situation would work. Abbotts Camp, you would know, applied under the general dry areas legislation. That is the other point about this bill; this is not a new concept. It has been around 30 years in relation to rural and remote communities. Abbotts Camp has already gone that way under general dry areas legislation. How would they fit in? Any lease arrangements would need to be investigated on a case-by-case basis to determine whether the camp is public or private. Some town camps have formal tenure through lease arrangements and some do not. If there is a lease, generally town camps are private premises so only the owner or occupier can make an application, but the legislation does provide a mechanism so that some types of private premises may be able to be covered in a public declaration where it is appropriate, and I have given an example here of the town footy oval in Nhulunbuy. It is covered under the town lease.
On the issue of tourists and public signage, arterial roads could be covered. I share your concern about great garish road signs. We have enough signage around the Territory as it is now. Nonetheless, the legislation calls for clearly visible public signage and that would be, I imagine, depending on the area – and, again, we are assuming that Alice Springs Council does apply; that is not clear from the comments from the member for Greatorex. If they did and it was approved, depending on the nature of the dry area, how big it is, whether you would have arterial road signage in and out of Alice, or whether you would just have it on the particular parts that were declared dry is an issue between, I guess, Alice Springs Council and the licensing commission in order to ensure that the act is complied with in relation to signage.
The public restricted areas provisions do not replace the two kilometre law at all. Police will continue to enforce that, but what the public restricted areas provision does is give police a range of options, more discretion in relation to this type of behaviour and how they deal with it in places where a public restricted area has been declared.
Cause and effect is the key to this. The question was raised by the member for Braitling, and it is the same with anything that is done in this area because you are dealing with social behaviour, you are dealing with human behaviour. As soon as there is one action, there is a reaction further down, and we saw that in Alice Springs when a particular product was banned some years ago, and there was a substitution to a product of an even higher alcohol content, which meant people got more sick more quickly and, in fact, very much sicker than they were on the previous products. So, over a period of time, there was an adverse effect in relation to the banning of that product at that time.
It is incumbent on councils, the licensing commission and police to follow very closely the effects coming from this legislation. The first area that the member for Braitling pointed to, and there would be no surprise, I suppose, is if this type of behaviour was to go into the town camps and the situation become worse. Of course, town camps have the ability to declare themselves dry. If they did, what then becomes of drinking in Alice Springs? There are always licensed premises. There are licensed premises in Alice Springs, there are licensed premises in every urban area in Darwin. If people choose to drink their alcohol in licensed premises, at least they are in premises where their behaviour is regulated, and they cannot continue to drink if they are at a point of intoxication. There are safety measures in place when drinking within a licensed premises that simply do not exist in the long grass, over the sand dunes, or anywhere out in the public area.
These are the effects that everyone will have to be vigilant about and look for in a way, I would suggest, that perhaps was not happening in the situation in Port Augusta, where a group of us travelled earlier this year. I thank the member for Braitling for her comments because overall, there is support for the legislation from her, albeit a few questions.
The member for Blain quoted the Groote Eylandt example as a very good outcome and, in terms of its sustainability, now over 12 months on, but said there is a difference between that legislation and this legislation because the Groote Eylandt situation was worked through with community consultation and community input, whereas this is legislation being imposed. What is being imposed on the public, member for Blain? What is being imposed? This is a vehicle. This is a piece of machinery that local government councils can use to have a part of their local council area or, in fact, all of the area that they control, the public areas they control, declared dry. Where is the imposition on a council to do it? Where is the imposition on anyone to do anything under this legislation? The actions required to make this legislation effective are entirely voluntary. They are entirely voluntary so there is no imposition on the public at all, member for Blain.
You will say that six days is not long enough to read the bill, in which case you have a problem. It is simply a further tool that local communities can apply if they are faced with intractable alcohol-fuelled social problems such as we see. No imposition, voluntary usage, and if the process is adhered to and an application is made, it will be robustly tested by the licensing commission through public hearings all of the way through to ensure that it has public support. Why would they do that? Because the licensing commission knows that measures such as these are only going to work with community support as, indeed, the member for Blain himself agreed is the case in Groote, where it has been supported by the community to great effect. The same thing will occur here. So, there is no imposition.
To refer to the legislation as an insult, as he did, I find that pretty appalling. This is legislation that, in fact, communities have been waiting for. Dry areas, as I made the point, have been in place for 30 years in the Northern Territory, and it is an application of a concept that has been around for 30 years, albeit applied to rural and remote indigenous communities to good effect. Now there is the ability to apply it to urban areas. It is not a new idea. It is not revolutionary. It is not an imposition on communities.
My favourite contribution, of course, was the member for Nelson, who said nothing about the bill at all, but railed against the case for urgency and repeated that in his second reading contribution. The member for Nelson is provided with research assistance by this parliament. I just wonder what is made of that research assistance, with six days – seven days, in fact - to get across legislation that is not all that complicated. It is easy for the member for Nelson to sit on the fence and say: ‘Really, I do support this bill. I think I support this bill, but I cannot bring myself to vote for it’. That is the luxury of Independents. Where would parliament and legislators be if they all decided to sit on the fence and say: ‘I cannot support this legislation; I cannot bring myself to vote for this’ and exercised that little self-indulgent luxury? In all of that debate from the member for Nelson, there was not one question - not one question - about the bill itself; simply that it should not be done today.
I picked up some of the issues that the member for Greatorex raised. You made the same comment as the member for Braitling in reading amendment bills. For those of us who are not lawyers, it is not an easy task; it is something I had to get used to many years ago. As I said, it is made easier today with electronic info-tech equipment where you can simply push a button, drop a copy and know that it is up to date and that the amendments have not been left to slide. It is necessary, of course, to drop a copy of the principal act and try to fit the amendment bill against it.
It is the member for Greatorex’s view that the police are under-resourced. That is not the view of the Police Commissioner, the government or the minister for Police. Police have had considerable resourcing improvements since we came to government. Some of it, of course, was made even more urgent by the fact that the former government had a recruitment freeze in place for some time. However, we do not see it as an issue. It has not been put as an issue to us.
The member for Greatorex did ask about process and what occurs. I will add this because it might give the member for Greatorex more understanding: how would the public restricted area law be enforced? It will give police, as I said, that flexibility and range of tools in order to address antisocial behaviour in public restricted areas. They can, depending on the circumstances they are faced with, in the first place seize any alcohol and give a contravention notice and a warning that the behaviour should not continue.
The contravention notice would be a notice to the effect that the person wanted to challenge that they were not, in fact, breaking the law, they could put their claim in court in relation to the confiscated alcohol. In the second place, they could seize the alcohol and go on to serve an infringement notice, which is effectively an on-the-spot fine. The person would then have to pay the infringement notice fine, up to $100, or elect to have the matter dealt with by a court. In the third place, seize the alcohol and take the person to court. The court can impose a maximum fine of $500. In Darwin and Alice Springs, the court can also refer a person to the Alcohol Court where a Prohibition Order may be made. A Prohibition Order can restrict a person’s access to alcohol or prohibit a person drinking alcohol and require the person to undertake treatment for alcohol dependency. The public restricted areas provisions do not replace the two kilometre law, which police will continue to enforce. What the public restricted areas provision does is give police that range of options as to how they deal with instances of alcohol-related antisocial behaviour in places where a public restricted area has been declared.
One of the most visible traits with police officers, if they have been around for a while, is their ability to apply commonsense because it is something they learn very quickly. If they want to get through their job, and are doing a difficult job day by day, they become used to applying discretion where they can and loads of commonsense with it. It would seem to me that the police officers in this situation who have any experience or any commonsense at all will go through an educative …
Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER: Minister, you have one minute left.
Ms LAWRIE: Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the minister be granted an extension of time in order that he may complete his remarks.
Motion agreed to.
Mr STIRLING: Mr Deputy Speaker, I thank the House for allowing me to continue. I will finish up.
Police officers will have that discretion applied with commonsense. Generally, police officers in a community like Nhulunbuy and even Alice Springs, are going to know pretty well the bulk of the offenders who are repeat offenders, and they would go through an educative process of saying: ‘I am tipping out your grog today, but if I spot you here tomorrow, you could be up for a fine’, and generally up the ante on these people until the lesson gets through in the same way that people have learnt the lesson about the two kilometre law.
The Port Augusta police said to us when we were down there earlier this year that they know when they have come across a group of Northern Territory itinerant drinkers because they start tipping out the grog before the police even get to them. That is because they have been educated about the two kilometre law. The same process will occur here. I imagine we will see a continued application of the two kilometre law, at least in the initial stages until person A or person X is such a problem that they are going to find themselves, hopefully, down that route to an Alcohol Court where a Prohibition Order can be made or the person required to undertake treatment for alcohol dependency. They are two actions that simply cannot occur under the two kilometre law, so it seriously strengthens the ability to make meaningful interventions into these people’s lives and hopefully, in some cases, turn those otherwise sad and very much wasted lives into much better ones for them and everyone else.
Mr Deputy Speaker, the two amendments were the only substantive part of the bill the member for Nelson spoke to. I am looking at proposed section 86D. These are the matters that the commission must take into account. They include information about the consumption of liquor in or near the relevant area, instance of crime in or near the area and the views of any of the following in relation to the application: an individual who lives or works or proposes to live or work in the area; a body that has or proposes to have an address in the area; each local government council mentioned in relation to the area; the police force; an agency or any other authorities established by law of the Territory. And we add (v):
- anyone else whom the Commission considers to have an interest in the area.
That is a broad, and intended to be very inclusive, amendment so that no one is ruled out from having an opportunity to put their views on an application before the commission. The amendment is healthy and by being inclusive, leads to a much stronger process.
In relation to clause 20, standing at amendment 11.2, the proposed section 89A(1):
- The Commission may for a public restricted area grant a permit for any of the following:
(a) an individual lives or works or proposes to live or work in the area; and
This amendment deletes (a) and (b) and simply inserts:
- The Commission may grant a permit for a public restricted area to an individual or body (whether incorporated or not).
I understand that amendment arose out of a briefing between officers of Racing, Gaming and Licensing and alcohol policy and the Independents, and I think the member for Blain was there as well. I thank the members for their input into that. I thank RGL for coming back with these committee stage amendments, which not only serve to strengthen the bill; I think the bill would have been unworkable or very difficult without the second amendment.
It was a robust debate in and around whether this bill should proceed on urgency. I make the final point that government does not do it lightly and will not in the future ever take this parliament for granted in relation to urgency, but we do know that there is strong interest in this legislation. There were views that it ought to proceed on urgency, that it had, albeit within a short time, consultation before those who are waiting for this legislation and, in the words of Marshall Perron, if there are flaws, if there are deficiencies, if it can be strengthened and improved, we will do it and we will amend it every sittings if necessary, as we will with all of the legislative tools that we are bringing to bear on antisocial behaviour as a result of alcohol abuse. You have to move with it to stay on top of it. I am not embarrassed by these committee stage amendments. I am glad that they were raised and we have had the opportunity to correct them before the bill goes through.
With those comments, Mr Deputy Speaker, I understand we will go into committee, but I ask all members to support the bill.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
In committee:
Clauses 1 to 15 taken together and agreed to.
Clause 16:
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 11.1.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 17 to 19 taken together and agreed to.
Clause 20:
Mr STIRLING: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 11.2.
Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Bill reported; report adopted.
Mr STIRLING (Racing, Gaming and Licensing): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Telecommunications
Dr BURNS (Communications): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise today to inform the House of recent activities and achievements within the Territory’s telecommunications sector.
Following statements made by the Prime Minister last week, we know we are faced with a fully-privatised telecoms environment. Canberra’s decision to dump $8bn worth of Telstra shares on to the market makes this hybrid privatisation an almost irreversible decision. Outcomes will now be based on commercial decisions made in the interests of Telstra shareholders. While this ultimately will be good news for long-suffering shareholders, it is a sad day for Territorians, especially those living in remote areas.
The major concern is that market conditions here are simply not conducive to any of the benefits that might be attributed to the privatisation of Telstra. Our circumstances highlight the contradictions between the Prime Minister’s ideologically driven desire to achieve full privatisation and the practical application of providing services to remote and rural areas.
Members ought to note that during these entire proceedings, the CLP’s recently endorsed senator, Mr Nigel Scullion, has been missing in action. Although Senator Scullion could have influenced the decision to benefit Territorians, he has instead chosen to toe the party line and the National Party line at that. He is, after all, the National Party Whip.
It is worth noting the recent media commentary about the rushed sale. The Australian of 28 August 2006, in an article headlined Fury over Telstra shareholder polling, indicates that the sale of Telstra has become urgent as a result of Telstra commissioning the Liberal Party’s pollsters to mount a campaign among shareholders. The Financial Times of 28 August 2006 predicts a further decline in share prices after the 4% loss in the preceding week, with investors concerned by the overhang created by so many Telstra shares being parked in the Commonwealth’s future fund.
Newspaper editorials variously describe the federal government’s decision as a fiasco, a fire sale and a job half done, all of this because the government does not want to sell shares in an election year. The federal government’s decision is bad for existing shareholders, bad for customers, bad for taxpayers in general, and bad for Territorians in particular.
Once again, the needs of Territorians are being ignored in favour of the Prime Minister’s political ideology and ambition. The fire sale known as T3 adds further impetus to the arguments for securing the telecommunication needs of the Territory. It is now essential that our telecom requirements are met before the introduction of the cut-throat world that comes with full privatisation. In an environment where commercial decisions will dictate decision-making, it is highly unlikely that Northern Territory needs and requirements will be supported.
As members of this Assembly will be aware, this time last year the Martin government made representations to the federal government seeking funding for improved telecommunication services for all Territorians. I moved a motion in this parliament seeking support for funding the Territory’s needs, as established by the analysis of the consultants ACIL Tasman. In the 12 months since then, we have heard nothing reasonable in response from the CLP. The Howard government allocated $3.1bn under the Connect Australia package and Future Fund to ensure the passage of the bill for the sale of Telstra through both Houses of federal parliament. The $3.1bn is committed funding and is not dependent on the sale of Telstra.
Connect Australia and the Future Fund now form the Australian government’s singular response to the funding of all telecom initiatives. It is clear from our numerous communications with the Commonwealth and its responsible agency, the Department of Communications, Information, Technology and the Arts, that no other funding is available for telecom initiatives. This means that the Northern Territory will compete with other jurisdictions for funding for critical telecommunications infrastructure, services and support. Those other jurisdictions will not be as disadvantaged by a deregulated environment as the Northern Territory.
The telecom needs of the Territory are extensive, as well as being significantly more expensive because of the distances involved and the presence of limited competition. The success of the Territory in competing for funding depends on our capacity to fight to be heard. In terms of telecommunications, the Northern Territory is already the most disadvantaged jurisdiction in Australia. Territorians living in remote communities do not have access to adequate infrastructure for either business or personal communications. These people, comprising around a quarter of our growing population, are the ones who would benefit most from accessing broadband services at metropolitan prices, allowing them to participate in interactive distance learning, receive competitive financial and business services, and take part in an economic environment that is broader than the boundaries of their community. If the Australian government simply emphasises the immediate sustainability without looking to the future where sustainability might be achieved in five to 10 years, then these remote communities will miss out.
I have been continually impressing on the federal Minister for Communications, Information and the Arts, Senator Coonan, the Territory’s telecommunications needs. On 22 March this year, I met with Senator Coonan and stressed the core elements of the Territory’s case; namely, first, bringing a 110 remote indigenous communities up to an urban parity with basic broadband and mobile services; and, second, bringing the Territory up to parity with all other jurisdictions by building a competitive interstate back-haul transmission capability into the Territory. Senator Coonan indicated the Territory’s requirements are closely in line with the intent of the Connect Australia program. The Territory government will raise these issues once again with Senator Coonan’s office at the Online and Communications Council in Canberra next month.
We are working hard to ensure that the Northern Territory does benefit beyond the per capita rate of funding so that the necessary infrastructure and services can be delivered to these remote areas. The Department of Corporate and Information Services is working closely with Telstra Country Wide, the Local Government Association of the Northern Territory, and major commercial organisations to ensure that the Territory’s needs are presented to the Australian government as conspicuously as possible.
DCIS, in close consultation with Telstra Country Wide, has placed an expression of interest under the Broadband Connect program of the Connect Australia package for infrastructure to provide broadband and mobile telephony services to 60 remote communities. LGANT has also lodged an expression of interest for the support of online access centres in 45 remote communities. DCIS consulted closely with LGANT and provided much of the work and the model central to the expression of interest.
I am also aware that the commercial sector has demonstrated considerable interest in putting expressions of interest to the Australian government to deal with the back-haul of telecommunications traffic. These large pipes are the central component for all telecom carriers. In October last year, I referred to the need for a competitive interstate fibre cable link to ensure the long-term economic health of the Territory telecom sector, and to provide consumers with expanded choices at competitive pricing.
I will now take a moment to reflect on some activity in the telecommunications sector over the past 12 months. As this Assembly is aware, the contract with Telstra to provide all government agencies with their telecommunications needs has now been in place for some 12 months. As a result of the contract, we have seen 56 new sites connected to the government-wide area network, allowing agencies to access more timely and relevant information to better support their communities. The bandwidth available to the agencies, which is the size of the telecommunication pipe, has been improved by a factor of eight at no additional cost. This provides agencies with significantly faster access to the Internet and business systems. In addition, 150 jobs have been created in the Territory as a result of Telstra’s new call centre located in Darwin.
Six months ago, DCIS let a contract for the provision of government desktop computing services to Fujitsu, strongly supported by locally grown company, Connected Solutions Group better known as CSG. As I mentioned in my Ministerial Report on 13 June, as part of that contract with government, Fujitsu and CSG have introduced visits to communities to proactively maintain computer and other equipment in government agencies. This program has been under way now for some eight weeks and, by all accounts, is being received in a very positive way by staff in those communities. In the final quarter this year, these visits will provide support to community members and organisations at no charge other than the cost of parts and equipments. Ensuring that the computers are working also means greater Internet participation. This is a very positive outcome for our remote communities.
Over the past 12 months we have seen the programmed roll out of mobile phone services to remote communities that were funded under the previous Australian government program. In these 12 months, there have been an additional 10 mobile sites activated, bringing the total number of communities able to access mobile services to 43. This is a substantial increase since 2001 when only Darwin and the major regional centres - that is, six sites including Yulara and Jabiru - were able to use mobile services. Given that pre-paid mobiles are a product of choice for remote communities where the service is available, there is still a long way to go before we can say the majority of our remote communities have the product they want.
It cannot have escaped members’ attention that Telstra is converting its GSM and CDMA mobile services to the new and more capable 3G GSM technology. This commercial decision from Telstra will provide the same coverage but reduce costs to Telstra by reducing their maintenance and running costs. Users will need to buy a new handset for this new technology, but that handset will work everywhere Telstra has mobile services. The 3G GSM network is scheduled to be turned on in the first half of 2007.
I am sure that members have heard of Telstra’s recent announcement that it will not proceed with its Fibre to Node project. This would have provided a substantial increase in the capacity of broadband services provided to households, enough to deliver movies, videos and other speed intensive services. This initiative was the subject of significant negotiation and debate between Telstra and the ACCC. While the project was predominantly aimed at the eastern seaboard where the population density is highest, the decision to shelve it may affect the Territory in the longer term.
Certainly, Telstra’s national pricing policy for an initiative such as Fibre to the Home has affected the new Darwin residential development in Lyons. It would appear that Telstra has priced the Fibre to the Home offerings nationally and at a price point that is not acceptable to the Lyons developers. In the case of Lyons, the developers have called for tenders for a solution for the necessary infrastructure capable of serving the community into the future and able to provide the highest capacity broadband services today. This is far short of the Smart Homes proposal that was initially intended for Lyons, and that I spoke of in October last year.
In an economic environment when new housing is in high demand, the developers have made an economic decision that it is unnecessary to differentiate their product with additional features at the cost required. I am, however, hopeful that we will facilitate the delivery of state-of-the-art technology to such suburbs in the new future.
In the debate on telecommunications this time last year, demand for ADSL broadband services was raised. I am pleased to inform this Assembly that a significant number of localities now have access to ADSL. The RAAF Base at Tindal is now connected, as is Darwin RAAF Base. Access for the Darwin RAAF Base can largely be attributed to the persistent efforts of the member for Millner on behalf of his constituents.
Bayview Haven, Tipperary Waters, The Narrows, the trade zone and Howard Springs and the outer metro area all now have access. Humpty Doo is to be commissioned by the end of August, which should greatly please the member for Goyder. There are still some gaps in coverage in Darwin and Palmerston, in particular Robertson Barracks where families want to keep in contact with loved ones posted abroad.
At a recent Community Cabinet meeting at Groote Eylandt, residents made direct representations to government about slow response times they are experiencing. I am sure the member for Arnhem will be taking up their cause with the same vigour that the member for Millner has done with his constituents.
The major regional communities such as Alice Springs, Nhulunbuy, Jabiru and Yulara all have ADSL services. Work will now begin on extending the coverage into our smaller communities.
It is through the good work of DCIS officers and others that a focus on regional and remote telecommunications in the Territory has been so evident. As I said earlier, the Territory will be represented at the Online Communications Council next month. On the agenda are two topics that have special significance for Territorians. First, the Connect Australia program is extremely important for the Territory, and I will be reiterating the Territory’s position as forcefully as possible. The other significant agenda item is the Broadband Blueprint. This strategic document is intended to replace existing National Broadband Strategy. It is Senator Coonan’s view, one with which we concur, that the National Broadband Strategy needs revitalising in light of the rapidly and continually changing telecommunications environment. My aim is to ensure that the strategy focuses on the more remote areas of Australia. People who live in these areas must be adequately recognised in the blueprint.
The Territory simply must be an integral part of the Australian broadband competitive network so we can participate on an equal footing with the rest of Australia as part of the strategy. I can assure this Assembly that my department and I will continue to fight for the Territory’s right to telecommunications services that are on a par with the rest of Australia.
I take this opportunity to invite those members opposite to support the Northern Territory government in seeking its fair share of Commonwealth funds available to address our telecommunication needs. CLP support would demonstrate that its members are prepared to stick up for the Territory rather than following the lead of the federal CLP members and becoming servants of the federal government.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Deputy Speaker, unfortunately we are a bit rushed tonight, knowing that we had other arrangements for more than an hour ago.
I will take the minister’s last comments first, that he seeks members opposite, particularly the Country Liberal Party, to support him in his bid in Canberra. Never could it be said that the CLP does not support as many resources as possible from the Commonwealth government for the Territory to support all Territorians. With that principle, I have no problems at all in supporting any government who will deliver for the Northern Territory, but let me say this statement is the ALP Northern Territory branch doing what its Canberra masters have ordered it to do: get stuck into Telstra, get stuck into John Howard about the T3 sale.
Dr Burns: I did not mention him once.
Dr LIM: That is what it is all about. Nothing about needs; he is just regurgitating what he told us in this Chamber some 10 months ago, October last year, when he tried to make a bid for a quarter of a billion dollars from the federal government. No wonder they laughed him out of Canberra. No wonder, when he asked for such a ridiculous amount from the federal government with very little justification.
Yes, people living in remote areas of the Territory deserve to have as many facilities that we have in the urban areas, but if the minister wants to talk about parity of services across the Northern Territory, but only for services that can be delivered by the federal government, he is being a little cute.
Would he also plead for parity across the Territory on services that the Northern Territory government delivers? Take the petrol crisis alone. The disparity between petrol prices between Alice Springs and Darwin is something like 10 cents. Will the Northern Territory government, under this minister for communications who is also minister for transport, guarantee parity of petrol price across the Territory? Of course he would not. For him to say, on the one hand, the Commonwealth has to deliver parity for everyone in the Territory, and not doing his own bit when he is a minister of the government is highly unfair.
He said: ‘Telstra is going to be sold off, we are going to have troubles, there is going to be a share price drop’. Did you see the papers this morning, minister? In fact, the Telstra price went up four cents overnight. So it is not in trouble. The minister laughs, so the minister’s …
Dr Burns: Four cents!
Dr LIM: … whole statement …
Dr Burns: What did they start at?
Dr LIM: … you know, is an error.
I have looked at the papers, I will wait until tomorrow morning to see what the price has done today, but I understand, according to the economic pundits, that Telstra prices are going up so, there you go. The reality is that the minister’s statement quotes incorrect information, not that I want to labour the point.
We were in another forum talking about sticking to our statements and, in your statement, minister, you were to congratulate the member for Nelson, and you did not.
Dr Burns: A typo.
Dr LIM: A typo! Oh, I see. You did not bring a piece of paper into the Chamber here to correct it.
You talk about the perfect government that it is going to give us all these facilities, but you do very little to try to get it yourself. Remember some 10 months ago, in October, we talked about what you have delivered or not delivered for the Territory in terms of communications. I told you that Education and Health failed to apply to the Commonwealth government when it had lots of money to provide for increased bandwidth into remote Northern Territory. It was only the police that did it, and that was the department that got the funding. Nobody else did because your department, minister, failed to apply for the funding, and it was actually being chased by both local industry personalities as well as federal officers to seek applications from your department, and you did not react to it in time and thus you lost out.
Let us come back again to trying to roll out stuff across the Territory. Is it not your colleague sitting next to you, the member for Stuart, who said, and I quote from his comments made on 19 October last year:
- … it is not a case of picking up the appliance and saying: ‘Right, let us give one to every Territorian’. You have to look at a combination of the technologies impacting on the different areas of the Territory and we want to have access to the huge benefits that they can provide.
Jumping one sentence, he then said:
- Ultimately, the marketplace generally decides where the technology is going…
You cannot just get up and say: ‘Okay Commonwealth government, give us this $0.75bn and we are going to spread it out right across the Territory. You cannot do that, and you know full well that what you just said was intellectually dishonest. For a man who is supposedly an intellect, a PhD, I would expect some sort of honesty out of that.
Halfway through your statement, you suddenly swung into saying: ‘Look at me, look at all the wonderful things we have delivered for the Territory’. You talked about new sites getting Broadband, more mobile phone sites being activated and a substantial increase since 2001. Suddenly, Telstra has delivered for you all these services that you said they were not going to deliver. You are being inconsistent, minister, and you need to be intellectually honest when you say: ‘I have a problem with communications in the Territory. I believe the Commonwealth should deliver’. When you say that, I will support you, but when you start knocking it for not giving you things when, in fact, it has, because you yourself admit that they have delivered for the Territory, then you are being dishonest.
Let us go back a little to when we said that your departments were slow in reacting, that they did not apply. I do not know why. The industry was pushing your departments very hard to make sure that Health and Education, in particular, applied for federal funding. Why they did not do it, no one knows.
This time around, the federal government is going to commit a fair bit of money. It is something like $1.1bn over the next four years for Connect Australia: $878m for Broadband Connect to provide all Australians with affordable broadband services; $150m for Clever Networks to roll out new broadband networks for innovative applications and infrastructure to improve the delivery of health, education and other essential services; and $90m for backing indigenous ability to deliver a comprehensive package addressing phones, Internet and video conferencing in remote indigenous communities, and improved indigenous radio and television.
You have to get your act together and make sure that you get yourself in the ballpark and apply for these funds. Do not expect the Commonwealth government come to you and say: ‘Here is the money, do what you want’. No way in the world are they going to do that. Make sure that you are awake, that your applications are in, and that you seek strong support from our four federal members in parliament to lobby and support your case. Put your case together. If you do not, do not expect to get anything out of it. You know that Broadband Connect will see sustainable, open, stable broadband infrastructure beyond just the metropolitan areas. It is going to go across regional and rural areas as well. Let us put our bid in, and I will support you on that.
No one in the country would deny that remote Australia needs to be connected because this is one of the best ways we can possibly get all the services that we now enjoy in our urban areas out into the remote areas. If Education and Health, particularly health education and education itself can be delivered, mostly it is going to do people a lot of good. Under the Clever Networks program, $150m I said would be dedicated to this for regional areas to improve the delivery of health, education and other essential services. It will be directed towards higher speed advanced networks and applications targeting health clinics, emergency services, schools, training colleges, including homesteads, distance learning and for universities.
I believe the Commonwealth will be looking towards the Territory government to at least match funds with it so if you want a lot of money, for every $1 you spend, you will get at least another $1 from the Commonwealth and that will be worthwhile. Put your money where your mouth is - do not go around saying: ‘Give me, give me, give me’, because you will not get it if you do it that way.
As regards the Mobile Connect program, I said before $30m will be available. That money is dedicated to smaller regional communities along highways where the governments can put in a case to demonstrate that an area is a worthwhile and strategic location to locate the mobile facility. If you can do that, I am sure you will get a better spread of services across the Territory.
As for the $90m for Backing Indigenous Ability, that program will target the deficiencies in telecommunications in remote indigenous communities. The program will provide community phones to hundreds of remote communities, upgrade and support a public Internet access point, and replace ageing and unreliable radio infrastructure.
When the minister was talking about what CSG has done since it had the contract, providing an aerial service out in the bush, I thought it was a very good move by CSG to do that. I have said before that if you give someone who has no technical knowledge about computers a computer, as long as the computer works, everything is fine. However, the day the computer refuses to boot up, that computer becomes a dirty old door stop. That is all it is. Unless you have some ability to maintain the computer, then giving a computer to someone is a pointless exercise. Now with this aerial service that CSG has introduced and will be moving into the bush on a regular basis to maintain the computers and other associated infrastructure, it will be good for the communities because then the computers will continue to work, the expertise that is required to maintain them will be brought in without cost to them, and will ensure that they will be able to continue to use the communication tools without any bother in a very seamless way.
Minister, I said if you want the CLP to support you when you seek funding from the Commonwealth government, be reasonable about it, but also demonstrate that while you want the Commonwealth government to demonstrate parity for the Territory with other states and territories, you should demonstrate that you are prepared to do that yourself, that you provide parity across the Territory. I know there is disparity in power, water, but show it to me food prices, show it to me in petrol prices. If you can do that, then this government is genuinely trying to do something for all of us. It is not just because it is someone else’s money. You can ask for it as much as you like, but if it is your own money, no, you will not spend it.
When you spoke about Telstra delivering 150 jobs into the Territory; it is not entirely accurate, is it? When Telstra got the contract, many of the 150 jobs were actually jobs migrated from the previous contractor to the new contractor. So it has not delivered 150 new jobs. This is not what you actually said, but the implication was there. You know: ‘Look at me. With this new contract we deliver 150 new jobs. Aren’t we clever?’ Well, it is not 150 new jobs. I know that. You know that. Again, I say be intellectually honest when you make such statements, otherwise you lose credibility.
On the issue of the contract with new service providers, with Telstra, Fujitsu and CSG, your department was very up-front in what a fantastic job it has done: ‘We have saved the government a lot of money. This contract has cost us a lot less for a lot more services’, but day by day, as the contract goes on, we start to uncover all the hidden costs. The classic one, and I mention it because it applies to us in this Chamber, with the old contract, members of the Legislative Assembly and the staff were provided with so called VIP support, and for that there was only something like a $6 charge per month. I recently found out that for us now, if we are going to have the same level of VIP support, we will be charged $7 a day – a day. Now, imagine 25 members of parliament with 25 electorate offices at $7 a day each. We are talking about thousands of dollars extra that this parliament will incur. That is not built into the contract. So if you were to add all this variation to the price of the contract, suddenly you will see that the price that you awarded, which is supposed to be cheaper than the last one, is starting to blow out. That is a worry that we should not be too proud to boast too much that you have done such a good job.
When you talk about the residential development at Lyons and that the Fibre to the Home project is now not going to deliver fibre optic cabling to residences in that development, I believe the member for Nelson asked some 12 months ago why should government provide this sort of infrastructure when normally it would be the developer who provides that infrastructure and then sells his subdivision to recoup the cost that he incurred. I remember in the early 1980s when the Desert Springs Estate in Alice Springs, that is the golf course area, had fibre optic cable connected to every block of land. It was paid for by the developer and he recouped his cost from people who bought the blocks of land from him. That is the normal course of events.
The Commonwealth government or Telstra did not renege on any deal; this is something that really should be at cost to a developer and if the developer is refusing to pay for it, why should any agency, Telstra or anyone else, have to pay for it? I do not believe that that is correct.
I come back to the praises that you have sung about how Telstra has delivered many ADSL connections across the Territory, including in urban areas such as the Air Force residential area, whether it be due to the efforts of the member for Millner or whether there are efforts made by every member of parliament, lobbying companies like Telstra to deliver ADSL connection is a moot point. We all do our bit to ensure that our electorates have the service that we need, and well and good for that. The member for Nelson contributed his efforts to delivering it to the Humpty Doo area, and he ought to be recognised. It was definitely not a typo, as you intimated in your earlier interjection.
Minister, if you want the CLP to support you in bidding for more funding for the Northern Territory, you need to do it in an intellectually honest manner. Senator Nigel Scullion has worked very hard with his federal colleagues. He has obviously a direct entre with Minister Coonan, and has lobbied her fairly intensively to ensure that funds do come to the Territory, but you have to do your part. You have to make sure that you are aware of what projects are on stream and that you make sure that your department applies for those funds so that at least they have something to consider. If they do not, then they cannot.
To finish, because I know you are all waiting, there were words attributed to me by the member for Wanguri who said I uttered words which in fact were words uttered by the member for Stuart. I just want to put on record that they were the words I repeated from the member for Stuart and Hansard will now have it on record that that is what he said and not what I said.
Debate adjourned.
SPECIAL ADJOURNMENT
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly at its rising adjourn until Tuesday, 10 October 2006 at 10 am or such other time and/or date as may be set by Madam Speaker pursuant to Sessional Order.
Motion agreed to.
ADJOURNMENT
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
____________________
Visitors
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Stuart, before I call you, honourable members I draw your attention to the presence in the gallery of ministerial staff of the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General and the Minister for Health, member for Stuart, and departmental staff from both of those portfolio areas. On behalf of all honourable members, I extend to you a very warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: I also extend a very warm welcome to Mrs Thea Toyne. I hope you have a wonderful retirement with the Attorney-General.
Members: Hear, hear!
____________________
Dr TOYNE (Stuart): Madam Speaker, the time has come for me to leave this House. Members will be aware that it is on medical advice and, I guess, to summarise, the cumulative effects of many long hours, lots of travel and dealing with many issues has led me to this position.
All us old pulkas, we have to go and sit down with our families at one stage or another of our careers and, like so many of the old men in my electorate, I will be very pleased to do that. When I approached this moment, I thought: what do you say in your last speech as a parliamentarian? I found it impossible to think about myself, really. My career in this House has been so much about other people and about the institutions of the parliament itself and of the government. That is where my thoughts turned.
They turned, first, to my lovely wife, Thea, and the enormous support she has given me, and to my family, because we are on loan in this job from our families. They have every expectation and right to call that loan in, to see us back in our roles that families all through the Northern Territory - we celebrate this all the time about families and lifestyle, but we ourselves often find it really difficult to keep those family contacts as strong as they should be, to support our kids, to repay the loyalty and support of our spouses and partners. That is something I intend to pay very careful attention to from this day on, and I really look forward to doing that. It is part of my healing process that I will be able to sustain those relationships the way they should be.
Turning to my life over the last 10 years, it has been an incredible privilege to serve in this parliament, to represent the people of the Northern Territory, whether they be my constituents, whether they be Central Australians, or whether they be people who are dependent on the roles that I have had as a minister. It is an amazing privilege to take part in the processes that we have through parliament and government as a whole, and see things delivered to people.
I do not believe leadership in the form of parliamentary membership is a case of leading; it is a case of serving. I pay tribute to the upbringing that my parents gave me; it is not about getting a big head over thinking you know what is good for other people; it is about listening carefully and serving them, whether that community be the people of Stuart who have been so loyal to me over the 10 years I have held the seat, or whether it is the people of Alice Springs and Central Australia that have depended, on many occasions, to have their voice heard into the government processes, or whether it is the health or justice community, there are people whose views I have been very proud and privileged to represent as best as I can through the work that I have done over my time in this House.
Whichever day you look in on debates here, we are all members of the House of the people, and we all owe each other respect. While it might not be a badge of honour in some circles that I have never been thrown out of parliament, I actually genuinely respect the processes and the need to respect each other because if we do not respect each other in this House, we cannot expect the respect of the community. I am not trying to moralise; I just feel that there is very serious business brokered through this Assembly. People’s lives literally depend on us, in many cases, and they are certainly affected by what we do in here. I have been able to do my work here for 10 years without having to disrespect people. The House of the people, the parliament, has to concentrate on its core business, which is serving the people of the Northern Territory. I hope my colleagues, whether they be on that side of the House or on this side, never lose sight of that because I never will.
It has not stopped me putting 131 bills through this House. For many of them, I have sat down with the opposition and the Independents and we have worked things out for the good of the community. I do not see why politics needs to be all combative; it certainly has its combative side and we all know that. We will disagree on things; we will have interests that we bring in here that we defend to the death. I do not think there is a member in this Assembly who is not passionate about the things they believe in. They would not be here if they felt they did not have a position to put, defend and represent for the people in their electorates. I always want to see that respected. I have tried to do that to the best of my ability.
It is good to see my two CEOs – well, they used to be my CEOs, but they will not be by about 11.45 am tomorrow. Greg and Robert, it has been absolutely fantastic working with you. Ministers, given the sort of relationship you have with your chief advisors and your CEOs, we should all be charged with bigamy because it is a very intimate and intense relationship that you have with these people. We have to trust each other. Sometimes, we have to take different positions on an issue, but the relationship has been very intense, very trusted and very creative in both Justice and Health. I really appreciate that.
Beyond that, there are some 6000 people out there - 5500, I should not exaggerate - public servants who have given magnificent service in my current agencies, and the others I have served in since we came to government. Having been around and seen so much of their work over the last five years, I am always lost in admiration at the high points that you can see through the agencies. We are all, quite rightly, constantly probed to see whether things should have gone better or need to be fixed, but I have never lost sight of the quality of the work that is done by our public servants in the Northern Territory.
Both Health and Justice have led national processes and initiatives on a regular basis since I have been minister of those two agencies. We are the smallest jurisdiction in Australia other than the ACT, yet we are leading national processes in many areas: consumer affairs, indigenous consumer affairs, book-up, infectious disease control, preventable chronic disease, renal, child maternal health, just to name a few – and indigenous justice to take another area of the Justice agency.
We have to keep that pride in what we do achieve. It is certainly a feature of the last five years. I have seen such a change in the respect that we are getting from other jurisdictions. When you go to national meetings of the ministers or other national gatherings, the Territory is now seen in many regards as a leading light in areas of national importance. Despite the recent publicity directed at the Territory, that is not the impression around Australia these days. We are well thought of. We are admired for a lot of the things that we are doing by those who know and those who make it their business to know. That is something of which people in our agencies and this House can be very proud because we have come an awful long way in five years from the situation that we were in when we came to government.
I will remember lots of powerful moments. We have times in this House when the real challenge is to stay awake - on late nights, of course; it is not the quality of the debate – but I have lived through some incredibly powerful moments in this Chamber. I can still remember the absolute emotion that accompanied the Gender Reform legislation and the 11-hour debate over the Freedom of Information Bill. We come in here and we all think it is a bit of theatre and we play our prescribed role, but sometimes debates cut through all that and they come down to what you stand for, what you live for and who you are as a person. Those occasions - and I have seen it in every member of this House at one time or another - have real power. You have to think to yourself: ‘What are you standing here representing and who are you representing, and what is the right thing to do - not simply the expedient or political thing to do?’ That is one of the most challenging things of representation as a parliamentarian. I have not lost my respect for people in here for those moments. In fact, they are the moments that come to mind when I think about the other members of the Legislative Assembly.
Speaking of people, I have to mention my staff. It has been a very tough time for the last couple of weeks. When I realised that I was coming to a conclusion in my career, the hardest thing of all was to go to your staff and say: ‘We are not going to be working together any more’. I want to take a moment to put their names into Hansard.
The electorate office: Peter Brooke, Marg Riley, Pam Shanks and my lovely wife have all worked in the Stuart electorate office. The Office of Central Australia: Andrea Martin, Mandy Taylor, Bob Dernan, Peter Brooke again, Karl Hampton, Kelsey Rodda, John Gaynor, and Ngaire Slater. In the ministerial office – I must be hard on people, Madam Speaker, because we have a hell of a big list for five years: Mark Nelson started off as my senior advisor when we first came to government; Lyn Ashpole was my next senior advisor; and Laurene Hull, currently; Pippa Rudd, Naomi Parravechio, Michael Tatham, Richard O’Leary, Mark Ramjan, Sonia Peters, Michael Cook, Andrea Adlam, Edward Tilton, Marita Hallam, Hayley Miles, Karen Baldwin, Deirdre Logie, Carol Smith, Gabrielle Mullins, Pam Gray, Rebecca Rowsell, Christine Jeffkins, Jodi Anderson, Jade Carroll, and Nuala Murphy.
Those people who know the fifth floor will know that there has been a hell of a lot of poaching from my office over the last five years, but then we all poach from each other; it is a bit like cattle duffing. I do not how to thank my staff. Who else do we have? Oh, my God! Yes, I am going to be in real strife - and Louise Scanlan. She is very bumptious and I knew I would leave someone off. You can pay me back later, okay?
My staff work ridiculous hours. They have dealt with some crushingly difficult issues over the time that I have been so demanding of them, and it is the enormous attention to detail that they have put in to those 131 items of legislation, the numerous initiatives that we have put through the Cabinet process and out through our agencies. Ours have been difficult portfolios, and it is only my staff who have kept me out of real strife and I will love you forever.
I wish all my colleagues absolutely the best for the future in whatever this parliament does take on and particularly to my Labor colleagues, my comrades. Labor governments always have traditional responsibilities and whatever you try to accomplish for the Northern Territory and for Territorians in the future, always remember the vulnerable and always remember the disadvantaged and always remember the need for equity in our community. There is no tougher context to apply those core values of the Labor Party than the Northern Territory. We have a very polarised society in the sense of disadvantage and vulnerability and we have to work towards a situation where every Territorian has a proud and supported place in the Northern Territory, and every Territorian can realise their potential and we must not leave some of them behind.
The Territory is going in great strides towards a fantastic future and the economic development that is going on at the moment is at a very defining time in the overall development of this part of Australia, but we cannot leave anyone behind. We have to find answers for the whole of the Territory population. Anyone who calls themselves a Territorian deserves to have an equal place in the thoughts and actions taken in this House.
I wish my comrades and colleagues all the best in what are ongoing and very tough issues that I know you will be grappling with beyond my time. This is a relay race, Madam Speaker. I have no concerns about handing on my particular roles to my colleagues. I know they will do a great job and I wish the ministers who take my portfolios all the best. I have tried to fix as much as possible for you, but you are going to have to do some of it yourself, whoever it may be.
My part in the race is over. I am returning to my lovely wife, and good luck to those who carry the baton on. Thank you.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: On behalf of all honourable members, I thank you for your 10 years of contribution to this parliament, member for Stuart, and wish you a very happy and healthy retirement with your family and friends.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, perhaps we will just take a moment. I will give him a hug later.
Madam Speaker, what to say about the member for Stuart? Five years ago, I would have said: ‘Not much’. A man I did not know, I only saw him around town in Alice Springs. He was Labor, I was CLP. The traditional wisdom was you do not think much of people on the other side. However, now that I have got to know the member for Stuart, I regard him very highly indeed, which he knows. It is often said, of course, in opposition: ‘What can you do?’ The member for Stuart and I have worked on a number of things together. We do not always agree, and we passionately disagree about some things, but that is why he sits on one side of the House and I sit on another. It is great that not everyone shares my views about everything, and I am sure that is a position that the member for Stuart would also adopt.
Having got to know him, I have seen his capacity for hard work - a wish that no one in my view would ever want to come true is to have the Health and Justice portfolio together. Indeed, I have said on many occasions that it is not humanly possible to do well in both. I think you have done quite well, Mr Attorney-General as an Attorney-General.
Dr Toyne: Rare praise!
Ms CARNEY: No doubt you heard my comments on radio the other day, but I will come to your position as Attorney-General shortly. I said on radio the other day that my view, as member for Araluen, is that you are the last bastion of decency in this government. I feel very strongly that is the case and it is a loss to your colleagues that you are going. It is a loss to the parliament. Most importantly, it is a loss to the people of the Northern Territory because you are a decent man, Peter Toyne, and all of us like decent people. We all behave badly. We all make mistakes. We all get it wrong. We all have a job to do, but decency is something that, when we look in the mirror at the end of the day, we should look at whether we are decent human beings, and the member for Stuart is a decent man, Madam Toyne – I am sorry - Madam Speaker.
He is a man who takes his integrity seriously, as he should, because he has much of it. I remember once I offended his sense of integrity, and he told me about that, and I was very sorry and I apologised. I do not think I have done it again. We have certainly played hard on occasion, but we have played well. I have been your shadow for some time, both in the portfolios of Attorney-General and Health, and it is a testament to the member for Stuart that he can do, to the extent that he does, the theatre of the parliament - he is not one of our most theatrical members - and I was not all surprised when I heard on the news the other day that he had never been thrown out of parliament. I would have fallen off my seat had he been. It is a testament to him that, to the extent he does, he plays the game as he sees fit. He plays it hard on occasion. I think his staff play it harder, but we have always had a very good relationship.
The member for Stuart is guided by a sense of decency. I will never be privy to the very difficult decisions you have made over a long period of time, but my hunch, member for Stuart, is that, at the end of the day, you have ticked the boxes. You have ticked the decency box. You have ticked the integrity box. Even though we have had our disagreements, I know that you have always done your best. Again, as I said on radio the other day, I do not think people can expect much more than that. I think you have done your best. You have worked very hard and you leave a lasting legacy. Most importantly, in my view, you have left a legacy of decency and integrity, and we will all learn from that and have it in the forefront of our minds to the extent that we are able in the course of our employment.
I remember, Attorney-General, at the Alice Springs sittings - it was the first sittings we had there. Being from Alice Springs, I needed to accordingly strut my stuff. You knew that, I knew that. I remember something came up about the crime figures. I still have some contacts at the local court house in Alice Springs. I remember ringing someone, very inappropriately, and getting a court list …
Dr Toyne: I remember that.
Ms CARNEY: I knew, as a lawyer in Alice Springs, that the court lists on Tuesdays and Thursdays are enormous. I spent the weekend at home sticky-taping all the pages together, and I remembered the 15 feet-long list. I remember practising in the lounge room, tossing it out. I was waiting for the opportunity, and I was not shadow Attorney-General then. I did not think much of that decision, but I was not shadow Attorney-General. Peter Maley was shadow Attorney-General. You talked in Ministerial Reports about crime in Alice Springs, and I remember almost having to elbow Maley out of the way to have the opportunity of following through with the spreadsheet, if you like, of the court list, all very carefully sticky-taped together on the Saturday. I served it up to you and, in reply, you served it up to me. It was a fairly vigorous reply, as I recall. Then Ministerial Reports finished and, as we so often do, everyone leaves when something boring was coming on. Because the layout of the Alice Springs parliament is very different from this, we all meet each other in the corridor. We looked at each other after giving each other a very hard time – Maley, of course, was lying bruised on the floor of the parliament because I elbowed him out of the way - and you said: ‘I feel better. Do you?’ I said: ‘I feel great. Do you?’ Then we walked off.
The reason I tell that story, Madam Speaker, is that there is very much an acknowledgement of the theatre of parliament. People like Peter Toyne and I take our jobs very seriously. I know that it was suggested to you on an aeroplane last Friday that we do have a few things in common, and one of them is decency. I am aware that you made a number of other suggestions as to how I could do better. Can I say that they are duly noted and taken on board, because the person with whom you spoke said very much the same thing the day before.
However, the esteem in which I hold you is very high – higher, I might say, than any of your colleagues because I regard you as a fundamentally decent man. There are measures of decency, and I reckon you score a 10 out of 10. I said on radio the other day that you had been, in my view, notwithstanding our political differences - and who can forget the Evidence Reform Bill about my favourite subject, victims of crime. That was a very passionate debate, and you knew why I felt strongly about it for some additional reasons. I still maintain the difficulties I have in relation to that legislation. I still strongly maintain my position in relation to customary law. I believe you have a different position. When you knock off, I will ask you what your personal position is just for the sake of it, but you have been, and will be regarded as a reforming Attorney-General.
As a lawyer, I know that when you come to office, the relationship with the legal profession was at a very low ebb, a very low ebb. This will not be of any media interest at all, and possibly of no interest whatsoever to anyone else, but it is of interest to me and, I suspect, of interest to you: partly through your personality and partly through your commitment to your job, you have built a much better relationship between the Territory’s first law officer and the legal profession. That is very important. I know the make-up of the Law Society. I know that they tend to be, for whatever reason, traditionally rock-solid Labor people, and that is okay. However, the fact is that when you came to office, the relationship with the profession was very bad. I absolutely admire you for the way you have rebuilt that relationship because it goes to the heart of the administration of justice. That is something that I take very seriously. For the administration of justice to be working better and relationships to be better as a result of you as Attorney-General is one of your lasting legacies given how low certain relationships were when you took office. I can take my political hat off very comfortably and say that as a member of the legal profession, I regard that as very, very important.
Notwithstanding our difficulties, you will be regarded as a reforming Attorney-General. I am a little concerned that if pundits are right, and we have some bets going in my office, but if one of my bets is right, the member for Wanguri is likely to become Attorney-General. Of course, I am terribly worried, and you will appreciate this and why I cannot resist it, on 1 December 2005 he said of the separation of powers - I am not sure if there are any lawyers in the gallery tonight, but lawyers in particular will appreciate this: he said in relation to the separation of the powers that it was between the parliament, the judiciary and the police. I am sure that in the event that he becomes Attorney-General, he will fix that up.
I do respect the way you have adhered very properly to the doctrine. It is not a concept. It is the doctrine of the separation of powers. I am not sure that was not a little blurred under the Country Liberal Party, and I would be less than nave in saying otherwise.
I respect the way that you have tackled your position as Attorney-General not only with dignity, decency and integrity, but the way it should be handled, regardless of a person’s politics, regardless of whether they are Labor or conservative. It is just the right thing to do and you have done it. As a lawyer as well as a politician, I thank you very much for that.
I regard your lasting legacy to be the gay law reform legislation. I was pleased to hear you refer to it. That was difficult for both of us. One day, we will talk to each other about the difficulties we had. We have talked a little about it but not too much because notwithstanding a pretty honest relationship, we were both, I guess, a bit circumspect. That was extremely difficult for me, and I have a feeling that it was extremely difficult for you. For me, it was the best thing I have ever done in this parliament. I have a sense that you might regard it as one of the best things you have ever done. I look forward to talking to you about that in due course. Of course we both live in the same place, so I will not be like a constituent and bail you up in aisle 7 at Woollies, but perhaps on another occasion we might very freely discuss and share our stories about what was the most difficult but the best thing that I have ever done. I suspect it went pretty close for you.
Your advocacy for Central Australia has been impressive. Again, have we disagreed on things? Absolutely we have, and that is okay. Part of your legacy will be that you have been a very keen and passionate advocate, and in this job if you are not passionate about half a dozen things, then you should not be here. I am not sure that everyone in this Chamber has passion about half a dozen things, but you certainly are passionate about Central Australia.
You will be missed on those fronts. I told you the other day that I wanted to say that you are a decent man and I wish you well, and that is exactly what I will say on the Parliamentary Record. You are a decent man. You are a good bloke and I do wish you well, both you and Thea. Enjoy your retirement.
I know I am running out of time, Madam Speaker, but I would like to present you with - and can members please indulge me? This is not possible in 10 seconds - the CLP, Jodeen Carney MLA, member for Araluen wine. I almost forgot about it. I have written on it:
- Peter, wishing you well in your retirement. Jodeen.
This is a sleeper. It might be worth a fortune in due course. You never know. I would like to present you with this. Drink it or not drink it at your leisure. Thank you. I look forward to seeing you around town.
Dr Toyne: And me.
Ms MARTIN (Fannie Bay): Madam Speaker, we are here to say goodbye to Pete, and I suppose we are allowed to call him Pete, even though this is the parliamentary Chamber.
Madam SPEAKER: I will not pull you up Chief Minister.
Ms MARTIN: We can? Thank you, Madam Speaker.
Dr Toyne: Member for Pete.
Ms MARTIN: He can be the Member for Pete or he can be Madam Toyne, as it was earlier on from the Leader of the Opposition.
I was thinking about what to say when someone has been here 10 years and made such a substantial and unique contribution to this parliament, and I thought probably going back to the time that Peter first came into the House, we had Brian Ede who had been the member for Stuart forever. Brian decided to call it quits and there was this youngish fellow who Brian said: ‘He is anointed. Peter Toyne is going to be the next member for Stuart’. That is when I met Pete, and it was good to meet you through that by-election time.
They were learning times for everyone. We got Pete across the line. He did a lot of the work himself. Thea did a lot of the work as well. Peter joined the very small opposition team in 1996. I remember at that stage there were three newies: I was fairly new the year before, Jack Ah Kit was the year before as well, just after me, and Peter. We decided that we had to bring a new approach to opposition. We always thought it would be the endless opposition, but I remember we went out and had dinner and Pete and Jack and I decided that we were going to be the faction for government. We were not aligned anywhere, we were just determined that we would change the eternal opposition of the Labor Party.
You probably have lots of memories from those years. There were five years that you had in opposition, or six. Syd had been 11 years in opposition and others - Hendo was briefly there. It was intense work, those years in opposition. There were just seven of us and there was a lot of work to do.
Ms Carney: What a luxury!
Ms MARTIN: We can appreciate what it is like to be four, let me tell you! Seven was not much.
Mrs Miller: Four is less.
Ms MARTIN: Yes. Each and every one of us became a jack of all trades. You could never say: ‘That is not my task’, whether it was going to an event, writing policy, having those long and intense arguments in the little caucus room, that little round table on the fourth floor in the Opposition Leader’s office. There are probably still things coming off the walls from those times because they were at times very long discussions, they were volatile discussions, they were intense. Sometimes they were loud, sometimes people left and came back, but there was a lot of work done around that little round table in the Opposition Leader’s Office.
What we all had was a determination to win, and Pete was very much part of that. We all have different skills. Luckily, Peter’s was a love of policy development so we hand-balled it to him. If you remember back to those days, we had policy papers on so many different aspects of what Labor would do in government. I want to thank you, Peter, for all the work you did and the tireless way you went about that policy work. We all had to be part of it, but there is always a driver, and I pay tribute to the work you did.
Like all of us in that little opposition, we were shocked to win in 2001, and I do not think that sets it back any. There is no pretending; we were shocked. If I had known the determination you had to get so many bills through this parliament I might not have said: ‘Would you like to be Minister for Justice?’ I had forgotten how many bills there were, and when you said 131 in your speech, each and every one of those bills went through sometimes very long Cabinet processes. Even though we often had long discussions in here, through the Cabinet and caucus process, let me assure everyone there were also long discussions.
Led by the Attorney-General, there was a lot of legislation that needed either reviewing, amendment, throwing out and starting again and it seemed for a while that every rock we turned over, something needed review. Many times in this House we were asked how many things this young government was reviewing. There was a whole list. A lot of that was legislation, and I pay tribute to Peter for the work you have done on that. Legislation demands great attention to detail, a determination to carry it through, and we all pay tribute to the way that you did that.
You also balanced those years in Justice, then followed by Health, and I will talk about that, with the needs of a very large electorate. The size of your electorate is one-and-a-half times the size of Victoria. Is that still right?
Dr Toyne: Roughly, yes.
Ms MARTIN: That is a lot of land to cover. There were great worries when the redistribution included the Top End of your electorate, and the only thing that Peter could say that justified that was that he had always wanted to catch a barramundi in his electorate and he had finally got the Victoria River.
Dr Toyne: Never caught a barra, though.
Ms MARTIN: And you never caught a barra. You are challenged in retirement with actually going fishing. Would the member for Johnston take you fishing on the Vic River so you can catch a barra? He is very good at it and he has done it already.
It is a very large electorate. The tales of Peter in the four-wheel drive travelling those long dusty roads always entertained us. For people like me, and the member for Wanguri, with our pocket handkerchief electorates, there was often a bit of: you do not know what it is like to have to travel and change 12 tyres between point A and point B. Peter was always happy to share his electorate stories, the delights and frustrations of it, with us. I certainly learnt, and I am sure others did, a lot about the electorate of Stuart from Peter over those years.
I pay tribute to what you have done in Health. The focus on child and maternal health has been absolutely critical. I mentioned today some of the results that have been achieved. Even though they are hard yards to be gained, particularly with Aboriginal health, we are starting to see some good signs of change and, again, I pay tribute to you for that.
We, as a Cabinet, really worked hard to make sure that we could support that aspiration. We often say that Health has most of the Territory budget. It is true. You do not get results like this unless you put significant funds into Health, and I am proud to say that we have done that. So thank you for your work in Health. It is something that this government is charged to do and will continue to do.
Over the last few days, we have been talking to a few people, Pete. I am just going to share some of things with you, the House and those in the gallery because people have been honest about you. Your colleagues will have things to say, but I thought I would add some of the reactions to your retirement. We have been told that your mum always said that you were a quiet achiever, and that is probably how many of us have found you. There are other aspects that your mum does not know about, but we will give you quiet achiever, whose actions always speak louder than his words. Judging from the community’s response to your retirement, that quiet man of action will be greatly missed. We have talked to your electorate office and the Office of Central Australia, who have taken dozens of calls from people around Central Australia saying farewell. Each of the callers expressed regret at your departure and wanted to pass on their thanks to you.
Madam Speaker, some of the comments were things like, which is a bit sad for us in Darwin: ‘He is not afraid to take on Darwin’ – he was the Minister for Central Australia. ‘He is a man of integrity. He always stood up for the Centre’; ‘Might not have agreed with everything he said, but always knew his heart was in the right place’; ‘Always impressed by his commitment’. The main sentiment, though was that ‘Peter was a decent bloke’ - and we heard the Leader of the Opposition say that - ‘who always went into bat for Alice’.
It was good to hear the Leader of the Opposition recognising his contribution and his personal qualities. As the Leader of the Opposition said, Peter’s legacy is a broad one, but above all else, he will be remembered as a decent man. Paul Bauert, AMA’s Territory President - and you had a few stoushes over time, so thank you, Paul, for your positive comments – said:
- … seems to have an understanding of what is going on and what is right for Northern Territorians in terms of health.
So that was a battle you won. Well done, Pete.
Yvonne Falckh from the Australian Nursing Federation said:
- I know that when we have had difficulties with decisions that have been elsewhere through the health system, that we have always been able to go to him and get him to put some sense within what is being directed.
Alice Springs Mayor, Fran Kilgariff summed up your passion for your home in Alice Springs and said:
- Whoever they …
meaning the Labor Party
- … do choose and the electorate chooses, I hope they will be as devoted to Alice Springs as Peter Toyne has been.
In case you did not know in here, Peter is actually a fan of AC/DC …
Dr Toyne: Yes.
Ms Carney: Now you tell me!
Ms MARTIN: Okay, this is revelation time. There is nothing secret about this one, he loves motor sport, hence his title as Minister for the Finke. We describe him as Finke Tragic. He has taken up competing in off-road racing and has finished the last two Finke Desert Races as a navigator. He has recently been seen behind the wheel of an off-road race car. Anyone who has driven out bush with him knows that he has, obviously, spent the years driving on bush roads as practice for off-road driving. ‘Driving a few hundred kilometres on a dirt road with Peter is an extreme sport’. That is from your friends!
He is described as well as ‘a compassionate intellectual, all-round decent bloke with a strong streak of Aussie yobbo’. Certainly the intellectual, again, is shared by your small team in opposition. Remember when you were writing the PhD - getting up at 4 am, was it?
Dr Toyne: Five.
Ms MARTIN: Five, okay. Thea knows this. He was getting up early in the morning, putting time into a PhD that was getting dramatically overdue, and then putting in a hard day’s work. To do that while being a member of parliament, we take our hats off to you, Dr Toyne.
Other feral things about Peter: the staff in the Alice Springs office were taken aback to find a pirate flag hanging up behind his seat after a Cabinet video conference. These are the kinds of things that happen in Alice Springs. He also has a passion for vintage motorcycles. He is a familiar sight around Alice Springs in his leather jacket on his rebuilt Triumph. Now that you are retiring, you will be able to rebuild your vintage Norton, which must be slowly taking shape.
Dr Toyne: That is overdue, yes.
Ms MARTIN: Yes, that is an overdue project. Something that we do know in here is that Peter is an accomplished athlete, a world record holder and a keen cyclist. He won his first professional foot race at the age of 32. Was it 32 when you won that?
Dr Toyne: Yes.
Ms MARTIN: He has not stopped running in his professional life since. He also - and this is something you might not be aware of - makes beautiful stained glass and has recently started the hobby again. We want to see some of this.
I must also make special mention of Thea, Peter’s wife, who has supported Peter from the time he was a school teacher in Melbourne, a principal in Yuendumu, and his final incarnation for the last 10 years as member for Stuart, living in Alice Springs.
Dr Toyne: It is not the final one!
Ms MARTIN: Thea would often not see Peter for days or even weeks on end. There is a story she tells of driving along a remote outback road one day and, purely by chance, coming across Peter driving the other way. They both pulled over for a quick chat while the bemused academic Peter was travelling with looked on in total wonder at this unusual encounter between a husband and wife in the middle of nowhere. After five minutes, they both headed on their way. The moral to the story is: when you are a workaholic in one of the world’s largest electorates, you have to take every opportunity to catch up with your loved ones. Thea’s story gives a good idea why your marriage has stood the test of time and why the smile has not come off Thea’s face since you announced your decision to retire.
From all of us, all your colleagues, we wish you better health, and we certainly wish you good luck and best wishes for the future. I hope you build the Norton. I hope you continue to cycle and run in the Masters Games. You still have that world record, whatever happens. They stopped running the 600.
I hope that life post-politics is very satisfying. You can look back with great satisfaction at how hard you have worked and what you have achieved. So from all of us, our best wishes. Take a lot of satisfaction, hard work and what has been gained over this time, 10 years in politics, with you. If you had been adding ticks to things, give yourself a big tick.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr MILLS (Blain): Madam Speaker, just a few words. My wife read the NT News to me the other day, and she read the passage that quotes Thea: ‘delirious with joy’. My wife read that to me.
Mr Wood: It is a hint!
Mr MILLS: I congratulate you, Peter, on a loving wife. You have served and you now move on to the next phase. You can move on with comfort because you have served, and served well. May the times that you spend together now be doubly blessed for the contribution you have made to the Northern Territory.
I admire you, Peter, because you are a man who has played the ball, not the man. You are a man who has demonstrated care, and accompanied that care with thought. You have thoughtfully considered issues, with care driving your thought process. You are a man who is built for speed. I had heard that you are a legendary fast runner, and you often hear of people skiting about things that they have done. I put on my runners at Parap Primary School a couple of years ago, and you passed me in a flash and I was trying my best. You are built for speed. There was not one additional fibre I could muster to even come close to closing that gap.
A member: Did you pull a hamstring?
Mr MILLS: It was only 100 m, and I was sore for sometime afterwards, I tried so hard. I was impressed. It was not just words. You passed me.
Peter, I remember - excuse me, I am not going to be pulled up by the member for Sanderson for using …
Madam SPEAKER: No, you will not be pulled up. It is all right.
Mr MILLS: Member for Stuart, there is something that sticks in my mind, as a new member of this parliament, the member for Blain, sitting over there where the member for Brennan sits now. You were sitting just over here. There were seven members in the opposition and I was new to the game at the same time as the member for Wanguri. As a man of integrity and honesty, you mustered the necessary claim of an opposition aspiring to take government, and you said in a way that feigned confidence but you did not carry it off and it was something to the effect of ‘When we are in government’. There were howls of laughter from the other side. I remember it well, because the proposition of the Labor opposition winning government at that point seemed impossible. You made the statement, and I remember that moment because only 12 or 18 months later, new to parliament, I was sitting in the same place, but the majority was on that side and it was not CLP. It sticks in my mind that such a statement made at that particular time seemed outrageous, seemed impossible, but it was not. It was possible, and it was a moment in history. If that statement were made today, or in a year’s time, it may be met with a similar response. Anything is possible and that is the lesson I take from that.
One thing I have judged of your performance in parliament and at public forums is that you are a man of integrity. That has been reinforced by previous speakers, and I believe that to be the case: a man who is principled, who has a core and at the core is a true believer. That is why you have played the ball and not the man; you love the principles that guide your life and that has made the difference to you. That is a lesson we can all draw upon as parliamentarians. That is why you can go off - as you mentioned the other day when I wished you well - to the north of Greece and enjoy ouzo or Retsina, and enjoy your time because you have closed a chapter and you can close it with some comfort.
The issue is an interesting one from this perspective: the strength of your core and the impact that you have had upon government, upon Cabinet, I know from my own observations and from the comments of others, is significant and it poses a challenge for those who remain with the task of governing until the next Territory election.
Member for Stuart, I wish you the best. I think there is possibly some resemblance not just in looks, but in character to John McDouall Stuart. There are some similarities, not just in appearance.
Dr Toyne: I did not walk as far as he did.
Mr MILLS: No. May you ride your Triumph the same distance as John McDouall Stuart. I wish you, your wife and your family every blessing.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Speaker, I won’t be too long, but I need to say to the member for Stuart that when you first rose, I became quite emotional, but then I thought: ‘This is stupid. Don’t be sad; this is a time for celebration’. Fancy going out after five years in opposition and five years in government on a high! It is far better to go out now when you have created such a legacy within this parliament. You will be able to look back and say: ‘I have done such good things for the Northern Territory within this parliament’.
Peter, that is going to stay with you for a while because you are going away knowing you are an achiever. You are going away knowing that you have won the respect of people.
He is a very sincere person, Madam Speaker, very quiet. I am sorry that I did not throw you out, but it probably reflects the fact that he is pretty unflappable.
Madam SPEAKER: I could do it tonight.
Mrs BRAHAM: He does not, as the member for Blain said, play the man in this parliament. He respects parliamentary procedure and that is what we admire about him. He is unflappable. I sit across this side of the House and look at different people and try to get a reaction out of them. The Chief Minister has said: ‘I am not going to look at you because you make me laugh’. The member for Stuart is very hard to get a reaction from, but now and again you get a smile. When he smiles, it is a different person.
I have just the right job for you when you retire. I reckon you will be a good poker player because no one would ever know whether you had a good hand.
I know he has a sense of humour, and that is great. The member for Stuart tells me his mother is coming to join him in Alice Springs. Can I just say, Thea: good luck! I had my mother-in-law for 17 years, and I have more mother-in-law jokes than anyone. So if you need to know them, come and see me. It is wonderful that you are doing that, Peter, because, too often, our elderly parents are by-passed by our ambition and our professions. The fact that you are taking your mother into your home now is a wonderful reflection of the man that he is. She must feel wonderful about spending time with you now that you will not be here.
There are a few things that are funny, and you will not get away with having a pee at the Finke Desert Race at that bush. People will have their eye on you forever more. That was one of your personal highlights because you do not often do naughty things.
Dr Toyne: Oh, yes?
Mrs BRAHAM: You are such a good person. I have never seen him drunk. I do not know whether he does get drunk. I have never seen him outrageous. He is such a good citizen.
When I was in Education and Peter was the principal of Yuendumu School, I visited one day, but he was conveniently missing. I wish he had been there just one time when I went out there so I could say to him: ‘Okay, show me this, show that, show me a bit more’. I know that he left Yuendumu with a good reputation and he was valued as a teacher. Being a teacher also has enabled him to have a good grasp of what this parliament is all about. If I am a schoolmarm, then he is an old school teacher as well in this parliament, and you can see it so often when he speaks and when he delivers what he has to deliver. He does it in a clear, logical way.
So, Peter, I wish you well. I know I will see you in Alice Springs, and it is great that you are staying there. Too often, people leave parliaments and go away, but the fact that you are still going to be a resident of Alice Springs is really great.
You will be missed on the Labor side of the House and you will be hard to replace because you worked so hard at what you had to do and you have achieved so much. Let me just say, though, good on you for making the decision to go. It is a brave person that does it. You are going to cause a by-election, you are causing a bit of kerfuffle on your side of the House, but you are going for all the right reasons and you are leaving a great legacy behind you. I wish you, Thea and your family all the best.
Mr HENDERSON (Wanguri): Madam Speaker - Peter, what can I say? I have known Peter since he was elected in 1996. I had run in the 1994 election. I think it was around 1996 I might have been Vice-President of the party, but I was on the Administration Committee and was very excited when you were elected to this parliament in 1996. It is amazing, just watching the Channel 9 footage the other night of you and Maggie walking up towards Parliament House and thinking: ‘Gee, that is 10 years ago. What has changed in 10 years!’ There has been enormous change. All of us who come into public life, and I can speak obviously from the Labor Party, come here as conviction politicians and we enter into public life wanting to make a difference.
Your great legacy, Peter, is that you can look back on your 10 years in public life, the time in opposition, serving your electorate, and the five years that you have had as a very hard-working minister and know that you have made a difference in so many ways. That is what all of us want to do when we enter into public life. I do not think we are here on a crusade; we all just want to be able to make difference in the areas we are given and with great responsibility to the people who put us here.
When I put speeches together, I try to hang them around a few words. The words that I would use to describe Peter are passionate, compassionate with a huge capacity for hard work. The people who have worked closely with Peter over the years have seen all of those qualities. Inside the Labor Party, we are like a really big family. In any big family, from time to time we have our differences in views, and over the last few years as Attorney-General and as Police minister, we have had our issues, but they are natural tensions, and that is why the Westminster system and Cabinet systems work. There are policy tensions. People come with different views, but the great thing with Peter is that you know you are always going to be dealing with someone who has a very grounded view based on all those principles that we all uphold in the Labor Party, which are equity and doing everything we can to make life better for people who are not so well off as others. You always knew you were in a battle if you were having a battle with Peter on a policy issue.
Reflecting on the years in opposition, I did two years around that little table there on the fourth floor. I was new to parliament, and Peter was always there with advice and assistance in respect of the slog of opposition. The faction for government had been formed. When we went into by-elections at which the member for Blain and I were elected to this parliament, it really was the faction for government. I was thrown straight in as shadow Health minister, which was purely because I had worked in the IT department in Health. Anyway, shadow Health minister was a good thing …
Ms Martin: And you did very well.
Mr HENDERSON: The thing I remember about that time and the hard work that we did in the lead-up to the 2001 election was that Peter was the driver in the policy engine room. We had the politics and the day-to-day issues that we had to deal with, but there was always Peter on our back. We were all assigned policies that we had to work up. I do not envy the opposition, because I have been there. You do not have huge research staff. You have to do your own research, sit at the computer and bash out the policy detail. At every caucus meeting, Peter was on our back about where we were at with the health policy or the business policy. He had his Gantt chart with time lines on it, and he drove us ruthlessly. One of the defining features of that 2001 campaign, as opposed to previous campaigns, was that we had done the policy work. Peter drove us to do that. It was not done at the last minute; it was done with broad consultation with the community.
They were very special times. It was a time that the team came together. We were all really focused and Peter was at the engine room of that policy development process. When you are in opposition and you are looking to win government, you are looking to gain new ground.
One area that Peter was passionate about - which is quite strange for someone who represented Central Australia - was the recreational fishing base. He went after the AFANT mob. We were sitting there thinking how AFANT was stitched up by the CLP. They were funded, they had CLP people on their board and AFANT was basically a cheer squad for the government and pretty much did not want to know us at all. Peter was absolutely persistent and we thought he was mad. We thought it was somewhere that we would never get any real traction. It just goes to show that fortune favours the brave. Peter, the man from the desert, got in there and won the fishermen over. That is the courage in the face of quite difficult circumstances, Peter, you showed in opposition.
Then, as the Chief Minister said, we worked really hard and the mood for change was there. The 2001 election came. We will never forget that night when the faction for government had worked hard and we had won the trust of the people. We were all absolutely over the moon, and also as apprehensive as all get-out: ‘Gee, we are running the show now and it is a huge responsibility’.
In the five years that I have had the privilege of working with Peter in the Cabinet room, I can attest to his big picture policy thinking that he brought. He has had carriage of 131 bills. I suppose A-Gs always throw up a whole mish-mash of issues and areas, but to my mind, when the Health portfolio came to him, he very quickly and clearly painted the broad policy framework that he has worked through the Cabinet process and is now part of public policy. He has a great eye for the big picture policy, but also an intense eye for detail. Those are qualities that not all of us have, but Peter has had in spades.
The Chief Minister has mentioned the achievements as a reforming Attorney-General and in areas of health, especially child and maternal health. In that first four years in government, it seemed that everywhere we looked there were issues. Every rock we turned over, there were issues. We did a lot of reforming work in those first four years at the heart of which was Peter.
I will go back to Peter’s time in the opposition, and tell me if I wrong, Peter, but I think you had shadow for Education for all of that period?
Dr Toyne: Yes.
Mr HENDERSON: Yes, for the five years. On the issue of being in opposition and planning the tactics for Question Time and strategies for sittings and policy development, Peter was absolutely passionate about education policy. For whatever reason - the Chief might decide to tell all in her memoirs one day - that portfolio did not go your way. I might be putting words into your mouth, but I think one of the things around the Cabinet table, the work that we have done in education has been the large part of the policy process and what we took to 2001. They were issues of equity in educational delivery to the bush, the fact that we now have, for the first time, secondary education being rolled out in the bush, and the fact that this year we had 25 students graduate from Year 12 in their home communities is something that you have been chasing all of your professional life.
Peter, when you look back at not only the contributions you have made specifically in your portfolios, but the changes and the differences that we have made as a government, and you have been part of that push, the reform to education and giving those kids in the bush an opportunity that was not there previously, is something about which you can be very proud. It is certainly something that drives us all the time.
Peter, we have had a lot of good times. Pete has a great sense of humour. The member for Braitling was saying he does not smile very often, but I can tell you, he has a very wicked sense of humour. We have had some fabulous times. I remember with Kon sitting around drinking Sippero with Thea, the Greek connections, and with the Greek community in Darwin, I know ‘the man from the desert’ won over the Greek community in Darwin. There have been a lot of good days.
I certainly wish you all the best in whatever you choose to do with the rest of your life. I know you will not be sitting still and idle; you will find something to do. To Thea, keep smiling. The good times are certainly here again. From all of your colleagues, we wish you all the best for the future. Whenever we are in Alice Springs, we will certainly be looking you up.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, there have been many nice things said about the member for Stuart.
Dr Toyne: I thought you had to die for this to happen.
Mr WOOD: Yes! I was thinking there must be some scandal I can dig up on him, but unfortunately, I cannot.
I admire the member for Stuart and I have for a long time. I cannot say that I am a personal friend of the member for Stuart. I live in the Top End and Peter lives in Central Australia, but since I came to parliament I have admired his hard work, his intellect and his compassion. He had two enormously difficult portfolios, Attorney-General and Health. He has shown great leadership in the way he dealt with those portfolios.
I was Deputy Speaker in the last Assembly, and I have sat in that chair when we went through the committee stages of many of those legal bills. I have seen what the Attorney-General had to put up, if I can put it that way: Peter Maley, Steve Dunham, the now Leader of the Opposition and others who would be checking out every dot, every spelling error, every clause. The minister, whose background is a teacher and who was dealing with people with legal backgrounds, was able to handle all those questions remarkably well.
He was able to keep a logical mind. I admired that because some of the bills you introduced to this parliament were not simple. I really believe you did a wonderful job. I may not have always agreed, but being the person sitting in the chair during committee stages, I did not have the opportunity to speak on some of those issues, but I know you did a great job. You were sincere in what you did, and I will always remember that.
When I think about the amount of work you must have put into your job that I would not have seen - simply because the legislation sometimes was so complex and, as you said, you gave us 131 items of legislation, so we had to look at it, too - but to prepare that legislation must have required a lot of hard work.
You have left a legacy, and even though there are some things with which I did not agree, that is part of parliament. I am glad we are getting an oncology unit. That will be one of your legacies. It is important for Territorians that we have that facility. I know it has taken a long time and we had political debates about it, but it was good to hear you announce that we will have an oncology unit. That is great. We have a palliative care unit, which was long overdue. It was terrific, the day you opened it. It is one of the best facilities we have in Australia, and that, again, will be a great legacy of the member of Stuart.
Prisons are an area I have some concern about. We recently opened the low-level security prison. I was hoping when I spoke to you at the opening that you were going to go to Marysville to look at some therapeutic communities. I spoke to some prisoners of that community, and they said: ‘What are you going to do when you get back to the Northern Territory?’ I said: ‘I am going to try to convince the Minister for Justice to come over to Marysville, Ohio and see what has been done’. Unfortunately, it will not be you, but I am certainly hoping that whoever the next person is will.
On that side of the Northern Territory, the prison side, there is a lot to be done. We need to do a lot more, but I know the work you did. It was a difficult job. On one hand, law and order is an issue in the Northern Territory. On the other hand, I know that you have compassion for some of those people who find themselves in trouble. You mentioned yourself that we do have disadvantaged people and sometimes disadvantage lends itself to people being in prison. There is a long way to go, but when you dealt with those issues of incarceration and law and order, you tried to find the balance.
I am a bit worried about you going into retirement because that will give you more time to run. I do remember the Dave Tollner so-called charity day at Stuart Park Primary School. I think you were actually put in the next property. It was a handicap! Delia Lawrie, who was three months pregnant, was up the front, I was somewhere in the middle, Dave Tollner was a bit behind me, and the member for Stuart, he was just about over the fence in the neighbouring property. Off we went, and you could hear him coming! He cleaned up half of us. He did not quite win because Delia Lawrie cheated. She only had to run about 50 m. By gee, he can run. I have seen him run at the Masters. I am glad of one thing: I am not in his age bracket because there is no way in the world I could ever beat Peter Toyne. He is fantastic.
Peter, I wish you all the best. I am sure I will see you around. You have left a legacy in parliament. Regardless of whether we are on different sides of parliament, you did a great job and I will always admire you for the work you have done.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr McADAM (Barkly): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, Thea, ministerial staff of Justice and Health, public servants of Health and Justice, by any measure, Peter Toyne is an outstanding person, an outstanding Territorian. He has given the best years of his life to the Northern Territory, starting with his outstanding career as a teacher, adult educator and community development worker in the Warlpiri lands. I especially note his work with Warlpiri Media where he and Warlpiri colleagues virtually pioneered community television in Australia.
As well as his work with teacher education and two-ways education, it is particularly noteworthy that he gave invaluable support to the development of the Yapa Yapa Teaching Group. He continued to provide cogent advice on the way forward for educating remote indigenous children of the Northern Territory. His election to parliament meant that he had a larger forum in which to operate, and even more opportunities to instruct and to educate.
His focus has always been the bush, but his ministerial career allowed him to become a very effective and passionate supporter of Alice Springs. His strong commitment to the Finke Desert Race and the development of the Desert Knowledge Centre are prime examples of his desire to grow the Alice in an innovative and clever way.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I am proud to have served with Peter in the Martin government. I know that his change of life will not in any way lessen his contribution to the Territory and he will always be on our backs to do something better, especially for the bush.
On behalf of Barb and my family, Peter, we wish you, Thea and your children all the very best in your retirement. I know it will not be retirement as such, because you have many other things to achieve. All I can say to you and to you, Thea and the children is take care, and God bless.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mrs MILLER (Katherine): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise to say a few words as someone who does not know the minister terribly well. I have been in parliament since 2003, and I have to say that, at times when this place is like a bear pit and it is supposed to be all political, there has been one thing that I have really admired about Peter - I can call you Peter tonight - he stays cool and calm and he has always been a perfect gentlemen.
Not everyone is really rude and calls out, so I have the greatest amount of respect for you, and 10 years of service in this Assembly is an absolutely incredible amount of work. I can appreciate the work that you have done, especially considering the size of the electorate that you represent. The amount of travelling that you have to do and the time that you are away from your family makes it quite remarkable to have been in that seat for 10 years because it does take a lot out of you; that is for sure.
You have chosen now to leave the parliament. The time is right for you, so I am going to read you a little poem called Time.
- Time waits for nobody.
To realise the value of a sister, ask someone who doesn’t have one.
To realise the value of 10 years, ask a newly divorced couple.
To realise the value of four years, ask a graduate.
To realise the value of one year, ask a student who has failed an exam.
To realise the value of nine months, ask a mother who gave birth to a still born.
To realise the value of one month, ask a mother who has given birth to a premature baby.
To realise the value of one week, ask an editor of a weekly newspaper.
To realise the value of one hour, ask the lovers who are waiting to meet.
To realise the value of one minute, ask a person who has missed the train, bus or plane.
To realise the value of one second, ask a person who has survived an accident.
To realise the value of one millisecond, ask the person who has won a silver medal in the Olympics.
Time waits for no one.
Treasure every moment you have.
You will treasure it even more when you share it with someone special.
I will finish with these wise words, not mine, but they are very wise.
Never regret a day in your life.
Good days give you happiness.
Bad days give you experiences;
both are essential to life.
I wish you and your family all the very best in your retirement. Well done.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I have known Peter for quite a while now and the person who introduced us was the member for Wanguri, my friend Paul Henderson.
After he won the by-election, he came to my place and said: ‘I would like you to meet a nice guy. He is married to a Greek wife, too’. I said: ‘Oh, well, bring him along’. So they came home, and here comes Paul with Peter, and I looked at Peter and said: ‘I’m pretty sure I know this person. Where have I met him before?’ Then I realised I had seen him in my grandmother’s house. She had a Greek icon of John the Baptist. The only difference was Peter was wearing trousers and a suit rather than the big ancient Greek robe, but the hair and the beard and the wrinkles were exactly the same. When he spoke to me, I thought: ‘Jesus! This is John the Baptist’; he was speaking like him, too.
We had some really good and memorable times in my house. I remember he came for dinner and we drank some wine. Of course, we started with Sippero. It was late at night and he had to catch a place the next morning. He went to Alice Springs. I turned on the television news. There was Peter in Alice Springs, looking pale and haggard with dark circles under his eyes. A few moments later I received a phone call from the electorate officer threatening to kill me if I give him Sippero ever again.
Peter was the one who spoke to me before I put my hand up for preselection, and he gave me the good news and bad news of becoming a politician. I did not listen to him and put my hand up for preselection. Of course, it was a thrill in June 2001 when we won the election. I found myself, being in the same party, the same side of parliament, the winning party in the government, and then I found myself to be with Peter in Cabinet. Peter was the one who spoke to us many times - not only to me but to the other newies - and gave us advice and information. We very much respected him for his wisdom and knowledge.
Peter is a very complex personality. One day he would be very meticulous, very methodical, analysing everything, going very slowly through his documents and legislation, and the next morning you would find him zooming down a dirt track at 180 km/h in a flimsy car in the Finke Desert.
Let me tell you another story about his sense of humour. We are always welcome in his house in Alice Springs. Every time we go there, Thea and Peter welcome us and we would have dinner. Two years ago we were in Alice Springs having dinner. We had a few wines and, of course, at the end of the night, as always, we got stuck into Sippero again. We noticed that Michael, my son, was sitting there really grumpy. Peter said: ‘What is wrong with you?’ He said: ‘Oh, it is my birthday. You forgot my 10th birthday’. Peter looked at me and I looked at Peter. We dipped our fingers in the Sippero and lit them and were singing ‘Happy birthday to you’, and our wives were looking on, terrified. They didn’t know what was happening until Michael blew our fingers out. He said: ‘Do it again, it was fun’. By that time, our fingers were just a bit hot. We did it twice more, though, before we finished.
Peter is a man of integrity. Peter is an honest, hard-working person; a person with vision, who knew what he wanted to do and what he wanted to achieve. When he got the portfolio for Health and Attorney-General and Justice, we knew that he was going to achieve what he wanted to achieve.
I am very privileged to be his friend and for him to be my friend and that he was there when we really needed him. We have had our arguments; we always have, especially about Alice Springs and Darwin – which one is the best place in the world. He insists that Alice Springs is, but there is no water there. I do not know what he is talking about.
I am sorry he is leaving parliament, but I am very glad. I am very glad that Thea will have him at home now, 100% of time rather than 20% of time. I know many wives are envious of Thea, getting Peter back. As Peter said, he was on loan to politics. Now it is time to return home. I am pretty sure we will see each other again. I am glad he is going to northern Greece because I know what he is going to bring back and I am looking forward to sharing it with him when he returns. Have a good time, and we will catch up again.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Deputy Speaker, tonight’s tribute to our retiring member has really put a - I had a whole stack of medical stuff to talk about in adjournment, but I will put it off for another time.
Peter, I was here before you arrived and you are going before I am. In these short 12 to 15 months that I have been your shadow in Health, we have had many adversarial occasions. I tried to think of the things that you have done and whether you could have done it better or differently. Rather than me talking about what I think you should have done or not done, first I should say in a different way: welcome to the electorate of Greatorex. You moved in some 16 months ago. Welcome back or welcome again to the electorate. I assume that your mum is going to come and live with you, not that I expect you will ever vote for me, but that is all right. Around 40% of the electorate do not vote for me so you will be one of those.
Thea, I cannot see because you are probably behind a pillar somewhere. Anyway, you are going to be one of my constituents and, if you have any issues, I anticipate that you will come and have a chat and see what I can do.
Yes, you have left a legacy as the Health minister, without a doubt. As Attorney-General, I am not able to comment much because I have not taken much interest in that portfolio, but in your Health portfolio, yes, you have left a legacy. The fact that we are now going to see an oncology unit is positive news for Territorians and Central Australians will also rejoice the fact that an oncology unit will be developed. We hope that it will be developed as quickly as possible so that we do not have to wait any longer.
You have tried genuinely to ensure that Health is looked after well across the Territory. Many a time I would think that, yes, you could have done many things a lot better and a lot faster, and prod as I might, sometimes you just seemed not to want to respond. There was not much I could do about that, but what you have responded to is the cord blood stem cell harvesting project. I am very glad that that has happened. I would add that to the list that the member for Nelson has credited you with as a legacy. Cord blood stem cell harvesting will benefit many Aboriginal people in Australia. I do not know if people understand what it means and perhaps I should spend a little of my time in paying tribute to you to explain what cord blood stem cell harvesting is about.
When an Aboriginal person suffers from a bone marrow disease, trying to find bone marrow that could be used to transplant into the patient is very difficult because of the very small gene pool of Aboriginal people in Australia. There are only 400 000 of them and so to find a person that can match the recipient’s tissue profile is very difficult. If we were to be able to harvest as many of the cord blood stem cells as possible from all the deliveries in the Northern Territory, those stem cells, because they are so primitive, can be used for transfusion into a patient who needs what would otherwise be a bone marrow transplant. That way, we can save the patient. The more we can harvest of the cord blood stem cells, the better it would be because we can use it more freely for patients who require it.
While we are only a harvesting point in Alice Springs, the blood will be stored in Sydney and patients requiring treatment will then have to go to Sydney. We do have a high number of Aboriginal births, therefore we can be a significant source of cord blood for the whole program. Peter, I thank you for getting that project up. It is going to be good for all Aboriginal people in Australia and Alice Springs will play a very significant part in it. For your successor, if there is a need for further funding to ensure that this project keeps going, Dr Ian Fraser, the Australian of the Year, has undertaken to follow up on it if we write to him and ask him to provide some help.
Recently, the media quoted a time when someone in the gallery noticed that every time I rose to speak, you removed your hearing aid. I do not know whether you did. I never noticed, actually, that you had a hearing aid and when they said that you had removed it, that was the very first time that I learned that you had the use of one. After that, I took more notice of it and I suppose you did that a couple of times just to demonstrate that you do it, but most times, you appear to hear me quite well so obviously that is not an issue there.
I wish you well in your retirement. Ten years in politics is a long time, and some days when I look at the member for Nhulunbuy, I think: ‘Gee, you have been here a long time; I have been here a long time. When do we find the right time to go?’ It is a very brave thing for anyone to do, and your retirement will be to spend a lot of time with your family, including your mother. That is very admirable.
I suppose the day will come that I will be looking at doing that myself, too, but that is a while away yet. Peter, I wish you well in Alice Springs. I am sure we will run into each other from time to time. Thea, good luck; enjoy your husband.
Mr STIRLING (Nhulunbuy): Mr Deputy Speaker, it is one of those rare occasions when we farewell a member who has been very near and dear to us over the past decade.
If we go all the way back to the long march through opposition, it is only the Chief Minister that is ahead of Peter, and then all the way back to myself. Peter shared some five years of the long march in the wilderness for the Northern Territory Labor Party before 2001. I remember the by-election like yesterday. Maurice Rioli and me, and some of the memories we had – and they are not all that pleasant, some of those memories, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will not go into them this evening, but I do remember sleeping on the banks of the Plenty River in the company of Maurice Rioli. We were headed out to a little place called Bonya the next day for the voting. I reckon the last time the Plenty River saw water, Burnsie, was when Noah was floating around. That is how dry that country is. It is a long time since it saw a fish.
I want to reflect on some of the things Peter brought to caucus and the Labor team. Peter had a particular perspective on politics and it had nothing to do with being a politician. It had nothing to do with being the member for Stuart. He brought a passion for wanting to see things put right that were wrong. He brought a passion for trying to correct all of the things, whether it was justice, inequity - just putting things right.
In a sense, that is what all politicians want to do at their heart, but Peter brought a particular passion and a particular drive to it, and it is not always easy. It is not always easy to achieve, no matter how admirable the aim, and Peter would be the first to acknowledge that. Of course, in driving on, it is not always easy to maintain the balance around you as well.
In the second term, and I am referring after the 1997 election through to 2001, Peter picked up the policy development side of the Labor Party caucus with an absolute vengeance. We were driven along this process where we each had our responsibilities as shadow ministers to develop policy for the next election, and, by God, if you did not have it done at the next caucus meeting and the report back of where you were up to - and matrix charts and tick the box across and ‘Why haven’t you?’ and it was a bit like the head master, Mr Deputy Speaker. If you had not happened to consult with a particular group or had not happened to have the next stage of your policy development done - I do not want to go there; it was just far easier, no matter how difficult it was to do, to do it and to get to caucus and say: ‘Yes, Peter, we can tick that off. I have talked to that group and we have agreement around that particular policy area’.
That was a measure of the perspective that Peter brought to the team as an individual, and it was a very strong influence on the Northern Territory Labor caucus, from the time he was elected until this very evening. It was a brand of discipline, a passion, and always absolutely right in his views, and anyone who disagreed, well, they simply did not know what they were talking about, I suppose.
That is the measure of Peter. He has been an outstanding Attorney-General for the Northern Territory. I sat here with a great deal of pride in one of the early sessions of the new Labor government following the 2001 election when Peter, as Attorney-General, rose to introduce the repeal of the Mandatory Sentencing Act. I will always remember that because I had been shadow Attorney-General for quite some years, and I thought: ‘If ever we get to government that is going to be my job’ - and it wasn’t.
I could not have been more proud if it had been me delivering that legislation, as, indeed, I know Peter was enormously proud. We are all proud of his efforts as Minister for Health as well. He has done an outstanding job and made a great contribution to looking after the health system in the Northern Territory, and policy development - not policy development in the sense that we were doing in 1997 to 2001 because it was all a bit academic because we never got there, but in fact he has implemented Labor Party policy and brought it to fruition.
So, Peter, on behalf of the Labor caucus, in the years you have been with us, on behalf of the Labor Party and indeed the entire Labor movement of the Northern Territory, I salute you for your contribution to the party. I salute you for your contribution as a minister in government. We have been extremely well served by your efforts and I wish you, your loved ones and your family all the very best in your retirement.
Members: Hear, hear!
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016