2002-06-18
- Madam Speaker Braham took the Chair at 10 am.
MESSAGE FROM ADMINISTRATOR
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I lay on the Table Message No 5 from His Honour the Administrator advising of his assent to proposed laws passed by the Assembly during the May 2002 sittings.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: I advise honourable members of the presence in the gallery of Year 7 students from St Mary’s Primary School, accompanied by their teachers, Ms Lyn Taylor and Ms Margaret Hannan. On behalf of all honourable members I extend a warm welcome to our young visitors.
I acknowledge the presence in the east gallery of the family, friends and colleagues of Big Bill Neidjie OAM. On behalf of honourable members, I extend a warm welcome to you also.
Members: Hear, hear!
CONDOLENCE MOTION
Big Bill Neidjie OAM – Kakadu Man
Big Bill Neidjie OAM – Kakadu Man
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, it is with deep regret that I advise of the death on 23 May 2002 of Big Bill Neidjie OAM, a leader of the Gagudju people from the Kakadu region of the Northern Territory. On completion of debate, I will ask honourable members to stand in silence for one minute as a mark of respect.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that this Assembly expresses its deep regret at the death on 23 May 2002 of Bill Neidjie OAM, a leader of the Gagudju people from the Kakadu region of the Territory, and place on record its appreciation of his contribution to the advancement of Aboriginal people, and to the development of Kakadu National Park which bears the name of his people.
I pay tribute to a great man, a great Territorian and a great Australian, a man who was a respected Aboriginal elder, and a man who earned enormous respect from the Balanda community. I refer, of course, to the late Big Bill Neidjie, the man we knew as Kakadu Man.
A few weeks ago, I had the privilege of joining several hundred family, friends and acquaintances of Bill Neidjie for a ceremony of remembrance at his last home, Canon Hill. We were invited to say goodbye to, and to show respect for, the passing of the senior Gagudju man and, although it was a day of sadness, it was also a day of celebration. Liam Maher, who was the master of ceremonies for the day, reminded us of last year’s special celebration of life which was held so that Bill could hear the things people had to say about him before he died. In fact, several of those who spoke recalled the special magic of that day and how appropriate it was that such an event took place while Bill was still alive.
Being out in that country, it was easy to understand the special relationship with land which suffuses so much of Big Bill’s writing, as we sat under the shade of several huge African mahogany trees looking out over the flood plain to the imposing Arnhem Land escarpment and the feature which gives this camp its name, Canon Hill. Whistling kites flew overhead, their calls punctuating the speeches; kookaburras and other birds flew among the trees; and a gentle Dry Season south-easterly fluttered the multi-coloured banners on bamboo poles. It was entirely possible that the spirit of Big Bill Neidjie was watching over us and, yes, listening to what was being said about him after his death.
He would have been pleased and proud because without exception, those who spoke of their relationship with Bill Neidjie did so in praise. Although each speaker shared personal recollections with us, there were a number of common themes that came through. There were constant references to Bill Neidjie’s stature, both physical and in terms of his ‘presence’; there were references to his physical strength, his fighting ability and his indomitable will.
Big Bill Neidjie worked for many years with the legendary Leo Hickey, who provided a shipping service to coastal communities including the lighthouse keepers at Cape Don, which was one of several places Bill lived across the Top End. Former buffalo and croc shooter, later Parks and Wildlife ranger, Dave Lindner, met Bill when he was at Cape Don and became a good mate. Among a number of colourful stories was one he told of Big Bill being described by some southern whites visiting Smith Point as a ‘cheeky’ Aborigine because he was prepared to stand up for himself and did not mind voicing an opinion. Dave Lindner told how payback came when he directed the visitors to a prime oyster patch without telling them it was where the toilet buckets were regularly emptied.
Dave suggested it was this trait which probably led to some problems between Bill and the buffalo hunters working the Alligator River flood plains in the 1950s and to his self-imposed exile at Murganella where he also lived for many years. Dave Lindner and Chris Haynes, formerly a ranger with the Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service and now Kakadu Park Manager, were among those who persuaded Bill Neidjie, in the early 1970s, that he should return to his own country. Land rights were starting to become an issue and they recognised the role that he could play in that movement. Of course, it is now history that Bill Neidjie became a major force in the formation of Kakadu National Park and its subsequent hand back to traditional owners.
Bill Neidjie was described as a man who understood the inevitability of the change that was coming with the growth of the Top End, and he chose to play a role in that change. It was the authority that he brought to this role and his enthusiastic support for it that was so important to the eventual success of the land rights movement.
Many of the speakers on that day in May referred to Bill Neidjie’s sense of humour and his generosity in sharing stories about his land; his willingness to share and explain his culture to other people, both Aboriginal and Balanda; and his determination to ensure that Aboriginal culture continued to live. He realised the importance to the preservation of Aboriginal culture of making those stories live, which is why he put his thoughts into books and videotapes, as well as taking every opportunity to talk to visitors to his country.
Jacob Nayinggul, who called himself Bill’s brother, spoke of Bill’s death in terms of the loss of an important source of cultural knowledge and urged young people to carry on the culture. I quote from some of Jacob’s words on that day:
- Some of our old people passed on knowledge to some of us, but today’s world is a different world.
It is a different world altogether, any passing of knowledge today, teaching, is not good enough.
Why? Because the world is too big. I picked up mine when I was in a small world. These days
young people can take knowledge or pass on knowledge what people give us because it is for you.
I’m next, maybe, everyone ends up that way, we are all travelling on the same road no matter who
you are, but while we got a chance let’s try and pick up the knowledge as it’s given to us.
The importance of these words cannot be over-estimated because, sadly, a generation of senior Aboriginal people are disappearing. Big Bill is one of seven elders who have died in recent months. Mandy Muir recognised that it represents more than just the loss of people when she said:
- We are not only trying to cope with the loss of these old people, but the loss of the teaching about land
and culture. We have to make sure we keep this as strong as we can. There are a number of us up and
coming see culture deteriorating. Now we have to work on our children to preserve our culture,
culturalising them.
Yet some speakers saw cause for hope. They spoke of Bill Neidjie’s spirit continuing to live in the land and of his stories living on through his teachings to both Aboriginal and Balanda, and through his writing and videotapes. But perhaps it was Bill himself, whose optimism about the preservation of his culture is summed up in his own words, words chosen for the memorial service to mark his passing. He said:
- Our story is in the land; it is written in those sacred places. My children will look after those places.
That’s the law.
Big Bill Neidjie’s spirit may, as he put it, have gone back to his country, his mother, but we should not forget him, and we won’t. As my colleague, Bob Collins, so succinctly said: ‘We will not see his like again’.
Mr REED (Katherine): Madam Speaker, it is a privilege and an honour to be able to contribute to this condolence motion.
A man who had presence; an aura that he exuded when one was with him, that led to being able to understand and appreciate the importance of Bill Neidjie as a traditional Aboriginal man. His outstanding achievement was the attraction that he created - not just nationally, but internationally - to Aboriginal culture and to his own lands through a very humble demeanour. He was a man who understood precisely the problems that he and his people faced in terms of achieving a broader understanding of Aboriginal culture, both nationally and internationally, and being able to create that awareness - and he did that in a very capable way.
Bill Neidjie was a very strong man, but a very gentle man. I got to know him through Dave Lindner and other members of the staff of the Conservation Commission and its predecessors in the early 1970s. I had the honour to be in the bush with him, in Bill Niedjie’s homelands, and I treasure some of the experiences I had with him. He helped me to understand how he felt about his people and how he felt about his land.
By way of example, if I could explain the attitude of Bill Neidjie and his preparedness to help others. An opportunity came for me to experience that when the Conservation Commission acquired land for what is now the Keep River National Park on the Northern Territory-Western Australian border. On the acquisition of that land, there was some apprehension about what the land would be used for and the management regime that would be put in place on behalf of the local Aboriginal traditional people. That apprehension continued for some time, and in grappling with the problem and trying to find a way to explain to the traditional owners of the Keep River area what national park management was about and how it would contribute to the protection of their lands, I and other staff in the Katherine region of the commission decided to approach Bill Neidjie and see if he would be able to travel to Keep River National Park to explain to the traditional owners there the parameters of national parks: the management and protection regimes that are put in place in relation to the experiences that he had had in Kakadu.
Bill readily agreed to go to Keep River National Park, and it was interesting to see the interaction of the Aboriginal cultures - for example, the great awareness and understanding that Bill had in terms of him being in country that was far from his own, and having to demonstrate to the traditional owners of the Keep River area that he was not there to tell them what to do or to impose on their culture, but simply to explain his experiences in terms of national park management and the benefits that he considered the traditional owners might derive from such an arrangement. Quite apart from that understanding and the sensitivities he had to deal with - and he dealt with them with what appeared to be great ease, sensitivity and understanding so as not to impose his own views, but simply impart information – was the other side of that experience. That was the understanding and bridge that Bill Neidjie had built between western culture and mechanisms such as national parks and their management, and the benefits that could flow to traditional land owners in relation to that; and the traditional ties to the land and the requirements of Aboriginal people. He was someone who had so artfully constructed that understanding over the period of his life and was able to impart that knowledge to others in a way that was both meaningful and very worthwhile.
He was able to explain to the people of the Keep River area - much better than I and the other staff in the commission - what the circumstances were, and how they might best be able to structure park management, then proceed with the development of things like plans of management that would enshrine the traditional uses and the needs of the Aboriginal people. It was that experience that contributed so much to making the traditional owners of the area understand what the circumstances were, and enabled them to proceed to what is now a wonderful national park.
Drawing on that experience, I can appreciate other aspects of experiences I had with Big Bill – his humbleness and why he would choose to have a celebration of his life while he was still alive. He was very much a people person, and I understand why he would want to be able to see what people thought of him and express their point of view and for him to be able to be there and enjoy that before his time of passing came.
Madam Speaker, that eventually did come and in contributing to this debate, I very sincerely express my condolences to his family and his traditional people.
Mr AH KIT (Assisting the Chief Minister on Indigenous Affairs): Madam Speaker, I rise today to pay my respects to a great man. I acknowledge his family and friends here today and hope that these words give a sense of the deep respect and love I had for that old man, known simply to most as Big Bill.
Bill Neidjie was born at Alawanydjawany on the west bank of the East Alligator River some time after World War I. He died at the East Alligator Ranger Station at Kakadu on 23 May 2002. I simply say we will miss him and, as many have noted, we will never see his like again. Many stories have been told about Big Bill, but the one I am about to tell says so much about the man.
Bob Brown, who was then the federal Transport Minister, must have thought all his troubles had come at once; it was his first time in the Northern Territory and his first time on Aboriginal land, and things looked grim. In 1989, it appeared to be an election stunt: at the request of the former government, the completion of 14 km of sealed road in Kakadu was being bizarrely commemorated with the unveiling of a brass plaque on a huge lump of granite, still sitting in wet concrete. An imposing, clearly angry, Aboriginal man had just stormed up to Minister Brown in the presence of myself, Transport and Works workers, Bob Collins and a few others, his finger waving in Minister Brown’s face, his deep and gravelly voice demanding: ‘Who put that bloody rock there? It’s not from this country!’. The man was Big Bill Neidjie and it was a tribute to his moral, as well as physical stature, that a front-end loader and chains immediately ripped the short-lived monument from the ground, never to be replaced.
This is but one of many stories told at the memorial service held for Big Bill at his Canon Hill outstation below the Namarrgana escarpment. Appropriately, tall tales but true of a man instrumental in the creation of Kakadu National Park and in fighting for international recognition for its cultural, as well as natural, heritage.
Big Bill was born into the Bunitj clan at Alawanydjawany. He grew up in the bush on the flood plains from Bindjilbindjil to Kapalga and, with his grandfather Yarranglanya and mother Lucy Wirlmaka, in Wulbu clan territory.
It was a life learning about how to live from the land and it was rich in acquiring the traditions of his people. He spent only a couple of years in formal schooling at Oenpelli. For the rest of it, it was Bininj way or Aboriginal way.
It was a time when there were few white fellas in the region, though one often marked by casual violence between white against black. Bill Bill’s father Nardampala was shot and wounded in the back by a buffalo hunter, Rodney Spencer. Many Aboriginal people worked on the buffalo camp and Bill recalled it was a tough existence. He said he and a very good mate of his, Mirrar clansman Toby Gangale, would often run away. ‘We were too young’, he said.
By the time of the World War II - the Big Fight, as he described it - Big Bill was working on boats running supplies between Darwin, the Cape Don lighthouse and Gunbalanya. He recalled once on the East Alligator, nearly being the victim of friendly fire from an Australian fighter, surviving by ‘sinking in the mud like a crocodile’. On another occasion he was threatened with shooting by Australian soldiers who mistakenly believed that the boat he was on - which was moored off Nightcliff Beach - was from Indonesia.
After the war he continued working on boats supplying communities as far away as Kalumburu in the Kimberley. This was followed by work in the 1960s and 1970s as a gardener in Darwin and a forester on the Cobourg Peninsula. Throughout this period, he was known across much of the Top End among Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people for his physical prowess - capable, for example, of single-handedly carrying 200 litre fuel drums across his broad shoulders while giving half a dozen young fellas a hurry up.
Big Bill always said: ‘When my hair starts to go grey, I will go back to my country’ - and he did at a crucial time; on the eve of the inquiry into uranium mining in Kakadu. Big Bill was later to be the principal witness in the Alligator River Stage II land claim over parts of Kakadu which led to the national park coming under Aboriginal control in joint management with the Commonwealth.
He moved back to his traditional lands in 1979 at the CSIRO camp at Canon Hill, not far from the rock art galleries at Ubirr. It was as Kakadu Man that Big Bill’s life and work became known internationally. Books and videos featuring his thoughts and philosophies about the land and the Dreaming and of people’s place within them, have become best sellers and hundreds of thousands of visitors to the park have benefited from his wisdom.
He was at first a ranger, then Senior Cultural Advisor to the park, supplying researchers and rangers vast amounts of indigenous knowledge about the park, much of which has been incorporated into the management of Kakadu. Big Bill’s work was instrumental in having Kakadu achieve world heritage status for its cultural and natural attributes. Big Bill was also the last fluent speaker of Gagudju language from which the name of Kakadu has been drawn.
Big Bill also had his own approach to many things. It was only last year that he organised and attended his own wake in order, as he said, ‘to hear nice things said about me’.
Former and current politicians and judges, scientists and park rangers, and friends and relations attended a living memorial for the Old Man of Kakadu last year. I have been told that the day gave him great pleasure, so when he passed away last month it was completely fitting that his memorial service was a day of sadness but also of joy in remembrance of the Old Man. At a time when the nation was marking the passing of the last Anzac, there was a very real sense for those present at Canon Hill that another long, equally important chapter in history was closing.
Madam Speaker, these words I have said today show a small part about the life of Big Bill Neidjie, the legend. To his family, Jonathon and Samson, Magdalene and Elizabeth, and his grandchildren: I know you will always miss him. I know I will and so will many, many other people. In words that he was familiar with, I say Bo Bo: goodbye, Old Man.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to the condolence motion for Big Bill Neidjie. Like most of the Top End, the land area that we know as Kakadu National Park was once carved up into notional pastoral leases. This strange administrative arrangement was borne out of the colonial mentality that reflected racist contempt for Aboriginal people and their belief systems. The attempted acquisition of their land was rationalised by reference to the self-serving doctrine of terra nullius.
Aboriginal traditional owner groups for areas of land that were subject to more intense levels of white incursion dwindled and suffered dislocation and disruption. Their land was frequently taken over not just by non-Aboriginal fortune seekers, but also by Aboriginal people from adjacent territory or from further afield. It was common for non-Aboriginal interlopers to use Aboriginal people from other areas as scouts and workers when settling and subjugating a new territory. A diaspora effect set in which often saw important individuals for small traditional owner groups tend to spend the best years of their youth working in other people’s country. Big Bill was no exception.
It is grim and sobering to contemplate what hand fate would have dealt Big Bill and his family if the Aboriginal Land Rights Act had not come into force when it did. Bill was a fighter and he would have stood up for his culture and law regardless of what outsiders said or did. But it was the Land Rights Act that was the mechanism to compel non-Aborigines to pay more than just lip service to Bill’s assertion of ownership and obligations under Aboriginal law. The Land Rights Act enabled Big Bill to implement his own law with the endorsement and recognition of Australia law.
People who knew him better than me have, on a number of occasions since his passing, edified and uplifted us with personal accounts and anecdotes that reveal both the character and humour of this man. I will not attempt to compete in that arena but will simply remind you of his achievements as a political achiever; an Aboriginal statesman who managed, again with the assistance of the Land Rights Act, to turn knowledge and leadership in a traditional Aboriginal context into concrete and lasting negotiated outcomes in the mainstream world. The national media devoted significant and understandable attention to the recent passing of Alec Campbell, the last of the Anzacs. He was celebrated as a man who had lived through turbulent times and survived to enrich the spirit and understanding of subsequent generations. The personal histories of great leaders like Bill Neidjie are likewise created through a complex interaction between dramatic and irreversible social change and the fundamental human qualities of the individual himself.
Big Bill’s death reminds us all - and in particular the younger generation of Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory - of the urgency of learning from and cherishing the surviving leaders and law men from Bill’s generation. Many other important old people have passed away in the last decade; some who are well known to the wider community, others men and women who are sometimes silent heroes of their families, clans, language groups or communities. All worked at the coalface of the land rights struggle. Big Bill represented many of our elders and the importance of honouring our own people. Their lives and struggles provide us with crucial lessons.
Big Bill was able to taste victory in his lifetime and, indeed, famously celebrated his own wake nearly a year before he died.
Sadly, too many of our old people or our leaders pass away before they can achieve or witness any positive outcomes for their people. Too often, it has been the case that our old people have not lived to see the fruits of their struggles, so as we honour big Bill Neidjie today we must also honour those other elders of ours. Big Bill demonstrated and embodied commitment to traditional law and culture in the face of colonial attempts to sweep away traditional ownership of his land. He refused to regard the legacy of such attempts as obstacles to the expression of his cultural, social, economic and political rights.
We here in the Northern Territory must always be mindful of our not-so-distant colonial history in our search to find better ways forward. The search must be undertaken in an atmosphere of mutuality rather than one of hostility. Big Bill taught everyone that. To his sons, Jonathon and Samson, his daughters, Magdalene and Elizabeth, their families, his many grandchildren and great-grandchildren, to all members of his family, to his sister Jane Christopherson and her family, the legend will live on. It lives within you through the teachings of land, law and culture, which Big Bill stood for. He was the cornerstone of your moral and spiritual authority which no one can take from you.
Madam SPEAKER: I thank honourable members for their contributions and tributes. On behalf of officers and members of the parliament, I extend condolences to the family. I ask members to stand for one minute of silence.
Thank you members, and I thank members of the family who have attended this morning.
RESPONSES TO PETITIONS
The CLERK: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 100A, I inform honourable members that responses to petition Nos 10, 11 and 12 have been received and circulated to honourable members. The text of the responses will be included in the Hansard record.
Petition No 10
Cawood Court Unit Complex, Alice Springs
Date petition presented: 26 February 2002
Presented by: Ms Carney
Referred to: Minister for Lands and Planning
Date response received: 4 June 2002
Date response presented: 18 June 2002
Response:
In late October 2001, this Government rescinded the previous Government's decision to demolish
Cawood Court and decided instead to seek expressions of interest in developing the site. This process
was adopted to maximise the benefits to the community. The proceeds from the sale of the site are to be
spent on public housing needs in Alice Springs.
On 12 April 2002 I announced that Australian Property Projects Pty Ltd (APP) were selected to redevelop
the site. APP will demolish seven of the existing 58 units, spend $35,000 per unit upgrading the interior
of the remaining units, build carports, a swimming pool, a gymnasium, a recreation area and landscape
the site. The upgraded units are to be strata titled for private sale. As a result of this decision the
Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment has proceeded to make an offer of a Crown Lease
over the Cawood Court site to the successful developer.
Price was an important aspect in that Government has a responsibility to get good value for the taxpayer
dollar. It was however appropriate to forego some potential return on the property to ensure a
significant enhancement to the amenity of the neighbourhood.
I believe the outcome of the redevelopment of Cawood Court will be positive for Alice Springs. The
development offers a significant enhancement to the amenity of the neighbourhood. APP propose to
source materials, sub-contractors and a project manager from Alice Springs. In total it is estimated
that this redevelopment project will provide a $2.3M injection to the local building industry.
The petition calls for the site to be demolished and for a seniors village and some low level housing to
be developed. It would not have been a responsible use of taxpayer money to bulldoze and subdivide
the site to cater for the types of housing indicated in the petition. In essence the resultant buildings
would have been built on very expensive land given the costs to prepare and service the land.
In summary, I believe the decision made will provide significant benefits to Alice Springs, is a practical
use of the asset and will enable my department to use the proceeds of the sale for future housing projects
in Alice Springs.
I therefore advise the petitioner that I am unable to accede to the terms of their petition.
Petition No 11
Palmerston 24-hour Emergency Medical Service
Presented by: Mr Wood
Referred to: Minister for Health and Community Services
Date response received: 27 February 2002
Date response presented: 18 June 2002
Response:
Petition No 11 requested that the 24-hour emergency medical services in Palmerston be retained.
Petition No 12 requested either the retention of the previous 24-hour medical services in Palmerston
or the establishment of a 24-hour medical assessment service from nurses or paramedics. It also
requested ambulance services to improve access to the Royal Darwin Hospital where required.
I would like to take this opportunity to provide you with an overview of current services and to clarify
the position with regard to the after-hours medical services located at the Palmerston Health Precinct.
After-hours medical services have been supported by the previous and new government and established
at the Palmerston Health Precinct since 1997. It is important to note, however, that after-hours services
have never been established in lieu of emergency services. The after-hours medical services aims instead
to provide general medical coverage (ie general practitioner services) on an after-hours basis to residents
of Palmerston and its environs.
It is important to make this distinction clear and to note that emergency services are best provided by
hospitals equipped with facilities and staffed with those having the requisite expertise to deal with
such emergencies. Emergency services are provided to all Darwin and Palmerston and greater Darwin
residents through the Royal Darwin and Darwin Private Hospitals.
With respect to the after-hours medical services, it should be noted that there has, in fact, been two quite
different after-hours medical services initiated in Palmerston. The first, a 6 pm to 10 pm service commenced
in 1997 and is currently still being provided at the Farrar Medical Centre. The second, a 10 pm to 8 am service
was provided on a trial basis and was subject to a review after 3 months. The review indicated that this service
was non-viable, too costly and has since been rescinded.
Through initiatives of this government, emergency access to Royal Darwin Hospital has been made easier.
Firstly, extra ambulance shifts have been added to the Darwin area, which enables the Palmerston rural
area ambulance to service its area better. Secondly, a voluntary ambulance service is currently being
developed for the Humpty Doo area and it is expected to commence from 1 July 2002.
Obviously, the provision of both after-hours medical and emergency services will be monitored and
reviewed in light of changes in information, community need, priorities and funding allocation.
In view of this, I would like to draw your attention to a Commonwealth funded needs analysis and feasibility
study into after-hours medical services that is currently being conducted by the Division of General Practice,
Northern Territory. This study is also considering triage-based call centres. The recommendations and
findings are expected to be finalised by June 2002 and will need to be taken into consideration before any
future decisions are made.
I trust that this will reassure you that the provision of after-hours medical services is important and initiatives
are being monitored to provide the most effective health services possible.
Petition No 12
24-hour GP Service in Palmerston
Presented by: Mr Burke
Referred to: Minister for Health and Community Services
Date response received: 27 February 2002
Date response presented: 18 June 2002
Response:
Petition No 11 requested that the 24-hour emergency medical services in Palmerston be retained.
Petition No 12 requested either the retention of the previous 24-hour medical services in Palmerston
or the establishment of a 24-hour medical assessment service from nurses or paramedics. It also
requested ambulance services to improve access to the Royal Darwin Hospital where required.
I would like to take this opportunity to provide you with an overview of current services and to clarify
the position with regard to the after-hours medical services located at the Palmerston Health Precinct.
After-hours medical services have been supported by the previous and new government and established
at the Palmerston Health Precinct since 1997. It is important to note, however, that after-hours services
have never been established in lieu of emergency services. The after-hours medical services aims instead
to provide general medical coverage (ie general practitioner services) on an after-hours basis to residents
of Palmerston and its environs.
It is important to make this distinction clear and to note that emergency services are best provided by
hospitals equipped with facilities and staffed with those having the requisite expertise to deal with
such emergencies. Emergency services are provided to all Darwin and Palmerston and greater Darwin
residents through the Royal Darwin and Darwin Private Hospitals.
With respect to the after-hours medical services, it should be noted that there has, in fact, been two quite
different after-hours medical services initiated in Palmerston. The first, a 6 pm to 10 pm service commenced
in 1997 and is currently still being provided at the Farrar Medical Centre. The second, a 10 pm to 8 am service
was provided on a trial basis and was subject to a review after 3 months. The review indicated that this service
was non-viable, too costly and has since been rescinded.
Through initiatives of this government, emergency access to Royal Darwin Hospital has been made easier.
Firstly, extra ambulance shifts have been added to the Darwin area, which enables the Palmerston rural
area ambulance to service its area better. Secondly, a voluntary ambulance service is currently being
developed for the Humpty Doo area and it is expected to commence from 1 July 2002.
Obviously, the provision of both after-hours medical and emergency services will be monitored and
reviewed in light of changes in information, community need, priorities and funding allocation.
In view of this, I would like to draw your attention to a Commonwealth funded needs analysis and
feasibility study into after-hours medical services that is currently being conducted by the Division
of General Practice, Northern Territory. This study is also considering triage-based call centres.
The recommendations and findings are expected to be finalised by June 2002 and will need to be
taken into consideration before any future decisions are made.
I trust that this will reassure you that the provision of after-hours medical services is important and
initiatives are being monitored to provide the most effective health services possible.
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Routine of Business
Routine of Business
Madam SPEAKER: Members, I wish to advise you that the Standing Orders Committee, at its meeting on 23 May 2002, agreed that the routine of daily business be amended to reflect the recent practice of giving notices at 2 pm immediately after the luncheon suspension. I understand that later in the day, the Leader of Government Business will be giving notice to this effect. Accordingly, I will be calling notices at 2 pm.
MINISTERIAL REPORTS
Timor Sea Gas Onshore
Timor Sea Gas Onshore
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I would like to report to the House on what has been happening with the Territory’s work in relation to Timor Sea gas and most importantly, getting that gas onshore both for the Territory and for the benefits it brings to the country. I do not think anyone needs persuasion in this parliament, or in the Territory generally, about why we need that gas onshore; it is critical in diversifying our economy. For the Territory, it will reduce our dependence on Canberra and enable us to more effectively fund the Territory’s key priorities in areas like health and education, and it gives us the potential to become Australia’s fourth gas hub.
Timor Sea gas is an impressive resource, and the current challenge for producers is to match the huge reserves - those 22 currently identified TCFs in the Timor Sea - with customers. The challenge for the Territory, this government, and Team NT, has been to encourage the producers to find these customers onshore and maximise the benefits to the Territory and the country.
I know that everyone here was very encouraged by the decision that was taken by the joint venture partners to review the domestic gas case. It is a very important initiative and one that gives the Territory an opportunity to identify those gas customers, to work in conjunction with Shell Woodside and Phillips. One of the partners in the Sunrise field, Phillips, and ourselves have always believed that there are customers onshore for the gas. Now Woodside and Shell have said that if they are there at the right price to make the project work, then they will support gas from Greater Sunrise coming onshore. I am convinced that the review which is now underway will be taking place with integrity. The partners have advised that we will have an answer by October.
I want to bring everyone up to date about what we have been doing since this parliament last sat. During the period 17 to 29 May, I sent my most senior officials to visit producers, potential customers, and senior officials in the Commonwealth government. These visits were enlightening and reinforced my government’s position that there is a sound case for the domestic market for Sunrise gas.
On 5 June, the government made a presentation and gave briefings to Warwick Parer, the head of the COAC Energy Review Committee. We provided a very comprehensive case on the need for a unified national energy policy that acknowledges and incorporates energy security and supply as being vital to the national interest. The Commonwealth has a major role to play in ensuring that energy supply is secured for the benefit of Australia; the supply of gas from Sunrise being an integral part of such a policy.
It is now time for customers to take advantage of the window of opportunity presented to them, and my officers have spent much effort encouraging them to do so. In fact, I and the Resources minister, met with a group of potential customers this morning to emphasise that message. From that meeting I am even more convinced of our case, and have agreed with them that the Northern Territory government will help facilitate a more proactive approach to the process of review that we are now in. They clearly need gas for major project developments in the Territory, to help diversify southern supply, and keep a cap on prices through competition. Bayu-Undan is coming onshore to produce LNG and only awaits the ratification of the treaty with East Timor.
Prime Minister John Howard and Prime Minister Dr Mari Alkatiri of East Timor signed the Timor Sea Treaty in Dili last month, on 20 May. The treaty will now have to be ratified by both countries and to cover the period required for this process, an exchange of diplomatic notes was also made on 20 May. Australia is proceeding with its ratification process which must pass through both Houses of parliament. We were advised at SEAAOC yesterday that this process will commence on 25 June. The unitisation of the Sunrise field, which Australia wants to be part of the treaty package, was not finalised in time for the treaty signing on 20 May. Therefore, both governments also signed a Memorandum of Understanding with respect to unitisation. This provides for the negotiations to be completed by no later than 31 December this year.
Other fields in the Timor Sea are also being promoted with the Bonaparte Gulf taking a high profile based on Woodside’s Blacktip, and Santos’ strategy to develop its resources. In summary, Bayu-Undan is proceeding well and I have confidence that the process commenced by the Sunrise partners has a good chance of seeing gas onshore for industrial development. I have to tell this parliament that gas from Timor Sea is getting very close.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I thank the Chief Minister for her statement. I was hoping to hear comment on some of the issues that are nearer rather than further away. We all agree that Timor Sea gas coming onshore is most important for the Northern Territory, and I applaud the efforts of the government in that regard. I would like to get - and I believe Territorians need - a better definition of what we mean when we talk about Timor Sea gas. Are we talking about Bayu-Undan and therefore Timor Sea gas coming onshore? No, we are not; we are talking about the other fields. I believe Bayu-Undan is progressing well, as the Chief Minister has said, but I would have hoped that she could give some indication of the issue regarding the maritime boundaries; the fact that Dr Alkatiri said that is still on the agenda and that the Commonwealth government, I understand, will not ratify the treaty regarding Bayu-Undan until the issue of maritime boundaries with Sunrise is settled. What is happening with regard to settling that issue in the time frame that Phillips themselves have called for?
We have looming environmental problems with regards to the Middle Arm locality. There are those who want an assurance from government that no other facility will be built at Middle Arm other than the Phillips LNG plant. I believe the government should give that assurance absolutely; it is something that they were strong about in opposition. It is an easy thing to do. I have concerns about environmental issues with regards to a 10 000 000 tonne LNG plant as opposed to the 3 000 000 tonne LNG plant already approved for Middle Arm. I believe that the government should be far more forthright in explaining to Territorians the difference between those two proposals.
The Chief Minister quickly mentioned issues with regards to progress in the Bonaparte Basin. What is happening in the Bonaparte Basin? What is happening with regards to bringing Blacktip gas onshore? What are the markets proposed for Blacktip, and will we see progress on this issue? I raise these issues not as criticism, but if we are going to report on Timor Sea gas developments, let us get some detail on the table.
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, it is very disappointing to hear the negative attitude of the Leader of the Opposition. It is a very surprising and negative attitude. This is …
Ms Carter: Asking questions. That’s all.
Ms MARTIN: I would ask the member for Port Darwin to keep her remarks to herself, thank you.
To respond briefly, it would have been good to see the Leader of the Opposition at SEAAOC yesterday. There was a very confident statement from the federal government about Bayu-Undan and the ratification of the important treaty between Australia and East Timor progressing well. That confidence was shared by the 300 or so people who were at SEAAOC.
As far as Wickham Point goes, to listen to the hypocrisy that is now being mouthed by the Leader of the Opposition about Wickham Point and the plans that the Leader of the Opposition, when he was in government, had for Wickham Point …
Mr Burke: What are your plans?
Ms MARTIN: It is all very well to stand in here and be hypocritical. Let us see a much more constructive approach. I am very sad that I am out of time.
National Competition Policy
Ms MARTIN (Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, it would be good if the opposition sought briefings on Timor Sea instead of coming in here making posturing statements.
Madam SPEAKER: We are on Ministerial Reports, Chief Minister.
Ms MARTIN: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
During these and subsequent sittings, the government will be introducing a series of bills relating to National Competition Policy. It is useful for the parliament to be reminded of the background and legislative implications of this agreement to assist in the passage of this legislation in coming months.
The Commonwealth, all states and territories agreed to adopt National Competition Policy on 11 April 1995 and signed three specific agreements relating to the implementation of the policy. These are:
- Competition Principles Agreement. This agreement imposes on all governments an obligation
to review and, if necessary, reform all legislation which restricts competition for which they are
responsible;
rule, government businesses are subject to the same competition rules as privately owned
businesses; and
a timetable to reform and for the making of payments by the Commonwealth to the states and territories.
As the benefits of reform mainly accrue directly to the Commonwealth via the tax system and greater economic growth, these payments seek to return a dividend to state and territory governments.
The primary aim of National Competition Policy is to promote competition where it will deliver net public benefits. The longer term benefits of effective competition include: lower prices and increased choice for customers; higher economic and employment growth; and improved living standards.
Since 1995 the Territory has made substantial progress in implementing National Competition Policy including the related reform areas of electricity, gas, water and road transport. The Territory is continuing the process of reviewing anti-competitive provisions in its legislation. In addition, all proposals for new legislation or amendments to existing legislation must address National Competition Policy issues. The ongoing implementation of National Competition Policy is a prerequisite for the receipt of competition payments, estimated at around $7.6m per year – and they are indexed for the Territory – in 2001-02.
Although significant progress was made in a number of areas under the former government, the legislative review stalled somewhat in recent years, meaning that the Territory will not meet the 30 June deadline for making the necessary changes to its legislation. However, most other jurisdictions are in a similar position, and the Territory is working cooperatively with the National Competition Council to minimise any implications for competition payments.
All together, 104 pieces of Territory legislation needed review. Of these, 40 have been processed, but some 64 remain. Five bills are being introduced these sittings as a result of the National Competition review process by the Attorney-General, and one bill is for debate.
Most of the reviews have resulted in only minor legislative amendments being required. The review process and necessary legislative changes to remaining processes should be completed by the end of this year.
Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment – New Directions
Mr VATSKALIS (Lands and Planning) Madam Speaker, I would like report today on new directions for the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment and, in particular, of the conservation and natural resource management areas.
The government is committed to the development of the Territory in a way that creates genuine economic opportunities for all Territorians, but which is balanced with the goal to conserve our precious natural environment and ensure that our natural resources are sustained for future generations. This is quite clear in Building a Better Territory, the Territory government’s economic development strategy which was announced by the Chief Minister last week. This means that not only do we need to foster the continuing development of our national parks and reserves system, but we also need to pay greater attention to the way in which we manage the environment outside these areas. It is important that the conservation and development decisions we take today are based on the best available scientific information and will create the right processes for the community to have a say in where and how the landscape of the Territory is modified over time.
At this stage of the Territory’s development, it is vital that we ensure that our best natural resource and environmental scientists are working together with the community to develop integrated conservation and natural resource plans for the various regions of the Territory. For some time, the CEO of my department has been considering a number of refinements to current operating arrangements to accelerate the closer integration of the Territory’s land management future. I have been kept informed of these issues and I strongly support my CEO’s proposal to achieve this greater level of protection of our land resources. These refinements will bring together for the first time the intellectual and financial resources of government to assist in making sensible decisions about the management of fire, weeds, feral animals, land, water and biodiversity. It also provides the platform for a more integrated government effort in supporting the various community and industry groups, individuals, local government and research institutions in understanding, managing and protecting our resources.
Some of the new initiatives that the above arrangements will support include: the development of integrated, regional natural resource and conservation plans; a new coastal and marine management policy for the Northern Territory; a plan of management for Darwin Harbour; the revamping of the NT Landcare Council as the peak natural resource advisory committee to the government; and the introduction of vegetation clearing controls which are clearly linked to the land use planning process.
New directions were clearly anticipated and expected by the government when it announced changes to the public sector management arrangements last November. Indeed, the CEO of the department advised staff in December that the management arrangements he put in place then were of an interim nature and that further changes should be anticipated. I also remind honourable members that in announcing the changes last year, the Chief Minister advised the Northern Territory Public Service that, while there would be no forced redundancies, it was anticipated that over time there would be savings in senior executive management costs.
In recent months, it has become increasingly evident to the department’s CEO, Mr Barry Chambers, that further integration of the Parks and Wildlife Commission’s functions into the wider department was necessary. In this context, it was also obvious that the existing high level position of Executive Director, Parks and Wildlife, held by the former CEO, Dr Bill Freeland, would not be required.
All honourable members should be aware that senior executive contracts are for fixed periods with no automatic right of renewal. However, the contract requires the employer and the executive officer to confer in regard to whether a new contract will be offered six months prior to the expiry date. A decision regarding reappointment must be made three months prior to expiration of the contract.
On Thursday, 6 June, the chief executive advised me that he intended to inform Dr Freeland that his contract would not be renewed when it expired on 18 November 2002. While it is not my role to intervene in these matters, I did indicate to the CEO my understanding and support of the logic underpinning his decision. The CEO met with Dr Freeland at 8 am on Friday, 7 June, and informed him that his contract would not be renewed after its expiration. He was also informed that he could continue to work at his current level until that date, but not as Executive Director of Parks of Wildlife. My understanding is that he would be engaged in resolving specific conservation issues and reporting directly to the Chief Executive Officer.
The Chief Executive Officer has advised that Dr Freeland interpreted this offer as meaning he was sacked or fired, a pejorative term subsequently used extensively by the media and by Dr Freeland in his final advice to staff. My understanding is that in view of Dr Freeland’s negative reaction, the Chief Executive Officer offered him the option of an early termination of his contract in accordance with conditions that will need to be agreed by the Commissioner of Public Employment. Dr Freeland has subsequently accepted an offer and his contract of employment has been formally terminated.
I should stress that the recent events have nothing to do with Dr Freeland’s credibility. His long-standing contribution to conservation issues in the Territory is respected and acknowledged by the government, the department’s chief executive and the wider community.
Madam SPEAKER: Minister, your time has expired.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Minister, what absolute garbage! What a gall! You have the gall to come into this parliament, use three minutes or whatever of the parliament’s time, in a cursory, dismissive way, and try and explain to us why you got rid of a loyal and good public servant of the Northern Territory. You are an absolute disgrace! You are a disgrace because you do not even know your own responsibility. You are a disgrace because you do not even know the Parks and Wildlife Commission Act. You do not even know the fact that you appoint the Director of Parks and Wildlife, and it is only you who can sack that person. You have the gall to lie to Territorians, to go on radio …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Mr BURKE: Madam Speaker, I withdraw.
Let us get this issue fairly on the agenda. Let us get the minister to explain why he has lied to Territorians …
Mr STIRLING: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Could you rephrase that, Leader of the Opposition?
Mr Stirling: He should withdraw, Madam Speaker.
Mr BURKE: Let us get the minister to explain …
Mr STIRLING: Madam Speaker, there is a point of order. It requires a withdrawal.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes.
Mr BURKE: I withdraw, Madam Speaker.
Let us get this minister to explain, when he is so high and mighty about understanding the environment, that you treat your CEOs like garbage; you throw them away dismissively. Where is the CEO of Transport and Infrastructure? Sacked! Where is the CEO for Lands, Planning and Environment? Sacked! Where is the CEO of the Parks and Wildlife Commission? Sacked! You have the gall to go out there and say: ‘It is none of my responsibility; it is all the CEO. Do not look at me, blame someone else. We were going to terminate his contract. Oh, but we were going to keep him on’. You do not know the responsibilities of your job; you do not know how badly you have treated public servants.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Move Motion of Censure of Minister for Parks and Wildlife
Move Motion of Censure of Minister for Parks and Wildlife
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended to move the following motion of censure:
- That this House censures the Minister for Parks and Wildlife for:
(1) the shameful way he disposed of the Director of the Parks and Wildlife Commission;
(2) the deliberate misleading of Territorians in relation to that sacking;
(3) his refusal to provide an adequate explanation for his actions;
(4) the continuing undermining of the loyal and dedicated staff of the Parks and Wildlife Commission …
Mr STIRLING (Leader of Government Business): The government accepts the censure motion as proposed by the Leader of the Opposition. We regard it as a serious motion.
Madam SPEAKER: You can distribute the motion.
Mr BURKE: If I may just finish the motion?
Members interjecting.
MOTION
Proposed Censure of Minister for Parks and Wildlife
Proposed Censure of Minister for Parks and Wildlife
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Thank you, Madam Speaker. I move:
- That this House censures the Minister for Parks and Wildlife for:
- (1) the shameful way he disposed of the Director of the Parks and Wildlife Commission;
(2) the deliberate misleading of Territorians in relation to that sacking;
(3) his refusal to provide an adequate explanation for his actions;
(4) the continuing undermining of the loyal and dedicated staff of the Parks and Wildlife Commission;
(5) placing the management of the Territory’s parks and its flora and fauna at risk; and
(6) doing immeasurable damage to the parks and their position as vital icons and attractions for the
tourism industry.
Friday, June 7 will go down in the history of the Territory as the day this Labor government showed its true colours because on that day, they not only arbitrarily sacked a loyal and dedicated public servant, but they also tried to blame another public servant for that action. They not only sent a message to all public servants that their jobs are at constant risk, but they also made it clear that the upheaval that they have caused in government departments and agencies since they came to power has only just begun.
They showed that the restructuring announced in November was not the end of the upheaval public servants face, but rather the beginning of a process that is slowly working its way through every agency and department, and every former agency and department. They not only show that they intend to get rid of Territorians whenever and however they like, but they also care nothing for the consequences …
Dr Toyne: How about your ERC? Do you remember that one?
Mr BURKE: You, Attorney-General, are just as bad. You have the gall to walk in here and wave around probity orders. Let us talk about probity orders. We will do that in another motion one day, about how we conduct probity in the Northern Territory.
They not only show that they intend to get rid of Territorians whenever and however they like, but that they care nothing for the consequences.
The Territory Public Service is permeated by depression and despondency according to the key public service union, but this government is so determined on its course that it will not even listen to that warning.
Dr Toyne: I think that’s your personal problem, Denis.
Mr BURKE: Let us look at the facts, Minister! I want an explanation from you on the facts this time. Around 7 June, Dr Bill Freeland was called in by the CEO of the Labor-created super department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment and told he was no longer wanted; his contract was being terminated. This is the same Dr Bill Freeland who this minister chose to reappoint to the position of Director of Parks and Wildlife a little over six months ago - I remind you, minister - after the restructuring of the public service. The Gazette clearly shows that action. Madam Speaker, I seek leave to table a copy of the page from the Government Gazette of 30 November 2001 which records that appointment by K Vatskalis, Minister for Parks and Wildlife.
Leave granted.
Mr BURKE: I table that particular extract from the Gazette, which clearly shows the responsibility the minister has in appointing and terminating those positions.
The minister appointed Dr Freeland under section 4(2) of the Parks and Wildlife Commission Act which recognises the change in status of the commission from being a separate agency to one that is now subsumed inside another agency or department. Also under that act, the minister has the power under section 4(3) to terminate the appointment of a Director, but more of that later.
As the act says, and as the minister acted, it was still up to the minister to appoint a Director of Parks and Wildlife. He did that on 7 November. The situation has not changed, and I understand he has now appointed Barry Chambers to that job. The Parks and Wildlife Commission exists and it needs a director - a statutory position - to carry out the work of the commission and undertake the task given by the Territory Parks and Wildlife Commission Act. They are the simple facts. What has this minister said? If we look at the transcript of that portion of his press conference played on ABC radio, we discover he was even lying about the lies. He obviously has yet to graduate from the Chief Minister’s class in these matters. The Chief Minister has a maxim: when you propagate a lie, stick to it; get your lie fixed in your head and then don’t deviate. You have not learnt that lesson.
Let us take his first comment, and I quote:
Well, this press conference was called to advise people about the situation with Dr Freeland and also
indicate that Dr Freeland’s contract was terminated today because the department is going to go to new
places, new directions. Because of the new structure of the department, Dr Freeland’s position does
not exist any more and Dr Freeland was advised that we are not going to renew his contract.
Before we go any further, the minister has already failed to get his story his right. He says that the ‘contract was terminated today’, and then he says the contract which, I remind members, was to last up until November, would not be renewed. The difference is enormous. In the first instance, it is a straight sacking. In the second case, the non-renewing of a contract at its expiration is a legitimate consequence of a contract expiry. Unlike the minister, Dr Freeland had no problems understanding the difference. He told his former colleagues and comrades: ‘This morning, I was told I was fired’. But who fired him? According to this minister, it was the CEO of the department.
Putting aside for the moment whether the CEO could fire someone appointed under an act of this parliament, why didn’t the minister have the guts to do his own dirty work? Why didn’t he call Dr Freeland in and simply tell him: ‘You’re sacked’? That would have been the honourable thing to do, no matter how brutal it would have been. Instead, this minister has chosen to hide behind his CEO, and then to blame the CEO for those actions. Minister, is that the way to treat someone who has served the Territory for almost 20 years; someone who has taken care of and protected our parks and wildlife as head of the commission for the past six years? Is that the way to treat someone who has represented the Territory’s interests on national and international organisations and forums? Is that the way to treat someone whose passion for the Territory’s parks and wildlife has been worn on his sleeve; on the sleeve of the Parks and Wildlife uniform he so proudly wore?
It was a shameful way to dispose of Dr Freeland, sending the message second-hand and with no explanation and no warning. This minister stands condemned for behaving in such a despicable way to such a respected Territorian. However, it doesn’t end there. Not content with dumping Dr Freeland by proxy, this minister deliberately tried to tell Territorians it had nothing to do with him. He told the media:
- Believe it or not, the minister cannot hire or fire anybody.
Well, we do not believe it, Minister. The act clearly states that you appoint the Director of Parks and Wildlife, as you did in November, and you terminate that appointment. If it has happened in some other way then I would suggest you are in breach of the act. You are in contempt of this parliament which passed that act.
The minister then went on:
That’s for the CEO to decide: who he fires and hires. And the CEO would be able, or he was able, to
discuss with Dr Freeland why he was fired, as Dr Freeland claims. And I think you can direct this
question to Mr Chambers.
Now, that is pretty typical of this minister. You shift the blame straight on to your departmental officers. You do not understand your own responsibilities. You do not understand your responsibilities under the act. You treat the act with contempt - if you know it at all - and then, when all else fails, dump the responsibility straight on to some other public servant.
Of course, this is not the first time this minister has tried to hide behind his department. He is building up quite a record for blaming the department and the Territorians who work within it for anything that goes wrong. I am sure members will remember the debacle over the acquisition of properties on Middle Arm. The public servants involved certainly do because the minister came in here and blamed them.
Or there was the problem of school bus services in the rural area. Again, the minister made it clear it had nothing to do with him; it was the department’s fault. It was a stuff-up by the public servants. It is never this minister’s fault; always the department’s fault.
So much for the doctrine of ministerial responsibility under this Labor government. But let me return to that quote from the minister when he said: ‘Dr Freeland claims he was fired’. Only minutes earlier in the same interview, the minister stated quite clearly that the reason for the press conference was because Dr Freeland’s contract was terminated. Now, the position has switched from the minister saying he ‘terminated the contract’ to ‘the CEO did it’ to ‘it’s just a claim by Dr Freeland’.
Minister, if you are going to spread this type of lie, at least be consistent on what the lie is; just follow the example of your Chief Minister. The minister also said:
- Bill Freeland’s position does not exist any more. That’s the only reason why his contract will
not be renewed.
Again, that is a flat lie; a deliberate attempt to mislead Territorians. Although this minister has foreshadowed that he intends to repeal the Parks and Wildlife Commission Act, until this government does repeal the act and amend the Parks and Wildlife Commission Act, the position does exist and continues to exist to this day.
Minister, you cannot arbitrarily dispose of acts of parliament. Now, I know you have a pretty freewheeling approach to the job, but you cannot arbitrarily ignore acts of parliament. You cannot make statutory positions disappear. While the legislation is in place, you must apply it. It is obvious already from the arrogance shown by this government that they would dearly love to rid themselves of this parliament and the irritation of having to answer for their actions. You just cannot do it. You flagrantly abused all of the responsibilities of your office and the statutory acts of this parliament in the statements that you have made.
‘How can I’, the minister said, ‘renew a contract for a person who does not have a position in an organisation?’ ‘How can we have’, the minister said, ‘somebody being paid at the level of Dr Freeland without a position?’ Again, a deliberate attempt to mislead Territorians. The minister says he cannot renew the contract; he cannot have someone being paid at that level. He then says he is prepared to offer a new one, and I quote your words: ‘… at exactly the same level’. ‘I am sacking you so I can re-employ you at the same level even though I do not have the power to do any of this’ is essentially what this minister has said. That is the position you put, Minister, in your attempt to mislead Territorians about this shameful exercise; at least, that is one of the positions you put. It is hardly an adequate explanation of why you sacked Dr Freeland, especially when it is not founded in fact.
The position of Director of Parks and Wildlife continues to exist, and that is when the minister does another switch and says: ‘Well, it wasn’t me after all who did the sacking but the CEO of the department, so if you want a reason, go and ask the CEO’. Alternatively, the minister argues that Dr Freeland had to go because we are going to have a new structure and a new organisation, and I quote: ‘The department is going to go to new places, new directions’. Well, we know where Dr Freeland’s gone in a new direction: straight out the door, and straight out the door quick smart. Then he qualifies those remarks: ‘We need some other people to actually head the department if …’ - and there is a big if – ‘… if it still is in the same format or in a different format’.
Now the position we have from the minister is: we do not want Dr Freeland to head Parks and Wildlife whether we change it or not. If you do not like that explanation, then you can wait four weeks because that is when the government or perhaps the CEO announced:
If there’s going to be a Parks and Wildlife, what format it will take, what structure it will take, and where
it is going to be located…
Now, Minister, that is a totally inadequate way to explain this appalling situation to Territorians. You stand condemned by your own words, by your own lack of understanding of your own responsibilities, and your responsibilities to direct your department and your own CEOs.
Until now, I have concentrated on the position in relation to Dr Freeland, a man whom the minister claimed gratuitously to admire for his scientific knowledge; a man whom the minister said was probably right to say that he did really well and that the department did really well. But you have to ask: what is all this doing to the morale, efficiency and productivity of the staff at what is left of the Parks and Wildlife Commission? These people are not only dedicated public servants, they are passionate about their work. When Dr Freeland said in his departing message: ‘I go with a heavy heart. Parks and Wildlife has been my life and love’, he was echoing the ethos that permeates throughout the commission. For them, it is not just a job; it is a vocation, and they have been left in no doubt what this government thinks of their vocation and their dedication.
For 10 months they have been living in a twilight zone. They lost their identity in November. They were told in March by this minister that the very act of parliament that gives them their existence, the Parks and Wildlife Commission Act, was eventually to be abolished. They were told by this minister the act that they worked so hard to implement, the Territory Parks and Wildlife Commission Act, was to be amended in some way or another. Now, in June, they have lost their leader and have been told there might not even be any Parks and Wildlife agency or division or even a unit hidden away in some super department. They have been totally undermined by this minister and this government. What does this minister reply when he is asked if he is concerned that his actions are having an impact on staff morale? ‘Well, it is a decision they have to make’. He tells them he does not care what they think. He is telling them he is going to play his games with what used to be a proud and dedicated agency, and they will just have to cop it sweet. He even condemns them by talking about addressing, and I quote: ‘... the major problems that take place in the organisation’. He does not even bother to elaborate on this slur on the good people of Parks and Wildlife.
The minister has not even bothered to keep the unions in the loop. His office contacted the union in the week after the sacking. As the union’s Mark Hathaway said:
The minister’s office told the union they would be in touch in a couple of weeks time about the review of
Parks and Wildlife.
You can bet the minister will get up in this House today, as he started to do, and talk about the dedication of the Parks and Wildlife Commission staff, and how proud he is of their work. However, actions speak louder than words, and this minister has totally destroyed this once proud organisation by denying them an existence and dragging out the resurrection process for at least 10 long months. The minister talks about: ‘If there is going to be Parks and Wildlife Commission…’. So much for the assurance given by the Chief Minister when she tore the public service apart:
- … that individual agencies that are merged into larger ones will retain some of their identity. I think this
is critical in agencies such as Parks and Wildlife and Correctional Services which have such strong presence
and identity in the community.
The Chief Minister said that in her media release announcing the changes in November. Any comfort that the staff of Parks and Wildlife might have had from that has been totally destroyed by the minister.
What about the comments of the Chief Minister to this House in March? She said:
- I do accept that in the Parks and Wildlife service we do have an area we really need to address because
I know that there are members in that area who do not feel as though the integrity of the service under
these new arrangements is being addressed.
Whatever comfort the staff of Parks and Wildlife took from those words, that their plight was at least being recognised, has been destroyed by this minister. He has addressed their concerns by sacking the director of Parks and Wildlife. He has addressed their concerns by telling them they will probably cease to exist in four weeks time. He has addressed their concerns by telling them he has such a big department, he has only got around to them. Or, in his own words:
- Now we have actually reached the stage where we can do something with Parks and Wildlife.
Do something? What he has done is to shamefully dispose of their leader; deliberately mislead Territorians about that sacking; refused to provide an adequate explanation; and continued to undermine the loyal and dedicated staff at that commission.
The Chief Minister recognised, when she restructured the public service, the special nature of Parks and Wildlife. In reporting back to this parliament on the restructuring, she acknowledged that low morale which existed within Parks and Wildlife, yet we have no solution and no resolution. We must ask: what effect has this all had on the crucial issue of the management of our parks and the conservation of our flora and fauna?
The Parks and Wildlife Commission manages 91 parks and reserves for conservation, and provides high-quality nature-based tourism and recreational experiences for both Territorians and tourists. Litchfield, Territory Wildlife Park, Alice Springs Desert Park, Nitmiluk and many others are key tourist attractions. They are up there with the icons of Kakadu and Uluru. Indeed, Litchfield National Park is more popular than Kakadu, attracting more visitors based on the hard work of Parks and Wildlife staff and the better management arrangements that they employed up until now.
However, the commission is not just about parks. It also undertakes original research into flora and fauna, and implements management programs and develops policies and strategies for the conservation, utilisation and management of flora and fauna throughout the Northern Territory. Indeed, Dr Freeland, as well as being the director, is a world recognised scientist in his own right in these areas of vital concern to conservation in the Northern Territory. Now he has gone, and his going is symbolic of what this government, this minister, have done to the good management of our parks and our flora and fauna since they came to power.
You do not have to take my word for it - the problems that exist within the Parks and Wildlife - you can look at the Chief Minister’s own words. You can listen to the comments of the CPSU’s Mark Hathaway. You can read the comments of the Independent member for Nelson. He told this House in March that employees of the Parks and Wildlife Commission were coming to him because they were deeply concerned that what they have put all their time and effort into in life, they see as being threatened. He talked about the cutbacks, the lack of staff, and the unfilled vacancies. He spoke about the programs that have been cut, and the fears that parks would be closed early because they did not have the staff to manage them.
What member has not heard stories from either tourists or fellow Territorians about declining services at Territory parks caused by the malaise at government level? Cost cutting and the total vacuum the services had to exist within for the past seven months have had their effect. Not being able to fill vacancies or to fulfil essential duties which, over the years, have generated high public support for the commission is very demoralising for the staff.
The effect of one closed toilet, or one closed facility because of lack of staff or funds is quickly multiplied along the vital word-of-mouth advertising trail, and reflects not only on the minister but on the Parks and Wildlife staff who are in the field. One disgruntled ranger, with passion and enthusiasm sucked out of him or her by the actions of this government and this minister, can destroy the most costly of marketing campaigns. However, we will not have to worry about that for much longer because the minister has finally turned to the Parks and Wildlife Commission. Like Mark Antony, you have not come around to praise it, you have come around to bury it. The wounds he has inflicted upon it in his short tenure as minister leaves little else he can do.
He stands condemned and deserving of the censure of this House for the way he disposed of the director, deliberately misled Territorians, and refused to provide an adequate explanation. He deserves the censure of this House for what he has done to such a loyal section of the Territory Public Service; for what he has done - or rather, not done - in ensuring the good management of our parks; and for the untold harm he may have caused to our vital tourism industry.
This minister has the hat trick. He was given three departments to fold into one super department, and he has managed to sack or cause the resignation of all three CEOs. The CEO of Transport and Works is gone, the CEO of Lands, Planning and Environment has gone, and now the Director of Parks and Wildlife has been dumped. This young fellow has a taste for blood. He has wiped out the top echelon and now, understandably, he can move down the ranks. If this minister is allowed to continue with his blood-letting unchecked, he will decimate the ranks of the public service. He is rapidly becoming the minister for destruction, maiming and demoralising, and the only environment is one of fear and loathing.
I urge members to support this censure motion, not only because the minister deserves to be censured, but also for the sake of the Territory; particularly for the sake of our public servants, he needs to be checked.
Mr VATSKALIS (Parks and Wildlife): Madam Speaker, I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his kind words about the minister for destruction, maiming and all sorts of things. He is also right about my short tenure as a minister. What he probably should remember is that I had a long tenure as a public servant and I remember very well what happened in the public service from 1993 onwards. Not only that, I actually have some copies of newspaper which I intend to table in the House. ‘Four chiefs axed in shake up’, 1991. ‘ERC cuts will cost public sector jobs’, 1991 again. ‘Perron sacks Rae as liquor chief’, in 1993. That is a nice photograph, the member for Katherine with a couple of ex-members: ‘700 jobs to go in “radical” reforms’. It is getting better. ‘Temple out of second leading job’ – Oh, Phil Temple! ‘Public service woman quits’, 1993. ‘Senior woman out in shake-up’, 1998.
You have the audacity to come here and complain about the person …
Mr Dunham: It took you 11 years to get there. You’ve done it in six months!
Mr VATSKALIS: …who wasn’t even a public servant; he had an executive contract. The Leader of the Opposition says that I should know the act. Yes, I did know the act. Dr Freeland is appointed as the Director of Parks and Wildlife, a statutory authority. His term and conditions are between Dr Freeland and his CEO. The CEO was obliged, and Dr Freeland had the right to know, if his contract would be continued or terminated in six months time. That is a condition of his contract. It would not be very nice, three months down the track, telling him: ‘Sorry, Dr Freeland, you have not got the job’.
The reality is Dr Freeland was not fired; was not sacked. Dr Freeland was advised that his contract will not be renewed for the simple reason that Parks and Wildlife were going to be restructured and his position would not exist within the new structure. What were we going to do - give somebody $200 000 a year in a job that does not exist? Then you would be jumping up and down that we are wasting public money.
Dr Freeland’s termination of contract, as you point out, was not initiated by us. Dr Freeland chose to translate what happened as firing. He was offered the option to terminate the contract on the spot and he accepted it. He has been paid out. This only happened, not because we do not acknowledge his scientific expertise; on the contrary, I believe that Dr Freeland is an excellent scientist and I will support him. That is the reason why he was offered the remaining six months working on special projects within the department, something that he chose not to do.
Nobody doubts his scientific knowledge. Everybody knows how good as a scientist he is, and I acknowledge he is a good scientist. If tomorrow he wants to work as a consultant in the Territory private or public sector, quite gladly I would accept him back to work for the government. It has nothing to do with Dr Freeland’s scientific knowledge, but it is about a restructure of the department, in exactly the way you did, and told people you did not need their services any more and terminated their contracts.
In November, with the restructure of the department – three departments, as you said – we actually said to them that we will need one CEO. The CEO of the department is Mr Barry Chambers. Some of them decided to leave; they did not want to work as directors. Mr John Pinney decided to go. There was no doubt about his experience. That is why Mr Pinney is the head of the Development Consent Authority.
Dr Freeland was advised that he was not going to be the CEO of Parks and Wildlife; he was going to be director. As the minister, I cannot sack the director. He does not have a contract with me; he has a contract with the CEO of the department. The CEO of the department advised him, quite rightly, that his contract would not be renewed. People might think that the minister can fire and hire anybody in the public service, but that does not happen. On top of that, Dr Freeland was not a public servant; he had an executive contract for a limited period. You cannot continue ad infinitum a contract. Sometime, it stops. Sometimes you do not need the person or you do not have the position. Then you have to advise the person that you cannot extend their contract.
You can sit up there and talk about ignoring unions. Oh! You are unionists now? When was the last time you consulted with unions whether they can change …
Members interjecting.
Mr VATSKALIS: … destroying organisations. We managed to bring all these departments together, to work together. From my own experience, I know that sometimes public service departments worked against each other in the past. Now they are working together. Let me give you an example. You mentioned the acquisition of land. Yes, I had to step in and direct the department to take a different course of action. But why did this happen? Who forgot to put the service corridors in the land use objectives document?
Members interjecting
Madam SPEAKER: Order!
Mr VATSKALIS: Do the residents of Fairway Waters know that they are going to get a really good look at the railway every day?
Members interjecting.
Mr VATSKALIS: You did not advise them about the buffer zone between the railway and their boundaries – the Weddell freeway - because it was not stated in the land use objectives documents. That is the reason why the mistake was made. I made sure that, from now on, it was going to be included …
Members interjecting.
Mr VATSKALIS: You know very well, because it was not there. We went through that together and you know that it was not there.
Mr Burke: Who signed the acquisition? You did!
Mr VATSKALIS: I did sign the acquisition and I am brave enough to admit my mistakes. Yes, but at the same time, I will make every effort not to repeat the mistakes. I am brave enough, if I have to say something to my CEO, I will call him and tell him straight to his face, not hide behind anybody. I am brave enough to actually advise people face to face of what my decision is.
I am used to making decisions. I make decisions and I stand by my decisions. But I also know that if the decision made is not the right one, I am the first one to admit it, to correct it, and never repeat the same mistake again.
Dr Freeland was not fired. Dr Freeland was advised that his contract would not be renewed - simple as that. He was advised about that from his CEO as it was his responsibility as CEO to advise a director – not the Chief Executive Officer of Parks and Wildlife.
You mentioned his years of service. I acknowledge that and I will continue to acknowledge that and his scientific expertise. At the same time, you mentioned the wonderful work that Parks and Wildlife did. It fascinates me that you were in power for 27 years – we have been in power 10 years – and all of a sudden every person …
Ms Martin: 10 months.
Mr VATSKALIS: 10 months. We must have a great talent to get government working like a well-oiled machine in 10 months …
Members interjecting.
Mr VATSKALIS: There was a lot of publicity in the media. Let me quote from a letter that was written recently in the newspaper, and I table this document:
In the 1980s, when the Northern Territory really began to be heard, the Conservation Commission of the
NT was an organisation recognised worldwide as a leader in conservation of flora and fauna, sustainable
use of wildlife and the environment and a frontline player in the world politics of the environment.
Skilled activists such as Dr Goff Letts, Harry Butler, Dr Grahame Webb, Professor Harry Messel and others
put the Territory at the cutting edge in crocodile research and associated issues of sustainable use,
industry development, and the economics of commercial approaches to these issue. The concept of giving
something a value to make its conservation a certainty has been adopted around the world by all major
conservation organisations.
At the same time we were attracting all this positive national and international media attention, national
parks being developed by the Commission became tourist icons.
Then, in the 1990s, the Conservation Commission changed. The word ‘Conservation’ was dropped from its
name, and its role and effect changed disastrously.
Who was in government then? Not the Labor Party. It was the CLP.
Research and science seemed to disappear, and instead of being scientific innovators on a global scale,
the PWCNT became just managers of a few parks, and catchers of crocodiles in the harbour.
Who was in government then? The CLP.
Research on crocodiles, marine life generally, cane toads etc, in the NT slowed to a trickle.
- Our people, including Dr Bill Freeland, kept flying off to national conferences here, there and everywhere,
but no longer had an exciting NT message, story or credibility to give. We had forfeited our leadership.
Here’s to a new day, when the Territory can regain the initiatives which we once had, as leaders and innovators
in the conservation of tropical wildlife, and developers of world-class parks, and active participants in the
international competition to capture the attention of potential tourists and investors.
Now, who signed this letter? G J Lewis.
Mr Burke interjecting.
Mr VATSKALIS: He is a good fellow. He used to be your secretary. This is your own man. He is not a Labor Party guy. What he says here, this is what is going to happen. The Parks and Wildlife Commission is going to change. It is going to change drastically and dramatically because we are bringing back conservation and we are not going to just look after a few parks and catch crocodiles in the harbour. We are going to do more things and do them in a different way.
You see, some of us lived somewhere else and learnt other things. Some of us study about the environment, although not at the same level of Dr Freeland. At least we can understand some of the issues and principles, and some of the things we have seen here simply do not work. The cane toads are in Kakadu. What have you done to stop them? Nothing.
Members interjecting.
Mr VATSKALIS: What have you done to stop it? Nothing. Twenty-six years and they are advancing; 27 years advancing …
Mr VATSKALIS: Yes, he has been involved about eight years. I remember it was the National Party before him.
We are going to go places, we are going to do different things. You might stand there and say a wonderful person was sacked. A wonderful person was not sacked. That wonderful person was advised his contract was terminated. Once again, I say that Dr Freeland’s scientific knowledge is well known; I respect Dr Freeland. If Dr Freeland wants to come back and work as a consultant tomorrow in the private or the public sector, quite gladly we will have him back. But we did not have a place for Dr Freeland or any other person to be a Director of the Parks and Wildlife Commission for the simple reason that the Parks and Wildlife Commission is going to be restructured. It is going to take a different format.
We are already talking to the people, we are getting their ideas, they are participating - something you have never done. You have made changes without ever talking to anybody in the public service: ‘Here is the new structure’. Do I have to remind you of the Education Department restructure? An e-mail to all staff in the department: ‘Please go the web page of the department and look at the organisation structure and if you cannot find your position, speak to your immediate superior’. That was your level of advice! At least we had the decency to tell him to his face that his contract would not be continued; not by e-mail, as the government before.
Parks and Wildlife is going to take a new format. Parks and Wildlife is going to be incorporated in the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment so all land resources are together and the department will work together, not against each other.
Dr Freeland is a respected scientist; I acknowledge that. There are not going to be any problems with public service jobs. After all, as you probably know very well, Dr Freeland was not a public servant; he had an executive contract. Nobody in the department will lose their jobs, I state that categorically here in front of you. Nobody in the department - no public servant - will lose his or her job. In the past few days, the CEO has been talking to the people in Parks and Wildlife, and they are quite keen to continue with the change in Parks and Wildlife because they can see what we are aiming at: to improve the functions and the structure for Parks and Wildlife and the Conservation Commission to be leaders in Australian conservation. We are going to do it, and we are going to do it well.
We are going to consult the unions, the staff, people from outside the Territory who worked before in the Territory - Dr Grahame Webb is one of the people we are going to consult with. He is a great name in crocodile research in the Territory and is well renowned. You know that very well; some of you worked with him very closely.
Once again, the thing that I want to say is: there were no lies. I did not have to lie. If I have to say what is happening, it is straight to your face.
Dr Freeland, for the last time, is respected for his scientific knowledge, but I was not going to continue his contract for the simple reason there was no position there.
Mr Baldwin: And you sacked him. You respect him so much you sacked him. You’re hopeless. Read the act.
Mr VATSKALIS: Yes. I read the act, and I can appoint another director. Mr Barry Chambers is the new Director of Parks and Wildlife. I have the power to do it, and I did it. As I said, the position of director under the act is a statutory position. The terms of employment are between the CEO and the employee, and that is exactly what happened. The minister cannot dismiss a director, a D3, D4, Technical 4 or an Administrative Officer – that is the CEO’s job.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I can guarantee one thing: every time a censure motion occurs in this House, my adrenalin and stress levels go up quite remarkably.
I, too, have concerns about what has happened in Parks and Wildlife. Whether those concerns would lead me to support a censure motion is another matter. I raised issues regarding Parks and Wildlife very early in my career as a parliamentarian on 19 November when I asked the Chief Minister to look at the possibility of having one department of Environment which included Parks and Wildlife, the environment section of Mining, and the environment section of the department of Primary Industry. I believe the government, in its response, was looking at some form of amalgamation when I received a letter back from the Minister for Parks and Wildlife on 13 February this year.
I have concerns about morale, because people have come and talked to me and raised issues earlier in the year. Some of those concerns came back again with the demise of the Director of Parks and Wildlife. I still think morale in Parks and Wildlife is low. My response to the media regarding the demise of the Director of Parks and Wildlife was not so much that the minister did not have the right to sack - or to …
Ms Martin: Not renew a contract.
Mr WOOD: Yes, I will say not renew a contract. My problem was that, in the NT News of 8 June, and in an e-mail from Dr Freeland, there were three different versions of what had happened. I wanted clarification of that. Dr Freeland said he was sacked; the minister said that his job would not exist under public service restructuring which would be announced within a month; and the CEO, Mr Barry Chambers, said Dr Freeland was no longer wanted. The last two quotes are from the NT News, so that is where I sourced that information.
My concerns were that the process was clear and transparent, as the government always says it supports. That is the reason I was asking for an explanation of what had happened. I have heard the minister’s explanation and I believe that explanation is reasonable. However, my concerns are that it has all been very poorly done. We know that staff morale has been low. There has been restructuring since the amalgamation with the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment. There have been budget cuts which I have raised before in parliament. I do not believe that this is worthy of a censure motion, but it is really a stuff-up in the manner in which it was done.
For a review or a restructure to take place without Parks and Wildlife staff actually knowing - and then only finding out via the demise of the Director of Parks and Wildlife - seems to be a very poor way in which to tell staff that a review of how Parks and Wildlife will exist is proposed. I know many of the staff felt that it was going to be gutted. The first people you should be telling there will be a review of Parks and Wildlife should be the staff. They should be involved in that review because they have the experience, the know-how and the expertise. It is very important that they also know what their future is.
I do not have any problem with Parks and Wildlife being reviewed. If it means that more can be concentrated on conservation and the environment, so be it. We, as a parliament, and the public, should know what is being put forward by the minister. It seems to me that this has all gone the wrong way around: because the director had to be told six months before his contract finished, they then had to announce that we were going to have a review. That is very poor.
To be fair, I look at the minister’s approach on things overall. There have been some issues raised about the buses. I think the buses were a stuff-up, but I will give the minister one thing - he came down and stood on that bus at Humpty Doo, saw what was happening and made some decisions on the spot. I still say it was a stuff-up, mainly because I think people were not talking to one another. However, the minister at least went down and things were sorted out.
There have been some problems with Deviney Road at the 11 Mile where the business people were very unhappy with an option the Department of Transport and Infrastructure had submitted to those businesses. I had word from the Manager of Roofmaster the other day that the minister had stepped in and allowed their option, with some changes, to occur in that area. I think they were good changes and much more sensible changes than the department had advised. There will be a 12 month review. So, you have to take the good with the bad.
I look at the censure motion and try to weigh up what of that I do not agree with. It was more a case of not telling his own department about the review that would have worried me, rather than the ‘shameful way he disposed of the Director of the Parks and Wildlife’. I believe that the minister has the right. I do not know how the NT News acquired three different versions of the same thing. It could have been done better. I do not honestly believe the minister deliberately misled. He may have expressed himself badly. I do not believe the minister has deliberately misled, and I do believe he gave an adequate explanation today. Whether people agree with that is another matter.
I do have concerns about the loyal and dedicated staff in Parks and Wildlife. I do have concerns about Territory parks and flora and fauna at risk. The government has to make some clear guidelines, especially to its staff, about what it intends to do and say it now. It needs to be telling us and the public what the future of Parks and Wildlife is, because rumours will continue that Parks and Wildlife are to be gutted, and people will be concerned about their jobs.
When the minister presented his report today, I must admit I thought it was going to be about the Darwin Harbour and I was ready to make a brief statement about what I thought about another Darwin Harbour management plan. While listening to him, I realised it was a much bigger report. I felt that the minister should have actually made a ministerial statement to outline a lot of the issues he raised. They are big issues - far bigger than a five-minute report at the beginning of sittings.
The minister owes the parliament a good explanation on what is the future direction of Parks and Wildlife. I would be pleased to hear it. I would also like to hear the government’s opinion on whether we should have a department of Environment. I have mentioned it to quite a few people. A department of Environment would allow an independent department to make judgments on other departments, and it should be responsible direct to the minister. I have always said - and perhaps this is highlighted in this issue - that because the director was not directly responsible to the minister - I believe he went through the CEO of the larger department - some people felt that Parks and Wildlife had lost independence.
If the government is going to review Parks and Wildlife in whatever form that comes out, they should have a direct say straight to the minister. I am not really happy with a department of Environment being mixed in with Transport and Works and Power and Water people - not that I have anything against them, but they are engineers; they of that ilk. Department of Environment people …
Ms Martin: What a slur on engineers, member for Nelson.
Mr Dunham: He means they are right brain people. I am with you, Gerry. You need left brain people.
Mr WOOD: If I was in the Litchfield Shire Council forum today, I would say something on that. But I will just …
Dr Burns: Half of nothing is nothing.
Mr WOOD: I am not in the straight line concrete drain philosophy, put it that way. We can do things a lot better than we have in the past. There are some good engineers. Engineering itself is changing. You can actually do a course in Environmental Engineering where you use minimalist designs to achieve outcomes.
In summary, I certainly am not happy with what has happened. It all could have been done a lot better. But if I look at the censure motion, I feel that there was not a deliberate misleading of Territorians. However, I say to the minister: please try to do things a little more openly or explain yourself a lot better. In the next few months, I will be looking at where Parks and Wildlife is going. If I think it is not going anywhere and morale is going downhill, I might give second thought to a censure motion.
Mr REED (Katherine): Madam Speaker, really the issue here gets down to the process that the minister follows and his competence in relation to this matter. It is rather unfortunate that the minister gets up and waves around articles of historical events in his defence. The fact is that he acted as he did - and it was in a rather shoddy way - in relation to this matter and he has to answer for those actions.
For him to try and flick pass that to the CEO of the department, Mr Chambers - as competent as Mr Chambers is - the fact is that the buck stops with the minister. Under the legislation, the responsibility for the minister is to appoint or to terminate the person the subject of this discussion. We must put the individual aside - Dr Freeland - and look at the core issue in relation to the minister’s responsibilities: how he failed to correctly undertake and fulfil those responsibilities; then to act under the legislation that this House put in place and that is still in place.
Indeed, whilst the minister has indicated that there is an intention on behalf of the government to change that legislation, the fact is that the Bible of the Parks and Wildlife Commission today - as we stand here and on the occasion that the CEO was sacked - is that legislation. The minister is bound by it; the government is bound by it. They may intend to change the legislation, but the fact is that it has not been changed. The fact is that the responsibility that lies with the minister is enshrined in that act; he has statutory obligations. If he sees that he can step aside from this with the clear support of the Chief Minister, we may as well pack up and go home. In terms of the meaning of this parliament …
Ms Martin: Is it true?
Mr REED: The Chief Minister waves and laughs. I pick up that interjection because that demonstrates the arrogance with which she approaches her job as Chief Minister and leader of government. If she is prepared to have one of her ministers set aside his obligations under legislative arrangements, and for him to act outside those legislative arrangements is the core of this issue. It is not about the individual, Dr Freeland; it is about the competence of the government and the process that it follows.
This House sets this process and it is enshrined in the Parks and Wildlife Commission Act. In that regard there has been a dreadful demonstration of arrogance and disregard for this parliament, and it is this parliament on behalf of Territorians that we are speaking for today. They are the issues; they are the core issues.
Ms Martin: How can you stand there are say that when you misrepresented the budget figures - such contempt for this House.
Mr REED: It might upset the Chief Minister, she might think that it is not a matter of relevance.
We turn then to just what the minister did. The position, of course, is that he appoints the Director of Parks and Wildlife and he can fire the Director of Parks and Wildlife. He appointed him in November and it directly follows under the act that the minister is responsible for dismissing him. If there is some misunderstanding in relation to what the minister actually did, there was no misunderstanding on behalf of Dr Freeland. He wrote by e-mail to Conservation Commission staff and his opening line was: ‘This morning I was told I had been fired’. It was quite clear in his mind in relation to what the circumstances were - no doubt whatever. The sad thing is that the minister did not have the guts to do it. The minister had neither the guts to do it, nor did he take his responsibilities under the act seriously to fulfil those obligations: having appointed him under a reorganised departmental structure, he did not take the opportunity under that same structure to enforce his resignation.
From the point of view of: ‘Oh, it was simply that his contract was not renewed’ - arrant nonsense. His contract does not have to be renewed until November. What other interpretation could a person holding this position take when they are called in and told: ‘Your contract is not going to be renewed and we will see you later’. That is the sack; you cannot interpret it in any other way. The unions believe that it was the sack and Dr Freeland certainly was of that view. Whatever interpretation the minister wants applied to it, he clearly is wrong, and misleading or lying to Territorians in that regard.
He is saying that he appointed a Director of Parks and Wildlife and he could continue to hold that position with no contract, no salary, no confidence in him from the department. What a load of rubbish! It really does get down to the process and the competence. We have seen neither the process followed, nor have we seen a demonstration of competence from the minister.
The minister, in his response to the Leader of the Opposition, rose initially and spoke in glowing terms of the qualities and the achievements of Dr Freeland and how he respects Dr Freeland and the wonderful job he has done. That then degenerated during the course of the contribution of the minister to denigration of Dr Freeland. Here is a man who not only lied …
Members interjecting.
Mr REED: I point out, Clare, here is a man who not only lied in relation to the fact that this man was not sacked, he went on to say - and he did not only denigrate Dr Freeland in quoting from the letter by a Mr Lewis, relying on a letter to the editor to defend the minister’s inaction, incompetence and lack of process, but he went on to say that the Parks and Wildlife Commission restructured - as it will be one day, one assumes - ‘is not going to just catch crocodiles and look after a few parks’. Now, that is a direct denigration of all Parks and Wildlife Commission staff who are very dedicated, who are known nationally and internationally for the quality of their park management and the protection of the biodiversity of the Northern Territory. It is a direct slur on all of them – ‘… look after a few parks’.
I advise the minister to talk to the tourism industry about ‘the few parks’ because those parks happen to be the principal destinations for tourists visiting the Northern Territory, and the Parks and Wildlife Commission is directly responsible for their management and presentation. Indeed, the personal contact between rangers and those visitors in the Northern Territory is respected. It is that commitment and conviction from Parks and Wildlife Commission staff that underpins our tourism industry, and this minister is disintegrating it. It is crumbling under his rule, and we will reap the unfortunate benefits of that with what he is doing to the Parks and Wildlife Commission. It is more than just a conservation agency fulfilling its responsibilities.
The history of the Parks and Wildlife Commission has been that there has been on the board representatives of the mining, pastoral and tourism industries. One member of the board was so aggrieved by the treatment issued by this minister to lead her to resign from the board of the Parks and Wildlife Commission, a matter that was conveniently overlooked in the minister’s contribution. Mrs Buntine, who has been a member of the Conservation Commission and Parks and Wildlife Commission boards for many years, was so aggrieved at the treatment of Dr Freeland, at the lack of process and the lack of competence of the minister, that the only action that she thought was appropriate was to resign as a long-standing member of the board.
That demonstrates that there is deep feeling and concern across the Northern Territory in relation to the actions of the government. The Parks and Wildlife Commission and its predecessors have been considered by the Northern Territory public to be one of the pinnacle government organisations in the Northern Territory. I can speak with some experience in that regard because I was a former employee of the forerunners of the Parks and Wildlife Commission. I can assure you that the employees of the commission are not there for the money; they are there for the commitment and the dedication to their jobs and what they can achieve in those jobs. For them to be told that they are, as the minister quoted: ‘… just looking after a few parks and catching a few crocodiles’ is a disgrace. Do you think those words will not reverberate through the Parks and Wildlife Commission, shattered as they already are in terms of the actions taken by this minister, and the fact that he has completely disregarded and overlooked the commitment that those staff make in relation to the performance of their duties?
I would suggest that the minister looks more broadly at these issues. I would also suggest that any competent minister - and, indeed, this extends to the Cabinet, the ministry and the Chief Minister - any competent government would know of changes in the ways that have now been foreshadowed - and it has been like pulling teeth to get this information. We have experienced the situation where the minister - although he will not admit it, and fobs off the responsibility to the CEO of the mega-department - has orchestrated a situation where the head of an agency has been sacked. Yet, when he is asked: ‘What is the restructure going to be like?’, he does not know. ‘Oh, we will organise that in about four weeks time’, he told Julia Christensen on ABC radio last week.
What sort of a government is it that embarks on a process to restructure an agency that is held in high esteem across the Northern Territory - and, indeed, nationally - as a parks and wildlife management agency, and is a very important plank in the support of the tourism industry? It is being dismantled, yet neither the minister nor the government know what they are going to replace it with. They have started to dismantle the agency which is of such crucial importance to both conservation and the tourism industry in the Northern Territory without knowing where they are going to go, what they are going to replace it with, what the structure is going to be, and whether or not the current employees of that agency are going to be in a job that is going to give them the fulfilment that they currently have arising from their great professionalism …
Mr Henderson: Like the 700 you sacked in the ERC. That was great fulfilment.
Mr REED: … and commitment and whether they will be able to continue that.
The Minister for Business, Industry and Resource Development interjects, as he did in former contributions to this debate, and as did the Attorney-General in terms of: ‘Oh, what did he do about cane toads?’ - he being Dr Freeland. Well, are we getting to the nub of the question here? We just don’t like Dr Freeland, notwithstanding that the minister gets up and says he has great respect for him, a great scientist, a great man who achieved much over 20 years. Yet we hear interjections from other senior ministers in this government: ‘Well, we did not like what he did about cane toads’ notwithstanding that no one on this Earth has found a solution to the advance of the cane toads! Notwithstanding that millions of dollars have been …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! I would ask that the member for Katherine quotes specifically the interjections in that those comments in relation to cane toads were related to Dr Freeland. They related fairly and squarely to the minister of the time. In a Matter of Public Importance debate, the minister at the time stood in this House and said that cane toads would not be here until 2007 and it was not a problem. So the quotes were related to the minister who had responsibility at the time.
Madam SPEAKER: There is no point of order. The member is able to respond to interjections, as you know.
Mr REED: We see that it is the disenchantment of the current government in relation to what this scientist did, or is perceived not to have done, in relation to cane toads, notwithstanding …
Mr Henderson: No, what you did. The buck stops with the minister, you said. The buck stops with the minister.
Mr REED: It is too late to get out of it; it is recorded in the Hansard. Notwithstanding that, they have taken the opportunity to get rid of him, to sack this man who gave 20 years service to the Northern Territory in relation to both the oversight of the Parks and Wildlife Commission. and formerly as a scientist. This comes on top of Building a Better Territory. Building a better Territory - work for 20 years for the Northern Territory, give a commitment as a scientist and public service manager, a CEO of an agency, and along comes the Labor government and they say: ‘We are building a better Territory but all of you who have worked for 20 years to build a better Territory, you are sacked’; they are gone. Following the sacking of Dr Freeland and a number of other CEOs - of course, a total of 13 CEOs have now left the Northern Territory Public Service since the Labor Party came to government last August, an extraordinary record for a government.
Where they are going to lead the Parks and Wildlife Commission, one can only speculate that it is all headed downhill. From the point of view of the different conservation arrangements regarding environmental management that formerly laid with different agencies, that created a dichotomy between the different agencies and an opportunity for those separate environmentally responsible agencies to keep a watch on each other in terms of oversighting their own operations.
Let us revisit the question regarding of Dr Freeland being sacked. Julia Christiansen then says: ‘Well, what’s going to happen now?’ The minister says: ‘I don’t know. Maybe in four weeks time we might be able to determine what the circumstances are’. This government has embarked on a process to dismantle an agency important to conservation, park management and recreation of Territorians, many of whom enjoy the wonderful presentation of parks and reserves and conservation areas, be they hunters, fishermen or people who go canoeing or boating on the waterways within our national parks or tourists from other parts of Australia or the world who come to enjoy the Northern Territory. In future, the circumstances are going to be gravely changed in relation to the experiences they will enjoy.
Ms Martin: Rubbish! Put your hand on your heart and say it.
Mr REED: I had the opportunity last night to speak to some representatives of the tourism industry who are gravely concerned. The Chief Minister can say ‘Rubbish!’ in terms of people’s concerns …
Ms Martin: It is rubbish! I have not heard such a lot of rubbish from you since at least the last sittings.
Mr REED: Well, the Chief Minister interjects ‘It is rubbish’. The people in the Parks and Wildlife Commission do not believe it is rubbish. The people in the tourism industry do not believe that it is rubbish. I thank the Chief Minister for again putting on record her high levels of arrogance in relation to how she deals with these issues.
Now, if it is not arrogant for a Chief Minister, a minister and a government to sack someone and then, when they are asked what changes are going to take place in the department, say: ‘I don’t know’, it is definitely gross incompetence because you simply do not go down that path without knowing what the outcome is going to be. This limbo has been going on since last November when the minister foreshadowed these changes, not a matter of four weeks as the minister has indicated.
The Chief Minister, in March, said to this House: ‘Oh, yes, we have some problems with the staff of the Conservation Commission. They are a bit upset’. Well, if they were a bit upset in March, they are absolutely mortified in June, and it does not look like getting any better. The empire is crumbling around the Chief Minister and, until she realises the circumstances that she has placed Parks and Wildlife Commission staff in and the threat that she has imposed on the tourism industry in the Northern Territory, things are not going to get better. While we have an opportunity and responsibility as an opposition to push these issues and present them on behalf of Territorians and hard working public servants, we will, despite the arrogance of this government. The minister stands condemned.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, I stand very clearly on this with the member for Nelson who said this censure is not justified. He said this censure does not make it. He stood there and said this censure is not justified and I am clearly with him.
They have a fair way to go. This is a slightly better attempt than last time, but I get a bit tired of having to coach them through this: on how you actually prosecute a censure motion in this House. We have seen this outrage today and even from the member for Katherine - you would expect the member for Katherine to jump to his feet in this debate because he worked with Dr Freeland for a long time. I believe there has been a very close professional working relationship between them. Even on something as dear to his heart as this issue, as you would expect, he still cannot get the passion, the anger, and the fire in his voice. It must be a disappointment to the opposition and the people of Katherine that, when there is an issue you would expect would be so close to the member’s heart, he really just went through the motions and, in fact, raised his voice very slightly towards the end to try to convince us that he was still here and still engaged.
This outrage really is hypocritical. I do not want to go back in history too far, but you simply have to go back to 1987 and Chief Minister Hatton. If you go through to 1991 with Chief Minister Perron when the Estimates Review Committee absolutely carved the public sector to within an inch of its life. If you go through to Planning for Growth, one that the member for Katherine and former Treasurer was closely involved in, 700 jobs were lost - 700 jobs in Planning for Growth.
He talked about the process and the competence of the Minister for Infrastructure, Planning and Environment in this situation. Have a look at the process that he himself conducted under Planning for Growth. If you were in the Department of Education, you were advised to check on the web site and have a look at the new structure and if your name was not there and your job was not there, then you should read such and such, such and such. Talk about process! How gratifying was that to the hard working public servants who had to look up the web site to see if they still had a job? ‘If your name is not there, you are in trouble, Sunshine - here is a number you might ring if you are worried about your position’. So do not come in here preaching about process and competence of the minister when we have seen the way you dealt with it.
There are a couple - one was Dawn Lawrie in the Leader of the Opposition’s time, who was suddenly not there the next day. There was another one that has always intrigued me to this day, and we never had answers. This person was Dennis Hatcher who was in charge of the Northern Territory Institute of Sport. Ms Martin asked the question:
- Why was Dennis Hatcher who was so well thought of in the sporting community in the Territory and
around Australia got rid of without so much as a word of explanation either to himself or his staff?
This is Hansard of 15 June 2000, and Minister Lugg of the day:
- Dennis Hatcher was head of the NTIS. … set up by this government to identify and foster Territory
athletes …
- … worked with approximately 20 other staff to build an institution ...
… was a contract employee. He was employed until 30 June this year and that was his contract. He was
employed for a set period of time. The decision was taken within the department and the Office of the Public
Service Commissioner not to renew the contract. I was kept informed of the detail of what was going on.
Well, the minister may have been informed but he had not told Dennis Hatcher or the staff, and when we continued to ask these questions, Mr Lugg said:
- What is going on with the person’s individual contract is their private business. It is not up to me to parade
it in the media. No matter what you think, I am not going to do it.
Dr Dennis Hatcher was a contract employee. The decision was taken within the department, and after
consultation with the previous head of the department and the Office of the Public Service Commissioner
not to offer him a renewal of that contract. His work ceased at the end of his contract. I was kept informed
of what was going on, and I agreed with the decisions they were taking. The reasons were valid. The process
they entered into was fair. Dr Hatcher was told … they decided not to renew his contract.
Dr Freeland, in this case, was advised by the Chief Executive of the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment that his contact would not be renewed when it expired in six months time. That is required; you are supposed to give an indication six months out. Executive contracts, purposely, are not automatically renewable. They provide for the holder of the contract to be advised of the future of that contract six months in advance of the expiry date. That discussion was held between Dr Freeland and the Chief Executive on Friday 7 June. He was advised that given the decision not to renew his contact term in November, he could serve out his contract in another capacity in the department. Dr Freeland decided not to accept this and opted instead for an early termination of his contract. I cannot see ‘sacked’ in here; I cannot see ‘being sacked’ in here. It was his decision. There are two issues. The first is a decision by government to further refocus the Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Environment, with changes to the former Parks and Wildlife Commission which will strengthen its integration into that department and accelerate the benefits of the amalgamation. Those changes will see the abolition of Dr Freeland’s position. The minister made that clear this morning in his ministerial report.
When you talk about the word ‘sacked’, as the Leader of the Opposition did all of the way through his contribution here - ‘sacked’ was used 14 or 15 times - and yet when you get to the basis of the censure, there are six points - which could probably have been done in two – and the word ‘sacked’ cannot be found anywhere. Yet all of his contribution to this debate was about how this person was sacked. Of course, he went on to accuse the minister of blood letting. He was getting a bit Shakespearian; he was thinking of Macbeth: will I ever be rid of this blood? He tried to get a little emotional, but it did not quite work.
If we go to the form of the censure motion itself, there is no word of sacking. ‘the shameful way he disposed of the Director of Parks and Wildlife Commission; the deliberate misleading of Territorians …’ - I am not sure where that was supposed to occur, but of course it was not addressed in terms of his contribution to debate – ‘refusal to provide an adequate explanation for his action; the continuing undermining of the loyal and dedicated staff of the Parks and Wildlife Commission’. If you think these things are worth putting into a censure motion, have the good grace to address them in your contribution.
Mr Burke: It’s not very passionate, Syd. Where is your passionate defence? Come on.
Mr STIRLING: Who writes this for you? Does Shippers get in here and say: ‘We are going to censure Kon today, here are a couple of points. Write these down’. They give it to the secretary to type them out, they put on the table and say: ‘Don’t forget to take the censure motion down to the House’. They haven’t read it – they have not even read it. They get down here, they still have not read it. We went through this before …
Mr Burke: We have had all this before. We’ve been through all this stuff.
Mr STIRLING: I tell you, I’ve led better censure motions in this House than you blokes have yet to.
Mr Burke: We have yet to see one, and we have yet to see a decent defence.
Mr STIRLING: Try the railway; try the power line, if you want to see a good censure motion. I put the censure motion there and I had the guts to address each of the points I put on the piece of paper.
The member for Katherine talked about process. He talked about competence of the minister, and I am looking: where is this? I should have ruled him out on a point of order for not addressing the substance of the motion. Again, we go to the mechanics; the simple, basic mechanics of running a motion that is not even a censure motion. In any motion that you bring into this House, you are required in debate to address those points.
‘Placing the management of the Territory’s parks and flora and fauna at risk’ - not a word. ‘… immeasurable damage to those parks and their position as vital icons and attractions for the tourist industry’. Can I pick up the point of the undermining. There is one point that I agree on with the member for Katherine, because I had responsibility for this area for a short time in government. I took the opportunity to go and meet the staff in the offices in the Territory, and a more dedicated, loyal and hardworking bunch of public servants you would be hard pushed to find. They are not highly paid, as the member for Katherine said. They do it because they love their work; they love their job. The feedback I have is that there is - as you would expect, there would always be some that would be upset and put off by this type of situation - that there are many who are responsive and positive to the mood for change and are prepared to move on. They are demonstrating that positive mood for change, and I am certain that they will not be undermined and distracted by the nonsense that we have had from across the other side of the House today.
Again, a slightly better effort than last time. It probably, in itself, did not justify a censure motion despite the best efforts of the Leader of the Opposition and the somewhat lukewarm, I would have thought, efforts of the member for Katherine. However, I do encourage them. Have a think, don’t let Shippers write these things for you. If you are going to run the censure motion, you write the points yourselves so that you own them; you are committed to them; you understand them. You have to work it out yourselves, you have to use your own brain. ‘Why are we going to attack this minister; what is the substance of this censure?’ Get those first couple of points …
Members interjecting.
Mr REED: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The minister should be responding to the central issues of this censure motion, not passing comment on how he believes an opposition should present a censure motion. It is quite nefarious ...
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: I do not think there is a point of order.
Mr REED: No, but I have made the point.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, you made the point.
Mr STIRLING: Madam Speaker, I did offer my services as a consultant to them once before and I am prepared to do that again. It is the last time that I am prepared to give them a hand on this. The sound and free advice is obviously wasted on them.
Madam Speaker, I move that the question be put.
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: The question now is that the motion be agreed to.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 9 Noes 13
Mr Baldwin Mrs Aagaard
Mr Burke Mr Ah Kit
Ms Carney Mr Bonson
Ms Carter Dr Burns
Mr Dunham Mr Henderson
Dr Lim Mr Kiely
Mr Maley Ms Lawrie
Mr Mills Mr McAdam
Mr Reed Ms Martin
Ms Scrymgour
Mr Stirling
Dr Toyne
Mr Vatskalis
- Motion negatived.
PERSONAL EXPLANATION
Minister for Health and Community Services
Minister for Health and Community Services
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have a letter from the Minister for Health and Community Services regarding a personal explanation, and I have granted leave for her to give that now.
Mrs AAGAARD (Health and Community Services): Madam Speaker, during Question Time on Thursday, 14 May, I was asked by the member for Macdonnell about an article which appeared in The Australian regarding Docker River regarding contact with the Minister for Central Australia and the doctor in question.
I advised the House in good faith that the doctor had not had any contact with the Minister for Central Australia’s office. This was based on a conversation I had with the minister the previous day, when he told me that he had no contact with the doctor. The following day I was advised by the minister that, while he had had no personal contact with the doctor, his office had had contact with him. I apologise for inadvertently misleading the House.
PRISONS (CORRECTIONAL SERVICES) AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 51)
(Serial 51)
Continued from 16 May 2002.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, when the government introduced this bill, I obviously looked back at the reasons why the former government introduced the amendments that are the subject of this bill. I also considered why it was that this government wanted to repeal what the previous government introduced. I understand that the former government had what was considered at that time good reasons and sound motivations, as it saw it, to introduce the amendments to the act. The amendments were designed to provide flexibility in staffing tasks associated with prisoners.
In the course of my research, I also understood that there was a contrary view put, not only by the then opposition but by prison officers, to that which was prosecuted by the former CLP government. As the new shadow corrections minister and not having been part of the former government, I felt that I had a responsibility to look very closely at both sides of the coin. I spoke with the President of the Prison Officers Association and understand that the new government’s approach as per this bill is generally welcome. I might say while I am on this point that I have the utmost respect and admiration for prison officers throughout the Northern Territory, and I would not seek to discount their views. I have had the pleasure of meeting many of them in relatively recent times, at the prisons both in Alice Springs and Darwin. In my former life as a lawyer in practice in Alice Springs, I came to know many prison officers and, indeed, continue to enjoy informal associations with many of them. They are at the front line of a difficult job and I constantly find their standard of professionalism is outstanding. I well understand why it is that they support the bill that this government has introduced.
Having spoken to a number of prison officers, both informally and formally, as well as the Prison Officers Association, I am very pleased to say that there is now a view amongst my colleagues that, although they introduced amendments to the act in 2000, put simply: that was then and this is now. The action of the previous government was, I repeat, well motivated but this new government has a different view and we will watch the outcome with interest. We respect the government’s right to call it as it sees it. The opposition does not resile for a moment as to the reasons it introduced the amendments a couple of years ago but, as the new shadow corrections minister, I have had a look at this and consulted with my colleagues and I am pleased to say that the opposition does not oppose this bill.
Mr BONSON (Millner): Madam Speaker, I welcome the Prisons (Correctional Services) Amendment Bill 2002. The Martin Labor government has consistently maintained Labor principles in regard to protection of employees’ rights and the protection of standards of workplace health and safety requirements. In another life, I worked for the Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission representing many of the prisoners that the prison officers have been given the duty of protecting and guarding for the benefit of the wider community.
As I can attest, the job of a prison officer can be dangerous and does require elite or special training to protect themselves and prisoners from dangerous situations that often arise in these types of environments. I clearly remember the first day I visited Berrimah Prison to obtain instructions from a client held in B Block. I am not ashamed to admit that I was a little nervous. It was my first time visiting Berrimah Prison. There I was, taking my first steps into the unknown. I went to the visitors area, promptly speaking into a one-way mirror, showing identification to corroborate who I was, signing off on what my role was, who I represented and the prisoner or prisoners I was visiting.
During this security process, I was quite conscious that every day, prison officers are placed in dangerous situations. They have to rely on co-workers to work closely as a team to ensure the smooth running of the prison and the safety of all concerned. Often they rely on their extensive training to negotiate through dangerous and difficult circumstances during the working day. Prison officers have an important duty and I know that their duty is to each other, the prisoners, the visitors and the wider community. This bill will ensure that prison officers who have been trained and accepted by their co-workers are protecting their backs and, most importantly, the wider community.
It is not often that prison officers get the recognition that they deserve. I visited the Berrimah Prison countless times. I always felt that the prison officers treated me in a professional manner. I always felt that I was safe while in their care. The bill shows that the Labor government recognises the value of prison officers and demonstrates a commitment to protect the worker, the prisoner and the community by maintaining a standard of protection and supervision that we often take for granted.
This Labor government has recognised prison officers’ unique situation in this parliament in the past. In particular, the Deputy Chief Minister, the member for Nhulunbuy, correctly summarised why he opposed the amendment then, and why we support the prison officers now through the Prisoners (Correctional Services) Amendment Bill.
I would like to touch on comments made by the member for Macdonnell in response to the Deputy Chief Minister’s and prison officers’ concerns. The member for Macdonnell said in his closing remarks:
- The Labor Party in this instance is doing nothing more than trying to create division and fear
in the community.
Well, member for Macdonnell, I put it to you that the Martin Labor government is again correcting mistakes of the past CLP government, a recurring theme in this House in recent times. The Labor government is ensuring security for prison officers, safety for prisoners and the general public. I sincerely hope that the CLP will support this bill and the prison officers.
After my close working relationship with the workers at the Berrimah Prison, I have confidence in saying that we have an outstanding group of people working for all Territorians. I commend the bill to honourable members.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I thank the opposition for their support of this bill. I am more than happy to see you scrutinise the outcome of this change; we all have an interest in that. I also thank my colleague for his contribution to the debate.
The proposition in this bill was always very simple. It simply seeks to take a line out of the current act which is section 8(1):
- The Director may appoint a person to be a prison officer.
In the current act, that leaves it open for the Director of Prisons to appoint either a public servant or a non-public servant into a functional position within our prison system. Through this bill today, we are substituting for that particular provision a new subsection (1) which reads:
- The Director may appoint an employee within the meaning of the Public Sector Employment and
Management Act to be a prison officer.
That makes it very clear that the only people who will work in our gaols are public servants.
We are very proud to support that policy position because when you look around our prisons and the current work of our prison workforce, the prison officers, you have to say: ‘If it ain’t broke, why would you want to fix it?’ You do not hear too much in this House about any major mishaps within our prison system and as Minister for Justice, responsible for Correctional Services, I have total confidence in our correction services. They are a thoroughly professional and competent group of people. Probably the other side of this is that as my colleague, the member for Millner, I have been through the prisons on a number of occasions now - and I certainly intend to make regular visits into the future - and you are always aware that our gaols are being very well run and the prisoners’ welfare is being well looked after.
When you look around the rest of Australia and elsewhere in the world, the experiences that governments are having with privatised prison systems are anything but reassuring. We have found, even in Australia, governments are having to regain control of prisons that have been privatised and try to find out what has gone seriously wrong with the arrangements that were made. Even worse, public accounts committees around the country are finding that they do not have the right to look at key areas of the way in which their prisons are being administered in a privatised system. That is simply unacceptable where you have key issues of not only welfare concerns of the prisoners themselves, but also the policies of the government being carried through in those institutions.
We are very clear about this. We are very clear that we support a public service-based corrections system and we will continue that for as long as this government continues.
I also put on record that I am keeping the trust with the prison system on behalf of my colleague, the member for Nhulunbuy, who fought a fantastic battle when these changes were introduced by the previous government. It was the member for Nhulunbuy who was on his feet telling the parliament that this was the wrong way to be going with the prisons. I am very pleased today to be able to bring about this change and return it to the original condition as a public service.
I look forward to continuing to work with the prison officers and the Prison Officers Association. We have a lot to do. There are some real challenges and some real potential to do things within our corrections system, and I am very proud to be the minister in that area. If we can not only continue the very good record of care and supervision of the prisoners but also move further into rehabilitation and return to the community to enhance what we are doing there, we will get even better results into the future out of our correctional services. Having said that, I commend this bill to the House.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General) (by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
SUPPLY BILL 2002-03
(Serial 52)
(Serial 52)
Continued from 15 May 2002.
Mr REED (Katherine): Madam Speaker, on the surface of it this is a fairly straightforward action of the government seeking supply for a period between 1 July and when the Appropriation Bill is introduced and passed, to enable expenditure to be undertaken by government. However, it is unusual in that it is some eight years since a Supply Bill was required in this House. It was that time ago that the change was made to introduce the budget earlier in the year - that is late in the previous financial year - and have it passed in June so that it could be commenced on 1 July of the financial year to which it applied.
That arrangement has, I think, been very satisfactory; it has worked well. One of the principal reasons that it was introduced - quite apart from financial reasons and the other logical ones that if you are going to have a budget it should be in place at the commencement of the financial year - was taking into account the climatic conditions that apply in the Northern Territory in that the Wet Season can be a severe obstruction to the capital works program, be it for the construction of buildings or roads or other infrastructure. The introduction and passage of a budget in time for it to be in place at the commencement of the financial year enabled those capital works to commence at a more timely interval to take advantage of the Dry Season and to get works underway well before the commencement of the Wet Season.
From that point of view, the practical nature of the Appropriation Bills, as they have been undertaken over the last eight years, is self-evident. The Treasurer indicated in the second reading speech to this Supply Bill that it is not an unusual situation. Well, it might not be in historical terms, but it certainly is in contemporary terms. From that point of view it is a retrograde step to move from the situation where we had the budget in place before the end of the financial year and ready to go at the commencement of the next.
I think the construction industry will view with some concern the assurances given by the Chief Minister and Treasurer that there will be no delay in the capital works program. Well, it is really in part a nonsensical suggestion. There may not be a delay in those capital works that are already on the program and funded this financial year and will overrun or even be commenced in the coming financial year. However, necessarily, there could well be a delay of those capital works in the forthcoming budget. One hopes that every action will be taken, as indicated by the Chief Minister and Treasurer, to minimise or, indeed, eliminate those delays because they are quite legitimate concerns in the construction industry. We can only take at face value the Chief Minister and Treasurer’s assurances that there will be no delays. We hope that that is not the case.
We are assured the Supply Bill provides sufficient funds to ensure the continuation of capital works programs - roadworks, grant programs and normal services of government. The opposition and the business sector will be keen to see that that, in fact, is the case.
There is a reference in the second reading speech, and I quote:
However, agencies cannot assume that particular appropriations from 2002-03 are inferred from supply provisions.
A warning there for some agencies and industry sectors, I think. A good example of that is the tourism industry. The Northern Territory Tourist Commission, as you would be aware, funds substantial amounts of monies to ensure the adequate and thorough operations of tourist associations across the Northern Territory. It has been a matter of some concern to the opposition - and we, along with industry, have pursued it over the course of the last six months with the Tourism Minister - that the tourist associations have still not received any advice as to whether or not they will receive the same amount of financial support from the Northern Territory government through the Tourist Commission for their operations next financial year.
The minister has - and I have been at a couple of the meetings - given public assurances that there would be no decrease in funding. However, the Tourist Commission staff who have not been apprised, obviously, of the minister’s views, have advised the tourist associations on a number of occasions that there will, in fact, be a reduction. I have been approached by members of a number of tourist associations and there have been suggestions that that reduction will be 5%. There have been other suggestions that the reason for that reduction will be to withdraw funds from the current tourist associations in Darwin, Katherine, Alice Springs and Tennant Creek, and the funds so saved will be transferred and allocated to the East Arnhem Tourist Association. If that is the case, that would impact very seriously on the operations of the tourist associations.
In relation to this Supply Bill and what amounts to a warning to agencies that they cannot infer that the supply provisions will guarantee a certain amount of funding, that is going to do more to create concern in the tourism industry than already exists. The government has been loath to make those assurances notwithstanding that they have sometimes been made by the minister and repudiated by the agencies. Despite suggestions by the minister in the last sittings and publicly that the tourism industry, which is the largest employer in the Northern Territory, is currently going gang-busters, it isn’t.
There is great concern in the tourism industry. You would have heard as recently as last week tour operators expressing concern about the low number of tourists coming to the Northern Territory. The coach travel sector has reduced and there are problems that we are all aware of regarding airline services and the ability to get numbers of tourists who want to come here on aircraft to visit the Northern Territory.
The industry, as important as it is, is still being messed around by this government in terms of the associations that represent the various operators and the level of operation that they can expect to undertake next financial year. We are only a couple of weeks away from that. It is most inappropriate that tourist associations, which are expected to promote the industry and provide services to the tourism sector, are still unaware of the circumstances and are receiving conflicting advice in relation to the amounts of money that the minister and the Tourist Commission say that they are going to receive. I simply take this opportunity to point out that inferred warning in the Treasurer’s second reading speech to demonstrate to the Chief Minister and Treasurer that there is great concern in the tourism industry in relation to those matters. Indeed, those concerns are, in fact, reflected in other agencies.
There are now very strong rumours that all agencies have been asked to advise government of further cutbacks on top of the extensive cutbacks that have already been applied by this government. We all know how heavily the screws have been put on government agencies; the difficulties some of them are finding in delivering services. They are incapable, in many cases, of maintaining the levels of services that were provided under a CLP government. The hard working employees in agencies across government do not want to hear any more about the government’s perceived reasons for their cutbacks. It is pretty well recognised now, publicly and across the public service, that the government is building up a hollow log so that they can have a big financial splash and high levels of expenditure in the second half of their parliamentary term.
Ms Martin: You mean something like this: the Community Benefit Fund, perhaps?
Mr REED: The Chief Minister and Treasurer will have her opportunity to contribute to this debate. If she is concerned - and I hope she is - about the levels of expenditure and the fact that they have been substantially reduced, she may wish, while she is waving around bits of paper, to indicate one way or another whether, in fact, government agencies have been asked to further reduce expenditure, to trim the cloth even further, and to impose more restrictions on the activities of services that are provided to government.
We have heard enough of black holes and all of the other terrible circumstances that the Chief Minister and Treasurer and other ministers purport to be the reasoning behind the cutbacks. Of course, countering that we have experienced the introduction of a whole host of taxes and additional imposts on Territorians, be they $90 additional levies, taxes - call them what you will but it is money out of Territorians’ pockets - in relation to registration charges. Territorians are all paying 5% extra for their water and sewerage charges. Businesses are about to be hit with an HIH levy. I could go on. The imposts are extensive; they are serious and they are impacting on business. They are also impacting on the ability or, indeed, desire of business to employ more people, to put more people in jobs. So, it is having a very negative impact in that regard.
I ask the Chief Minister and Treasurer to confirm or deny unequivocally whether or not agencies have been asked to provide further reductions in their expenditure, either presently or in the lead-up to the forthcoming budget. I would also ask that she speak to her Minister for Tourism so that the tourism industry can be finally, definitely advised as to whether or not they will receive ongoing funding at the existing levels or if indeed funding is going to be cut and if it is going to be cut, the reasons for that cut.
I expect the answer is going to be: ‘You will have to wait for the budget’. If the Chief Minister and Treasurer expects the tourism industry to be serviced appropriately by the tourist associations, she will adopt the same practices that were applied by the former government and advise the tourist associations well in advance of the commencement of the financial year - although it is getting a bit late for that - what their funding levels will be so that the industry, which is all important and the second biggest industry in the Northern Territory, can continue to operate in a responsible and effective manner to the benefit of all Territorians.
Having said that, we will be supporting the Supply Bill. We think it is an unfortunate, retrograde step but it is one that the government has decided to take for their own reasons. We will no doubt hear all sorts of bleating and excuses and ‘It is not my fault’ from the Chief Minister and Treasurer about her perceived reasons. Hopefully, we will hear her real reasons. As I indicated, people are growing more than a little tired of those excuses and they want to see the government act in its own right.
I will foreshadow that with the introduction of the 2002-03 budget, this government will have cut the leash from the excuses of not taking responsibility for its own actions. It will be operating not on a mini-budget, but on its own budget, fully developed by their Cabinet and introduced and implemented by a Labor government. It will be that act - the introduction and passage of the Appropriation Bill 2002-03 - that will cut the nexus, if you like, between the reasons for excuses and blaming everyone else for the actions, and the need for this government to finally take full responsibility for its own actions under its own budget, and start making some decisions and introducing some direction to the Northern Territory. We can then continue to progress rather than being just swamped by never-ending excuses and blaming former governments or other persons for the inactions of the current government.
With those words, the Supply Bill (Serial 52) is supported. We will look forward to the appropriation debate 2002-03 to see where the government is going to take the Northern Territory in the coming financial year and the direction it will take for years thereafter.
Ms MARTIN (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I thank the opposition spokesperson for his support, begrudging as it was. I was not going to speak in much detail about this bill because it is fairly straightforward. However, I have to respond to some of the worst and most idiotic comments that he made.
Until eight years ago, the tradition under the CLP was to hold August budgets. In the period between then - which was 1994-95 - and now, there was one August budget, and that was in 1996-97. As recently as five years ago there was an August budget. We are not standing in here making excuses for having an August budget; it is straightforward. Brand new government arrives here in August, finds out that the budget has been fudged, misled parliament, all those other things we have talked about - I am not going to go into it now – and we put in place a mini-budget. That took, as the former Treasurer would know, a lot of work from Treasury and from the new government. It was simply a matter of getting government moving that meant we were not going to go to a May budget, particularly in light that we are moving to accrual accounting.
The whole move to accrual accounting is a complex one; the next budget will be both an accrual and a cash-based budget. There will be reporting in both formats right across government, taking a lot of time. There simply would not have been the time between the effort for the November mini-budget and May to put that in place. Therefore, sense would mean we put it back until August. We are not blaming anyone. We are saying we inherited a dog’s breakfast of a budget paper. We have sorted that out; we have put in place our fiscal strategies and directions in the mini-budget. Now, quite sensibly, we will have the 2002-03 budget coming down in August. We have no excuses on this side of the House. If anyone was going to stand up and try a few excuses, it should be the current opposition.
The shadow Treasurer raised issues in respect of capital works expenditure, roads and grants and the services of government. There is absolutely no implication that that work will not go ahead - steam ahead, in fact. There are active programs in place, and the decisions by government will be put into place. I can assure the member for Katherine there will be no delays in government programs. There will be no delays in capital works expenditure in roads or the grants. That is moving ahead with great focus and great direction. I do not think that, because he needed to fill some time on this debate, nitpicking his way through the Supply Bill and trying, like Henny Penny - saying every line meant the sky was falling - was really making a very constructive contribution to the debate.
The hypocrisy of trying to pretend that he does not know why things have been tough is quite extraordinary also. He is the man who was Treasurer for many years; he is the man who fudged the bottom lines; who put us year after year deeper into debt. He is then trying to pretend that, as we indicated in the mini-budget, we are slowing down growth but growth in government expenditure is the fault of anyone but the previous administration. It simply is. But this government is responsible; we are getting the budget back to a sustainable position. Every business and community organisation in the Northern Territory understands that budgets must be run in a sustainable way.
Again, I am not whingeing. We have done the hard work and we are working with Territorians to make sure that we can run sustainable budgets. However, let me say with great certainty that there is growth in this budget, and what we are doing is managing that in a responsible way. So any Henny Penny attitude from the member for Katherine is irrelevant to this debate. We are moving forward. The Supply Bill will come down in August, but expenditure for every area will carry on. The importance of building and construction in the Dry Season is recognised by this government.
I thank the member for his words; I wish they were more constructive. They do seem decidedly hypocritical considering what position he has held previously for many years.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Ms MARTIN (Treasurer): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
CRIMINAL PROPERTY FORFEITURE BILL
(Serial 60)
CRIMINAL PROPERTY FORFEITURE (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL
(Serial 61)
(Serial 60)
CRIMINAL PROPERTY FORFEITURE (CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) BILL
(Serial 61)
Continued from 16 May 2002.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Speaker, I rise to place on the Parliamentary Record the opposition’s observations, some criticism and eventually its support for the Criminal Property Forfeiture Bill (Serial 60).
I first put on the record that none of the observations or criticisms I intend to make in relation to this draft bill in any way reflect upon the calibre and professionalism of legal practitioners - one of whom I worked for for several years - who have had some input into the drafting of this bill. It goes without saying that they are, of course, creatures of construction who are bound to draft the clumsy and poorly articulated instructions from the Attorney-General.
I will start, using as a reference point the Attorney-General’s second reading speech. The Attorney-General, in that speech on 16 May this year made a number of assertions which, when read at first blush, create the impression that the bill was introducing a raft of new measures unheard of in the history of the Northern Territory. Indeed, the opening sentence of the second reading speech begins with:
- The existing Northern Territory legislation in this area, the Crimes (Forfeiture of Proceeds) Act is
ineffective and outdated.
The basis of this very bold assertion is that the Attorney-General has requested some scribes to review the statistics which reveal that there were only 64 cases where offenders were arrested or summonsed for matters involving possession or receipt of proceeds of crime under the existing legislation. Of these matters, only three proceeded to a court hearing, and of those only two resulted in the confiscation of proceeds. Indeed, only one of these matters involved the proceeds of a drug crime and, in that case, only $7000 in cash was successfully confiscated.
There may be a number of possible rationales for this seemingly startling statistic but, according to the Attorney-General, there is a mountain of assets which could fall to come under the scope of this new net which has been cast. Members of the Federal Police and the Northern Territory Drug Squad are most certainly aware of the unfortunate reality, however, that the average drug offender - if there is any such thing - is most likely an unemployed 28 to 35-year-old Anglo-Saxon male who lives in a unit in an inner city suburb. Of course, that is not taken to be a reflection upon any of those areas; it is just a dry statistic which is often bandied about by criminal lawyers.
Whilst it might be romantic for some law enforcement agencies to see themselves as fighting organised crime funded by wealthy individuals, it is certainly an act of political manipulation for politicians to seize upon that notion and sell it in a misleading way, in the form of press releases to journalists and, ultimately, the people of the Northern Territory. The real proof will be in the pudding, and I look forward to the Attorney-General coming back before this parliament in say, 12 or so months, with some real results. It is difficult to see how this new legislation, as part of the grand scheme, will have the effect of significantly reducing property crime over the coming 12 months.
Talking of political manipulation, before this bill was presented to this parliament, and a copy provided to the opposition and many of the lobby groups that operate within the Northern Territory that are interested in this type of legislation, the local newspaper was privy to the substance of this amendment and also the raft of other law reform related amendments. They were given a number of private briefings from political scribes and lackeys, and they told us in an exclusive on the front page of the Northern Territory News what the government was going to do, and the purpose of the new legislation. Of course, there was a colour photograph of the Chief Minister and her most loyal scribe, the Attorney-General.
The single most significant change which is contained in the legislation is clearly the repeal of the conviction-based scheme, replacing it with a non-conviction-based civil scheme. Part of the Attorney-General’s justification is really quite embarrassing, and amounts to an admission that law enforcement agencies in the Northern Territory are unable to secure the required convictions against - and using the words that the Attorney-General used in his second reading speech – ‘individuals who are involved in sophisticated and large-scale criminal activity’. He implied that they are avoiding conviction. As I have already drawn honourable members’ attention to, there is some doubt as to whether or not these people actually exist in any numbers in the Northern Territory in any event.
However, the Attorney-General also talked about the advances in technology and the effect of national, even global communications which allows these individuals, in sophisticated and large-scale criminal activity, to avoid detection. These individuals are able to escape or to evade conviction and therefore place their profits beyond the reach of conviction-based laws. With respect, both the Northern Territory and Federal Police do a fantastic job and already have the law enforcement tools to tackle these types of offenders. Indeed, they do exactly that.
There is, of course, the obligatory reference to an old recommendation from the Australian Law Reform Commission, back in 1999, that conviction-based laws were inadequate. However, as honourable members are no doubt aware, there are reports and recommendations on nearly all the topics - some for and some against - and there are articles in existence which quite plainly state that this type of legislation contained in the Criminal Property Forfeiture Bill 2002 (Serial 60) is ineffective.
The Attorney-General then goes on to state in his second reading speech, talking about the new bill and the consequential amendments, of course:
- It represents a concrete demonstration of this government’s tough stance against crime.
This is clearly a statement which does not advance the reader’s understanding of the legislation and is probably aimed more at journalists and disseminators of information who have been privy to the exclusive briefings of the effect of the legislation and its purport. The Attorney-General, in support of his bold assertion, then goes on to state that the bill provides the mechanisms for ‘restraining orders’. Mmm, that sounds like a new initiative. Well, that is certainly the impression any listener or reader of the second reading speech would get. However, an examination of the old Crimes (Forfeiture of Proceeds) Act reveals an entire part dedicated to restraining orders. This is an amazing coincidence. It seems the Attorney-General has reinvented the wheel. Part 4 of the Crimes (Forfeiture of Proceeds) Act - that is the act currently in existence – sections 13 to 30, deal in detail with the scope and circumstances in which an application for a restraining order can be made to a court. Indeed, section 15 of the act states - and if I could just read a short portion off it onto the transcript - that:
- (2) Where a defendant has not been convicted of a serious offence, the Supreme Court shall not make
a restraining order unless –
- (a) the application for the order is supported by an affidavit of a member of the Police Force stating
that the member believes the defendant committed the offence; and
- (b) the Court is satisfied, having regard to the matters contained in the affidavit, that there are
reasonable grounds for holding that belief.
In other words, all a member of the police force has to produce is an affidavit which can demonstrate to the court that there are reasonable grounds for holding the belief that the defendant has committed the offence. The restraining order will then be granted. The Attorney-General’s second reading speech, insofar as it asserts that the concept of a restraining order is something new and a Labor initiative, is misleading.
Turning now to deal more precisely with the new legislation, there is, of course, the Chopper Read clause, a clause which, according to the Attorney-General, will prevent criminals from exploiting their notoriety for commercial purposes such as selling their stories to the media, because profits fall within the definition of ‘criminal benefits’ and as such, they should be forfeited to the Territory. Watch out, Chopper Read. In an Australian context, almost all personal accounts by persons convicted of serious criminal offences or persons who have served long periods of time as guests of Her Majesty’s prison draw the conclusion that it is simply not worth it. Indeed, the message seems to be that if you are a young person disenchanted with society and the government - which may not be too difficult having regard to the new Labor government - the last thing you should do is turn to a life of crime. The people of the Northern Territory will be able to sleep better tonight knowing that the Labor government has closed this significant loop hole which they say will have an effect on reducing crime in the Territory - I think not.
If the government is genuinely of the belief that the Chopper Read provision contained in the Criminal Property Forfeiture Bill will have any effect on young offenders from going down the path of a life of crime and will reduce crime - and that is part of their concrete demonstration of Labor’s tough stance against crime - they are delusional. Indeed, the Attorney-General does himself a grave disservice.
Division 6 of the new bill is also a concern. That provision gives the authorities power to detain persons without charge. It seems, on the face of it, there is no limitation to the duration that a person can be detained. Indeed, it seems a person who resists being detained and who is uncooperative during the course of an exercise of the powers conferred by section 33, face a penalty of five years imprisonment. On the face of this provision, it seems to apply to third parties. Perhaps in his reply closing debate, the Attorney-General could provide clarification on this issue and confirmation that the safeguards contained in the Police Administration Act apply to this section.
Section 154 of the proposed bill deals with property restrained not being available to meet legal costs. Section 154 goes on to state that property the subject of a restraining order is not to be released to meet legal expenses for a person who is a party to criminal proceedings under the act. Rather, a person whose assets have been restrained is then slipped on the public nipple in the form of the Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission, where, of course, they receive the aid of a taxpayer-funded solicitor.
The proposed bill goes on to provide that the Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission can, in certain circumstances, if property is forfeited to the Territory, make an application to the minister for reimbursement of those legal fees. Unfortunately, private legal firms are disadvantaged in that no such provision applies to them. Well might you say: ‘Who cares about criminal lawyers?’, but what it means in a practical sense in the Northern Territory is that the Legal Aid Commission will have to engage more solicitors if you follow the logic through. Eventually, those solicitors will be required to deal with the extra workload which will become another burden borne by the private sector in forms of tax. We are talking about new taxes and new levies. Someone is going to have to pay for these people to take these points of law. You have the DPP, which is taxpayer funded, with people being represented by the Legal Aid Commission which is also a creature of the taxpayer.
As you are aware, all government institutions are taxpayer funded and this particular provision has an effect of disadvantaging private enterprise. It certainly flies in the face of the comments made by the Chief Minister about competition reforms.
The new bill is littered with new and loosely defined terms which will eventually require the intervention of courts of appeal at all levels to assist in its interpretation. Some of the solicitors to whom I have spoken have had a cursory perusal of the legislation are of the view that it will create extra litigation which will benefit those barristers and solicitors who are fortunate enough to be briefed by the Northern Territory government or in the employ of the Northern Territory Legal Aid Commission.
The legislation comes by way of a package; there are two bills being dealt with together. The Criminal Property Forfeiture (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2002 (Serial 61) also contains some new reforms. It deals with the consequential amendments relating to the Criminal Property Forfeiture Bill (Serial 60). The bill allows for amendment of the Misuse of Drugs Act by inserting after section 36 a new section 36A: Declared drug trafficker.
My serious concern is that the new section 36A(3) of the bill which provides that:
- On hearing an application by the Director of Public Prosecutions under subsection (1), the court…
and I emphasise this
- …must declare the person to be drug trafficker …
blah, blah, blah. My understanding of the doctrine of the separation of powers is that a declaration by a court is a judicial function and one which cannot be traversed by parliament. In my view, section 36A contravenes an important safeguard contained, by implication, in the Australian Constitution and our very own Northern Territory (Self-Government) Act. Perhaps the Attorney-General can clarify this for honourable members in his closing reply.
Whilst I have articulated a number of the concerns about the legislation in a general sense, the opposition is firmly of the view that anything which sends a message out to the community that crime and unlawful conduct is not acceptable, should be supported. We look forward to the Attorney-General updating the members of this House in 12 months time to see whether this, coupled with the other reforms, will lead to the fabled ‘50% reduction in 12 months or I will resign’ undertaking.
The opposition does not oppose the passage of this bill.
Mr STIRLING (Employment, Education and Training): Madam Speaker, having heard the mealy-mouthed comments from the spokesman opposite I, together with other members this side, am left wondering which side he is on. Who’s side is he on? On the one hand, there is less than fulsome support for a bill that will take stringent measures of confiscation of profits from criminal activities, and on the other he expounds how, out of 62 or 64 cases in this situation, only two got down as far as this and only one resulted in confiscation of property and I think the reason for that was because they did not have any property; because there is no organised crime.
Well, if he wants to live in cloud fairyland and disguise the fact that there are elements with considerable property involved in criminal activity in the Northern Territory, so be it. I would have thought that, as a member of parliament representing his constituents, he ought to be a little better informed. When Western Australia updated their legislation, it was not very long at all before they had a great quantity of quite valuable property being confiscated. If he wanted to open the paper at any time, I think it was even reported in the NT News: ‘Granny complains, $25 000 Harley confiscated from her grandson’, which the police had picked up. She said: ‘I bought that bike’. ‘Show us the evidence,’ that is all the police wanted. ‘Show us the evidence where you purchased this bike, this $25 000 Harley-Davidson for your grandson, and we will look at it’. No evidence, Your honour. The bike was confiscated and remains the property of the Crown in Western Australia. That is what we want to do. We have modelled this legislation on Western Australian legislation.
I am astounded by the comments of the member opposite, that he would have us believe that no one convicted of criminal activity in the Northern Territory has any property. I think the description was that they are between 24 and 30 and no dough, so there is nothing to confiscate. Well, I will go he. If that is what he wants to believe, fine. We on this side of the House have a very different view, and that is why we have taken the trouble to get this legislation, as I said, modelled on Western Australian legislation, which is proving enormously effective to the detriment of criminals. We have a very clear view, unlike this guy opposite, that criminals should not profit. Criminals should not be allowed to profit from their activities and continue to hold those profits and benefit from those ill-gotten gains. There is no legal or moral entitlement as to how or why they should be able to do that. However, if we listen to the member opposite it would seem that that is fine - even if they get done with the crime they ought to be able to put away whatever benefits they have from that crime until such time as they are able to use it.
As I said, we have a very different view. Our view is that they have no legal or moral entitlement to it and they should not be able to profit from it. We will take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that where it is found that there is property that has been gained as a result of criminal activity, and that is prosecuted, it will be forfeited to the Territory under this legislation. The existing scheme, as the member opposite explained, is being repealed with this because this replaces it with a non-conviction based civil scheme.
The police will play an important role in this legislation. There are three real objectives to this law reform: it is to deter those who contemplate criminal activity by reducing the possibility of gaining or keeping a profit from that activity; to prevent crime by diminishing the capacity of offenders to finance any future criminal activity that they might engage in; and to remedy the unjust enrichment of criminals who profit at society’s expense.
The original act was introduced in 1988. However, the current legislation has been largely unused because it is limited in its application to applications to the Supreme Court for forfeiture of property used in conjunction with an offence for which a person has been convicted. Of the 64 cases where offenders were arrested or summonsed for mattes involving possession or receipt of the proceeds of crime under the existing legislation, three proceeded to court, of which two resulted in confiscation.
This bill provides for information gathering powers including monitoring, suspension, examination and production orders and search warrants. The police will have the power to detain a person where there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the person has property liable to forfeiture or property tracking documents in his or her possession. Police powers also include requiring a person to give information codes and passwords where applicable and the ability to seize property where reasonable grounds for suspecting it is crime-used or crime-derived, or owned/controlled by a person charged with an offence who could be declared a drug trafficker.
Police may retain property in the first instance for not more than 72 hours. Beyond that is an interim restraining order, and the police or the DPP are to apply to the local court within that time frame. Within 21 days after the grant of a restraining order, there must be an application from the police or DPP for either an examination order, monitoring order, suspension order, production order, criminal benefit declaration, unexplained wealth declaration, crime-used property substitution declaration or, of course, if the person has been or will be charged with an offence which could result in the person being declared to be a drug trafficker. After the restraining order is made and a copy of the order served on the relevant persons, the response is required within 28 days if intending to object. Relevant persons must lodge a stat dec stating who else may have claim to the property. Persons may apply to release property to meet reasonable living and businesses expenses. A restraining order is for three months.
Our very clear view is that we will take whatever steps we think are necessary in order to empower the Crown to confiscate property where it has been gained from criminal activity. We think the bill is long overdue. It is important legislation, and is one of a package of reforms the Attorney-General is bringing to parliament that we think will assist in fighting serious crime in our community. This bill and the consequential amendments that come with it will ensure, we think, that an effective and broad-ranging scheme is put in place to recover the profits that are currently not being recovered, and deter people from participating in criminal activity into the future.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I say at the outset that because one is opposed to crime, it does not necessarily mean that one should accept bills like this without at least questioning certain aspects of them. That does not mean one is a supporter of criminals; it means that one should take one’s role in parliament as being a role which carefully looks at legislation to see if it has been put together properly and reasonably. That is the manner in which I come to today’s debate.
I believe this and the drug house bill have not been given anywhere near enough time for adequate discussion and debate. As said in a briefing I had yesterday, the Criminal Property Forfeiture Bill is a complex bill and difficult to get one’s head around. I believe that, because of this extra sittings, there has not been sufficient time to get this drug house bill out into the community for more adequate discussion amongst those people who might want to comment on it.
I have no problems with the objectives of the bill which are: (1) to deter those who may be contemplating criminal activity by reducing the possibility of gaining a profit from that activity; (2) to prevent crime by diminishing the capacity of offenders to finance future criminal activities; and (3) to remedy the unjust enrichment of criminals who profit at society’s expense.
Will this act do that? Maybe only time will tell. But I feel that the government needs to answer many questions before the bill is passed. The government has stated that the existing bill is ineffective, outdated and largely useless. It is said that there have been 64 cases where offenders have been arrested or summonsed under the act: three proceeded to court, and two were successful, with the confiscation of $7000. Why didn’t the other 61 cases go to court? How much did it cost to collect the $7000? What was wrong with the previous act?
Under the new act, what will be the cost of achieving the objects of the act and for what return? Can the government show that this legislation will work, bearing in mind that Arie Freiberg who is a Professor of Criminology in the Department of Criminology, University of Melbourne, and Richard Fox from Monash University have written a paper in the Australia and New Zealand Journal of Criminology on evaluating the effectiveness of Australian confiscation laws. They throw doubt on the usefulness of this type of law.
I might quote some sections from it. This is under the heading ‘New legislation’:
Few legislative initiatives against crime have been introduced with as much promise and anticipation as
those which authorise the forfeiture and confiscation of the instruments and proceeds of crime.
And they quote:
- New South Wales 1985, 1989, 1990, 1997; Victoria 1986, 1997; South Australia 1986, 1996;
Australia 1987; Northern Territory 1988; Western Australia 1988; Queensland 1989;
Australian Capital Territory 1991; and Tasmania 1993.
- These laws emerged from a raft of Australian royal commissions and inquiries in the late 1970s and
early 1980s into drug trafficking and organised criminal activities. They were promoted as a major new
weapon in the war against serious crime. The premises upon which they were founded were that some
crimes were primarily profit-driven; that organised profit-driven criminals were more dangerous than
individual offenders; that traditional sanctions such as imprisonment and fines were ineffectual in
deterring such criminals; and that new and more powerful sanctions were now called for.
Though welcomed by prosecutorial authorities as a “measured response” to the problem of organised
crime, the new confiscation laws were regarded by civil libertarians as evidence of a “new despotism”
in the criminal law. The zealousness with which the laws appeared to override fundamental values
and liberties were condemned. Attention was drawn to the deliberate shift from criminal to civil standards
in the mode of proceeding and in the standards of proof and the watering down of protections
against double-jeopardy and self-incrimination.
Complaint was also made about the way in which benefits were presumed to have been derived from crime
rather than proven to be so, or were calculated without any reference to expenses and outgoings. The way in
which certain forfeiture provisions were triggered automatically and the limited recognition accorded to third
party interests were also condemned.
Though the confiscation laws are complex and now vary between the Australian jurisdictions, they contain
three core elements. First, the restraining order… Second, the forfeiture order… Third, the pecuniary penalty
order, which permits a court to order a person who has derived a “benefit” from the commission of an offence
to repay the equivalent of that benefit. These are supported by extensive information gathering powers
under search warrants, production orders and monitoring orders issues on a judicial warrant on the application
of the police. While the objective of this legislation is said to be directed at organised crime, the confiscation
regime in general applies to all indictable offences.
I make the point that I still have concerns about the definition of the forfeiture offence. Even though it is part of a larger act, I believe that a definition which says ‘a forfeiture offence is an offence against a law in force anywhere in Australia that is punishable by imprisonment for two years or more’ is too broad a definition. It needs more definition within itself to say exactly to which laws forfeiture offences apply. Perhaps the Attorney-General can address that in his reply.
Studies by the National Crime Authority in 1995 showed that between 1987 and 1993 confiscation orders had been made in over 500 cases in respect of property worth $12m and benefits of $31m, and noted that, to the extent that some of these benefits were actually recovered by governments, many individual offenders have been prevented from unjustly enriching themselves. But the NCA said that when it came to evaluating the effectiveness in reducing crime, organised or otherwise, much further work was required.
It seems that the government believes its tougher legislation will achieve its goals which it says the present legislation does not. Again, Freiberg and Fox say:
- The experience, in Australia and elsewhere, has been that since such laws were introduced in the mid-1980s,
they have been made progressively more severe. Over the last decade and a half, Australian law makers
have amended, repealed and replaced their confiscation laws with disconcerting frequency. Though many of
the amendments have been technical in nature, in the main they have reflected the frustration of law
enforcement agencies at their inability to reduce the rate of profit motivated crime or organised crime, or
to force offenders fully to disgorge the proceeds of crime.
New South Wales replaced its first confiscation act within four years and introduced new non-conviction based
laws in 1989, only to review them again in 1997. South Australia repealed and replaced its act within a decade,
as did Victoria. After numerous amendments to its 1986 parent legislation, Victoria completely replaced it with
the Confiscation Act 1997 which adds new forms of civil forfeiture and enlarged the circumstances in which
confiscation was automatic.
Therefore, if the government says its laws are going to achieve the goals or objectives stated in the second reading, then how is it going to evaluate them and what evaluation infrastructure is going to be put in place? I will be interested to see the mechanism, the basis, and the interpretation of any evaluation of the effectiveness of these laws.
Is the government making a presumption about things of which it has no proof? I will take another quote from Freiberg and Fox on this same issue:
To continue to make unrealistic promises about the benefits of novel legislation will almost guarantee
the appearance of failure. But rather than invite abandonment of the initiative or modification of what is
expected of it, failure seems to stimulate fresh legislative enthusiasm for even harsher measures.
They quote a gentleman called Wardlaw (1995) who said:
- …since failure to reach unrealistic [goals] may lead to calls for even tougher legislation. It is inevitable that
such further changes will also fail to meet the (still) unrealistic goals, with the result of the presumed
solution either creates its own serious problems or imposes costs (both financial and in terms of civil liabilities
and distortions to the legal system) that outweigh any presumed benefits.
Should we not have looked at our present laws to see if they could be modified if that was required, or at the very least made a study of why they were perceived to be ineffective? Will this legislation be effective against so-called serious criminal activity or will it pick up only the bit players whose property forfeiture may cost the community far more to obtain than the cost of the property? Does the legislation also override due process? Again, Freiberg and Fox say something on that same issue:
Prevention of individual unjust enrichment provides a moral and ethical justification for some form of
confiscatory legislation, but occasional success in stripping some offenders of their ill-gotten gains alone
is insufficient to justify the ever-widening reach of the legislation, and the eroding effect of its departure
from generally accepted principles of due process in criminal justice. Since the scope and potency of
the confiscatory legislation is defended by reference to its broader deterrent effect on serious crime and
criminals, it behoves those who defend its measures to ensure they are properly targeted against the
principles of organised crime, rather than bit players who contribute little to the enterprise in capital or
planning.
It is interesting to note that when it comes to the effectiveness of the new laws as a deterrent, as stated in the first objective - and you will pardon me, Attorney-General, for quoting from this document but I use it because I believe it is worth bringing some of these issues to the debate seeing Freiberg and Fox have certainly gone into this deeper than I could. When talking about deterrence they say:
- Confiscation legislation shares with all other penal legislation the aim of deterrence. But neither specific
nor general deterrent effects are easy to determine in any context. The difficulty of doing so in relation
to confiscation laws is compounded by the need to untangle the effect of the confiscation sanction from those
of the sentence imposed for the predicate offences. In drug cases, the punishment for the underlying offence
is often very severe and well publicised. The literature on deterrence indicates that the perceived probability
of detection and apprehension is more important in deterring from crime than the severity of the sanction
or sanctions ultimately imposed (Wardlaw, 1995). Little information is available on the number of offenders
apprehended and convicted of offences to which confiscation legislation might potentially apply. Not all those
who are convicted and qualify are the subject of confiscation orders. And little is known of actual deprivation
of assets suffered by those who are subject to those orders.
In any event, not all criminals make rational choices based on the assessment of the possible consequences of
their actions. Some offenders are risk-takers and some are risk-avoiders. Where exceptionally high profits are
to be made, as in the illicit drug trade, the calculation that significant benefits will be obtained through any
one criminal transaction, or series of transactions, seems often to outweigh an awareness of the risk that, in the
long term, such activities may prove fruitless. Wardlaw warns, that in the absence of data about the actual
behaviour of individuals or corporations, it is not sufficient to extrapolate from “common sense”
(Wardlaw, 1995; 33):
- “Common sense” often turns out to be wrong - at least when applied to deviant sections of
our community. How we would act may simply not be relevant to the sort of people with whom
we are concerned.
The newer revisions of the confiscatory legislature cannot be defended by reference to the known deterrent
effect of such laws and there is no reason to believe that it will achieve any greater general deterrent results
than the past.
I relate again the first objective of this act. It was stated that it is to deter those who may be contemplating criminal activity by reducing the possibility of gaining a profit from that activity. If one is to determine, as mentioned by Freiberg and Fox, whether the amount confiscated each year is having that affect, it is necessary to ascertain the size of the capital base of crime and then to measure the inroads, if any, made upon that base by level of confiscation. We need to be able to estimate the annual proceeds of crime and compare that with the value of the confiscations if we wish to judge effectiveness.
As I said before, I do have concerns about the definition of the forfeiture offence. It seems far too broad without some explanation of what offences will be covered. What is the intention of all crimes with more than two years imprisonment being included in this section? Another area I would like the minister to look at is how does this proposed legislation deal with forfeiture offences on Aboriginal land, especially if the owner or owners were involved? Does this legislation cover this?
I raise these issues because I am concerned about the relative haste of this bill, bearing in mind its complexities and ramifications. I feel good, honest debate about this bill is being stymied by the fact the government wants to show its drug laws are tougher than the other side’s drug laws and that this is more about fulfilling the ‘tough on drugs’ policy. I wonder if the opposition is concerned that if it raises concerns about the bill, will it be seen to be soft on crime. I know we are all influenced through the media by public perceptions of us, but surely we would not be doing our job if this was the main consideration, rather than overseeing whether the parliament is passing good legislation.
The final paragraph of Freiberg and Fox is worth considering:
- Confiscation laws are useful in the crime fighting armoury as one of the means by which unjust enrichment
can be prevented and crime made to pay less. But because they come at a price in terms of civil liberties and
due process, that price cannot be inflated by unjustified claims about their capacity to reduce the general
incidence of profit-driven crime. Governments must at least demonstrate that the existing measures have
been resourced and applied as intended before claiming they are entitled to introduce more oppressive
measures where confiscation is no longer tied to proven criminality. Better evaluative measures to monitor
better resourced application of the current confiscation powers against better focussed targets will produce
better results, than yet another round of confiscation laws and all the political posturing that will
inevitably accompany them.
I hope that the government will properly resource not only for this legislation to operate properly, but for it to be properly monitored and analysed. That is the reason I am raising these issues today. If we are going to make these objectives, then we have to prove that these laws will actually produce the results that government wants. I do not want criminals, especially those dealing in drugs, getting away with living off the destruction of our young peoples’ lives with all the resultant pain and suffering. We need to be careful about using the notion that the end justifies the means. I call on the government in 12 months to show how far the it has gone toward achieving its objectives as stated by the minister. A review every 12 months would be worthwhile. I hope the matters I have raised today can be included in that review.
Mr BONSON (Millner): Madam Speaker, as the Minister for Justice and Attorney-General has stated, existing Northern Territory legislation, the Crimes (Forfeiture of Proceeds) Act is ineffective and outdated. In other words, it does not work or obtain the outcome it was designed to achieve. What I find amazing is that the original act was introduced in 1988 and has, as the minister said, been useless since that time. It begs the question: what was the previous CLP government doing about it? The answer is: nothing!
The relevant statistics reveal the ineffectiveness of the legislation. In approximately 14 years of operation, there were 64 cases where offenders were arrested or summonsed for activities involving possession or receipt of the proceeds of crime under the existing legislation. This is simply not good enough. As the minister said, of these matters only three proceeded to a court hearing. Of those, two resulted in confiscation of proceeds. I repeat: two out of 64 over approximately 14 years resulted in confiscation of proceeds of crime - simply not good enough. Out of the two success stories, one of the matters involved the proceeds of drug crime. Very little property was confiscated as part of those proceedings.
To deal with this matter, the Labor government will repeal the useless and inefficient existing scheme, replacing it with a conviction-based scheme that reflects Australian best practices in this regard. As the minister said, this scheme will bring the Northern Territory into line with developments occurring in most other Australian jurisdictions. The legislation has a simple objective: it is aimed at preventing the unjust enrichment of certain individuals as a result of criminal conduct. The simple principle that criminals should not benefit from criminal activities is a fundamental moral belief of all Territorians and Australians. To benefit from other peoples’ misery or habit is the lowest form of employment known to man.
To touch on the member for Nelson’s opening comments in his contribution to this debate, said he does support the forfeiture of proceeds of crime, but he went on to suggest that he has not had time to comment or properly research the matter. What I find perplexing about that is that he then runs off a detailed criticism - obviously well researched - on the legislation and the process leading to its enactment. I agree with the member for Nelson in that I am interested in steps that are real, not just theory. I am certainly interested in outcomes.
This legislation is Australian best practice and it attempts to target criminals where it hurts them most: in the hip pocket. I believe in due process. I believe in the judicial system. This legislation is a reflection of law-abiding citizens’ feelings about criminals benefiting from property crimes. The member for Nelson needs to stop sitting on the fence and hedging his bets. He really needs to come out and say which side he is on. This is a consistent theme that is developing. Anyway, I will talk to the member for Nelson about that later.
An important mechanism of this legislation is that it takes forfeiture of property from the criminal jurisdiction where it has been in the past connected to the commission of a criminal offence. In 1999, a report by the Australian Law Reform Commission entitled Confiscation that Counts concluded that conviction-based laws were inadequate.
As the minister stated, the Territory has taken steps to a process which is more effective in enabling proceeds of crime to be frozen and confiscated through civil proceedings, without the need to obtain a conviction. It is important for the public to understand that criminal forfeiture can occur where the court is satisfied that it is more probable than not that the criminal conduct has occurred. The minister has also made the point that such a finding by a court does not constitute a conviction, and no criminal consequence can flow from it.
The scheme that we are introducing is focussed on recovery of assets and profits that are directly related to criminal profiteering. The mechanism, as highlighted by the minister, has the ability through restraining orders over property, to cause financial penalties on persons who have gained through criminal activities. The police will have to believe that property is crime-used or crime-derived before application can be made.
The decision to apply for a restraining order will be left to the Director of Public Prosecutions. As the minister has stated, a forfeiture offence is defined in the bill as ‘an offence punishable by imprisonment for two years or more or any other prescribed offence’. The court will maintain the long-held judicial principle of independence. Courts will be responsible for determining whether or not, on the balance of probabilities, the property should be forfeited.
I do not pretend that any law introduced by any parliament in the world will eradicate criminal behaviour. However, this bill will deter and minimise profit from crime-related activities. That is the real aim of it, member for Nelson: there is a realisation that drug-related offences and property crimes will occur, but we need to minimise them through penalties and deterrence.
The Attorney-General described the objectives of such laws as threefold: to deter those who may be contemplating criminal activity by reducing the possibility of gaining a profit from that activity; to prevent crime by diminishing the capacity of offenders to finance future criminal activities; and to remedy the unjust enrichment of criminals who profit at society’s expense. An example of the provisions in the legislation relates to forfeiture of property of a declared drug trafficker: a drug trafficker will be declared by the court when the person has been found guilty of three serious drug offences within a period of 10 years; a serious drug offence includes cultivation or possession of a traffickable quantity of an illegal drug.
The principle that persons should not benefit from drug crime or any crime is a well held community standard. I believe that communities, families, children and individuals will welcome this legislation. To minimise the negative effects of crime, drugs and other criminal activities is the aim of every government. This legislation is a realistic attempt by our government to take proactive action. I commend the bill to the House.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I rise to make a few observations in relation to this bill. One of the things that I find remarkable about people is their incredible ability to find their way around obstacles. History is absolutely full of examples of people being extraordinarily tenacious about getting around obstacles that are put in their way. We find that the word ‘deterrent’, no matter how we try and shape the obstacles, does not always succeed. However, there is a public expectation in our community that the issue of drugs be dealt with and dealt with stringently. Therefore, we find ourselves looking at a bill such as this.
One of the first comments I wish to make - and I have said it before in this House, even when the CLP was in government - is that what concerns me is the reams of legislation that is passed by this and every other federal or state chamber and I sometimes wonder at the usefulness of it. I completely accept that the government has to label this as their own; that they had to present the new act to get rid of the lame old act which was the Crimes (Forfeiture of Proceeds) Act. That is fine, I have no major problem with the politics of it. However, the reality of it is that we do not have to create new legislation. To achieve what the government wishes to achieve, amendments to the existing act are entirely possible. There is no reason why we have to churn out new legislation. If we do that, why aren’t we repealing the Crime (Forfeiture of Proceeds) Act?
I would like to send a clear message to the courts and the public at large that we are going to take a consistent approach because as I understand it, as a result of the process that we are going through, we are going to have two acts on the statute books which effectively say the same thing with some differences. It is those differences that I would like to talk about today.
The other thing that I point out to members of the Chamber is that I think DEA’s budget - that is the Drug Enforcement Agency in the United States - last year was something in the order of about $1.2bn. I am not entirely convinced that there is a great deal less crack cocaine on the streets of Los Angeles as a result of that enormous expenditure by American authorities. Once again, the public expectation in the United States is similar to the public expectation here in Australia: that governments do go through the process of doing something about drugs in the community.
To that end, we are introducing legislation today. It is a little like the Al Capone result of the 1930s in the United States - if memory serves me correctly – where, when the authorities, armed with very good prohibition legislation, were unable to get or nail or successfully prosecute Mr Capone on the simple grounds that Mr Capone had been able to do what I suggested people do in my opening comments: show an incredible amount of elasticity in the way that they deal with these issues and find ways around the obstacles that are placed in their path. What the government ended up doing on that occasion was pursuing Mr Capone and he was successfully prosecuted for tax evasion. Realistically speaking, what we are introducing - or the government is proposing to introduce in this instance - is a variation on the theme of taxation. However, I will return to that issue shortly.
I am wondering how much less moonshine was available on the streets of Chicago before, after and during the prosecution of Mr Capone for his misdeeds. Indeed, I know that nature abhors a vacuum and where a vacuum in the criminal world is created because one of the major players is taken out, that vacuum is very quickly filled. The reason for that is, of course, these criminal bosses in the criminal world supply a market which is ready, willing and able to purchase these items. The only difference between the commercial entity which Mr Capone was running or, indeed, the commercial entities that the current drug bosses - the Hell’s Angels and the like - are running is an issue of legality.
If we talk about drugs, they are basically substances which change people’s moods. We have several drugs quite legally out there in the community which change people’s moods and their behaviour: liquor, tobacco, and certain licit drugs which you can buy over the counter or obtain prescriptions for. So, we have varied states of regulation on various types of drugs in the community.
The government is acknowledging that this is a particularly difficult battle and they need every weapon in their arsenal to fight that battle. I agree; I think that we should be creating every weapon in the arsenal. Members from the opposite side of the House may interject that I am not being constructive, but I am trying to paint a picture where we can realistically see the environment in which we are operating. That environment includes that we have a court system which struggles to keep up with the tenacity of the marketplace that runs these illicit drugs. The general philosophies surrounding the rules of contract, where you have people purchasing and selling items, are not entirely different from the drug deals that you will see done in pubs and other places where these drugs are sold.
It is also interesting that the change of the burden of proof is from the criminal burden of proof, which is the beyond reasonable doubt, to the balance of probabilities. Effectively, that is the purpose of taking this civil approach. I can understand why the government is doing that because, historically speaking, it has been very difficult to find people guilty of drug pushing offences and then seizing their property afterwards. This is essentially a back door acknowledgement of a criticism that I have often held: the burden of proof of ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ in criminal matters is starting to tend towards ‘beyond any skerrick of a doubt’. It is a big call; I realise that there are many forces influencing that. But at the end of the day, there is a public expectation that people who commercially sell and deal in drugs are brought to heal.
What the government is doing by saying: ‘We are going to lower the burden of proof to the balance of probabilities. We do not require a conviction; we do not require anybody to be arrested; we simply require a lower standard of proof to take their property from them’. That is a fairly large leap forward: it is obviously the government responding to the public expectation that something be done about these dreadful ladies and gentlemen who are making profits out of the illicit drug trade. I have no problems with that, but I think it bears the comment because the burden of proof which currently lies on prosecutions in these particular areas, especially when you are dealing with difficult issues like drugs, is a very difficult one to overcome. I notice that the government accepts that in lowering the standard of proof required by the state to remove people’s property from them.
This legislation is largely an admission that the battle against drugs is being fought and lost. That is a by-product of the fact that the people who sell these drugs sell to people who voluntarily want to take the drugs. It is very hard to control any marketplace. Even by trying to ban a substance outright when there is a demand, you are always going to run into problems with the marketplace as a whole.
Finally, I wish to share with the House one of the reasons that I do support this type of legislation. It goes back to the days when I was a policeman, and I had the privilege of receiving some information on a chappy who was driving around Palmerston in a BMW selling drugs. I had the good cause to apprehend this fellow one day and, indeed, he was driving a BMW. When I asked him what his occupation was he said he was unemployed. I thought: ‘Golly, what a nice car!’.
Mr Kiely: Very well paid unemployed.
Mr ELFERINK: I beg your pardon?
Mr Kiely: A very well paid unemployed.
Mr ELFERINK: Yes, indeed. I was under the impression that the welfare state had suddenly taken a huge leap forward.
I convinced this chap to take me around to his place. He was very convivial and said: ‘Absolutely, you can come around and have a look’. He showed me that he had a small amount of cannabis for personal use in his caravan, which was jolly decent of him. I then went and had a look at his chicken coop and found the stuff drying in his chicken coop. It would eventually dry down to 3.5 kg.
I would have thought that under the Crimes (Forfeiture of Proceeds) Act this guy was a walk-up start to lose his BMW at least. Lo! and behold, the guy had covered his tracks, and I will tell you how he had done it. What he had done was register the car in the name of his de facto wife. I found out that she was a clerk at a bank, and I thought: ‘Well, how can she afford a BMW?’ Well, quite smartly, she had taken a out loan, and they were paying the loan off in dribs and drabs, as required by the terms of that loan arrangement. What was frustrating for me was that, at the end of the day, there was no way that I could prove that the proceeds of this guy’s drugs in his chicken coop were going to paying off the BMW.
I am aware of the sections in relation to innocent parties in this legislation, and that people can object to restraints of property and those sorts of things. I ask the Attorney-General to enlighten me on - I would say hypothetical except for the fact that it was a real situation – whether it would it be possible, in a situation where there was a provable trail of money paying for this BMW through presumably legitimate means - indeed, most of her income was going back to the payments alone and they were probably living off the proceeds of the drugs - that indeed would be sufficient proof to have the property regarded as tainted by the courts.
I am supportive of this bill as a measure which meets the public expectation in relation to drugs. I have no problem with the bill. As I said, I have no problem with changing the burden of proof on people making an application under this legislation. Nevertheless, there are the issues that I have raised. It does bear out making certain observations about the nature of the drug market, as well as the nature of what we are actually doing here. I heard the Leader of Government Business say in this House previously how the Western Australians had introduced similar legislation and seized some $11m worth of property …
Dr Burns: And a Harley-Davidson!
Mr ELFERINK: And a Harley-Davidson, indeed.
However, the thing is that what we are effectively doing is taxing an industry which is probably worth hundreds of millions of dollars in a place like Western Australia. It is part of the battle, but let us see it in the context for what it is: it is only a small part of the battle, and the battle is being fought on a much wider front. Perhaps one day we will revisit how we fight this battle entirely because, having seen the way that enforcement agencies have been struggling with these issues throughout the world under every form and shape of government, it seems that, nevertheless, the battle is still being lost. I do not see any particularly bright spots at the end of the tunnel. Maybe one day there will be room for some debate to look at the way that drugs are dealt with by society but, as public expectation remains, this type of battle will have to be fought. To that end, I support the bill before the House.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Speaker, I thank all members for their contribution to what has been a very interesting debate on quite important legislation. First, I would like to deal with the whole intent of this bill and take up issues that a number of the members have raised in a more broad brush sense. That is: why are we doing this? In this case, as the member for Macdonnell said, is the government justified to continue to try and put up barriers against the prevalence of crime in our community? Is it necessary, as the member for Nelson asked, to have some really clear prospect that the particular action that you are taking is guaranteed a success?
I do not think we can say that for certain. I do not think that any legislation brought through this House is guaranteed ahead of time to be 100% successful in its intent once it is put out into the community. All we can guarantee is that we have tried to think through, in detail, the issues that are taken up by the particular legislation that we are bringing forward and, on the best advice, to give it a maximum chance of having a positive impact on the issue that it is addressing.
There are certain things about the Northern Territory jurisdiction that do give us some hope in this matter. We are a small jurisdiction and we live in communities where there is common knowledge, I guess, of the pattern of activities that are occurring in those communities. In Darwin, for example, it is well known where drugs are traded at any given point of time. Obviously, it is a dynamic picture but you would not have to go too far and speak to too many people to get at least some broad idea of what drug dealing and drug using involves in this town.
Up front, I want to clarify one aspect of the legislation, and I know the member for Nelson has pointed this out. The opposition have not made a strong point of this. That is that this legislation that applies to a very broad range of offences; a forfeiture offence is anything that draws imprisonment of two years or more under our Criminal Code. You are looking at things like fraudulent behaviour, drug dealing which we have accentuated, any crime that has a significant material benefit and committed with a degree of aggravation so it becomes an offence with punishment of two years or more. For example, in our six-point plan on drugs, the aggravated property offences that we introduced fall under this legislation. What we are talking about here is property crime in general within our community, not simply drug-related crime. Having said that, though, this bill is an important component of our overall campaign to dampen down the use and distribution of drugs in our communities.
I go now to the individual contributions of members. The member for Goyder: the crucial difference, as has been pointed out in debate, between the scheme that is embodied in the bill today and the pre-existing act is that we are moving from criminal to civil law. That made it impossible for amendments to be made to the original act because the intent is fundamentally different. There are a whole raft of differences between the way civil law hearings are conducted and criminal law hearings are conducted. On having a look at the possibility of amendment and reform of the existing act, we found it was actually easier to have a fresh start.
The problem with conviction-based legislation of this kind that has been in existence around the country for some time is that it is very difficult to end up getting your hands on the assets of a person after they have been convicted. A lot of the assets are dissipated in the actual process of fighting a conviction. Assets can be passed off and hidden, as you have rightly pointed out. People, having committed a crime, are quite clever about actually cleansing the status of the material gain that they have made out of that crime. The example that the member for Macdonnell cited was a very good one and I will deal with that in detail when I get to his contribution.
The member for Goyder pointed out that there are already restraining provisions in the existing legislation. However, the existing restraining order requires affidavit material that the police have reasonable belief that the property is related to the actual offence that the person has been charged with and for which, ultimately, the person is convicted. So, it is a much narrower use of restraining orders than in the bill that is before us now. We have shifted the basis of a restraining order to ‘reasonable grounds for suspecting property is crime-used or crime-derived’. That is, some benefit has accrued from the criminal activity. We have widened the net out there and the ability to hold assets in place while this process is dealt with, rather than seeing them dissipated off into arrangements of changed ownership, simply hidden or spent on the process of defence.
The Chopper Read clause: well, Chopper actually murdered a bloke in Pentridge Gaol who, in turn, had murdered one of my best friends when I was a professional runner. On one side, I could say: ‘Well, yes, he is a wonderful bloke’, but he is actually a murderer, a killer. I do not think that we are going to buy into seeing someone who has killed, in some cases, innocent human beings - although he claims they were not particularly admirable people. If we are going to talk about making gain out of crime then, to be consistent about it, if a person such as Chopper Read is making material gain from his reputation as a criminal, then it is logical to include that in the proceeds of crime.
The Northern Territory Legal Aid Service: you felt that that was not the right way to go, that there should be some wider ability to bring in legal support. The act is constructed so that we minimise the amount of assets criminally gained that are consumed by the legal process by which forfeiture is pursued. The reason for using the Legal Aid services is that we can make a very clear arrangement for the reimbursement of their costs through the actual forfeited property. It is a very neat scheme from the point of view of government in that we have a single administrative arrangement to allow for the legal representation of the person or persons who are under scrutiny for forfeiture.
The question of whether this law will be contested in the courts: our act is very closely modelled on the Western Australian act. We are certainly wanting to take advantage of the fact that the Western Australian legislation has been in existence now for long enough to start seeing where any legal problems have cropped up. In fact, two of the committee stage amendments that we brought in today are actually as a result of a problem that has been identified in the Western Australian law.
To point out the differences that exist between our legislation today and the Western Australian act on which it has been modelled, the Western Australia act does not provide for confiscation to be taken into account in sentencing; ours does. It only requires that one offence of trafficking takes place for declaration of a drug trafficker; in our case, we require three such incidents. The Western Australian act is declaration-based because of their status as a state government; we have to use court orders to mandate the actions taken under our act. Constitutionally, we require orders, and that is a requirement for acquisition on just terms. They are the only differences between the two pieces of legislation. We are, by that way, trying to slip in behind the Western Australian legislation which has already been tested in their courts, and therefore avoid potential legal challenges to our legislation.
In regard to your concern about the police powers of search under the new legislation: currently under the Police Administration Act:
A member of the Police Force may, in circumstances of such seriousness and urgency … without
a warrant:
- (a) search the person of, the clothing that is being worn by and property in the immediate
control of, a person reasonably suspected by him to be carrying anything connected with
an offence; or
(b) enter into and upon any land, vehicle or vessel, on or in which he believes, on reasonable
grounds, that anything connected with an offence is situated;
- and if the member of the Police Force believes on reasonable grounds that it is necessary to do so in order
to prevent the loss or destruction of anything connected with an offence, he may seize any such thing that he
finds in the course of that search, or upon or in the land, vehicle or vessel, as the case may be.
- A member of the Police Force who believes on reasonable grounds that a person is carrying an offensive
weapon may …
… stop that person and search the person for any such weapon and seize such a weapon if it is found on
the person.
Moving to the member for Nelson. You are questioning the issue of why we had 64 cases brought forward under the Crimes (Forfeiture of Proceeds) Act, only three brought to court and only one where confiscation occurred. The problem is that when the Director of Public Prosecutions contemplated action in those 64 cases under the details of the existing law, in only three of those cases did they feel that they had a strong enough case to move forward and attempt a confiscation of property. To me, that is probably one of the most pressing reasons why we brought forward a new scheme. A law that is only successful in three out of 64 cases is clearly not performing the function that it was put in place to perform. We take that as one of the major reasons for bringing forward fresh legislation.
While all that deliberation was going on under the existing law, assets were disappearing in all directions. Whether it was paying lawyers to defend a person’s position; whether it was farming off the assets - whether they were being spent at the casino, I do not know. But without a full restraining order in place, time dissipates these types of assets so we end up with a very unsatisfactory result.
Your case of forfeiture offences; the width of them and the lack of definition. I will give you some examples where there are three-year penalty offences under our sections 88, 90, 92, 102, 103, and 104 of the Criminal Code. They are offences concerning bribery, corruption, interference with the administration of justice - quite serious offences. I have already mentioned some of the aggravated property crime offences that we brought in under our amendments to the Sentencing Act in the context of the repeal of mandatory sentencing. Those offences would also, if they involved material gain - some significant gain of property by the thief - come under these provisions.
If people go to gaol for long periods of time without stealing anything - for an assault or a crime of passion or those types of offences - obviously they do not come under it.. The key thing is that the person gains a material benefit from the illegal activity. If you murder someone and take all their assets, then, yes, you would come under this. However, if you murder someone - a crime of passion, and the only material object that was involved in it was the weapon that you used - then this legislation is not applicable to that. To a large degree, the offences that come under the scope of this new legislation are self-defining; there has to be a clear material benefit from the criminal activity as a catalyst for confiscation under this act.
The member also talked about the need to evaluate. There are some areas of this that will self-evaluate. It is pretty self-evident that if we find that there is significant confiscation of property proven to be connected with criminal activity, then that, to some extent, validates the action of the law. There was $7000 came out of the old law, so it was not a very good result compared to the intent of that legislation. You are quire right about the need to have some sense of the pool of criminal proceeds out there. We simply do not know. We can say that, given the width of the offences we are going to bring into the scope of this legislation, it would be a significant base of material goods. But whether you can actually go out and calibrate that, I very much doubt.
As time goes forward, the main thing that we can all look at in this House is how successful we are in obtaining confiscations, forfeitures of proceeds of crime. I am quite happy to say that we can provide figures from time to time on that. One thing I would counsel is that we have to give this law the chance to go through its process once it is promulgated because, in the Western Australian experience, matters have taken anything up to two years to be able to get through to a final forfeiture following any appeal or other step in the process. Therefore, I think 12 months would be too early to ultimately know how this is going to be working. However, I will undertake that I will bring back a review or report of how this is going as we proceed. I am more than open to comments from the House as to how we are progressing.
There was a question about due process being preserved under these new provisions. One of the features of our legislation is that every possibility or option in the way you progress a potential forfeiture is under court order. Therefore, everything has to come back to the court. For matters involving more than $100 000, it would go to the Supreme Court; below $100 000, to the Magistrates Court. Every action by the police and DPP at the various stages of this process is scrutinised by a court. That is a significant guarantee of both civil rights and due process.
The fairness of the confiscation: when the police are given the ability to hold property without charge. By definition this is a civil process - although at one stage or another it could well lead to criminal charges being laid - in the meantime a restraining orders can be put over assets of an individual. To comment on that: innocent people do have to suffer some inconvenience where criminal law is concerned. It is a balance between increasing the protections for the citizen, although it can also mean inadvertently protecting the criminal if you are too zealous in providing those protections. Under current law, if property is seized during an investigation and held pending trial or appeal periods, that property is not only property which belongs to a person accused of a crime, it may also be property belonging to the innocent person or victim. It will not be available until after the matter is finalised.
This legislation provides for property to be seized by police and held for 72 hours, provided there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the property is crime-used, crime-derived or owned by a person who may be declared to be a drug trafficker. An interim restraining order is also effective for 72 hours. A restraining order will be made only if a person who is named in the application has been charged, or will be charged within 21 days after the application, with an offence which could lead to that person being declared a drug trafficker; or that an order under the legislation will be made or has been made. There are built-in protections and limitations within the provisions of this bill.
Regarding the deterrent effect commented on: is this really going to deter someone from committing future criminal acts? Part of the deterrent effect of the legislation is that it prevents property derived from the crime being reinvested into further criminal activity, or being used to fund such activity. In relation to the forfeiture of crime-used property, it prevents that property being used again in other criminal acts. That could be anything from a getaway car to the actual instruments of drug production or any of those things.
With regard to the question about the offences on Aboriginal land, in order for land to be forfeited to the NT, the title has to be able to be transferred, so as Aboriginal land is inalienable land, it simply cannot be forfeited. Obviously, land which does not have to have a transferable title is not available. In these circumstances, the legislation provides for the DPP to make an application for a crime-used property substitution declaration. Property of equivalent value can then be forfeited instead of the land itself. Similarly, houses on Aboriginal land are fixtures on that land; they are not forfeitable property, and a substitution declaration would be necessary in that case as well. We did not want to disturb current land tenure arrangements on Aboriginal land through this legislation.
You will see there are other situations where the legislation acts to use that substitution process so that you do not actually have to deal with the crime-used property itself. An example of that would be an Aboriginal group - and I know there are a few out there because I have been talking to a few of the remote communities - that are growing dope on Aboriginal land. That would be the most likely example that would come up.
The member for Macdonnell - I have already pointed out that the new and old acts are fundamentally different and the old act is being repealed …
Mr Elferink: It stops you repealing the whole thing except the title, and just supplementing a new one. You know that.
Dr TOYNE: Now, come on. I know you cannot help yourself. Just settle. We are dealing with your problems. Here we go.
The intent of a civil and criminal action are quite different, as are the methodology, and the evidentiary rules. For that reason we are repealing the earlier act. We are putting in …
Mr Elferink: You are?
Dr TOYNE: Yes. It is in the consequential bill here which you obviously have not read. We are not going to have two; we are going to have one. It is the one before us today. The other one is being repealed.
Your point about do we say it is all too hard and let drugs flow freely through our community and deal with that. I know you were not saying that, but what I am saying is that all communities or human societies anywhere have only two choices in terms of these type of active substances - drugs of one sort of another - you either proscribe them or you regulate them. That regulation can be through, in our case, the law. In other cultural settings, it could be through the culture itself. We are of a mind that you really do, particularly in a smaller jurisdiction like this, have to maintain your effort. We have to maintain the line to the best of our ability because we can not afford these substances to flood unregulated through our community.
Your BMW example: we can act there because in the case of the BMW, the crime-derived income from the marijuana growing has allowed an alternate use to their legitimately-derived income. As you pointed out, if they were not receiving income from their marijuana growing, they would not be able to keep up with the payments on the BMW with the legitimate income of the partner. That is very much covered by the act. You will see provisions in the act such that if that is what the crime-derived income is being used for, then the material goods that have been derived that way are subject to the act. So, we could do something about the BMW driver and their household.
That is all I want to say in detailed response. I point out that we are actually debating two bills today and I foreshadow that we are putting in a committee stage amendment into the Criminal Property Forfeiture (Consequential Amendments) Bill, and we will get to that in the committee stage.
Motion agreed to; bills read a second time.
In committee:
Criminal Property Forfeiture Bill (Serial 60):
Clauses 1 to 62, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 63:
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 17.1 standing in my name. In subclause (4) omit in the second reference to the word ‘owner’ and substitute the word ‘objector’.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 63, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 64:
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 17.2 standing in my name. In subclause (4) omit the second reference to the word ‘owner’ and substitute ‘objector’. This amendment omits the second reference to the word ‘owner’ in that subsection and substitutes ‘objector’. The amendment is made to ensure consistency in the language used in the provisions dealing with objections to orders for restraining property.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 64, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 65 to 94, by leave, taken together and agreed to.
Clause 95:
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move amendment 17.3 standing in my name. After subclause (5), insert subclause (6). In this section an objection is taken to have been heard and determined if it is withdrawn, discontinued or otherwise lapses through want of prosecution. This amendment is inserted to take account of some of the experiences in Western Australia where it was difficult to culminate an objection. It just makes it clear that there is a finishing point to the objection process.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 95, as amended, agreed to.
Remainder of the bill, by leave, taken as a whole and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Bill to be reported with amendments.
Criminal Property Forfeiture (Consequential Amendments) Bill (Serial 61):
Bill, by leave, taken as whole.
Dr TOYNE: Mr Chairman, I move that clause 5 be amended by omitting the words ‘not crime-derived property’ and substituting ‘crime-used property’.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Bill to be reported with an amendment.
Bills reported, report adopted.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the bills be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bills read a third time.
CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT (WITNESS INTIMIDATION) BILL
(Serial 48)
(Serial 48)
Continued from 16 May 2002.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, honourable members may or may not be aware that there is a provision contained in the Northern Territory Criminal Code, section 109, which deals with the broad category of the offence of attempting to pervert the cause of justice. It reads words to the effect of any person who attempts in any way, and not specifically defined by the Code to obstruct, pervert, prevent or defeat the course of justice is guilty of a crime and is liable for a term of imprisonment. This provision has been interpreted very widely, unlike normal penal type statutes, and the penal type of interpretation which is applied to the usual and most commonly used sections of the Code. This section has court conduct. By way of example, when a police officer told a witness, before that witness walked into court, that he must stick to the facts outlined in that witness’ statement or he would be prosecuted for perjury, that policeman was subsequently charged and found guilty of perverting the course of justice.
The bill which is currently before this House, the Criminal Code Amendment (Witness Intimidation) Bill (Serial 48) deals with a similar subject matter. It particularises in detail the type of conduct which the government intends to be caught specifically by section 103A. There is absolutely no doubt that witnesses must feel safe and secure in the knowledge that there are safeguards and measures to protect them, which has the effect of encouraging members of our community to come forward and give evidence against potential defendants. Any measure which advances that proposition will receive the opposition’s total and unqualified support. In short, the opposition endorses and supports this bill.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise to speak in support of the Criminal Code Amendment (Witness Intimidation) Bill 2002.
We have all seen the scenario replayed in countless Hollywood gangster movies where the authorities have turned someone highly connected within a big crime organisation, and that person is due to give evidence against his former associates. The camera allows us, the viewer, to eavesdrop into a dimension of the characters of the crime bosses that is normally revealed only to their most trusted peers and henchmen. These men in Armani suits who maintain a front of spending their lives engaged in legitimate businesses are giving orders to put pressure on witnesses. Depending on how seriously they view the situation, they are telling enforcers to lean on him a little, to lean on him a lot, or to get rid of him altogether. These stories are always set in faraway places, almost always in big cities. It is easy to treat them as entertainment. If we thought about it, it might occur to us that over the years, the Australian media has brought to our attention real life corrupt and criminal arrangements - for example, those which were the subject of the Wood Royal Commission - which must have triggered equivalent witness intimidation scenarios. Sometimes, there is a variation in the circumstances and the turncoat former criminal is replaced by an honest whistleblower, such as in the case of Griffith and Trimboli, Drury and Rogerson, etcetera.
We are aware of these scenarios, but tend to relegate them to a place in our memory that catalogues incidents that have played themselves out in the southern states of this country. Unfortunately, the truth is much closer to home. Even though most Hollywood crime dramas are set in big northern hemisphere cities, the reason why the witness intimidation scenes often seem convincing is that they relate to individuals who are enmeshed in relationships with comparatively small and exclusive groups of people around whom their lives revolve. Part of the mystique and power of the Mafia is that its members regard each other as family. The same goes for the hard-core gang members in every city ghetto. Turning your back on family is a high price to pay, and there is often nowhere to escape to. The Northern Territory is large in terms of its geographical size, but we have a very small population. If we are talking of organised crime, it is very easy for a particular group to essentially dictate the terms of ‘who does what activity, where and when’. People who break the rules laid down, particularly those who offer to give evidence in court, can easily be found and dealt with. It has happened here in the very recent past.
The problem does not only relate to organised crime in any event. Often incidents occur within smaller communities that lead to the laying of criminal charges, and polarise the members of the community. This is especially a problem out bush where many people would often prefer not to become involved in what they might see as a formal and bewildering criminal justice process imported from another culture. If potential Aboriginal witnesses are going to be successfully encouraged to come forward and right wrongs they believe have been done in their communities, there has to be a credible strategy for guaranteeing not just their physical security, but also their ability to continue their lives free of ostracism and harassment. This is particularly important in remote communities where there are no resident police officers.
I commend the bill to the House.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise today in support of the Criminal Code Amendment (Witness Intimidation) Bill 2002. As the minister advised the House earlier, the purpose of this bill is to provide witnesses with protection from intimidation. The new provisions will protect the witness who is about to give evidence, will have to give evidence in future, or has already given evidence.
In previous sittings, I spoke in support of this government’s witness protection bill and remarked on how I believed it to be and integral piece of the government’s plans to address drug-related crime in the Territory. I am confident in saying today that this new legislation is also aimed squarely at providing the community with the means to tackle the growing social illness linked to the supply of illicit drugs and crime in the community - an illness which has for so long been ignored and, indeed, cynically down-played in by the previous CLP government.
Victims and witnesses of crime should not be invisible factors in the justice equation. The criminal justice system must be sensitive to the rights and needs of victims of crime and witnesses in executing its responsibilities. Government has a responsibility to ensure that victims and witnesses of crimes are protected from intimidation and further harm while cooperating with authorities. I have not been able to find precise data on extended witness intimidation because only limited scientific research has been conducted on the problem. However, papers I have researched comment that police, courts and victim advocates agree that witness intimidation is widespread, that it is increasing, and it seriously affects the prosecution of violent crimes.
Witness intimidation and its debilitating impact on prosecutions are not new problems. However, with the advent of illicit urban drug factories and the networks required to establish and run them, some police and prosecutors suggest that the problem is growing. Whatever the exact extent of the problem, most criminal justice system professionals report that witness intimidation feels like a new problem and indisputably is a serious one.
There are some in our community who believe witness intimidation is not a significant problem and does not hamper public prosecutors in their ability to bring offenders to trial. However, there are anecdotal stories from other jurisdictions that carry the warning: if you feel you do not have a serious witness intimidation problem now, just wait.
Witness intimidation is not something that is necessarily only carried out by organised national and international outlaw gangs. In other jurisdictions, witness intimidation related to illicit drug activity has been found to be perpetrated by small neighbourhood crews involved in drug trafficking. In short, gangs or drug selling groups do not need to be highly organised to engage in effective witness intimidation. As I said earlier, witness intimidation, which includes threats against the victims of crime, strikes at the root of the criminal justice system by denying critical evidence to police investigators and prosecutors and by undermining the confidence of whole communities in the government’s ability to protect and represent them.
The Attorney-General, in his second reading speech, flagged the two principal types of witness intimidation which involve overt intimidation and implicit intimidation. Overt intimidation occurs when someone does something explicitly to intimidate a witness into withholding, changing, or falsifying testimony. Examples are the sister of a defendant who slaps a witness outside a courtroom and says she will kill her if she testifies; two gang associates of a defendant drive by a witness’ house, slash his car tyres and smash the windshield; or an incarcerated defendant puts the word out on the street that a drug deal witness will be beaten up if he cooperates with the prosecution.
Implicit intimidation involves a situation which has a real but unexpressed, or indirectly expressed, threat of harm to anyone who may testify. Implicit intimidation is often community wide in nature and is characterised by an atmosphere of fear and non-cooperation generated by a history of violent gang or family retaliation against cooperating witnesses, or by a cultural mistrust of the criminal justice system. For example, a drug-related stabbing occurs outside a club in full view of a number of patrons but no cooperative witness can be found; two individuals suspected of a home invasion of recently arrived immigrants, who share the same ethnic origins as the immigrants, are arrested - the victims all claim they did not see the faces of the perpetrators.
I have spoken at some length on the links between witness intimidation and drug-related crime. However, the problem is not limited to those situations. There has been a survey undertaken in England and Wales, the British Crime Survey, which directly asked victims and witnesses of crime if they experienced any harassment or intimidation following the original offence. A report based on this survey states that, according to 1998 data, the risk of intimidation is about 8% for all victims covered by the survey but increased to 15% for victims who may be considered to be in a situation that gives rise to the potential for intimidation. Such a situation is domestic violence which is often a series of related incidents. The risk of intimidation was particularly high following offences of domestic violence. In 41% of intimidatory incidents against women in which the perpetrator was the original offender, the perpetrator was a partner or ex-partner. The study also found that women consistently suffered a higher exposure to witness intimidation than men, particularly in the 16 to 29 years and 60 and older age groupings.
No typical victim of intimidation has been identified to date. However, research has pointed to four factors that increase the chance of a victim or witness to be intimidated. These are: the violent nature of the initial crime; a previous personal connection to the defendant; geographical proximity to the defendant; cultural vulnerability - that is, membership in an easily victimised group such as the elderly, children, recent or illegal immigrants. As stated previously, females within these groups are more likely to suffer intimidation than males.
It is apparent that this legislation is good community law. The Attorney-General said the criminal justice system relies upon the cooperation of members of the community to come forward and give their evidence and it is totally unacceptable that anyone who does so should be harassed and threatened. I share his views and give this bill my full support.
I commend the bill to honourable members.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank members for their contribution. I think we have captured the different contexts in which this amendment is going to operate. It is quite right to talk to the degree that organised crime would want to shut down witnesses who are going to compromise their interests. We also have the situations where, in indigenous communities and also in our urban centres, if there are crimes of violence involved, clearly there have been cases where witnesses have been dissuaded from giving evidence against an offender by direct threats or threats to a third party who is near and dear to the actual witness. Therefore, we do need this law. I must admit I was quite surprised when I looked through our statutes that I could not see anything that specifically addressed this problem although, as the member for Goyder pointed out, there are provisions that work in a related area.
This amendment comes under clause 103 of the Criminal Code. It provides an additional area of offence which has a punishment of seven years, which is quite a serious level of offence, and it spells out beyond doubt what constitutes witness intimidation as far as the law is concerned. I reiterate what the member for Sanderson said about this being an integral part of our drug reform package. It clearly has relevance to some of the prosecutions that we would hope would follow against drug dealers as a result of the raft of legislative reform we have brought forward today, and will be bringing forward in two days time.
With those comments, we will move on.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General) (by leave): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill now be read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
CRIMINAL RECORDS (SPENT CONVICTIONS) AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 49)
(Serial 49)
Continued from 15 May 2002.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I indicate to honourable members that the opposition will support the passage of this amendment. The purpose of the bill is to amend the Criminal Records (Spent Convictions) Act to provide for a person who has been found guilty of an offence as a 17-year-old to be treated as a juvenile for the purposes of the act regardless of when the finding of guilt was imposed.
There is one observation I wish to make. We have heard the government’s rhetoric on being tough on crime and have seen the articles in the paper about exclusive interviews and stories, and the misleading briefings which have been given to our journalists. Juvenile crime is a serious problem and, indeed, some solicitors who practice in Darwin are firmly of the view that if you are looking for links between property crime and offenders, there is a significant link between the commission of offences by juveniles and property crime.
The effect of this amendment is simple and it is summarised in the last sentence which the Attorney-General placed on Hansard on the 15 May this year:
- While we cannot go back and change the sentences that many juveniles had to serve under the previous
mandatory sentencing regime for adult property offenders, we can at least ensure that the implications
of these offences on their futures is not unnecessarily harsh.
I am not sure whether this part of the Labor government’s reform package is really being tough on crime, but I am sure that it will be greeted with some appreciation from the members of our community who have fallen into that category of offenders: those who committed offences when they were 17 years of age and, though technically a juvenile, received a conviction as if they were an adult and are currently outside the scope of the Criminal Records (Spent Convictions) Act.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, as I said at the beginning, I can indicate that the opposition does not oppose the passage of this bill.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I thank the opposition for their support of this bill.
It is really a tidy up of the last vestiges of the impact of mandatory sentencing on people in the Territory. While the member for Goyder might question our toughness or otherwise about our approach to this, I think it is pretty rough on someone who has come before the courts and been convicted of an offence at the age of 17 to have a conviction hanging over their name for another 10 years simply because of the effect of mandatory sentencing at the time. To put this into context, a person with that conviction is significantly constrained in their ability to apply for a job, take up public positions or certain types of travel where a criminal record is going to make a major difference.
It is a just thing to be bringing this particular category of offenders with a criminal record back to normality, rather than would happen to them under the current laws. This does not mean that they escape any effect of what they did because, ultimately, they did commit an offence. However, in our view five years is a more just period of time for that record to stand. I thank the opposition again for their support.
Motion agreed to; bill read a second time.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General) (by leave): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a third time.
Motion agreed to; bill read a third time.
MINISTERIAL STATEMENT
Economic Development Strategy:
Building a Better Territory
Economic Development Strategy:
Building a Better Territory
Ms MARTIN (Treasurer): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I am pleased to announce the release of the government’s economic develop strategy Building a Better Territory. I table the document. I believe that we have circulated a copy to every member.
With this strategy, this government consolidates the Territory’s achievements of the past and sets out our plans for the future of the Territory over the coming decade and beyond. I would like to make that point very clearly: that in consolidating the achievements of the past this recognises the work of the previous government and the enormous development that was achieved in the Territory over those 27 years of CLP government. This document does not intend to take away from those achievements. But it is building on the future, and building with a very strong Labor focus.
Central to this new economic strategy are our plans for attracting new business to the Territory, and that means more and better jobs for Territorians wherever they live.
Building a Better Territory provides detailed plans of what we are going to do, how we will do it, and how we will be accountable to the people of the Territory. Importantly, it contains firm commitments and deadlines for each of our plans, and this is something quite new in the Territory’s economic planning.
Our strategy says that by 2020, economic development in the Territory will have taken a major leap in its sophistication, diversification and strength. It is a plan to transform the Territory economy, building on successful core businesses while encouraging emerging industries, and positioning ourselves to take advantage of the new economy job opportunities of the future.
My government started the process in an inclusive and consultative way with the outstanding success of the Economic Development Summit in November last year. In preparing the economic development strategy, government was guided by the views expressed during the summit. I am pleased to be able to announce today that all the initiatives …
Mr REED: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! I draw your attention to the state of the House. This is supposed to be an important economic statement and I would have thought the government might have been able to show support for the Chief Minister.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Ring the bells. A quorum is present.
Ms MARTIN: I appreciate the member for Katherine’s concern about adequate numbers not being in the House for this important initiative.
In preparing the economic development strategy, government was guided by the views expressed during the summit. I am pleased to be able to announce today that all the initiatives identified at the summit have been incorporated in one form or another in this strategy. Of course, the strategy includes a range of other initiatives the government considers vital to the future economic development of the Territory, but it reflects well on the summit delegates that their contribution provided such a good blueprint. The economic development strategy provides a regular reporting framework and, in the interests of efficiency, government would use this mechanism as the basis for future reports on our summit recommendations.
An important outcome of the summit was the restoration of faith in government in this Territory, and the promotion of financial accountability and responsibility. Our mini-budget of last November began our journey towards a properly balanced budget, setting a course that will restore the budget to surplus in two years time. We know that is what business wants in this Territory: good financial management as well as visionary planning. Make no mistake, the support and confidence of the private sector is vital to the interests of this government. The private sector is the engine room in which jobs are created, from which growth is generated, and from which new people are attracted to the Territory to establish new lives.
We are looking forward to a decade of great opportunity. We are the nation’s front door to Asia, the natural hub for trade and communication with this vast region. The AustralAsia Railway, fast taking shape, will forge a new trading route between Australia and Asia. Linking to the new $200m Port of Darwin, the $1.3m railway will provide new jobs to the Territory’s economy in warehousing, distribution and value-adding to goods. We are determined to see the Territory realise the full benefit of gas developments in the Timor sea. These developments are good examples of the first part of our five-point economic development strategy; that is, to build on past successes and create new industries. Our vision is that, by 2020, the Territory will be one of the nation’s prime energy hubs characterised by a growing gas-based manufacturing economy. Under this heading our immediate priorities include bringing Timor Sea gas onshore by 2006, and achieving substantial development of the East Arm Peninsula for complementary port and rail activities by the end of 2003.
Therefore, priority number 1 is growing our strong and mature resources sector, primary industries, tourism and defence industries, and creating new and related industries. Our other four major headings in this strategy are as follows:
- improving economic outcomes for indigenous Territorians;
encouraging skills and innovation with better education and training, and better
communications and IT;
developing the Territory’s regions; and
creating an attractive investment climate.
Importantly, as I have said, this strategy document includes timetables and benchmarks. Its progress can be measured and it has been developed in partnership and through consultation with key stakeholders from across the Territory. Immediate priorities for the government include bringing Timor Sea gas onshore by 2006 with initial supporting infrastructure commencing late 2002; achieving substantial development of the East Arm Peninsula for complementary port and rail activities by the end of 2003; and establishing cooperative research centres.
We will encourage skill and innovation so that Territorians are capable of meeting the challenges and opportunities of a rapidly changing global and technologically advanced world. Already recognised as a world leader in tropical and desert knowledge, as well as the innovative delivery of services to the Asian region, the Territory in 2020 will have become a focal point for companies and research institutions pursuing new, leading edge developments. Growth in information technology and the innovation and knowledge economy areas will give new resilience and sophistication to the economy, smoothing out the growth path compared with the bumpier ride of the past. Initiatives such as the roll-out of telecommunications to remote areas is evidence of the resolve of my government to see that the benefits of growth are realised Territory wide.
Our regional communities are vital to the Territory’s economic growth, particularly for their contribution to the tourism industry. Each has its own economic advantages and benefits to offer. Immediate priorities for the government include: securing additional investment into regional centres resulting from the rail and gas initiatives; support for effective regional management and governance; and the delivery of enhanced education, health and training outcomes.
Our strategy provides particular focus to the provision of indigenous employment opportunities, with the emphasis on sustainable jobs. I would like to refer here to the development strategy itself because I think the Indigenous Economic Development Strategy is indicative of the parameters we have put into the strategy and the time lines we have established. Areas like this indicate this government’s direction regarding how we see the future directions of the Territory. One point that is made throughout the indigenous economic development section is the important role of the Office of Indigenous Policy which, from the beginning of the next financial year, will be fully established and will have in place its director, a man who comes to the Territory with an enormous reputation in the indigenous area: Neil Westbury. We are looking forward very much to having Neil on board and being able to bring real priority and direction to how we deal with this very important area for the Territory.
Take the first point in adopting a whole-of-government and a whole-of-community approach to supporting viable futures for indigenous people right across the Territory. How we are going to do that is to start the dialogue. Very sadly, it is something that we have not seen happen in the Territory. Under the auspices of the Office of Indigenous Policy, we will see stakeholders brought together. Too often, indigenous issues have been used as a political football in the Territory and this really demonstrates that that time is over and we are moving forward. For example, the Office of Indigenous Policy will be facilitating an Indigenous Economic Forum in September this year . It is a very important initiative; one that grew out of having the Economic Development Summit last November; and one that will really set the parameters for how we can move forward in indigenous economic development. So, a very exciting prospect for a forum. We have established the date in this document, and we will keep it. There is considerable work to be done between now and when the economic forum is held. Again, when you look at the trigger that was established for Territorians working together in the Economic Development Summit, we believe that can be done by holding an indigenous economic forum in September this year.
Another key element of indigenous economic development is to establish a range of programs to train indigenous Territorians to meet workforce needs through the STEP program - the Structured Training and Employment Programs. Again, not just words about that, but a real commitment because indigenous Territorians have to have the skills - and we are starting with the commitment we have made to the Learning Lessons reforms from Bob Collins. Training has to work hand in hand with that and we have not seen it happen effectively around the Territory. Under this government, it is going to happen.
Right through the pages of indigenous economic development, we will be working in partnerships with land councils, something that has never happened in this Territory before. It is something that this government is working consistently on, with a lot of good will, with land councils to establish the partnerships that we need to work towards economic development on Aboriginal land. I thought it was magnificent at the Economic Development Summit last year to hear Galarrwuy Yunupingu, as Chairman of the Northern Land Council, stand in this Chamber and say that what we need to do as a Territory is look at economic development for indigenous people; look at how we can have economic development start on Aboriginal land. It was a real benchmark from what had happened in the summit and they were words embraced by all those who attended the summit. Again, it is an initiative that we believe that we can move forward in partnership with land councils and traditional owners. That work has started and this document attests that it will continue.
Another critical area for working for sustainable employment for indigenous Territorians is to look at the IHANT program and how we are going to maximise opportunities for sustainable indigenous employment through that program with the dollars that go each year into construction of houses around the Territory. That has not been coordinated; we are not getting the essential coordination between the money that goes in to build homes in whatever part of the Territory and the employment and training programs that need to be working hand-in-hand with that. That is another commitment we are making in this document. This will work and we are going to make sure that in communities where houses are built - we could take a community like Wadeye. They currently need 184 homes …
Mr REED: A point of order, Madam Speaker!
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, I was just going to ask the Chief Minister, you are supposed to be delivering your economic statement?
Ms MARTIN: I know, but - I am! I am referring to the document.
Mr REED: Madam Speaker, you would be aware of the requirement for the statement to be followed in the form that it is presented in the circulated document.
Madam SPEAKER: It is usual for you to deliver the statement that you have actually circulated and then to do your summing-up remarks at the end when everyone else has spoken. We have had this debate before about ministers not sticking to the script. The purpose of you delivering a statement to all members in advance is so that they will know what you are saying, so they can respond to it. Any further embellishment of that statement you can always do in your summing-up. What I am hearing is adlibbing of the statement rather than sticking to it …
Dr BURNS: A point of order, Madam Speaker! My recollection of the discussions we have had about this particular issue within the Standing Orders committee …
Madam SPEAKER: We have, yes.
Dr Lim: Ooh, dissenting from the Speaker!
Dr BURNS: I am not dissenting. My understanding was that the speaker delivering such a statement did not have to stick exactly to the script; that there was some latitude for extemporaneous speaking.
Madam SPEAKER: Well, this has crept in. Previously, the convention was that ministers stuck to the statement. However, it has crept in, in this Assembly, that ministers do tend to wander from the statement. But I do not think it should be too broad. You have your statement. If you need to explain something, do so. Perhaps you should realise that the statement you are delivering to this House is a matter of government policy. That is what standing orders are expecting you to do: deliver a statement to the House on government policy. If you wish to debate the statement, that is different from delivering a statement. Do you see what I mean?
Ms MARTIN: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker, or your comment, this is a document that has been tabled. I am referring specifically to the initiatives in the document. I would have thought that everyone has access to that. It is not as though I am introducing new material. This is material that is in front of us, either in the statement or the document.
Mr BURKE: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker. Without labouring the issue, the opposition is sensitive to the fact that, from time to time, the speaker might wish to speak extemporaneously away from the statement. We are cautious about complaining about these speakers straying because the government has threatened not to deliver the statements to us in enough time to respond to them if we complain. We are trying to do this in an atmosphere of cooperation. The reality is, Chief Minister, you would accept that you have strayed a long way from the statement itself for some period of time. That is the only question that is being raised at this time.
Madam SPEAKER: Chief Minister, the remarks that you make must be relevant to the statement. Again, I point out, if you have a document, why don’t you table it as a paper and then you can speak to that document? This morning I mentioned this because it is a very good way of ministers presenting a paper or document to parliament, having full carriage of talking to it, the debate can be adjourned and it can be brought back on later if you want to. All I am asking of you, Chief Minister, is to remember you are delivering a statement of government policy to the House, and you should be sticking to it as closely as you can. Your remarks should be relevant. If they are now about another document that is not your statement, I think perhaps …
Ms MARTIN: What about strategy?
Madam SPEAKER: That is not your statement.
Ms MARTIN: But the statement is about the strategy, and it has all been tabled. Everyone has a copy.
Madam SPEAKER: I would have thought that …
Mr Burke: It is not the point, Chief Minister.
Madam SPEAKER: I think you are missing the point. You are making a statement …
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, in other parliaments, you are actually not allowed to read statements. You actually have to …
Madam SPEAKER: No, that is only in the Senate. I am talking about you delivering a ministerial statement.
Ms MARTIN: Are we so limited that you have to have the words in front of you to be able to respond to a statement?
Mr Reed: It is something that we always did the courtesy of providing you.
Ms MARTIN: Well, yesterday was my seventh year in here, and I have sat through many statements in the past where ministers roamed widely.
Mr Reed: No. Each time we attempted to, you would pull us up and we abided by your …
Ms MARTIN: No, we did not.
Madam SPEAKER: Let me close this off by saying if you are now talking to a document, that is not your statement. You should stick to your statement.
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, I will stick to my statement.
Madam SPEAKER: We need to clarify this. Perhaps we should take it back to standing orders, as I have said before. It is my interpretation that when you are delivering a policy statement that you give that statement. If you are discussing a paper or a document, that is a separate exercise again. We are confusing the two, I think.
Ms MARTIN: Madam Speaker, I will go back to my set text, if it upsets the opposition. Never let me upset them.
In our investment and trade section - just going to page 9 - we set out our plans to develop international trade by building Territory trade capability, developing market awareness and overseas markets, expanding the AustralAsia trade route and capitalising on Territory links and services. We plan to work with industry associations and business by June 2003 to complete the development of export action plans with two emerging NT industry sectors: the professional and business service sector and the manufacturing sector. By the same date, we plan to achieve drawing up a joint strategy with relevant NT training institutions, including the NTU, Menzies School of Health Research, Cooperative Research Centres and other knowledge-based centres, to make the Territory a centre of excellence for the delivery of professional services to South-East Asia.
We also plan a targeted promotional program in Australia and overseas to raise awareness of Territory prospects and projects in order to secure new investment in the Territory. We will also take steps to minimise the cost of doing business with the Territory government, and to improve and enhance the regulatory framework in which businesses can operate in a fair trading environment.
Sustainable jobs, communities, environment and social development are core themes. Let me take one of those core themes. Sustainability in the provision of jobs for indigenous people will be achieved through better education, commencing with the implementation of the Collins report Learning Lessons; better health, extending the provision of health zones Territory wide, with participation in service delivery by people on the ground and pooled funding arrangements with the Commonwealth to increase resources available to the regional service providers; cooperating in schools programs with health programs being delivered in parallel - healthy children attend and remain at school; and increasing indigenous involvement in natural resource management, including pastoralism, fishing and, more broadly, in land management both within and outside parks.
Building a Better Territory has been developed with the contribution of a reference group drawn broadly from participants in the Economic Development Summit. My thanks go to all those who have given so generously of their time, and I am sure they will understand when I offer my special thanks to the ongoing work of the co-chairs, Bob Collins and Neville Walker.
The reference group has been complemented by four focus groups looking at particular aspects of the strategy. The public sector has been extensively involved with focus groups complemented by detailed discussions at heads of agency level - and in the context of focus groups consisting of heads of agencies - to examine the document from a whole-of-government viewpoint and, in particular, policy areas according to their interest and their responsibilities.
In short, the government has set out through this extensive and inclusive approach to gather contributions to the plan and faithfully listen and, where possible, ensure that interest groups within and outside government will identify with the document.
It requires partnership with a wide range of others for its implementation. I look forward to ongoing discussions with industry, indigenous communities, business, social welfare groups, trade unions and the broader community. Partnerships remain the cornerstone of success of my government, not divisive politics. At the end of the day, the document is that of my government, and one to which we will be held accountable. We will know we have succeeded when we realise our vision; a vision in which the Territory is a thriving economic hub in Northern Australia; an equitable society with opportunities available to all Territorians including indigenous communities; and skilled and innovative people with confidence in the future for themselves and their children.
I thank my ministers for their efforts in putting the flesh onto the bones of this important document. I thank all those in the public and private sectors who laboured over its many drafts. I urge all members to read this strategy document. Its 60 pages contain many detailed plans as well as a strategic overview of where we are going and what we want to achieve. It is the government’s document, but it is also belongs to the people of this Territory. If we work in partnership, it is a vision and a blueprint for action I know we can achieve.
Before I finish, if I can go from the script for just a moment, I would like to particularly thank two members of government, Jim Davidson and Larry Bannister, who coordinated all the work of this document. I know the hours they put in. This parliament gives thanks to Jim and Larry for all the work they did.
Members: Hear, hear!
Ms MARTIN: I commend this document to the parliament and the Territory. Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly take note of the statement.
Mr BURKE (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, in Question Time the Chief Minister said that the document she released today was not a glossy document. Well, Chief Minister, it certainly looks like a glossy document, and the expensive paper smells like a glossy document, so I do not know what else she would call it. We also know what she thinks about glossy documents because when the previous government brought down Foundations for Our Future on 1 June three years ago, the Chief Minister as Opposition Leader at the time said:
… no amount of glossy pamphlets containing empty rhetoric will be a substitute for real leadership.
As I said, at the time she was referring to the Foundations for Our Future documents. It is interesting that it is those same documents that she now uses as the source documents for her strategy. Today’s glossy document is a direct descendent of those that she once condemned.
In that context, let me begin by supporting the statement of the Chief Minister. Of course, why would we not support it? It is the same policy that we brought to this House in 1999, but then there was far more detail than in this document. In truth, in order to make sense of this economic development strategy for the Northern Territory, you need to refer to the source documents. They are the detailed plans and programs in Foundations for Our Future which provide the logic that underpins the objectives, and the time lines that support those objectives. Even the rhetoric is the same.
The Chief Minister says her strategy is to:
- … build on past successes and create new industries.
I said at the time:
- To build on our unique strengths and core industries, to stimulate new thinking and innovative industries …
The Chief Minister said:
- It requires a partnership with a wide range of others for its implementation. I look forward to ongoing
discussions with industry, indigenous communities, business, social welfare groups, trade unions and the
broader community.
I said in June 1991:
- This can only be done by engaging in partnership with our people, our communities, our businesses,
and with national and international partners and investors.
Let us look at the five priority areas of the Chief Minister’s strategy as she has outlined them today. Priority one is growing our strong and mature resources sector and creating new and related industries. In the Foundations for Our Future document, Foundation Two, the objective was: ‘To build on a successful resource-based economy’.
The Chief Minister’s second priority is: ‘Improving economic outcomes for indigenous Territorians’. Foundation 4 of Foundations for Our Future was: ‘To foster partnerships in Aboriginal development’.
The Chief Minister’s priority three is: ‘Encouraging skills and innovation …’. Foundation 5 of Foundations for Our Future was: ‘To diversify the economy through service industry growth’.
The Chief Minister’s fourth priority is: ‘Developing the Territory’s regions’. Foundation 6 of Foundations for Our Future was: ‘To encourage strong regions and communities’.
The Chief Minister’s fifth priority is: ‘Creating an attractive investment climate’. Foundation 1 of Foundations for Our Future said: ‘Marketing our lifestyle is a key feature in promoting the Territory in which to live and in which to invest’.
It is said imitation is the sincerest form of flattery and I am flattered by this government’s economic strategy, as are my colleagues on this side of the House who helped develop this strategy four years ago. I suspect way down there in that far corner of Western Australia amidst his grape vines, Brian Ede will be feeling a touch flattered, too, because nine years ago he used ‘A Vision of the Territory in 2020’ as his catch-all policy for the 1994 election.
Now in 2002, Labor has resurrected his catch phrase to cover the policies it has pinched from the CLP and repackaged under its recyled election slogan. About the only thing new in this strategy is the acknowledgement in the second paragraph that there were achievements in the past. If you would listen, though, let alone believe most of the rubbish that emanates from the other side of this Chamber, particularly from the newest members, you would think that the Territory had been a basket case. You would think that the Territory had been a basket case for the last 23 years and it is only in the last 10 months that this new government has been able to right all those wrongs. But no, this statement says the strategy is to consolidate the Territory’s achievements of the past.
The Chief Minister says that what is quite new is that this strategy contains firm commitments and deadlines for each of her plans. They will bring Timor Sea gas onshore by 2006. Coincidentally, Phillips plan to do the same thing. The Chief Minister is committed to achieving substantial development of East Arm Peninsula for complementary port and rail activities by the end of 2003. Foundation 4 of Foundations for Our Future had as one of its objectives: ‘Completing the AustralAsia Railway and Stage Two East Arm Port expansion by 2003’. I noted the member for Sanderson challenged any of us to find any time lines in any of the Foundations for Our Future documents. There is one.
Mr Kiely: No, I never!
Mr BURKE: No, not you. It would not have been you; you are too dumb.
Mr Henderson: It was me.
Mr BURKE: The member for Wanguri. In response to that, I read from Foundations for Our Future: ‘Become the supply, service and distribution centre of the region’. If one looks at that document, we can see time lines involving the evolving supply, service and distribution centre vision:
- Objective, 1999: Darwin strengthens as an efficient trade hub between northern Australia and
South-East Asia, particularly with BIMP-EAGA countries.
2001: Darwin developing as a significant supply and service centre for northern Australia and
South-East Asia.
2002: Darwin developing as an efficient trade hub connecting southern Australia and South-East Asia
and beyond through the AustralAsia Trade Route.
2002: Bringing Timor Sea Gas onshore …
It would have been a bit late in that one, but well and truly on track.
- … 2002: Established logistics distribution/consolidation centres for import/export supporting
50 000 TEU containers pa. including supermarket to Asia initiative;
2002: Dry-dock facility for defence, oil and gas sectors established.
By 2006: Darwin strengthened as a competitive service and support centre for regional defence,
mining and oil and gas sectors and their support industries.
By 2007: Darwin operating as a competitive and efficient hub connecting Australia with
South-East Asia and beyond through the AustralAsia Trade Route
Complementary catalysts and focus points for each of those objectives including:
- Efficient operation of Stage One of the new East Arm Port and expanding transshipment;
Expanding supply base operations in Darwin;
Construction and operation of the railway and Stage Two East Arm Port …
I could go on and on. Other objectives, on page 18:
- Completing the AustralAsia Railway and Stage Two East Arm Port expansion by 2003;
Establish logistics and distribution/consolidation centre for import and export
by 2004-05, supporting 50 000 containers per annum …
It goes on. So, there were time lines there. I simply point that out as a matter of record based on the flippant remark of the member for Wanguri.
A concern I do have with this document is what government hopes to achieve by some of its deadlines. Many of them relate to when a review of some plan, proposal, or act will be completed. There seems to be an enormous of reviewing going on and I sometimes wonder whether this is a substitute for real action; whether this is a substitute for actually making some real decisions. I would urge the government to put more emphasis on acting in a real way rather than thinking about it and continually reviewing what it can or cannot do; may or may not do. There is an old saying: ‘If you do not know what you are going to do, have another review’.
At best, this document is the latest update, the latest report to this Assembly on how Foundations for Our Future are progressing …
Mr Henderson: Rubbish!
Mr BURKE: The member for Wanguri says: ‘Rubbish’. You and I know the work that goes on in the public service. You and I know the time lines that they have been working to. You and I know the requirements of the public service to meet the priority and objectives of Foundations for Our Future. You and I know the regular meetings between the Department of Chief Minister’s CEO and other CEOs in meeting those objectives. So, let us get the truth on the table and stop mucking around.
At worst, it is sad that is has taken the government so long to bring forth any form of strategy, when in truth all they have done is reword what was brought forward three years ago. What is also sad is that the government claims that this is in response to the Economic Development Summit. I was at the Economic Development Summit and I know what happened there. One of the key responses from that summit was that action was needed now, government had to move to help the economy, to help businesses and to get the economy moving. Instead, they have sat on their hands and let the initiatives of the previous government carry them forward. The railway, the port, the new buildings, the Convention Centre in Alice Springs were all underway or about to begin before the change of government 11 months ago.
What is sad is all this government has done in the meantime is a bit of re-writing of an economic strategy that the Territory needs and that it was already working to. It has done the editing and the re-wording in some vain hope that Territorians will be conned into thinking this government has an economic strategy of its own; that Territorians and businesses will be deluded into thinking that this government is finally acting on something.
Just over two weeks ago, the latest edition of the Telstra Small and Medium Enterprises Business Index was published. It would be horrific reading for any government; particularly this government. In less than 12 months the attitude of businesses to the policy and actions of the Territory government has gone from overwhelmingly the highest in Australia by a country mile to the second lowest. Only their Labor colleagues in Western Australian are more on the nose than this present government, and we all remember how this Labor Party shamelessly stole its policies, their format and their content from Western Australia.
According to the Business Index only 14% of Territory businesses think this government’s policy are supportive of them, and, overwhelmingly, 35% believe what the government is doing or not doing works against businesses. This leaves them with a net balance of minus 21%. Before they came to government the net balance of support from Territory business for government policies was a positive 41%; only one other jurisdiction was even in double figures, the ACT at 10%. Since this government took office the net balance has fallen to a positive 5% in November to minus 12% in February and now in May, minus 21%.
In her statement today the Chief Minister says:
- The private sector is the engine room in which jobs are created, from which growth is generated,
and from which new people are attracted to the Territory to establish new lives.
I could not agree more. However, if you believe that, Chief Minister, why are you not doing something about it? All businesses see from this government is new taxes and charges and no action or stimulation for the economy. All businesses see is the rapidly emptying shops and stores, factories and plants. As one businessman said to me last night: ‘I have been in the Territory for 27 years and this is the worst I have ever seen it’. If you do not take those comments on board, you delude yourself sadly. If it was not for the railway, and that is yet to impact on Darwin, we would all be ruined before this year is out.
This government has to do something. You claimed you were ready to govern and to hit the ground running. Well, if you did, you have been running on the spot. You must do something to win back the support and confidence of businesses, not for the sake of the Labor Party or the Labor government, but for the sake of the Northern Territory. We all know confidence plays an enormous part in business continuing to operate and develop, and that is what is severely lacking at the moment. The same Telstra survey reports that business confidence within the Northern Territory is well below the national average.
As I said at the beginning, we obviously support the broad outlines of this economic development strategy. You can laugh and giggle and carry on what you like about how you see the economy. I can tell you something: do not delude yourself into believing the statistics. The minister for business should know, in the same way as any member of this side of the House. You walk around there; you talk to the businesses and accept the messenger’s messages.
Dr Burns: The ones that I talk to say they are doing very well, thank you very much
Mr BURKE: You run around and start believing the stats that are being thrown at you and reinventing success, and you will run into a serious problem. I would be the first to admit that perhaps my government suffered from that problem: you believe the stats instead of going out and looking and seeing what is really happening out there. What is really happening out there is that you are hurting Territorians at every level. You have your hands so deep into their pockets; you love it, you don’t want to take it out. All you can see is this war chest of presents you are going to roll out at the next election, and you do not give a damn who you hurt in the meantime.
If you have any confidence in the Northern Territory, start stimulating this economy, helping business, and helping average Territorians, and deliver on the sorts of things you said you would.
Mr Henderson: 80% of our own source revenue goes paying interest on your debt!
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order!
Mr BURKE: Interest on our debt! The member for Wanguri says: ‘Interest on our debt’. You have $600m extra on the base over the term of this government. You have $24m in taxes from your rego tax…
Members interjecting
Mr BURKE: …the HIH levy, and you have the gall to say you are trying to fix a deficit? Go away! Go and talk to someone who is as dumb as you lot. $600m on the base! You should be laughing; you should be dancing in the street. You should be so confident in this economy and this Northern Territory, you would be spending money to stimulate this economy to help small businesses and help the average family rather than taking $200 per family so far, and you have not been in office 10 months.
Mr Kiely interjecting.
- Mr BURKE: No wonder you stink, you nerd!
Mr Kiely interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Order, order! I think you have had your say.
Mr BURKE: With those remarks, as this strategy supports the strategy developed by a CLP government that has been in place for some four years, I support the minister’s statement.
Motion agreed to; statement noted.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr HENDERSON (Business, Industry and Resource Development): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Ms SCRYMGOUR (Arafura): Madam Speaker, on 1 June I travelled to the community of Nauiyu Nambiyu on behalf of the Chief Minister to open the 15th Merrepen Arts Festival. As we know, Merrepen is fast becoming one of Australia’s premier Aboriginal cultural festivals, with visitors travelling from all over Australia to experience this wonderful region and its fine artworks and culture. This year was no exception.
As we all know, in 1998 a flood devastated the community and the arts centre, but two years ago a new Merrepen Arts Gallery was built on higher ground. The artists are now virtually self-sufficient and involved in all aspects of running the business. The Daly River group is now amongst the most innovative and successful groups of Aboriginal artists to have emerged in recent years. Since its humble beginnings, Merrepen Arts have gone from strength to strength. Exhibitions have been held in Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Perth and Germany.
As I said, the festival always attracts a good crowd with its art sale and auction, traditional music and dance, bush tucker displays, football and sporting carnivals. There was a third appearance of the Darwin Symphony Orchestra in conjunction with the Merrepen Arts Festival, which put on a good show of musical treats and fireworks. I am sure the member for Daly will attest that the concert was enjoyed by all present.
Archie Roach and Ruby Hunter were new additions to the program this year and everyone enjoyed hearing them. They sang not only on the Saturday evening, but also performed a couple of songs on Sunday prior to the opening of the arts festival. Archie and Ruby sang a song about the issue of domestic violence called Walking into Doors; a very beautiful and haunting ballad about the issue of domestic violence, rampant not only in remote communities, but just as high and increasing in our urban areas.
A sporting carnival including softball, AFL, foot races and other events was held during the day. There was great participation from the local teams and surrounding communities. There was a group of people from the Tiwi Islands, and it was good to see them at Daly River, and that the connection goes all the way down to there.
Sadly, there was a death in the community overnight, and it had an effect on community members and morale in general. However, despite this, the art festival went ahead and it says a lot for the tenacity and the spirit of that community.
I certainly enjoyed the community’s hospitality and the festival. I would like to thank Mark Casey, the President of the Nauiyu Nambiyu Community Government Council, Miriam-Rose Ungunmerr, and the community of Nauiyu for their hospitality and a job well done.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise tonight to make a quick comment in relation to Question Time this morning. Before I do, I wish to put on the record my gratification and satisfaction with comments made in the personal explanation by the Minister for Health and Community Services this morning when she had the courtesy, as a result of my last adjournment debate in this Chamber, to come and correct an error. I am grateful that she has taken the time to do that.
However, I refer to a question that I asked of the Minister for Parks and Wildlife this morning. My question dealt specifically with jobs of Territory public servants. It was late last year when I rose in this Chamber and asked a very straightforward supplementary question of the minister for public employment: whether Northern Territory jobs were safe. He gave me a one-word answer in relation to that supplementary question. He said: ‘Absolutely’. It was no longer and no shorter than that. The fact of the matter is today we have seen a similar response come from the Minister for Parks and Wildlife in relation to Parks and Wildlife staff.
The problem is that in this case, the minister for public employment has no credibility left. The reason he has no credibility left is simply because, when he says ‘absolutely’, it means completely, wholly - the whole of the public service was safe. Yet, since that time, 16 senior public servants have been cast to the four winds. Let us say that the average time of tenure of one of those public servants is 20 years. For public servants to go through the process of reaching that level of corporate experience in the course of that 20 set average years - and this is a guesstimate on my part, but I do not think I would be far wrong - this government has thrown away 320 years worth of corporate knowledge. It is continuing to do so, even today, with the disposal of Mr Bartholomew.
However, the reason that I am on my feet tonight is to raise the fact that the Minister for Parks and Wildlife did not answer my question. My question was not only whether the jobs were going to be retained inside Parks and Wildlife as a result of the review, but very specifically I asked him - and I will quote myself for the sake of the good minister:
- Employees listening to this broadcast want to know whether or not they will continue to be employed
in their current jobs once this restructure is complete.
The minister said that no public servant would lose their job. That is well and good, but we have heard that from the minister for public employment, and we know what that means from this government. However, what the Minister for Parks and Wildlife has failed to do in answer to this question this morning was reassure those members of the Parks and Wildlife department that they are going to be retained in their current positions. The fact of the matter is that there is no reassurance to that end at all from the Minister for Parks and Wildlife. There is no guarantee that those people who work in the parks are not going to be shunted into jobs somewhere in town. As a result of his answer this morning, we do not know whether or not there are going to be people moved sideways, or even backwards, or into towns or out of towns; we have no idea. I would ask the minister to reassure this House that people in the Parks and Wildlife department are not going to be shunted out of their current positions unless they want to go.
I am concerned that the minister did not and chose not to give that reassurance. If the measure of this government is any yard stick to go by, I have my reservations about that reassurance anyhow. Certainly, if the tourism office in Darwin is any stretch of the imagination, we have staff having the option of being retained 1500 km away from where they currently live, in Alice Springs, or the option of redundancy.
This government has a responsibility to its public servants to make sure that those people are reassured that they are not going to be laterally transferred or anything else like that, or they are going to be offered absurd options such as: ‘If you move 1500 km from where you are now, we might let you have your job’. The minister has the opportunity here tonight to stand up in this House and say: ‘Nobody is going to be shunted sideways or in any way moved from their current position unless they want to go’. I look forward to the minister’s response in relation to my comments here this evening.
Dr TOYNE (Stuart): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to report on a development in Central Australia in my electorate of Stuart over the last few weeks, particularly a meeting of the Warlpiri Patu Kurlangu Jaru Incorporated - known as the Warlpiri Triangle - Professional Development Conference held recently at Nyirripi.
My colleague, the minister for Education, Syd Stirling, has approved a grant of $100 000 to Warlpiri Patu Kurlangu Jaru Incorporated to undertake a research project into the establishment of the Warlpiri education region which will work in partnership with that organisation. This funding will be used for the employment of a consultant to undertake research and for community consultation regarding the project. The study will take a broad view of education in the Warlpiri region, and also how to achieve maximum cross-agency integration. The project will commence in week two of term three in 2002.
The consultant for the research project is a well-known and respected person who has worked in that region for quite some time. There is growing interest coming from Yapa in the region for a Warlpiri secondary school or college on the Warlpiri lands. As members would be aware, the Nyangatjatjara College at Yulara, Mutitjulu, Imanpa and Docker River provides this option for south-west parts of the Northern Territory. This fits well with one of the objects of the Learning Lessons implementation plan, where secondary school options for indigenous students are to be investigated.
I do not wish to pre-empt any deliberation of the implementation committee, but simply note that the constituents in my electorate are readying themselves for the opportunity to address the implementation committee on this topic.
I am pleased to report that Batchelor College are constructing a new training centre at Nyirripi next to the store. Batchelor College has previously been using an old silver bullet caravan in the school. Obviously, this new centre will enhance the capacity of Batchelor Institute to provide quality courses to residents in Nyirripi and the surrounding area. Staff from the Alice Springs campus of Batchelor Institute attended the conference this week to discuss teacher education and other tertiary education options for local people.
I would like to acknowledge the people involved with Robert Hoogenraad from the DEET Southern Region and his associates in bringing together this whole regional proposal for education development. Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to incorporate a list of the names of those people from the five communities. It is fairly extensive.
Leave granted
- From Lajamanu: Mardi Haselton Napaljarri, Gr Napaljarri, Marlkirdi Napaljarri Rose,
Valerie Napanangke Patterson, Agnese Napanangka Donnelly, Elizabeth Nungarrayi Ross,
Belinda Nakamarra Baker, Audrey Nakamarra Baker, Loretta Napaljarri Johnson,
Annette Nampijimpa Patrick, Julie Anne Nampijimpa Ross, Teddy Japanangka Dixon,
Elaine Nungarrayi McDonald, Elaine Nangala Johnson, Della Nakamarra Lewis,
Sonja Napangardi Smiler, Liddy Nakamarra Nelson, Maisie Napangerdi Granites, and
Berryl Nakamarra Barnes.
From Yuendumu: Tameeka Thommers Nangala, Barbara Napanangka Martin, Nancy Napurrurula
Oldfield, Cecily Napanangka Granites, Alma Nungarrayi Granites, Alice Napurrurla Nelson,
Dadu Nungarrayi Gorey, Glorine Nungarrayi Martin, Madeline Napangardi Dixon, Corina Nakamarra
Granites, Jilly Nakamarra Spencer, Mildren Nakamarra Spencer, Jeanie Nungarrayi Egan, Thomas
Jangala Rice, Clara Nakamarra France, and Wendy Baarda Nangala.
From Willowra: Frank Atkinson Jakamarra, Maisie Napaljarri Kitson, Carol Napaljarri Kitson,
Helen Napurrurla Morton, Margaret Napanangka Brown, Marilyn Nampijimpa Martin, Molly
Napurulla Presley, Janie Napaljarri Nelson, Jainie Napangardi Willians, Noreen Nungarrayi
Fishook, Mary Napangardi Jones, Elaine Nangala Brown, Lucy Nampijimpa Martin, Dora Napaljarri
Kitson, Peggy Nampijimpa Martin, and Netta Napanangka Williams.
Wendy Jones Nungarrayi, Alice Nampijimpa Henwood, Maudie Nakamarra Morris, Mary Nungarrayi
Chisolm, Mary Napangardi Gallagher, Esther Nungarrayi Fry, Lena Nungarrayi Hudson, Margaret
Napangardi Brown, Peggy Napurrurla Poulson, Phyllis Napurrurla Williams, Topsy Napurrurla
Fisher, Ena Nakamarra Gibson, Maryanne Nampijimpa Michaels, Valerie Napurrurla Morris,
Mary Nakamarra Kennedy, Nancy Napanangka Gibson, Dora Napurrurla Long, Tiger Japaljarri Morris,
Mosquito Jungarrayi Morris, Lindsay Jampijimpa Turner, Margaret Nangala Gallagher, Minnie
Napanangka Daniels, Sarah Napanangka Daniels, Holly Nangala Gallagher, Riley Jururrurla Oldfield,
and Lyle Jakamarra Gibson.
From Katherine: Jeannie Nungarrayi Herbert.
Dr TOYNE: A total of 69 Yapa and 16 non-Warlpiri people attended the four-day conference. These people informed me that they are confident of the capacity of Warlpiri education to prepare their children well for the future. They point out indicators of social wellbeing in the community such as the absence of petrol sniffing and improving attendance, as well as the role of the school in maintaining culture and language. It is because of the commitment of these people that we can have confidence that the roll out of the implementation of Learning Lessons will actually reap the results we are looking for.
The proposed Warlpiri education region will parallel Warlpiri Patu Kurlangu Jaru Incorporated and will provide means for Warlpiri people to exercise greater participation in, and control over the delivery of education in their region. It will also provide a number of important efficiencies through:
- tracking students as they move between communities, and providing a common teaching
program for them across the schools;
integrating all aspects of education delivery from the cradle to the grave, and use the deployment
of staff including specialist support staff; and
making more effective use of materials, resources and infrastructure.
I applaud the participants of this conference for these developments and acknowledge their ongoing commitment to the appropriate education of all members - both children and adults - of their communities.
I would also like to talk this evening about a fantastic Central Australian event. That is the Finke Desert Race which was held over the long weekend of 8, 9 and 10 June. The Finke Desert Race has been an event of great success for some 27 years now, and has grown in reputation and stature both in Australia and internationally. An example of the event’s growing stature was this year’s event being included as a round of the Australian Off-road Racing Championship. This success has been founded and continued through the commitment of the Central Australian community, including some 300 volunteers over the long weekend period the event was held.
The event has been a success with some 450 registered competitors competing in the 460 km course over two days. The event was a success in terms of how the Confederation of Australian Motor Sports scores their rounds of the championships. Phil Hoffmann, State Manager of CAMS, South Australian and Northern Territory, has mentioned that the event has been given the highest rating than any other round has had over the year. None of the points that CAMS scored rated less than average; in fact, most rated well above this. This commitment is no stronger than that displayed every year by the Finke Desert Race committee as the build-up occurs prior to the long weekend, and then for months after. This build-up and excitement that the Finke Desert Race generates is something you can only experience by being in Alice Springs and participating in the many functions preceding the start on the Sunday.
I convey my congratulations to the Finke Desert Race committee: its President, Clive Duffy; Vice President, Anthony Yotha; Junior Vice President, Bruce Hall; Treasurer, John Trezona; and members Richard Williamson, Marianne Turbot, Nina Hargreaves, Jol Fleming, James Davies, Steve Marsh and Brooke Hall. I would also like to mention the Northern Territory Major Events Company and thank Paul Cattermole and, in particular, Sharon Whelan, for their efforts and contributions towards the event on behalf of the Northern Territory government.
I also thank all the Northern Territory public servants who have worked with the Finke Desert Race committee, or worked as volunteers over the long weekend to make this year’s event such a success.
With the event growing and gaining national and international recognition, the support of the private sector is essential. I mention the contribution of Tattersalls as the naming rights sponsor for the Finke Desert Race. Tattersalls formed a partnership with the events some four years ago and have committed sponsorship to the event for a further three years. Tattersalls’ Managing Director and CEO, Duncan Fisher and Owen Gwynn, Chief Operating Officer, have both shown enormous courage and confidence in the event and I wish them every success with their sponsorship.
I extend my congratulations to the winners on their outstanding achievements over the two days of the event. Mark Burrows and Michael Shannon were the winners of the cars and the winners overall. Peter Kittle, Adam Ryan were second in the cars and second overall. Rick Hall was winner of the bikes and third overall. Stephen Greenfield was second in the bikes and fourth overall.
Before I conclude I want to mention the experience of driving with Mark Burrows and his racing buggy at 150 km/h along a not all that straight part of the Finke race track was pretty amazing. I could not believe what that vehicle could do and what he could do as the driver. It was just spectacular. For anyone who has done off-road driving of any sort, this was just another domain of how to get across a rough bit of ground because I could not see how he could do it. I do not know how he got through the creek at 95 km/h. He was talking about his wife back home and how the cooking was going and everything as he was driving around. If he was not nervous, I was - and I probably made up for him.
It is one of those very, very special events. Our government is committed in its ongoing support for this event. I personally made it very clear to the Finke organising committee that I will be there for the long haul to provide anything we can to continue to build this event up. It is an absolute jewel in the Northern Territory’s calendar and we need to pay it very special attention.
I conclude by giving a special mention and thanks to Jol Fleming who, over many years, has provided a high level of commitment and hard work towards the Finke Desert Race. Jol has been a member of the Finke Desert Race committee for as long as anyone can remember, and Race Director for the past seven years. Jol has resigned from the position of Race Director after this year’s event, but no doubt will continue his enduring efforts towards a truly magnificent Central Australian event.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I raise an issue that was discussed with me at the launch of the Aboriginal Road Safety video in Alice Springs recently. The Aboriginal Road Safety Video Program is a tri-state program: Western Australia, South Australia and the Northern Territory. It is a tremendous project, combining resources from the police in the three states, the NTU, the Driver Education people, and tremendous sponsorship from TIO. What they have produced is a program that they are aiming at Aboriginal people to help, hopefully, decrease the amount of road deaths. It is basically a program that has been put together by Aboriginal people for Aboriginal people. One of the stars of the road safety video is Bob Randall. Many of you will know Bob from the music that he has played for us over many years. He is now based at Mutitjulu, and many of the scenes in the video were actually filmed at Mutitjulu with Bob being the commentator.
The video was produced in an effort to reduce the rate of Aboriginal people being involved in road crashes. There is no doubt that road crashes are one of the leading causes of death and injury amongst Aboriginal people. Police from the tri-states suggest that road deaths for indigenous population is three times the rate for the non-indigenous population and road crashes account for the greater proportion of deaths in the indigenous population also. The Road Safety agencies throughout Australia have recognised the significance of the issue: the numbers of people being killed and seriously injured on our roads.
This program, developed through advice from the Aboriginal people, is to complement these programs and to provide an additional resource which can be taken to their community and workshopped and discussed. All the segments in the video were shot in remote or isolated communities in WA, South Australia or NT, and they involve only Aboriginal people so they can demonstrate the road safety message in a more culturally appropriate and realistic manner. Technical advice was offered by local police and Road Safety agencies during the filming. Each segment was filmed true to life to reflect the way Aboriginal people do it.
They give the example in the cycling segment where some of the Aboriginal children, when they went to film were not wearing closed-in shoes, as perhaps we would expect our children to do. Of course, we recognise it is an important safety matter to keep our feet free from injury. Discussion ensued on whether to film the segment with young Aboriginal people without shoes or should they put shoes on? Of course, they said: ‘Let’s do it real because this is the way they ride bikes. Why let’s pretend and put them into shoes?’ So, due to the advice they received from Aboriginal people, the segment was filmed as it was - as it happens on communities - by the Aboriginal people.
It is a great little program and I recommend all members have a look at it and participate; spread it around to the communities when you go to visit and try to get many people involved.
However, the issue that was discussed with me was the issue of drink-driver education program. Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, as you know, under Northern Territory law, it is required of drivers who lose their licence after being convicted of driving whilst intoxicated and having a blood alcohol content above 0.05 to undertake a drink-driver education course before they are eligible for re-licensing. The course is basically comprised of two modules. If you have a blood alcohol reading of between 0.05 and less than 0.15 for a first offence, you have to do one module, which costs $200. If you have a blood alcohol reading of 0.15 and above, to do the particular modules one and two, it will cost you $275. In places like Alice Springs, that training is delivered monthly, and you can do it Friday night after work or early Saturday morning.
Therefore, it is fairly accessible for people who live in Alice Springs. It is a course that has been designed to provide participants with information and skills to assist them in making decisions about drinking and driving, and the effects, of course, of combining the two. The modules are presented in a fairly easy manner. There are questionnaires designed so, as you go along, there has to be a certain level of literacy skills the participant has to have to be able to complete the modules. A support person may accompany any participant and the trainer, of course, will assist individuals who may be having problems with fulfilling those literacy requirements.
On successful completion of either of the two modules, a statement of attainment will be issued. Why do you need that statement of attainment? Well, you need it because it must be presented to the Registrar of Motor Vehicles or at a community police station before an offender’s licence will be reissued. Basically, before people who have lost their licence because of the drink-driving offence can be re-licensed, they have to complete these modules.
What do you think really happens out there in the remote communities? It is fine in town where we know the courses are held on a regular basis, but in the remote communities they are held ‘on request’. Of course, ‘on request’ means that needs to come from the people themselves. It is my understanding from the feedback I have from this launch - and this is why they expressed it to me - that it is not happening as regularly as it should. People in remote communities do not ‘action’ or ‘request’ these courses, so they are not happening. When they are picked up again for another driving charge, how many times do you see that many of them are unlicensed? It happens over and over again. Therefore, they are forced into the situation where they have double the charges against them because they are driving while unlicensed.
The disadvantage seems to be at a cost. Whether that can be overcome through some Abstudy or TAFE grant, I am not sure. It seems to be a deterrent for these people to regain their licence. It also seems to be a case that the courses are not offered to people in remote communities on a regular basis. I know Centralian College remote staff do conduct these courses in rural and remote Central Australian areas, again basically on request. They will be holding a course this month at Larumba and that is great to see. But what they are saying is that they are concerned that they are not really reaching the target audience. There are a lot of people out there in remote communities who have lost their licence because of drink-driving. They have not been through the course or reissued with a licence, and they are basically driving unlicensed, which makes them illegal drivers and another threat to us on the road. Perhaps they have not understood that the course will also teach them about being able to handle drink and driving if you do complete it, so that they will not re-offend.
I am asking the minister would he perhaps look at this situation of how we can address the problem of people in remote areas who are unlicensed. Perhaps we need to be more proactive; keeping some record of the location of people who have lost their licences because of this offence; and making sure the courses are available to them. At the moment, it seems to be too difficult, too expensive. I ask the minister could he look at that problem. There may be an easy solution. We all agree that we need to make sure these people go through these modules for education purposes, get their licence back, and at least make sure they are on our roads licensed to drive.
Mr VATSKALIS (Casuarina): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise today to speak about the Darwin Surf Lifesaving Club’s celebration of its 20th birthday. I was asked to be patron of the Darwin Surf Lifesaving Club and I gladly accepted. I was invited to the 20th year celebration that was held in the club house at Casuarina Coastal Reserve. I attended the celebration. There were hundreds of people; some of the original founders of the club and some visitors. Some were visiting from as far as southern Tasmania. The Darwin Surf Lifesaving Club is one of the northernmost lifesaving clubs in Australia.
My official duties for the evening included presentation of the new Darwin Surf Lifesaving Club flag as well as awarding trophies. Erin McKinnon received the Northern Territory Under 16 Cadet Lifesaver Award and her father, Garry McKinnon, received the Lifesaver of the Year Award. The McKinnon family has made a tremendous contribution to the club over the years with the mother, Janette McKinnon, acting as the historian for Surf Lifesaving Northern Territory and currently compiling a complete history of the club. As you know, one of the founding members of the club was The Honourable Fred Finch, who had a few green cans on the night like many other participants. It was an enjoyable night.
In my electorate, Dripstone High School is one of the highest achieving high schools. There have been a number of notable accomplishments achieved by students at Dripstone. The Northern Territory Secondary Schools Hockey Championships commenced on Wednesday, 29 May, and were held over three days. The highlight of the carnival was the grand final: Dripstone v Darwin High. It was a very close game with a full time score of 0-0. Therefore, five minutes extra time was allowed with the score remaining at 0-0. Consequently, according to the game rules, penalty strokes took place to decide the winner. Dripstone finally won 4-2 on penalty strokes which was a tremendous achievement after a very tough game for the champion team.
Team members were Sarah Bond, Simone Liddy, Alisa Clark, Larnie McClintock, Desley Ah Wang, Lisa Visentin, Sayrah Nadeem, Stephanie Davies, Stacey Luck, Teegan Chambers and Courtney Banyer. Of these Dripstone High School students, a total of five have been chosen for the Northern Territory side. This outcome was made possible by the efforts of Debbie Liddy, Gina Bell and Marion Visentin for their expertise in coaching, as well as Team Manager, Marie-Louise Cosentino.
Dripstone High School teachers Alana Herrod and Patrick Cronin have had a very successful year so far in coaching and coordinating the school’s debating team. After defeating Darwin High School’s team in the semi-final round, the team went into the grand final for the Darwin region against O’Loughlin College, which won the championship last year. The topic debated was ‘The War on Terrorism has Gone Too Far’ with Dripstone taking the affirmative. After a very heated and lengthy debate, the adjudicators announced that Dripstone had won the 2002 Championship. This is an outstanding accomplishment for any team, but more so given that the Dripstone team had no previous debating experience. The students who fought their way to the top and finally won were Alison Farquhar, Chloe Lehman, Lisa Visentin, Katrina Lay and Melinda Burnett.
Finally, one last pat on the back for Dripstone High School for the cross-country championships held around mid-May at Fred’s Pass Reserve. The school fielded a team of eight students who performed well in very hot and dusty conditions to come in fourth overall in the secondary schools event. Best individual runner for Dripstone was Jason Waters who has been selected in the Northern Territory team to compete in Sydney later in the year.
I would also like to refer to the comments made by my colleague, the member for Macdonnell. As I stated this morning regarding the Parks and Wildlife Commission, the commission will be restructured with a view to focus on what they are doing and what they are best at. The letter I read this morning pointed out that they have been involved as an organisation at the forefront of scientific research to park keepers, the author wrote. I would like to see the Parks and Wildlife Commission be not park keepers, but the managers of the best parks in Australia. At the same time, I would like the scientists in Parks and Wildlife to concentrate on the scientific work in biodiversity and conservation. I stated this morning in this parliament that no public servant in Parks and Wildlife would lose their job. I state once again for the benefit of the member for Macdonnell that no ranger or scientist will lose their job. They will be there to do the work they have been doing all these years. They have created a marvellous commission. Nobody will be moved forcibly; nobody will be retrenched; nobody will be sacked. They will have the option to choose what they want to do. I want to see them there doing what they were doing all these years. I want to see them managing the best parks in Australia. I want to see they are helping to maintain the biodiversity and to conserve the flora and the fauna of the Territory.
Mr Elferink: Hear, hear! Nobody gets moved, that is all you have to say. Nobody gets moved.
Mr VATSKALIS: I said nobody will move from the commission. The rangers will be rangers, the scientists will be scientists. Everybody who works at the commission will do the same job unless they choose to move from where they are and choose to leave their jobs. I have said that before; I will state it again. I want the people to focus on what they are doing best. These people have worked very hard and they have done an excellent job in the Parks and Wildlife Commission.
However, the structure and the form of the commission will change. Nothing remains static. Things change and when things change certain changes within an organisation take place. What happened with Dr Freeland was as a result of this restructuring. I said this morning and I say it again: I respect Dr Freeland’s scientific work however we had the obligation to advise Dr Freeland that his contract would not be renewed and we had an obligation to advise him of the reason why. The simple reason is that his job would not be there after restructuring. I could see no reason of keeping somebody on the salary of Dr Freeland’s without a real job.
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise tonight to speak on several issues. First, I would like to join the member for Stuart, the Minister for Central Australia, in congratulating the Finke Desert Race organisers for another successful Finke Desert Race sponsored by Tattersalls. A few years ago I was the course doctor which took me out there for two days camping in the cold desert. I was again invited this year to be the course doctor and my position was that I would be the backstop if they could not find anybody else to help them out. Unfortunately, they were not able to find a doctor to man the course midway between Alice Springs and Finke.
On my application to the Medical Defence Association of South Australia for medical indemnity, so I would be able to provide medical assistance, I was not able to get weekend insurance through this increased cost in professional indemnity. As a consequence of that, I was not able to help the Finke Desert Race this year. Fortunately, I was able to find another doctor to replace me - one who was working at the Alice Springs Hospital - and the event took place without any difficulty.
The event has been very successful for many years now and each year it becomes more professional. It draws many international, as well as national, trail bike riders and buggy drivers to this very significant event for Central Australia. I join the minister in congratulating the organisation and the volunteers for such a well run event.
Tonight I also rise to congratulate a doctor in Alice Springs who was awarded the Order of Australia Medal on the Queen’s Birthday Honours List. Dr Win Law is a very good friend of mine and has been in Alice Springs for quite some time now. Along with his ophthalmological colleagues from South Australia and Victoria, we jointly supported his nomination. This is what was written of Dr Win Law in his nomination:
At a time when there were only optometry services in Alice Springs, the Northern Territory government
recruited Dr Win Law from the United Christian Hospital, Kowloon, where he was the sole ophthalmologist.
He had given up his private practice in Hong Kong and had taken up a hospital post, as he felt he was more
needed there.
Prior to his Hong Kong practice, Dr Win Law worked in Burma and was honoured by the World Health
Organisation as one of the original experts in trachoma. He was one of the most significant finds that
the Northern Territory has ever made in terms of human resource recruitment.
I first met this most gentle of men in 1984 when he was invited to come to Alice Springs from Hong Kong and was being shown around the Alice Springs Hospital from which he was to work. I was then a general medical practitioner making a hospital visit to my patients.
In the past 16 years, Dr Win Law has lived and worked in Central Australia. He has almost single-handedly provided specialist ophthalmology services for the urban and remote communities. He had continued to work single-handedly in this remote region, and it was not until the last five years that he secured the assistance of an Ophthalmology Registrar of specialist colleagues on rotation from Adelaide. Over the last couple of years, Dr Win Law has semi-retired and the permanent position at the hospital has been taken over by another ophthalmologist. However, Dr Win Law continues to practice part-time in private practice and continues to provide sessional work for the Alice Springs Hospital.
When Dr Win Law was working full-time at the Alice Springs Hospital, he also provided extension services into centres such as Tennant Creek, and other more remote Aboriginal communities through light aircraft or motor vehicle access. There was a period back in the 1980s during which Darwin did not have the services of a specialist ophthalmologist, and Dr Win Law had to cover emergencies here in Darwin as well as his normal activities in Central Australia. It is not often appreciated that the distance between the two major regional centres in the Northern Territory is almost 1600 km, and that the total land mass of the Northern Territory, with its sparse 200 000 population, is in excess of 1.3 million km.
Because of the isolation of the Central Australian region, Dr Win Law has had to deal with a large number of ocular trauma, and it seems Central Australia has a disproportionate number of eye injuries than other areas of Australia. His surgical skills have allowed him to salvage many damaged eyes which colleagues would have had to abandon. His other services included correction of cataracts and trachoma to many Aboriginal patients in the region. In the Central Australian region alone, he has a pool of some 50 000 people to care for, some of whom suffer from significant eye pathology.
At a time when his more politically prominent colleagues were getting national and international recognition for their high profile work in cataract surgery and trachoma in remote Australia, Dr Win Law was quietly working away doing the same thing without seeking any publicity or recognition. At the same time, he was motivated to publish his findings from experience overseas and in Central Australia. As an indication, his paper on eyelid surgery for trachoma is one on which subsequent work has been based and research published. Much of Dr Win Law’s work was done quietly and efficiently, without fanfare and public recognition. Appreciation of his skill and dedication have generally been from his patients through private communication only, and also by those of us who know him for his excellent work.
His award of a Fellow of the American College of Surgeons in Ophthalmology was in recognition of his work in Burma. His more recent Fellow of the Royal Australian College of Ophthalmologists is an acknowledgement by his colleagues of his achievements in the Northern Territory.
Dr Win Law, as I said earlier, has relinquished his full-time practice at the Alice Springs Hospital - he did that some six-and-a-half years ago - and he is in private practice in the central business district of the town. However, his specialist services are too valuable to lose, hence the Alice Springs Hospital has retained him on a sessional basis to continue his work. In conjunction with the work done by his specialist colleague at the Alice Springs Hospital, they provide cover for the whole of the southern half of the Territory. He also continues to invite specialists from Adelaide to visit Alice Springs to provide a high level of specialist care in ophthalmology.
This year, at the age of 71 or 72 years, Dr Win Law will gradually pull back even more from the Alice Springs Hospital and continue at a lesser capacity in his private practice. The Alice Springs and Central Australian community, Territorians all, are indebted to Dr Win Law for his dedicated service which he has provided unstintingly and unselfishly for the past 17 years or so. His Award of the Order of Australia is a just recognition of his dedication to the people in this region, and I congratulate him for receiving the award.
Earlier this month, I was privileged to also be involved with another competition, followed by an award. It was the Harvey Norman Ozspell: the Australian spelling championship. We conducted its district final at the Sadadeen Primary School in my electorate. The competition in Alice Springs was one of 166 district finals being held across Australia. The winner of that spelling competition will join 165 other students from around Australia at a national final of Ozspell in Sydney in July, next month.
The rules were quite strict. The students had to be between 10 and 14 years of age, and the spelling contest was done orally only. However, students were allowed to write the word out on paper first, then discard the paper and spell the word orally. Once spelled, or once a letter was used in the spelling, that letter was committed to the spelling of the word and, if it was incorrect, the student was then disqualified from the rest of the competition. The student only had one minute to complete the spelling.
The Mayor, Ms Fran Kilgariff, Josie Petrick and myself were the three judges. Over a dozen students participated in the competition. Saion Chatterjee, Aaron Quan, Christopher Myers, David Johnston and Jayden Prior were all from Sadadeen Primary School and were competitors from Alice Springs. Two students from the Alice Springs School of the Air, Paul Machado and Katy Hayes, competed over a mobile telephone line. Five students from the Tenant Creek Primary School - Michael Davenport, Terry Bell, Braeden Stubbs, Michayla Holt and Kelsey Cook - all took part from the Tennant Creek Hospital through a conference telephone. That is the problem with living in Central Australia, with the distance involved between our communities.
It was very evident very quickly that some students were obviously a lot better at spelling than others. The initial half of the competitors fell off very quickly and, within an hour or so, we had come down to a single person. He continued to spell quite well. The young man who won the competition was David Johnston, rated as the best speller in Central Australia. He will now join 165 other students in Sydney on 9 July, when he will then be competing for the national championship. This will be televised throughout Australia on Channel 7 and I encourage people to watch the program and help will young David every success. If we can send our mental energy through the airwaves, it would be really great to give David a helping hand with his successful representation of Central Australia. I wish David well in his effort, and I congratulate all the students I named earlier for their effort in competing in the finals. They all did a very good job. Some of the words that were given to them were quite difficult in fact. I would loathe to be one of the competitors myself at this late stage in my life, having had to learn English for most of my life. Congratulations to these kids. I look forward to David coming home with a medal from the national competition.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise this evening to acknowledge a very wonderful experience that occurred at Karama School on Monday 17 June. The Karama School, in conjunction with Dripstone High School, presented the Miriam Mer Experience. It was an assembly to celebrate the achievements of two groups of children: the Dripstone High School Miram Mer language class; and the Karama School Unit 2 pikninis.
The two groups have worked together for two terms. They have shared stories and dances and they are firm friends. The students respect one another and are living examples of what can be achieved if compassion, tolerance and understanding are the driving forces. The school assembly had a range of Miram Mer traditional dance - TI dances - that were performed by the students. Special thanks should go to Helen Salee, Jacintha Francis and Sheree Ah Sam for organising the assembly.
The assembly started with an acknowledgement of the traditional owners, the Larrakia Nation. Special guests - myself, senior officials from the Department of Employment, Education and Training as well as the Commonwealth Department of Education Indigenous Policy Unit - were invited and attended the school assembly. We were welcomed by two pikninis from Karama, Demi Cubillo and Shanece Liddy-Wilde.
We then witnessed an exhibition of traditional dance performed by the Dripstone kids and the Karama pikninis. The first dance was the Taba Naba. The dance was explained in Creole and English. The next dance we saw was Ke Keriba, and again, the dance was explained in both Creole and English. The next dance was Banana Ika ama Ika and this was followed by a story time with story books prepared and written by Karama kids. They were translated into Creole by Helen Salee and read in Creole language by the Karama pikninis. The visitors were invited up to the stage, and I confess that I participated in some traditional dance, doing my best to do the Taba Naba and the Ke Keriba. At one stage, I had a piknini sitting in my lap for good measure. Rather difficult to dance with a piknini in your lap, but I had an inkling of the difficulties of dancing that traditional mothers in their homelands might find at times.
I want to make special mention of the students who have been participating in the Creole language program that has been run jointly between Dripstone High School and Karama School. The Dripstone High School kids deserve great congratulations for their enthusiasm, their tolerance towards the younger kids, their caring and concern. They are Desley Ah Wang, Rachael Chisolm, Johannes Baluyot, Michael Campbell, Imogene Biston, Desphina Campbell, Patricia Hale, Damien Hart, Michael Leong, Jamie Lewis, Brendon Louez, Jonathon Mullins, Eugene O’Neil-Groves, Sharna Peterick, Sophia Petterson, Nalita Roe, Mary Salee, Krystal Sheehan, Ashley Shepherd, Richard Tamling, Shane Thorne, Kera Watts, Veronica Wellings, all under the tuition of Aunty Helen Salee.
Karama students who participated in this really special program which I believe to be a unique in the Territory are called ‘pikninis’ which in Creole means ‘babies’ or ‘little ones’. The pikninis are Emily McDonald, Naomie Roe, Nikita Procter, Jake Geer, Machaelia Bara, Kalena Luta, Kristin Fejo, Shannon Ponter, Jarrod Stokes, Justin Talbot, Demi Cubillo, Peter Ah Sam, Shaun Ah Mat, Shanece Liddy-Wilde, Anthony Calma, Shasa Chadderton, Jaclyn Hale, James Talbot, Dwayne Wilson, and Shane Pitt.
This was a thoroughly enjoyable experience. The entire early childhood of the school were in the audience and witnessing the traditional dance. The kids clapped along and there was a great feeling of togetherness between the Dripstone High kids and the pikninis. I commend the Principal of Karama School, Bob Hale, and the Principal of Dripstone High, Marion Guppy, for their willingness to be innovative in curriculum. It is these innovative projects that the kids take with them through their school years. They learn a lot from being encouraged to learn a second language. Many of these kids participating are indigenous kids so it gives them a larger boost to their self-esteem which is pretty crucial at that age.
The other item I would like to mention this evening is the Kites for Kids initiative. It is a joint initiative between the Early Childhood Intervention Association, the Department of Family and Community Services, and the Early Childhood unit within Territory Health. From 13 to 19 May, Early Childhood Intervention ran a Kites for Kids awareness. It was a week of activities culminating in a Kites for Kids day where children were asked to participate in a kite making competition. That was a very popular competition and I have to say that the whole concept of taking initiatives on public awareness out to the communities is to be highly commended.
The early years, as we all know, are very important years for young children and their families. Early childhood is crucial in encouraging the kids, often with learning difficulties, to reach their full potential. It is clear where children have access to support in their early years it makes a phenomenal difference to their ability to learn and to reach their potential in life. The idea of Kites for Kids is that kites fly; the imagery there is you can go as high as you want. Interestingly enough, the prize for the Kites for Kids competition - which was a creating a kite competition - were kites that were specially manufactured called jellyfish kites. The beauty of these kites is that they are very easy to fly. Anyone with any kind of mobility difficulties can fly one of these kites. All you need is a puff of wind and these colourful jellyfish kites just take off. I do not know if any other members had the frustrations I had as a child trying to get a kite up to fly, but you certainly feel inadequate when the wind is blowing and your kite is not flying. It is great that the Early Childhood Association went to the effort of searching Australia and finding a design of kite which suited encouraging the kids in terms of their abilities; they got a kite that could indeed fly.
I am proud to say that, without any rigging whatsoever, children in my electorate took out three of the four prizes. So, congratulations to the Early Childhood Intervention Association and to the children to whom I have already presented their kites. We had a young man at Karama Preschool whose face lit up as he took off into the vicinity of the school with his kite flying high behind him. We had a child from Malak Primary School and one from the Malak Family Centre which is a childcare centre there.
I congratulate people such as Cathryn Blight, who is the Project Officer coordinating the review into Early Childhood Intervention Program and Disability Services within the Department of Health and Community Services for the hard work they undertake to get the message and awareness across that there are intervention services available to families in the Territory; that there are people with these skills and ability to support young children in their endeavours to reach their potential.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, since my last adjournment speech I have been pretty busy and I would like to report on some of those activities. Along with many Territorians, I went to the V8 Supercar Challenge. That is a great day out and I thank the Chief Minister for the government’s support for this event. It is successful; Territorians love it and we certainly saw plenty of thrills, spills and entertainment there. I was privileged to host a number of people from my electorate - some of them business people, some with a very passionate love of motor sport - and all of us had a great time that afternoon when the final was on. There was quite a spectacular crash there. The V8 Supercars is a great event and I will be looking forward to it next year.
On 18 May, along with other members, I attended the Super Gala night and Beauty Pageant at the Filipino Club. The member for Sanderson, the member for Karama and possibly the member for Millner, were there too.
Ms Lawrie: A highlight of the social calendar.
Dr BURNS: It is a highlight. It is a great night, enjoyed by all. I would like to thank Mrs Fele Mann - who does such a great job - and all the hard workers who make this evening a great success.
I pay particular tribute to the great entertainers on the night, many of them drawn from the local Filipino community. There were some outstanding interstate guests, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, as you well know: Mr Rod Dingle, and the fantastic Lillian De Los Reyes. They are quality acts, and I look forward to their performances next year. Lillian made some great off-the-cuff comments. I will not repeat them in the House; some of them were in Filipino and it is probably just as well that I do not. But, it was a great night.
On 24 May, I represented the Minister for Defence Support, the Honourable Paul Henderson, at the launch of an East Timor study at the Northern Territory University. The study, which is entitled New Neighbour, New Challenge - Australia and the Security of East Timor really covered Australia’s strategic interests within East Timor’s security environment, the political dynamics of East Timor, the nature and direction of East Timor defence forces and how we, in Australia, can assist the East Timorese people. I found it incredibly interesting and informative.
The study also addresses issues of significant interest and importance to Darwin, the Territory and Australia. Basically, in summary, we were told that Australia’s long-term strategic objectives in East Timor are to help it become a viable state, free from foreign interference and serious internal unrest, and to ensure that East Timor does not complicate our relations with other nations in the region, particularly Indonesia. I was very pleased to represent the minister there. There was a lot of enthusiasm and it was a very wise report that was delivered at that meeting.
On 26 May, following a request from the Salvation Army for assistance in the Jingili area with their Red Shield Appeal, I put together a team of volunteers who gave willingly of their time. I would like to thank the Merrett family, officers in the Salvation Army who live in Moil, for approaching me and giving me, along with others, the opportunity to help the Salvation Army because they are a great cause. There was a team that helped us collect over $3000. I thank Alan Stanger, Robyn Motherway, Glenda Sutardy, Jenny McCormack, Jodi Tutty, Barry Herring, Samantha Herring and Natashi Ventura. Doorknocking, as we know, can be a challenging business but the people in my team were more than willing to give to this most worthy cause. I thank them once again.
Like many others, I attended the Fred’s Pass Show on the weekend of 26 May. It is a very successful show and it is amazing the people you can meet there. I met many constituents from the Johnston electorate at the Fred’s Pass Show - a lot of fun.
On 28 May, I was delighted to again join the senior citizens at the Casuarina Community Rooms for morning tea and lunch. I was pleased to be able to present the group with some well needed dinner plates to replace their old worn plates. They are a great group. They have a lot of fun and it is good fellowship there. I did not stay for the bingo because I inevitably lose, but there are some very keen bingo players there and they have some great raffles as well. I commend that senior citizens group to honourable members.
On Wednesday, 29 May, I attended the Rose of Tralee Pageant. Again, I would like to compliment our Irish community in Darwin. They are very active; they like having a lot of fun and like having a drink. There were five beautiful girls who were vying for the honour of being the Rose of Tralee, all of them very intelligent young women. Each of them gave a great speech to the assembled crowd about themselves and why they wanted to be the Rose of Tralee.
As part of my role as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, I had the honour, along with members of the Public Sector Accounting Group, of adjudicating the latest public sector annual reports for which there is an award. The PAC sponsors these awards each year to the amount of $500. The quality of the reports this year was exceptional; it was very hard to judge between them. I particularly compliment Iain Summers, our former Auditor-General, who has been very active in this group and in these awards. I have been informed that over the years the quality of annual reports from departments has increased; they are a lot more accessible for people and contain more information. Iain must be complimented for his efforts. There was a cocktail party - a bit of a celebration - to present the awards on 30 May. The overall winner was Territory Health Services, who had an exceptional report. However, they only got there by a pip.
Following the cocktail party, I then attended the Wagaman Primary School bush dance held to celebrate the Year of the Outback. Hay bales were scattered, the barbecue was sizzling, and dancing to all the old favourites was great fun. Everyone joined in and it was a great night.
On 1 June, it was a glorious day for the Moil Preschool lawn sale and fete. It was a great success and raised quite a lot of money for the preschool.
Along with other members of the Public Accounts Committee, I travelled to Hobart to witness the proceedings of their Estimates Committee. We will be reporting to parliament on Thursday; I am not going to pre-empt that. I would like to say that we enjoyed great hospitality from the Tasmanians -- both the Upper House and the Lower House - and we met many good characters down there. We were privileged to see their Estimates Committee in action. I would like to thank our hosts in Hobart for their hospitality, and for allowing us to become a part of their Estimates Committee.
Because I was in Hobart, I missed the Wagaman Primary School landscape master plan tree planting. However, the school was flexible and, with a slight rearrangement of timing, I was able to get down and dig a hole the following morning and plant a tree to celebrate World Environment Day. I would like to thank the kids of Ms Anelzaark’s class for their assistance. It was a great occasion. They have planted quite a few trees at Wagaman School. Everyone is going to watch them grow and say: ‘That is the tree that I helped to plant’.
On 7 June, I attended the Jingili Preschool bush dance, and was co-opted into cooking the barbecue there. I think I did a pretty good job; the sales were pretty brisk. The children’s enthusiasm was great, and they performed bush dancing beautifully. There were about over 80 kids who enjoyed a sit-down Aussie tucker dinner and a huge number of adults joined in. It was a great night.
On 9 June, along with many others, I attended the Greek Glenti. I was mainly helping the soccer teams; that is Hellenic and Olympic. I call them ‘the red’ and ‘the blue’. It is a bit like the orange and the green in Ireland, but the rivalry between the two clubs is friendly - it is fierce, but it is friendly. I was glad to help both soccer clubs raise much-needed funds on the day. It all goes to a good cause, particularly for the young people who play soccer, which is a great activity.
On 11 June, I was honoured to meet the new Honorary Consul of Japan, Mrs Roslynne Bracher, along with the Consul General of Japan from Sydney, Mr Shigenobu Kato.
On 14 June, I attended the Northern Territory Minerals Council luncheon. It was very interesting to hear a talk from a representative from the Shell company, Mr Malcolm Roberts and Mr Nick King, who is the Darwin Shell representative. They gave a lot of information; they did not really let the cat out of the bag regarding what might be happening with the Greater Sunrise deposit, but they would have picked up that there is a lot of interest here in the Northern Territory, particularly amongst business people, about what is going to happen in that area.
On 14 June, I attended the Moil Primary School family fun night. The crowds were entertained by the successes of the Eisteddfod, which I have mentioned previously. It was a fantastic night, again with the children having a great time.
On 15 June – that is just last weekend – my wife and I, along with the member for Sanderson, joined the Filipino community at MGM Grand to celebrate Philippines Independence Day which is officially celebrated on 12 June. That was a great night. We were treated to a parade of Filipino costumes over the centuries. It was a very interesting parade because it had a lot of history to it with the influence of the Spanish and others, the United States, on what people wear in the Philippines. There was a lot of pride there. I was very pleased to be there and pleased to hear the member for Sanderson speak in Filipino.
In relation to Moil Primary School, I congratulate Reina Shean of Transition/Year 1 and Phoebe Martin of Year 3-4 who both won first prizes for their entries in World Environment Day colouring competition. World Environment Day was on 2 June and prizes for the competition were awarded at a special World Environment Day function at Windows on the Wetlands at Beatrice Hill. Well done, Reina and Phoebe.
During term two at Casuarina Senior College there were many successful sporting events, with players being selected for interstate squads. Congratulations to Chen Ong and Allen Chau for tennis. I am told - and I have checked it - that there is a Stephen Dunham who is involved in basketball together with Kassi Haigh, Lisa Hanley and Jaylene Chevalier. Congratulations to them and to Larissa Von Gerhardt and Rachel Scally for netball.
Finally to Wagaman School, where Year 3/4/5 Falkenberg class spent four weeks recently in a park near their school collecting rubbish, painting the picnic table, spreading topsoil and adding new plants with the help of Darwin City Council. Residents in the area were amazed at the fantastic work the children did and were more than pleased when the kids invited them to join them at the end of the project with a barbecue. Well done, students; what a wonderful example to set.
I wish all school children a safe and happy holiday starting this Friday.
Mr STIRLING (Nhulunbuy): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise tonight regarding the tragic accident that occurred in my electorate. It is an event that touched our community and, I must say, me personally. I would like to put on the record what happened and reflect briefly on what it means to the people of Nhulunbuy.
As members would be aware, Adrian Wagg was tragically killed when his Lanya Aviation Air Jet Ranger helicopter crashed on 5 June 150 km south-west of Gove. Along with Mr Wagg were Mr Robert Graham and Mr Chris Uren from the Northern Land Council, Mr John Girle from Epic Energy, and Mr Yilarama, a traditional owner of the area. Mr Graham was the only survivor. He is still recovering from injuries.
The helicopter was on charter to Nabalco for Epic Energy, the company that is to construct the proposed gas pipeline from Mataranka to Nabalco’s bauxite and alumina operation at Nhulunbuy.
Mr Wagg collected his passengers at about 10 am and the helicopter was scheduled to refuel on the Central Arnhem Road near the Donydji turn-off at about 2 pm, a scheduled fuel pick up that he failed to meet. Shortly before 2.30 pm, Australian Search and Rescue contacted Nhulunbuy police and a search and rescue operation was commenced. A fixed wing aircraft was sent to the area to carry out an initial search and was later joined by a helicopter.
At last light on the first day of the incident, the helicopter had not been located and no radio contact made. Police volunteers, to act as spotters in the aircraft, departed Gove at first light the following morning. The aircraft were tasked to search the eastern side of the proposed pipeline.
At about 1 pm the missing helicopter was located from the air, 40 km west of Lake Evella and the community of Gapuwiyak. A helicopter landed in a clearing some distance from the crash site and three passengers and the pilot were found deceased in the wreckage. The sole survivor, Mr Graham, was also located at the crash site and was suffering burns to arms and legs and possible chest injuries.
Mr Graham explained that the pilot attempted to locate a safe landing location; however, shortly after the engine cut out, the helicopter plunged through a canopy of trees onto the ground and rolled onto its side. He was able to unfasten his seat belt and roll from the cabin just as it caught fire. It was his view that the others on board had died on impact prior to the outbreak of the fire.
Those on board left behind families and friends struggling to come to terms with what had happened. Mr Girle from Epic Energy was there to commence work on the final pipeline route with the assistance of traditional owner, Mr Yilarama. The pipeline track was being mapped to avoid sacred sites.
There was a minute silence at the beginning of the SEAAOC conference here in Darwin yesterday morning - which I think was a great idea - as a mark of respect for the four deceased. Two of them were going to be a part of a workshop at that conference and they were well known to many of the delegates in the oil and gas industry. The Chief Minister also mentioned the deaths in her speech to welcome the delegates on Sunday evening. She said:
I just want to take a moment to reflect on the lives of our friends and colleagues killed in the recent
helicopter crash in Arnhem Land. The Gove to Mataranka pipeline has been something talked and
dreamed of for a long time in the Territory. The men who died were trying to bring this dream to
reality. We all understand their vision and their excitement about a new project, one that might still
bring many benefits to the Territory and to the Aboriginal communities of Arnhem Land. Our thoughts
are with their families.
The tragedy has had a large impact on the communities of Yirrkala and Nhulunbuy. Adrian Wagg, the pilot of the helicopter, came to Nhulunbuy first in 1972 with his wife, Sally, to work as a carpenter for the Uniting Church, and played a leading role in building some of the first homeland houses. He maintained forever that commitment to the Yolgnu people and showed his love for the land and those people. It is one of the things for which he will be remembered.
They left Nhulunbuy in 1977 with one child, Daniel, but returned in 1985 with three children, Tim and Samara being the additions. It was during that period in New South Wales that Adrian learned to fly. He saw the advantage of using helicopters to access remote areas and set about purchasing one. Within two years, Adrian had the beginnings of an aviation business with Lanya Air that has grown significantly to what it is today. Daniel, the eldest son, has been working in the business for 11 years.
Adrian was a great friend to many in Yirrkala and Nhulunbuy and he will be sorely missed. It has been a tragedy and, whilst the community has come together, I think it is difficult for all to fathom why such a sad thing happened and to make a true sense of it in any way.
I want to make comment on the retirement of Mary Fox from the Department of Education, Employment, Education and Training. Mary graduated from the South Australian Teacher’s College in 1963, taught in Adelaide for two years and, at the end of 1965, received notification of her posting to Rapid Creek Primary School. Worded up by an ex-serviceman who had been in Darwin during World War II, Mary arrived in Darwin in January 1966 expecting to see a small, isolated bush school. Certainly, the state of Bagot Road at that time would have encouraged the idea; it was a potholed two lane track. But Rapid Creek Primary School was, in fact, a very modern school with more than 600 middle and upper students at the main campus while Years 1 to 3, the infants as they were then known, had a separate location. She began her Territory career at Rapid Creek Primary in 1966, working her way from classroom teacher through the ranks to become Principal of Ludmilla Primary and Principal of Moulden Park. From 1995, she acted for extended periods as Superintendent of Palmerston Rural Region, Darwin North and Darwin Central, and she also acted as Manager, Operations North for a time.
After the education review, Mary was instrumental in developing and implementing the concept of a school cluster. She was appointed as Director Schools, a position now known as General Manager Schools and the one from which she retires. She was honoured in 2001 with the award of Territorian of the Year in recognition of her service to the community - particularly to the arts and education - demonstrated in her long and productive association with The Beat, an annual public performance by school students involving acting, music and dance. For many years she was the producer. With her retirement, Mary passes the baton to her two daughters, Laura and Rachel, both of whom now work in the Department of Employment, Education and Training - and one of whom worked with me on the fifth floor for quite a while and whom we miss greatly; and that is Rachel. She is now back in the Department of Employment, Education and Training.
Rose (Rosalind) Hagan retired from the department at the end of March 2002 after almost 22 years of continuous teaching in the Territory. During the 1980s, Rose worked at Darwin High School and Casuarina Senior College. Because of her computer and maths skills, Casuarina Senior College was soon established as the leading school in both these subject areas. Within a relatively short period, Rose graduated through the ranks to Assistant Principal at Casuarina Senior College and to Acting Principal on many occasions. During her time at Casuarina, Rose represented the department at national computer seminars and helped establish the NT Computer Teachers Association. Amongst her significant contributions to education, Rose can include the establishment of Vocational and Educational Training (VET) in 1997, which was the first course of this type offered in the Northern Territory.
In 1998, Rose moved over to the administration side of educational services where she oversighted the NT Certificate of Education (NTCE) results and distribution.
Nen Nen Chin commenced with the Commonwealth Teaching Service in Darwin on 1 April 1975 and retired after 27 years service on 9 April 2002. Nen Nen worked as a preschool teacher, firstly at the old Darwin Primary School, then Larrakeyah; then on to the old Darwin Hospital Preschool; returning to Larrakeyah in 1984. I wish those people well in their retirement.
Lorraine Quong commenced with the public sector in June 1977, and until June 1982 worked as a tea lady with the Department of Transport and Works. She transferred to Registry in Transport and Works in 1982, and joined Education in 1984. Lorraine has worked in the Registry section, now the Records Management Unit, in Human Resource Services Branch of the Department of Employment, Education and Training since 1984. She will retire from the department on 21 June 2002 after 25 years service. These are extraordinary lengths of service in the Northern Territory and they should be recognised.
Lois Bruce is another. She was trained as a science teacher in England and has been teaching ever since. She taught for two years in London and Sunderland before emigrating in 1965. She came to the Territory in 1974. Lois has been involved in education for 39 years and only one of those years was not in the classroom. She will retire from teaching at the end of this week from Sanderson High School, where she has been Assistant Principal. She has over 20 years in school administration as a science faculty senior and assistant principal encompassing five Darwin high schools. In 1992, she spent a year as the Senior Education Officer. As part of her duties, she convened an NT conference for principals and school councils on school action plans. This was her only year without direct classroom contact.
Lois continued her studies, graduating with a Master of Educational Studies and post graduate qualifications in public sector management. She also received a research award from the NTU for a project on homework. She was awarded Master Teacher Level 3 in 1992. Her special interest in education has been with managing difficult behaviour students. She has taught others - and not just teachers, but other professionals - in techniques of dealing with aggressive and assaultive clients.
Her commitment to her profession is demonstrated by her involvement with professional organisations. For example: she is a founding member of Science Teachers Association of the NT; secretary of that organisation; Northern Territory representative on Australian Science Teachers Association; convened two of those conferences; recipient of the Shell Fellowship 1990 - that was the only one for a Science Teacher of the Year in Australia; she has been an AEUNT member since 1974; and an executive member.
She is still a very keen athlete and has won the women’s division of the Darwin City to Surf three times. She remains a regular winner in age divisions. She is an A grade squash player. She played a leading role in amateur swimming and was active in the Nightcliff Swimming Club for a number of years. She has worked with young people all her life. From 1996 to 2000, this included taking in two teenage boys who needed a home. Her spirit continues. With her impending retirement, and the fuss that is made on such occasions, Lois has asked her colleagues not to buy her a farewell present but instead donate the money to youth suicide research. She is very much appreciated and respected by her colleagues and will be a loss to Sanderson High School and, indeed, the department. I wish her a long and happy retirement.
Bernard McColm, known as Bernie to friends and work mates, has served the Territory as a public servant for more than 28 years. He has worked with a number of departments including Health, Territory Housing, Fisheries and most recently with Work Health and Electrical Safety within DEET. Notwithstanding his war service as an instrument fitter with the Air Force’s Bomber Squadron in Vietnam, Bernie began his public service career on 4 June 1974 in the Territory’s Commonwealth days. As an instrument fitter for the surgical section at the old Darwin Hospital, Bernie was responsible for the maintenance of a wide range of equipment, including medical gas systems, blood pressure equipment and the daily sharpening of surgical instruments such as scalpels. In those days, surgical instruments were not throwaway commodities. Before long, Bernie had become head foreman of maintenance for bush areas, including outstation clinics and quarantine units such as the Leprosarium. With the opening of Royal Darwin Hospital in the early 1980s, Bernie became the head foreman of the mechanical section.
Never one to be idle, over his time with the Northern Territory government, Bernie obtained qualifications including gas fitting, refrigeration, building inspection, restricted electrical work, pressure vessel maintenance and inspection, boiler attendance and mechanical, quantity surveying, business, and a Diploma in Occupational Health and Safety. His ongoing commitment to self-development has served him well in his positions as Territory Housing’s stand-in maintenance manager, and as a work health officer, ozone protection officer and dangerous goods inspector with Work Health and Electrical Safety.
Bernie is a valued employee; his wealth of experience and expertise will be missed by many. While Bernie has retired from paid service, I am sure he will remain busy continuing his decades of commitment to Legacy, and in his voluntary role as a Pension Officer with Veterans’ Affairs.
I wish each of those long-serving public servants and teachers a productive and happy, and well-earned retirement. That speaks volumes of the quality that they have given to the Territory over 20 and, indeed, 30, and in the case of Mary Fox, 36 years. That is an extraordinary length of time in a jurisdiction such as ours where you see such quick turn-over of staff. I wish them all the very best.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to inform the House of the wonderful event I attended on 1 June, which was the Darwin Samoan community’s 40th independence anniversary celebrations. Before talking about the actual event, I should talk a little about Samoa itself.
The Samoan Islands first came to the attention of Europeans - or the Dutchman, Jacob Roggeveen - in 1722. As time went on, and as it would be with the European powers at that time, the United Kingdom, Germany, and even the United States took an island in this pretty part of the world. They set up a joint supervision in the port of Apia in 1879. Then along came World War I, and by now this particular part of Samoa was a German possession. The Germans surrendered it to New Zealand forces in 1914 without too much bloodshed. From 1914 until independence in 1960, it was a New Zealand protectorate.
Over that time - I think this is a very good thing - the Samoans maintained their elaborate political and social organisation. Even thought they had had something like 300-odd years of colonisation by European powers - and I put United States into that kettle - they still managed to hold onto their culture; still managed to hang onto their way of political and social organisation.
The separation from New Zealand was very much a joint partnership endeavour. New Zealand vigorously promoted self-government and they were spurred on by Samoan desire for local autonomy. In 1962, a Samoan Prime Minister and his Cabinet, with a unicameral legislature, took over government responsibilities. The Samoan people number some 250 000, so they are by no means one of the largest populations in the world; but, by gee, they are a vigorous population.
I met a few Darwin Samoan people who come to the electorate office of Sanderson and use our community rooms. We have come to know quite a number of them, in particular Tanuli Tinai-Chan and Emma Sullivan, the driving force behind the Samoan community here. They are two very strong, good women of great fun; they know how to enjoy themselves. They invited me and my electorate officer Therla Fowlestone to come to their community celebrations at St Mary’s clubhouse. We went along there, and let me say that this is a group of people who know how to hang on to their culture and know how to have a hoot of a time. It was a fantastic do; it was one of the best dos that I have been to.
What made it really special was that, this being the 40th independence anniversary celebrations, the dozen or so Samoan police stationed in Dili in a UN contingent of civilian peacekeepers came down for the celebrations. They brought with them the Fijian Army group stationed with them. These Samoan police were fantastic. They are a credit to their nation. They danced, they sang, they served up a huge banquet to everyone who was there. I would have to say that they are some of the nicest blokes I have ever met. They were big lads, too, and they had a great sense of humour. They even got me up dancing at one stage. Their leader was the Senior Sergeant Solomona Leavasa. He is a very quietly spoken gentleman, and would be a credit to any police force throughout the world. He had that special air of respect about him. I met him, and had a chat with him; he brought out all his colleagues, the other police, and I met them, too.
Hopefully, this adjournment speech will make it back to the Samoans with the police, because their tour of duty is about to end over in Dili and they will be coming back through Darwin. Hopefully, they will meet up with the group once again. I would like to put on record that these men are a credit to their nation. I believe if they are an indication of the people of Samoa, then it is a very proud and dignified nation and one that is a credit to the greater world community.
This night was quite spectacular really; they also had a great range of dances from the Pacific areas. All of these are community people who are keeping their culture alive through their dance. They had Tifa of the South Seas and Penina Ole Pacifika, both Samoan groups. They had some Tahitian dancers, and they had the Kiribati multicultural group. As I said, the civilian peacekeepers from East Timor were dancing; and the Fijian Army group were having a sing song out the front. It was great. I would like to extend a special thank you to Tanuli Tinai-Chan and to Emma Sullivan for the effort that they put in and to the organising committee who got it going together. I think it was a fantastic event. I certainly hope that I am invited back next year; I will be there with bells on.
I would also like to make special mention for other local politicians who were there. When I say local politicians, I mean Councillor Robyne Burridge, a strong worker for the Waters Ward. She has been in there for quite some time, and is a strong advocate for people with disabilities. I look forward to working with Robyne in the ward in the future. I shared a table and had a conversation with her and she was quite lively, too, in some of the views she expressed.
All in all, I would like to alert the House to this group of fine Darwin people - this fine Darwin Samoan community - and suggest to everyone that should they get the opportunity to attend any of the celebrations that they organise, go and embrace it; it is a great night.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016