2004-05-19
Madam Speaker Braham took the Chair at 10 am.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, we have some visitors in the gallery this morning: Years 4 and 5 from Ludmilla Primary School. The students are accompanied by Mrs Gay Cattermole, Ms Mere Barlow, Ms Kylie Elliott and Ms Stacey Lynes. On behalf of all members, I extend to you a warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, we probably take it for granted but it is very impressive, isn’t it, that we have yesterday’s Hansard on our tables? I thank Hansard for their continued good work.
Members: Hear, hear!
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that leave of absence be granted to the Chief Minister on account of her attendance to government business, as was advised to members yesterday.
Motion agreed to.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the routine of business be rearranged to allow the opposition response to the Budget 2004-05 to be taken at 11 am on Wednesday, 19 May 2004.
Motion agreed to.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have given permission for various media to broadcast live, or rebroadcast with sound and vision; 8TOP FM radio to broadcast live, and the Northern Territory News to take photographs of the opposition’s budget reply.
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 113 petitioners praying that the Daly River be protected for the benefit of all Territorians. This petition is similar to a petition presented in November 2003 to which a response was circulated during the February sittings. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of standing orders. Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
To the Speaker and members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory:
We, the undersigned, respectfully showeth that the Daly River is a Northern Territory icon and needs to
be protected now for the benefit of all Territorians.
We petitioners therefore humbly pray -
1. that the Northern Territory government immediately halt plans to subdivide pastoral leases in
the Daly catchment for large-scale irrigated agriculture;
2. that the Northern Territory government immediately stop issuing tree clearing permits or water
extraction licences in the Daly Basin; and
3. that the Northern Territory government start public consultation and research into economic
strategies for the Daly catchment that do not result in large-scale tree clearing or irrigation.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
Mr VATSKALIS (Mines and Energy): Madam Speaker, I rise today to provide the report to honourable members about new web mapping applications, which will assist mineral exploration in the Northern Territory.
Exploration is fundamental to new mining investments in the Northern Territory and is essential for sustained growth in the mining sector, which currently employs over 4300 Territorians. In 2003-04, about $50m was invested by the private sector in mineral exploration in the Territory.
Exploration activity in itself provides important economic benefits to regional Territory businesses and communities. The private sector bases a large part of its decision to explore in the Territory on its perception of our mineral and petroleum prospectivity.
In July 2003, the government commenced a new four-year $15.2m exploration investment attraction initiative, Building the Territory’s Resources Base.
The Northern Territory geological survey, NTGS, of the Department of Business, Industry and Resource Development is charged with managing and implementing two of the four elements that comprise this initiative, namely a program involving acquisition of high value, high quality pre-competitive geoscience data and its provision to the exploration sector, and a program of communication to promote the Territory as an attractive exploration investment destination.
NTGS is constantly looking for ways to improve access to data, particularly over the Internet. Departmental geoscientific product distribution statistics indicate that over 90% of explorers active in the Territory are in fact based outside the Territory.
So, given the demographics of the exploration sector and the fact that most geoscience data can be related to a specific location or area, the development of a web-based mapping application to supply data to explorers is a natural step. This strategy is also consistent with the e-government policy to increase the range of state-of-the-art on-line government services and transactions.
NTGS has now developed - and on 13 May 2003 I had the pleasure of launching - a new web mapping application to provide explorers and the general public with access via interactive maps to a wealth of geoscientific data generated by NTGS, other agencies and the private sector.
The application has been named STRIKE, Spatial Territory Resource Information Kit for Exploration. It is appropriately named for an exploration-related application. STRIKE will initially serve Territory-wide data sets, although in future, more detailed regional data sets will be available. STRIKE is completely interactive, allowing explorers to display both geophysical imagery and geoscientific map data as a series of layers. Users can add or remove layers of information, zoom in and out of the map display, and search for specific information.
STRIKE allows users to use historical exploration activity, combined with information on geology, geophysics, geochemistry, and drilling and mineral deposits so explorers can pinpoint areas of the Northern Territory to more closely examine prospectivity. Ancillary information, such as rivers and roads, can also be displayed. Title information showing current exploration activity across the Territory will be updated on a regular basis. In addition, STRIKE users can add or remove map layers to create and print hard copy maps that are entirely specific to their individual needs.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, yes, it is important that data on exploration is captured and held for future explorers. In other parts of the world, this remains the property of explorers and is held in company archives. In the Territory, it has been the case for a long time that data is available to future explorers who want to go over that land with different technologies to see whether there are any prospects.
It is interesting to note that the minister said loudly this morning, and on radio, that if there is no exploration, we will not have any minerals. It is a very big contributor to our gross domestic product, 21.9%. It is our biggest earner. I urge the government to focus more on this area. Exploration, we know, has the potential benefits for jobs. It is a pity that in the last budget, this government chose to get rid of exploration exemption certificates, something we would overturn on achieving government. Those certificates were to benefit local people involved in the exploration process. They have disappeared.
The government has kept up with the geotechnical initiatives that were four years old when they came to government, but at no extra cost. Basically, they are barely holding the line. I note that native title continues to be a problem, although, hopefully, it has better resolution than it had four or five years ago.
I note also that there is the potential for the Environmental Protection Agency to have an impact on mining and, while there is a committee looking at it, I note that there is money in this budget to set it up, so it would seem to be a fairly premature budget bid, specific as it is, given we have yet to recommend on this.
Mr VATSKALIS (Mines and Energy): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his comments, but I would like to tell him that, personally, I have always supported mineral exploration and mining. I believe mining is the future for the Territory. I came from Western Australia, where mining is one of the major industries, and my intention is to encourage and support exploration and mining.
Our government has always supported mineral exploration. There have been 700 mineral exploration licences granted by this government. In addition to that, $15.2m has been allocated to Building the Territory’s Resource Base.
Information from industry indicates that the Territory is the only place in Australia that provides free information to people who want to undertake exploration. My support for exploration is demonstrated by my undertaking that I will provide any possible assistance to anyone who wants to come to Territory to explore, and I am very pleased when exploration pays off. Yesterday, Giants Reef announced they struck another gold finding in Malbec West; 22 grams of gold per tonne of ore, a significant find for the Territory and for Tennant Creek.
Dr BURNS (Essential Services): Madam Speaker, as members will be aware, there is a massive program to underground the power supply in suburban Darwin, and it was a government election commitment.
The CLP is on the record are on the record opposing this very significant program. The Martin Labor government is proud of this initiative that will improve the reliability of supply, protect supply from cyclone damage, and beautify Territory streets. I am pleased to advise the Assembly on significant progress that has been made. This $80m project will result in almost 9000 lots, and 16 000 customers in suburban Darwin having their overhead powerline replaced with a reliable and safe underground supply.
In the past, the reliability of power supply in Nightcliff and Rapid Creek was regularly amongst the worst in Darwin due to long lines and many trees that could interfere with the overhead electrical infrastructure. Before undergrounding work could begin in Nightcliff and Rapid Creek, a new high voltage feeder was required for the provision of a secure power source from the Casuarina Zone Substation. This underground high voltage feeder has been installed along Trower Road from the Casuarina substation, at the corner of Trower and Rothdale Roads, all the way to the Nightcliff shops. This work was completed and commissioned in 2003. New sections of the underground supply to Nightcliff and Rapid Creek residences will be connected to this feeder.
The 20-year, $80m undergrounding power project is funded jointly by the Territory government and the Power and Water Corporation, with Power and Water Corporation’s contribution based on the cost reductions that are achieved in servicing underground compared to overhead power supply.
This government commitment provides jobs for local contractors. Nilsen Electric (NT) has been appointed managing contractor for the first three years of the project. Nilsen Electric has formed a partnership, known as NST, with Savant and Townes Chappell Mudgway. NST will conduct the planning and detailed design work as well as the construction through to the final handover of the assets to PowerWater.
NST is comprised of experienced Territory companies that are employing Territory resources in this project. Nilsen is committed to using Territory contractors for more than 80% of the contract value. Detailed design work has now been completed for the first packaged area of work in Nightcliff, and this section, which comprises 329 lots, will be completed by December 2004.
Importantly, all of Nightcliff powerlines are planned to be underground by July 2005. The sequencing of the package areas is being based on maximising gains in reliability, and extending existing underground areas. The sequence also ensures that the works follow the electrical flow of the network, and proceed geographically. This will minimise the number of temporary connections and terminations, and minimise mobilisation and relocation loss. Each package area of 50 to 100 homes is expected to take three to four months to complete.
Community consultation is crucial to the success of the undergrounding project, and on 14 April this year, project staff attended a public forum at Nightcliff High School to enable residents in the first package area to raise any issues that they may have had.
PowerWater has also had discussions with Darwin City Council to ensure community and technical requirements are achieved with minimal disruption to residents and with appropriate reinstatement of affected areas. The project will also result in the construction of extensive sections of new footpath. I am sure that is going to be welcomed by the residents of Nightcliff. This will be gifted to the Darwin City Council for ownership and maintenance.
Earlier this month, works were completed to provide Woolworths shopping centre at Nightcliff with underground power. On 6 May, I was pleased to witness the removal of the last of the power poles between Progress and Dick Ward Drives to the Woolworths shopping centre. This week, construction works have started on Nightcliff Road. Residents will begin to see major changes to their local streetscape in the months ahead.
This is an election commitment by this government. We are following through. This project will roll out over a number of years. It is really welcomed by residents. I am proud to be part of it, and I know the member for Nightcliff is proud to be part of it. It is a great project, which gives some insurance against power disruptions through our tropical weather and cyclones.
It is an investment for the future. If people are in the environs of Nightcliff shopping centre, the project office is there, they can see the technical layout, the new pavements, and the friendly staff will give them all the information that they need.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): It should be a job well done, Madam Speaker, because it is going to cost $80m.
Relief to business in the budget yesterday was a package of $6.7m so, yes, in terms of priorities, it is a good thing to spend $80m undergrounding power in Nightcliff. The issue is whether you are talking about bang for your buck, which is what this mob often talk about. I live in the northern suburbs and our power is underground already, and it still goes out.
What this minister should do, instead of rattling on about his election promises, is say: ‘I will put $80m worth of infrastructure in to stop the power going off at Alice, in Katherine, in Tennant, in Leanyer and in places where there is already underground power. $80m is a great expenditure, and I note that the boss of PowerWater said: ‘If I had a few million to upgrade some of these turbines down here, I could do better on each of these turbines’.
The first question is: will this improve the reliability of power? The answer is: yes, obviously, for Nightcliff. Will it obviate blackouts? No, it will not, and particularly in places like Katherine, which also has above ground powerlines, this program has yet to extend to it.
It does seem like a bit of a whiteboard exercise. I was interested, too, that the member for Nightcliff said that she would go to a pole decommissioning ceremony in a street that is still not on the program, so you had better keep her informed, because there are people who were ready to go to the decommissioning ceremony and it turned out that it was not even on the program.
Dr BURNS (Essential Services): Madam Speaker, there were a few grumbles there, but the bottom line is that, in response to the issues raised by the honourable member regarding PowerWater and its infrastructure within the Territory, the Treasurer and I met with the board about a week ago, and they do have plans for reinvestment into infrastructure, and that is very welcome indeed.
We support that. The Power and Water Corporation is looking after Territorians. There is significant investment and, basically, it is required. For instance, I went to the Ludmilla treatment plant the other week to have a look; not very much money at all invested since it was completed post-cyclone. There has been $4m in the last two years. This is the sort of investment that the Power and Water Corporation ...
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: It is true! I am proud to be part of that, Madam Speaker.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that -
1. the sessional order relating to Ministerial Reports be suspended to enable the Minister for Local
Government to make a report on pool fencing issues;
2. a speech time limit of 10 minutes apply to the minister’s report and the reply by the shadow minister;
and,
3. the minister not have a right of reply.
Motion agreed to.
Mr AH KIT (Local Government): Madam Speaker, I advise the House of a serious situation that is being dealt with by my department in the administration of legislation relating to the fencing of swimming pools.
As members will be well aware, under the previous Swimming Pool Fencing Act, a number of inspectors were appointed to carry out inspections of fences that provide a barrier to the entry of children to swimming pools on private residences. The duties of inspectors were specified by the act, which was designed to provide very little, if any, discretion to inspectors in the carriage of their duties. As noted in debates about the legislation, we were well aware of the problems that were caused in the carriage of inspectorial or regulatory functions where officers had substantial discretion. The possibility that the capacity to exercise discretion might open the door to corrupt or undesirable practices in such an inspectorate was discussed by this House. The department went to considerable lengths to ensure both that inspectors knew what was required of them and to ensure that, if there was any undesirable activity on the part of an inspector, then it would be possible for it to be found.
It is a matter of great disappointment, and some disgust, that I must report that one of the 17 officers entrusted with the responsibility of ensuring that the legislation was properly enforced has failed to carry out his duty.
I will not, even under the cover of parliamentary privilege, publish the name of the officer concerned, neither will I provide any other names or such specific situations as will allow the easy identification of that person. I will refrain from doing this for just one reason: a full report on the activities of the officer concerned has been provided to the police for action on a series of criminal offences that appear to be involved. Publication of details could clearly prejudice prosecution. While I will not release the report, I believe it is necessary in the public interest that I briefly set out the situation for the information of members.
During the last couple of months of 2003, it came to the attention of the department that one pool fencing inspector was operating in breach of directions as to work practices. These directions had been put in place to guard against the possibility of malpractice or corruption in the inspectorate. On further investigation it was found that the inspector identified was routinely disregarding specific directions, and that there was reason for concern as to whether the inspector was properly carrying out his duties under the act.
This happened at a time when the inspector’s employment contract was just about to expire. A number of matters were put to the inspector concerned by the chief executive of the department. The chief executive was not satisfied with the response of the inspector and, accordingly, lost confidence in the ability of the inspector to carry out his duties.
Subsequently, the inspector’s contract was allowed to expire. He was not allowed to return to the workplace, and no further employment was offered. I note that the Australian Industrial Relations Commission subsequently dismissed the inspector’s application in relation to ‘harsh, unjust or unreasonable termination’.
This situation raised significant issues for the Swimming Pool Fencing Authority and the department. These issues included the following questions: whether the decision not to grant a further contract to the inspector under investigation was correct; whether sufficient evidence exists for criminal or civil proceedings to be pursued against the former inspector; and whether the system of administration of the Pool Fencing Unit was sufficient to locate and deal with malpractice on the part of any staff.
The concerns of the department flow from its duty of care owed to pool fence owners and from the duty owed to the public in the administration of the legislation for which it is responsible. A person who has received a compliance certificate for a pool fence has a right to rely on that certificate. Should a child drown in a pool with a certified fence that is found not to be up to standard, the public would have every right to demand redress. Thus, the potential consequences of the failures of this inspector are of major significance.
In view of these consequences, a recently retired senior police officer, former Assistant Commissioner Doug Smith, was commissioned to carry out a detailed investigation. The investigator was given complete access to information in the department and received full cooperation from all staff.
The investigation took place during January and early February of 2004. In the course of the investigation, current pool inspectors and other relevant staff we interviewed. Computer records were closely examined, together with a variety of other material. A number of specific case studies were also examined in considerable detail.
I should stress that while the investigator was an ex-senior police officer, this was not a police investigation and it was, therefore, not carried out with the force of a police investigation. There are issues of natural justice in the right of reply of the person accused that will need to be addressed if and when this investigation proceeds to another step.
The investigation has found that the chief executive of my department had valid reason for not offering the inspector a further contract. The investigation also found: that the processes and systems of the administration of pool fencing legislation are appropriate to the requirements of the legislation; the inspector concerned regularly breached the directions of management in ways that would allow him to inspect pools for people who had made contact with him directly; there must be grave doubts whether the inspector properly and accurately entered information about the pools that he had inspected into the recording system; and, after considerable investigation, it has been confirmed that the inspector under investigation is the only inspector who failed to comply with directions aimed at preventing the development of corrupt or undesirable practices.
This investigation raises serious issues for the administration of the legislation. All of the inspections that have been carried out by the particular inspector have been identified. The Swimming Pool Safety Authority has written to all those who received compliance certificates on the basis of inspections carried out by the particular inspector. Re-inspections of all of those pool fences will now be carried out, though I should note that this could take some time to finalise. Where a compliance certificate has been issued and it is found that the fence is not compliant with the standards certified, an offer will be made to the owner of the property for upgrade of the fence to the appropriate standard. Where the owner does not wish, for any reason, to change their fence to make it comply with the standards that applied previously, options will be discussed to achieve certification under the standards that now apply. In this way, we will seek to put right the wrongs that have been done to the public by the actions of one unprofessional officer.
There remain, however, a number of other issues. The department has had an officer for a year who has, quite simply, not done the job for which he has been paid. The officer has misled the public, his employer and the Swimming Pool Fencing Authority in the exercise of his statutory functions. The officer has apparently made incorrect assessments of amounts that should be paid in grants and these have been paid. Most importantly, he has increased the risk to the safety of children.
In short, and without going into more detail, I simply note that there will be more heard on this matter. The report of the investigation has been referred to the Commissioner of Police. The police are the appropriate authority to take action to investigate what appears to amount to seriously unprofessional and possibly criminal activity.
I point out that the person involved will not be able to avoid prosecution by virtue of the indemnity clause in section 47 of the act. That indemnity only covers activities carried out in good faith and that is clearly not the case in this instance. Apart from the criminal aspect, there is also the question of cost to the public purse. This cost is considerable. The cost of salary and operations, grants paid erroneously, the cost of re-inspections in bringing premises up to the certified standards, the cost of the investigation and the disruption are all costs that I believe, should be recovered from the person who caused these costs to be incurred.
There are positives that come out of this very sorry situation. Very importantly, the investigation has found that the system works. The computer system which records and monitors inspections could not be subverted, the work of all the other officers has been put under intense scrutiny and has been found to be of a high standard. Management practices have been found to be appropriate. On a final note, I would like to thank those people who helped in the investigation.
Madam SPEAKER: Your time has expired, minister.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, this is indeed a black day for the Northern Territory. I am not aware, in the history of the Northern Territory Public Service, of an instance when an individual with statutory powers could possibly stand accused of corrupt activity. That is what the minister is telling the House today.
My words in relation to the last debate on pool fencing were that you have been warned, and there were certain flaws in the government’s position, and I will return to those in a moment. There are two issues here: one, what is going to be the effect on the public; and two, what effect has this government’s response had on any future dealings with this particular individual?
I am advised that 403 inspections were conducted by this person, in fact more in tandem with other people, but 403 inspections are suspect. Of those 403, 50 stand out as having some very real issues attached to them. Does this mean that the police are going to have to interview 403 individual Territorians? Does it mean that there are potentially 403 people who might also find themselves facing some sort of criminal or civil liability as a result of this?
This is a matter of grave concern and the minister was aware, or made aware by the member for Drysdale, I believe, in a briefing about mid-last year that there may have been a problem about this. It is now nearly mid-this year and we have a report.
The member for Drysdale was attacked and lampooned in this House because he had the audacity to ask questions about public servants. The response from the member for Sanderson was that they stand shoulder to shoulder, unquestioningly, with the pool inspectors. Every public servant must be capable of being reviewed, and it is the review process that had been undertaken by this minister that has demonstrated that there is clearly a problem in this instance. Fully one-third of the pools in question are now owned by new pool owners – totally innocent parties. What’s going to happen to them? What advice can the minister give to those people?
The government has been aware of this for a very long time because the member for Drysdale advised the government. So the government engaged in a couple of letters back and forth with the particular inspector and advised him that his contract would not be renewed. What I did not hear from the minister is that he stopped inspecting pools during this period in September and October last year and, in fact, ended up in front of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission in November last year before they supported the minister’s decision and CEO’s decision not to renew his contract. Did that person continue expecting pools during that period?
The Smith Inquiry was completed in March of this year and handed to the minister. It is now late May. When was the inquiry taken from the department and given to the police for further investigation? What was the delay period? That is another very serious question that the minister is going to have to answer.
I turn my attention briefly to the legislation that was introduced by the minister during the February sittings and, once again, rushed through in a effort to fix up the issues that were identified as being problematic with pool fencing laws. Once again, members on this side of the House said: ‘Slow it down. We know you want to get this rushed through because it is causing political pain out there’. The minister insisted on pushing it through, and there are aspects of the legislation that now clearly demonstrate that the legislation should have been redrafted. One of those areas, which were identified by Magistrate Loadman at the time, was that there was no review process. Because pool owners were not given the opportunity to have an appeal process attached to the certificates that they may be receiving, they have been unable to bring these issues to any independent body.
We had to rely on an internal review, which has taken the government at least four or five months that we are aware of to go through and to bring before this House. The issue was a matter of grave consequence and importance to the opposition at that time, and I would suggest that if such a review process had been available, this matter may well have become public long before 403 was the figure reached by this government.
This legislation is a mother load of stuff-ups. This legislation has failed Territorians badly and now, because of poor behaviour by one of the inspectors, which was unreviewable because of the operation of the prior legislation and this legislation, Territorians were not protected by the safeguards that they were assured were in place. The minister deliberately refused to allow a review tribunal, and the consequences of that sort of decision are clear now.
I am unclear as to how the operation of section 47 of the legislation is going to work. It was an issue that was raised and discussed at length, by both the member for Drysdale and myself, and introduced a blanket indemnity from criminal and civil action arising out of anything that a Pool Safety Advisor might do. The only proviso in the legislation is that the person had to act in good faith. If you read it in another way, it may not operate in that fashion. Territorians deserve to hear from the minister exactly what the effect of that provision is going to be. Now, I am not a lawyer, but I raised the issue at the time, I know the member for Drysdale raised the issue at the time. It would be an awful shame if some sort of impropriety was allowed to go unpunished because of the operation of this legislation. It is a matter for the lawyers to decide, but it is another area where rushed-through legislation may very well cause future problems for this government and for Territorians.
I am saddened to be talking about this issue today because, as the minister himself pointed out, this is an issue of corrupt activity. He said so several times during his report, and I have to say that I am desperately disappointed for Northern Territory public servants, who have to carry the title of Northern Territory public servant, when they know such a thing may have gone on in their environment. It is a black and sad day indeed.
I said that Territorians deserve better, and they do. I acknowledge that the government is trying to make good. They have offered to pay for any upgrades that are required to be made arising from this. I am interested to know how much that is going to cost and where that is going to come out of the budget. It is a sad time indeed that we find ourselves discussing this issue. The government has more questions to answer, and Territorians deserve to hear from the minister exactly what is happening and exactly how they are going to be affected by this.
Reports noted pursuant to Sessional Order.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
This legislation is unlikely to excite the public or the media, but nonetheless is important for law making and law makers like us, and for law drafters. It could make laws easier to understand.
The amendments are straightforward. They came about almost by accident. I noticed, when looking at interstate legislation that, in many cases, greater use was made of notes and examples than in the Northern Territory. I often found those notes and examples very useful in understanding the legislation. If anyone wants to see legislation that uses a lot of these notes and examples, you can look at the Queensland Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000.
After consulting our Parliamentary Counsel, I realised that notes and examples would probably be used more frequently in the Northern Territory legislation if their legal status was absolutely clear. You can find some notes and examples in Territory legislation. There were examples in the recently passed Food Act and there are notes in the Lands Acquisition Act. However, they are not widely used, probably because of uncertainty about their status.
The first aim of the bill is to clarify the status of headings, schedules, examples and notes in legislation. The bill also clarifies how examples are to be interpreted. The second aim is to ensure that when Parliamentary Counsel change the language within an act to update it or simplify it, the meaning is not changed. This should encourage the government and parliamentary drafters to modernise the language and structures of an act, and to use a clearer style without changing the affect of the laws. An example would be where an old offence provision uses ‘shall’ and a new provision in the same act uses ‘must’.
Queensland, the ACT, and the Commonwealth have such provisions in their laws and clause 62C in this bill is modelled on a similar section in Queensland’s Acts Interpretation Act. I am also providing each member with an explanatory note for the bill because such notes are helpful. In Queensland, NSW, the ACT and in federal parliament, an explanatory statement similar to this setting out the purpose of each clause is tabled with each new bill and each second reading speech.
As I said, it is a straightforward bill and I commend it to members.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
This bill introduces a new process for the exchanging of contracts in the sale of residential land and property in the Northern Territory.
Its aim is to reduce the practice of what is commonly called gazumping. It will also increase consumer protection for the buyers and sellers of land and land on which on which homes have been built.
The bill is largely modelled on the new ACT Civil Sale of Property law which, in turn, was an amalgamation of the best features of the Queensland, South Australian and New South Wales conveyancing systems. However, this bill also varies in some small but important ways from the ACT legislation to reflect different conditions in the Territory.
I decided to have this bill drafted after hearing of what happened to one of my constituents when she tried to buy a block of land and missed out. When I announced publicly that I was going to introduce this bill, I received a number of phone calls from other people who had been gazumped, and they welcomed my move in this direction.
Gazumping occurs when a seller or real estate agent accepts a verbal offer from a buyer - it might be through a verbal agreement or a handshake - but later the vendor accepts another offer, usually higher, from another buyer. It usually occurs when the market is booming, when demand is high and there is limited supply of residential properties or land. Sellers can also be gazumped, usually in a depressed market, when the buyer finds a better property at a better price and pulls out after making an offer.
Gazumping can cause distress, frustration, disappointment, annoyance, tears, a breakdown in trust and financial loss. Potential buyers can feel cheated and deceived, but the buyer has no rights to a property simply because he or she has made an acceptable offer or even paid a holding deposit. A real estate agent is acting on behalf of the vendor and wants to get to the highest sale price. In fact, the agent has an obligation to pass on all offers to the vendor until the contracts are exchanged. Therefore, when gazumping does occur the agent is usually doing what he or she should be doing.
All the relevant literature says that there is no legally binding sale until a contract of sale has been signed by the buyer and seller, and exchanged. A verbal promise or the acceptance of an offer does not constitute a contract of sale.
Gazumping is an unpleasant fact of life in private treaty real estate transactions. This apparently arises because of the history of the sale of land. Compared with other goods or services, the sale of which can be agreed on a handshake, agreements to sell and buy land are governed by the statute of frauds, a centuries old doctrine that requires a contract for land to be in writing for it to be binding. All the relevant literature also says ‘buyer beware’.
The NT Law Handbook says that in the Territory, there is limited legal protection for people who buy property and that the legal maxim caveat emptor, or buyer beware, applies, and in a standard contract of sale, the seller is not required to disclose any matters that may affect the saleability or value of a property, nor to give any warranties.
Some states have introduced legislation to restrict the window of opportunity for gazumping, and that is what I am doing with this bill. No jurisdiction has tried to outlaw gazumping or to create an offence of gazumping. Gazumping occurs because of the time gap between verbal acceptance of an offer and the exchange of contracts, and anti-gazumping measures are generally aimed at reducing this window of opportunity.
Briefly, this is what the bill proposes and I will outline each section in more detail later: the seller of a residential property will need to have a draft contract of sale prepared before listing the property on the market. Attached to this contract will be due diligence documents and reports that will provide the buyer with all the information necessary to help determine whether they want to buy a property. These documents include the title search, the results of the building inspection, the pest report, a bore status report if the land is a rural block, a septic tank status report if that applies, and a flood prone report if that is applicable to the land being sold. The ACT government claims that because the New South Wales anti-gazumping legislation did not require such inspection reports to be attached to the sale contract, it had not worked. The window of opportunity for gazumping still existed.
The seller will recoup the cost of these reports from the buyer. The buyer and seller will be able to enter into binding written contracts as soon as an offer is accepted. A conveyancer or lawyer will still be needed by the vendor to get the documents and certificates, and by the purchaser to check the documents attached to the contract, but there will be a shorter time frame for doing those checks. Of course, a sale can still go through without a conveyancer or a lawyer as can happen now, although it is not usually recommended because of the possible legal pitfalls.
The real estate agent will not be drafting the contract, but will be able to fill in certain prescribed details, such as the name and address of the parties, the sale price, and date of contract. The seller can be fined if the reports or certificates misrepresent the situation or if the person who prepares the report is a relative or business partner. Requiring the seller to have these documents available for a buyer to inspect from the time the property is first advertised for sale closes the window of opportunity for gazumping; buyer and seller would enter into a binding contract as soon as the offer is accepted.
Now to the details: the bill inserts a new provision in the Law of Property Act. The division starts with a range of definitions, including one for residential property, which basically means any land on which a residence has been or can be built, no matter what the size of the land. Clause 78C of the bill spells out the documents that are required to be prepared and attached to the contract of sale before the property is listed for sale, and I have outlined those already. It will be an offence if a seller gets a relative, his agent, his lawyer or anyone who has a direct or indirect interest in the seller’s business to prepare these reports or certificates. I have added several extra reports: the title search, the bore status report and the septic tank status report, which are important for rural residents and the flood prone report, which is important for consumer protection. This is the one area where the legislation differs from that in the ACT.
Clause 78E requires all the documents to be available for inspection once the property has been listed for sale. Clause 78F spells out the details of the cooling-off period, when it applies, when it does not apply, and how long it is. The purchaser can shorten, lengthen or waive a cooling off period, but only when he or she has sought advice from a lawyer. The lawyer must sign a certificate and a copy of that certificate must go to the vendor. If the purchaser decides not to go ahead with the sale during the cooling-off period, he or she will pay a penalty of one-quarter of 1% of the property’s purchase price to the seller. A real estate agent will not be entitled to any commission in this case.
Clause 78M requires the buyer to reimburse the seller for any costs involved in getting the reports attached to the contract of sale. This would be part of the normal process of settlement where certain payments, such as council rates, are adjusted and levied. It will be an offence under clause 78N of the bill for a person to give false or misleading information in any of the reports. A person who prepares a report or certificate containing false or misleading information will be liable to compensate the purchaser for the loss or expense. This will give the consumer, in this case the buyer, extra protection and ensure that building and pest inspections are carried out with due diligence.
I have already circulated this bill to real estate agents, conveyancers, lawyers and other interested people. I plan to circulate it widely, and I want feedback. If I get feedback and I agree that changes are needed, then I will table amendments when the bill is debated at the next General Business Day.
I commend the bill to members, and look forward to their support of it.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
I publicly gave notice of this bill in February. It arose as a result of evidence of an alleged rape victim being published in some detail in the NT News. I am prevented from naming the woman involved, but I will shortly quote what was published so that members know in general terms the case to which I am referring.
I would like to put on the record that the NT News did nothing wrong; it was certainly allowed to publish what the woman said in the course of her evidence. The point we make by introducing this bill is that her evidence should have been given in a closed court thereby removing the possibility of any media outlet publishing her evidence.
I should also record that the judge hearing the case did not act improperly by not closing the court. His Honour made a decision about that, a decision that was open to him under the Evidence Act.
As legislators, however, we need to look at the broader implications of the way judges and magistrates are using relevant parts of the Evidence Act and, where appropriate, respond accordingly. If there are sound arguments that suggest that a change to the act is warranted, then we should make those changes.
My advice is that there have been three cases in relatively recent times in which judges have refused to close the court for vulnerable witnesses. Certainly, this is not a huge number, but the consequences are serious. They are serious for the victims involved, but potentially serious for future victims who may be even more reluctant to report sexual assaults for fear of their evidence being published by the media.
Presumably, the circumstances of this most recent case were not foreseen when further amendments to the Evidence Act were introduced in 2001. This does not mean that we should not change the legislation in response to recent developments in an effort to stop what might be called a trend in our courts.
I should note that on other occasions, judges and magistrates have not permitted vulnerable witnesses to use other protection afforded under section 21A of the Evidence Act, namely the use of closed circuit televisions and partition screens.
For the benefit of members, legislation was enacted some years ago, which afforded witnesses deemed vulnerable various protections. Among those options was to have the court closed when giving their evidence. This was done so the vulnerable witnesses who, specifically in 2001, included the victims of sexual assaults, could be assured that they can be protected when giving their evidence, which is very personal, sensitive and distressing.
The victim in this case was the victim of an alleged rape, so clearly she was a vulnerable witness and, clearly, her evidence was very personal, sensitive and distressing.
I will turn to the relevant section of the Evidence Act shortly, however it is appropriate that I repeat what was quoted in the NT News. I do this partly to refresh the memories of members, but also to ask whether members think that the victim’s evidence should have been published. I quote from one of three articles, namely that published on 11 February, noting that there are two other articles, but the following was the most graphic:
A Territory financial expert has pleaded not guilty to raping his businesswoman wife in their upmarket
home. The wife, aged in her 30s, yesterday in the Supreme Court gave her tearful account of the alleged rape.
The incident happened in June in the couple’s former matrimonial home. The woman said her estranged husband
held a pair of kitchen scissors to her stomach and over the nipple of one of her breasts.
‘I was terrified’ she told the jury. ‘He said: ”Touch my c…. I know you like it” and his hands started going
everywhere. I was scared. I was really scared’.
The jury was told how the husband raped her before ejaculating over her face, hair and pyjama top.
‘I kept saying: “No, no” the wife said. ‘I begged him “Please, please don’t”’.
The court had to adjourn after the wife broke down and wept as she was asked to identify the clothing she wore
during the alleged rape; silk pyjamas and a satin and lace robe.
My view is not only should that evidence have been given in a closed court, but also, it was exactly that type of evidence in that type of case that the legislators contemplated when the vulnerable witness provisions in the Evidence Act were introduced.
The change I propose with this bill will ensure that the evidence of vulnerable witnesses will not appear in the media or be heard by members of the public. This is not in the interests of justice. The change will also ensure that vulnerable witnesses use, as of right, the other protections afforded under 21A of the Evidence Act.
Section 21A deals with vulnerable witnesses, and there is no need for me to outline the criteria here, suffice to say that alleged victims of sexual offences are, under the act, vulnerable witnesses. Subsection 2 provides that:
… a vulnerable witness is entitled to give evidence using one or more of the following arrangements as
chosen by the witness.
I will not quote every word of subsections (a) to (d) here, but the ‘following arrangements’ are (a) evidence can be given by close circuit television; (b) from behind a petition or one-way glass; (c) a vulnerable witness can be accompanied by a relative, friend, or other person; and (d) - which is germane in light of the case I have referred to - states:
… that the Court be closed while evidence is being given by the vulnerable witness in the proceeding (including
evidence given under cross-examination) and that no persons remain in or enter a room or place in which the Court
is being held, or remain within the hearing of the Court, without its permission.
All of the above sounds reasonable and straightforward, however, it is subject to the conditions outlined in subsection 2A, which is as follows:
The Court may make an order that the vulnerable witness is not to give evidence using an arrangement under
subsection (2) if satisfied that –
(a) it is not in the interests of justice for the witness's evidence to be given using that arrangement; or
And, pursuant to (2B):
In determining whether or not it is in the interests of justice to use an arrangement under subsection (2), the
Court must have regard to the following matters:
(a) the need to minimise the harm that could be caused to the vulnerable witness by giving evidence;
Continued from 18 May 2004.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, let me begin my response to this Labor budget with a quotation from the member for Fannie Bay and now absent Chief Minister …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The honourable member knows …
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, that is right.
Members interjecting.
Mr Dunham: Of course he can! It is on the public record.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, it is on the public record. Leader of the Opposition, would you like to start again?
Mr MILLS: Certainly. Madam Speaker, let me begin my response to this Labor budget with a quotation from the honourable member for Fannie Bay and now Chief Minister. Several years ago, she told this parliament, and I quote:
… Territorians … will be hit very hard when the GST comes in. How’s that going to grow the Territory’s
prosperity, underpin the lifestyle of Territorians? No, it won’t.
Oh, yes, and these budget documents are the ultimate proof of that. In 2003-04, the government has managed to increase its real spending by more than $76m over what it planned to spend, and still pocketed $34m in excess funds - thanks almost totally to the GST.
Next year, 2004-05, this Labor administration will use the ever-increasing funding from the GST to pay for its long overdue and very limited attempt to help Territory business. I say ‘very limited’ because, in a budget with a total appropriation of $2 193 411 000, the cost of the payroll tax changes are $4m and the abolition of the HIH levy means the government is going to forgo a further $2.7m in 2004-05.
A total package of $6.7m in 2004-05 and the Treasurer calls this definitely a pro-business budget. $6.7m is 0.2% of the total revenue the Treasurer is expecting to receive in 2004-05, and he wants to be regarded as the saviour of business. $6.7m - the Chief Minister spends about that much on her own ministerial office each year.
However, it is a start, a beginning, a final dawning on this Labor government that they have to do something to stimulate the economy. However, business needs to be aware of the fine print. The increased threshold only applies to wages paid in the Territory. If a business employs people elsewhere, the threshold is reduced. As Budget Paper No 2 explains, if an employer pays 70% of their wages in the Territory and 30% interstate, then the threshold is reduced by 30%. If an employer only employs for part of the financial year, then the threshold is reduced. The budget paper explains that if an employer only pays wages for three months of the year, the threshold is reduced by 75%, which is $0.2m.
Of course, there is no change to the rate of payroll tax. It is still 6.2%, even though Labor, both in its pre-election promises and in its mini-budget, promised to cut that rate. In fact, in both its election promises and the mini-budget, it forecast that its proposed changes to the payroll tax rate would cost it $6m in forgone revenue, but yesterday’s change will cost it $4m.
Yes, this budget is such a big help to business that it does not even match Labor’s promises. The abolition of the HIH levy is also overdue. In fact, it should have never have been imposed on Territory businesses in the first place. We opposed it then and we oppose it now. We welcome the fact that this government has finally seen the light. Like the similarly despised temporary budget tax, the motor vehicle registration levy, it has been consigned to the rubbish bin. As the ads say on TV say: ‘That is not all; there is more!’
There is the highest ever spending on infrastructure, which will increase by a mammoth $3m or less than 0.7% and, considering that inflation is more than 2%, it is in fact a decline in real spending in 2004-05. This so-called huge increase in spending will only occur if the government can keep the revote at its projected level of $97.5m. It has not been able to achieve that in 2003-04. The revote has increased by more than 15% on what was projected in the budget. They have not spent as much on capital works this financial year as they intended.
Where is the spending on real infrastructure that will provide a continuing boost to the economy? The tourist roads will certainly do that, and I commend the government for its efforts there. But the key Darwin waterfront project, this government’s only major project, is off to a very slow start with only $8m set aside for more preparatory work. We warned at the time that the government was imposing a deadline it could not meet on that project and it is already slipping from a beginning at the end of this year to some time in 2005. This budget would suggest that ‘some time in 2005’ is more likely to be the second half of the year if not even later.
Grandstands and soccer fields are well and good and add to the enviable lifestyle of those Territorians who are staying here, but apart from the initial construction phase, they do not add to the economic growth of the Northern Territory. It is such things that make up a large part of this infrastructure spend and almost 40% of it is not on new infrastructure, anyway, but on repairs and maintenance.
As I said, it is only an increase of $3m on 2003-04, and we know that did so much to stimulate the economy, Treasurer, that it grew by a mere 0.3% followed by a year of negative growth in 2002-03. However, the Treasurer tells us that an extra $3m will be enough stimulus to see a growth rate of 5.8% in 2004-05. Are they kidding?
They have finally realised that their budget strategy was not working and now it has to be dumped. In its place, they have decided to provide additional support and stimulus for economic growth both by increasing spending and reducing taxes in the 2004-05 budget.
The policy is fine. The policy is exactly right for the Northern Territory. The policy is needed after two and a half years of stagnation under this administration. But the policy is not being implemented. I have already mentioned the record tax cuts, which is the equivalent of the Chief Minister’s spending on her own office, and the decline in infrastructure spending in real terms. If you turn to spending, it is barely matching inflation and below projected wages growth of 3%.
Total operating expenses of the general government sector are increasing by 2.4% or, if you look at the total operating payments for the non-financial public sector, it is an increase of 2.9%. In fact, the blow-out in spending over 2003-04, between the budget of last May and the estimated figures for the year produced in these budget papers, was much higher at 4.3% for total operating expenses for the general government sector. Did that increase in spending stimulate the economy? The reality is that of 29 agencies, departments and GBDs listed in the budget, 18 have had their operating expenses cut and only 11 have increased.
The big increases are in the three dominant departments of Education, Health and Police, but look closely and you will see that while the Department of Employment, Education and Training has increased operating expenses of $10.2m, all of this increase and more - in fact more than $12m - is consumed by payments to employees.
In Health and Community Services, the increase is $23.7m of which almost $16m is in payment to employees and the key preventative area of public health has actually been cut by more than 6%.
Police, Fire and Emergency Services have an increase of $8.5m or more than 5% of the continuing implementation of the O’Sullivan Review, which we totally support.
Incredibly, given all the hype and bluster the government is spreading about its tourism plans, the Northern Territory Tourist Commission has less this year than it spent in 2003-04.
The department for Territory lifestyle - Community Development, Sport and Cultural Affairs - is being cut back by more than $7m. That is a lot of money because it is more than the record tax cuts to stimulate business.
I mentioned earlier the blow-out in spending in the 2003-04 budget. This budget reveals staggering figures. Of the 29 departments, agencies and GBDs recorded, only two came in under their budget allocation from last May. Another four were relatively close and the rest simply kept spending.
Employment, Education and Training was $10m over; Community Development blew it by more than $20m; the Department of Chief Minister overspent by 23%; but the winner was Health and Community Services. With two ministers at the helm replacing the member for Nightcliff, Health exceeded its 2003-04 budget by more than $50m. Unbelievably, most of this blow-out in Health was spent since the Treasurer’s Mid-Year Report was brought down in January this year, only four months ago.
If we had a public accounts inquiry into an $8m difference, then we must have a royal commission into the state of the Health and Community Services department. There is little or no explanation in these budget papers why all these agencies and departments failed to come in on budget. There is no detailed list of the variations between what was allocated in the budget of May 2003 and what has now been spent.
This is open and accountable Labor administration, these superb economic managers, presents budgets because they have to, but they totally ignore what is in them. What ever happened to the Chief Minister’s standard that departments ‘should be held accountable’, that ‘budgets will have to be met’? The simple truth is that this government has no idea what is going on. The only thing ministers are in charge of is their briefing papers and, unfortunately, too few of them read them.
The budget is a sham and these ministers are shameless, absolutely shameless. They continually demonstrate they are unable to manage their departments and are a collective failure in managing the Territory economy. The facts speak for themselves. They boast about getting the budget into surplus and then project deficits for the next three or four years. They preach about fiscal strategies and then change them every year. About the only thing they are good at is fiddling the books when it comes to the revenues they are receiving from the GST.
They keep trying to pull a con trick on Territorians by underestimating revenues from the GST and then using the windfall to get themselves out of trouble. The Treasurer is at it again with this budget with his claim that the Territory is going to miss out on about $50m in GST revenue. Nonsense! He based that calculation on the GST pool remaining static when he knew it would increase and his share, of course, would increase substantially. He blamed the Commonwealth Grants Commission for slightly lowering relativities when his own prediction was only 0.02 points out and his Mid-Year Report noted such a change would not jeopardise his budget projections.
Now he is blaming future deficits on a reduction in GST funding and projecting a further cut in the relativity scale for the Territory. But by his own estimates, GST revenue will increase by more than $50m from 2004-05 to 2005-06, by another $70m in 2006-07, and another $70m in the following year. That is a conservative estimate because, while he sees the GST pool increasing by more than 5% each year, he says the Territory will only get an increase of around 3.5%. He has done this for two years. He is underestimating the GST so when the buckets of money fall into his lap, he can turn around and say: ‘Hey look, what a clever economic manager I am! I have managed to turn a projected deficit into a surplus’.
The sad fact is that if we continue to suffer the same incompetent management of those opposite, the con may eventually come true. One need only look at the population figures. This government has presided over the worst population growth figures since Cyclone Tracy forced thousands of Territorians to go south. We have had a year of negative growth in our population since Labor took power, and now they are predicting growth of only 0.3% and 0.5% for the further forward estimate years.
Population is a factor on how much GST revenue flows into the Territory, not just the actual numbers, but the percentage of Territorians in the Australian population. Our share of the population is falling, and everywhere else, it is increasing. We were once more than 1% of the Australian population. That is dropping and is expected to continue to decline according to this government. But what are they doing about it? Where is the promised population strategy? It was due more than 12 months ago. The Chief Minister promised at the last Estimates Committee in June 2003 that while it was late, it will definitely be out in ‘a few months’. That deadline went about eight months ago.
This has been the one thing this Labor government has been good at: producing strategies, plans and discussion papers. They are not much good at implementing any of them, but they can produce them, that is except the ones that really matter, except for the ones that are vital to the future of the Territory and its economic development.
The other major worry is that, if the Treasurer’s projections were to come true, how is government going to continue to fund the very large increase in recurrent spending it has now factored in to the major departments? This budget reveals that capital works are going to be cut back in the forward estimates, but that will not be enough. If the Treasurer is right and the rivers of gold of the GST begin to dry up or not increase by the windfalls he is now getting, what is he going to do? I suspect he has no idea because his economic strategy is simply: ‘I spend it and the Commonwealth just keeps paying’.
This is a bits and pieces budget: a bit for business, a piece for sport, another bit for culture, and so on. This is a budget from a government that has presided over negative growth in the Territory, and it does little to redress that. Good economic management would not see the Northern Territory as having the unenviable record of the fastest rate of bankruptcies in Australia, recently recording a 35% increase from the December quarter. The proof is there, economically and socially, that this government has let Territorians down. It has sat on its hands and presided over an economy in decline.
The Territory deserves better, and I want to take some time to put on the record a few of the highlights of how we would make it so, how we would get this place moving again, how we would make Territorians want to stay here and share in that development, how we would make the Territory a place others want to share with us.
It is my belief, and that of the CLP, that the best social program that anyone can deliver is a strong economy. A strong economy means jobs for Territorians. A strong economy means population growth. A strong economy means more jobs that as a government, we will have the means to fund the social programs to address the many areas of disadvantage in the Northern Territory.
The burden of taxation now falls on too few members of our community; those who have invested their time, labour and capital in our economy have had to carry the lion’s share of the load. We must broaden the base of our economy so that all have the chance to participate, sharing both the rewards and the responsibilities.
For more than 20 years, it was CLP governments that built and developed the Northern Territory. We are a party that can do it again. We know where the Territory should be going for the benefit of all Territorians. We are determined that the policies and candidates the CLP presents to the electorate at the next election will deliver that growth and development.
I have already outlined the problems our economy is facing: rising bankruptcies, falling commercial occupancies and small business people leaving the Northern Territory. Who does not know anybody who has recently packed up and left? Whether it is lifestyle or economic choice, the Territory is no longer the place they grew up in or came to. This Labor administration has squandered the opportunity in its desire to make us like other Labor-run southern states down south. They do not want the Territory to be different.
Territorians know we are going backwards; they see it every day. They see it when they go to their local shopping centre or in the Darwin CBD, with the vacant shop windows, and even in simple things like the Yellow Pages phone book, a slimmer volume than last year. The CLP in government would use the additional GST revenue to really relieve Territory families and businesses of as much financial burden as possible, relieve them of the taxation burden imposed by this administration.
You will recall, Madam Speaker, that that was one of the cornerstones of the introduction of the GST. The states and territories would get rid of a plethora of their own taxes and, in return, get all the revenue from the GST. That was the cornerstone. We all know that has not happened. This Labor administration has kept the taxes and kept the increasing revenue from the GST.
A CLP government will not. We will honour the pledge made to Territorians and Australians when the new taxation was introduced. We will use this ever-growing stream of funds not to engage in more of Labor’s social engineering - more government interference in Territorians’ lifestyle – but, rather, to ease the burden of government on Territorians. This side of the House will welcome any government initiative that benefits Territorians, particularly when it eases the burden on families and business.
We will go further than raising the threshold for payroll tax; we will reduce the rate. It is tax that forces businesses to limit their work force and come down hard on any wage increases for their employees. No tax should be seen as a disincentive for hiring people or rewarding them for their efforts. A CLP government is committed to making our payroll tax regime the most competitive in the nation and our own independent economic modelling has convinced us that this is not only very achievable, but is essential. We will act to reduce the payroll tax burden by at least 30%. This would make the Territory one of, if not the lowest payroll taxing jurisdictions in Australia. We would cut the Territory’s rate to 4.3%, which is less than that of Queensland, the state with the lowest rate of payroll tax in Australia. We will place our emphasis on helping smaller businesses because they are hurting the most, yet they are the lifeblood of our economy.
A 30% reduction in payroll tax will reduce revenue in the first year by nearly $30m, given payroll tax collection from the private sector is close to $100m. As well as being an immediate boost to the cash position of Territory businesses because of the saving in not having to pay payroll tax, it will have a strong, positive impact on attitudes to investment by businesses within the Territory, interstate and overseas. That is where the real jobs growth will come. That is when the real action will take place. As attitudes change and increased investment occurs, this will promote even greater demand and the multiplier effect kicks in. That is the type of economy we want and we will deliver it.
In paying for tax reduction, I have no doubt that over time, it will pay for itself. I believe in Territorians. An increase in jobs growth will be matched by a roughly equivalent increase in population and this will mean all Territory revenue will rise, including GST revenue. Each 1% increase in population adds $15m to Territory receipts each year. There are costs that go with population increases, but the costs will rise far slower than the increased revenue. I am confident that this initiative would dramatically increase investment, jobs and population to be self-funding within two to three years.
We also plan to reduce stamp duty on conveyances to make them the lowest in the country. Queensland has the lowest rates and the NT would need to reduce its rate by up to 40% to match them. While that would cost approximately $15m each year in forgone revenue, we will move in that direction as soon as possible. Increasing GST receipts and a really stimulated and growing economy will be able to fund the reduction in stamp duty. This is our first step, that stamp duty is not payable on the GST component of any transaction. Territorians should not be paying taxes on taxes, as this government insists they do.
Madam Speaker, getting the government off the back of business is not the only way we can ensure the Territory returns to being a place of opportunity and growth. Government has a legitimate role in promoting growth and development and one of the key pillars of promoting growth has been our geographic, cultural and trade ties with Asia. One of the greatest failures of this Labor administration so far has been the almost complete abandonment of pursuing trade partnerships with the Asia Pacific region.
I do acknowledge the government has finally heeded the calls of the CLP and did embark recently on leading a substantial delegation in to the Asian region. Having done this, Chief Minister, are you now ready to hear the second part of our advice?
Do not let this recent trip to China fade into history as an expensive publicity stunt on the taxpayers account. The CLP is committed to reopening the Territory’s strong trade and cultural links with Asia that have been so shamefully neglected. Under a CLP government, Asian Relations and Trade will again become a stand alone unit and greater focus will be put on to international trade. Our trade missions to the Asia Pacific region will be more targeted, more regular and more in tune with improving opportunities for trade between Territory businesses and our neighbours.
It has been a fundamental tenet of CLP belief from the very beginning that the Territory’s future lies more with the billions of people to our near north rather than with the 20 million to our south. It is a core belief that will be basic government policy in any CLP administration.
Another key area for the Territory is tourism. It is one of the key drivers for getting our Territory back on track, with more than 15 000 Territorians owing their living either directly or indirectly to tourism. Just as importantly, it is the one industry that is labour intensive, with many entry points with a lower skills base, thus providing the much needed jobs to attract people and hold them here in the Territory.
Sadly, however, recent ABS figures show that the number of overseas visitors who spend most of their time in the Territory has declined by 20.6%. Now, that is not a downturn in world events that are beyond our control or because less people are travelling. No, that is a measure of the decline in the proportion of visitors to Australia who choose to come to the Territory while they are in our country. Competition for the tourism dollar is not just with other countries, it is with the rest of Australia, and on that front, we are losing. Yet this government has only paid lip service to the tourism industry. It is being passed around to one minister to another. There have been four Labor tourism ministers in less than three years of government.
The tourism industry had high expectations from this budget. The Mereenie and Litchfield Loops work are consistent with the CLP’s call for more spending on tourism projects, but beyond that, there is little joy. Look at the Treasurer’s pre-emptive budget announcement of $60m for tourism projects. Take out the Mereenie and Litchfield Loop projects, which are over three years, anyway, and they are the spend is only $7m.
Where is the vision and the big picture thinking? Where is the development of new icons that will put the Northern Territory back on the shelf in the international tourism market? A future CLP government will place a heavy emphasis on developing new tourism destinations in the Northern Territory.
If tourism is going to be one of the key drivers of our economic recovery, we must do more to provide greater tourism infrastructure, and identify new tourism icons to make the territory a preferred destination. We must improve, renovate and reinvigorate our existing product, and put the funding into research and development of a new tourism product. A CLP government will do just that.
A future CLP government will commit to continuing progress on existing developments such as the wharf precinct. After all, that was a CLP initiative. However, we will also continue to provide the vision to take the Territory forward. Under a CLP government, the tourism industry will also have something that Labor cannot ever give it: certainty. This government’s pledge to take the ownership of our parks away from the public sends shivers down the spine of every tourism operator in town. It is a commitment of the CLP that Northern Territory parks will remain in the hands of Territorians for all of us to own and for all of us to control the destiny of these public assets.
All Territorians, especially indigenous Territorians, but I stress all, must have a say, directly or indirectly, over the management of our parks. Our political opponents would have the community believe that they are the guardians of integration and tolerance in our community. They would have us believe that their way is the way towards the future. Nothing could be further than the truth. It is the policies of this government that promote division.
We are blessed with such a rich diversity of people calling the Territory home. I see all of us as equal under the one set of laws. Laws bind the society that we live in, and there is a real difference between the CLP and the ALP when it comes to law and order issues. Under the ALP, we have seen violent crime sky rocket throughout the Territory. Labor’s softly, softly approach to serious crime clearly does not work.
The Health department’s own research shows that younger and younger Territorians are using and injecting drugs. The use of methamphetamines is on the increase. Labor’s much publicised drug laws have failed. A CLP government will address our law and order problems in the Northern Territory. As a government, we will have the will to deal with it.
I turn to the real future of our Territory: our young people. It is common enough in this House to hear expressions of concern for youth, but less common are ongoing programs that attract, engage and develop leadership skills in youth. We will deliver progressive, innovative and proactive policies to engender these qualities in our youth.
The education debate in the Territory and nationally is continually dominated by questions concerning funding levels. A CLP government is absolutely committed to fully and substantially fund all levels of education in the Northern Territory, but we are also committed to ask the hard questions about what comes out of the system, not just what goes in.
The CLP is committed to improving educational accountability and quality in the Territory. The CLP is committed to improving the education system, supporting teachers, raising the status of the profession and raising education standards for every Territory student.
In the health area, we have seen the Labor government preside over the closure of hospital beds, and queues of patients in emergency wards. Despite spending more and more money on health, it seems incapable of solving the problems. In government, the CLP is committed to relieving the chronic workloads placed on general ward nurses and will open beds, not close them.
A key fundamental that will drive the Northern Territory economy forward is power, specifically electricity. Here is where the Martin government has failed the economy of the Northern Territory miserably. Power is the life blood of our tourism industry, our hotels, clubs and restaurants. It drives light and heavy industry alike, and it keeps our offices open and efficient, yet the government has failed on two fronts. It has consciously and willingly stripped dividends from PowerWater at the cost of ongoing maintenance and the development of infrastructure. This budget reveals that it intends to take $40m out of PowerWater in tax equivalents and dividends in 2004-05.
Second, it has missed a golden opportunity to secure a long-term source of energy to feed our electricity needs for the future. This government has not secured any long-term source of gas to power our future energy needs, and there was no joy in yesterday’s budget on this front. The current gas reserves are finite, and we must make it a priority to ensure that we have energy for the future. Some of the Bayu-Undan field should have been reserved for our power needs, with future projects such as Blacktip and, eventually, Greater Sunrise, being used to backfill any contract with Japanese buyers.
The gas plant at Wickham Point is only the beginning, and that was always how the CLP viewed it. A future CLP government will actively pursue bringing gas onshore for our own power needs, and will be prepared to allocate funding to assist this aim where appropriate.
Madam Speaker, that is a brief view of some of the policies we are developing to get the Territory moving. It is an indictment on this government as economic managers that they have been unable to do that. This budget has headlined them as pro-business and the measures it includes go a little way - a very little way - to helping business to drive growth and jobs.
The fact is that this government is experiencing revenue growth from the Commonwealth unseen in the Territory since the heady days immediately following self-government. They are wasting it and leaving no lasting legacy as the early government bequeathed to Territorians who have grown up under self-government. They have taken almost three years to realise that the most fundamental economic management principle in the Territory is that government must stimulate growth. But while they may have finally abandoned Percy Allan and embraced this principle, this budget does little to actually implement it.
It is a disappointing budget. It is a bits and pieces budget. It is a budget that is unlikely to drag us out of stagnation, the stagnation that Labor has plunged us into. The promise is there. The rhetoric is there, as usual, but there is little to follow through on. The best the Treasurer and this government can hope for is an electorate that marks them: ‘Can do better if they try harder’. From our point of view, they must do better. They are the government and they have to get their act together before it is too late.
Debate adjourned.
Continued from earlier this day.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, continuing on from earlier, I raised the issue of vulnerable witnesses in my maiden speech on 16 October 2001. I suggested that all victims of violence fall within the vulnerable witness legislation. I will repeat something of what I said on 16 October 2001:
I know of too many victims who have been prevented by a judge or a magistrate from utilising the protection
intended by the legislature. Of course, many crimes of violence are perpetrated on women and children. It is
an absurdity, is it not, that on the one hand, we as a community encourage women and children to report sexual
and physical violence yet on the other, we make the process of giving evidence as intimidatory and as awful as
possible?
This issue is not new to me, nor is it new to government. It has always been intended that the measures that are contained in section 21A of the Evidence Act be presumptive in favour of being used and, in the context of the case to which I have referred, while witnesses generally should give their evidence in open court, there are particular circumstances where this should not occur, provided that the accused has a fair trial. In the absence of any reasons to the contrary, it is impossible for me to see how the interests of justice were served by not closing the court on a particular occasion in the case to which I have referred and, indeed, in other cases.
Regardless of the circumstances of this particular case, however, our view is that, on balance, the act should be changed so that the victims who are vulnerable be permitted to avail themselves of the protections afforded under section 21A(2) as of right, and that the only limitation be that if it is not available owing to the urgency of the proceedings; that is, if it is impracticable to give effect to that arrangement. That is an amendment also contained in the bill. That part in the bill has been changed only slightly and contemplates, as did the original section, I suspect, situations where things like a closed circuit television is not available. This bill will give victims the security of giving their evidence without the world knowing the details. It will also ensure that the original aims of the legislation are preserved and will, accordingly, assist other vulnerable witnesses.
Sexual assaults are on the increase in the Territory, which is why the Attorney-General created the Sexual Assault Task Force in December. In his media release dated 17 December 2003, he said:
Work is already under way to improve court processes for vulnerable witnesses like sexual assault victims.
I assume, therefore, that he or his department or members of the task force are actually going to make some improvements. I submit that supporting this bill should be one of them. This bill is not major, but it is important. Vulnerable witnesses should have the protections as of right, which are outlined in section 21A of the Evidence Act and should have them except where it is impracticable.
The social implications of not fixing this problem are significant. How do we expect victims of sexual assaults, for instance, to report assaults in the knowledge that, although a vulnerable witness, that person’s very personal, sensitive and distressing evidence could be heard by the world at large, or that they may not be afforded the opportunity of the protection afforded under the act?
I note that, after I gave notice of this bill, the Attorney-General responded in the media by saying that matters were ‘in hand’. That was in February and government has had ample time to fix the problem. This is a short bill and fixing the problem is not difficult. Government may well be looking at further measures and, if that is the case, so be it. However, in the meantime government does have an obligation to respond and to act.
I am aware that the Sexual Assault Task Force is currently looking at a range of issues in the area of sexual assault, but remedying the problem highlighted by this and, indeed, other cases, does not need to wait. It can be a one-off fix. There is no need to delay; in fact, I suggest that it is inappropriate to delay.
It is noteworthy that, since giving notice of this bill, the Attorney-General has not contacted me about it. He has not offered me, either informally or formally, advice as to why it is that the government will, as I understand it, not support this bill. He knows my personal interest in this area and, in fact, earlier this week in reply to a letter I sent to him about the Sexual Assault Task Force, he wrote:
I welcome your personal interest and commitment to this area.
That sentence that was repeated elsewhere in the same letter. In those circumstances, it is appropriate that I record my disappointment that he has not communicated with me. That is his right, of course, but I am left to deduce that there are what can only be described as political or strategic reasons for his failure to do so.
If that is the case, and it may not be, in which case I do hope to hear from him before this bill is debated, then I say that I am not prepared to play politics with this issue, I am not prepared to sit by and wait. In the absence of any explanation, I can only assume that politics stands in the way of his support for this bill. Those who have been directly affected by the problems highlighted by the case to which I have referred and others will, no doubt, be forced to come to that conclusion as well. Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
Madam SPEAKER: We have some visitors in the Gallery who are politics students from Charles Darwin University accompanied by Dr Bill Wilson. On behalf of all members, I extend a warm welcome to you.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I seek leave to move that so much of standing orders be suspended so as to allow me to move the following motion to censure the Chief Minister ...
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek a ruling on how on earth the Leader of the Opposition intends to censure the Chief Minister for whom this parliament, by a motion, has granted a leave of absence for this day and tomorrow.
Mr DUNHAM: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker …
Madam SPEAKER: Wait a minute. Clerk, may I speak with you for a minute?
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Let us have some clarification. Leader of the Opposition, you are seeking leave to move a suspension of standing orders, is that right?
Mr MILLS: That is correct.
Madam SPEAKER: Then we will put that: is leave granted?
Leave granted.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, we accept the censure motion. I ask that further questions be placed on the Written Question Paper, and you to order the cessation of rolling of the cameras.
Members interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: We accept the censure motion and I would ask that the censure be directed at the Acting Chief Minister which, by convention, is the Deputy Chief Minister in the Chief Minister’s absence.
MOTION
Proposed Censure of Acting Chief Minister
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, you understand that the Chief Minister was granted leave by the parliament this morning so you should direct your censure to the Acting Chief Minister?
Mr MILLS: To the Acting Chief Minister? Certainly, Madam Speaker.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, you have the floor.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move that this parliament censure the Acting Chief Minister for his abject failure to advance the prosperity of Territorians and to deliver economic growth. In particular, the Acting Chief Minister has failed in the 2004-05 budget to:
1. manage the economy;
2. adopt a consistent, appropriate fiscal strategy;
3. control departmental expenditure targets;
4. stimulate growth through focussed and real infrastructure spending; and
5. halt the decline of population and increasing business closures.
Madam SPEAKER: Before you go on, Leader of the Opposition, do we have a copy of that motion? Proceed, Leader of the Opposition.
Mr MILLS: Madam Speaker, it is the belief, and the ill-founded belief of the current government, that they have done something to engender some kind of future for Territorians, but it is Territorians who are yet to be convinced - those who remain, those who would be watching as afar as to what is happening in their beloved Northern Territory who have made that difficult decision to move from the Territory for a whole range of reasons.
You only need to assess the health of a human being to find out certain symptoms that would indicate whether they are a healthy person or not. When you are assessing an economy, you can assess whether an economy is healthy or not by a range of measures.
I would say for starters, as a young lad I would sit with my father and we would plan the future. We would see what was going to happen in the next year and we would plan our budget as to what was going to happen on the farm for that year. We would propose our estimates. We would forecast what would occur in that year and we would re-jig and plan our budget to that end. We would predict the sort of result that we would have for our efforts and for our risk that we would take in that year. At the end of that year, we would assess how well we had gone. If we made an estimate such as this, that we were going to achieve that position, that level of growth, that level of forward movement, and then we sit around the table the next year with the accountant and we find that we have fallen far shorter than our projected plan, we would reassess and find out what it is that we need to do in the next round.
We would sit down, as obviously has been done here, reassess and the forward estimates have been reduced - in this case to 3.3%.
Then, the next cycle goes through and you find that, in fact, you made a loss. You didn’t break even, you made no gain whatsoever; you went backwards. If we were sitting around the table that following year, we would start to wonder about our viability to project the future, whether we are doing something fundamentally wrong, whether we should actually be in business. Should we be in the farming game? I have seen farmers go through that kind of projection and that kind of result and leave the farm.
We have those who are running our economy making these profound projections year after year and two years of sustained zero growth, yet stand in the face of the Northern Territory community, go to lunches with the Chamber of Commerce, speak in glowing terms with massive degrees of spin and project a great confidence in the future. Territorians want to believe you. They want a good future. They believe in the Territory despite you. They want it to happen and they will go with you. But if, year after year, the result has been far less, way less - in fact zero - coming anywhere near your projection.
We have reports from the Yellow Pages Index, the Sensis figures that have come through assessing business confidence and it has rated consistently a minus-22 point level of confidence that Territory business has in the ability of this government to lead them into a future; consistently had a very negative view of the ability of the Martin Labor government to lead them into a future worth hoping for. That is manifest by a departure from the Territory, but I digress at this point.
It takes my breath away to look at the projection as you stand in the face of the Northern Territory community and project now 5.8% growth - a courageous call, minister, when one only has to look in the rear vision mirror and see your track record. You are a punter at the race course making the call and coming out backwards each time and then you are coming out with an even greater call. I wouldn’t go anywhere near you.
We have now this projected and buoyant and upbeat forecast but, based on the track record, little wonder Territory businesses in their heart of hearts have little confidence in your ability to lead them into the future. You may have a group around you who will speak unto you and give you the sense that you are going all right. They will take what you have given them because you’re heading in the right direction. You have changed your tack; you are heading in the right direction. But it is absolutely clear by your inability to accurately forecast growth that you are unable to manage the economy of the Northern Territory. You have people leaving and you could go out there in the face of the Northern Territory and say: ‘Oh, yes, but there is a level of growth’. Blow the chaff away from your figures, Treasurer, and you find that the economically active - it is adults to leave and it is being replaced by your spin and by babies being born who, in my judgment, will not be economically active for a number of years.
Those who carry the tax burden, those who have a skills contribution to make to the Northern Territory community, those who believe they can make a contribution are believing now that they could make a contribution somewhere else - to the tune of 60 plus per week making that decision to move elsewhere. These are not just figures. The Territory is a small community: 200 000 people and falling. We all know people who have made that decision to leave at great personal cost because the future that they once dreamed of in the Northern Territory is unsustainable under the Martin Labor government. Your ability to manage the economy has been found wanting by those who have chosen to leave the Northern Territory.
The fact that there has been consistently zero growth is clear evidence of an economy that is not performing. Stand in here if you wish, and spin it whatever way you want, but Territory businesses have seen your performance, your time in the sun, your hand upon the wheel, and have found, under your watch, the economy has gone backwards. You only have to walk through our neighbourhood centres, through our CBDs, whether it be Palmerston, Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Darwin, Casuarina, wherever, and you will see the evidence of dreams that have been dashed, by people who had that decision to move into private enterprise, to do as a true Territorian, to take that risk, and to march into the future, believing that we could do it, believing that we can go places where we have not been before, believing that we can grow, believing we can take risks, having a certain level of self-confidence. We are finding that businesses close, businesses that have been in place for many years - and not just businesses; they are people, families that had a dream, took a risk, and found, under this government, that that risk had been compounded to the level that they have had to close. In some cases, they have been fortunate enough to be able to recover and move elsewhere, but not all. There are many who are now in a state of profound loss, and they demonstrate the low ebb that we have reached in the Northern Territory.
Acting Chief Minister, your government has failed to manage the Northern Territory economy and provide any kind of clear direction and hope for the future for true Territorians who know what the future is about. It is about having confidence, a sense of vision, and a sense of courage to move forward. They have lost their courage under your management, the management of the Northern Territory economy, lost confidence, and that is clearly indicated in their loss of confidence in you and your government.
You now talk of the changed fiscal strategy that you have adopted, two and a half years too late. In a developing economy, in a small community with its future in front of us - it is not like Victoria, where you might get your guidance, it is not like New South Wales, South Australia or Western Australia and all those Labor states, whispering in your ear and telling which way you should be going. The Northern Territory is different. The Northern Territory has its future in front of it. It needs to develop, it needs to go further forward in a sense of courage and an ability to believe in the future, but you have undermined that in the tack that you took in your fiscal strategy, with words that were whispered in your ear by southern suggestions of which way you should be going and then you look around and you assess and you say, as I heard you on television last night, Treasurer, saying: ‘Business spoke to us and we heard them’. They have been screaming. Any one of us as local members know when we go around that business is hurting. It has reached the stage where it is beyond pain. Yes, you have heard them to the degree that you have now changed your tack.
Sure, you are going to get welcome responses from Territory businesses because you are now at least facing in the right direction. You are now at least considering the need to genuinely spend money on infrastructure development, properly and confidently consider vision, think big, take risks and show leadership. At least you are heading in that direction by your words - only by your words. The whole budget, and the whole fiscal strategy you have here, is oriented in the right way but lacks the substance to achieve it. You have the numbers there. The numbers tell the story, not the rhetoric that prefaces the numbers - not the spin or the glossy documents. They might have you believing, giving you some sense of confidence that you have done the right thing. Well, I can say you started to head in the right direction, but you are so cautious and demonstrating little understanding of how a real economy works, that your timidity is going to, once again, cause business - of course, to applaud your re-orientation - but to have reinforced lack of confidence in you because you demonstrated a lack of confidence in your own ability to know which way you should be facing.
It is Territory businesses that have turned your head around and shown you which way you need to be going. Why? Because population decline is profoundly serious. You have seen organisations when the culture of an organisation changes. The Treasurer would have been involved in many organisations - use those as an example. He would know how difficult it is to change the culture of an organisation. It is not just coming in with great announcements; it is not an easy thing to change the culture of an organisation.
Acting Chief Minister, it is not an easy thing to change the culture of the Northern Territory when we have an economy that has thrown up this result, when Territorians make that hard decision, with some embarrassment. I meet them in the street and they feel ashamed to say that they have decided to move elsewhere and to take their wealth, their business prospects that have grown here in the Northern Territory and replant it in Queensland.
Mr Henderson: Why are real estate prices going up? 20% in 12 months!
Mr MILLS: The inane response of the minister for business about real estate prices shows little understanding of the ripple effect that has flowed right across this country and finally hit the Northern Territory with a faint ripple ...
Mr Henderson: If everybody’s leaving, why is real estate going up?
Mr MILLS: There is nothing to sustain that ripple effect if you understood how markets actually operate. It is welcome …
Mr Henderson: People do not invest in a falling market where people are leaving. Where are the vacancy rates? The vacancy rates are less now than they have been for years.
Mr MILLS: Acting Chief Minister, if we move forward and consider your inability to manage the economy, the symptoms are plain. Ask a doctor how to assess a sick patient, and there would be a range of symptoms. Ask an economist to assess the health of an economy and there would be a range of symptoms. They have been made patently clear: this is an economy under your stewardship that has failed to deliver. You have failed to adopt a consistent appropriate fiscal strategy; that is clear. You have oriented yourself in the right direction, but it is our view that you have no understanding of what is really required whilst facing in that direction. You think that making the move of altering the threshold of payroll tax is the big fix. It is the beginning of it. It is taking that risk, not just to change the threshold, but to change the rate. Then you can change the economic environment and culture of the Northern Territory and the way the Territory is viewed.
The Territory has always been viewed as a place of development, a place that you can come and do things that you cannot do in other places, where you have a sense of being unhindered. The future is in front of the Territory. You need to create the appropriate fiscal stimulus; that is why we argued for a reduction of the rate so that we will change the view of the Northern Territory within the national context. It is a place where things can happen. It is a place where dreams can grow. There are places we can go that you cannot explore in other places because it has already been done. There are huge possibilities in the Northern Territory and an appropriate and courageous fiscal strategy, espoused by the CLP, is the only place to go that will deliver that.
Once you have that appropriate change in investment culture and belief in the future, and the capacity to generate wealth, then we have the flow-on effects because we then have genuine population growth and genuine cultural change in the Northern Territory. But, sadly, we move on. It does not finish there.
This Labor government is further censured for its lack of control over departmental expenditure targets. The only reason you have gotten away with this is the largesse of the GST revenue. If there was not that degree of fat within the system, you would not have survived. There is no light comment made when what is revealed in these papers, these staggering figures, where 29 departments, agencies and GBDs are recorded, only two came in under their budget allocation last May, where Employment, Education and Training was $10m over. I can remember the sharp intake of breath and the feigned shock and horror when you wheeled out this deception on the Northern Territory community with regards to the track record of the CLP government. So $10m over in Employment, Education and Training, Community Development has blown their budget by $20m, the Chief Minister overspends her budget by 23%, and then we find Health and Community Services, with two ministers at the helm, exceed their 2003-04 budget by more than $50m and we have no explanation.
Perhaps they are completely bewildered and are just charging on with money flying out of the sky. You do not really feel you have to do much about this. The buck is going to stop. If you think about this, you could get away with it in a sense because the money is actually flowing. We are going to look back on this time and see a time of wasted opportunity. You have failed to put in place adequate controls to manage and to show that you are good stewards of the largesse we have received. But there will come a time, Treasurer, when this GST revenue will plateau. It will not continue going up, it will plateau. You have developed this economy, this fiscal strategy, that is so accustomed to a slack hand, poor accountability and dishonest reporting that you have a system with little discipline in it, provides little scrutiny by opposition because of the way you have structured your estimates process, little accountability and transparency in your budget papers, huge quantums of spin, and you are going to find, as the GST revenue plateaus out, a beast that is very difficult to manage.
You have organisations that are accustomed to blowing it out by $50m. They could run the argument: ‘We need it. Hey, we need it’. ‘Do not worry, we will find it from somewhere. We have this GST revenue; we can plug that hole up with GST revenue. Let’s move on. Gee, this GST revenue is darn good stuff. I hope it continues. Manna from heaven’. It will not continue at that rate.
I am sure we are going to look back from historical point of view and see the time of self-government, when money flowed into the Northern Territory from Canberra to build infrastructure and to grow the Territory. That was a time that you could see the money that flowed in producing real results, producing real infrastructure, causing the Territory to grow and orient itself confidently into the future. We can point to all the things that resulted from that inflow, but we are going to be hard pressed to point to what the government has produced.
This is equivalent to the inflow of revenue from Canberra at self-government. Under the watch of the Martin Labor government, it has been squandered. You cannot point to what it has produced in real terms. What it has produced is blown budgets and organisations accustomed to largesse, sloppy handling, poor accountability, and dishonesty.
Your infrastructure spending has not resulted in real growth. It has not been applied on the ground to the magnitude required. If you’re going to grow the economy, you think about those contractors, those dads, for example, who have decided to go out and use their skills to supply their family with a future. They might be a chippie, an electrician, a painter or a landscape gardener.
You only need to ask the question and honestly listen to the answer to find out if those small contractors have – I will recount a story. I had a fellow speak to me, and his operation is to install sound systems in vehicles, and consistently, he was seeing blokes with older utes turn up and have them decked out with a state-of-the-art sound system. It was an unusual trend that extended over a period of time. Being a good, local business operator, as any business operator, particularly in hard times, he wants to analyse his retail trends. He assesses this trend and poses an interesting question. Usually, you have a bloke who buys a flash new vehicle and wants to put in the flashest new sound system. Here we have blokes turning up with clapped out old utes and putting the flashest sound system in them, one after the other. He decided to investigate and found the trend was young contractors who believed they couldn’t make a go in the Northern Territory. All they could do was to deck out their utes with a good sound system and drive to Queensland and seek work there. That is what occurred.
The real spend on real infrastructure that affects the real grass roots has not been applied. You can get in here with your spin and your rhetoric and talk about huge - I think ‘mammoth’ was the word you used - but when you blow the chaff away and talk about the actual inflation rate applied to the real growth, there is very little there. In many cases, it is applied inappropriately in a way that does not stimulate the grass roots; it doesn’t get down to the ground.
I have been recently asked the question: why is this? Is the money there? Well, yes, the money is there, we believe. Why isn’t it getting out? Incompetence has to be one of the reasons; it cannot get through the system. This Labor government has put so many processes in place - one of their great achievements - that the process has become bogged down and the bureaucracy is running into itself and trying to process applications that it is simply not getting out of the system in time. That is like having a kitchen where you are cooking the food and spend so much time on what’s going on in the kitchen that you do not get it out onto the table and you have people dying of starvation, but you have a darn good kitchen. You have lots of food in there, but it is not getting out; you’re not getting it out there. Territory businesses are suffering as a result.
Furthermore, Acting Chief Minister, you have failed, as your government has failed, to halt the decline of population. You have failed to halt this decline, as you have failed to halt increasing business closures. Territorians are a hardy breed. Territorians who made the decision to become Territorians – I am not speaking of those who were born in this great place - those who, at some time in the past, made that decision, wherever they lived, and decided that the Territory was their place. Many of us reflect on that time when we made that decision. What attracted us from every state and territory to come to the Northern Territory was because it was a place of development, a place of growth, a place with a future, a place where I could play a part in development and growth. That was a time when many people from right across the country chose the Territory, and right across the country, the Northern Territory had a profile as a place of activity, a place of vision with the ability to be flexible and go places. Not bogged down. Not tied up in process. Not introverted, uncertain and concerned about its future.
That uncertainty, that diminishing of self-confidence, has occurred under the Martin Labor government, with the inability to actually create any sense that you can achieve forward movement. Walking around with hard hats in front of projects that someone else did the hard yards on does not do it. This air of desperation to get yourselves one big project: ‘Let’s fast track it. Do whatever it takes’, is the Labor mantra. ‘Let’s get ourselves a major project so we can legitimately wear hard hats and stand in front of a major project of our own creation. Then: mission accomplished. We are just like the CLP’. You look around and the place is in ruins. You go to Queensland and there are Territorians everywhere.
The Territory has changed under your watch, and the way in which you have managed the economy for Territory businesses and for Territory families, and for those that once had a belief in the Northern Territory, it has now been shaken by the way in which you have managed the Northern Territory economy. The Martin Labor government and, on this occasion, the Acting Chief Minister and this government deserve to be soundly censured by every fair-minded Territorian who has still, to this day, confidence in the future of the Northern Territory, who believe that the GST revenue and the largesse that has flowed from Canberra should be used just as it was used in the days of self-government, to build the Territory and allow it to develop so that we can have a future for our children and we can stand once again proud of the Northern Territory and believe we can do it, believe we can go places, believe we can create those links into our region and take advantage of our strategic location and our magnificent tourism icons and create a magnificent future of which the nation is proud.
Mr STIRLING (Acting Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I do not know what you say about a censure motion like this. There is some improvement from previous censure motions in at least ...
Mr Henderson: It went a bit longer.
Mr STIRLING: Yes, they did go a bit longer today than perhaps they have in the past, but at least they bothered to put down a few points and tried to centre a little bit of focus around what they were censuring the Acting Chief Minister for. In the end, it all amounts to little than hot air.
The Leader of the Opposition starts to show up as the hollow man of Territory politics. We saw this very much in his speech, in the contrivance and the ham acting, and I talked about how I awarded him about 9.8 for the arm movement and the acting. That is not bad, but when you get down to the facts and any substance in it, gee, it is pretty hard to dig out any substance at all.
The day after this government delivered a budget, which the Chamber of Commerce - and they are pretty hard to please, the Chamber of Commerce, when it comes to budgets, let me make that clear, even under our predecessors. - comes out and says 8.5 out of 10, the Leader of the Opposition jumps up and censures us. I do not know where the sense in that falls, but the Chamber of Commerce are, as I said, a pretty hard organisation to please, and 8.5 out of 10, and backslaps and comments like ‘This is like Christmas’ and ‘I’m blown away’ and we are censured for it. And this is less than three hours after the Leader of the Opposition himself delivered a budget response, where just four of his promises in that contribution adds up to $100m ripped out of the bottom line. He then launched into a censure motion accusing me of poor management of the budget.
It is a joke but, in the interests of free debate, we would never want to be seen to shut the opposition down, and I commend my colleague, the Leader of Government Business for taking it on.
I gave him 9.5 for acting his way through this morning but, as I said, when it came to credibility and to substance in what he was putting before us, that did not quite shake the Richter scale. It failed to register. It was good theatre, but the lack of substance was somewhat disturbing.
The budget we handed down yesterday means less tax, more jobs, and a great lifestyle for Territorians. We already have a great lifestyle, and we will add to it. We delivered a budget with record tax cuts, record infrastructure, record budgets for health, education, training, and police, and designed to boost and enhance what is already a great Territory lifestyle. Despite all of this, the government can still pull together a bottom line that remains substantially better than anything produced by our predecessors, and that is a pretty good result.
Let us go to this line of failure around fiscal strategy. What sort of a fiscal strategy did you blokes adopt when you told Territorians in 2001 that you were headed for a budget deficit of $12m. Within weeks of that August election, we had the Under Treasurer in to talk to Cabinet who said that the budget position was unsustainable. ‘How can that be, Mr Under Treasurer? A $12m deficit ought to be sustainable over the year ahead’. He said: ‘Chronic under-funding for agencies, for a start. It already is on track for a deficit of about $126m. It is unsustainable over the year. It is an unsustainable budget, and you really have to act on it’. Therefore, we had an unsustainable budget on top of unsustainable deficits, adding to debt like there was no tomorrow. $1700m of it, still sitting out there for future generations of Territorians to pay off, with very little cash inside that, despite the fact that there was massive deficits - very little cash against the capital works project, as I said this morning.
It was a position that we had to put considerable fiscal discipline in, in order to get away from those unsustainable deficits, and be in a position to address current and future needs. Even then, as tough as it was, we began to wind down the size of the deficit, we still pump primed capital works in order to try and get a construction industry, that had disappeared, that had fallen on its knees and withered away, simply collapsed out of the mismanagement of the Country Liberal Party government over its last couple of years in office.
We deliberately set about staging those deficits down from the $126m we inherited in August 2001, to produce a balance budget in this next financial year, in 2004-05. At the same time this year, of course, producing the budget, as I said, that reduces tax, boosts tourism and jobs, and produces another $441m cash into capital works, minor works, and repairs and maintenance. I am not sure what the Leader of the Opposition is trying to say when he claims we do not have a consistent or appropriate fiscal strategy. The only change made to the fiscal strategy adopted with working through this situation in late November 2001, when we produced the November 2001 mini-budget, and working with Professor Percy Allan at the time, when he said: ‘You have to have a strategy to pull yourselves out of this, it is unsustainable. You cannot continue to produce deficits of that size’. We did, and we have continued to reduce deficits, year in and year out, and we will return a balanced budget in 2004-05.
A week to go, with the preparation of the 2004-05 budget, we were not going to be in balance. It was going to be a deficit budget for 2004-05, based on the fact that we had lost that $48m back in March on the relativities over the Grants Commission. However, on federal budget night with the $28m estimated GST, that will bring 2004-05 into balance; there will be a modest deficit around $16m for 2005-06, not $126m or anything of that nature, a modest deficit of around $16m and there is a couple of reasons for that. The first is that the $48m is carved out, not replaced by the addition of $28m, and secondly, the long-standing commitments and promises made by this government, which are all being ticked off and recorded, and of course the major one we made in those early days before we even game to government, we said we would recruit and put in place an extra 100 teachers. Did the opposition think that comes for free? You start off with 20, it is a bit of an addition to the bottom line, goes on the recurrent baseline budget for Employment, Education and Training, then it is 40, then it is 60, then it is 80. Well look, in 2005-06 with the full 100. In fact this year the full 100 will be in place and of course that takes up, that broadens the baseline spending for that agency.
Madam Speaker, the 75 extra nurses will be in place by that time. A large number of the 150 extra police coming out of the O’Sullivan Report will be in place. It goes all the way through to 2007-08 before they are fully in place, but 2005-06 represents the bottom line in the size of the deficit and it is just $16m and we will continue to work our way over the next couple of years with a quite modest, quite small deficits, because the 2005-06 represents the peak of those forward years …
Mr Dunham: What makes you assume you are going to be there in a couple of years?
Mr STIRLING: Oh, Madam Speaker! The born to rule does get up your nose, I have to admit it. Born to rule!
Mr Dunham: Yes, you just said it yourself. You said it yourself. You are making assumptions two years in advance.
Mr STIRLING: Born to rule! Well, you were not born to rule, because if you were born to rule you would be standing on this side of the Chamber.
Mr Dunham: Well, mate, what makes you think you should make budget statements for two years hence.
Mr STIRLING: Why don’t you button it and listen! Show some manners!
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, you have had enough interjections.
Mr STIRLING: Madam Speaker, after 2005-06, those large ticket items that come into the baseline of those individual agencies will stabilise., the budget will balance out after a couple of modest deficits. All it means, as far as deserting the deficit reduction strategy, is that we have slipped a time line some two or three years. And the need of course, the need to fix as I said, the eroding services left by our predecessors, most particularly around police.
Madam Speaker, expenditure targets, and the opposition attack on them, does reveal a serious lack of understanding of how government operates year to year. It is something that the member for Brennan would have a much better feel for than the current Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition seems to have a view that you put the budget down on 18 May 2004 and that is it. Well, why do you have ministers if that is it? You walk away, you do not make another decision until budget time next year. Well, why do you need government? Why would you have ministers if you are going to sit there and not make a decision until the next budget round? The fact is, in an ideal world - Treasury have a bit of a view like this themselves. They say, Oh that is it treasury, that is the budget. We can not go spending any more money’. Well, in an ideal world, that is the way it would be. You would say: ‘That is what we are going to spend for this year. Do not come back here to the Cabinet room’. Why do you have Treasurer’s Advance? Why did your government have Treasurer’s Advance if you did not expect there to be unforseen expenditure between budget periods?
It is just unrealistic, stupid and naive to think that governments, ministers and Cabinet does not make decisions between budgets which affect the bottom line. It is not an ideal world. People have real needs in real life; real needs that occur at the most inopportune times, and happen to occur outside of budget preparation time and say: ‘Well, we have done the budget, sorry. We can not fix that problem because we have done the budget’. In real life, real needs arise at any time through the year, maybe as late as September, October, November, Wet season, floods and the need to evacuate people and get people around. All these needs result in expenditure to the bottom line, so it is a pretty naive view of the world to say that that does not occur.
If I go just quickly through some of those expenditures in 2003-04, the Economy and Business general heading of $8.9m; Investing in Territory Tourism, $7.5m. That was made quite late in the year, that commitment. It did not come around budget time. It was a recognition. There are two things: one, we would like to have done it earlier, given the state of the tourism industry and the external factors from September 2001 beyond our control, but we had to rebuild the capacity of government to respond to needs across the Northern Territory because of the basket case, as I said, that we inherited from our predecessors ...
Mr Dunham: Tourism was a basket case? Tourism was a basket case?
Mr STIRLING: The economic situation that we inherited from you blokes, and the deceit …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale!
Mr STIRLING: I would shut up if I were you because you were the one who lied about your Health budget in 2001 ....
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker.
Mr STIRLING: …and if you did not, you were complicit in it.
Mr DUNHAM: While in a censure motion we can say that you lied, you cannot say that I lied.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale! Member for Drysdale, it is time you settled down. You have been consistently niggling away there. Just give it a rest for a while.
Mr DUNHAM: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker, will you ask him to withdraw the fact that he screamed that I lied?
Madam SPEAKER: It is a censure motion, isn’t it?
Mr DUNHAM: Yes, on him, Madam Speaker. It is pretty clear.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, it is. All right, Treasurer, withdraw.
Mr STIRLING: I will withdraw, Madam Speaker, I will say I withdraw …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, desist for a while. You are becoming a very irritating monotone over there.
Mr STIRLING: There was a great deal of deceit around the Health budget which went on to be subject to a Public Accounts Committee inquiry.
Dr Lim interjecting.
Mr STIRLING: The member for Greatorex has form in there, too, because he asked the telling question, which I would have been tempted to ask myself. The basket case was the economic situation that we inherited from the CLP in August 2001.
So there is $7.5m to put into Territory tourism to boost marketing, followed by $10m in this budget, $10m the year after that, $27.5m over three years. There is one decision that was made outside of budget.
Indigenous Economic Development, $0.4m, was there; Indigenous Art Strategy was there with $1m; Jobs and Training, $6m global figure; Charles Darwin University at the Alice Springs campus, $3m; the Jobs Plan $800 000; the Remote Work Force Development Strategy for the public sector, $1m ongoing; the Territory Research Fund, $1m; Community Safety - and this is the O’Sullivan Review. I am not sure if the Leader of the Opposition suggests: ‘We know you do not have enough police and we are going to get stuck into you over the Estimates Committee about not having enough police, but really you should wait until the next budget before you do anything about it because you will send the figures awry’.
We did not wait for the next budget. O’Sullivan did his work, he reported to Cabinet, Cabinet ticked off the recommendations, a massive expenditure over the next few years and in 2003-04, $9.8m to kick off in a robust fashion the additional recruitment required and it is going very well, according to my colleague, the minister for police.
The Northern Territory Fire Service - now there is a doozey; there is one that had simmered along for a long time, both under the previous government and under this government as well, but when we did get to it, someone has to pay for the report, the assessment and the work that was done there - $800 000. Surely, the Leader of the Opposition does not suggest we should have waited until the next budgetary cycle. I do not think so.
The Pool Grants Scheme, $1.4m; schools, $5.7m; Information Technology infrastructure including additional bandwidth, $2.3m. It is an ongoing cost and an escalating cost within our school system, but a cost that we have to continue to meet because the better these students get at using the IT infrastructure, the more time they stay up there, the more they want to access off the web, the more information they want to drop, the more bandwidth they use, the more schools that get more proficient at it, up goes the bandwidth requirement all the time. It is an issue for all states and something that the Commonwealth is going to have to come to the party with and help, but there was an extra $2.3m in there and an extra additional boost this financial year in the budget, laptops for teachers, coming out of the past EBA there was a commitment to look at it in terms of salary sacrifice. Teachers decided they did not want salary sacrifice. They wanted the department to do it under a lease arrangement, so the department went forward with that; $0.5m in 2003-04, the major expenditure, $5m over four years. But, again, a commitment made at the previous EBA. You have to be able to respond and act with those sorts of things.
Inclusion support assistance for students with special needs in schools. An ongoing need. A further $300 000 went in to satisfy the growing need there. Furniture for remote teachers, something that had not been touched for a long time. We boosted that by $1m last February, and we also put in equipment for schools for another $1m. This all continues to add up. Non-government schools - $600 000.
If we go to Health, there is a range of matters, and I would think all of them would be referred to in Budget Paper 3, but $21.5m is the increase, and the estimated outcome for health reflects the technical accounting change introduced concerning corporate support costs. And the Leader of the Opposition will find that. In fact, he made that comment this morning that the budget papers do not offer any explanation. I refer him to the budget itself, because it does have pages of information on variations, all listed against that agency, of what occurred during the year. The additional funding allocation, $2.1m, made during 2003-04 for Children’s Services and Mental Health, and that was an area, particularly Children’s Services, of growing concern and that is an ongoing boost to the budget over the next few years, with much needed extra resourcing going in to that area of health.
Last year’s budget also formulated in the knowledge that the nurses and doctors EBA negotiations were still to be included. Now, here is a doozey, because the Leader of the Opposition suggests, whilst we put forward perhaps 3% in the forward estimates for enterprise bargaining agreement negotiations, does he suggest that, ‘Oh well, you cannot pay, you cannot satisfy the negotiations with any more than 3% because you blow your budget, because you push the budget out of line.’ Well that would be a nonsense, because what if you were in a situation where wages growth is such that 3% is not going to meet the mark. You say, ‘Well, sorry you are going to throw our budget out. The budget we put in on 18 May 2004 will be a different outcome if you force us to pay you any more than 3%, therefore we are not going to pay you any more than 3%’ and they go on strike. Hospitals start closing, your schools close, all because the Leader of the Opposition demands that the budget expenditure that we put down on 18 May 2004 has to be reflected to the very cent at the end of the financial year and when the finals come through in November 2005. Well, that is just a joke, and it just shows a naivety about outcomes in a budget sense. We do not know, for example, what the outcome for the Northern Territory public sector will be, or for police. There is another group out there, of course, teachers themselves. We do not know what those outcomes will be, but you put 3% in the forward estimates, knowing that it is possibly going to be more than that.
As a result, in the case of Health and Community Services, the doctors and nurses EBA negotiations, 3% wages growth was included in the original budget estimates, and that is a fine thing to do. Government is not going to say, ‘Well, we are going to put 5.6% down for the EBA’. If you wanted to give anything away, that would be a way to do it so that unions could say, ‘Oh they are going to give us 5.6%, so let’s start at 8%’. Well, if you at least start at 3%, you have 3% in there year in and year out, then there is no giving away of that. As it was, the result of the outcome of the negotiations, $8.3m is included there to reflect the costs over and above the initial 3% included in the original budget. So they are an example of the sorts of things that came forward in 2003-04, the Palmerston Magpies relocation - $2m; the Katherine Sports Ground lighting - $0.5m; the Traeger Park grandstand - $700 000; the AFL match support - $0.3m; Northern Territory Soccer administration - $600 000; litter abatement strategy - $300 000; public transport services - $1.1m; parks agenda - $0.5m; regional initiatives, Regional Coordinator on Groote Eylandt – $0.07m this financial year; priority partnerships - $0.1m. There are a number of matters that come before government and ministers and find their way to Cabinet in between budget times. Every time there is a decision of that nature made, it is going to affect the final outcome.
I can recall, prior to being elected, every year - and not long into the financial year - I would hear stories about how the education budget had blown out again. Of course, we well know the story with health budgets under our predecessors. If they blow out with us, it is because we have made conscious decisions to increase the expenditure during the financial year, not because they were chronically under-funded in the first place, which was the case under our predecessors. They did not have the money to properly base the budget, that is why education and health …
Members interjecting.
Mr STIRLING: That is why you got into deceit …
Mr Baldwin: That is our point: we cannot believe your budget.
Mr STIRLING: You never fronted up about that; you have never ‘fessed up about that. However, you must have been pretty close to it because your CEO was right onto it. You would have to guess and assume if the CEO was right onto it, the minister was in the know. However, he has never ‘fessed up in here, and we well know what the Treasurer did because of the document - the infamous document. ‘For presentation purposes only’, I think was the wording. We do not put our budgets for presentation purposes only; we put out the bottom line.
As I said, all of those budgets are carefully monitored and increased only because of the need to provide greater expenditure on services; for example, child protection and health, which I just went through.
In stimulating growth through focussed and real infrastructure - $1.3bn into infrastructure since we came to government. You cannot be serious on this point. As I said, we inherited a capital works budget where the revote was higher than the cash allocated in that financial year. The minor new works budget ran out of cash in November. Do you remember that? ‘We do not have any money’. ‘What do you mean, you do not have any money left? What did they leave you with?’ The minor new works budget ran out of cash in November of our first year of government. Goodness me, not much wonder we had to go to a mini-budget. A contract was let without any cash to pay for it. There were some doozies!
Not only have we increased the government’s infrastructure spend, we cash it: $439m-odd in 2002, $434m in 2003, $441m in 2004. They are significant increases. We have also reduced the revote. We have maintained that high level program. Contracts announced come to fruition quicker than before, and that is not surprising when you had a revote that was bigger than the amount of cash that you are prepared to put against the program.
Regarding population growth, we have heard a fair bit about population. It was positive for the past two quarters - not as strong as we would like, obviously - predicted to be 0.3%. Again, a conservative estimate from Treasury in 2003-04; with 0.3% again estimated for 2004-05, but at least positive. The only time our predecessors were positive regarding population growth was with the relocation of 2nd Cavalry and the massive Defence infrastructure build-up during the 1990s. Nett interstate migration has been negative, and it has been negative since the late 1980s, except for that time when the military was transferring many families to Darwin around 1997-98. Of course, we had that huge construction boost. Therefore, population growth is generally sustained by natural increase.
At the moment, the number of departures is stable. It is too high - we acknowledge that - but it is roughly what it has been for a while. However, the number of arrivals is slow. If conditions are good around Australia and wages are better elsewhere than in the Northern Territory, they are not going to rush here. However, those major projects, the tourism boost as I said, they are getting the economy really moving, and they will bring people back. Booming conditions interstate will keep people where they are, there is no doubt about that, particularly in the construction industry and of course the recession. I do not know whether it was the recession that we had to have under the CLP, but it was a recession we certainly had where our growth plummeted, construction industry was on its knees, and no money anywhere in the economy. Honey, I shrunk the economy. We went through that yesterday.
The major projects are back, the government spending on infrastructure is at record highs. The economy is picking up, 8.5 out of ten from the Chamber of Commerce. I am pretty touched with that; I do like that figure. The population will pick up, we are conservative. We put it at remaining roughly around the current levels of growth. It could be higher but we are serious about addressing the issue substantially. We are training our own, we are making sure the skills that we have here are here for the long run, and we want to minimise that boom and bust cycle of big boost in population numbers and then they go away again.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, less tax, as I said, more jobs, great lifestyle. You cannot get away from the fact that it is record tax cuts to payroll tax, the economic growth that that will cause, the HIH levy is gone, the debits tax will be gone from 1 July 2005. I would have to say I am really not taken with this censure motion at all. It is an improvement on past efforts but really, you do need to get some substance around these issues.
Mr BURKE (Brennan): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I guess if one could do a synopsis of the Treasurer’s comments, it would be something like this: there is the budget, and if the budget figures blow out that is because we do other things, so do not worry about the figures that are in the budget. The difference between us and you is that if our budgets blow out, that is because we are doing more. If your budgets blow out, that is because it is chronic underfunding. Well, that logic does not work because budget papers are supposed to be budget papers that people can have some confidence in.
The same confidence that you expected of the budget papers in the past, Mr Treasurer, is the same confidence that we expect now. The fact that you cannot deliver that confidence to Territorians either through these budget papers or generally, is the reason this censure motion is here today.
It is interesting. The Treasurer is good at recalling all the things that have happened in this parliament in the past. I cannot recall in this parliament when the Chief Minister did not have the courtesy to be in this Chamber on the day the Leader of the Opposition delivered the budget reply. In fact, you can call the CLP all the names you like, Treasurer, but I can tell you what: the CLP was briefed that at the time the Leader of the Opposition, your opposition, responded to the budget, we would have all been in the Chamber and we would have had the courtesy to keep our mouths shut whilst that speech was given.
Not only can you not deliver those basic courtesies, you cannot even have the common courtesy to have the Chief Minister sitting in this Chamber because she has pressing business elsewhere. Pressing business, I might add, that others in this Chamber were invited to attend, others in this Chamber including myself, who were offered a charter flight by ConocoPhillips to attend the same ceremony, and because we had our priorities right. And our priorities are that you sit in this Chamber and you recognise that these are the issues that are most pressing to Territorians. If you want to send a deputy somewhere, you send someone of less significance, and the Chief Minister has an obligation and a responsibility to be in this Chamber and listen to the Leader of the Opposition’s reply.
She may not have any respect for the Leader of the Opposition. I expect that from that woman. But no one member of the Labor Party can surely expect that because you get an endorsement from a luncheon from the Chamber of Commerce, that all Territorians are happy with your budget. Surely the Westminster system of debate demands that the Opposition brings forward concerns and issues with the budget that are being represented on behalf of Territorians. You seem to have lost that message completely. That is why the Chief Minister has an obligation and a responsibility to be standing in this Chamber to hear what the Leader of the Opposition says. The fact that the Acting Chief Minister has to deliver the reply today only compounds that arrogance and that discourtesy.
I sometimes wonder. I watched the Treasurer yesterday get ready for his budget speech, and he put his coat on. There must be someone around the place who says: ‘If you want to look like a Treasurer, wear a suit’. I don’t where that came from. I know that we had previous ministers in this House who used to wear a suit, but somehow it is catching on. If I wear a suit, I look somehow more authoritative in the way I present my budget speech. The Treasurer neither looked authoritative, nor was he convincing in his budget speech. The gloss is all there, and we accept the gloss, but the reality is if you dig down in this budget, it is a continuation of a fraud that has been visited on Territorians.
Who reckons Wicking has a reasonable hold on what Territorians think? Do you reckon Wicking would last five minutes as a cartoonist, if his cartoons bore no relationship to what Territorians thought? Wicking’s cartoon on budget day had a removalist van there, ready to pick up this guy’s belongings, and he is on the phone saying: ‘Hold the removalists van because he’s on standby until I hear the budget’.
That is only a cartoon, but that is what Territorians are thinking. That is why a cartoonist puts that scenario. If you sit here and say, arrogantly, that Territorians are happy, the place is booming, people aren’t leaving, business is expanding - go on and keep doing that; keep believing your own rhetoric. This bloke, Wicking has it right on the mark, and that is what he was saying to Territorians, and that’s what Territorians are saying through him to this government.
You have, in the three years you have been in government, had an opportunity, and you have squandered it. Now, if we were in an economic environment that you claim you were presented with, an economic environment that had you meet all the expanding needs of Territorians with an estimated budgetary situation that was little change from the CLP and you had produced some economic growth and stimulus to the Northern Territory, well, okay, we might give you some credits for it.
But you get this cartoon from Wicking after everything that’s been done, through GST, to stimulate the Northern Territory economy, provided by the Commonwealth through the GST, and all Territorians needed was a government that was capable of delivering. That is all they asked for. I often talk to Territorians and they say: ‘I sometimes wonder why you fight in the Chamber. Why don’t you all work together to promote, enhance and develop the Northern Territory. You spend too much time fighting’. That is what they would like. They don’t understand politics and all this adversarial argument. They want the Territory to be advanced, and if the Territory was advancing at the rate the Territorians expect and you were making your best effort, you wouldn’t have a censure motion.
You have a censure motion because you have been given the resources and you have squandered them. That is the situation you are in. You did it through your own political trickery. You have visited a fraud on Territorians. You did from the day you were elected. You got away with that fraud for about a year, where people kept saying: ‘We have a black hole so maybe the government can’t spend as much as they’d like’.
Territorians have woken up and you have just started realise that you have to get out there and stimulate the economy yourself. There is no absolutely no reason why you cannot because the money that is coming through from the GST is such largesse that anyone - Mr Clerk, anyone around here, get one of the assistant clerks, put a suit on him and stand him up there with a budget speech! A drover’s dog could stimulate this economy with the amount of money that is coming through from GST and you, Labor government, are barely bumping along the bottom. Yet you come in here somehow claiming success.
Let us get it into context: when the CLP government lost power in the Northern Territory, the Commonwealth contribution in untied grants to the Northern Territory government was about $1.29bn. This government went to Territorians and said: ‘We only get that amount of money and the CLP have left us with a $126m shortfall. Woe is me. We are going to put the brakes on. We are going to stifle this economy until we get the budget back into some sort of balance and if it hurts you, Territorians, too bad’.
What you did not tell them was what you wanted was to show Territorians, first, that you were good economic managers, because all of your polling for the last 20 years have shown you - Labor party - that Territorians think you are a rock show when it comes to managing the economy. So the first priority was, let us try and show Territorians that we can actually manage the piggy bank. The way we will do it is, we will try and show that the CLP were so bad, we have inherited such a terrible situation that, first of all, we cannot spend, but we will somehow get it right. And it backfired. It backfired big time. You put your rego tax on, you thought that would really reinforce the terrible situation you had. And Territorians barked and barked big time. What they wanted was that impost taken off, because they knew it was not warranted. You threw a HIH levy on business and that did not work either. And it is only now that you are starting to realise how wrong that was.
But let us get into perspective. The CLP government, with a growing economy over 27 years, when we left government, in August 2001, the Commonwealth contribution to the Northern Territory’s new Labor government was, in untied grants, $1.29bn. Now this government claims they inherited a $126m shortfall and therefore, woe is me, they could not do anything and they put the brakes on the economy.
The real situation shown out in the budget papers is this. In the first year of the Labor government, they received $212m extra from the Commonwealth government. $212m extra for the first year of their government. Now, that should have been a warning bell for anyone to say, let us start spending and let us get the brakes off, because if we do not, things are not going to work. But they did not. They continued with the situation. The next year, the 2003-04 year, this government received, on top of the $212m, another $88m from the Commonwealth. Next year, 2004-05, they received an extra $20m on top of that, and for 2005-06, they are projected to get $140m extra from the Commonwealth. For 2005-06 and 2006-07, another $69m. If you add up the amount of money over this term in government that the Labor government will receive from the Commonwealth, on top of what they have received, in the past the CLP government has received in the past, the amount of resources – which is dough – that you have to stimulate, manage, promote and advance this economy, is another $1.292bn. Now let us just get that in perspective, because that is what Territorians need to get into perspective. Over the term of this government, you will have received double the untied grants that the CLP government received in its last year of government.
It is in that context that the CLP have put this censure motion today. That, with that amount of money coming in extra from the Commonwealth, given the fact that you have not built one school, I mean, you can talk about how the economy is improving and the population numbers are wrong, but the reality is, you have not built one school.
Mr Henderson: We fixed up a lot of schools.
Mr BURKE: Not one school.
Mr Henderson: We fixed a lot that had not had any money spent on for years.
Mr BURKE: Not one school. There were years the CLP was not only building a school per year, sometimes we were building more than two. At least one per year. You can have all the sheets of paper you like, but you have not built one school.
They have doubled the budget from the Commonwealth. In less than five years, they will receive as much again, on top of what the CLP government received in total in its last year of government, and they cannot even build one school. And they wonder why Territorians are saying to themselves, this mob cannot manage the economy. And you wonder why this censure motion is in here today. You have a fiscal strategy that has been blown out, and the question that I asked today was an important question, because the fiscal strategy, stated by the Under Treasurer, is what underpins confidence in the Territory government’s ability to manage its own economy. You can give all the reasons why you depart from your fiscal strategy. What you have to admit, is that it was wrong from the start. The CLP told you it was the wrong fiscal strategy from the start. We told you it would hurt business. We told you it would stop economic growth, and you went blindly ahead and did it for political reasons trying to score points. It is only now you have said: ‘We have to change tack and change tack fast’. That is why the fiscal strategy now says: ‘We are going to boost additional support and stimulate the economic sector’. That is why it says it. However, the bottom line is you have dropped your own fiscal strategy. If that is not an admission that you are wrong from the outset, well, nothing is.
Therefore, this government tried to tell Territorians they were good economic managers and, in less than three years, they have dumped their fiscal strategy. That is why you cannot manage the economy, and that is why you will never manage the economy. That is why the polling was right and why, at the end of the day, if you take away all the public servants advisors you have, you still cannot manage a chook raffle. Territorians should not have any faith in this government.
Controlled departmental expenditures targets: the Treasurer talked about how all of this spending is well and good, and that these are the normal spending that occurs. Of course, even though they have put estimates and projected expenditures and said in the past that they will sack CEOs if they do not stick to them, and they have their estimates for the end of that financial year in the budget and that is how they do all their projections, if we depart from all of that – ‘Do not worry about it, we have other compelling reasons for doing them all’ – it just does not work. You just cannot swallow that sort of stuff; it does not work. I will point to one. Let us look at the Health budget. The Health budget is a classic, because in this current financial year, it has gone from the 2003-04 estimate of $611.694m up $24m in the 2004-05 budget. I suppose you could say $24m in the budget over the next year, if they are doing all increased works - well okay, we will allow them that. They obviously have more money from the GST, so they need more money to spend on health initiatives. However, if you look at the budget the year before - the 2003-04 budget for health - what do you see? You see that the budget that was given to health in 2003-04 was $546.8m. That was the estimate for 2002-03 which was what their outcome was expected for 2002-03. The outcome expected for 2002-03 was $546.8m. Do know what they came in on? Their budget then was allocated as $561.35m, which is an increase of $14m. However, the actual outcome for that budget was $611.694m based on the 2003-04 final estimates.
Therefore, in that context we see a Health budget that not only has been increased by another $24m in this budget but, in the budget for 2003-04, it blew out by $50m. The Deputy Chief Minister is trying to tell us that we should accept the fact that this is all well and good, and this is all normal spending within the Health Department. Well, no one would swallow that. This is a department that is clearly out of control. By the Treasurer’s comments in Question Time today – silent comments because he was nodding his head – he actually said: ‘We are looking at it’. That is what is happening; because Treasury is continuing to look at an unmanageable mess which is the Health budget.
If you go into the Health budget a little further, into employee costs, it is interesting because the estimate of employee costs for 2002-03 was $279m, and the budget was set at $289m for 2003-04 budget. Therefore, for that period from 2002-03 to 2003-04, the estimate of employee costs rising would be $10m. If you see where the actual employee costs on the estimate came in on, the revised estimate for employees for 2003-04 is $307m. A budget estimate for 2002-03 final outcome of $279m has now been increased to $307m for 2003-04. That is an indication of how much that particular Health budget has gone out, and it has been increased again by another $15m.
I would like to know, and I am going to find out in estimates too, what proportion of those employee costs are in the executive areas, because those used to be in the departments in the past. How many high price public servants have been imported from interstate in the Health department that are being paid massive amounts of money in the executive salary area that has caused the Health department’s employee costs alone to go through the roof? It is one example, an absolute indictment, of the budget that the Health budget can blow out in one year of not only $50m but if you compare it to the year before it has blown out by many tens of millions on top of that. So that is on the path; it is absolutely out of control.
In infrastructure spending, focus on the real infrastructure spending is not being adhered to. We have said that in the motion; there have been examples given. A classic example is to look at the revotes that are going on in this particular budget. First of all, if you look in the infrastructure program budget, the budget as I said has only been increased by $3m and that does not keep pace with GST. If we look at the revotes, the revotes are classics. The Department of Employment, Education and Training, the revotes from 2003-04 to 2004-05 is a revote that was new works in 2002-03. So, that is why you are not building any schools, that is why you are not doing anything. Palmerston High School, as I have mentioned before, has appeared in the budget paper now three times, it has certainly been announced by the government at least five times and it has not had one stone turned. It is a revote in the 2004-05 budget, a line item that appeared in the 2002-03 budget.
Kalkarindji Community Education Centre - check your previous budget books, a revote from the 2002-03 budget. So we are now on our third year and have not turned a rock.
Ms CARTER: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent an extension of time being granted to the member for Brennan to complete his speech.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 10 Noes 12
Mr Baldwin Mrs Aagaard
Mr Burke Mr Ah Kit
Ms Carney Mr Bonson
Ms Carter Dr Burns
Mr Dunham Mr Henderson
Mr Elferink Mr Kiely
Dr Lim Ms Lawrie
Mr Maley Mr McAdam
Mrs Miller Ms Scrymgour
Mr Mills Mr Stirling
Dr Toyne
Mr Vatskalis
Motion negatived
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move an extension of time such that my colleague, the member for Brennan, may conclude his remarks, pursuant to Standing Order 77. It is a different motion.
Motion negatived.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, obviously the government sorry will be voting against this motion. It really is a very thin motion presented today on a budget that has been broadly applauded by the people across a large section of the business community here in the Northern Territory and, really, this has just been brought in today as a bit of a filler given that there is nothing on the Notice Paper of any substance during General Business Day. We have the dog and cat fur bill and random drug testing, but they had to put something of substance on this General Business Day and it is in the guise of this motion here today.
As Minister for Business and Industry in this government since we came to government, I am quite prepared to stand here and say, yes, it has been tough. It has been a very tough economic circumstance in the Northern Territory for a number of years now. Obviously, when you are in government, as well as taking the credits, you take the brickbats as well, as they come. And it has been a tough 2 years since we have been in government. However, let us not forget, and the member for Brennan, in his contribution, seems to have a blind spot and delusion about how tough the economy was doing at the time that the last election was held in August 2001, how tough it had been for a couple of years before that, and certainly, as politicians - and we are all in here as politicians - at the last election, we would all acknowledge that the state of the economy at that time, and the failure of the government of the day to boost economic activity, was one of the key reasons why people voted for a change of government. So, to stand in here today and say that everything was rosy under the CLP, we had people flocking to the Northern Territory, we had projects everywhere, that everything was going fine and the day it all turned sour was in August 2001 when we took the Treasury benches is a reminder of the arrogance of the former administration, and the fact that they are still in denial, that at the time that they lost government, the economy was going very tough.
Again, the member for Daly, fails to acknowledge that. He fails to acknowledge history and the status of the economy at the time when we came to government. I was just thinking, where do you go in this debate, and it is always good to go back to the electorate and to think about the people who have elected you, and you have the responsibility of representing them. I remember, in the lead up to the last election, doorknocking in Wanguri Terrace, and being invited into a home there, Greek contractors, we all know those Greek contractors, and this family was in absolute despair. The husband had not worked for a …
Mr Dunham: You been back?
Mr HENDERSON: I have been back on a number of occasions, and he is working. The last time I went round to visit, I came away with a feed of mud crabs and reef fish, so happy was he with his current employment prospects. Yes, absolutely desperate times on that family. The kids had grown up. One of them had come back to stay in the house to help mum and dad with income into the home, and poor old mum was working double shifts as a cleaner at Darwin Private Hospital trying to make ends meet. As long-standing Territorians, they had nowhere else to go. They were distraught about having to put their home on the market and sell their home. That was the pain that was in the community, and has continued to be in the community, but it is good for all of us, in spite of the rhetoric and hot air that goes around in here, the responsibility to those people who elect us, and the genuine pain that has been out there for quite a considerable number of years.
To come in here in the censure motion and basically try and put a case that the whole thing has gone wrong since August 2001 is certainly a denial of their performance, certainly in the last term of CLP administration over that 26 year period in the Northern Territory. And if they continue to deny it, it will continue to come back to haunt them. We can certainly see, through the publications, here in the budget paper, if we go to the Northern Territory Economy Overview, and go to the second page, there is a chart there that talks about the annual change to GSP since 1994-99 to the forecast 2004-05. Those numbers bounce around all over the place.
There is a very clear articulation in the comments there as to the reason for the fluctuating GSP figures over that period, and we can see in the boom years, and we are talking around 1997-99, and the earlier period during the early 1990s, all coincided with the relocation of 2nd Cavalry Regiment to the Northern Territory, and the huge boost that that gave to not only our economy, construction sector and employment, but also to population in the Northern Territory. As a result of that construction activity and those thousands of Defence Force personnel and their families who, at no making of the previous CLP government but a decision of a federal Labor government – actually Kim Beazley as Defence minister made to relocate those Defence personnel to the Northern Territory - had a huge boost on our economy. It was nothing to do with the CLP - absolutely nothing to do with the CLP, but a decision of the federal government of the day.
If we look at those comments there, and we go to 1999-2000 we had GSP of minus-1.2% in that year. We all remember that year. That was the year where there was zero economic growth in the Northern Territory. The comments are ‘downturn, loss of Defence impetus, weak construction, decline in the motor vehicle sales, and negative employment growth’, coinciding with the end of those Defence-related projects and a minus-1.2% GSP for that financial year. We then moved to 2000-01 and we had that huge 7.2% turnaround in GSP bouncing up to 6% with ‘onshore activity, headline GSP boosted by offshore oil, falling retail sales, rising unemployment, major nett interstate migration outflow’. This was at the time of August 2000, or the 2000-01 financial year leading into the Territory election. The number there was 6%. Yes, huge GSP, but that coincided with a significant oil production from the Laminaria oil field, the largest producing oil field in Australia at that time. Those statements there say it all: ‘falling retail sales, rising unemployment rate, major nett interstate migration outflow’ – under a CLP government. It was understandable at the time, as a result of many hundred, possibly thousands, of people coming to the Northern Territory to work on those Defence-related projects. Once those projects had completed, there was no activity left in the construction industry, no work to keep those people employed, high cost of living in the Northern Territory and, of course, they took off.
Therefore, to say that the population decline is all this government’s fault, again is a total denial of history in regards to the CLP at the particular time when they lost the election. We then see those numbers there. We had growth in 2001-02 of 2.2%. In 2002-03, we went back to minus-0.08%. In 2003-04, it was up to 0.3% and, in 2004-05 forecasting 5.8%. We can see the comments there. However, during that period of time, we also had inherited and unsustainable budget. Whatever members opposite may wish to say, four years of deficit budgets running concurrently around $70m a year over those four years, peaking in 2000-01 of $126m deficit – if that is not unsustainable, I do not know what is. How long they would have continued with unsustainable budget deficit who knows? It was certainly wrecking this economy. Compounded on that, obviously, was 11 September, HIH, Ansett, terrorism, wars - you name it, we have had it.
However, we are moving forward now as the global economic climate is stabilising and tourism is starting to bounce back. We all understand in this House …
Ms Carney: After you ignored it for two-and-a-half years, and you were one of four ministers who laughed every time we said to you: ‘Put some money in, Paul’.
Mr HENDERSON: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, Biddy Marchant over on the other side can be rude and interject here …
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! I have no idea who Biddy Marchant is but I assume he is using it in a very vulgar and selective way.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, what is your point of order?
Mr DUNHAM: That he should withdraw the phrase ‘Biddy Marchant’ if he is using it as a label for my colleague.
Ms Carney: You are not a man who likes the truth; you never have been.
Mr HENDERSON: Unless I get a ruling, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, it is certainly not unparliamentary and the term refers to a television character in an ABC sitcom that was running. If the member for Drysdale is so out of touch with popular culture, well, I suppose that is his problem.
What we had was an unsustainable budget …
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. I assume that is a refusal to withdraw. Can you rule, please?
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I understood that the Leader of Government Business withdrew. Is that right?
Mr HENDERSON: If you instruct me to withdraw, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I shall.
Mr DUNHAM: There we go. That was easy, wasn’t it?
Mr HENDERSON: I withdraw, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker.
Moving on. We understand why the opposition is sensitive. If we look at the comments from the Leader of the Opposition, he talked about dishonest budget papers. That is a total slur on those Treasury officials who put those budget papers together and have a tough accountability regime to do so under the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act.
Certainly, if we want to go to dishonesty in the budget papers, they will never live this down, because the greatest deceit that was ever brought on to the people of the Northern Territory in regards to the budget papers were the final budget papers that were presented here in the lead up to the last Territory election. That was exposed totally during the Public Accounts Committee hearings of the day and testimony by Ken Clarke, the former Under Treasurer, to the Public Accounts Committee. I will read into Hansard, because if they are going to bring up allegations about dishonesty and budget papers I will continue to remind members opposite of their proven dishonesty in regards to the 2000-01 budget that was handed down in this Parliament eight weeks prior to that election. I will go to question from the Chairman to Mr Clarke, and he goes onto say:
If I could just sort of start of with your written submission in that you detail a conversation that you had
with the Treasurer, Mr Reed.
So this is the Under Treasurer to the Treasurer.
It occurred at the height of the budget finalisation process and basically just paraphrasing what Mr Reed
has or what you have written there in your written submission, you say that in May 2001 Mr Reed, as
Treasurer, became concerned about the lack of growth in the 2001-02 budget numbers for Health, Education
and Police. Is that correct?
Mr Clarke: Lack of growth; he was concerned about the comparison between one year and next. Yes, I guess
that is correct.
Mr Chairman: Yes, and then subsequent to that meeting and at Mr Reed’s direction, ultimately at his direction,
the estimated expenditures for 2000-01 for Health, Education and Police that were originally circulated in May
or March were reduced at his direction so that growth could be apparent.
Mr Clarke: So that growth could be apparent - I suppose that is correct, yes.
Mr Chairman: So, I guess at the bottom of it, my question is: without Mr Reed’s intervention would these budget
estimate figures gone forward into the budget papers unchanged.
Mr Clarke: Yes they would have.
So, here we have testament from the Under Treasurer of the day to the Public Accounts Committee that the Treasurer was the person who directed the figures that were to be in the Treasury papers and that he changed those figures at his direction from the figures that the Under Treasurer was to present to the parliament to show growth. To show growth in the budget. Absolute deceit to Territorians.
Then we had the genius of the member for Greatorex bouncing in trying to help:
Can I follow on from the question you just asked? Would a Treasurer always intervene on Treasury figures
on any budget in the sense that he gives direction to Treasury?
Mr Clarke: Oh no, no.
For members opposite to talk about deceit in the budget papers, well, certainly they not only have priors but they have certainly been convicted in the court of the Public Accounts Committee. If any member wants to stand up in here and say that those directions were not given, then they are calling a former Under Treasurer of this particular Treasury a liar and I would like them to go outside and make that allegation.
To talk about dishonest budget papers is a total slur on those Treasury officers because these budget papers are produced at total hands-off position from the Treasurer as opposed to under complete direction from the last Treasurer of the previous CLP administration, the former member for Katherine. The member for Drysdale, I am not going to put back on public record again, but of course his former CEO certainly banged him up in the whole dreadful process in the last system.
Territorians are not going to forget, regardless of what the shortcomings of this government may or may not be, they will think long and hard about being able to trust any CLP administration in regards to government finances. Their last budget was nothing other than a glorious fraud on the people of the Northern Territory.
The Leader of the Opposition said that the place is in ruins. I agree that some people are still doing it tough. I am the business minister, and I get out and I meet with business people all the time, I have forums - I was in Palmerston last week. About 25 people turned up, and not one of them was saying to me that they were doing tougher than last year. They all said they were doing much better than this time last year. The percentage of raised turnover from about 20% ahead of where they were last year to about 120%. I am not saying that is everyone, but everywhere I go, people are saying things are looking up.
Where the Leader of the Opposition got the quote from in Question Time yesterday, that I had somehow had some secretive briefings from someone who said 72%, I think his number was, of businesses in the Northern Territory we are technically insolvent - I would like you to produce that evidence. I have certainly had no such briefing whatsoever. Somebody had pulled the wool over the Leader of the Opposition’s eyes because if they were trading insolvent, they would be in breach of the Corporations Act, and that is a slur on Territory business. Territory businesses do not trade whilst they are insolvent, and it is a total slur on Territory businesses that they are.
The prosecution that people are fleeing here in absolute droves, again, people come and go from the Territory all the time - always have, always will. As people retire and what have you, they do leave the Territory after many, many years. We all know that people do leave the Territory. Some do come back. I am pleased to say that my in-laws are coming back from Newcastle. They have just bought a property in Millner. But people come and go all the time and we will go to an interview with Sue Shearer, who everyone knows is the Executive Officer of the Real Estate Institute of the Northern Territory, by Julia Christensen on Friday 7, May talking about the increase in property values in the Northern Territory. I will quote from this. Julia Christensen asked:
What do you think is driving the market at the moment? Where are all these buyers coming from?
Everybody is leaving in droves. Somebody must be buying these houses, and they are paying more for them, but the Leader of the Opposition cannot come to that. Sue Shearer:
They are actually coming locally and, obviously, a few from interstate. But our sources say that while last year
when there were, as it were, record sales in both September and December, some of that was fuelled by interstate
investors, but a lot of these figures, people are moving to the Northern Territory. Again, our vacancy rate has
dropped as well. There was only 7.2% in the December quarter. I believe there is probably 6.9%, our figures will
show when they are released next week, for the March quarter. So people are coming back to the Northern Territory
and also people are staying.
Julia Christensen:
That’s incredible, because there are so many units being built, particularly around Darwin, and everybody you
speak to says, you know, that they are going to be empty, but these figures are showing the opposite.
Shearer:
That’s right. I guess everybody is entitled to their opinion, but our figures are also from the ABO, our sales figures,
and our figures are from our members. As I’ve said, we’ve got 98% membership and all throughout as a sample,
I think Mindil on Hastings has only nine left, and that’s in the high bracket. As I said, the figures are saying that
people are coming back and people are staying. These units aren’t empty or are the houses. There is 6.2%
vacancy rate considering, again, you have to remember that all those units are coming on-line as well.
So if everybody was fleeing the Northern Territory, nobody was coming here, why are vacancy rates coming down and property values going up? It just doesn’t make sense.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, this censure motion does not stand any credibility at all. The Leader of the Opposition failed to prosecute his case that the place is in ruins. The economy is coming back and will certainly be boosted by this great budget from the treasurer of the Northern Territory.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the motion be put.
Motion agreed to.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: My understanding is that the opposition has called the wrong…
Members interjecting.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the question be put.
Motion agreed to.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question now is that the motion be agreed to.
Motion negatived.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move the bill be now read a second time.
Today I introduce a bill that should be obvious in its intent, reasonable in its aims, and supported by all members in this place. This is a part one of a two-part package that will be expanded in my second-reading speech in relation to the Summary Offences Amendment Bill (Serial 214). The amendment is introduced with the intent of protecting emergency workers, with specific concentration on ambulance officers. During my deliberation regarding the shape of this bill, I was content in the first instance to cover ambulance officers only. Nevertheless, there is an obvious question why all emergency workers should not be covered by a bill such as this. This is the reason for the new definition in the bill of ‘emergency worker’. I quote:
An emergency worker means a person who works, whether paid or unpaid, for an emergency relief
organisation, and includes an ambulance officer and volunteer member of the Fire and Rescue Service.
It is intended that the court should read that interpretation as being particularly broad. I invite the courts to maintain a broad interpretation methodology when dealing with that interpretation.
There are sections in the Criminal Code that protect public servants and police in the execution of their duties. I by no means suggest that these sections should be seen as redundant or obsolete by this bill. Rather, this bill is an attempt to cast a wider net than the Criminal Code does now. For example, an ambulance officer is neither a public servant nor a police officer. I ask honourable members if a volunteer fire fighter is a public servant. Perhaps they are. If there if is an ambiguity, then it should be removed. Therefore, I bring this bill as a genuine attempt to tie up some loose ends, and bring protection to those who do not yet have it.
I remind honourable members that an assault is an unlawful application of force, and an application of force is defined as, ‘striking, touching, moving, the application of heat like noise, electrical or other energy gas over a substance or thing, when it is applied to such a degree as to cause injury or personal discomfort’.
Considering this, is screaming into the ear of an ambulance officer working on a patient an assault? My word, it is, and it happens all the time. It is my submission to members here today that it should be more than just a common assault, but should be considered to be an aggravated assault. That is the intent of this bill. Why? To send a signal to the community that those who work to aid others in the community are held in esteem by this parliament, and to let those who would do something like that to an ambulance officer when they are working on a patient, know that they will go to jail for interfering with their work - and so it should be. We need to protect our emergency workers in the community. This will be one of the tools that the courts may look to for guidance when dealing with miscreants who would interfere with those who protect us.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and to government.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, the bill that I bring before honourable members today does not represent a major shift in existing law. It intends to repeal the existing section 163 of the Police Administration Act and replace it with a much more simple and sensible section. As current law stands, the existing section 163 creates an environment of joint civil liability between the member of the police force and the Crown. In the act as it stands at the moment, a member of the police force stands as the joint tortfeasor with the Crown. That is to say that the Crown stands as a legal entity to be sued if the action of a member of the police force becomes the subject of civil action. The only way that the Crown may suggest that liability does not extend to the Crown through vicarious liability is to argue that the particular officer is on a frolic of his or her own. I can only envisage that such circumstances would involve wickedness or recklessness.
Section 163(4) gives the Crown the option of choosing to pay damages, other than punitive damages, should the case against the member be made out. The proposed amendment seeks to change that. On the face of it, it is a radical change but, in practice, will do little more than to give peace of mind to operational police officers in most instances.
I begin with the observation that the proposed amendment has constructed into its terms the concept of acting in good faith. I do not propose to enter into a lengthy debate as to what is or is not good faith. I will leave that to the courts to decide on both the facts of the particular case and the law, as to what constitutes good faith. The current act considers the issue of the recovery of punitive damages. It is difficult for me to envisage a circumstance in which an act of good faith, albeit negligent, could attract punitive damages. Therefore, I would suggest to honourable members that the full liability of a police officer who acts with malice or wickedness in their heart, or acts with reckless abandon, is not going to be protected by this change - and nor should they be. Nevertheless, the current section still renders police officers liable to joint tortfeasors and, therefore, even if they are acting in good faith, may make mistakes that are still within the scope of general negligence principles. It will be up to the plaintiff to make out to the balance of probabilities that the police were not acting in good faith.
Police officers make decisions every day. Some of these decisions are made in circumstances that are less than entirely perfect. Certainly, it has been my own experience as a former police officer, that I had to make decisions even when all of the facts surrounding a particular set of circumstances were not known to me, and it is with trepidation that police officers hurl their good names, reputation and possibly their careers into the abyss of the unknown, hoping that they have read the circumstances correctly. Ninety-nine times out of 100, nothing flows from such circumstances and all ends well. Nevertheless, there are times when police do have to make decisions that lead to outcomes that someone feels strongly enough about, or sees an opportunity to bring an action.
I ask honourable members the simple question: is it good enough that police officers doing their job to the best of their ability, and against individuals who would relish an opportunity to make their lives miserable, that they be exposed to stressful actions that could drag on for years? I think not. I would think it unlikely that the Crown represented by the Commissioner of Police would leave a member out on a limb, if the member was subjected of such an action. The Crown is also subject to an action when it is booked. Nevertheless, there are times when the Commissioner of Police may choose to forego the opportunity of paying damages which flow and seek payment from the member. Subsection 6 of section 163 contemplates such a circumstance.
Section 163(7) gives the court, which is asked by the Crown to make an order for the recovery of damages, the opportunity to introduce equitable principles. Presumably this is to prevent an excessive claim being made against the member by the Commissioner of Police. The existence of such a section means that this parliament in the past has felt that there is a possibility for the Commissioner of Police to act in a way that it needed to introduce an arbiter with the powers of equity to intervene. Honourable members, this is altogether clumsy in its structure and when seen within scope of powers that the Commissioner of Police has in setting standards and making clear the commissioner’s requirements of its members. The commissioner has powers of discipline at his or her fingertips so that if a member did act in a way that was contrary to the good operation of the police force and its objectives that there are many tools available for the commissioner to act both proactively and reactively.
I am not aware of any time that the commissioner has sought to go down this path in the past. That does not necessarily mean that it cannot happen in the future. The parliament in the NT at another time also considered this matter and decided it was conceivable for the commissioner to act in a way that had the flavour of being punitive. So much so, honourable members of the parliament believed it was necessary to invoke the principles of equity and an arbiter to offset such an action. Why, honourable members, do we want leave such a construct in place when this simple change would close that door and merely remove an unused tool from the bottom of very full toolbox at the commissioner’s disposal regarding the conduct of his personnel? The parliament has also left the member exposed as a tortfeasor. This bill is an attempt to make a member of the police force a small target by allowing the member the extra grace of human frailty in the case of circumstance. It is not an attempt to close the door on mitigation as it does not remove liability of the Crown. This is not unusual. Indeed, many acts go one step further in allowing immunity from criminal liability for an individual exercising their powers under those acts. Considering the unique role of police officers in our society, I am yet to be convinced of the merits of such a broad immunity. Nevertheless, in the terms of civil immunity, this amendment would do much to bring police into line with other agencies.
Honourable members, it is also not beyond imagination that police officers will become the subject of vexatious litigation, even speculative litigation, from time to time. But of course it is up to a court to decide what is vexatious and speculative and therefore I make no attempt in this instance to prevent actions being brought. But let them brought against the master and not the servant. There are many people in our community, sadly, who would seek to bring pressure on to individual members so that they would not feel comfortable in doing their duty. It is within the realms of imagination that there would be individuals who would bring civil actions against officers so that they may use evidence of such an action to discredit those officers as witnesses in criminal proceedings.
Finally, I would like to know that a police officer feels comfortable knowing that if he or she makes a decision in good faith that it will not ultimately expose their families to unnecessary difficulty either financially or by the stress of proceedings.
Madam Speaker, as I said at the outset today the bill does not represent an enormous shift in law reform. Nevertheless, it does mean a very real difference to the minds of police officers who have a clear and succinct message from this parliament – if you act in good faith we will not stand idly by. I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
Today, I bring before members a bill that is frankly a reflection on society. Sadly, there is now a need for a bill that protects emergency workers in the workplace, be they volunteers or professional officers. It has been my experience as a former volunteer ambulance officer, police officer, and spouse of an ambulance officer to know that emergency workers, ambulance officers in particular, have a dangerous workplace, not because of the nature of the emergencies they attend, but rather the deliberate obstruction of those workers by third parties who prevent them from doing their work.
Is it within the contemplation of a normal society that such a circumstance exists? Depressingly, the answer to that question is yes. Is it within my contemplation that being aware of the deterioration of workplace safety and the safety of others for these people that I, as a legislature, should sit inert and not bring some form of protection to those who protect us? The answer is a clear and resounding no. So it should be for all who sit in this Chamber.
We are here to provide good governance, to promote the welfare of the people of the Northern Territory. Every morning we pray to God almighty for guidance in our deliberations to these very ends. But I put it to honourable members that God almighty has given us sufficient common sense to know that we should not be relying on divine intervention to make the correct judgment in this place and in this case. If it takes an act of God to get it right in something as straight forward and sensible as this, then it would give the legislative equivalent of people who have trouble walking and chewing gum simultaneously.
In December 2003, Gary Carter of the St John Ambulance service wrote an article in Outback Ambulance entitled Hazards of the Job. Two photographs appear in that article: the first is a star picket that has been driven through the driver’s side of a windscreen of an ambulance. As I understand it, the picket narrowly missed the driver of the vehicle. Needless to say, such a thing constitutes an aggravated assault and it could be argued that there are already laws in place to protect the innocent in such cases. I agree. What if the driver was not in the car and it was merely some form of damage? Alternatively, it could be argued that it was a criminal damage and there are laws to prevent such things, and again, I agree.
Nevertheless, while it is true that a criminal damage charge may flow from such actions, it does not go to soul of the issues, which this bill attempts to capture. Any windscreen may be the subject of criminal damage. What the general charge of criminal damage does not capture is that in the case of an ambulance window, there may be an innocent third party who suffers because of delays that such damage causes. In the case of the windscreen of the fire truck or grass fire unit, one can imagine the anguish that would flow should a fire vehicle not be able to respond. Certainly, for the purposes of sentencing in such instances, the courts could and indeed should exercise sentencing practices that reflect the consequences of such damage. I do not say they should not, However what this bill does attempt to do is embolden the courts so they can clearly turn their minds to the matter of the effects not only of the emergency worker’s safety, but the effect of the hindrance and obstruction on innocent third parties: the recipients of the care and protection of that emergency worker attempts to bring them.
Should this bill become law, I would expect the courts to consider themselves unrestrained when they cast a grim eye upon the actions of a perpetrator so brought before them in circumstances contemplated by this bill. The gravity of such matters should not be underestimated. If it were a member of my family who suffered because of some irresponsible lout who got in the way of an emergency worker coming to my family’s aid, I would be beside myself with rage. Who wouldn’t be?
Nevertheless, such irresponsible louts do exist and, tragically, in such numbers as to justify the bill that I bring for members consideration.
I recently went on a ride along with ambulance officers on a night shift in Alice Springs. During that shift, we attended Keith Lawrie flats in the member for Araluen’s electorate. When we pulled up, the crew refused to go in because on a prior occasion, their ambulance was stolen by a person who was trying to escape an attack by others at that location. The ambulance in that instance was seriously damaged but those who attacked it. It was later recovered, away from the flats, and the person who took it was not charged, nor was any other person as I understand it. The reason charges were not laid was because the person who took it was acting in fear of his life. But what of the others there? Surely, more can be done.
The reason we attended on that occasion of my ride along was because a little girl had a stake through her foot. The ambulance officers did do a good job, but the girl had to be carried by a relative to the ambulance from the flat because the ambulance was waiting at the front gate. The actions of some very foolish and selfish people months earlier meant that the ambulance officers could only provide a limited service as they had to look after themselves first. So they should.
Surely, this is unacceptable. Surely, we as a parliament can do much better. Surely, a government that sees this happening will take some action. Yes, it is unacceptable. Yes, we can as a parliament do better. But no, the government has not taken action. So I have, and we should.
In the article by Mr Carter, he describes a shocking case where he was attacked. Ultimately, he had to escape after becoming the subject of several criminal offences perpetrated against him. It is my opinion that it should be a criminal offence against the person Mr Carter and his partner were trying to treat. A police unit needed to attend the scene and protect the ambulance officers in doing their work. I wonder what would have happened if the patient had been dead, or had had a heart failure whilst ambulance officers were forced to wait a few hundred metres away. I find it a matter of some reflection that Mr Carter deems it necessary to quote Napoleon Bonaparte in his article.
While it is true that those with upon their uniforms the cross of the Knights, of St John of St Johns Hospital in Jerusalem, were armed fighters and soldiers, it would be a long bow to draw indeed that in the modern concept such a person would need to rely on their military heritage to bring succour to the injured. Indeed, it is not a bow I can or am prepared to draw, but essential to the Knights of the Order of St Johns to cast their swords in the furnace a century ago, and turn them not so much into ploughshares, but universal shears, oxygen cylinders, ambulances, stretchers, for the tools of life. Now they are back in an environment which is from time to time an environment described as a war zone by some of their number. This is not Mogadishu or Chechnya, although some days you could be forgiven for thinking that it was. Mr Carter finishes his article with the simple observation that, ‘It is your responsibility to watch your partner’s back’. Those words should echo in our ears as an explosion should echo in an empty auditorium. He is correct. It is the responsibility of ambulance officers and indeed all emergency workers to look out for each other, just as it is our responsibility to look out for them and the people they seek to help.
Notwithstanding that this second reading speech is concentrated almost solely on ambulance officers, indeed, it must go beyond them. I advise honourable members that during my deliberations regarding this matter, it became evident to me that all emergency workers may be affected in similar ways when doing their jobs. Consequently, not only should this bill affect ambulance officers, the initial inspiration for this bill, but all who work for emergency relief organisations, whether they are paid or not. It only stands to reason that we should do this now, rather than wait for a circumstance that means we have to extend this bill to them into the future. I commend the bill honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, someone has their mobile phone in the Chamber. It has rung twice in the last five minutes. It may be switched to silent, but it is interfering with Hansard. Those members who are in the Chamber, please check, and any member listening, please make sure that your mobile phone is not in the Chamber. If it is and I find it, it will be confiscated and never returned.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move that consideration of General Business Notice No 7 relating to a reference to the Environment and Sustainable Development Committee on the cotton industry be postponed until a later hour.
Motion agreed to.
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
Madam Speaker, this bill has four main parts to it. First, it defines various restricted substances, such as petrol, glue, paint and solvents. Others can be prescribed by the minister in clause 7. The definition is different and broader than the volatile substances contained in section 18 of the Misuse of Drugs Act and specifically includes paint and petrol, whereas the Misuse of Drugs Act refers to ‘paint thinner’ and ‘product derived from petroleum’. That is the difference in the two definitions.
Second, this bill makes administering restricted substances referred to in clause 6 illegal, and prescribes a $2000 fine or two year gaol term in clause 8. Clauses 8 and 9 are based on the Misuse of Drugs Act. The juvenile pre-court diversion scheme ensures that this bill is not about sending juveniles to gaol, although I will be talking more about that later.
Third, clause 11 of the bill provides the police with the power to seize, empty or destroy an open or unopened container in the possession of a person who commits an offence under clause 8.
Fourth, the bill makes the selling or prescribing of a restricted substance to someone who a person knows, or ought to know will sniff it, an offence under clause 10. This offence already exists in the Misuse of Drugs Act. However, having regard to the slight difference in the definition of the volatile substances in the Misuse of Drugs Act and the definition containing clause 6 of this bill, it was felt that it should be included, especially given that it was consistent with what we are trying to achieve with this bill in its entirety. I am keen to hear from the business community as to what, if any, difficulties they might have in relation to this part of the bill, especially clause 7 given that the minister may declare other substances to be illegal in future. However, the fact is, the main elements of the bill are to provide the police with extra powers and to make sniffing illegal.
Madam Speaker, that is the bill in a nutshell. It is fairly straightforward and it is not essential that I go through it in any more detail. Although this bill is about the sniffing of volatile substances in its many forms, I do not propose to outline at length the harmful effects of sniffing these substances. This is being done on countless occasions in this parliament and, indeed, increasingly in other parliaments around the country. There have been mountains of research, inquiries, workshops, meetings, summits, strategies, etcetera, all of which are becoming a blur for many people. We know the problems and we know the effects. What we want is some solutions. The bill is not the sole answer. However, it is part of an overall package - a new direction - and that is why it has merit.
Members will recall during the last sittings, that members of the substance abuse committee spoke at some length about the effects of sniffing that members had seen first-hand. Members will recall the unusually eloquent speech made by the member for Sanderson on this issue, and one which I congratulated him for then and congratulate him for again. The member for Sanderson said on the 30 March, and I quote:
We need to bite the bullet on this by enacting legislation that will make petrol sniffing an offence.
I agree with him; the CLP agrees with him; and many other Territorians agree with him. The member for Sanderson supports making sniffing illegal. One of the health ministers appears to support it as well. I note with interest she has talked about legislative reform, and I welcome her comments. However, the Minister for Health has been, as I understand, fairly consistent. He does not want to make sniffing illegal, although there seems to have been on my reading of media reports something of a turnaround in the last week or so.
Having said that, though, perhaps we could all do something really different with this debate; and that is to take politics out of it so that we can discuss this bill with level heads, with the long-term interests of young Territorians governing our deliberations. I will do my best to do so, and invite members on the other side to join with me so that all of us might actually achieve an agreed outcome.
It is appropriate at this juncture, before turning to specific clauses of the bill to outline the CLP’s position paper released a couple of weeks ago in Alice Springs. The proposal has five key points to address sniffing in the Territory by combining increased enforcement methods with improved treatment options. This growing problem, we believe, can be tackled more effectively. The main points are as follows:
1. making the sniffing of petrol and other toxic substances illegal;
2. giving police powers to dispose of petrol and other toxic substances, similar to that of pouring out
alcohol that is consumed within 2 km of hotels or central business district areas;
3. develop, in conjunction with existing health services, a state-of-the-art treatment program targeting
substance abuse including sniffing, and investigating the benefits of establishing a residential rehabilitation
facility;
4. legislate to give courts the power to order sniffers to attend detoxication program; the resources for which
our CLP government would provide; and
5. legislate so that children who are sniffing can be taken into care for their own protection and so that they can
undergo treatment.
The bill before the House today deals with the first two parts of the plan; namely making sniffing illegal and giving police increased police powers. I would like to deal with one of the more apparently contentious aspects of the bill and that is giving police the power to seize and dispose of substances. Police have lacked this power in the past and the bill gives them similar powers they have in relation to alcohol. Under this bill they will be able to seize and dispose of substances; currently the police are unable to do so. In urban areas this means that when the police, or indeed a local member like me, receive phone calls from people saying they have a bunch of 20 sniffers sitting over the road from their home creating a nuisance, the police will be able to step in. At the moment sniffers are not breaking the law but under this bill the police will now at least be able to intervene and remove the substance. This is desirable for sniffers. It is a protective strategy. It is also desirable for and wanted by the people who live in the streets where sniffers congregate.
In bush areas the police are similarly powerless. When they see young people sniffing they can do little. I am however aware that some police in the bush do take substances away from sniffers and tell them to stop. Currently, they are empowered to do so but they do it and they do it because they cannot sit by and watch. There is no lawful basis for them to do this but they do it anyway, and hope that no one will report their actions to senior officers. This is how desperate things have become. Police and others are stepping in.
The ability to seize and dispose is similar to what police do with alcohol. The policy was started by the CLP and Labor has not indicated that they want to change that. Hence if it is not unreasonable to dispose of alcohol within two kilometres of pubs why isn’t it appropriate to provide police with similar powers in relation to sniffers? Finally, on this point, it is noteworthy that police have been given extended powers, including the power to seize in Queensland, Western Australia and Victoria. So government and critics can be comforted by the fact that it is not just the CLP which favours this approach; other Labor states have done it albeit in somewhat different ways.
Some people who oppose this aspect of the bill insist that police do not need more powers because they can act already by reporting children at risk to the Health department to advise of children at risk pursuant to the sections of the Community Welfare Act. If that were happening regularly, and with positive outcomes, then the police would presumably have no need to step in and remove substances from those children who are sniffing. If everyone reported then we would have seen a decrease in the number of sniffers not an increase. I doubt anyone in this Chamber would believe that in bush communities a report to FACS about children sniffing would receive the attention it deserves. I doubt that many would agree that Welfare in any event or FACS is equipped to send workers to bush a community every time to deal with these children. So no, sadly, the Community Welfare Act does not of itself hold all of the answers.
It is obvious that something else needs to be done. I wish that were not the case but it is. And members of this parliament and all Territorians need to face that fact. The CLP maintains that by giving police more powers to intervene is in fact a starting point not the whole solution. While this will not work in isolation it is a start and is of assistance to police, sniffers, their families and those otherwise affected by sniffing. We know that the very best way of solving a problem like sniffing is to address the underlying problems that cause young people to sniff. But most of the time it is the police officers who are the ones who sees these kids and are expected to deal with them. They must be supported and given the right tools. We say this is one way of doing this.
Madam Speaker, it is not possible in the time I have to exhaust every point in favour of this proposal. However, I hope that I have demonstrated that there exists some strong arguments in support of this part of the bill, namely to give police the power to seize substances from sniffers, and in the process perhaps I have rebutted some of the arguments that exist in opposition to this proposal.
I now turn to another part of the bill that does not have universal support either and that is making sniffing illegal, and that is proposed in clause 8 of the bill. The CLP believes that sniffing is at a point where it should be made illegal and there are many reasons for this. First and foremost, a strong message must be sent to those who sniff dangerous substances and we ask why it is not reasonable to send a message to sniffers. In our society the community expresses its displeasure and abhorrence about a number of matters. The most obvious example in the context of this debate is drug taking. We express our disdain for a number of reasons but mainly because this activity is harmful. Why on earth then would not we then send the same message in the case of sniffing dangerous substances? Is it the case that we say to young people that taking drugs is not okay, but feel free to fry your brains by sniffing petrol, glue and paint? Surely not. What do we say to those young people who hear endless requests, pleas and dissertations from health workers, police and other adults and then say: ‘But it is not illegal’. It is difficult to reconcile the fact that the consequences are so very harmful but people are permitted to do it. Of course, we should make it illegal. If we do not make it illegal, arguably we can all be accused of condoning it.
We know the array of arguments against making sniffing illegal. We have read the literature and we know that some people and experts generally think that you should not make sniffing illegal. My parliamentary colleagues and my party have considered this issue at length and we have resolved that, on balance, the better case is to make it illegal. However, this has not been an easy decision. We believe that there are potential benefits and on that basis alone, we now press the issue in the form of this bill. We know that there are no quick solutions and we know the area is a complex one, but the stakes are high and it is worth doing and certainly little else appears to be working.
At Mt Liebig in Central Australia, I am told that the community is using the Trespass Act to get sniffers out of their community. They are telling sniffers to go away. In other communities, people want to use the council’s by-laws to ban sniffers. Indeed, over the years, some communities have called for the right to make sniffing illegal. I mention this to illustrate that many people and many communities actually have different views and the issue of making sniffing illegal is not new. It is not the case that all Aboriginal people or communities are opposed to this. There is a divergence of views.
We think it should be made illegal, and this bill has created a debate that Territorians should have. Certainly, the Police Commissioner is of that view as well. Another argument in support of making it illegal is that it is inconsistent to make the selling and supply of products illegal, whether it is in this bill or, as things presently stand, in the Misuse of Drugs Act and not to make administering it to people illegal. If it is illegal to sell or supply to sniffers, surely common sense dictates that the act of doing it should be illegal as well.
There are many good and different reasons why it should be made illegal, although I have just cited a few. There are as many objections to making sniffing illegal as there are reasons to make it illegal. Opponents argue that sniffing is something that should be left up to the parents and we do not need to make it illegal. The member for Braitling issued a media release dated 31 March in response to the CLP’s proposal, saying, and I quote:
Protecting the lives of the young is the responsibility of parents, the family and the community, not just the police.
We need education programmes. We would only be producing more work for the police while taking responsibility
away from parents and the community.
Such arguments, with respect, Madam Speaker, warrant a fairly basic reply: it is not working. Blair McFarland from the Central Australian Youth Link Up Service told the ABC Radio on 31 March that it is a rising problem out bush and that there is anecdotal evidence that it is on the rise in Alice Springs. I am told that it is increasing in other parts of the Territory. People have eyes and ears. We know that there are some improvements in some areas such as Yuendumu and some other communities. Certainly, there are some successful programs but, on balance, when one takes a step back, it is clear that a change in the way governments tackle the problem must be made. Action needs to be taken not only for the protection of sniffers, but also for those who are the victims of crimes they are committing. Hence, leaving it to parents and community education are no longer the answers. Perhaps they used to be, but that is not the case any more. Clearly the approaches of the past no longer work.
The second major concern about making sniffing illegal is that young people will end up in our gaols. This is not the intention of this bill and imprisonment will be the last resort. Concerns expressed over the years preceded the Juvenile Diversion Scheme. I will detail that system shortly and, in the process, will demonstrate why it is the fears of the past do not need to be expressed now.
In fact, under the CLP’s proposal, not only are juveniles unlikely to go gaol, but courts can have powers to direct that they attend treatment programmes. This is surely a win-win outcome. Some people who oppose this bill assert that the CLP’s policy is about locking kids up. That is nonsense. We understand the importance of the legal or enforcement options combined with the health or treatment options for sniffers. That is why our policy is based on the two working hand in hand. To suggest that if sniffing is made illegal, kids will go to gaol, is simplistic and misleading, and it is misleading for a number of reasons.
First, I quote: ‘The number of juveniles detained in the Territory is small.’ That is a quote from page 80 of the last crime statistics. In fact, the daily average for juveniles in gaol: ‘ranged between 14 and 27 over the period December quarter 2001 to the current quarter’. In the last quarter, 16 juveniles were in custody. I believe that this illustrates the preference for courts not to send juveniles to jail.
Second, those who say in ignorance that this policy is about locking up kids clearly do not understand what juvenile diversion is. The fact is that all juveniles who would be caught sniffing will be diverted. They will be diverted because this would be considered a minor offence. That is what happens now with minor offences, and that is what will happen in the event that sniffing is illegal. To suggest otherwise is simply wrong.
The aim of the scheme is to divert juveniles away from the formal justice system and the courts.
That is from a document which I will table shortly, from the Northern Territory Police called Juvenile Pre-court Diversion Scheme and Overview. The next quote:
The principles of the scheme are to treat young people fairly, reduce youth crime, support and involve
victims, encourage parental responsibility, foster closer police and community interaction, and foster
positive social change.
Again, that is from the police overview.
Juvenile diversion offers a number of programs. Contained elsewhere in the overview, it states that: ‘Programs associated with drug or alcohol, substance abuse education will be favoured’. Hence, juveniles will be diverted, they will not go to court, and they will be placed on or directed to programs to assist them. At present, we wait until sniffers get in trouble with the law and then the system steps in. The CLP maintains that it is entirely appropriate and entirely consistent to get these young people when they are offending, when sniffing, and divert them. In other words, this is a process that is helping them before they become entangled with the justice system as a result of their sniffing. It is a form of getting them early, and we ask, what is wrong with that. It is consistent with the ethos of early intervention. To oppose this measure is to accept that we must wait until sniffers break into houses, siphon petrol from cars, or otherwise break the law, at which point they finally come to the attention of the police. This is not a form of, to use government speak, crime prevention, something that government goes on about ad nauseam.
I would suggest that the arguments are very persuasive.
Diversion is not a let-off for juveniles. It is recognised that as part of growing up, many juveniles will make
mistakes and should be given opportunities to correct their behaviour without resorting to the formal justice
system as an early option.
Again, that is from the police overview, and I seek leave to table that.
Leave granted.
Ms CARNEY: On ABC television on 31 March, Superintendent Trevor Bell said:
In the last three months, we’ve had something like 60 reports from the public that kids are wandering the
streets sniffing petrol, glue etc. Right in the town centre, police are finding children as young as eight sniffing
petrol, glue or paint, often in broad daylight.
And the police blame a group of about 30 hardcore sniffers for a spate of local crime. They commit crimes to get money to buy petrol, then, if they do get aggressive, they assault people and commit other crimes. These kids are on a collision course with the criminal justice system. Diversion will work and, in fact, is well suited to sniffers. If anyone says that juvenile diversion will not work, then they undermine the whole system of diversion, and implicitly they favour a policy of simply locking everyone up. Those people must account to the hard working police officers who work in the area of juvenile diversion, and must say to them, we have no faith in your system. Surely not even opponents of this bill would do that.
In essence, what I have said so far can be summarised in the following way. Police must be given some help, police are not able to get rid of substances, and they want to, and they need to. In the bush, they are already doing it. The Community Welfare Act is not enough and the case is compelling for this part of the bill.
Second, sniffing should be made illegal. A clear message should be sent to the people who do it that it is illegal. Some communities want it, some do not, but we are set to change the direction given the increase of sniffing in the Northern Territory. There is an inconsistency with the Misuse of Drugs Act. If it is illegal to sell and supply, we say it should be illegal to use. Education is not enough. In addition, these kids will not go to gaol although many of them are, in fact, colliding with the criminal justice system. Whether government or other critics accept it or not, the reality is that sniffers, in the majority, are heading for gaol. Our policy is not about locking them up, but it is a last resort. I say again that those who insist that the CLPs policy is about locking up children - they do not understand what juvenile diversion is.
The foregoing represents the main reasons we argue in support of the bill. In the context of debate about drugs and young people, it is appropriate that I refresh members’ memories of the appalling pictures on the front of the NT News on 1 April of a five-year-old smoking dope. The Territory community was appalled, and it even received national exposure. Days later, another article detailed what the minister and her department had planned to do with that family and those children. I wonder what the reaction would have been had those photos been of five-year-old and six-year-old Aboriginal kids sniffing petrol, glue, or paint. I note that everyone became quite agitated when little white kids smoking dope appeared on the front page of the paper, yet we know kids the same age - mainly Aboriginal kids - are doing as much damage - arguably more - with other substances.
If this bill is not supported in one way or the other, I will always wonder whether things might have been different if the front page of the NT News had photos of little black kids sniffing petrol, glue, or paint. Perhaps that might get us, as a community and as a parliament, moving instead of seemingly devoting a great deal of time and energy thinking up ways not to act, not to make sniffing illegal, and not to give police the powers to take dangerous substances away from sniffers.
In conclusion, we are aware of the wealth of research about sniffing and what can be done about it. We have chosen not to go through all of the research and the many views in this debate because we know what it is and we know that there are conflicting views. It is possible that in response government will throw some of the research from the some of the experts at us, and rely on those experts when arguing, if it does, that sniffing should not be made illegal. We can go tit-for-tat, but we have elected not to from the outset because shopping for experts to support a view wastes too much time and achieves little in the context of such a serious debate.
We propose this bill because very little appears to be working. Sniffing is not new, but it is getting worse. Certainly, there are some encouraging results in some communities, but they are relatively minor when one steps back and looks at the big picture across the Northern Territory. Notwithstanding all of the money, the programs and the views expressed by many people with varying degrees of expertise, the facts are inescapable: things are grim and probably getting worse.
Surely, we ask, this proposal is worth doing at least on a trial basis. I ask: what do we have to lose? The answer is a generation of young people who are likely, one way or another, to end up in the criminal justice system; a generation at risk of dying before our very eyes; a generation of young people who will become even more marginalised while causing despair and destruction in their communities and to others affected directly by their behaviours. That is what we have to lose if we do not act. We cannot sit by and leave the problem alone in the belief that things are working when, on balance, they are not. We cannot sit by and hope that sniffers and their families can fix the problem alone. We cannot sit by and watch the statistics increase. We cannot sit by and watch more young Aboriginal people kill themselves by sniffing, or watch as young people get involved in the justice system. We must act. This bill is not the sole answer, but it is a start and new direction.
I will conclude by quoting what I regard as one of the most important speeches made in this parliament since I was elected:
The list of statistics demonstrating the dysfunction in our indigenous communities is staggering. So much so
that counting them here in any detail would be pointless. There have been a thousand reports and a hundred
inquiries to the point where it is easy to become numb to the reality and incapable of acting. However, we must
not remain numb or blind. We must act.
Madam Speaker, they are the words of the Minister for Community Development made on the 7 March 2002 in this Chamber. He told it how it is. I agree with his sentiments and I know my colleagues do as well. Indeed we must act and I implore the government members to support him, to support the member for Sanderson, to support the CLP, and to support the Territorians affected by sniffing, and finally to support an act in the best interest of all Territorians by supporting the bill. If government members are not persuaded by my words, perhaps they might look to the words of their own, namely the Minister for Community Development, and do something. We can act and we must act and all members can act by supporting the bill and I implore them to do so.
Debate adjourned.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move that consideration of General Business Notice No. 9 relating to references of explanatory memoranda/statements be postponed until later hour.
Motion agreed to.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, before I withdraw my Traffic Amendment Bill, I would just like to thank the government for introducing its own Traffic Amendment Bill which was based on the Traffic Amendment Bill which I introduced in February 2003. I would just like to say to the Minister for Primary Industries and Fisheries whilst he did believe that a ABC reporter had initiated this bill, I certainly had it well and truly in hand before that happened. It has certainly been an issue that had arisen over many years on local government and the number of complaints I received about hooning especially on gravel roads was quite considerable. There was, of course, an opportunity, being an independent member, to introduce a bill which would outlaw those sort of practices and that is where this bill originated from.
I am pleased that the government has taken this bill on. I am also pleased that the opposition has supported it and therefore the support in this parliament has been unanimous. Of course, that makes my bill redundant and therefore I move that General Business Orders of the Day No 1 relating to Traffic Amendment Bill 2003 (Serial 124) be withdrawn.
Motion agreed to.
Continued from 13 August 2003.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling)(by leave): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that General Business Orders of the Day relating to consideration of the Sentencing Amendment Bill 2003 (Serial 126) standing in my name be postponed until a later date.
If I continue with this bill today, the government has indicated that it will defeat it. Rather than do that, I prefer to keep it alive and work with the government on several measures aimed at ensuring that the intent of the bill is achieved so that Aboriginal women and girls are heard in the court process.
This bill was drafted after the Northern Territory Supreme Court sentenced a 49 year old Aboriginal man to 24 hours in jail for sexual assaulting a 15 year old girl, his promised wife. It was my aim to ensure that a sentence such as the one in the Pascoe case never arose again.
I remind members that the main purpose of this amendment was to provide for Aboriginal girls in the Northern Territory the same protection under law as other girls. I want them to have clear and unambiguous protection under our laws. At this moment, many assaults are never reported for the simple reason that there seems to be little justice for young women and girls if they do go ahead. I have received support from the wider community for this bill but, more importantly, from many Aboriginal people - not just Aboriginal women, but Aboriginal men who have decided that the interests of aboriginal women and girls should become a priority.
The strongest indication of support came from ATSIC last year when they decided not to fund the Pascoe appeal to the High Court because the case conflicted with its Family Violence policy. ATSIC’s then Northern Queensland Commissioner, Lionel Quartermaine, said ATSIC did support customary law and the defendant’s right for appeal, but that the rights of women and children came first.
The YMCA in Darwin welcomed the ATSIC decision saying and I quote:
No means no, no matter what the age or relationship.
It is important to remember that when the 15 year old girl tried to leave Pascoe’s camp, he fired shots in the air to deter her. The announcement that ATSIC would not fund the appeal came on top of the decision by a national ATSIC committee. The Committee on Social and Physical Wellbeing came out in support of my bill, saying the child had to come first in any conflict between Aboriginal and the wider Australian law and that Aboriginal girls under 16 should have the same protection as other Australian girls.
The NPY Women’s Council also supports this bill. The Council is made up of women from across border communities in the Territory, South Australia and Western Australia. It includes representatives from the Territory’s Docker River and the Finke communities. The women commented and I quote:
We are all too aware of the abuse that is inflicted on children and young girls in their community.
They also said that one of the main objectives of the Council’s domestic violence service was to ensure that the Australian legal system protected Aboriginal women and girls from violence. I question whether the legal system does that at the moment.
The Chief Minister’s own Domestic Violence and Aboriginal Family Violence Advisory Council recommended that the Chief Minister support this bill. The council met on June 13 last year and, according to the minutes of that meeting, it had a long discussion on aspects of customary law that relate to the protection of women and children. Members were concerned that the Northern Territory courts appeared willing to accept evidence from Aboriginal male defendants and their lawyers on aspects of customary law that mitigated sexual offences against children. Members of the advisory council noted that this sent a negative message to children, young women and to the police officers who take the initial complaints and investigate such matters.
The council recommended to the Chief Minister that the courts in the Territory not take into account any evidence or arguments about Aboriginal customary law when sentencing an offender found guilty of a sexual offence involving a child under the age of 16. That is the important aspect of this bill. It relates only to a sexual offence against a minor. I am not arguing that all customary law claims should be negated, and I have not been arguing that traditional marriage should be outlawed.
I have presented to parliament the views of the largest Aboriginal women’s council in the Territory, the NPY, and the views of ATSIC. These two representative bodies support this legislation and so I am reluctant to abandon them. It is very difficult for Aboriginal women to make their voices heard. Some legal services and land councils have ignored them, although very recent developments in a land council meeting indicate that things may be changing and that women may be having a stronger voice. Coincidentally, the issue under discussion was promised marriages.
In its submission to the Territory’s Inquiry into Aboriginal Customary Law the Federal Human Rights Commission said this:
Of all the identical groups of women whose concerns have been presented to the commission, Aboriginal
women are the least well served by the legal system.
The Commission concluded that the mainstream institutions and processes needed to make the views of Aboriginal women central in relation to recognising Aboriginal customary law. The Attorney-General has acknowledged that problems have arisen where Aboriginal women have not had the opportunity to place their views before the court. With the Pascoe case, this was indeed the problem, leading to my conclusion that the court was supporting the rights of the man to the detriment of the girl’s rights. The Attorney-General said in November that work had begun on implementing a case by case approach to ensure that the human rights of the victim would be upheld. He also said the case by case approach might involve the development of legislation that would regulate the way in which courts were informed about customary law issues and the sentencing process, and the way in which courts would test customary law claims.
The Pascoe case restarted the debate on the relationship between Aboriginal customary law and criminal law. Since then, the government has removed the defence of traditional marriage and that, might I say, was a very good thing, but that was not the problem thrown up by the Pascoe case. The man pleaded guilty to having sex with a minor. He pleaded guilty, and then argued for mitigation, or a lesser sentence, on the grounds of his traditional marriage. The Attorney-General has made it clear the government will continue to support the presentation of customary law claims during the sentencing process.
I do not necessarily agree with the reasons for his position, but I have been advised that my bill might breach the Racial Discrimination Act, or even long-established sentencing principles. As I do not have a legal background, and for these legal reasons, but also because of the strong support I have received for this bill, I am looking forward to working with the Attorney-General and women’s representatives to come up with concrete processes that will address this problem in other ways, so that evidence of customary law presented to the court is properly tested, so that the victim’s view is always heard in the court, and so that the woman’s view of the customary law claim is heard too.
I wish to defer this bill rather than have it defeated, so that I can be assured the government is sincere in what it claims to do, and the results of their actions will be of benefit to the young women and girls found in this dilemma. Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be deferred.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, this bill provides for an amendment to the Sentencing Act so that the court can not have regard to any Aboriginal customary law when it sentences an offender found guilty of a sexual offence against a child under the age of 16 years.
The staff from my office and the Department of Justice recently met with the member for Braitling to discuss some of the legal issues in the bill, and identified a number of problems. These problems include that the bill would have a discriminatory effect as it would only exclude the customary beliefs of one particular group in our society, as it is only directed against Aboriginal customary law, and not other types of customary law. This runs counter to high court decisions, and I am advised that this bill, were it passed into law, might be subject to legal challenge. The bill also fails to recognise that, in some cases, customary law can be considered an aggravating factor as well as the mitigating circumstances that led the member to bring this proposed legislation forward. We have proposed that we take the following course of action.
Like the member for Braitling, the government recognises that there are cases where claims of customary law in criminal proceedings can disadvantage Aboriginal women and children who are too often the victims of violence and sexual offences. This can occur where custom or tradition is distorted to suit the needs of the more powerful members of the community, or may be involved in committing offences against weaker members of the community. We also recognise that Aboriginal customary law does not always provide an adequate response to violence against women and children, and that customary law has been used by people accused of violence to excuse or minimise their actions.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! Just a procedural thing, and I am not sure what is going on here, I heard the member for Braitling say that she moved that the bill be deferred. I am listening carefully.
Dr TOYNE: And I am speaking to that motion.
Mr Elferink: You are speaking to the motion?
Dr TOYNE: Yes.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please continue.
Dr TOYNE: The views of Aboriginal women and children on these issues are not always properly argued or put before the courts. The government recognises that these are the issues driving the member for Braitling, and we agree these issues must be resolved. We cannot agree to this bill in its current form, however. We will work with the member for Braitling and other opinion offerers on researching and developing a legislative response to the issues including the application, quality and effectiveness of evidence concerning customary law. We will particularly be looking at ways to ensure Aboriginal women have the opportunity to put their views to the court. The overriding principle will be that Aboriginal women and children have a right to equal treatment by the law. I know that that is at the heart of the concern of the member for Braitling, and I certainly share the same concerns. I hope to be able to bring forward a response, developed and agreed to by the member for Braitling and other stakeholders during the second half of this year.
Motion agreed to; bill postponed.
Continued from 26 November 2003.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, this bill would create an offence in the Criminal Code of manufacturing, selling, offering to sell, purchasing or possessing any dog or cat fur product in the Northern Territory. The bill would also provide a defence where the fur was obtained entirely from a feral animal. The bill is meant to be a deterrent to the international trade in cat and dog fur, which involves breeding and killing animals in captivity in inhumane or cruel circumstances.
There are several problems with the bill. These include that, first, it still does not and cannot address the main deterrent to this cruel international trade; that is, controls on the import of such fur. This is within the legislative power of the Commonwealth, and I am informed that the federal Minister for Justice and Customs is currently considering this issue.
A second problem is that a comprehensive, consistent approach is required to really address the issue at a national level. At the moment, no other jurisdiction in Australia has prohibited the possession, manufacture or sale of dog or cat fur.
A third issue is that there are some technical problems with the bill itself. For example, there is a defence available where the fur was obtained from a feral animal. This aspect of the bill might prove unworkable as, in many cases, it is likely to be difficult for the prosecution to determine whether the fur was from a feral animal or not.
In the November sittings last year, this bill was deferred whilst we sought the advice of the NT Animal Advisory Committee established under the Animal Welfare Act. One of the roles of that committee is to advise my colleague, the Minister for Local Government, about animal welfare issues and legislation. I am advised by minister Ah Kit that the federal government is still in the process of considering the issue of whether it will ban dog and cat fur imports, and will most likely opt for stringent labelling laws. The federal Minister for Justice and Customs has initiated consultation with other ministerial colleagues, including Hon Warren Truss MP, federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, and a whole-of-government approach has been developed to effectively address this issue.
The Animal Welfare Advisory Committee has advised minister Ah Kit that it does not consider there is currently a problem within the NT. Domestic dogs and cats are not in danger here, on their judgment. Further, the AWAC believes Commonwealth legislation is the most effective way to deal with imports. The Commonwealth is currently looking at amendments to its Customs Prohibited Imports Regulations, which would prohibit the importation of this fur. Commonwealth legislation would ensure uniformed coverage around Australia and stop the importations where it would be most effective; and that is at the borders. Given the developments towards national uniform laws, the advice of AWAC and the technical problems with the bill, the government opposes the bill now before parliament.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to thank and congratulate the member for Goyder for making the effort and pursuing this issue on behalf of Territorians and the domestic animals that we have here in the Northern Territory and those that also live overseas.
Unfortunately, it has become very obvious to us, and you only have to go to places like Mindil Beach markets to understand that in other countries in particular, domestic dogs and cats are being bred for their fur. I have been unfortunate enough to see some television footage of the sort of conditions in which they are kept while the breeding and growing is occurring. It is, for those of use who do hold our domestic pets in some level of esteem, terribly distressing to realise that cats and dogs were being kept for this purpose. Often to be killed the animal has its neck wrung which once again seems a fairly cruel way of causing the death of the animal. And quite frankly, the products that are then produced by this process and imported into Australia are really quite pointless products: a furry key ring, a fluffy doorstop, nothing much of any real use to human beings. Australians do not need these products.
It is not like we are so destitute that we need to import cheap animal skins because we need warm clothing, or that we need to import cat and dog meat for food because we are so destitute because that is all that we can afford, if it was in fact cheap as a product. We in Australia do not need these products and we should not encourage this activity occurring overseas by importing them and purchasing them once they turn up in our country. Quite frankly, these are gross products and they should offend the sensibilities of all modern Australians because it is a fact that we do hold our domestic animals, and in particular cats and dogs, at a level of esteem. For most Australians who have a cat or dog, that animal becomes part of their family and they know through the interactions that they have with their pets that these animals have little personalities. They have their own way of doing things. I note that the member for Goyder has arrived with a sample of this sort of thing from the Mindil Beach markets.
It is a very serious situation and it is very sad to see product like that available here in Darwin. I am sure anyone who actually has access to that product will realise that it once was a small cat. We do hold these animals in esteem in our lives and for people like me who do; it is quite unfortunate and sad to see that other people in other cultures are happy to exploit these animals to the maximum in a cruel and inhumane way.
I will be supporting this bill. One of the reasons I will be doing that is because we as human beings need to think about the animals which are in our control. We have power in many cases over animals, for example, the buffalo, the cattle, the sheep in southern Australia, cats and dogs. Human beings work to control animals and because of that we have a responsibility to them to treat them with respect and to treat them with care and to do all that we can to reduce cruelty to them. We may enjoy a steak sandwich or a sausage at a barbecue. We may well be carnivores or herbivores or omnivores but when we choose to eat meat, I am certain all of us eat meat with the knowledge that the animal was kept and then killed in a humane way, and I believe that in the vast majority of cases they are. But when you see the television footage of how these cats and dogs are kept the last thing you could ever imagine at any strength of the imagination is that what is happening to them is any way humane. I believe we do have a responsibility to the animals which do come under our control to treat them in a humane way and with an element of respect.
I certainly urge all members to support the bill. It would be pretty sad that members from across the chamber do not support it. I would like to again congratulate again the member for Goyder for bringing this to our attention. We all know he is a very keen supporter of the RSPCA in the Northern Territory and has worked for them on a pro bono basis over the years off and on. I am sure that the RSPCA appreciate the support that he has given them.
We have heard from the minister just now the reasons why the government is not going to be able to support this bill, and a number of those reasons seem quite sensible. I hope that the government is able, over time to come, to work in with other jurisdictions and the federal government with regards to imports, to come up with some sort of a system that will preclude the importation of these unnecessary and inhumanly grown products.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I remember when the member for Goyder came into this place and did his second reading speech. There was much mirth and laughing and joking on the other side of the house and the Leader of government business thought: ‘Oh, what a joke! 101 Dalmatians!’ and they laughed at the member for Goyder for presenting the bill.
What the members opposite were going to learn a short time later was that there were people in the gallery, as I understand it at that time, who were representatives of the RSPCA and they were less than entirely delighted with the attitude of members opposite. I know in is this Chamber from time to time, you are inclined to have a bit of a joke at the expense of your political opponents, but we have to consider that there are people who actually take some of this stuff particularly seriously.
The fact that there are no longer jokes and mirthful laughs coming from the other side of the House indicates that they understand that there are people who do take this sort of stuff seriously. At least the members opposite have learnt to keep those sorts of jokes to themselves if that is the way they think because they know that there is political damage that can be caused when you start laughing and joking about matters that other people take very seriously. That is a lesson for all members, not just members opposite.
The argument from the Attorney-General as to why this should not happen included several reasons, the first one I want to concentrate on is when he said this is something for the federal government in terms of importing stuff. This is a federal issue. That is true, but that does not prevent us as a jurisdiction trying to kill the marketplace off in this jurisdiction.
If we were to pursue the logic of the Attorney-General in relation to this, then the possession of child pornography should not be an offence in this jurisdiction. But it is, and why? Because we are trying to kill the marketplace in the Territory. It is often produced overseas. In fact, I believe that it is exclusively produced outside of this jurisdiction and it is imported, illegally, into this country through breach of federal legislation. That process of importing is rightfully illegal because it is disgusting stuff. But that does not prevent this parliament tyring to make an item illegal inside this jurisdiction and just because the member for Goyder is asking that this parliament becomes the leader in the community on this issue, that we will be the first in Australia to ban these products because we do not like the way these animals are treated when they are being grown up for the purposes of being killed. Surely, we should not be scared of being leaders. Do we need a national agreement every time that we want to introduce legislation in our jurisdiction? Surely, the purpose of the whole federal system is that different jurisdictions can take different approaches to certain issues. Do we need a hand shake and permission from the federal government before we make a decision in relation to something like this? I would like to think not because it defeats the purpose of federalism in its very essence if we need to go cap in hand to the federal government every time we want to pass a bill.
In fact, we have remonstrances on the books of this House, taking it to the federal parliament and trying to stick it up them because they have taken actions against the wishes of this parliament and it has happened more than once. We have done it before. All the member for Goyder is asking is let s do it again, let’s not be afraid of this.
The Attorney-General said: ‘Oh, we do not like the shape of the bill. It has a few problems’. Where are your amendments? Surely, if you say the idea is not too bad but there are problems with the structure, I take it there has been a contact with the member for Goyder, saying: ‘Look, we would like to take this on and we would like to make some amendments because we have a few functional problems with the way the bill operates’.
Mr Maley: No contact.
Mr ELFERINK: No contact, I presume. But even so, if there was or was not contact, if the government does not disagree with the idea, but they do have problems with the technical nature of the bill, then it is a case of just bringing in a few amendments. I am sure that even if the Attorney-General said, we have a problem with the structure of this because it has a few problems attached to it, but we think the idea is workable and we bring this amendment, I am sure on the floor of this House the member for Goyder would say, fine. Not a problem in the world, we can easily accommodate you, Mr Attorney-General. I would have liked some sort of communication about this beforehand, but what is the intent of the bill. The intent of the bill is stop animals in cages in South-East Asia living in despicable situations, and being brought up in despicable situations, because there is a marketplace for it in the Northern Territory. That is what this bill is attempting to do.
How do those animals live? Well, they live in tiny little cages. A pussy cat, sweet little pussy cat, spends its whole life from being a kitten onwards, living in its own urine and faeces, in a cage probably six inches by six inches by 12 inches. Then what happens to that cat when it has been spending all its time living in one cage of many hundreds? Well, it has to share its partner’s faeces and the urine of the other cages around it and, of course, if it is on the bottom cage it cops everything from the top and it is a despicable, disgusting way for any creature to live. And probably the greatest mercy that is ever brought to bear upon these animals is their eventual death.
I am no great hard-core greenie by any stretch of the imagination, in fact, on numerous occasions in my life I have been hunting. I certainly have no love for feral animals. But, at the end of the day, just suffering of that nature, for an industry to produce, what, dead cat fur caps that you can buy in the marketplace, some mock-up of a cat made out of real cat fur. It is just bizarre. And these things are available in the Northern Territory. There is no point for the Attorney-General to come in here and say, look at this sort of marketplace does not exist, well it does exist. It is here. And where do these things get produced? They get produced in South-East Asia. Is it an offence to import them? No, it is not. So, we cannot do anything about that. We cannot charge excises of that nature as a state. We cannot put tariffs or anything else on these products. The only thing we can do as a jurisdiction is prevent the marketplace from occurring, in the same way that we as a jurisdiction prevent child pornography being sold, or bestial pornography being sold, we are simply saying that this particular act, bestial act if you like, is also something that we want to remove from our shop shelves or from our marketplace. And that is what the member for Goyder is trying to achieve.
The government has not stood up in here and said we dislike the idea, we just dislike the form. But because we do not like the form, we are going to ignore the whole thing altogether. Well, that is a shame. Because if this government was serious about doing something about this, they would have brought in some amendments and those amendments would have reflected the intent of the member for Goyder. The government could have claimed them as their own, as they have done with so many other bits of legislation, like hooning legislation, fire setting legislation and the like, I mean, let them claim it as their own. But I do not want to see the marketplace for these products exist in the Northern Territory, and as a result of this government’s decision here today, that is exactly what is going to continue to exist. Damn shame.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I am indebted to the member for Port Darwin and the member for Macdonnell for their supportive comments. I am also indebted to my friends at the RSPCA and also the members of the Humane Society who have been contacting me. I spoke about this bill with them at length, and the numerous e-mails of support certainly do not go unnoticed.
In relation to what the Attorney-General has said, it is a tragedy sometimes that this particular government and this particular Attorney-General does not take the time to look at the bill himself, as opposed to reading blindly what exists as some sort of cheat sheet which is placed before him. If he had read it himself he would have realised that the bill quite clearly states, in the first paragraph:
A person who manufactures, sells or offers for sale, purchases or possesses any dog or cat fur product in the
Territory is guilty of an offence and is liable to imprisonment for 2 years.
Then it goes on to some defensive provisions. The bill is really aimed at the Northern Territory and, though there was some reference in my second reading speech to the international trade, of course, there has to be legislation by the federal government. This bill deals with the possession, the sale and the purchase and manufacture of these types of products in the Northern Territory at a local level. Therefore, his first reason for not supporting the bill is without grounds and clearly erroneous.
Second, the bill is distilled from the Dog and Cat Protection Act 2000 from the United States, and I am indebted to members of the Parliamentary Counsel for their help in drafting it. To come in and say: ‘I am not happy with some of the technical aspects to it’, when you will not actually point out what they are suggest any amendments, is really a pathetic cop-out. The second reason the government has said, on behalf of all Territorians, why they will not support this bill, is because nobody else is doing it - it is being considered, but no one else is doing it at this stage. Well, that is pathetic. If the government had adopted that attitude when the Motor Accidents Compensation Act was introduced, then that would not have occurred. At some stage, someone has to take the lead. At some stage, someone has to have enough vision and forethought to say: ‘Okay, this type of conduct we think is reprehensible, and here is a piece of legislation which will send out the message that it is completely unacceptable’.
We have heard this government say tort law reform has occurred interstate and we will follow and, whilst there are a whole heap of measures we are going to introduce which may not be strictly applicable to the Northern Territory, it sends out the right message. That was the rationale for introducing a number of provisions relating to doctors saying sorry and all that and, yet, one of the rationales the government now uses is: ‘We do not think it is a problem up here, therefore we are not going to take it any further’. Well, in my right hand I have what seems to be fairly accurate evidence that something seems to be going on up here. Whilst I have not conducted a DNA test to confirm whether this is a real cat pelt, it looks to be real. I am told that was purchased at the Mindil Beach Market. Somebody in the Northern Territory is marketing a cat fur product. Clearly, if that was a domestic cat and this particular bill was supported by the government, it would make that type of conduct illegal and unlawful and send the right message out.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, the bill was introduced by me on 13 August 2003, and there was a second reading speech. Then, in November 2003, the Attorney-General, on one of the opposition’s rare General Business Days, quite reasonably said he agreed with the sentiment of the bill and, at face value, he was certainly sympathetic to what the opposition was trying to do. He gave an undertaking to me that the matter would be referred to a committee which was conducting some sort of review of the Animal Welfare Act and that, when that committee had looked at it and made a decision of the precise form it was going to take, he was going to allow me to sponsor that particular bill into parliament and, in a bipartisan way, the bill would receive support.
Well, I have heard absolutely nothing from the Attorney-General. I wrote a letter to him very recently, asking what the status of the review was and whether the committee had come to any conclusions. I received absolutely no response to that. I erroneously went back to the RSPCA and said: ‘I am surprised, but it seems the Attorney-General and the government are not trying to gazump the opposition with political expediency. They seem to be saying this is a reasonable issue and I believe there might be a situation where there might be some sort of bipartisan support’. They were, quite frankly, happy with that and, credit where credit is due, I said: ‘You are in government and, of course, the government has more resources than the opposition, and it is probably not an unreasonable request for the Attorney-General to say that we put it through the committee stage, and make sure the form is right so that, at the end of the day they are with us and support us’. I gave the Attorney-General some credit for that. I gave him credit publicly for that and despite the fact that some members of the government were laughing and jeering and making fun of this issue when it was first brought to parliament on 13 August 2003, the members of the RSPCA who attended the meeting were comforted to hear that at least the government on a more serious note were taking the issues seriously.
Well, it just goes to show that that expectation that has been created has been dashed like many other expectations this government creates in the minds of the community, because come D-day, the minister stands up and parrots off a very poorly written and short response as to why the government will not support the bill. He dismisses the bill in a cavalier fashion. Coupled with that, he is technically wrong with what he said. His rationale for not supporting it is just outrageous, it is wrong. It just smacks off contempt for the system, contempt for the members of the RSPCA and the Humane Society who actually put a fair bit of work into this. It has been published on their Australia-wide web that the local Northern Territory government is leading the way here, they are having a crack at this, and really to say that no one else has done is pathetic, and a let down.
You would find a number of other jurisdictions who are currently looking at this precise problem would have followed the Northern Territory’s lead. That is not going to happen and that is a very sad indictment on the current Labor government. It is just another example where they have deliberately created an expectation. They have abused the trust which the Territory people have placed in them. I expect that the people who are interested in this bill will remember the way they have been treated in relation to this very important topic.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 11 Noes 12
Mr Baldwin Mrs Aagaard
Mr Burke Mr Ah Kit
Ms Carney Mr Bonson
Ms Carter Dr Burns
Mr Dunham Mr Henderson
Mr Elferink Mr Kiely
Dr Lim Ms Lawrie
Mr Maley Mr McAdam
Mrs Miller Ms Scrymgour
Mr Mills Mr Stirling
Mr Wood Dr Toyne
Mr Vatskalis
Motion negatived.
Continued from 26 November 2003.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that General Business Orders of the Day No 4 relating to the Liquor Amendment Bill (No 3) be withdrawn.
Members will recall that in November last year, the government adopted the amendments that were included in this bill.
Motion agreed to; bill withdrawn.
Continued from 26 November 2003.
Mr HENDERSON (Business and Industry): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, the government will not be supporting this bill for a number of reasons that I will go through, but, first and foremost, government sees this bill as nothing other than a cheap political stunt by the member for Drysdale and members opposite.
Why do we see this as a cheap political stunt? Simply because taking illicit substances is illegal in the Northern Territory. If any member of this House has any evidence that any member of this parliament is taking illicit substances, that member has an obligation to report that observation to the police for investigation. That is the bottom line.
Why this parliament would seek to create a regime whereby the bar the is lower for members of parliament and, via a testing regime, that members of this House could be referred, on a positive test, to the Privileges Committee is something that we do not support. If any member of this parliament is using illegal substances, they should be reported to the police and if the police believe they have sufficient evidence, then that member should see their day in court and be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, not by a committee of politicians. We see this as a complete political stunt and it is one that we do not support.
The member for Drysdale admits that he has no knowledge or information that drug use is a problem in this Chamber. Why would we go about creating a regime in order to halt a practice when, by his own admission, there is no knowledge or information of the practice being prevalent in this Chamber. This is an attempt of making laws for the sake of making laws for a headline for a member of parliament. Already, it has cost the taxpayer money because, not only does Parliamentary Counsel have to waste time drafting this legislation responsibly, we have had the police do some work on the cost of administering this particular piece of legislation if it were to come to pass, and advice from police is that drug testing from a person’s blood supply as provided for in the bill can only be performed by a doctor or a nurse. The costs for laboratory tests alone would be about $500 each.
We are talking, subject to annual and random tests, plus the cost of the doctor to administer, administration, we are talking in excess of $60 000 per annum to administer a process for which the proponent of this bill is on the public record saying he has no knowledge or information that drug use is a problem in this Chamber. So we are not going to commit taxpayers money, time and effort, effort not only from people to collect blood samples, but the Clerk of this Assembly, who has a lot of important work to do to other than run around and arrange blood tests from 25 members of parliament once a year, we are not going to do it because, on his own admission, if it is not broken why would we try and fix something.
However, the bottom line here is that this is a government that takes illicit drug use very seriously. We have addressed a raft of legislation to give police the powers. The previous government refused to give them, such as witness protection legislation.. They did not even acknowledge that we had a significant problem in our community, to close down drug houses, to seize the assets of people who profit from the proceeds of running drugs in our community. The police are doing a great job, but to create an act of parliament that compels members in this House to a random drug testing regime when there is absolutely no evidence that it is a problem in this place, and to commit the taxpayer to the tune of $50 000 or $60 000 a year to administer a pointless exercise is something that the government is not convinced is a priority for Territorians.
The proposal would see a doctor or nurse, and a parliamentary official, spending over $60 000 a year. It is hard to fathom what the CLP is trying to achieve. Is it seeking to make a point? Are they seeking to make a point that we welcome the advent of random drug testing in the Northern Territory if it is politicians first, who is next? Will it be public servants? The whole concept of random drug testing, where it does take place, out in the community, on mine sites, or amongst the ADF, and certainly out at Bechtel at the moment, is that from an employer’s point of view, in their duty of care to the employee, and in providing a safe workplace, that, when working in a hazardous occupation that any taking or consumption of an illicit substance which may impair your capacity to do the job you are employed to do, not only endangers yourself as an individual, but also endangers your work colleagues. That is something, quite rightly, that a responsible employer’s supported by unions, I have to say, believe has no place in a workplace and that is the reason for the random regime.
It is not a case of double standards, one rule for blue collar workers, and one rule for white collar politicians; it is purely a principle in this place. Yes, we have to make decisions, and we have to be of clear mind when we make those decisions but, if, for example, there was one member of this House who was under the influence of any substance, whether it be alcohol or an illicit substance, the capacity for that one individual to pass legislation that would have a detrimental impact on the Northern Territory population, it just could not happen under those processes. But in a workplace, a single individual who is under the influence of alcohol or any other illicit substance, and causes an accident in that workplace, could potentially harm or kill his fellow colleagues.
There is no rationale, under any circumstance, to bring this bill before this House. There is no evidence provided by the member who is proposing this bill - and I assume he has support from his colleagues. There is no evidence that has been tendered so far that it is a problem in this particular parliament and, certainly, the criminal law should apply. The law should apply to all Territorians equally and, if members opposite have any evidence of members of this parliament indulging in drug use, then they should report that to the police and let the police deal with it, and not be dealt with by a committee of this parliament.
There is no problem, so why are we passing legislation? It is going to cost $50 000 to $60 000 a year to administer, and I am sure the taxpayer of the Northern Territory would believe that there is better things to spend that money on. The principle of why random drug testing is in place in some workplaces is all about individual safety and occupational health and safety for other employees in the workplace, and it is hard to argue that that is the bar in this particular Chamber. This is nothing short of a political stunt and the government is going to oppose it.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Absolutely fascinating, Madam Speaker. Let us go and test the quality of the argument that we have just been given by the Leader of Government Business. If I understand the Leader of Government Business correctly, because there is no perceived problem and because we do not want to apply a different standard to members of parliament than are out there in the community there is, therefore, no reason to introduce this piece of legislation or pass this bill before us today, because we have no evidence of a problem.
Well, I am pleased to hear that because, if that is the case, then I should not have to fill out my declaration of interests form. There is no suggestion that I have every conducted myself with any impropriety in relation to my declaration of interests or any of the property that I own. Yet, there is a different standard that applies to me; there is a very different standard. That is what this issue is about before this House today.
Getting rid of facile arguments such as it is all going to cost too much; it costs $60 000. It costs $5000 an hour to run this parliament and, yet, we have no complaints about that from members opposite. Why? Because the parliamentary process is fundamental to the operation of the Northern Territory. Indeed, with the code of conduct that the members opposite are stridently trying to bring forward, it is not unreasonable to suggest that we do have different standards that apply to us. I am quite prepared, as a member of this House, to be drug tested or alcohol tested, for that matter, at any time. I can stand up here quite comfortably and say that, at not one occasion in the last six-and-a-half years that I have been a member of this House, have I ever had so much as a single drink of liquor in my system, or a single drug on board, other than caffeine, when I have been in this House. Yet, I am still prepared to subordinate myself to this, as I am prepared, quite happily, to subordinate myself to a set of rules which make me fill out my declaration of interests. Why? Because the conduct of parliaments and parliamentarians should not only be beyond reproach, but should be seen to be beyond reproach.
Is the cost of testing really that outrageous that, if we were to spend $60 000, considering the cost of running this whole Legislative Assembly, would it be that unreasonable an impost to the taxpayer to know that their parliamentarians were clean and sober when they were passing laws on behalf of the people of the Northern Territory? Absolutely not. Yet, we hear the members opposite saying: ‘No, no, no, no. You do not have to worry about their members’ conduct in here. The only thing we are really worried about in the code of conduct, this set of rules’. Well, why do we have a set of rules for one lot of things like ownership of shares, ownership of property, interest in business and those sorts of things, and not another set of rules? That is because the only thing that this government is really interested in is trawling through members’ property to see if they can catch them out in some sort of illicit deals or naughtiness.
This code of conduct should be a much broader thing if they are truly interested in conduct. They are not interested in conduct. They are only interested in discovering things about others that might be used to embarrass them. Well, I believe a code of conduct should be a much broader animal, broader in the sense that I should be subject at any time to an alcohol test or a drug test, and would be happy to at any time. I would like to be able to demonstrate to the people of the Northern Territory that I am clean and that I am sober when I am deliberating on their behalf. It is a great responsibility which has been placed upon our shoulders. What the member for Drysdale was quite rightly arguing, is that if you have a great responsibility then you have a higher level of accountability. That is the reason we have the declaration of our property and interests, and it is why we should also be able to declare that we are sober when we come into this place and we are drug free.
The minister says that the bar is being lowered by something like this. No. The bar is being raised. The test which should apply to me as a parliamentarian should be raised. That is what the member for Drysdale is suggesting; that there is going to be a higher standard for us, in the same way that our declaration of interest and our conduct should be beyond reproach, in how we deal with financial issues, share ownership, business ownership, property ownership, those sorts of things; should also apply to how we conduct ourselves out there, and we are often dragged through the press because of conduct of individual members out there. So why should not the test also apply to what is inside our systems? Now, to run the argument that it is illegal and therefore that it is already being looked after; well, it is not illegal to own shares, it is not illegal to own businesses, it is not illegal to own property, yet different standards apply. So, if this government was going to be consistent, then surely it should be consistent with the whole approach to the way it does these things.
Sports people need to be tested. Why do sports people need to be tested? Because it reflects on their conduct as sportsmen, as to whether they cheat or not. That is why sportsmen are tested. It is not a duty of care thing. It is a reasonable standard which we expect from professional sportsmen. They are then automatically tested. As a professional legislator, surely it should be reasonable that I be tested from time to time to see whether or not I am taking any substances which may affect my ability to do that job. The public have a right to know about that, as they have a right to know about what our share interests are, and what our business interests are, and what property we own. Why do they have that right to know? Because if we are making decisions in here that reflect and affect that ownership, then that needs to be declared. That is why we declare interests when we stand up.
Surely we also should be declaring our interest in being able to conduct ourselves as parliamentarians, as clean and sober people. To suggest that the member is wasting the time of Parliamentary Counsel, surely the whole purpose of this parliament is to bring forward ideas and suggestions and put them to the people of this Chamber and the people of the Northern Territory, so that ideas can be explored. Now, not every idea that comes into this Chamber is perfect. There might be drafting problems; there might be problems with the idea on a fundamental level. But that does not mean that members should say, oh, I am too afraid to bring forward an idea. That is an absurd proposition; you are wasting the time of Parliamentary Counsel if you bring in any piece of legislation that the government will not immediately accede to, so you should not waste the time of Parliamentary Counsel.
That actually puts the government ahead of the parliament regarding what happens in this place. And that is one of the downsides of the unicameral system that we have in the Northern Territory, that there is no review process. Effectively, the government is in control. The government can do whatever it pleases and the parliament is subordinate as far as the government is concerned. What happens now is that there is an attitude creeping in amongst the ministers of this government and that attitude is that the parliament is almost an irritation, and that irritation is something that needs to be dismissed, and how dismissive has this government got? Well, let us have a look. The minister talks about blood testing. Has he read this bill? Evidently not because blood testing is not in the bill. There is no mention of it.
This is an interesting thing: the minister stands up for seven minutes, says that the opposition is being irritating and wasting the time of Parliamentary Counsel and he has not even read the bill. He has not a clue what is inside this legislation. He has not even bothered to get himself briefed on it. He has not referred to any of the notes that they say often and normally refer to. As far as I am concerned, the contempt with which he deals with this parliament is reflective of the contempt that the government has for the people of the Northern Territory. Realistically, the question needs to be asked; if this government is so scared of testing members in this Chamber, really the question begs: what have you to hide? I can tell you all the members on this side of the House have no problem with it.
What really do these members opposite have to hide? What are they so scared of that they would find? They are not scared of having a look at people’s financial details, but they are certainly scared of having a look at people’s saliva and urine samples not doubt.
The government is just being a little bit too cute with this by far. They say it is a cheap political stunt. It is not a cheap political stunt; it is a genuine attempt to make sure that there are standards applied to parliamentarians so that the people of the Northern Territory can have at least a little confidence in the parliament in the Northern Territory because it is clear that this minister and the government has no confidence in this parliament of the Northern Territory and would rather be without it if they had there way.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I want to say a few words about this bill and I should make it clear that I do not support it. That does not mean that I necessarily support the argument that the government is putting against it. I support the sentiment of the bill and understand what the member for Drysdale is trying to say, but I do not believe this is the right approach.
It was interesting listening to the member for Macdonnell talk about how one declares their interests in things. I believe that as a politician, people trust me to do the right thing, especially in matters relating to the law and if I do the wrong thing, I certainly will pay the consequences at the next election.
There is perhaps an alternative response to what the member for Drysdale is doing. I believe that it would be becoming of members of parliament perhaps voluntarily to declare that they neither use or illicit drugs, nor support or promote their use. I have said those very same words in document. I would like to table that document and have it on record. That is how I believe we should declare our non support for the use of illicit drugs.
Leave granted.
Mr WOOD: I believe that this is what is needed. Even that should be up to the individual member to declare. If I am found to have made a false declaration, I will, I am sure, pay the consequence at the next election and probably through the court system.
This would be a better way. I have argued about the Code of Conduct before because, in some ways, when it referred to a person’s personal living habits, I believe that it is the voters who will judge you on how you have conducted yourself in public, in parliament or anywhere. In the end, the voters will decide whether you are honest or not. I have no problem promoting the idea that the use of illicit drugs is a bad thing throughout our community.
I have advocated that kids, especially our young people, should be steered more into sport, music, the arts and reading and getting their high from those activities. We should be showing young people by example. It would be good if we made a public statement as members of parliament here that we oppose the use of these drugs, that we do not use them. I feel that would be sufficient. I understand where the member for Drysdale is coming from, but in this case it is overkill.
I am not really concerned about any other arguments that may come up. This is perhaps a better way of doing something on which the voters in my electorate can judge me.
Dr BURNS (Essential Services): Madam Speaker, I speak to the Legislative Assembly Members (Random Drug Testing) Bill 2003 moved by the member for Drysdale. The title of this bill purports to be about random drug testing but, as the Leader of Government Business has pointed out, it is probably more about political grandstanding by the member for Drysdale than anything else. I will deal with the second issue, after firstly looking at the important issue of random drug testing in the workplace.
Random drug testing in the workplace is a very serious and contentious issue, and although this debate centres on the workplace, I wish to once again lay my concern in relation to the harmful effects of drug use generally in our community on the Parliamentary Record. Drug abuse in our community is extremely serious, and has harmful effects at every level of society - for the individual, for family and friends, for the economy, and for particularly those workplaces where there is a direct threat of real physical danger to fellow workers or the public through alcohol or drug use. The impact of drug use on health, wellbeing and happiness is profound. In the wake of drug abuse there is misery broken lives, broken homes, suicide and despair.
Drugs of abuse are sometimes properly described within three sometimes overlapping categories: narcotic drugs, sometimes known as dangerous drugs, including opiates such as heroin, stimulants such as cocaine, LSD and amphetamines. The second group, or so-called recreational drugs, like ecstasy, cannabis and alcohol, and the third group, often referred to as prescription drugs, including commonly abused prescription drugs such as Benzodiazepines, antidepressants and opiates amongst others. They all have a proven record of harm, and that harm should never be underestimated. In particular, I have spoken a number of times in this House about the way in which the harmful effects of cannabis have been seriously underestimated, particularly by those who blindly advocate its use as a totally benign recreational drug.
In essence, the member for Drysdale has proposed a bill which includes random drug testing of all members of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly at least once a year. The test involves analysis, contrary to what the member for Macdonnell might believe. Reading the bill, I see in definitions, clause 3, that the test involves analysis of a urine or blood sample provided by the member on request. The Clerk of the Parliament is to oversee the testing and must refer refusal to supply a sample to the Privileges Committee. This next bit is very important. If the test is positive, the Clerk must also refer the results to the Privileges Committee which, and I quote from the bill, ‘must investigate the reasons for the presence of the drug and report its findings to the Legislative Assembly’. No ifs or buts about that; that is in the proposed bill. In addition, the report that I just mentioned, and I quote: ‘… may include the recommendations about the actions to be taken as a consequence of the report’.
Apart from those workplaces where drug and alcohol use presents a real and direct danger to the physical safety of other workers or the general public, I believe there is little justification for random drug testing in the workplace. Furthermore, inherently, this bill is fatally flawed for a whole raft of reasons, and I will demonstrate the reasons why clearly, concisely and in a detailed fashion. I will follow that by a critical appraisal of the evidence, or lack of it, relating to random drug testing in the workplace, because this whole argument about random drug testing in the workplace is central to what we are talking about. As the Leader of Government Business has said, this not only applies in the first step to the 25 members of this Legislative Assembly, but potentially to all members of the Northern Territory Public Service, and I will talk about that within this speech tonight.
Apart from the exceptions I have already outlined - and to say them again; that is, in workplaces where alcohol and drug use presents a real and direct danger to the physical safety of other workers or the public - random drug testing in the workplace has not been demonstrated by properly designed, scientific studies to achieve any of the spectacular results so often attributed to it. I will quote extensively from an Australian book called Drugs and Work, edited by Steve Allsop, Mike Phillips and Carlo Calogero, published in 2001, which extensively reviews international and Australian study on the efficacy of workplace and drug and alcohol testing to improve safety and productivity. The findings of this particular review also reinforce the conclusions of a study undertaken in 1994 under the auspices of the prestigious US National Academy of Science, or NAS, titled Under the Influence – Drugs and the American Workplace. Indeed, there is one important statistic highlighted by one of the authors of the Australian publication, Mike Phillips, on page 28:
Raised blood alcohol levels appear to contribute to at least 4% of all working deaths. On the other hand,
they remarked that drugs appeared to contribute to 2% of working deaths.
Also, it comes as no surprise that excess alcohol consumption has been demonstrated to be associated with increased absenteeism, aggression in the workplace, and impaired decision-making. Thus, it can be seen that, if there is to be a focus on drug use in the workplace, alcohol should be a primary focus. It does not even rate a mention within the member for Drysdale’s bill. Indeed, the Opposition Leader was questioned on this issue by Pete and Lisa on Mix 104.9 on 27 November 2003. This is to the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Blain:
Pete: So would you go the whole hog? I mean, if you were going to test for drugs you would have to test for booze as well.
Mills: Oh, look, I think we might be going a bit too far there.
It will be interesting to hear the opposition’s current position on this matter. Indeed, in this context, it is also interesting to see the genesis of this bill, which lies not with the member for Drysdale on 25 November 2003, but with the esteemed CLP member for Solomon, Mr Dave Tollner. I refer to another news article in the NT News, on 13 February 2002. It says:
Tollner in gas pledge.
Top End MP Dave Tollner is to carry on pushing for random drug testing of federal MPs.
But he said it would be an issue with him only after gas from the Timor Sea has arrived in Darwin
and the Territory has become a state.
Mr Tollner, 36, whose driving licence was suspended for six months in December when he admitted
to drink-driving, made his vow to pursue MPs who illegally used drugs during last year’s election campaign.
There we have it! The CLP federal member for Solomon, David Tollner, on Wednesday 13 February 2002. He probably has first claim on this.
However, enough said - back to the authoritative Australian review mentioned earlier, where conclusions are drawn about the effects of alcohol and other drugs in the workplace, and I quote from the article by Phillips on page 40:
The evidence allows us to make rough estimates of the contribution of alcohol to occupational injuries and
fatalities. For illegal drugs, the evidence base is much weaker and the estimates lower. In the most robust of
studies that point to an association between drug use and negative work outcomes, the relationship is nevertheless
minor.
It is worthwhile to keep in mind the relative contributions to workplace injuries and fatalities in perspective. I will further quote from Jim Nolan on page 60 of the Australian Review. He says:
Evidence suggests that it is fatigue, not impairment through drug and alcohol use, that leads to the majority
of accidents.
I am attempting to put random drug testing in the workplace into perspective. Nevertheless, given the association with injury and fatalities, particularly for alcohol, it is not surprising that a number of major employers in Australia, including BHP, transport authorities and the mining industry, have adopted random workplace drug testing for alcohol and illicit drugs, with safety as a very understandable concern. In these days, where public and corporate liability are both major considerations, most people would accept that this is a very responsible safeguard. However, beyond those workplaces where alcohol and drug use may pose a direct physical danger to other workers and the public, I believe that random drug testing in the workplace is difficult to justify on the evidence already presented. This view, particularly related to workplace accidents and injuries, will also be argued in an upcoming extensive publication in Australia by Midford et al. So we have a continuity of views there by all the reviews about this particular issue.
Also, I strongly believe it is difficulty to justify such testing in work settings beyond those I have already mentioned because it strikes at the very foundation of individual rights and our legal system which has as its basis the presumption of innocence. In other words, because there is no other evidence except the suggestion that there may be illicit drug users in any group in our society, all members of that group should be drug tested to prove their innocence. Madam Speaker, what sort of big brother mentality is that?
This is what the member for Drysdale is arguing. He has used an estimate in the 1998 National Drug Strategy Household Survey, which he has quoted, to say that 20% of the Australian population has used an illicit drug in the last 12 months, thereby alleging that five amongst 25 MLAs in this House are illicit drug users. He then argues that all 25 should undergo drug testing to prove each individual’s innocence. On the same somewhat questionable statistical extrapolation is he also accusing 20% of the 15 000 strong Northern Territory public servants of being illicit drug users - some 3000 people - and proposing that all 15 000 public servants in the Northern Territory should undergo random compulsory drug testing in their workplaces? If he is going to apply the same reasoning, then that is what he is saying.
In the days following his announcement of this bill, the member for the Drysdale and the Leader of the Opposition both talked of leadership on this issue. In his second reading speech, the member for Drysdale mentioned – I am quoting here – ‘was endorsed by the CLP party wing’. So obviously, random drug testing in the workplace is CLP policy and this bill is the first step to implementing this policy. NT public servants should therefore be aware that the CLP would implement random drug testing throughout the public service. So here you have it. At the core of this bill is a philosophy by the CLP that a person is guilty until their sample can prove their innocence. A quite different context to what the member for Macdonnell was mentioning about the declaration about pecuniary interest which I am in favour of and believe is right. It brings transparency to dealings that government and members of this place might have financial dealings, but this is an entirely different issue. Despite what the member for Drysdale asserts in his second reading speech, and he said, ‘that such sampling is not intrusive’; it certainly is.
Let me quote from a letter from a female employer in the United States which underscores the fact that a crucial part of the testing procedure is to directly observe the urine being passed and I quote:
I was led into a very small room with a toilet, sink and desk. I was given a container in which to urinate by the
attendant. I waited for her to turn her back before pulling down my pants but she told me she had to watch
everything I did. I pulled down my pants, put the container in place, as she bent down to watch I gave her
the sample and even then she did not look away. I am a 40 year old mother of three and nothing I had ever
done in my life equals or deserves the humiliation, degradation and mortification I felt.
Madam Speaker, this is what the CLP wants to impose on every public servant in the Northern Territory. In addition, despite what the member for Drysdale asserts, blood testing is considered to be an invasive technique. For this reason medical researchers need to provide very strong reasons for collecting blood samples to an ethics committee. The member for Drysdale has not provided compelling reasons in his second reading speech or his public comments for the imposition of this regime, firstly on MLAs and then on 15 000 public servants in the Northern Territory.
Furthermore, this bill is unworkable and unfair at an operational level for a significant number of reasons. This is where some of the arguments that I am going to put now all members need to think about very carefully.
First, in his bill, the member for Drysdale has identified the presence of a dangerous drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act as a trigger for a whole range of processes and sanctions within his bill. If the member for Drysdale wants me to quote, I will quote it, but basically, that is what it is all about.
It says under section 3 Definitions:
‘dangerous drug’ has the same meaning as in the Misuse of Drugs Act.
So there is a drug test. If the drug test reveals the presence of a dangerous within the Misuse of Drugs Act, or, for that matter, would also unnecessarily mean the presence of the drug or its metabolites or breakdown products either within blood or urine, that would trigger a whole range of processes and sanctions underneath the member’s bill.
This is critical, and I would demonstrate how the member for Drysdale’s bill has a potential to embarrass members of this House and potentially 15 000 Northern Territory public servants through no fault of their own.
Schedule 2 of the Misuse of Drugs Act, which I have here, lists a whole range of substances, over 220 of them in all. I have been through the list and scrutinised it very carefully. This list includes analgesics such as codeine and morphine and a range of other common medicines it is quite legal to use in certain circumstances, but illegal to possess, traffic or administer in unauthorised circumstances.
Now, that is fair enough. We all understand the context of the Misuse of Drugs Act. This is exactly where the member for Drysdale’s bill starts to unravel. I will explain why; it is not too complicated. I will illustrate. Codeine, for example, is a commonly used painkiller analgesic and can be quite legally purchased in any chemist shop. I suppose most members here might have purchased either Codral or Panadeine, which are well known and widely used.
Should a member of this House take these tablets for a headache, toothache or other minor pain and be tested, they would test positive for both codeine and morphine. This is because codeine is broken down in the body to morphine. So you come in the parliament or whatever, going to work, you have a headache or some minor pain, you purchase one of these analgesics quite legally over the counter, you are randomly tested and, hey presto!, either your blood and/or your urine test positive to both codeine and morphine.
Because both of these substances are scheduled under the Misuse of Drugs Act, the member would then be called upon to explain themselves to the Privileges Committee, which, under this proposed legislation, must report to parliament.
We see the media interest when an athlete is called before authorities to answer questions about drug tests. I believe similar interest would centre on parliamentarians. But it does not end there. Pholcodine is also on the list within the Misuse of Drugs Act. Pholcodine is a very common ingredient in over the counter pharmacy cough mixtures, but a positive test would see a member before the Privileges Committee and the subsequent report to parliament.
There are many other examples of medicines that are included in Schedule 2 of the Misuse of Drugs Act that a doctor might have legitimately prescribe: Lomotil or Diphenoxylate for diarrhoea; strong painkillers for a cancer; hormonal preparations for endometriosis in women; and steroids such as testosterone for testicular dysfunction in males; agents used in anaesthesia - in other words, if you go to hospital and you have some surgical technique and you are randomly tested the day after that, those things would turn up in your bloodstream, in your urine and you would test positive.
There were many, many others. The list goes on and on. Members would then have to explain intimate and confidential medical conditions to the Privileges Committee whose membership includes their political opponents, not to mention the fallout once the information became public.
Such confidential medical information must become public under the member for Drysdale’s bill. To quote clause 5 section 4:
The Privileges Committee must investigate the reasons for the presence of a drug and report findings
to the Legislative Assembly.
Madam Speaker, to repeat what I said earlier, the member for Drysdale’s bill has a very real potential to embarrass members of this House, and potentially 15 000 Northern Territory public servants through no fault of their own.
As the member for Macdonnell said, yes, we are subject to a greater level of scrutiny than other members of the community, but surely we should have the privacy, if we do have sensitive medical conditions, if we have been into hospital for surgery, if we are taking hormonal preparations for whatever reasons under medical supervision, all of that sort of thing would become public in this House, and I do not think that is a good thing.
This is even apart from the well documented cases of false positives in urine testing - between 3% and 8% dependent on the specific urine test. These false positives include opiates mistaken from poppy seeds on bread or bagels, that is quite a common one when you look through the literature. Ranitidine, which is a drug used in ulcer treatment, is sometimes mistaken for amphetamines in urine testing, and many others. There is also the issue of what is known as innocent positives, through the inadvertent exposure of an individual or adulteration of samples. This sort of thing has been documented within the sporting world.
A lot has been talked about the screening and tests, I suppose I am someone in this House who has analysed for drugs and metabolites in urine in blood, and let me tell you, that there are 220 substances in here, and some of them are very complex substances within the schedule of the Misuse of Drugs Act. Some of those analyses would be very complex, indeed. We are not just talking about a common test battery, that the police or the hospital does of opiates, cannabis, amphetamines or whatever, we are talking about a whole range of 220 substances, one of which, I might add, is bufotenine, the venomous toxin from the Bufo marinus, the cane toad, so that is a fairly complex alkaloid bufotanis, but it is in the schedule.
I made the point there. It is unworkable on operational levels for all sorts of reasons. It does away with the presumption of innocence, which is a basic corner stone of our justice system. It has all sorts of technical difficulties as well as privacy issues.
No doubt, the member for Drysdale will attempt to deny reality. The reality being that this bill is unnecessary, unworkable and fatally flawed. In his wrapping up, he will probably say, well anyone who rejects this bill, or if the government rejects this bill it has something to hide. We also have the Leader of the Opposition going along this track, and he offered the bizarre simile of searching schoolchildren’s bags as the basis for the implementation of the CLP policy of random drug testing.
Here he is, once again, on Pete and Lisa; Pete and Lisa are an absolute mine field. They are talking about this issue on Thursday 27 November 2003, and basically he is talking about random drug testing and all the rest of it and he says:
‘Look, as a former school principal, when I would occasionally need to inspect student’s bags, the only ones
who would be a little bit troubled about that were those who had something in their bag they might have been
worried about. So if there is any sort of opposition to this, or feathers get ruffled, I would also think that
suspicion would also warrant closure scrutiny. But the issue here is really setting a community standard’.
So here is the spectre of the Leader of the Opposition going through the school kid’s bags – pity help them if they have a bit of parsley on the egg sandwich - it is all about guilt. Well, if you do not like it you have something to hide. Well, I do not like it and I do not think I have anything to hide. I do not want to live in a big brother state, with a big brother mentality. Our forefathers went to war against that sort of thing and that is why I oppose it.
On this whole thing of imputation of guilt or accusation, if you like, or implicit accusation, as the Leader of Government Business said, there is a challenge for the member for Drysdale: put up or shut up. As the police minister said in his press release at the time:
If the CLP has concerns or evidence that any parliamentarians are using illicit drugs, then I urge them to
report this activity to the police so it may be dealt with.
Madam Speaker, there are lots of arguments about this. I would just like to tender this cartoon here. It is a Patrick Cook cartoon and is captioned here: ‘Mr Speaker, is the honourable member half full or half empty?’ The arguments put forward on the bill by the opposition, is political grandstanding; they are empty arguments. This bill is unnecessary, unworkable and fatally flawed. It is based on political grandstanding and I am not supporting it, and I know the government is not supporting it.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, ignorance is being paraded here. I really do not know where to start, but I should start with the first speaker, the police minister who, obviously, has not read the second reading speech. For starters, he talks about politicians being the first, and who will follow next, the public service? Then he cites various other instances, such as the oil and gas and Defence. We are definitely not the first. This is not some thing where the politicians are right out the front. There are many members of our society who are tested, and I said that in the second reading speech.
The second thing he talked about was blood tests. While we have put in there that the tests may include saliva, urine and blood testing, I did mention in the second reading speech that there are very simple kits that are available now that are merely saliva tests, and very unobtrusive and very easy to use.
The other thing he talked about was the cost, $60 000. This is remarkable. He has a report from the police - a report which he has been unable to table here, saying it is going to cost us $60 000. If that were true - let us assume it is true ...
Mr Henderson: Why would the police lie?
Mr DUNHAM: No, I am assuming it is true. If it costs us $2400 or something for each member of this House, how do you reckon Bechtel are going out there? They have put on 1100 staff, mate. That is about $2.5m in drug testing. Is that what you are telling me they are testing? It is a ludicrous proposition and you know it is, and you know it is because there are some very simple tests that do not cost that amount of money. If you believe it is that expensive, go and talk to the Army, to Bechtel, to sporting groups, because they use them now and they are much, much cheaper than that. You obviously did not read it.
The member for Macdonnell raised a very good point about us requiring members’ registers and whatever. Like him, I do not object to it. Given that the government read them frequently, they will know that one of the reasons I do not object to it is I am not a holder of vast reserves of wealth. However, it is an intrusion of privacy, and something that the last speaker, the member for Johnston, found terribly offensive - this business about people stickybeaking into your affairs. Well, should people know how much your wife has in the bank account? Should they know her property holdings? I would say that some of that privacy we forgo when we come into this place. We forgo it, maybe by a declaration of this type, which is not being asked of the community in general, but could well be asked of us. That is an interesting proposition.
The member for Nelson’s pledge - or whatever he calls it - is a good idea, and I hope that it is circulated and that every member signs it. I do not see it as, necessarily, an argument against this. I see it as ancillary to it. Some of the behaviours and some of the things we do in this place as leaders spill into the wider community, and there is a call that the bar for us is higher. This is another foolish notion of the police minister, where he thought we were lowering the bar when, in fact, we are asking for a standard in here that is higher than for many in the general community.
Regarding the vast contribution by the member for Johnston, I am absolutely astounded that he has this idea that this is about workplace safety. If he talks about illicit drugs killing 2% in the workplace, well, I do not think this workplace has ever had a fatality. It is more than that. I used to like to watch Ben Johnson run. I thought he was a great runner. I used to absolutely adore the way he would run down the hundred metres. But he was a cheat. In his community, in his circle of friends, what he did was highly offensive to them. There was a bar that was set for him that was much higher than just for somebody who was running around the paddock at Little Athletics. If you are just going to look at this as we might do something here that endangers the health of somebody or the public, it is a bit foolish. The main reason we are doing it is because we have decided things certain things are illicit. So it is an issue of hypocrisy. The issue is if you say this parliament finds littering offensive, you should not litter. If it says that there are fines for various things that we believe as a parliament applied to all of society, we should adhere to that.
The origin of the idea that there is some collusion with Mr Tollner, I can assure you that that is not the case. The people who came to me came from defence, and they came out of oil and gas. Their basic argument was there was an issue of vast hypocrisy for this parliament to make the laws and not adhere by them. They saw it not as an issue of somehow one of us tripping over somebody else here while you are spaced out on some sort of drug and taking their life through that accident. They saw it as an issue of this parliament making laws for the benefit of people and those of us that sit here in this high moral judgment abiding by those laws. That is how they saw it. I have to say I am attracted to that proposition myself.
This whole argument that these people out there said, ‘Well, it is only 2% and alcohol is 4%, well, who cares?’ It is really not so much about workplace safety, I would suggest. He is also saying fatigue is a big culprit. Well, big deal. The fact is we are not after some sort of a workplace safety audit. We are after this House adhering to the very standards we set for the rest of the community.
The business about the presumption of innocence is a good one. One wonders why this government has random breath tests. Because random breath tests pull up everybody. They pull up grandmas, old people, young people, males and females, Aboriginal people, and they make the assumption that if they test a certain amount of the society, some people will have a level of intoxication.
Mr Henderson: So they will introduce random drug testing as well.
Mr DUNHAM: No, no, listen to the argument. So if this argument holds true that you cannot test somebody because it is actually an intrusion on their civil liberties, why do we have random breath testing at all? It is exactly the same proposition. What you are doing is saying is that in this society there is a proposition that there is a certain amount of people will be driving while intoxicated and we can extrapolate that with a test and sometimes we can find that that proposition holds true, that is, we catch people driving when they are drunk.
Now, the whole notion that if I see somebody out there consuming illicit drugs I will go and tell the coppers and that is how you fix it up because that is the only way. Well, that is a little bit foolhardy too because the same proposition would apply to RBTs. You would say if you saw a person drink that much beer you worked out on your little calculator given your drugs and alcohol, you saw them get in and start a car, then you should call the police that is probably true. But I can assure you that that tactic would not get half as money people as RBT.
We get to the vexed issue of statistics and the scientists amongst us, the member for Johnston, had some great difficulty with my extrapolation of saying that in a report up to 20% of adults in society it has been suggested they have used illicit drugs in the last year. It could be that we are representative of society. That is what I was saying. It could well be that the 20% could well be replicated here. I am not saying it is or it is not. It could be over or it could be under. Maybe we are not represented. I still think it is a reasonable extrapolation to make. The extrapolation had problems because where he says, ‘I have a bill here about random drug testing of politicians and that means the public servants.’ So he has extrapolated from 25 to 16 000 public servants, and he accuses me of having some quick and dirty scientific methodology.
That is the most bizarre thing I have heard in my life. We are not talking about public servants in the same way as we are here. We are not talking about going to the Committee of Privileges because it is inappropriate for them. We are not talking about divulging their assets on an Asset Register; we are not talking about them making the laws to which they should then adhere. This is specifically an issue about us 25 politicians.
If he wants to start a little scary thing out there saying: ‘Dunham is going to come and get you if you vote for the CLP; you will all be drug tested’, that is stupid, absolutely trite and stupid. It is also attributing unbecoming motives to me, I should add, along with various allegations that this is entirely political. If this is a political stunt, drug matters are not an issue of importance for us. They are. They are an issue of importance, and we have talked about them long and hard in here.
If we cannot at least say our own behaviour should be above reproach, some of the debate has been empty rhetoric. We have to get to the stage where we say it is so important that we believe that we can demonstrate to the community that there are issues that we will take on that demonstrate absolutely that we are adhering to our own laws.
On that same note, I was a bit surprised that the Leader of Government Business took umbrage at the fact that Parliamentary Counsel was used to draft this bill. I am surprised at that. Before your arrogance kicks in too much, this is the people’s House. The people who come in here are called politicians, and they represent the people. I have absolutely no shame at all about representing the people of my electorate on this issue or seeking to have a bill drafted that will strike a chord with many in society – maybe not with others, but many people in society would see that as good law. I have absolutely no problem about going to the offices of this parliament that have been set aside to provide such a service.
If you want to talk to me about improper use of Parliamentary Counsel, you should probably look at your own pool fencing laws. There must have been an exhaustive amount of work to get pool fencing number 1 up. That was amended on the floor of the parliament, I might add. Pool fencing number 2 is just as messy and, I suggest, we will see it again. So do not give us this: ‘We are in government; we make laws. No one else should have the temerity to make a law and, anyway, you have some little, slippery motive’.
That sort of arrogance is: ‘We are the government, we will govern; you just listen’. What I am saying to you is: you listen, because this is the voice of the people speaking, and they are speaking through me. They are speaking through me because I have been elected to this place to make laws and I am suggesting that this is a good law.
If we have the long and sorry story about the member for Johnston who is worried that he might be supervised or scrutineered having a pee, and he is worried about it, we have Oraline saliva drug screen for cannabinoids, cocaine, methamphetamines and opiates. Fifty bucks. Basically, it is a saliva drug screen. I am quite happy to take this in front of cameras, in front of the media at any time.
If you want to run scare stories that all the old ladies in the public service will be scrutinised having a pee in a pot and the CLP are going to do this to you – it is nonsense. It is nonsense. There is the device, Mr Scientist, and you should have looked this up on the web. There is even a little picture here: place the test in the mouth to collect saliva samples. Read the results after 15 minutes. There is a little chart on the back and …
Dr Burns: We can only judge it on what you put before us.
Mr DUNHAM: Okay, we will go there later, but at the moment, what I am saying is that there is a very simple, unobtrusive $50 test that the Clerk is quite capable of taking – he does not have to wear his plastic gloves; we do not have to get the three doctors and the lawyer here; we do not have to have all the cameras in the toilets. That is all scare stuff.
You, Mr Pharmacist, should know this. You should know that people like Bechtel and the Defence Forces would not be spending the sort of money that you are talking about, a couple of grand a head! There is no way they would be spending that. If your policy gets to them, which, I might add, is much worse than this policy, and that is there should be no drug testing in the workplace, that it is an offence …
Dr Burns: No, I did not say that.
Mr DUNHAM: Well, what about a clerk in the Army? He is not going to kill anyone. He does not have a gun. What you are saying is there should be no drug testing unless you are going to do something dangerous, unless you are driving around in a tank or lifting a crane or something. It is an intrusion on people’s civil liberties and, anyway, the literature says that it does not do any good. That is a very poor message to be sending to employers and employees myself.
So there you go, advanced saliva drugs test. It is pretty simple. The boss will tell you it is safe and clean, easy to administer, accurate result in 15 minutes. Now, I do not mind taking this test and, in fact, I will probably do it myself. But it is the sort of things that that pledge does. The difference between that and the pledge is that anybody can sign a bit of paper saying. ‘I never had sexual relations with that woman’. Now, scientifically, that was found out to be a lie, right? So what we have here is the words that come of the mouth of politicians and the science. I do not have any problem with that test. I would be very surprised if anybody in this parliament fails. It is not some sort of a little trap. People came up to me at the Christmas party and said, ‘Who is it, who are you trying to trap’. And I said, ‘Hopefully, no-one’. I hope that all of us would stand up in this parliament and say we are against drugs and that is, in fact, the case.
A member interjecting.
Mr DUNHAM: Okay, we can talk about licit drugs as well. However, what I am talking about is the things that this parliament has said are offensive. So let us start with that. Things we said are illegal and wrong, and should be able to be referred to the police for appropriate investigation, prosecution, and incarceration. What I am saying to you is, if we can say that in this parliament, we should adhere to it.
There are number of wondrous things also said by our former pharmacist that are just out in space somewhere. The reason the Misuse of Drugs Act was called up, and I did say this in the second-reading, was that we wanted to use the same statures that are available now. The Misuse of Drugs Act is available for people who use illicit drugs, and licit drugs, illicitly. People who use drugs they can get over the counter for some nefarious purpose. That is why it was called up. It would be foolish to suggest that we have to test every member for the 220 drugs on it. And neither does Bechtel, the Defence Force, the Olympic Games Selection Committee or anybody else. So do not go running this case that, I am a scientist, and I can tell you, , it cannot be done, it costs too much, and you have all these problems. You, Mr Scientist, must know it is being done, day after day after day, in workplaces here in Darwin. It is a very common thing.
I mentioned also in my second reading speech that my son is 17 years. He signed a contract saying that he can be randomly drug tested, and he can have his employment terminated if he has illicit drugs on him. This is a kid training to be a ringer. For God’s sake, if he has to do it I cannot see why we cannot. I cannot see why I cannot say to my son, do not worry, we do the same thing in parliament. It is one of those things where society demands we have that level of adherence to the laws that we set.
We go to a couple of other little furphies. One is the definition of a drug test includes, may take a blood or urine sample. The reason that is there, and the Parliamentary Counsel will tell you that, is so that it is inclusive. So, if somebody says I do not want to take that, I prefer to take a blood test. It is the same with random breath testing, exactly the same thing. You could say I prefer not to do that because I do not think that is definitive, and it is my preference. So, okay, it allows that test to proceed.
There is no doubt that we would opt for the most effective, cheapest, and best system. And the best system is the $50 Oraline saliva drug screen, not the pee in the pot. So if that is what is worrying you, if your great sense of chastity, bashfulness and being a fiend, to prove that you are, is worrying you, do not worry, we do not want to look at it either. I certainly would not want the Clerk to look at it. It is possible to do this and protect your chastity and your worry about people seeing various rude bits of you by using this device.
I am aware that this bill is not going to get passed. I leave the Assembly with a couple of things. We have unfinished business. Okay, you can go out to society and say, it was fatally flawed, it was too expensive, intrusion of civil liberties, all that stuff. But we know, in here, it is a good idea that we abide by the laws that we set out in this place. Now, if there is a problem with this device, just how I have used it, just pick another one, and I do not parade it as the person who thought up the idea.
If we all want to sign the Gerry pledge, let us do it. What is wrong with that? If we are trying to convey to the community that we believe that illicit drug taking is an offensive, illegal behaviour, we have set laws out to try and suppress and, hopefully, get rid of those behaviours and we will abide by them. That is a good message for this parliament to send. Do it by way of motion. You can do it; I do not have to do it. If you are really worried that, somehow, this is political grandstanding on my part, you take the lead; you do it. However, what you leaving here is a void. The void is something that I believe people are going to want us to fill up. They are going to say: ‘So how come I am going for a job in the oil and gas industry and I have to have a breath test, and one of the members of parliament thinks that is intrusive and an affront to my civil liberties? How come you have random breath testing out there when you make the assumption I am guilty and I have been a teetotaller all my life?’
Some of the issues that you believe are reasons to dismiss this proposition are actually government policy now. Therefore, you either have to have another look at some of your government policies, find some other way to do this, or here is an undertaking: let us do it by voluntary code of behaviour. Have a voluntary code of behaviour. I will try and attempt to obtain 50 of these, and let us just do it because we think it is a good idea. We do not need a bill.
Mr Baldwin: Put it in the code of conduct.
Mr DUNHAM: That is an interesting proposition too, because the code of conduct, which seems to be a bean-counters attempt to scrutinise the affairs of politicians – that is, how much money you have, where are your shares, stocks, bonds, and property. I did write to the chairman of that committee and they said that this matter will be discussed in this forum here rather than in committee. Well, okay, that is fair enough. I would have liked to have had the considered opinion of that committee, but that is not available to me now. We have stood up here and held our hands over our hearts and said that it is very important people see transparently all our financial dealings. I do not think people are really that worried about that. I believe they are more worried about our behaviours and our ethics and about how we deport ourselves. As the member for Nelson says, maybe that is only judge and that is at election time.
However, there are several ways of doing this. I would suggest if you think tonight that you defeat the bill and that it is all gone away, that you are mistaken and you are misleading yourself. I would suggest that, if you rely on some of the rebuttals that you have provided from the other side, you have significant policy problems in some of your other areas, particularly random breath testing and protecting those industries that are using tests of this type to keep their work force drug free. However, if you want to use that as your rebuttal, feel free. I will leave it there because we have canvassed most of the issues. You will see that, if the contributors from the government had at least read the second reading speech, half of what they said would not have been said because they would have known the answer.
Motion negatived.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mrs AAGAARD (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, tonight I speak on a rather delightful topic, the recent Danish royal wedding where Australia’s Mary Donaldson married Crown Prince Frederik of Denmark. I have never been a royal watcher and, in fact, know virtually nothing of the Danish royal family. However, recently I have become quite interested in the Danish royal family through my involvement with the Darwin Danish community.
Around two months ago, I was approached by several members of Darwin’s Danish community about assisting that community to raise funds to organise a gift for the royal couple. They were very excited that an Australian was marrying their Crown Prince, and felt it important that they recognised this special occasion.
Many people believe that my name is Danish but, in fact, it is Norwegian. Although I understand that Norway did not become a separate country from Denmark until 1920, I guess there is a connection there through my husband’s family. I also understand that my own paternal great-grandfather was Danish and moved to Australia in 1860. Therefore, I do feel some connection with Denmark.
Mrs Annette Pedersen and Mrs Vita Gustafson were the key players behind organising the gift. Their fellow Dane, Teresa Chan organised Central Australian artist, Lanita Numina, to paint a beautiful gift for the royal couple - a magnificent painting of the sand goanna and honey ant dreaming.
It was my pleasure to offer hospitality to 15 members of the Danish community on 13 April 2004, where members of the community were able to meet the artist and her family and view the painting prior to it being mailed to the royal couple that day, so that the painting could arrive in Copenhagen in time to be on public display before the wedding. It was a delight to be part of this event and it was a pleasure to meet Vita and Frank Gustafson, Teresa Chang, Annette and Knud Pederson, Thrvald Clausen, Elinor Karlson, and Vibeke Hauge and others.
As members would be aware, the wedding of Prince Frederik took place last Friday, 14 May, in Copenhagen and the event was watched by millions of viewers across the world, including millions of Australians. I must say, I was one of the many people who tuned in for the wedding and found myself surprisingly entranced by the ceremony. The gracious, natural and obviously very much in love couple was a delight to watch and Mary Donaldson was a credit to all Australians with her serene and poised manner. I am fairly certain that this wedding will increase the number of tourists from Denmark to Australia and vice versa, and most likely increase trade as well. In fact, today I heard that trade has already increased from Australia to Denmark. I note also the large number of people I know who watched the ceremony commented on what an uplifting piece of television it was: a living fairytale, such a stark contrast to the terrible world happenings at the moment.
I thank the Danes for inviting me to be part of this event, and I look forward to being invited to a special ceremony for the winter solstice at the end of June. I would also like to thank the Chief Minister and Minister for Ethnic Affairs for their assistance with the gift as well.
It was also my pleasure to be involved with the ‘Great Shave for Leukaemia’ on Friday, 12 March. The Nightcliff community got right behind this fund raiser from our shops and restaurants to school students. It was a real community event with many people either shaving their heads or dyeing their head for leukaemia. I dyed my hair a bright purple, not perhaps my best colour but worthwhile for such an important cause. I thank those constituents who sponsored me in this fund raising endeavour. As I mentioned previously, the whole Nightcliff community got behind this event and the Essington School had a major fund raiser with two teachers shaving their heads, and the principal, Mr David Cannon, dyeing his hair a very bright green despite students petitioning him to shave his hair. I know the school community is hoping that next year he will do the full shave. It was wonderful to see almost every student had dyed their hair and their awareness of leukaemia research and treatment was a testament to the quality of the teaching and community spirit of the school.
Other members of the Nightcliff community also need to be recognised. Marie Kearney of the Nightcliff Five Star Supermarket together with Paul Bayetto of the Groove restaurant at Nightcliff organised a special function on the evening of 12 March for a major ‘shave in’ and hair dye session. Marie raised over $2000, Paul Bayetto raised over $300, Mary Anne Butler from the NT Writers Centre raised $1062, while Nightcliff Primary School student, Kelsie Hampson, raised $175 on the night, when she had her head shaved. I would like to extend my congratulations to all of these people for their community spirit and generosity. I would also like to thank the Leukaemia Foundation for their hard work in organising this important fund raising event to support research into Leukaemia.
I also rise tonight to recognise the Mellor family of King River station, especially Joy Mellor. One of my constituents, Mr Frank Constanzo of Nightcliff, found himself together with many other motorists, stranded at the beginning of the year, when the King River was flooded and motorists were unable to continue on the Stuart Highway. Joy Mellor and members of her family assisted many stranded motorists by guiding them along the old disused railway embankment, so they could continue their journey. Mr Constanzo was so impressed with the help that this family gave him that he sent them a gift, and also asked me to recognise them in some way. It is my real pleasure to recognise the Mellor family and thank them for their Territorian spirit of goodwill, and I hope I get the opportunity to thank them in person at some stage.
It is also my pleasure to rise tonight to recognise a very special constituent of mine, Mr Dave Byars. Mr Byars is visually impaired and has lost 95% of his vision over the last few years, and can no longer work in his trade as a builder. However, he has remained very positive and has gone about creating a new life for himself, and helping to create a better life for others with vision loss. Mr Byars created the NT Chapter of Vision Loss Support, a national organisation that devotes its energies to helping people who have lost their sight. He has brought together people with vision loss and a range of professional people who work in the field. He drove the process of getting the group incorporated and setting up the network of people who make the organisation. The group now receives direct government grants that allow it to extend its work and services. It is the kind of self help group that really improves the quality of life for its membership. It is also my pleasure that this group meets monthly in my electorate office.
One of the ways the group works is to encourage the visually impaired into sports. In this, Dave Byars is exemplary. Dave pursues several sporting interests, but his most significant is bowling. Dave recently travelled to Perth with the Northern Territory Blind Bowlers for the national championships. Dave was part of a team of four blind bowlers and their helpers. The helpers assist by giving directions and explaining the results of each bowl as they are delivered. It is a real team effort.
Dave won in the Pairs with Dennis Wormald and he won silver in the Singles. All up, he did so well that he has been selected as a national representative. It is believed that he is the first Territory bowler to make a national team in bowls, either blind or sighted. His first challenge will be a Test Match against New Zealand to be played in Melbourne in August, then next year, it is off to Johannesburg, South Africa, for the World Blind Bowling Championships.
Dave Byars’ achievements since becoming blind seven years ago are remarkable. The things we take for granted, and which are difficult for the visually impaired, particularly such as dealing with documents, Dave does not just manage; he succeeds in dealing with their bureaucratic complexities. He gets the grants, he published newsletters, and he fights for his members to improve services.
His efforts and achievements are an inspiration to others and he deserves every success in his sporting endeavours. I congratulate him on his successes so far, I know we will continue to hear about Dave Byars.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, Alice Springs was hoping to see many visitors in October this year for the Masters Games, and we have certainly heard the Minister for Sport and Recreation speak strongly about encouraging people to go to the Masters Games, and hear support as well.
Unfortunately, there will be one sporting group that may not be offering the number of events that they would normally because of a decision by the Northern Territory Policing Firearms and Policy Unit. I refer to two shooting complexes, the Alice Springs Shooting Complex and the Sporting Shooters Association who will have difficulty in conducting their program of events due to a decision by the Northern Territory Police Range Inspectors to close some of their ranges.
The clubs will have to cancel two pistol disciplines, totalling 14 events because they now do not have the ranges to use. I wanted to mention this tonight and, hopefully, draw it to the minister’s attention as both the Alice Springs Sporting Complex and the Sporting Shooters Association will have to rebuild two pistol ranges in time for the Masters Games if they are going to offer the usual number of disciplines. This is because of the safety templates that the police have now decided to implement.
The Sporting Shooters Association will be conducting six disciplines of shooting, which total over 40 events for the games. Some of these pistol events cannot now be offered because the ranges have been closed.
I had a briefing on 29 March with police officers here, and they advised me that the issues were not as complex and perhaps could be resolved. However, that has not proven to be the case.
Range safety, of course, is of utmost concern to anyone, certainly to the clubs that have been using the rifle and pistol ranges at the shooting complexes for 17 years - since the Northern Territory government first built the complex. That means they have been using the ranges for 17 years without incident. Those ranges, I might add, are also used by the police themselves for training, NORFORCE, Correctional Services, and Primary Industries for their rangers. To suddenly raise these current issues of safety seems, to me, quite ridiculous.
On 21 April, the Northern Territory Police Range Inspector visited the Alice Springs Shooting Complex and the Sporting Shooters rifle and pistol ranges, and subsequently closed the two ranges that face the MacDonnell Ranges. I am sure members of this House understand that if you go through The Gap in Alice Springs out to the sporting complex, it is situated between the two ranges, so the shooting ranges actually face the mountains.
They have a 300-foot high back-stop to their pistol ranges and behind it is the MacDonnell Ranges. But now, pursuant to the police template, they have said it is unsafe because bullets may ricochet over the range.
I am a simple person, and I am not a shooter, but I cannot see for the life of me how, after all this time, these bullets are going to ricochet and become a danger to the people on the other side of the ranges. The police are quite adamant that this is the template, this is what must be, regardless of the fact there are these ranges in between, and so the clubs are going to have to rebuild ranges if they are going to have these disciplines in time for the Masters Games. I just find it unbelievable that anyone can contemplate that there is a danger shooting into a range - at the height we are talking about - to people or animals on the other side. But that is basically the argument of the police, and they are quite determined about it and they will not budge from it. So to rebuild and put in place the new infrastructure in time for the Masters Games, the club is looking at an enormous amount of money which, quite frankly, they do not have. They would need to put in shelters, concrete firing lines, benches, powerlines for the power lighting, target frames, new stop butts, brick dividing walls on the ranges, you name it, and it is going to cost a lot of money which the club frankly does not have.
I would like the Minister for Sport and Recreation to think about this. Does he really support the Masters Games in Alice Springs, or is he going to allow this ridiculous situation to continue, or is he going to give the club funding so that they can actually build these ranges to the specifications of the Police Policy Firearms Unit. We have heard a lot about the minister’s support for the games, and we have heard a lot about the Chief Minister and her support for tourism. And that is what the Masters Games is all about - sport and bringing people to the town. But we now face the dilemma where the shooting associations will have to omit at least 14 events from the Masters Games, resulting in fewer competitors coming to Alice Springs and, of course, Alice Springs then getting a bad reputation because the people who would normally come say, oh well, we are not going this year and we probably will not go anymore.
I believe this is bureaucratic decision-making gone wrong. I know the police will say we have to have these templates for safety sake, but how can they justify it when they know that they themselves have used it for training in the past, apparently with no concern raised - seventeen years. I call on the Minister for Sport and Recreation to fund these new ranges if this is what the club has to do. It is not something the club can build quickly. They certainly should not have to, because it was not their decision to move the ranges. It is a decision that has been forced upon them by the bureaucracy of the police department, and I believe if the minister really believes in supporting the Masters Games, he will either talk reason to the police, or he will find the funding and assist the clubs to make sure they can have the ranges in time for the Masters Games.
Mr BURKE (Brennan): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise this evening to raise the issue of the Palmerston Multifunction Recreation Centre that has arisen out of this 2004-05 budget, and certainly the disappointment that is being expressed by Palmerston City Council and interested members of the Palmerston community.
The background of the Palmerston Multipurpose Centre is, essentially, that there was design money put in the 2000-01 budget by the previous government for the design of that facility. It was a promise to the community of Palmerston for some time, and there was a clear expectation that design would move to capital works funding in subsequent budgets. Under partnership agreements between the Palmerston City Council and the Northern Territory government, again, put in place prior to the last election, but certainly progressed under this current government and, I believe, with all due credit to Palmerston City Council, in a very cooperative way by them, with the Northern Territory government to cooperate as fully as possible in a way to progress the partnership agreement and prioritising areas of common agreement for Palmerston.
The number one priority agreed by both parties was the Palmerston Multipurpose Centre. It involves, amongst other things funding by government, and significant funding by the Palmerston City Council, as part of the partnership agreement, that they would incorporate their library for which they have had funds for sometime, and have held off building that library to incorporate it as part of the multifunction centre. Also the government has wanted to put is some cultural facility in there, and it has agreed and progressed to this multifunctional cultural centre including a library.
The scope of works is over $8m, I believe, and the undertakings that were given by government to Palmerston City Council was that it would be completed by September 2005, or at the latest at the end of 2005. To not do that would certainly delay the Palmerston City Council in completing their library as they had intended and as they have funds for. As I said, it has only been delayed because of this agreement to incorporate it into the multipurpose centre.
Imagine their shock when - after meeting almost fortnightly for a long time - at a recent community Cabinet council - where the government claims it consults and listens - in interviews with the Chief Minister and the Mayor at the community Cabinet held there, no mention was made by the government that any delay could be expected to this facility.
We now find that the only money that has been provided in this current budget is $1.8m, supposedly for headwork preparation for the site. That does not satisfy anyone. The Palmerston City Council has put out a press release expressing their dissatisfaction, saying that they will lobby as far and as wide as they can to get a commitment from government that the money will be there. Sadly, that has been responded to publicly in a press release by the Minister for Local Government, Mr Ah Kit, in unusual fashion, I believe, for him, because he is generally - or always when I have seen him publicly - a gentleman in the way he conducts business. As I am in close contact with the Mayor of Palmerston, she holds him in high regard and not the least for his gentlemanly manner in the way he deals with her. Imagine her disappointment when, in the press release, it basically said: ‘Mayor Burke should take a Bex and lie down’.
She and I probably would agree that that is probably something done by a staffer but, certainly, is not the way you would expect the minister to speak to the Mayor on such an important issue. Also, the press release claimed that this is only grandstanding in preparation for the council elections. I believe those comments alone or together do a great disservice to the Mayor of Palmerston. She has championed this particular multipurpose centre for many years, and will continue to champion it if she is elected again by the people of Palmerston. It is only the announcement of this budget that has forced her to publicly say: ‘How can you say to Palmerston council that you will have this thing completed by September 2005, in an undertaking given by you, minister and by your officers and, yet, we only see $1.8m in the budget?’. Compounding that suspicion, of course, is the fact that the officers cancelled a meeting without reason that was scheduled prior to the budget coming down.
The minister has forwarded a letter to the Palmerston council which I would like to mention in part. He says:
The Northern Territory government is committed to funding the full cost of the Palmerston Recreation
Centre. In yesterday’s budget $1.8m was allocated for headworks for the recreation centre.
Basically, the Palmerston Recreation Centre Steering Committee which oversights the project, will continue to meet. I say that it would be a sad thing if it continues to meet in isolation from the council, because you may as well say goodbye to your partnership agreement. That issue needs to be resolved.
He says:
I look forward to the steering committee finalising the design costs and design brief for the project. There
appears to be an expectation by the Palmerston City Council that a further funding allocation for construction
of the project would be provided in yesterday’s budget. This expectation is premature. Funding allocations will
follow the finalisation of costings and the design brief. The Palmerston partnership agreement envisages the
recreation centre project being completed by September 2005. While this timetable will be tight, the government
is still keen to see us meet it. I would encourage council to maintain its commitment to the effective work to date
of the steering committee.
From that I gather this: the government is giving a clear commitment that it will find the funds to complete that facility by the end of 2005. That is the implication in this letter.
However, for the minister to say that it is premature to expect funding allocations to be in this particular budget is plainly wrong. We have talked about the fact that this government promises and does not do, and this is a case in point. Surely any government that is committed to having a facility worth more than $8m completed by September 2005, knowing the extent of work that has to be put into that facility and claims it is committed to that facility, would have included the money in this particular budget? To not do so is a sleight of hand and naturally raises the suspicion that it will not be done.
It is not as if it is without precedent. If one looks at the infrastructure budget in these budget papers, the Palmerston new secondary school facility is a classic case in point. It is in revoted works for the 2004-05 budget. It is funded to $10m. It first appeared in the budget papers 2002-03 so it has appeared in three lots of budget papers, fully funded by the government; not yet built, of course, but fully funded, so the money is there; and it says, Palmerston new secondary facility with design and scope of work subject to stakeholder and community consultation. Now, that is the government showing a commitment that this facility is definitely going to be built and that commitment is evidenced by the $10m that is put aside. The fact that nothing has happened is just another example of the ineptness of this particular government in getting works from paper onto the ground, but the money is there clearly in the budget, put aside, $10m for that facility.
Why, then, I ask, can the minister say that somehow they can complete a facility by September 2005 yet there is no money in the budget, in this particular budget, $1.8m only? For him to say if we need more money, funding allocations will follow, makes a joke of the whole budgetary process. That is what I have been saying today. On the one hand, you bring down a budget and you expect people to have confidence in the budget, but you essentially say do not worry about any of those figures. If we want more money, we will find it. It shows certainly a lack of organisation by the government in ensuring the monies are available for a project that they would expect people to believe they are committed to, and it is nonsensical for a minister to say confidently he would give a commitment without reference to the Treasurer to get something like $7m of monies that does not appear in the budget papers at all. So either the minister is telling lies or …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker. The member well knows he cannot accuse anybody in this House of lying unless he does so by way of substantive motion.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I take your point of order.
Mr BURKE: Either the minister is deliberately misleading the Palmerston City Council by leading them to believe that somehow he can pull $8m out of mid-air from the Treasurer, or the money is not there, or thirdly, he is confident the money will be there but it will not be there until the next budget. If that is the case, it begs the question, how the hell is this facility going to be finished by the end of 2005 if the money is not even provided until next year’s budget? Palmerston City Council is rightly left with a whole heap of questions that need answering.
I intend to ask those questions of the minister on their behalf because they need answering, and they are these: can the minister give us, or can the government - it is probably more important that the Treasurer does it - can you give assurances that the planned Palmerston Multipurpose Recreation Centre and associated facilities will be operational by the end of 2005, as committed to by one of your ministers, Acting Chief Minister? If so, where is the budget to ensure that necessary construction occurs in 2004-05 to enable opening of the facility early in the following financial year? This is just commonsense. There is ongoing work that needs to occur, a whole heap of work, well in excess of the headworks provided in the budget, and it needs to occur during this financial year, and monies need to be put aside. How can Palmerston City Council know that any funding, hidden as it is, is sufficient to deliver a viable and complete facility to the people of Palmerston and the wider sub region? The Treasurer can give those assurances very quickly. If there is no specific budget allocation, does the government have extra funds set aside of the kind required to complete such a large scale initiative; that is, well over $8m for the facility alone, and above the allocated $1.8m for site preparation? Only the Treasurer can answer that. Just reinforce the undertaking that your minister has given.
If they do not have such funds set aside, this begs the question of why was this not reported to the budget? And also to the broader question which is now put: does the government think that this kind of budget reporting, where there are large sums of unaccounted funds, is part of a transparent and accountable budget reporting to the Northern Territory community?
This is from a council in the Northern Territory, so you can lampoon the CLP and say: ‘You are asking for too much of the budget. We give you the figures, but if the figures change, well you will just have to cop that. That is an expanding and proactive and working government’. There is the council asking the same questions that we asked in the censure motion today. How can you expect Territorians to believe a budget that will deliver outcomes, as you state, reinforced by so-called commitments from your ministers when you do not have any allocation in your budget put aside for it? If you have not done that, you are either poor managers or you have so much money you can just pluck it out of the bag whenever you need it, which is also, as we know, the truth.
In particular, are they aware that detailed and professional costings have already been undertaken in relation
to the centre and that there is thus extensive information on which to base a facility cost estimate for inclusion
in the budget and fair and open reporting in the community?
Again, this is a fair statement. They had design money put aside in 2000-01. So to say we are going to do more design, a little bit of headworks, get agreement - they already know what they want. The officers have all agreed. It is just a matter of the government making the commitment. Knowing all of that information, they say:
Why was an estimate not included in the process? If there is no such fund, then by what miraculous
means does the government anticipate in essence completing over a year’s construction in the first three
months of 2005-06?
That is a good question, too. Unless the Treasurer gives a commitment that reinforces to Palmerston City Council what the minister appears to be committing to, tells them that the money will be there and, certainly, they can be comfortable that as needed it will be provided in this financial year above the $1.8m, how can anyone possibly believe a commitment that a facility would be completed at a cost of over $9m by September 2005 when it will not even get any real funding until the budgetary year that begins on 1 July 2005?
Treasurer and Acting Chief Minister, I would ask you to take those comments seriously. It would be very sad if the Labor government is playing politics with the people of Palmerston. It would be very sad if they lead the people of Palmerston along for another 12 months so that just before the next election, if they plan to go after the next budget, they can come out with some grand announcement saying we are going to put $8m into this budget and we will fund it and finish it by September because the Palmerston people by then will know full well not to trust the government because if they win government, they are quite likely to delay it for another four years.
This could be put to bed very quickly. Most importantly, the relationship of Palmerston City Council should be quickly rebuilt. Someone should give a kick in the rear to the staffer who wrote media release. It is unsavoury and uncalled for and does no justice to the fine relationships that have already been established between Palmerston City Council and the current NT government, relationships we would like to see continued.
Mr STIRLING (Nhulunbuy): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I say to the member for Brennan that I have taken note of those comments and we will be going through the questions he asked when we get a copy of Hansard of it so we know exactly what he said.
Mr Burke: Thank you. I will include your comments back to them.
Mr STIRLING: Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, Youth Week saw the launching of Connect, a youth and family initiative organised through Anglicare and gave the youth in the Nhulunbuy community the opportunity to participate in a great national event. The week of activities provided a great opportunity to promote the many organisations in the community and give the youth of town an opportunity to try out new ideas and challenges.
The Gove Yacht Club was very pleased with the response to the sailing day and finale of Youth Week. Other popular events on the program included the Saturday night discos, the camp fire at Camp Wirrawoi and various sporting activities on offer throughout the week.
Youth Week activity organiser Michelle Kay is very optimistic that the high profile activities of Youth Week 2004 now open the door for groups and individuals to work together for an even better Youth Week next year.
I would like to welcome Scott Fullerton and his family to Nhulunbuy. Scott is the new Animal Control and Parking Regulation Officer. Scott is planning to spend time with community and school groups, combining his enforcement role with that of community education and responsible pet ownership. I hear he has already joined the volunteer fire brigade, made himself available at Dhimurru and the Parks and Wildlife to assist in wildlife issues around the region.
The Nhulunbuy High School tennis team proudly represented the Arnhem cluster at this year’s tennis championships in Darwin. The team included Anthony Trudgen, Talitha Mason, Wayne Roberts-Barlow, Elizabeth Akapita, Mitchell Hinchcliffe, Thomas Parrish and Monica O’Hanlon.
The talent ability and sportsmanship of Anthony Trudgen and Elizabeth Akapita was recognised with the presentation of plaques at the closing ceremony. Both players competed in the true spirit of the championship and I congratulate them both.
Yirrkala school children were very happy top have the Athletes as Role Models team visit them last month. The visit to Yirrkala was part of a Top End tour. The team included Melbourne Storm player, Robbie Ross, basketballer, Mark Thomson, and Australian netballer, Sharon Finnan. They interacted with the kids, not only through sport, but they also spent time in the classroom working with literacy and numeracy skills and spoke of the importance of getting a good education and staying healthy.
Representing the Chief Minister at the Downunder International Film Festival Awards, I was pleased to present Nhulunbuy High School with the Short Film Award for their film titled We Are The Future. Congratulations to Linda Barrett, the Class 9A SOSE, director, Peta Murphy and editor, Jasmine Hodge. The class entered two films, and both were short listed and screened at the end of April as part of the Downunder International Film Festival. Well done.
Approximately 50 darts players from across the Northern Territory competed in the NT Championships in Darwin over the Easter weekend. Congratulations to Nhulunbuy’s player, Fran Pikos, who won the finals in five games to one; best of nine; ending with a massive 18.5 finals average. Fran’s win put here in the NT State rep team. It also put her in the top 20 ranked players in Australia. Well done Fran, a great effort.
We had a great turn out this year in Nhulunbuy for the 89th Anniversary of the Gallipoli Landings. Denis Airens, a member of the Townsville Caledonian Pipe Band, was in town to celebrate the birthday of his sister-in-law, Leonie Dutch. He provided quite a haunting element to the Dawn Service with his piper’s lament and a jaunt to the step of the veterans in the march.
Nhulunbuy Primary School Choir sang Lest We Forget, and the Maori Choir sang the New Zealand National Anthem in Maori and English, as well as the Australian Anthem, and one voice ensemble sang an excellent a capella version of We Are Australians. The Nhulunbuy Town Band, conducted by Alan Fleming, provided an excellent musical accompaniment to the singing. I was very proud as I stood among the many people who turned out to honour those who have served their country.
Northern Territory Police and the Australian Customs Services are working together to reduce the distribution of drugs into remote communities. A drug detector dog was used in Nhulunbuy recently to search several light aircraft, goods storage areas, passengers and freight consignments, and other venues, as well as a cargo ship. As a result of dog detection, Nhulunbuy police issued three drug infringement notices. Access to a drug detector dog of this calibre has resulted in a large number of individual seizures of illegal drugs that were potentially destined for remote communities across the Territory. The operation has been highly successful and is ongoing.
Nhulunbuy’s new tip is fully operational. Expressions of interest for the management of the new waste management facility were advertised in December and include the twice weekly town garbage removal. Michael Jackson was the successful tendered – he sings as well. A prerequisite of the tender was commitment to Aboriginal employment. Michael Jackson’s company is responsible for the overall functioning of the waste management facility, and has the rights to recycling of materials. Mike is keen to implement some new ideas such as a community compost heap where our keen gardeners can dispose of their garden refuse and in return have access to the compost heap. Mike will also be keen to assist community groups with recycling for fundraising.
A couple of retirees and recognition of long service serving employees with the Department of Employment, Education and Training. Ellen Varley, is currently on long service leave, prior to officially retiring in December 2004. Her first appointment in the Northern Territory was as a classroom teacher at Bamyili in 1978. She has made a significant impact on schools in Central Australia during her career, and has been actively involved in professional associations, including the Assistant Principals Association Northern Territory, Northern Territory Principals Association, NTPA, the Association of Northern Territory Senior Education Leaders. I did this at Bamyili as a student teacher in 1978, and I do not recall whether I met with Ellen or not, I assume I would have on that day. For the last seven years, Ellen has been principal of Larapinta Primary School in Alice Springs. Her intimate involvement in the establishment and development of this outstanding school is a credit to her personal commitment and dedication to education.
Val Martins retired on 31 January 2004 after a lengthy career teaching in the Northern Territory. Val started teaching at Tennant Creek primary School in 1968, and transferred to Pine Creek in 1969. After two years in South Australia, he returned to the Territory in 1971, teaching at many schools, including Katherine Area School, Elsey, Utopia, Adelaide River and Wagaman Primary. In 1977, Val moved to Wulagi Primary School, where he spent four years, including a period as acting principal. From 1985 to 1987, Val was principal of Jabiru Area School, followed by five years as principal at Anula Primary School. Val then transferred to be the principal education officer, performance appraisal, career development and human resources branch.
In 1996, Val became Principal of Howard Springs Primary School, where he remained until his retirement. He was known as a great leader and mentor throughout his career. Val has always nurtured and encouraged others. His insight and analysis has been valued by many throughout his 36 years of exemplary service. There are many years of high-quality service from those two employees as they go into retirement with the best wishes of government and, indeed, all their colleagues in the department.
A final issue I wanted to raise comes from The DRUM the police May journal. It refers to ‘The Heat’, the hot Holden that the police use, which was at the Freds Pass Show. I will just read quickly from this:
From the outside it looks like any one of a number of police vehicles seen throughout the Territory.
But inside and more important where it counts, under the bonnet, this baby is different.
With 8 cylinders and more horsepower than the stables at Fannie Bay racecourse, The Heat – a 2003 VYSS
Generation III Commodore - is the star recruit of The Heat racing team, a policing initiative aimed at promoting
road safety.
Beat the Heat (NT) is an extension of the US based ‘Beat the Heat’ program designed to educate young drivers
about the dangers of involvement with drugs and alcohol while driving through police involvement in the
adrenalin-charge sport drag racing. Whilst the NT program continues to uphold the goals and objective of
its US-based cousin, it is primarily geared towards combating the growing incidence of hooning and antisocial
driving in the community.
Staffed by a crew and off duty police officers - seven men and one woman - The Heat has pedigree any racing
enthusiast would be proud of. It is powered by an engine once used by Australia’s own King of the Mountain,
and Peter Brock during his recent foray into Targa Tasmania racing – the car is producing times in the high
13 second mark …
This vehicle is down to about around 12.6, I think, for the quarter mile now.
‘While fast times and speed is all part of racing out over the quarter mile, The Heat has more importantly been
put in place as an initiative to encourage young drivers to race their cars legally and safely on the track against
us rather than on the street’, said Superintendent Mark Jeffs, the main instigator of NT’s The Heat …
I have to say about Superintendent Mark Jeffs – you would not get a more enthusiastic person when it comes to involvement with a car of this nature, and his very close involvement with it.
‘Our goal is to break down the barriers between young drivers and the police. We want to humanise what we do
and attracts street races to the track to take us on and as such we have to gain their trust’.
We need to relate to these young drivers if we hope to influence them and as such we appeal to them through
the common interest in motor sport’.
The aim is to reduce and prevent hooning behaviour on the streets and put it in a controlled and safe
environment of the racetrack.
The Heat was launched by the commissioner in November. The car has been fully sponsored via ‘in kind support’
from local businesses.
News of The Heat is spreading fast, both nationally and internationally. The NT program has already featured
twice in Automotive Performance News, the official magazine of Beat the Heat USA – it made the front page in January.
Superintendent Jeffs said he was really excited about the promotional aspects of the car and the team. Aside from
racing, The Heat will be used at public displays, promotional activities such as recruiting, the NT Public Safety Expo
and will be featured at the V8 Supercars.
‘I am also exploring opportunities for us to be involved with Camp Quality. A lot of people have backed us and that’s
a great opportunity for us to give something back and make a few wishes come true’, Supt Jeffs said.
‘Whilst the team is getting pretty settled now, we are always looking for people interested in helping out’.
We have a valuable asset and we have to learn how to drive it and look after it. It takes a lot of commitment by the
members involved. But if you are committed to road safety, interested in getting your hands dirty and have an
interest in motor sport …
Superintendent Mark Jeffs would love to hear from you.
The team drivers are Superintendent Mark Jeffs, Sergeant Kerry James, Senior Constable Ross Bohlin, Senior Constable Dean Barrett, Senior Constable Steve Hazel, Senior Constable Phil Palmer, Senior Constable Meghan Funnell, and Constable Shane Humphries. The Pit Crew are: Dave Cunnington, John Sorrenson, First Class Constable John Gregory, Damon Jeffs, Michael Humphreys, Adrian James, and Kurt Barrett.
I commend every one of those officers and crew for what they are doing. Okay, they have a love of motor sport. They have a fantastic vehicle, but that is not what it is about; it is about encouraging youth to get out on the track rather than on the highways and the roads and take them on. They welcome it and they get beaten. They get beaten regularly by some young guys with their Supercars, and that is what it is all about because, if they were to go out there and win every time, I do not expect the kids would continue to turn up. They get between 50 and 80 vehicles out there at Hidden Valley. It is all controlled; it is a safe environment and everyone has a great time. I pay credit to these police officers. It is all in their own time, but they put in an enormous amount of a work and effort into it. I hope to get down there with the Corvette some time, and we will just see how good this heap really is.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I would just like to continue on from last night, about the visit of Judi and Payden Green, who were relations of Captain Al Strauss. Last night, I mentioned that Bob Alford had taken them down to Adelaide River to see the airstrip where Strauss took off on his last flight. After they had visited that airstrip, they visited the Adelaide River Cemetery, and we stopped off for some coffee at the country store. It was interesting to notice that there were some differences when we ordered coffee, because Payden wanted cream in the coffee and jelly on the toast, which translated into Australian means she wanted some jam and milk, but we were able to sort that out.
We then moved on to Batchelor and stopped at the Batchelor Airstrip. Batchelor Airstrip, for those who do not know, was a large World War II airstrip and still is used today by the parachute clubs down there. It was a site where General Douglas MacArthur landed after he left the Philippines due to the Japanese invasion. We then travelled on to Litchfield National Park, and as it was a holiday it was quite busy, a lot of people in the park, and they visited Florence Falls, and they certainly enjoyed the cool dip that you can get in the park without the worry of crocodiles. After that, we travelled on to Berry Springs and had a look at the Wildlife Park and came back and had a barbeque with my family that night. On their third day in Darwin, they went down to Taminmin High School, and this was a special day.
Originally I had been told that the Taminmin High School history class was going to adopt Strauss Airstrip and that Judi Green was going to talk to the history class. However, what happened was that the entire school had an assembly to welcome Judi and Payden. They were greeted by the beautiful tones of the new Taminmin High School Choir, which is being conducted by Tania Ham who last year used to work at Howard Springs Primary School, where she did exactly the same thing. Sadly, or I should not say sadly but unfortunately, the choir is made up of all girls at the present time. It would be nice to see some young blokes get involved in singing.
The assembly was a very emotional time, as, when the Greens came, the choir sang Imagine by John Lennon. Bill Buckley then played the Last Post, and all the school stood up at that time, and then the department of heritage people which included Iolanthe Sutton from the Charles Darwin University and Steve Sutton from the department of heritage, presented the Greens with a beautiful silver platter which had engraved on it, ‘To the Strauss family’. So there were a few more tears again. It was a very special and moving day.
Judi Green stood up to thank the school. Now, a school assembly, especially at Taminmin, is normally a fairly noisy sort of affair, but Judi Green must have known how to handle these kids. She works at a high school in Marysville, Ohio, and she just got up and said she felt like she was at home. There were baseball hats on backwards and bags all over the place full of books that teachers keep tripping over, and immediately she was able to relate to these kids. They were quiet while she spoke about her uncle who had come out here from America to fight in this part of the world. That was in itself an amazing thing, I thought, that here was a whole bunch of kids, about 500 of them, pretty well quiet when they listened to this lady from the other side of the world talk about something that had occurred 62 years ago.
After we left Taminmin, we moved over to Bees Creek Primary School. The reason we went there is because the school sports houses are named after the airstrips in the region. I took them over to the Bees Creek Primary School and introduced them to Peter Collins, who is the principal, and Ken Brodie. They showed them around the school and then presented them with two sports shirts representing the Strauss House, and, again, they were overwhelmed by people’s generosity.
We then went on to Palmerston High School, and I would like to thank the minister for arranging the meeting with Ross and Evelyn who look after the children who do not turn up to school. They had an hour-long discussion with those people, which they enjoyed immensely because Judi looks after the same sort of children in Marysville and Payden is also a teacher, so they appreciated the time that the minister for education had allowed them to speak to people engaged in the same work as they are in the United States.
After that, we rushed back to Coolalinga to have a coffee at Chianti and Coffee, which is a little shop where famous people tend to sign their names on the brick work. The names include Rolf Harris and Shane Stringer. In this case, Judi and Payden signed their names and noted that they were the niece and grand niece of Captain Al Strauss. There is something, you might say, concrete left of their trip out here.
The rest of the day was spent doing a bit of shopping. One thing I gather they had not seen in the United States is elastic-sided boots. Judi went around to the NT General Store and bought a pair of Bloodstones, which is what I am wearing tonight, to take home to her husband in America. I will be interested to hear, one, did they fit, and, two, whether we have started a trend in the United States. I hope no one tries to take the name Bloodstone like they have taken the name Ug Boots. We may have started an export industry by accident.
That night, we went down to the Trailer Boat Club and that was a special night because it was the 62nd anniversary of Strauss’ death. He was shot down over Fannie Bay and, just as the sun went down, Judi and Payden walked down to the beach with a basket of flowers that my secretary kindly put together from her garden, and they threw those into the water right on sunset. It was another very moving occasion.
After that, we had a glorious meal of barramundi and toasted Captain Strauss at the same time. As happened on all the other days, they were exhausted and I dropped them back at the hotel.
On the last day, which was Wednesday 28 April, I gave them a quick tour of Parliament House and I do appreciate the staff on Level 5 allowing me to take the Greens up to the top to have a look at the beautiful view of the harbour. They went around and saw Peter and Sheila Forrest who are historians and have done quite a bit of work talking to them via e-mail and had put an article in the NT News about Captain Strauss.
We, of course, could have stayed a lot longer, but we did not have the time. We drove out to the Aviation Museum and, for those who have not been there for a while – and I had not been for a number of years – it is a fantastic place to visit. As is the case when you live locally, you do not visit these places; you have to wait until you have visitors before you go for a look. Well! It is getting better and better. Bob Alford showed us around the Aviation Museum with one of his staff. He has quite a few paintings in that building, and he of course knows much about the history of WWII. He was able to show them relics of 49 Squadron, to which Captain Strauss belonged. Again, it was a fairly emotional time.
After that, we returned to Darwin city, did a little bit more shopping, we had a nice cup of coffee – they like their coffee – and something to eat at Louis in Raintree Park. We drove around by the casino, had a last look at Fannie Bay, out to East Point to view the harbour and we were just in time for them to catch their plane to Sydney before continuing on to the States.
In all that time, of course, they were struggling for luggage. They had no luggage when they came. On the first full day they were here, they received one small bag. On the second day, they received another bag and they finally got the rest of their luggage in Sydney. The funny thing about it was that when they realised that in our climate, you do not need many clothes to wear, they said they would have been totally embarrassed if they had pulled some of the clothes out of their luggage, had it arrived. In many ways, it worked out well that the luggage went missing.
I believe it is really important that we have this contact with these people in the United States. One day I will probably write a little book about how it came to be. I have said to other people I am sure this is providential we have made this contact because other people would call it a fluke, because all the way through the history of finding out about Strauss Airstrip and who built the Strauss Cricket Ground and who was Strauss himself is nearly all by accident. The only thing I can say is that only good has come out of this. The cricket match we had an Anzac Day, the community loved it. It was just a fantastic day.
Kids played cricket, parents played cricket, and we were playing with the army. We had fair dinkum bowling from the Administrator who was also there. Even though Judi said, ‘wow, I saw your Administrator bowling and I thought he was going to have a cardiac’. She thought he might have been a little bit heavy there. He had a great day. By coming out they brought the community together as well. Everybody enjoyed themselves. I feel now that I have two sisters in the United States, as that is how close we became on this trip. I would like to go back to Marysville and reciprocate the visit, and also visit the grave of Strauss, who is buried in Wadesville, Indiana. I believe when he was killed he was buried at a cemetery at Berrimah, and then after the war, as I suppose happened with many American servicemen, he was exhumed and his body taken back to where he was born, or where he lived most of his life, in this case, Wadesville, Indiana.
I believe to have that contact is really important. It is not like we are going on a trade delegation somewhere, or we are going to visit someplace to look at new developments, it is about person to person contact. I really think that is important, not just because I am a politician, but it is good as our society would get to understand another society. Americans get a fair hammering in Australia, even though we regard them as our friends, we always talk about the Yanks and that, but these people are just ordinary folks like you and I. From a small town in the United States, lived on a farm, had the same complaints about the local council, except their complaint was snow and ours might be mud and corrugations and pot holes. Exactly the same. They live with tornados, we live with cyclones. They teach at a school, a high school just like the one at Taminmin, same sort of kids and that is why Judy Green was so much able to connect with those kids. It did not matter about her accent, she understood exactly what those kids were about. That sort of contact is good.
Litchfield and the region from where I come from have that relationship with another place in the United States, recognising the importance of these American servicemen who came out to Australia during the war, and died. We forget that sometimes, because we look at our own forces and we say, they went over to Gallipoli or France and they died. A long way from here, but some of us may forget that Ohio, or Indiana, a little town called Wadesville, is an awful long way to Adelaide River, in 1942. Strauss came out here in March 1942, and he was killed on April 27 1942. He was here for a very short time. He was commanding officer and he fought for our country. Whilst we might have our criticisms about the Unites States at times, we are very much worse off if we just criticise without understanding what happened in the past in this country. The relationship between Australia and United States has just been cemented a tiny bit down at the Strauss Cricket Ground by a group of ordinary people meeting another couple of ordinary hay-seeders, they call themselves, from the mid-west, who got on just like blockies in the rural area. I will not forget the trip. I hope I can reciprocate, as I said, and go back to Marysville and meet the people and I hope that relationship will last forever.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I talk about a great event at a great club in the electorate of Sanderson. For those members who might not be aware exactly of where Sanderson is, those who are not out in the northern suburbs, it takes in the suburbs of Wulagi, Anula, Northlakes and a little of Malak.
In Northlakes, we are very fortunate to have a great club, which is the Darwin Golf Club. It is a great community club. A lot of people who live around the edge of the course in Northlakes are actually members of the club. It has a good social feel about it, the course is always very busy, and I believe it is very busy because the club has a great committee, a great management team, and great greenkeeping staff, and they look after the club and they look after their members. They have good open days, both for men, women and juniors. I believe that women in sport is an important area of focus of this government, and I am really glad to say that at the Darwin Golf Club, women in sport is very serious and supported quite strongly by the club.
What I am talking about in particular now is the Women’s Golf Open that was held there quite recently on the May Day weekend. The open is held each year on May Day weekend and is now on a rotation basis around the three 18-hole golf courses in the Territory; being Darwin, Alice Springs and Palmerston. Toini Norman, who is the mother of Greg Norman, is the Women’s Golf NT’s patron, could not attend this year due to family commitments but she sent a letter of support to the open. This year was the first time after a long absence that the open had a representative from Women’s Golf South Australia, which the Northern Territory is affiliated through, to attend and compete. Joan Lyons, the president of Women’s Golf South Australia, was a representative, and from the letter she has now forwarded, she thoroughly enjoyed her visit to the Top End and the hospitality offered to her.
There were 140 players competing in the championships. For women in sport that is a great effort and, for golf in particular, it is superb. There were 140 players competing. I went to the opening night, to the cocktail night. It was fabulous to see all those women there, some in club colours, all looking forward to the weekend ahead. Twenty-year-old Verity Knight from the Gold Coast, who plays off a three handicap, took out the open, with Toni McCormack from Darwin Golf Club - one of our own - taking out the closed NT open champion.
Two juniors, Matika Mitchell form Alice Springs Golf Club and Elisca McKinnon from Humpty Doo Golf Club, competed in the open and performed exceptionally well against the adults. Elisca took out the overall handicap, the Perpetual Trophy, which is donated by Toini Norman.
Such events as these cannot be held unless a lot of volunteers get in and help. Of course, the Territory is famous for the way the people get behind and volunteer, no more so that what happened at the NT Open. I would like to just get these recorded. The following is a list of the volunteers from the NT Ladies Open held at the Darwin Golf Club on 1-3 May 2004: Robyn Winter, ladies captain of the match committee, and the senior ladies and male member volunteers were Val Ingram, Vicki Purser, Marg Fairless, Val Durand, Alec Ingram, Terry Foster who did the media, Jeff Heap, Norm Bouffler, Shane Horton, Dave Conn, Jane Lutz, Timmy Arthur, Kathy Curby, Ray Webb, Sue Woods, Jude Eastaway, Tricia Clarke, Robyn Vincent, Lyn Heap, Jan Jones, Kath Chambers, Louise Penman, Lyn Mounsey, Helen Koch, Val Ingram, Judy Yuke, Sundra Salvadura, Graham Clarke, Ros Cron, Graham Cron, Chris Gorst, and Joe Smith. A lot of these people, as I said, live around the golf course, play quite regularly, and they do not tire of golf. They get in there and support it all they can, and that was fabulous to see.
A big thank you must also go to the sponsors of the event as, without the sponsor support, the events cannot function so successfully. The sponsors were Carlton Sterling, Paspaley Pearls, Timika Charters, Mix 104.9, L’Oreal, Bill Passmore Consultants, Coates Hire, Crocodylus Park, Darwin Pro Shop, Drummond Golf, Frost Ford, Fujitsu, Harvey Norman Electrical, Harvey Norman Furniture, Jenny Cooper, Klub Golf Rimba Irian, Majestic Orchids, NT Senior Women Golfers Association, National Australia Bank, Palmerston Pro Shop, Agnese Rinaldi, Sheraton Timika Hotel, Sports Agencies, Gove Golf Club, Humpty Doo and Rural Golf Club, Palmerston Golf and Country Club, and RAAF Darwin Club.
I am one of the most fortunate members: my back door looks straight at the front door of the Darwin Golf Club. Jude Eastaway popped over because she knows that I am a supporter of the Darwin Golf Club and she asked me whether I would be interested in being a sponsor. I happily put my hand up and sponsored a hole. I suggested that the minister for sport would do likewise because I know that he is a great supporter of the Darwin Golf Club and we have been to many a function down there, particularly their mid-season soiree out on the driving range. So she gave minister Ah Kit a ring and he sponsored a hole. We were both happy to get in there and help sponsor the Women’s NT Open.
From the open, two NT representative training squads were selected. The Bronze Squad is for handicaps between 21 and 29 and the successful players were Glenys Cummings from Gove, Shirley Shervill from Darwin, Matika Mitchell from Alice Springs, Paula Mitchell from Alice Springs, Rhonda Laurie from Darwin, Coral Dennerly from Gove, Agnese Rinaldi from Palmerston, Di Howard from Darwin and Denese Fincham from Gove. The Gold Squad, for handicaps up to 12, was Toni McCormick, Val Smith, Carol Kroger, Jude Eastaway and Sue McWilliam all from Darwin, and Barbara Postans from Palmerston. I congratulate them all and wish them well.
All in all, it was a great effort for the locals to put on a beaut show. We have the whole of the Territory represented there on the golf course as well as interstate. The club did the Territory proud. I was very proud of what people from my electorate could put on to host. Golf was a big winner out of this and I look forward to helping out the NT Women’s Open in any way I can in the future.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise to speak briefly tonight. I was listening with some interest to the member for Nelson’s contribution about the death of Captain Strauss which is a sort of a lead-in to what I want to talk about. Captain Strauss died in defence of democracy but in our communities in the Northern Territory we have had people who have been injured and died in defence of our civil liberties. I am thinking particularly of police officers. People like Glen Huitson who died on duty defending the people of the Northern Territory against a gunman. He was a close and personal friend of mine. We had worked together for many months when he was a recruit in Alice Springs.
Then tonight I turn on the television set and although I have yet to find out who it is, I hear that a police officer in Yuendumu has been flown interstate as a result of being flogged by a person armed with a nulla nulla. I wish that police officer and that police officer’s family the very, very best and hope and pray that that police officer is okay. Apparently the injuries are fractures to an arm and hands, and the injuries are serious enough to warrant that police officer being sent elsewhere. I hope that in the morning the police minister can come into this House during ministerial reports and provide a full report as to the circumstances of the incident. It is important that Territorians note the length and extent that police officers go to on a daily basis to defend the rights of the law abiding citizens of the Northern Territory.
I would like to place on the record my best wishes to the police officer concerned and to that police officer’s family. I will be seeking advice from the police minister tomorrow sometime, either by way of ministerial report or through a briefing as to the circumstances of that incident and to see what action is being taken to assist that police officer’s family as well as what actions are being taken to protect the officers who are left there on the ground who may be affected by some sort of ongoing problem. I am utterly unaware of the circumstance of the attack, however, I would like to hear what the minister has to say about it and what the minister is going to do to protect the rights of this particular police officer and other police officers in Yuendumu at the moment.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise this evening to continue debate that I started last sittings, to acknowledge the work that is being done at the local primary schools in my electorate and specifically to acknowledge the terrific support that our schools receive from parents of students at the schools, from the teachers and the students themselves.
First, I would like to acknowledge Malak School, which is a terrific school within my electorate. It has magnificent grounds, thanks to the work of the grounds keeper there. Bill is a fantastic person, very committed to the school and he has the school looking terrific, as usual, even though we are heading into the Dry. It is still a very green, very pretty school.
We have a very enthusiastic new principle at the school this year, who has come up from Katherine, Russell Leg. Russell is doing a terrific job at the school. He has full support of the school community behind him. There is really a lovely mood at the school, a great feeling that he has engendered there. They have generously agreed to host a Malak Neighbourhood Watch Meeting that I have in the area later this month. It is the can-do attitude that Russell Leg as principal is showing since he has been at the school since the start of the year, and it has engendered a great deal of community support for him in his methods as principal.
He has a good school council around him. The School Council is chaired by Lynne Chong, a very active mother of students at the school. Her children do very, very well at the school. She has every reason to be proud. I see her kids receiving awards at assembly. Lynne is a terrific new chair this year and I wish her all the best. She is very ably supported by the secretary Jillian Furness. Jillian has been a secretary in the past, and does a great job. She is a great woman, full of life, vigour and enthusiasm and she is very reliable. They are backed up by other parents at the school, Claire Dodt, Donna Smith, Chris Kelly, Tamara Tartaglia, Karen Jipp, Mark Munich, Tania Hill. We have fantastic work from Loene Wilson and teachers Natalie Eerdon, Nicky Honan and Shannon Pope.
I want to single out for thanks Donna Smith, who took on the unenviable task of the fund raiser for the school. Donna was not so sure about the task. She had not really taken on something like that in the past. After some encouragement, she proceeded with it and I have to say she is doing a magnificent job. There has not been a period in the school this year without Donna having organised some kind of a fund raiser. Really, the students at assembly are very excited about the many raffles. She created an Easter raffle. She went out to Casuarina Shopping Centre and sold tickets in the Easter raffle. It was a highly successful raffle. She is busy at the moment organising a quiz night for the school and regularly beats a path to my door and manages to fleece things out of the local member. Well done, Donna. She is doing a terrific job and I am more than happy to support her and indeed the full Malak School Council, who are true symbols of just what parents can do to enhance a school.
The Malak Student Council representatives, it was my honour to present as the local member to present them with their Captain’s badges and their SRC badges at a school assembly recently. School captains, I have to say, are dominated by girls at Malak School. We have Jessica Marris and Kasi Chong as school Captains. The School Vice-Captains, again dominated by girls, are Karly Fisher and Jennifer Mu and the class delegates are Ashley da Silva, Jane Abril, Angela Carter-Ritter, Katrina Orian, Marc Errington and Margaret Harrison. Hats off to Marc Errington. He is the only boy who stuck his hand up on the SRC. I have spoken to his very proud parents and they are delighted. There is a desire amongst school councils parents to encourage more boys in the future to step up to that really terrific role of being SRC reps.
The school has a very positive outlook on the year. The students have settled in well. Learning outcomes have already been quite significant. The principal has a great array of work in his office. It is a very encouraging school. I am delighted to be able to assist them through the year in the various tasks they set themselves.
Anther school in the electorate, which is doing incredibly well, again with a new principal this year because last year’s principal has gone on long service leave, is Manunda Terrace Primary School Dr Terry Quong is the new Principal there. Terry is well known throughout the education sector. He has been a leader in training for teachers throughout the sector in education and he was really looking forward to settling down to being a school principal. Terry has taken on the role at Manunda Terrace with gusto. He has very quickly settled in to what is a very close school community who are very active in the broader community. Terry is working hand in hand with the not too long standing, but of some several years, the school council president, the school council chair, Mr Barry Brown.
Barry is an incredible work horse. He oversees an enormously successful fundraising effort each year, which is the school council auction, and they manage to fleece me of several hundred dollars each year, I must say, I am a bit of a sitting duck at that auction. He is assisted by Mick Keeley. Mick has been an active member of the school council for some years now. Margaret Harmsen is the secretary, she does a terrific job. Raylee Broome is the ex-officio rep with Marilyn Galt, parent rep, Pornthip Moulding, the parent rep, her husband Keth Moulding. Findlay Campbell, Peter Evans and Michelle Collins are also parent reps, and the able staff reps of Jan-Marie Cooper and Paulina Motlop. They are a terrific school council. I have worked fairly closely with them now for some years. They are inquisitive about curriculum, about how to improve the school, they are forever coming up with new ideas.
We are really enjoying, at that school at the moment, the success of the Breakfast Program. I take my hat off to the volunteers of Red Cross who are in that school every morning providing breakfast to the children. It has been a very successful Breakfast Program. On average, some 30 students are using that Breakfast Program each morning at the school. It is a school that has had its chances. At the moment, the school is working hard to incorporate into the school community students who really have not had much experience with attending school, even kids who live out at Knuckeys Lagoon, not far from Manunda Terrace Primary School. They are brought into the school and dropped back by various parents and volunteers, and these kids are having their first real opportunities at education. It is really good to see the way that Manunda Terrace has embraced them, is catering to their learning needs, and it is good to see the way the other students at the school are being very accepting of these kids. I wish the school all the best in that initiative. I am glad the Breakfast Program is occurring there, it certainly has enhanced the lives of the kids who, in the past, have had to go to school on empty stomachs. It is a terrific program and it has great outcomes.
There are some leaders at the school, amongst the students, of course. We have the SRC reps, Michael Bennett, Bing Ramilo, Zachary Stanislaus, Pandelis Magripilis, Luke Drennan and Diana Micairn. They are terrific kids. I also take my hat off to Emma Martin, Natasha Lee, Sean Quinn and Charlie Hourdas. I get a great deal of pleasure out of attending Manunda Terrace Primary School assemblies and talking to the kids regularly, and also visiting them in their classrooms. Anything that the school asks me to do, pretty well I am there and assisting in, because the kids are just so open and really inquisitive about my role in the community. They know I am a parent, they see me down the shops with my kids, and so they do not have any hesitation in coming up to me and having a chat to me. I really like the way these kids come from such a variety of backgrounds, and certainly Manunda Terrace Primary is located in a lower socio-economic area, so the kids do not have a life of luxury at home, but they are tremendously high achieving kids regardless. It is just great to be there and encourage them, and help the school whenever they need assistance.
The electorate of Karama feeds into the public high school of Sanderson High School, which I, of course, share in terms of assistance with my colleague, the member for Sanderson, who has a very close relationship as well with Sanderson High School. Greg Gibbs, again, is the chair of the Sanderson High School council, he has done a tremendous job at that school for many years now, and he shares the co-chair position with Sharon Clark. Treasurers are Denise Thomas and Gayle De La Cruz, with Tom McCall as secretary. The principal, Denise Wilkowski, has been at the school for some years now and is well known in the community, and works really well with the teacher rep, Sally Black and Cath Greene, and the parent council members are Fran Davies, Doreen Walsh, Anne-Marie Tully, Gerry De La Cruz and Vickianne Purcell.
I know many of these parents from primary school era, when they had their kids in primary school, but also having worked with them throughout the community. Sanderson High School have a very strong and a very active school council. They are very well regarded and I am sure that they will have a very successful year. I also have the opportunity to deal with the ASSPA committee at Sanderson High from time to time, and I congratulate Gail Ah Kit who is working as the chair there; indeed, the wife of our minister, and she has a deputy chair, Gail Laughton Gibbs, and Cheree Groves, D’elise Keitaanpaa, and Bill Rofe is the teacher there, and he is very active in assisting the indigenous students at Sanderson High School.
The SRC at Sanderson High is Tatiana de Castro, Brilee Jaques, Shelly Keast, Ben Keitaanpaa, Christopher Lalor, Peta Boots, Kevin Kadirgamar, Sophia Hoving, Ira Racines and Aimee Slocombe. In the senior school we have Brock Hall, Shane Boots, Ceah David, Ashlee McIinnes and Danielle Pukeroa. Sanderson High SRC does a lot of work in the school. They are the role models and the leaders of their high school. They do a terrific job and I hope that they have a fantastic 2004.
I am delighted to be able to work with these local schools. As we all know, schools are often the centre of communities. They certainly are incredibly important to the future of the Territory. We are turning out terrific Territorians in these schools in my electorate. I am very proud to have the opportunity to work with them. Any task they set me is always fair and reasonable, and I am happy to dig in and give the assistance a local member can provide. Congratulations to the parents and the students and the teachers who have all put their hand up to do that extra work of being on the council or the SRC. There is always a lot of things and a lot of tasks to take on. I know there is a lot of interest in the government’s secondary review of education. However, again they are not rushing into any hasty views on that. They are in the stage at the council levels of finding out information, and it has led to some very interesting debates and discussions at school council level, which a lot of us are enjoying. So, all the best to those members of our community, both the future leaders in the SRC reps, as well as the parents and teachers who are putting in a tremendous effort in our school communities. I congratulate them for that effort and I look forward to continuing to work with them.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to put an issue dear to my heart on the record this evening, and that is funding of regional events.
We have heard a fair bit in the last day or so from government members regarding major events and how they are funding all sorts of big programs such as cricket and Aussie Rules and so on, but we have not heard much at all about regional events funding. We know the story of the Croc Fest and the funding it did not receive from this government. In fact, this government decided, very consciously, to pull out of funding it, which is a disappointment reflected right across the community.
I have more and more people who are organisers of smaller regional events coming to me about the lack of funding from the Northern Territory government, funding they expect to receive on past experience. The CLP government used to fund them. For a while, although reduced, the Labor government funded them but the funding for those events now seems to be drying up.
One such event that came close, albeit they were saved at the 11th hour, was the Katherine Country Music Muster. They were initially totally knocked back by the Chief Minister. They were told that the Major Events unit would be able to assist them in reviewing their event and reporting back to the Chief Minister.
Nothing was heard until a letter was written to the Chief Minister at the 11th hour, just a couple of weeks before the Country Music Muster, and money was forthcoming at long last. I will put on the record that was much appreciated by the organisers and it allowed them to move in a much more relaxed situation to hold, yet again, another fantastic and very successful Katherine Country Music Muster.
Another event of significance is the Merrepen Arts Festival, which historically has been funded, supported in funding by the Northern Territory government regardless of its political persuasion. In the past, the CLP has ensured that funding was available. Until recently, even the Labor government funded it, but this year no funding has been forthcoming and that is a major disappointment.
It is all very well for government members to come in here and talk about the major events coming up in Darwin and Alice Springs, but it is the small regional events, particularly events that showcase our smaller communities such as Nauiyu community on the Daly River. Merrepen is an event that is well attended: the arts festival itself on the Sunday; the sports program on the Saturday prior; and the Saturday music events.
The Chief Minister and the members for Arnhem and Arafura would know, having attended in the past and - I believe the member for Arafura was down to open it last year - the musical events that are held on the Saturday night included the Darwin Symphony Orchestra attending. They will not be attending this year but, regardless of that, there is still a musical program of entertainment.
The Merrepen Arts Festival is a showcase of Aboriginal art. It is an opportunity for the community to open up its doors, not that it is a closed community in any way - in fact, they pride themselves that it is very much an open community - but it is a great opportunity to showcase their unique art and for the festival to be an annual festival on the calendar of events. It attracts a huge crowd of tourists as well as people from Darwin.
This year, it has not received any notification, albeit they have applied to the government, of any assistance whatsoever. I know the Chief Minister has been there and I know that she has reasonably close contact with the people in the community. I can tell her directly, or somebody can tell her directly, that they are very disappointed that they have not received any assistance to date unless it has been in the last day or so. I am sure they have not. It is something that needs rectifying very quickly given that this festival is to be held not this coming weekend but on the following weekend.
I expect a reply if not from the member for Arafura, certainly from the Chief Minister, who knows exactly what I am talking about and, I am sure, knows how disappointed the people of Nauiyu are feeling with regard to their funding applications for this very important festival.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, we have some visitors in the gallery this morning: Years 4 and 5 from Ludmilla Primary School. The students are accompanied by Mrs Gay Cattermole, Ms Mere Barlow, Ms Kylie Elliott and Ms Stacey Lynes. On behalf of all members, I extend to you a warm welcome.
Members: Hear, hear!
STATEMENT BY SPEAKER
Hansard Production
Hansard Production
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, we probably take it for granted but it is very impressive, isn’t it, that we have yesterday’s Hansard on our tables? I thank Hansard for their continued good work.
Members: Hear, hear!
LEAVE OF ABSENCE
Chief Minister
Chief Minister
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that leave of absence be granted to the Chief Minister on account of her attendance to government business, as was advised to members yesterday.
Motion agreed to.
ROUTINE OF BUSINESS
Opposition Budget Response
Opposition Budget Response
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the routine of business be rearranged to allow the opposition response to the Budget 2004-05 to be taken at 11 am on Wednesday, 19 May 2004.
Motion agreed to.
MEDIA ARRANGEMENTS
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, I have given permission for various media to broadcast live, or rebroadcast with sound and vision; 8TOP FM radio to broadcast live, and the Northern Territory News to take photographs of the opposition’s budget reply.
PETITION
Protection of Daly River
Protection of Daly River
Dr BURNS (Johnston): Madam Speaker, I present a petition from 113 petitioners praying that the Daly River be protected for the benefit of all Territorians. This petition is similar to a petition presented in November 2003 to which a response was circulated during the February sittings. The petition bears the Clerk’s certificate that it conforms with the requirements of standing orders. Madam Speaker, I move that the petition be read.
Motion agreed to; petition read:
To the Speaker and members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northern Territory:
We, the undersigned, respectfully showeth that the Daly River is a Northern Territory icon and needs to
be protected now for the benefit of all Territorians.
We petitioners therefore humbly pray -
1. that the Northern Territory government immediately halt plans to subdivide pastoral leases in
the Daly catchment for large-scale irrigated agriculture;
2. that the Northern Territory government immediately stop issuing tree clearing permits or water
extraction licences in the Daly Basin; and
3. that the Northern Territory government start public consultation and research into economic
strategies for the Daly catchment that do not result in large-scale tree clearing or irrigation.
And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
MINISTERIAL REPORTS
Mineral Exploration – Web Mapping Applications
Mineral Exploration – Web Mapping Applications
Mr VATSKALIS (Mines and Energy): Madam Speaker, I rise today to provide the report to honourable members about new web mapping applications, which will assist mineral exploration in the Northern Territory.
Exploration is fundamental to new mining investments in the Northern Territory and is essential for sustained growth in the mining sector, which currently employs over 4300 Territorians. In 2003-04, about $50m was invested by the private sector in mineral exploration in the Territory.
Exploration activity in itself provides important economic benefits to regional Territory businesses and communities. The private sector bases a large part of its decision to explore in the Territory on its perception of our mineral and petroleum prospectivity.
In July 2003, the government commenced a new four-year $15.2m exploration investment attraction initiative, Building the Territory’s Resources Base.
The Northern Territory geological survey, NTGS, of the Department of Business, Industry and Resource Development is charged with managing and implementing two of the four elements that comprise this initiative, namely a program involving acquisition of high value, high quality pre-competitive geoscience data and its provision to the exploration sector, and a program of communication to promote the Territory as an attractive exploration investment destination.
NTGS is constantly looking for ways to improve access to data, particularly over the Internet. Departmental geoscientific product distribution statistics indicate that over 90% of explorers active in the Territory are in fact based outside the Territory.
So, given the demographics of the exploration sector and the fact that most geoscience data can be related to a specific location or area, the development of a web-based mapping application to supply data to explorers is a natural step. This strategy is also consistent with the e-government policy to increase the range of state-of-the-art on-line government services and transactions.
NTGS has now developed - and on 13 May 2003 I had the pleasure of launching - a new web mapping application to provide explorers and the general public with access via interactive maps to a wealth of geoscientific data generated by NTGS, other agencies and the private sector.
The application has been named STRIKE, Spatial Territory Resource Information Kit for Exploration. It is appropriately named for an exploration-related application. STRIKE will initially serve Territory-wide data sets, although in future, more detailed regional data sets will be available. STRIKE is completely interactive, allowing explorers to display both geophysical imagery and geoscientific map data as a series of layers. Users can add or remove layers of information, zoom in and out of the map display, and search for specific information.
STRIKE allows users to use historical exploration activity, combined with information on geology, geophysics, geochemistry, and drilling and mineral deposits so explorers can pinpoint areas of the Northern Territory to more closely examine prospectivity. Ancillary information, such as rivers and roads, can also be displayed. Title information showing current exploration activity across the Territory will be updated on a regular basis. In addition, STRIKE users can add or remove map layers to create and print hard copy maps that are entirely specific to their individual needs.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, yes, it is important that data on exploration is captured and held for future explorers. In other parts of the world, this remains the property of explorers and is held in company archives. In the Territory, it has been the case for a long time that data is available to future explorers who want to go over that land with different technologies to see whether there are any prospects.
It is interesting to note that the minister said loudly this morning, and on radio, that if there is no exploration, we will not have any minerals. It is a very big contributor to our gross domestic product, 21.9%. It is our biggest earner. I urge the government to focus more on this area. Exploration, we know, has the potential benefits for jobs. It is a pity that in the last budget, this government chose to get rid of exploration exemption certificates, something we would overturn on achieving government. Those certificates were to benefit local people involved in the exploration process. They have disappeared.
The government has kept up with the geotechnical initiatives that were four years old when they came to government, but at no extra cost. Basically, they are barely holding the line. I note that native title continues to be a problem, although, hopefully, it has better resolution than it had four or five years ago.
I note also that there is the potential for the Environmental Protection Agency to have an impact on mining and, while there is a committee looking at it, I note that there is money in this budget to set it up, so it would seem to be a fairly premature budget bid, specific as it is, given we have yet to recommend on this.
Mr VATSKALIS (Mines and Energy): Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his comments, but I would like to tell him that, personally, I have always supported mineral exploration and mining. I believe mining is the future for the Territory. I came from Western Australia, where mining is one of the major industries, and my intention is to encourage and support exploration and mining.
Our government has always supported mineral exploration. There have been 700 mineral exploration licences granted by this government. In addition to that, $15.2m has been allocated to Building the Territory’s Resource Base.
Information from industry indicates that the Territory is the only place in Australia that provides free information to people who want to undertake exploration. My support for exploration is demonstrated by my undertaking that I will provide any possible assistance to anyone who wants to come to Territory to explore, and I am very pleased when exploration pays off. Yesterday, Giants Reef announced they struck another gold finding in Malbec West; 22 grams of gold per tonne of ore, a significant find for the Territory and for Tennant Creek.
Electricity Undergrounding – Suburban Darwin
Dr BURNS (Essential Services): Madam Speaker, as members will be aware, there is a massive program to underground the power supply in suburban Darwin, and it was a government election commitment.
The CLP is on the record are on the record opposing this very significant program. The Martin Labor government is proud of this initiative that will improve the reliability of supply, protect supply from cyclone damage, and beautify Territory streets. I am pleased to advise the Assembly on significant progress that has been made. This $80m project will result in almost 9000 lots, and 16 000 customers in suburban Darwin having their overhead powerline replaced with a reliable and safe underground supply.
In the past, the reliability of power supply in Nightcliff and Rapid Creek was regularly amongst the worst in Darwin due to long lines and many trees that could interfere with the overhead electrical infrastructure. Before undergrounding work could begin in Nightcliff and Rapid Creek, a new high voltage feeder was required for the provision of a secure power source from the Casuarina Zone Substation. This underground high voltage feeder has been installed along Trower Road from the Casuarina substation, at the corner of Trower and Rothdale Roads, all the way to the Nightcliff shops. This work was completed and commissioned in 2003. New sections of the underground supply to Nightcliff and Rapid Creek residences will be connected to this feeder.
The 20-year, $80m undergrounding power project is funded jointly by the Territory government and the Power and Water Corporation, with Power and Water Corporation’s contribution based on the cost reductions that are achieved in servicing underground compared to overhead power supply.
This government commitment provides jobs for local contractors. Nilsen Electric (NT) has been appointed managing contractor for the first three years of the project. Nilsen Electric has formed a partnership, known as NST, with Savant and Townes Chappell Mudgway. NST will conduct the planning and detailed design work as well as the construction through to the final handover of the assets to PowerWater.
NST is comprised of experienced Territory companies that are employing Territory resources in this project. Nilsen is committed to using Territory contractors for more than 80% of the contract value. Detailed design work has now been completed for the first packaged area of work in Nightcliff, and this section, which comprises 329 lots, will be completed by December 2004.
Importantly, all of Nightcliff powerlines are planned to be underground by July 2005. The sequencing of the package areas is being based on maximising gains in reliability, and extending existing underground areas. The sequence also ensures that the works follow the electrical flow of the network, and proceed geographically. This will minimise the number of temporary connections and terminations, and minimise mobilisation and relocation loss. Each package area of 50 to 100 homes is expected to take three to four months to complete.
Community consultation is crucial to the success of the undergrounding project, and on 14 April this year, project staff attended a public forum at Nightcliff High School to enable residents in the first package area to raise any issues that they may have had.
PowerWater has also had discussions with Darwin City Council to ensure community and technical requirements are achieved with minimal disruption to residents and with appropriate reinstatement of affected areas. The project will also result in the construction of extensive sections of new footpath. I am sure that is going to be welcomed by the residents of Nightcliff. This will be gifted to the Darwin City Council for ownership and maintenance.
Earlier this month, works were completed to provide Woolworths shopping centre at Nightcliff with underground power. On 6 May, I was pleased to witness the removal of the last of the power poles between Progress and Dick Ward Drives to the Woolworths shopping centre. This week, construction works have started on Nightcliff Road. Residents will begin to see major changes to their local streetscape in the months ahead.
This is an election commitment by this government. We are following through. This project will roll out over a number of years. It is really welcomed by residents. I am proud to be part of it, and I know the member for Nightcliff is proud to be part of it. It is a great project, which gives some insurance against power disruptions through our tropical weather and cyclones.
It is an investment for the future. If people are in the environs of Nightcliff shopping centre, the project office is there, they can see the technical layout, the new pavements, and the friendly staff will give them all the information that they need.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): It should be a job well done, Madam Speaker, because it is going to cost $80m.
Relief to business in the budget yesterday was a package of $6.7m so, yes, in terms of priorities, it is a good thing to spend $80m undergrounding power in Nightcliff. The issue is whether you are talking about bang for your buck, which is what this mob often talk about. I live in the northern suburbs and our power is underground already, and it still goes out.
What this minister should do, instead of rattling on about his election promises, is say: ‘I will put $80m worth of infrastructure in to stop the power going off at Alice, in Katherine, in Tennant, in Leanyer and in places where there is already underground power. $80m is a great expenditure, and I note that the boss of PowerWater said: ‘If I had a few million to upgrade some of these turbines down here, I could do better on each of these turbines’.
The first question is: will this improve the reliability of power? The answer is: yes, obviously, for Nightcliff. Will it obviate blackouts? No, it will not, and particularly in places like Katherine, which also has above ground powerlines, this program has yet to extend to it.
It does seem like a bit of a whiteboard exercise. I was interested, too, that the member for Nightcliff said that she would go to a pole decommissioning ceremony in a street that is still not on the program, so you had better keep her informed, because there are people who were ready to go to the decommissioning ceremony and it turned out that it was not even on the program.
Dr BURNS (Essential Services): Madam Speaker, there were a few grumbles there, but the bottom line is that, in response to the issues raised by the honourable member regarding PowerWater and its infrastructure within the Territory, the Treasurer and I met with the board about a week ago, and they do have plans for reinvestment into infrastructure, and that is very welcome indeed.
We support that. The Power and Water Corporation is looking after Territorians. There is significant investment and, basically, it is required. For instance, I went to the Ludmilla treatment plant the other week to have a look; not very much money at all invested since it was completed post-cyclone. There has been $4m in the last two years. This is the sort of investment that the Power and Water Corporation ...
Members interjecting.
Dr BURNS: It is true! I am proud to be part of that, Madam Speaker.
_______________________
Motion
Suspension of Sessional Order – Ministerial Reports
Suspension of Sessional Order – Ministerial Reports
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business)(by leave): Madam Speaker, I move that -
1. the sessional order relating to Ministerial Reports be suspended to enable the Minister for Local
Government to make a report on pool fencing issues;
2. a speech time limit of 10 minutes apply to the minister’s report and the reply by the shadow minister;
and,
3. the minister not have a right of reply.
Motion agreed to.
_______________________
Alleged Malpractice –
Swimming Pool Fencing Inspector
Swimming Pool Fencing Inspector
Mr AH KIT (Local Government): Madam Speaker, I advise the House of a serious situation that is being dealt with by my department in the administration of legislation relating to the fencing of swimming pools.
As members will be well aware, under the previous Swimming Pool Fencing Act, a number of inspectors were appointed to carry out inspections of fences that provide a barrier to the entry of children to swimming pools on private residences. The duties of inspectors were specified by the act, which was designed to provide very little, if any, discretion to inspectors in the carriage of their duties. As noted in debates about the legislation, we were well aware of the problems that were caused in the carriage of inspectorial or regulatory functions where officers had substantial discretion. The possibility that the capacity to exercise discretion might open the door to corrupt or undesirable practices in such an inspectorate was discussed by this House. The department went to considerable lengths to ensure both that inspectors knew what was required of them and to ensure that, if there was any undesirable activity on the part of an inspector, then it would be possible for it to be found.
It is a matter of great disappointment, and some disgust, that I must report that one of the 17 officers entrusted with the responsibility of ensuring that the legislation was properly enforced has failed to carry out his duty.
I will not, even under the cover of parliamentary privilege, publish the name of the officer concerned, neither will I provide any other names or such specific situations as will allow the easy identification of that person. I will refrain from doing this for just one reason: a full report on the activities of the officer concerned has been provided to the police for action on a series of criminal offences that appear to be involved. Publication of details could clearly prejudice prosecution. While I will not release the report, I believe it is necessary in the public interest that I briefly set out the situation for the information of members.
During the last couple of months of 2003, it came to the attention of the department that one pool fencing inspector was operating in breach of directions as to work practices. These directions had been put in place to guard against the possibility of malpractice or corruption in the inspectorate. On further investigation it was found that the inspector identified was routinely disregarding specific directions, and that there was reason for concern as to whether the inspector was properly carrying out his duties under the act.
This happened at a time when the inspector’s employment contract was just about to expire. A number of matters were put to the inspector concerned by the chief executive of the department. The chief executive was not satisfied with the response of the inspector and, accordingly, lost confidence in the ability of the inspector to carry out his duties.
Subsequently, the inspector’s contract was allowed to expire. He was not allowed to return to the workplace, and no further employment was offered. I note that the Australian Industrial Relations Commission subsequently dismissed the inspector’s application in relation to ‘harsh, unjust or unreasonable termination’.
This situation raised significant issues for the Swimming Pool Fencing Authority and the department. These issues included the following questions: whether the decision not to grant a further contract to the inspector under investigation was correct; whether sufficient evidence exists for criminal or civil proceedings to be pursued against the former inspector; and whether the system of administration of the Pool Fencing Unit was sufficient to locate and deal with malpractice on the part of any staff.
The concerns of the department flow from its duty of care owed to pool fence owners and from the duty owed to the public in the administration of the legislation for which it is responsible. A person who has received a compliance certificate for a pool fence has a right to rely on that certificate. Should a child drown in a pool with a certified fence that is found not to be up to standard, the public would have every right to demand redress. Thus, the potential consequences of the failures of this inspector are of major significance.
In view of these consequences, a recently retired senior police officer, former Assistant Commissioner Doug Smith, was commissioned to carry out a detailed investigation. The investigator was given complete access to information in the department and received full cooperation from all staff.
The investigation took place during January and early February of 2004. In the course of the investigation, current pool inspectors and other relevant staff we interviewed. Computer records were closely examined, together with a variety of other material. A number of specific case studies were also examined in considerable detail.
I should stress that while the investigator was an ex-senior police officer, this was not a police investigation and it was, therefore, not carried out with the force of a police investigation. There are issues of natural justice in the right of reply of the person accused that will need to be addressed if and when this investigation proceeds to another step.
The investigation has found that the chief executive of my department had valid reason for not offering the inspector a further contract. The investigation also found: that the processes and systems of the administration of pool fencing legislation are appropriate to the requirements of the legislation; the inspector concerned regularly breached the directions of management in ways that would allow him to inspect pools for people who had made contact with him directly; there must be grave doubts whether the inspector properly and accurately entered information about the pools that he had inspected into the recording system; and, after considerable investigation, it has been confirmed that the inspector under investigation is the only inspector who failed to comply with directions aimed at preventing the development of corrupt or undesirable practices.
This investigation raises serious issues for the administration of the legislation. All of the inspections that have been carried out by the particular inspector have been identified. The Swimming Pool Safety Authority has written to all those who received compliance certificates on the basis of inspections carried out by the particular inspector. Re-inspections of all of those pool fences will now be carried out, though I should note that this could take some time to finalise. Where a compliance certificate has been issued and it is found that the fence is not compliant with the standards certified, an offer will be made to the owner of the property for upgrade of the fence to the appropriate standard. Where the owner does not wish, for any reason, to change their fence to make it comply with the standards that applied previously, options will be discussed to achieve certification under the standards that now apply. In this way, we will seek to put right the wrongs that have been done to the public by the actions of one unprofessional officer.
There remain, however, a number of other issues. The department has had an officer for a year who has, quite simply, not done the job for which he has been paid. The officer has misled the public, his employer and the Swimming Pool Fencing Authority in the exercise of his statutory functions. The officer has apparently made incorrect assessments of amounts that should be paid in grants and these have been paid. Most importantly, he has increased the risk to the safety of children.
In short, and without going into more detail, I simply note that there will be more heard on this matter. The report of the investigation has been referred to the Commissioner of Police. The police are the appropriate authority to take action to investigate what appears to amount to seriously unprofessional and possibly criminal activity.
I point out that the person involved will not be able to avoid prosecution by virtue of the indemnity clause in section 47 of the act. That indemnity only covers activities carried out in good faith and that is clearly not the case in this instance. Apart from the criminal aspect, there is also the question of cost to the public purse. This cost is considerable. The cost of salary and operations, grants paid erroneously, the cost of re-inspections in bringing premises up to the certified standards, the cost of the investigation and the disruption are all costs that I believe, should be recovered from the person who caused these costs to be incurred.
There are positives that come out of this very sorry situation. Very importantly, the investigation has found that the system works. The computer system which records and monitors inspections could not be subverted, the work of all the other officers has been put under intense scrutiny and has been found to be of a high standard. Management practices have been found to be appropriate. On a final note, I would like to thank those people who helped in the investigation.
Madam SPEAKER: Your time has expired, minister.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, this is indeed a black day for the Northern Territory. I am not aware, in the history of the Northern Territory Public Service, of an instance when an individual with statutory powers could possibly stand accused of corrupt activity. That is what the minister is telling the House today.
My words in relation to the last debate on pool fencing were that you have been warned, and there were certain flaws in the government’s position, and I will return to those in a moment. There are two issues here: one, what is going to be the effect on the public; and two, what effect has this government’s response had on any future dealings with this particular individual?
I am advised that 403 inspections were conducted by this person, in fact more in tandem with other people, but 403 inspections are suspect. Of those 403, 50 stand out as having some very real issues attached to them. Does this mean that the police are going to have to interview 403 individual Territorians? Does it mean that there are potentially 403 people who might also find themselves facing some sort of criminal or civil liability as a result of this?
This is a matter of grave concern and the minister was aware, or made aware by the member for Drysdale, I believe, in a briefing about mid-last year that there may have been a problem about this. It is now nearly mid-this year and we have a report.
The member for Drysdale was attacked and lampooned in this House because he had the audacity to ask questions about public servants. The response from the member for Sanderson was that they stand shoulder to shoulder, unquestioningly, with the pool inspectors. Every public servant must be capable of being reviewed, and it is the review process that had been undertaken by this minister that has demonstrated that there is clearly a problem in this instance. Fully one-third of the pools in question are now owned by new pool owners – totally innocent parties. What’s going to happen to them? What advice can the minister give to those people?
The government has been aware of this for a very long time because the member for Drysdale advised the government. So the government engaged in a couple of letters back and forth with the particular inspector and advised him that his contract would not be renewed. What I did not hear from the minister is that he stopped inspecting pools during this period in September and October last year and, in fact, ended up in front of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission in November last year before they supported the minister’s decision and CEO’s decision not to renew his contract. Did that person continue expecting pools during that period?
The Smith Inquiry was completed in March of this year and handed to the minister. It is now late May. When was the inquiry taken from the department and given to the police for further investigation? What was the delay period? That is another very serious question that the minister is going to have to answer.
I turn my attention briefly to the legislation that was introduced by the minister during the February sittings and, once again, rushed through in a effort to fix up the issues that were identified as being problematic with pool fencing laws. Once again, members on this side of the House said: ‘Slow it down. We know you want to get this rushed through because it is causing political pain out there’. The minister insisted on pushing it through, and there are aspects of the legislation that now clearly demonstrate that the legislation should have been redrafted. One of those areas, which were identified by Magistrate Loadman at the time, was that there was no review process. Because pool owners were not given the opportunity to have an appeal process attached to the certificates that they may be receiving, they have been unable to bring these issues to any independent body.
We had to rely on an internal review, which has taken the government at least four or five months that we are aware of to go through and to bring before this House. The issue was a matter of grave consequence and importance to the opposition at that time, and I would suggest that if such a review process had been available, this matter may well have become public long before 403 was the figure reached by this government.
This legislation is a mother load of stuff-ups. This legislation has failed Territorians badly and now, because of poor behaviour by one of the inspectors, which was unreviewable because of the operation of the prior legislation and this legislation, Territorians were not protected by the safeguards that they were assured were in place. The minister deliberately refused to allow a review tribunal, and the consequences of that sort of decision are clear now.
I am unclear as to how the operation of section 47 of the legislation is going to work. It was an issue that was raised and discussed at length, by both the member for Drysdale and myself, and introduced a blanket indemnity from criminal and civil action arising out of anything that a Pool Safety Advisor might do. The only proviso in the legislation is that the person had to act in good faith. If you read it in another way, it may not operate in that fashion. Territorians deserve to hear from the minister exactly what the effect of that provision is going to be. Now, I am not a lawyer, but I raised the issue at the time, I know the member for Drysdale raised the issue at the time. It would be an awful shame if some sort of impropriety was allowed to go unpunished because of the operation of this legislation. It is a matter for the lawyers to decide, but it is another area where rushed-through legislation may very well cause future problems for this government and for Territorians.
I am saddened to be talking about this issue today because, as the minister himself pointed out, this is an issue of corrupt activity. He said so several times during his report, and I have to say that I am desperately disappointed for Northern Territory public servants, who have to carry the title of Northern Territory public servant, when they know such a thing may have gone on in their environment. It is a black and sad day indeed.
I said that Territorians deserve better, and they do. I acknowledge that the government is trying to make good. They have offered to pay for any upgrades that are required to be made arising from this. I am interested to know how much that is going to cost and where that is going to come out of the budget. It is a sad time indeed that we find ourselves discussing this issue. The government has more questions to answer, and Territorians deserve to hear from the minister exactly what is happening and exactly how they are going to be affected by this.
Reports noted pursuant to Sessional Order.
INTERPRETATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 190)
(Serial 190)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
This legislation is unlikely to excite the public or the media, but nonetheless is important for law making and law makers like us, and for law drafters. It could make laws easier to understand.
The amendments are straightforward. They came about almost by accident. I noticed, when looking at interstate legislation that, in many cases, greater use was made of notes and examples than in the Northern Territory. I often found those notes and examples very useful in understanding the legislation. If anyone wants to see legislation that uses a lot of these notes and examples, you can look at the Queensland Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000.
After consulting our Parliamentary Counsel, I realised that notes and examples would probably be used more frequently in the Northern Territory legislation if their legal status was absolutely clear. You can find some notes and examples in Territory legislation. There were examples in the recently passed Food Act and there are notes in the Lands Acquisition Act. However, they are not widely used, probably because of uncertainty about their status.
The first aim of the bill is to clarify the status of headings, schedules, examples and notes in legislation. The bill also clarifies how examples are to be interpreted. The second aim is to ensure that when Parliamentary Counsel change the language within an act to update it or simplify it, the meaning is not changed. This should encourage the government and parliamentary drafters to modernise the language and structures of an act, and to use a clearer style without changing the affect of the laws. An example would be where an old offence provision uses ‘shall’ and a new provision in the same act uses ‘must’.
Queensland, the ACT, and the Commonwealth have such provisions in their laws and clause 62C in this bill is modelled on a similar section in Queensland’s Acts Interpretation Act. I am also providing each member with an explanatory note for the bill because such notes are helpful. In Queensland, NSW, the ACT and in federal parliament, an explanatory statement similar to this setting out the purpose of each clause is tabled with each new bill and each second reading speech.
As I said, it is a straightforward bill and I commend it to members.
Debate adjourned.
LAW OF PROPERTY AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 231)
(Serial 231)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
This bill introduces a new process for the exchanging of contracts in the sale of residential land and property in the Northern Territory.
Its aim is to reduce the practice of what is commonly called gazumping. It will also increase consumer protection for the buyers and sellers of land and land on which on which homes have been built.
The bill is largely modelled on the new ACT Civil Sale of Property law which, in turn, was an amalgamation of the best features of the Queensland, South Australian and New South Wales conveyancing systems. However, this bill also varies in some small but important ways from the ACT legislation to reflect different conditions in the Territory.
I decided to have this bill drafted after hearing of what happened to one of my constituents when she tried to buy a block of land and missed out. When I announced publicly that I was going to introduce this bill, I received a number of phone calls from other people who had been gazumped, and they welcomed my move in this direction.
Gazumping occurs when a seller or real estate agent accepts a verbal offer from a buyer - it might be through a verbal agreement or a handshake - but later the vendor accepts another offer, usually higher, from another buyer. It usually occurs when the market is booming, when demand is high and there is limited supply of residential properties or land. Sellers can also be gazumped, usually in a depressed market, when the buyer finds a better property at a better price and pulls out after making an offer.
Gazumping can cause distress, frustration, disappointment, annoyance, tears, a breakdown in trust and financial loss. Potential buyers can feel cheated and deceived, but the buyer has no rights to a property simply because he or she has made an acceptable offer or even paid a holding deposit. A real estate agent is acting on behalf of the vendor and wants to get to the highest sale price. In fact, the agent has an obligation to pass on all offers to the vendor until the contracts are exchanged. Therefore, when gazumping does occur the agent is usually doing what he or she should be doing.
All the relevant literature says that there is no legally binding sale until a contract of sale has been signed by the buyer and seller, and exchanged. A verbal promise or the acceptance of an offer does not constitute a contract of sale.
Gazumping is an unpleasant fact of life in private treaty real estate transactions. This apparently arises because of the history of the sale of land. Compared with other goods or services, the sale of which can be agreed on a handshake, agreements to sell and buy land are governed by the statute of frauds, a centuries old doctrine that requires a contract for land to be in writing for it to be binding. All the relevant literature also says ‘buyer beware’.
The NT Law Handbook says that in the Territory, there is limited legal protection for people who buy property and that the legal maxim caveat emptor, or buyer beware, applies, and in a standard contract of sale, the seller is not required to disclose any matters that may affect the saleability or value of a property, nor to give any warranties.
Some states have introduced legislation to restrict the window of opportunity for gazumping, and that is what I am doing with this bill. No jurisdiction has tried to outlaw gazumping or to create an offence of gazumping. Gazumping occurs because of the time gap between verbal acceptance of an offer and the exchange of contracts, and anti-gazumping measures are generally aimed at reducing this window of opportunity.
Briefly, this is what the bill proposes and I will outline each section in more detail later: the seller of a residential property will need to have a draft contract of sale prepared before listing the property on the market. Attached to this contract will be due diligence documents and reports that will provide the buyer with all the information necessary to help determine whether they want to buy a property. These documents include the title search, the results of the building inspection, the pest report, a bore status report if the land is a rural block, a septic tank status report if that applies, and a flood prone report if that is applicable to the land being sold. The ACT government claims that because the New South Wales anti-gazumping legislation did not require such inspection reports to be attached to the sale contract, it had not worked. The window of opportunity for gazumping still existed.
The seller will recoup the cost of these reports from the buyer. The buyer and seller will be able to enter into binding written contracts as soon as an offer is accepted. A conveyancer or lawyer will still be needed by the vendor to get the documents and certificates, and by the purchaser to check the documents attached to the contract, but there will be a shorter time frame for doing those checks. Of course, a sale can still go through without a conveyancer or a lawyer as can happen now, although it is not usually recommended because of the possible legal pitfalls.
The real estate agent will not be drafting the contract, but will be able to fill in certain prescribed details, such as the name and address of the parties, the sale price, and date of contract. The seller can be fined if the reports or certificates misrepresent the situation or if the person who prepares the report is a relative or business partner. Requiring the seller to have these documents available for a buyer to inspect from the time the property is first advertised for sale closes the window of opportunity for gazumping; buyer and seller would enter into a binding contract as soon as the offer is accepted.
Now to the details: the bill inserts a new provision in the Law of Property Act. The division starts with a range of definitions, including one for residential property, which basically means any land on which a residence has been or can be built, no matter what the size of the land. Clause 78C of the bill spells out the documents that are required to be prepared and attached to the contract of sale before the property is listed for sale, and I have outlined those already. It will be an offence if a seller gets a relative, his agent, his lawyer or anyone who has a direct or indirect interest in the seller’s business to prepare these reports or certificates. I have added several extra reports: the title search, the bore status report and the septic tank status report, which are important for rural residents and the flood prone report, which is important for consumer protection. This is the one area where the legislation differs from that in the ACT.
Clause 78E requires all the documents to be available for inspection once the property has been listed for sale. Clause 78F spells out the details of the cooling-off period, when it applies, when it does not apply, and how long it is. The purchaser can shorten, lengthen or waive a cooling off period, but only when he or she has sought advice from a lawyer. The lawyer must sign a certificate and a copy of that certificate must go to the vendor. If the purchaser decides not to go ahead with the sale during the cooling-off period, he or she will pay a penalty of one-quarter of 1% of the property’s purchase price to the seller. A real estate agent will not be entitled to any commission in this case.
Clause 78M requires the buyer to reimburse the seller for any costs involved in getting the reports attached to the contract of sale. This would be part of the normal process of settlement where certain payments, such as council rates, are adjusted and levied. It will be an offence under clause 78N of the bill for a person to give false or misleading information in any of the reports. A person who prepares a report or certificate containing false or misleading information will be liable to compensate the purchaser for the loss or expense. This will give the consumer, in this case the buyer, extra protection and ensure that building and pest inspections are carried out with due diligence.
I have already circulated this bill to real estate agents, conveyancers, lawyers and other interested people. I plan to circulate it widely, and I want feedback. If I get feedback and I agree that changes are needed, then I will table amendments when the bill is debated at the next General Business Day.
I commend the bill to members, and look forward to their support of it.
Debate adjourned.
EVIDENCE AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 209)
(Serial 209)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
I publicly gave notice of this bill in February. It arose as a result of evidence of an alleged rape victim being published in some detail in the NT News. I am prevented from naming the woman involved, but I will shortly quote what was published so that members know in general terms the case to which I am referring.
I would like to put on the record that the NT News did nothing wrong; it was certainly allowed to publish what the woman said in the course of her evidence. The point we make by introducing this bill is that her evidence should have been given in a closed court thereby removing the possibility of any media outlet publishing her evidence.
I should also record that the judge hearing the case did not act improperly by not closing the court. His Honour made a decision about that, a decision that was open to him under the Evidence Act.
As legislators, however, we need to look at the broader implications of the way judges and magistrates are using relevant parts of the Evidence Act and, where appropriate, respond accordingly. If there are sound arguments that suggest that a change to the act is warranted, then we should make those changes.
My advice is that there have been three cases in relatively recent times in which judges have refused to close the court for vulnerable witnesses. Certainly, this is not a huge number, but the consequences are serious. They are serious for the victims involved, but potentially serious for future victims who may be even more reluctant to report sexual assaults for fear of their evidence being published by the media.
Presumably, the circumstances of this most recent case were not foreseen when further amendments to the Evidence Act were introduced in 2001. This does not mean that we should not change the legislation in response to recent developments in an effort to stop what might be called a trend in our courts.
I should note that on other occasions, judges and magistrates have not permitted vulnerable witnesses to use other protection afforded under section 21A of the Evidence Act, namely the use of closed circuit televisions and partition screens.
For the benefit of members, legislation was enacted some years ago, which afforded witnesses deemed vulnerable various protections. Among those options was to have the court closed when giving their evidence. This was done so the vulnerable witnesses who, specifically in 2001, included the victims of sexual assaults, could be assured that they can be protected when giving their evidence, which is very personal, sensitive and distressing.
The victim in this case was the victim of an alleged rape, so clearly she was a vulnerable witness and, clearly, her evidence was very personal, sensitive and distressing.
I will turn to the relevant section of the Evidence Act shortly, however it is appropriate that I repeat what was quoted in the NT News. I do this partly to refresh the memories of members, but also to ask whether members think that the victim’s evidence should have been published. I quote from one of three articles, namely that published on 11 February, noting that there are two other articles, but the following was the most graphic:
A Territory financial expert has pleaded not guilty to raping his businesswoman wife in their upmarket
home. The wife, aged in her 30s, yesterday in the Supreme Court gave her tearful account of the alleged rape.
The incident happened in June in the couple’s former matrimonial home. The woman said her estranged husband
held a pair of kitchen scissors to her stomach and over the nipple of one of her breasts.
‘I was terrified’ she told the jury. ‘He said: ”Touch my c…. I know you like it” and his hands started going
everywhere. I was scared. I was really scared’.
The jury was told how the husband raped her before ejaculating over her face, hair and pyjama top.
‘I kept saying: “No, no” the wife said. ‘I begged him “Please, please don’t”’.
The court had to adjourn after the wife broke down and wept as she was asked to identify the clothing she wore
during the alleged rape; silk pyjamas and a satin and lace robe.
My view is not only should that evidence have been given in a closed court, but also, it was exactly that type of evidence in that type of case that the legislators contemplated when the vulnerable witness provisions in the Evidence Act were introduced.
The change I propose with this bill will ensure that the evidence of vulnerable witnesses will not appear in the media or be heard by members of the public. This is not in the interests of justice. The change will also ensure that vulnerable witnesses use, as of right, the other protections afforded under 21A of the Evidence Act.
Section 21A deals with vulnerable witnesses, and there is no need for me to outline the criteria here, suffice to say that alleged victims of sexual offences are, under the act, vulnerable witnesses. Subsection 2 provides that:
… a vulnerable witness is entitled to give evidence using one or more of the following arrangements as
chosen by the witness.
I will not quote every word of subsections (a) to (d) here, but the ‘following arrangements’ are (a) evidence can be given by close circuit television; (b) from behind a petition or one-way glass; (c) a vulnerable witness can be accompanied by a relative, friend, or other person; and (d) - which is germane in light of the case I have referred to - states:
… that the Court be closed while evidence is being given by the vulnerable witness in the proceeding (including
evidence given under cross-examination) and that no persons remain in or enter a room or place in which the Court
is being held, or remain within the hearing of the Court, without its permission.
All of the above sounds reasonable and straightforward, however, it is subject to the conditions outlined in subsection 2A, which is as follows:
The Court may make an order that the vulnerable witness is not to give evidence using an arrangement under
subsection (2) if satisfied that –
(a) it is not in the interests of justice for the witness's evidence to be given using that arrangement; or
And, pursuant to (2B):
In determining whether or not it is in the interests of justice to use an arrangement under subsection (2), the
Court must have regard to the following matters:
(a) the need to minimise the harm that could be caused to the vulnerable witness by giving evidence;
(b) the interest in the vulnerable witness being able to give evidence effectively.
Subsection (2C) provides that the court must state its reasons for making an order under subsection (2A).
I understand that, in the case earlier this year, no reasons were given as to why it was that the victim could not give her evidence in a closed court. It is, nevertheless, hard to imagine that the interests of justice were served by the publication of this woman’s graphic evidence by virtue of the fact that the court was not closed when she gave it.
When further changes were made to the act in 2001 to include sexual assault victims, the then Attorney-General, Mr Burke said, on 29 May:
It is important to note that this will not prevent the court from making an order refusing those measures, but it
may only do so where it is satisfied that it would not be in the interests of justice to employ those measures or
because of the urgency of the matter.
I suspect the term ‘in the interests of justice’ means many things to many people. However, I note and agree with the comments of the former Attorney-General when he said in the same debate on 29 May:
Of course, we must allow for circumstances in which the interests of justice may require the alleged victim to
give evidence in a completely open manner in court, but those circumstances are not likely to be commonly
required in order to provide an accused with a fair trial.
He went on to say:
It has always been the intention that the vulnerable witness provisions be presumptive in favour of special
measures being used.
I will repeat that: ‘… be presumptive in favour of special measures being used.’ The amendments in 2001 were supported by the Labor Party. The member for Nhulunbuy said, on 26 June 2001, in debate:
Classification as a vulnerable witness entitles a witness to a series of court protections, and for good
reason, in the knowledge that it is difficult enough asking in the first place for the victim to have to come
to court and confront the trauma, the pain and the anxiety of the offence.
Madam Speaker, is that a convenient time?
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, it certainly is.
Debate suspended.
APPROPRIATION BILL 2004-05
(Serial 234)
(Serial 234)
Continued from 18 May 2004.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, let me begin my response to this Labor budget with a quotation from the member for Fannie Bay and now absent Chief Minister …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker! The honourable member knows …
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, that is right.
Members interjecting.
Mr Dunham: Of course he can! It is on the public record.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, it is on the public record. Leader of the Opposition, would you like to start again?
Mr MILLS: Certainly. Madam Speaker, let me begin my response to this Labor budget with a quotation from the honourable member for Fannie Bay and now Chief Minister. Several years ago, she told this parliament, and I quote:
… Territorians … will be hit very hard when the GST comes in. How’s that going to grow the Territory’s
prosperity, underpin the lifestyle of Territorians? No, it won’t.
Oh, yes, and these budget documents are the ultimate proof of that. In 2003-04, the government has managed to increase its real spending by more than $76m over what it planned to spend, and still pocketed $34m in excess funds - thanks almost totally to the GST.
Next year, 2004-05, this Labor administration will use the ever-increasing funding from the GST to pay for its long overdue and very limited attempt to help Territory business. I say ‘very limited’ because, in a budget with a total appropriation of $2 193 411 000, the cost of the payroll tax changes are $4m and the abolition of the HIH levy means the government is going to forgo a further $2.7m in 2004-05.
A total package of $6.7m in 2004-05 and the Treasurer calls this definitely a pro-business budget. $6.7m is 0.2% of the total revenue the Treasurer is expecting to receive in 2004-05, and he wants to be regarded as the saviour of business. $6.7m - the Chief Minister spends about that much on her own ministerial office each year.
However, it is a start, a beginning, a final dawning on this Labor government that they have to do something to stimulate the economy. However, business needs to be aware of the fine print. The increased threshold only applies to wages paid in the Territory. If a business employs people elsewhere, the threshold is reduced. As Budget Paper No 2 explains, if an employer pays 70% of their wages in the Territory and 30% interstate, then the threshold is reduced by 30%. If an employer only employs for part of the financial year, then the threshold is reduced. The budget paper explains that if an employer only pays wages for three months of the year, the threshold is reduced by 75%, which is $0.2m.
Of course, there is no change to the rate of payroll tax. It is still 6.2%, even though Labor, both in its pre-election promises and in its mini-budget, promised to cut that rate. In fact, in both its election promises and the mini-budget, it forecast that its proposed changes to the payroll tax rate would cost it $6m in forgone revenue, but yesterday’s change will cost it $4m.
Yes, this budget is such a big help to business that it does not even match Labor’s promises. The abolition of the HIH levy is also overdue. In fact, it should have never have been imposed on Territory businesses in the first place. We opposed it then and we oppose it now. We welcome the fact that this government has finally seen the light. Like the similarly despised temporary budget tax, the motor vehicle registration levy, it has been consigned to the rubbish bin. As the ads say on TV say: ‘That is not all; there is more!’
There is the highest ever spending on infrastructure, which will increase by a mammoth $3m or less than 0.7% and, considering that inflation is more than 2%, it is in fact a decline in real spending in 2004-05. This so-called huge increase in spending will only occur if the government can keep the revote at its projected level of $97.5m. It has not been able to achieve that in 2003-04. The revote has increased by more than 15% on what was projected in the budget. They have not spent as much on capital works this financial year as they intended.
Where is the spending on real infrastructure that will provide a continuing boost to the economy? The tourist roads will certainly do that, and I commend the government for its efforts there. But the key Darwin waterfront project, this government’s only major project, is off to a very slow start with only $8m set aside for more preparatory work. We warned at the time that the government was imposing a deadline it could not meet on that project and it is already slipping from a beginning at the end of this year to some time in 2005. This budget would suggest that ‘some time in 2005’ is more likely to be the second half of the year if not even later.
Grandstands and soccer fields are well and good and add to the enviable lifestyle of those Territorians who are staying here, but apart from the initial construction phase, they do not add to the economic growth of the Northern Territory. It is such things that make up a large part of this infrastructure spend and almost 40% of it is not on new infrastructure, anyway, but on repairs and maintenance.
As I said, it is only an increase of $3m on 2003-04, and we know that did so much to stimulate the economy, Treasurer, that it grew by a mere 0.3% followed by a year of negative growth in 2002-03. However, the Treasurer tells us that an extra $3m will be enough stimulus to see a growth rate of 5.8% in 2004-05. Are they kidding?
They have finally realised that their budget strategy was not working and now it has to be dumped. In its place, they have decided to provide additional support and stimulus for economic growth both by increasing spending and reducing taxes in the 2004-05 budget.
The policy is fine. The policy is exactly right for the Northern Territory. The policy is needed after two and a half years of stagnation under this administration. But the policy is not being implemented. I have already mentioned the record tax cuts, which is the equivalent of the Chief Minister’s spending on her own office, and the decline in infrastructure spending in real terms. If you turn to spending, it is barely matching inflation and below projected wages growth of 3%.
Total operating expenses of the general government sector are increasing by 2.4% or, if you look at the total operating payments for the non-financial public sector, it is an increase of 2.9%. In fact, the blow-out in spending over 2003-04, between the budget of last May and the estimated figures for the year produced in these budget papers, was much higher at 4.3% for total operating expenses for the general government sector. Did that increase in spending stimulate the economy? The reality is that of 29 agencies, departments and GBDs listed in the budget, 18 have had their operating expenses cut and only 11 have increased.
The big increases are in the three dominant departments of Education, Health and Police, but look closely and you will see that while the Department of Employment, Education and Training has increased operating expenses of $10.2m, all of this increase and more - in fact more than $12m - is consumed by payments to employees.
In Health and Community Services, the increase is $23.7m of which almost $16m is in payment to employees and the key preventative area of public health has actually been cut by more than 6%.
Police, Fire and Emergency Services have an increase of $8.5m or more than 5% of the continuing implementation of the O’Sullivan Review, which we totally support.
Incredibly, given all the hype and bluster the government is spreading about its tourism plans, the Northern Territory Tourist Commission has less this year than it spent in 2003-04.
The department for Territory lifestyle - Community Development, Sport and Cultural Affairs - is being cut back by more than $7m. That is a lot of money because it is more than the record tax cuts to stimulate business.
I mentioned earlier the blow-out in spending in the 2003-04 budget. This budget reveals staggering figures. Of the 29 departments, agencies and GBDs recorded, only two came in under their budget allocation from last May. Another four were relatively close and the rest simply kept spending.
Employment, Education and Training was $10m over; Community Development blew it by more than $20m; the Department of Chief Minister overspent by 23%; but the winner was Health and Community Services. With two ministers at the helm replacing the member for Nightcliff, Health exceeded its 2003-04 budget by more than $50m. Unbelievably, most of this blow-out in Health was spent since the Treasurer’s Mid-Year Report was brought down in January this year, only four months ago.
If we had a public accounts inquiry into an $8m difference, then we must have a royal commission into the state of the Health and Community Services department. There is little or no explanation in these budget papers why all these agencies and departments failed to come in on budget. There is no detailed list of the variations between what was allocated in the budget of May 2003 and what has now been spent.
This is open and accountable Labor administration, these superb economic managers, presents budgets because they have to, but they totally ignore what is in them. What ever happened to the Chief Minister’s standard that departments ‘should be held accountable’, that ‘budgets will have to be met’? The simple truth is that this government has no idea what is going on. The only thing ministers are in charge of is their briefing papers and, unfortunately, too few of them read them.
The budget is a sham and these ministers are shameless, absolutely shameless. They continually demonstrate they are unable to manage their departments and are a collective failure in managing the Territory economy. The facts speak for themselves. They boast about getting the budget into surplus and then project deficits for the next three or four years. They preach about fiscal strategies and then change them every year. About the only thing they are good at is fiddling the books when it comes to the revenues they are receiving from the GST.
They keep trying to pull a con trick on Territorians by underestimating revenues from the GST and then using the windfall to get themselves out of trouble. The Treasurer is at it again with this budget with his claim that the Territory is going to miss out on about $50m in GST revenue. Nonsense! He based that calculation on the GST pool remaining static when he knew it would increase and his share, of course, would increase substantially. He blamed the Commonwealth Grants Commission for slightly lowering relativities when his own prediction was only 0.02 points out and his Mid-Year Report noted such a change would not jeopardise his budget projections.
Now he is blaming future deficits on a reduction in GST funding and projecting a further cut in the relativity scale for the Territory. But by his own estimates, GST revenue will increase by more than $50m from 2004-05 to 2005-06, by another $70m in 2006-07, and another $70m in the following year. That is a conservative estimate because, while he sees the GST pool increasing by more than 5% each year, he says the Territory will only get an increase of around 3.5%. He has done this for two years. He is underestimating the GST so when the buckets of money fall into his lap, he can turn around and say: ‘Hey look, what a clever economic manager I am! I have managed to turn a projected deficit into a surplus’.
The sad fact is that if we continue to suffer the same incompetent management of those opposite, the con may eventually come true. One need only look at the population figures. This government has presided over the worst population growth figures since Cyclone Tracy forced thousands of Territorians to go south. We have had a year of negative growth in our population since Labor took power, and now they are predicting growth of only 0.3% and 0.5% for the further forward estimate years.
Population is a factor on how much GST revenue flows into the Territory, not just the actual numbers, but the percentage of Territorians in the Australian population. Our share of the population is falling, and everywhere else, it is increasing. We were once more than 1% of the Australian population. That is dropping and is expected to continue to decline according to this government. But what are they doing about it? Where is the promised population strategy? It was due more than 12 months ago. The Chief Minister promised at the last Estimates Committee in June 2003 that while it was late, it will definitely be out in ‘a few months’. That deadline went about eight months ago.
This has been the one thing this Labor government has been good at: producing strategies, plans and discussion papers. They are not much good at implementing any of them, but they can produce them, that is except the ones that really matter, except for the ones that are vital to the future of the Territory and its economic development.
The other major worry is that, if the Treasurer’s projections were to come true, how is government going to continue to fund the very large increase in recurrent spending it has now factored in to the major departments? This budget reveals that capital works are going to be cut back in the forward estimates, but that will not be enough. If the Treasurer is right and the rivers of gold of the GST begin to dry up or not increase by the windfalls he is now getting, what is he going to do? I suspect he has no idea because his economic strategy is simply: ‘I spend it and the Commonwealth just keeps paying’.
This is a bits and pieces budget: a bit for business, a piece for sport, another bit for culture, and so on. This is a budget from a government that has presided over negative growth in the Territory, and it does little to redress that. Good economic management would not see the Northern Territory as having the unenviable record of the fastest rate of bankruptcies in Australia, recently recording a 35% increase from the December quarter. The proof is there, economically and socially, that this government has let Territorians down. It has sat on its hands and presided over an economy in decline.
The Territory deserves better, and I want to take some time to put on the record a few of the highlights of how we would make it so, how we would get this place moving again, how we would make Territorians want to stay here and share in that development, how we would make the Territory a place others want to share with us.
It is my belief, and that of the CLP, that the best social program that anyone can deliver is a strong economy. A strong economy means jobs for Territorians. A strong economy means population growth. A strong economy means more jobs that as a government, we will have the means to fund the social programs to address the many areas of disadvantage in the Northern Territory.
The burden of taxation now falls on too few members of our community; those who have invested their time, labour and capital in our economy have had to carry the lion’s share of the load. We must broaden the base of our economy so that all have the chance to participate, sharing both the rewards and the responsibilities.
For more than 20 years, it was CLP governments that built and developed the Northern Territory. We are a party that can do it again. We know where the Territory should be going for the benefit of all Territorians. We are determined that the policies and candidates the CLP presents to the electorate at the next election will deliver that growth and development.
I have already outlined the problems our economy is facing: rising bankruptcies, falling commercial occupancies and small business people leaving the Northern Territory. Who does not know anybody who has recently packed up and left? Whether it is lifestyle or economic choice, the Territory is no longer the place they grew up in or came to. This Labor administration has squandered the opportunity in its desire to make us like other Labor-run southern states down south. They do not want the Territory to be different.
Territorians know we are going backwards; they see it every day. They see it when they go to their local shopping centre or in the Darwin CBD, with the vacant shop windows, and even in simple things like the Yellow Pages phone book, a slimmer volume than last year. The CLP in government would use the additional GST revenue to really relieve Territory families and businesses of as much financial burden as possible, relieve them of the taxation burden imposed by this administration.
You will recall, Madam Speaker, that that was one of the cornerstones of the introduction of the GST. The states and territories would get rid of a plethora of their own taxes and, in return, get all the revenue from the GST. That was the cornerstone. We all know that has not happened. This Labor administration has kept the taxes and kept the increasing revenue from the GST.
A CLP government will not. We will honour the pledge made to Territorians and Australians when the new taxation was introduced. We will use this ever-growing stream of funds not to engage in more of Labor’s social engineering - more government interference in Territorians’ lifestyle – but, rather, to ease the burden of government on Territorians. This side of the House will welcome any government initiative that benefits Territorians, particularly when it eases the burden on families and business.
We will go further than raising the threshold for payroll tax; we will reduce the rate. It is tax that forces businesses to limit their work force and come down hard on any wage increases for their employees. No tax should be seen as a disincentive for hiring people or rewarding them for their efforts. A CLP government is committed to making our payroll tax regime the most competitive in the nation and our own independent economic modelling has convinced us that this is not only very achievable, but is essential. We will act to reduce the payroll tax burden by at least 30%. This would make the Territory one of, if not the lowest payroll taxing jurisdictions in Australia. We would cut the Territory’s rate to 4.3%, which is less than that of Queensland, the state with the lowest rate of payroll tax in Australia. We will place our emphasis on helping smaller businesses because they are hurting the most, yet they are the lifeblood of our economy.
A 30% reduction in payroll tax will reduce revenue in the first year by nearly $30m, given payroll tax collection from the private sector is close to $100m. As well as being an immediate boost to the cash position of Territory businesses because of the saving in not having to pay payroll tax, it will have a strong, positive impact on attitudes to investment by businesses within the Territory, interstate and overseas. That is where the real jobs growth will come. That is when the real action will take place. As attitudes change and increased investment occurs, this will promote even greater demand and the multiplier effect kicks in. That is the type of economy we want and we will deliver it.
In paying for tax reduction, I have no doubt that over time, it will pay for itself. I believe in Territorians. An increase in jobs growth will be matched by a roughly equivalent increase in population and this will mean all Territory revenue will rise, including GST revenue. Each 1% increase in population adds $15m to Territory receipts each year. There are costs that go with population increases, but the costs will rise far slower than the increased revenue. I am confident that this initiative would dramatically increase investment, jobs and population to be self-funding within two to three years.
We also plan to reduce stamp duty on conveyances to make them the lowest in the country. Queensland has the lowest rates and the NT would need to reduce its rate by up to 40% to match them. While that would cost approximately $15m each year in forgone revenue, we will move in that direction as soon as possible. Increasing GST receipts and a really stimulated and growing economy will be able to fund the reduction in stamp duty. This is our first step, that stamp duty is not payable on the GST component of any transaction. Territorians should not be paying taxes on taxes, as this government insists they do.
Madam Speaker, getting the government off the back of business is not the only way we can ensure the Territory returns to being a place of opportunity and growth. Government has a legitimate role in promoting growth and development and one of the key pillars of promoting growth has been our geographic, cultural and trade ties with Asia. One of the greatest failures of this Labor administration so far has been the almost complete abandonment of pursuing trade partnerships with the Asia Pacific region.
I do acknowledge the government has finally heeded the calls of the CLP and did embark recently on leading a substantial delegation in to the Asian region. Having done this, Chief Minister, are you now ready to hear the second part of our advice?
Do not let this recent trip to China fade into history as an expensive publicity stunt on the taxpayers account. The CLP is committed to reopening the Territory’s strong trade and cultural links with Asia that have been so shamefully neglected. Under a CLP government, Asian Relations and Trade will again become a stand alone unit and greater focus will be put on to international trade. Our trade missions to the Asia Pacific region will be more targeted, more regular and more in tune with improving opportunities for trade between Territory businesses and our neighbours.
It has been a fundamental tenet of CLP belief from the very beginning that the Territory’s future lies more with the billions of people to our near north rather than with the 20 million to our south. It is a core belief that will be basic government policy in any CLP administration.
Another key area for the Territory is tourism. It is one of the key drivers for getting our Territory back on track, with more than 15 000 Territorians owing their living either directly or indirectly to tourism. Just as importantly, it is the one industry that is labour intensive, with many entry points with a lower skills base, thus providing the much needed jobs to attract people and hold them here in the Territory.
Sadly, however, recent ABS figures show that the number of overseas visitors who spend most of their time in the Territory has declined by 20.6%. Now, that is not a downturn in world events that are beyond our control or because less people are travelling. No, that is a measure of the decline in the proportion of visitors to Australia who choose to come to the Territory while they are in our country. Competition for the tourism dollar is not just with other countries, it is with the rest of Australia, and on that front, we are losing. Yet this government has only paid lip service to the tourism industry. It is being passed around to one minister to another. There have been four Labor tourism ministers in less than three years of government.
The tourism industry had high expectations from this budget. The Mereenie and Litchfield Loops work are consistent with the CLP’s call for more spending on tourism projects, but beyond that, there is little joy. Look at the Treasurer’s pre-emptive budget announcement of $60m for tourism projects. Take out the Mereenie and Litchfield Loop projects, which are over three years, anyway, and they are the spend is only $7m.
Where is the vision and the big picture thinking? Where is the development of new icons that will put the Northern Territory back on the shelf in the international tourism market? A future CLP government will place a heavy emphasis on developing new tourism destinations in the Northern Territory.
If tourism is going to be one of the key drivers of our economic recovery, we must do more to provide greater tourism infrastructure, and identify new tourism icons to make the territory a preferred destination. We must improve, renovate and reinvigorate our existing product, and put the funding into research and development of a new tourism product. A CLP government will do just that.
A future CLP government will commit to continuing progress on existing developments such as the wharf precinct. After all, that was a CLP initiative. However, we will also continue to provide the vision to take the Territory forward. Under a CLP government, the tourism industry will also have something that Labor cannot ever give it: certainty. This government’s pledge to take the ownership of our parks away from the public sends shivers down the spine of every tourism operator in town. It is a commitment of the CLP that Northern Territory parks will remain in the hands of Territorians for all of us to own and for all of us to control the destiny of these public assets.
All Territorians, especially indigenous Territorians, but I stress all, must have a say, directly or indirectly, over the management of our parks. Our political opponents would have the community believe that they are the guardians of integration and tolerance in our community. They would have us believe that their way is the way towards the future. Nothing could be further than the truth. It is the policies of this government that promote division.
We are blessed with such a rich diversity of people calling the Territory home. I see all of us as equal under the one set of laws. Laws bind the society that we live in, and there is a real difference between the CLP and the ALP when it comes to law and order issues. Under the ALP, we have seen violent crime sky rocket throughout the Territory. Labor’s softly, softly approach to serious crime clearly does not work.
The Health department’s own research shows that younger and younger Territorians are using and injecting drugs. The use of methamphetamines is on the increase. Labor’s much publicised drug laws have failed. A CLP government will address our law and order problems in the Northern Territory. As a government, we will have the will to deal with it.
I turn to the real future of our Territory: our young people. It is common enough in this House to hear expressions of concern for youth, but less common are ongoing programs that attract, engage and develop leadership skills in youth. We will deliver progressive, innovative and proactive policies to engender these qualities in our youth.
The education debate in the Territory and nationally is continually dominated by questions concerning funding levels. A CLP government is absolutely committed to fully and substantially fund all levels of education in the Northern Territory, but we are also committed to ask the hard questions about what comes out of the system, not just what goes in.
The CLP is committed to improving educational accountability and quality in the Territory. The CLP is committed to improving the education system, supporting teachers, raising the status of the profession and raising education standards for every Territory student.
In the health area, we have seen the Labor government preside over the closure of hospital beds, and queues of patients in emergency wards. Despite spending more and more money on health, it seems incapable of solving the problems. In government, the CLP is committed to relieving the chronic workloads placed on general ward nurses and will open beds, not close them.
A key fundamental that will drive the Northern Territory economy forward is power, specifically electricity. Here is where the Martin government has failed the economy of the Northern Territory miserably. Power is the life blood of our tourism industry, our hotels, clubs and restaurants. It drives light and heavy industry alike, and it keeps our offices open and efficient, yet the government has failed on two fronts. It has consciously and willingly stripped dividends from PowerWater at the cost of ongoing maintenance and the development of infrastructure. This budget reveals that it intends to take $40m out of PowerWater in tax equivalents and dividends in 2004-05.
Second, it has missed a golden opportunity to secure a long-term source of energy to feed our electricity needs for the future. This government has not secured any long-term source of gas to power our future energy needs, and there was no joy in yesterday’s budget on this front. The current gas reserves are finite, and we must make it a priority to ensure that we have energy for the future. Some of the Bayu-Undan field should have been reserved for our power needs, with future projects such as Blacktip and, eventually, Greater Sunrise, being used to backfill any contract with Japanese buyers.
The gas plant at Wickham Point is only the beginning, and that was always how the CLP viewed it. A future CLP government will actively pursue bringing gas onshore for our own power needs, and will be prepared to allocate funding to assist this aim where appropriate.
Madam Speaker, that is a brief view of some of the policies we are developing to get the Territory moving. It is an indictment on this government as economic managers that they have been unable to do that. This budget has headlined them as pro-business and the measures it includes go a little way - a very little way - to helping business to drive growth and jobs.
The fact is that this government is experiencing revenue growth from the Commonwealth unseen in the Territory since the heady days immediately following self-government. They are wasting it and leaving no lasting legacy as the early government bequeathed to Territorians who have grown up under self-government. They have taken almost three years to realise that the most fundamental economic management principle in the Territory is that government must stimulate growth. But while they may have finally abandoned Percy Allan and embraced this principle, this budget does little to actually implement it.
It is a disappointing budget. It is a bits and pieces budget. It is a budget that is unlikely to drag us out of stagnation, the stagnation that Labor has plunged us into. The promise is there. The rhetoric is there, as usual, but there is little to follow through on. The best the Treasurer and this government can hope for is an electorate that marks them: ‘Can do better if they try harder’. From our point of view, they must do better. They are the government and they have to get their act together before it is too late.
Debate adjourned.
EVIDENCE AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 209)
(Serial 209)
Continued from earlier this day.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, continuing on from earlier, I raised the issue of vulnerable witnesses in my maiden speech on 16 October 2001. I suggested that all victims of violence fall within the vulnerable witness legislation. I will repeat something of what I said on 16 October 2001:
I know of too many victims who have been prevented by a judge or a magistrate from utilising the protection
intended by the legislature. Of course, many crimes of violence are perpetrated on women and children. It is
an absurdity, is it not, that on the one hand, we as a community encourage women and children to report sexual
and physical violence yet on the other, we make the process of giving evidence as intimidatory and as awful as
possible?
This issue is not new to me, nor is it new to government. It has always been intended that the measures that are contained in section 21A of the Evidence Act be presumptive in favour of being used and, in the context of the case to which I have referred, while witnesses generally should give their evidence in open court, there are particular circumstances where this should not occur, provided that the accused has a fair trial. In the absence of any reasons to the contrary, it is impossible for me to see how the interests of justice were served by not closing the court on a particular occasion in the case to which I have referred and, indeed, in other cases.
Regardless of the circumstances of this particular case, however, our view is that, on balance, the act should be changed so that the victims who are vulnerable be permitted to avail themselves of the protections afforded under section 21A(2) as of right, and that the only limitation be that if it is not available owing to the urgency of the proceedings; that is, if it is impracticable to give effect to that arrangement. That is an amendment also contained in the bill. That part in the bill has been changed only slightly and contemplates, as did the original section, I suspect, situations where things like a closed circuit television is not available. This bill will give victims the security of giving their evidence without the world knowing the details. It will also ensure that the original aims of the legislation are preserved and will, accordingly, assist other vulnerable witnesses.
Sexual assaults are on the increase in the Territory, which is why the Attorney-General created the Sexual Assault Task Force in December. In his media release dated 17 December 2003, he said:
Work is already under way to improve court processes for vulnerable witnesses like sexual assault victims.
I assume, therefore, that he or his department or members of the task force are actually going to make some improvements. I submit that supporting this bill should be one of them. This bill is not major, but it is important. Vulnerable witnesses should have the protections as of right, which are outlined in section 21A of the Evidence Act and should have them except where it is impracticable.
The social implications of not fixing this problem are significant. How do we expect victims of sexual assaults, for instance, to report assaults in the knowledge that, although a vulnerable witness, that person’s very personal, sensitive and distressing evidence could be heard by the world at large, or that they may not be afforded the opportunity of the protection afforded under the act?
I note that, after I gave notice of this bill, the Attorney-General responded in the media by saying that matters were ‘in hand’. That was in February and government has had ample time to fix the problem. This is a short bill and fixing the problem is not difficult. Government may well be looking at further measures and, if that is the case, so be it. However, in the meantime government does have an obligation to respond and to act.
I am aware that the Sexual Assault Task Force is currently looking at a range of issues in the area of sexual assault, but remedying the problem highlighted by this and, indeed, other cases, does not need to wait. It can be a one-off fix. There is no need to delay; in fact, I suggest that it is inappropriate to delay.
It is noteworthy that, since giving notice of this bill, the Attorney-General has not contacted me about it. He has not offered me, either informally or formally, advice as to why it is that the government will, as I understand it, not support this bill. He knows my personal interest in this area and, in fact, earlier this week in reply to a letter I sent to him about the Sexual Assault Task Force, he wrote:
I welcome your personal interest and commitment to this area.
That sentence that was repeated elsewhere in the same letter. In those circumstances, it is appropriate that I record my disappointment that he has not communicated with me. That is his right, of course, but I am left to deduce that there are what can only be described as political or strategic reasons for his failure to do so.
If that is the case, and it may not be, in which case I do hope to hear from him before this bill is debated, then I say that I am not prepared to play politics with this issue, I am not prepared to sit by and wait. In the absence of any explanation, I can only assume that politics stands in the way of his support for this bill. Those who have been directly affected by the problems highlighted by the case to which I have referred and others will, no doubt, be forced to come to that conclusion as well. Madam Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
VISITORS
Madam SPEAKER: We have some visitors in the Gallery who are politics students from Charles Darwin University accompanied by Dr Bill Wilson. On behalf of all members, I extend a warm welcome to you.
SUSPENSION OF STANDING ORDERS
Proposed Censure of Chief Minister
Proposed Censure of Chief Minister
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I seek leave to move that so much of standing orders be suspended so as to allow me to move the following motion to censure the Chief Minister ...
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek a ruling on how on earth the Leader of the Opposition intends to censure the Chief Minister for whom this parliament, by a motion, has granted a leave of absence for this day and tomorrow.
Mr DUNHAM: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker …
Madam SPEAKER: Wait a minute. Clerk, may I speak with you for a minute?
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Let us have some clarification. Leader of the Opposition, you are seeking leave to move a suspension of standing orders, is that right?
Mr MILLS: That is correct.
Madam SPEAKER: Then we will put that: is leave granted?
Leave granted.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, we accept the censure motion. I ask that further questions be placed on the Written Question Paper, and you to order the cessation of rolling of the cameras.
Members interjecting.
Mr HENDERSON: We accept the censure motion and I would ask that the censure be directed at the Acting Chief Minister which, by convention, is the Deputy Chief Minister in the Chief Minister’s absence.
MOTION
Proposed Censure of Acting Chief Minister
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, you understand that the Chief Minister was granted leave by the parliament this morning so you should direct your censure to the Acting Chief Minister?
Mr MILLS: To the Acting Chief Minister? Certainly, Madam Speaker.
Members interjecting.
Madam SPEAKER: Leader of the Opposition, you have the floor.
Mr MILLS (Opposition Leader): Madam Speaker, I move that this parliament censure the Acting Chief Minister for his abject failure to advance the prosperity of Territorians and to deliver economic growth. In particular, the Acting Chief Minister has failed in the 2004-05 budget to:
1. manage the economy;
2. adopt a consistent, appropriate fiscal strategy;
3. control departmental expenditure targets;
4. stimulate growth through focussed and real infrastructure spending; and
5. halt the decline of population and increasing business closures.
Madam SPEAKER: Before you go on, Leader of the Opposition, do we have a copy of that motion? Proceed, Leader of the Opposition.
Mr MILLS: Madam Speaker, it is the belief, and the ill-founded belief of the current government, that they have done something to engender some kind of future for Territorians, but it is Territorians who are yet to be convinced - those who remain, those who would be watching as afar as to what is happening in their beloved Northern Territory who have made that difficult decision to move from the Territory for a whole range of reasons.
You only need to assess the health of a human being to find out certain symptoms that would indicate whether they are a healthy person or not. When you are assessing an economy, you can assess whether an economy is healthy or not by a range of measures.
I would say for starters, as a young lad I would sit with my father and we would plan the future. We would see what was going to happen in the next year and we would plan our budget as to what was going to happen on the farm for that year. We would propose our estimates. We would forecast what would occur in that year and we would re-jig and plan our budget to that end. We would predict the sort of result that we would have for our efforts and for our risk that we would take in that year. At the end of that year, we would assess how well we had gone. If we made an estimate such as this, that we were going to achieve that position, that level of growth, that level of forward movement, and then we sit around the table the next year with the accountant and we find that we have fallen far shorter than our projected plan, we would reassess and find out what it is that we need to do in the next round.
We would sit down, as obviously has been done here, reassess and the forward estimates have been reduced - in this case to 3.3%.
Then, the next cycle goes through and you find that, in fact, you made a loss. You didn’t break even, you made no gain whatsoever; you went backwards. If we were sitting around the table that following year, we would start to wonder about our viability to project the future, whether we are doing something fundamentally wrong, whether we should actually be in business. Should we be in the farming game? I have seen farmers go through that kind of projection and that kind of result and leave the farm.
We have those who are running our economy making these profound projections year after year and two years of sustained zero growth, yet stand in the face of the Northern Territory community, go to lunches with the Chamber of Commerce, speak in glowing terms with massive degrees of spin and project a great confidence in the future. Territorians want to believe you. They want a good future. They believe in the Territory despite you. They want it to happen and they will go with you. But if, year after year, the result has been far less, way less - in fact zero - coming anywhere near your projection.
We have reports from the Yellow Pages Index, the Sensis figures that have come through assessing business confidence and it has rated consistently a minus-22 point level of confidence that Territory business has in the ability of this government to lead them into a future; consistently had a very negative view of the ability of the Martin Labor government to lead them into a future worth hoping for. That is manifest by a departure from the Territory, but I digress at this point.
It takes my breath away to look at the projection as you stand in the face of the Northern Territory community and project now 5.8% growth - a courageous call, minister, when one only has to look in the rear vision mirror and see your track record. You are a punter at the race course making the call and coming out backwards each time and then you are coming out with an even greater call. I wouldn’t go anywhere near you.
We have now this projected and buoyant and upbeat forecast but, based on the track record, little wonder Territory businesses in their heart of hearts have little confidence in your ability to lead them into the future. You may have a group around you who will speak unto you and give you the sense that you are going all right. They will take what you have given them because you’re heading in the right direction. You have changed your tack; you are heading in the right direction. But it is absolutely clear by your inability to accurately forecast growth that you are unable to manage the economy of the Northern Territory. You have people leaving and you could go out there in the face of the Northern Territory and say: ‘Oh, yes, but there is a level of growth’. Blow the chaff away from your figures, Treasurer, and you find that the economically active - it is adults to leave and it is being replaced by your spin and by babies being born who, in my judgment, will not be economically active for a number of years.
Those who carry the tax burden, those who have a skills contribution to make to the Northern Territory community, those who believe they can make a contribution are believing now that they could make a contribution somewhere else - to the tune of 60 plus per week making that decision to move elsewhere. These are not just figures. The Territory is a small community: 200 000 people and falling. We all know people who have made that decision to leave at great personal cost because the future that they once dreamed of in the Northern Territory is unsustainable under the Martin Labor government. Your ability to manage the economy has been found wanting by those who have chosen to leave the Northern Territory.
The fact that there has been consistently zero growth is clear evidence of an economy that is not performing. Stand in here if you wish, and spin it whatever way you want, but Territory businesses have seen your performance, your time in the sun, your hand upon the wheel, and have found, under your watch, the economy has gone backwards. You only have to walk through our neighbourhood centres, through our CBDs, whether it be Palmerston, Alice Springs, Tennant Creek, Darwin, Casuarina, wherever, and you will see the evidence of dreams that have been dashed, by people who had that decision to move into private enterprise, to do as a true Territorian, to take that risk, and to march into the future, believing that we could do it, believing that we can go places where we have not been before, believing that we can grow, believing we can take risks, having a certain level of self-confidence. We are finding that businesses close, businesses that have been in place for many years - and not just businesses; they are people, families that had a dream, took a risk, and found, under this government, that that risk had been compounded to the level that they have had to close. In some cases, they have been fortunate enough to be able to recover and move elsewhere, but not all. There are many who are now in a state of profound loss, and they demonstrate the low ebb that we have reached in the Northern Territory.
Acting Chief Minister, your government has failed to manage the Northern Territory economy and provide any kind of clear direction and hope for the future for true Territorians who know what the future is about. It is about having confidence, a sense of vision, and a sense of courage to move forward. They have lost their courage under your management, the management of the Northern Territory economy, lost confidence, and that is clearly indicated in their loss of confidence in you and your government.
You now talk of the changed fiscal strategy that you have adopted, two and a half years too late. In a developing economy, in a small community with its future in front of us - it is not like Victoria, where you might get your guidance, it is not like New South Wales, South Australia or Western Australia and all those Labor states, whispering in your ear and telling which way you should be going. The Northern Territory is different. The Northern Territory has its future in front of it. It needs to develop, it needs to go further forward in a sense of courage and an ability to believe in the future, but you have undermined that in the tack that you took in your fiscal strategy, with words that were whispered in your ear by southern suggestions of which way you should be going and then you look around and you assess and you say, as I heard you on television last night, Treasurer, saying: ‘Business spoke to us and we heard them’. They have been screaming. Any one of us as local members know when we go around that business is hurting. It has reached the stage where it is beyond pain. Yes, you have heard them to the degree that you have now changed your tack.
Sure, you are going to get welcome responses from Territory businesses because you are now at least facing in the right direction. You are now at least considering the need to genuinely spend money on infrastructure development, properly and confidently consider vision, think big, take risks and show leadership. At least you are heading in that direction by your words - only by your words. The whole budget, and the whole fiscal strategy you have here, is oriented in the right way but lacks the substance to achieve it. You have the numbers there. The numbers tell the story, not the rhetoric that prefaces the numbers - not the spin or the glossy documents. They might have you believing, giving you some sense of confidence that you have done the right thing. Well, I can say you started to head in the right direction, but you are so cautious and demonstrating little understanding of how a real economy works, that your timidity is going to, once again, cause business - of course, to applaud your re-orientation - but to have reinforced lack of confidence in you because you demonstrated a lack of confidence in your own ability to know which way you should be facing.
It is Territory businesses that have turned your head around and shown you which way you need to be going. Why? Because population decline is profoundly serious. You have seen organisations when the culture of an organisation changes. The Treasurer would have been involved in many organisations - use those as an example. He would know how difficult it is to change the culture of an organisation. It is not just coming in with great announcements; it is not an easy thing to change the culture of an organisation.
Acting Chief Minister, it is not an easy thing to change the culture of the Northern Territory when we have an economy that has thrown up this result, when Territorians make that hard decision, with some embarrassment. I meet them in the street and they feel ashamed to say that they have decided to move elsewhere and to take their wealth, their business prospects that have grown here in the Northern Territory and replant it in Queensland.
Mr Henderson: Why are real estate prices going up? 20% in 12 months!
Mr MILLS: The inane response of the minister for business about real estate prices shows little understanding of the ripple effect that has flowed right across this country and finally hit the Northern Territory with a faint ripple ...
Mr Henderson: If everybody’s leaving, why is real estate going up?
Mr MILLS: There is nothing to sustain that ripple effect if you understood how markets actually operate. It is welcome …
Mr Henderson: People do not invest in a falling market where people are leaving. Where are the vacancy rates? The vacancy rates are less now than they have been for years.
Mr MILLS: Acting Chief Minister, if we move forward and consider your inability to manage the economy, the symptoms are plain. Ask a doctor how to assess a sick patient, and there would be a range of symptoms. Ask an economist to assess the health of an economy and there would be a range of symptoms. They have been made patently clear: this is an economy under your stewardship that has failed to deliver. You have failed to adopt a consistent appropriate fiscal strategy; that is clear. You have oriented yourself in the right direction, but it is our view that you have no understanding of what is really required whilst facing in that direction. You think that making the move of altering the threshold of payroll tax is the big fix. It is the beginning of it. It is taking that risk, not just to change the threshold, but to change the rate. Then you can change the economic environment and culture of the Northern Territory and the way the Territory is viewed.
The Territory has always been viewed as a place of development, a place that you can come and do things that you cannot do in other places, where you have a sense of being unhindered. The future is in front of the Territory. You need to create the appropriate fiscal stimulus; that is why we argued for a reduction of the rate so that we will change the view of the Northern Territory within the national context. It is a place where things can happen. It is a place where dreams can grow. There are places we can go that you cannot explore in other places because it has already been done. There are huge possibilities in the Northern Territory and an appropriate and courageous fiscal strategy, espoused by the CLP, is the only place to go that will deliver that.
Once you have that appropriate change in investment culture and belief in the future, and the capacity to generate wealth, then we have the flow-on effects because we then have genuine population growth and genuine cultural change in the Northern Territory. But, sadly, we move on. It does not finish there.
This Labor government is further censured for its lack of control over departmental expenditure targets. The only reason you have gotten away with this is the largesse of the GST revenue. If there was not that degree of fat within the system, you would not have survived. There is no light comment made when what is revealed in these papers, these staggering figures, where 29 departments, agencies and GBDs are recorded, only two came in under their budget allocation last May, where Employment, Education and Training was $10m over. I can remember the sharp intake of breath and the feigned shock and horror when you wheeled out this deception on the Northern Territory community with regards to the track record of the CLP government. So $10m over in Employment, Education and Training, Community Development has blown their budget by $20m, the Chief Minister overspends her budget by 23%, and then we find Health and Community Services, with two ministers at the helm, exceed their 2003-04 budget by more than $50m and we have no explanation.
Perhaps they are completely bewildered and are just charging on with money flying out of the sky. You do not really feel you have to do much about this. The buck is going to stop. If you think about this, you could get away with it in a sense because the money is actually flowing. We are going to look back on this time and see a time of wasted opportunity. You have failed to put in place adequate controls to manage and to show that you are good stewards of the largesse we have received. But there will come a time, Treasurer, when this GST revenue will plateau. It will not continue going up, it will plateau. You have developed this economy, this fiscal strategy, that is so accustomed to a slack hand, poor accountability and dishonest reporting that you have a system with little discipline in it, provides little scrutiny by opposition because of the way you have structured your estimates process, little accountability and transparency in your budget papers, huge quantums of spin, and you are going to find, as the GST revenue plateaus out, a beast that is very difficult to manage.
You have organisations that are accustomed to blowing it out by $50m. They could run the argument: ‘We need it. Hey, we need it’. ‘Do not worry, we will find it from somewhere. We have this GST revenue; we can plug that hole up with GST revenue. Let’s move on. Gee, this GST revenue is darn good stuff. I hope it continues. Manna from heaven’. It will not continue at that rate.
I am sure we are going to look back from historical point of view and see the time of self-government, when money flowed into the Northern Territory from Canberra to build infrastructure and to grow the Territory. That was a time that you could see the money that flowed in producing real results, producing real infrastructure, causing the Territory to grow and orient itself confidently into the future. We can point to all the things that resulted from that inflow, but we are going to be hard pressed to point to what the government has produced.
This is equivalent to the inflow of revenue from Canberra at self-government. Under the watch of the Martin Labor government, it has been squandered. You cannot point to what it has produced in real terms. What it has produced is blown budgets and organisations accustomed to largesse, sloppy handling, poor accountability, and dishonesty.
Your infrastructure spending has not resulted in real growth. It has not been applied on the ground to the magnitude required. If you’re going to grow the economy, you think about those contractors, those dads, for example, who have decided to go out and use their skills to supply their family with a future. They might be a chippie, an electrician, a painter or a landscape gardener.
You only need to ask the question and honestly listen to the answer to find out if those small contractors have – I will recount a story. I had a fellow speak to me, and his operation is to install sound systems in vehicles, and consistently, he was seeing blokes with older utes turn up and have them decked out with a state-of-the-art sound system. It was an unusual trend that extended over a period of time. Being a good, local business operator, as any business operator, particularly in hard times, he wants to analyse his retail trends. He assesses this trend and poses an interesting question. Usually, you have a bloke who buys a flash new vehicle and wants to put in the flashest new sound system. Here we have blokes turning up with clapped out old utes and putting the flashest sound system in them, one after the other. He decided to investigate and found the trend was young contractors who believed they couldn’t make a go in the Northern Territory. All they could do was to deck out their utes with a good sound system and drive to Queensland and seek work there. That is what occurred.
The real spend on real infrastructure that affects the real grass roots has not been applied. You can get in here with your spin and your rhetoric and talk about huge - I think ‘mammoth’ was the word you used - but when you blow the chaff away and talk about the actual inflation rate applied to the real growth, there is very little there. In many cases, it is applied inappropriately in a way that does not stimulate the grass roots; it doesn’t get down to the ground.
I have been recently asked the question: why is this? Is the money there? Well, yes, the money is there, we believe. Why isn’t it getting out? Incompetence has to be one of the reasons; it cannot get through the system. This Labor government has put so many processes in place - one of their great achievements - that the process has become bogged down and the bureaucracy is running into itself and trying to process applications that it is simply not getting out of the system in time. That is like having a kitchen where you are cooking the food and spend so much time on what’s going on in the kitchen that you do not get it out onto the table and you have people dying of starvation, but you have a darn good kitchen. You have lots of food in there, but it is not getting out; you’re not getting it out there. Territory businesses are suffering as a result.
Furthermore, Acting Chief Minister, you have failed, as your government has failed, to halt the decline of population. You have failed to halt this decline, as you have failed to halt increasing business closures. Territorians are a hardy breed. Territorians who made the decision to become Territorians – I am not speaking of those who were born in this great place - those who, at some time in the past, made that decision, wherever they lived, and decided that the Territory was their place. Many of us reflect on that time when we made that decision. What attracted us from every state and territory to come to the Northern Territory was because it was a place of development, a place of growth, a place with a future, a place where I could play a part in development and growth. That was a time when many people from right across the country chose the Territory, and right across the country, the Northern Territory had a profile as a place of activity, a place of vision with the ability to be flexible and go places. Not bogged down. Not tied up in process. Not introverted, uncertain and concerned about its future.
That uncertainty, that diminishing of self-confidence, has occurred under the Martin Labor government, with the inability to actually create any sense that you can achieve forward movement. Walking around with hard hats in front of projects that someone else did the hard yards on does not do it. This air of desperation to get yourselves one big project: ‘Let’s fast track it. Do whatever it takes’, is the Labor mantra. ‘Let’s get ourselves a major project so we can legitimately wear hard hats and stand in front of a major project of our own creation. Then: mission accomplished. We are just like the CLP’. You look around and the place is in ruins. You go to Queensland and there are Territorians everywhere.
The Territory has changed under your watch, and the way in which you have managed the economy for Territory businesses and for Territory families, and for those that once had a belief in the Northern Territory, it has now been shaken by the way in which you have managed the Northern Territory economy. The Martin Labor government and, on this occasion, the Acting Chief Minister and this government deserve to be soundly censured by every fair-minded Territorian who has still, to this day, confidence in the future of the Northern Territory, who believe that the GST revenue and the largesse that has flowed from Canberra should be used just as it was used in the days of self-government, to build the Territory and allow it to develop so that we can have a future for our children and we can stand once again proud of the Northern Territory and believe we can do it, believe we can go places, believe we can create those links into our region and take advantage of our strategic location and our magnificent tourism icons and create a magnificent future of which the nation is proud.
Mr STIRLING (Acting Chief Minister): Madam Speaker, I do not know what you say about a censure motion like this. There is some improvement from previous censure motions in at least ...
Mr Henderson: It went a bit longer.
Mr STIRLING: Yes, they did go a bit longer today than perhaps they have in the past, but at least they bothered to put down a few points and tried to centre a little bit of focus around what they were censuring the Acting Chief Minister for. In the end, it all amounts to little than hot air.
The Leader of the Opposition starts to show up as the hollow man of Territory politics. We saw this very much in his speech, in the contrivance and the ham acting, and I talked about how I awarded him about 9.8 for the arm movement and the acting. That is not bad, but when you get down to the facts and any substance in it, gee, it is pretty hard to dig out any substance at all.
The day after this government delivered a budget, which the Chamber of Commerce - and they are pretty hard to please, the Chamber of Commerce, when it comes to budgets, let me make that clear, even under our predecessors. - comes out and says 8.5 out of 10, the Leader of the Opposition jumps up and censures us. I do not know where the sense in that falls, but the Chamber of Commerce are, as I said, a pretty hard organisation to please, and 8.5 out of 10, and backslaps and comments like ‘This is like Christmas’ and ‘I’m blown away’ and we are censured for it. And this is less than three hours after the Leader of the Opposition himself delivered a budget response, where just four of his promises in that contribution adds up to $100m ripped out of the bottom line. He then launched into a censure motion accusing me of poor management of the budget.
It is a joke but, in the interests of free debate, we would never want to be seen to shut the opposition down, and I commend my colleague, the Leader of Government Business for taking it on.
I gave him 9.5 for acting his way through this morning but, as I said, when it came to credibility and to substance in what he was putting before us, that did not quite shake the Richter scale. It failed to register. It was good theatre, but the lack of substance was somewhat disturbing.
The budget we handed down yesterday means less tax, more jobs, and a great lifestyle for Territorians. We already have a great lifestyle, and we will add to it. We delivered a budget with record tax cuts, record infrastructure, record budgets for health, education, training, and police, and designed to boost and enhance what is already a great Territory lifestyle. Despite all of this, the government can still pull together a bottom line that remains substantially better than anything produced by our predecessors, and that is a pretty good result.
Let us go to this line of failure around fiscal strategy. What sort of a fiscal strategy did you blokes adopt when you told Territorians in 2001 that you were headed for a budget deficit of $12m. Within weeks of that August election, we had the Under Treasurer in to talk to Cabinet who said that the budget position was unsustainable. ‘How can that be, Mr Under Treasurer? A $12m deficit ought to be sustainable over the year ahead’. He said: ‘Chronic under-funding for agencies, for a start. It already is on track for a deficit of about $126m. It is unsustainable over the year. It is an unsustainable budget, and you really have to act on it’. Therefore, we had an unsustainable budget on top of unsustainable deficits, adding to debt like there was no tomorrow. $1700m of it, still sitting out there for future generations of Territorians to pay off, with very little cash inside that, despite the fact that there was massive deficits - very little cash against the capital works project, as I said this morning.
It was a position that we had to put considerable fiscal discipline in, in order to get away from those unsustainable deficits, and be in a position to address current and future needs. Even then, as tough as it was, we began to wind down the size of the deficit, we still pump primed capital works in order to try and get a construction industry, that had disappeared, that had fallen on its knees and withered away, simply collapsed out of the mismanagement of the Country Liberal Party government over its last couple of years in office.
We deliberately set about staging those deficits down from the $126m we inherited in August 2001, to produce a balance budget in this next financial year, in 2004-05. At the same time this year, of course, producing the budget, as I said, that reduces tax, boosts tourism and jobs, and produces another $441m cash into capital works, minor works, and repairs and maintenance. I am not sure what the Leader of the Opposition is trying to say when he claims we do not have a consistent or appropriate fiscal strategy. The only change made to the fiscal strategy adopted with working through this situation in late November 2001, when we produced the November 2001 mini-budget, and working with Professor Percy Allan at the time, when he said: ‘You have to have a strategy to pull yourselves out of this, it is unsustainable. You cannot continue to produce deficits of that size’. We did, and we have continued to reduce deficits, year in and year out, and we will return a balanced budget in 2004-05.
A week to go, with the preparation of the 2004-05 budget, we were not going to be in balance. It was going to be a deficit budget for 2004-05, based on the fact that we had lost that $48m back in March on the relativities over the Grants Commission. However, on federal budget night with the $28m estimated GST, that will bring 2004-05 into balance; there will be a modest deficit around $16m for 2005-06, not $126m or anything of that nature, a modest deficit of around $16m and there is a couple of reasons for that. The first is that the $48m is carved out, not replaced by the addition of $28m, and secondly, the long-standing commitments and promises made by this government, which are all being ticked off and recorded, and of course the major one we made in those early days before we even game to government, we said we would recruit and put in place an extra 100 teachers. Did the opposition think that comes for free? You start off with 20, it is a bit of an addition to the bottom line, goes on the recurrent baseline budget for Employment, Education and Training, then it is 40, then it is 60, then it is 80. Well look, in 2005-06 with the full 100. In fact this year the full 100 will be in place and of course that takes up, that broadens the baseline spending for that agency.
Madam Speaker, the 75 extra nurses will be in place by that time. A large number of the 150 extra police coming out of the O’Sullivan Report will be in place. It goes all the way through to 2007-08 before they are fully in place, but 2005-06 represents the bottom line in the size of the deficit and it is just $16m and we will continue to work our way over the next couple of years with a quite modest, quite small deficits, because the 2005-06 represents the peak of those forward years …
Mr Dunham: What makes you assume you are going to be there in a couple of years?
Mr STIRLING: Oh, Madam Speaker! The born to rule does get up your nose, I have to admit it. Born to rule!
Mr Dunham: Yes, you just said it yourself. You said it yourself. You are making assumptions two years in advance.
Mr STIRLING: Born to rule! Well, you were not born to rule, because if you were born to rule you would be standing on this side of the Chamber.
Mr Dunham: Well, mate, what makes you think you should make budget statements for two years hence.
Mr STIRLING: Why don’t you button it and listen! Show some manners!
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, you have had enough interjections.
Mr STIRLING: Madam Speaker, after 2005-06, those large ticket items that come into the baseline of those individual agencies will stabilise., the budget will balance out after a couple of modest deficits. All it means, as far as deserting the deficit reduction strategy, is that we have slipped a time line some two or three years. And the need of course, the need to fix as I said, the eroding services left by our predecessors, most particularly around police.
Madam Speaker, expenditure targets, and the opposition attack on them, does reveal a serious lack of understanding of how government operates year to year. It is something that the member for Brennan would have a much better feel for than the current Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition seems to have a view that you put the budget down on 18 May 2004 and that is it. Well, why do you have ministers if that is it? You walk away, you do not make another decision until budget time next year. Well, why do you need government? Why would you have ministers if you are going to sit there and not make a decision until the next budget round? The fact is, in an ideal world - Treasury have a bit of a view like this themselves. They say, Oh that is it treasury, that is the budget. We can not go spending any more money’. Well, in an ideal world, that is the way it would be. You would say: ‘That is what we are going to spend for this year. Do not come back here to the Cabinet room’. Why do you have Treasurer’s Advance? Why did your government have Treasurer’s Advance if you did not expect there to be unforseen expenditure between budget periods?
It is just unrealistic, stupid and naive to think that governments, ministers and Cabinet does not make decisions between budgets which affect the bottom line. It is not an ideal world. People have real needs in real life; real needs that occur at the most inopportune times, and happen to occur outside of budget preparation time and say: ‘Well, we have done the budget, sorry. We can not fix that problem because we have done the budget’. In real life, real needs arise at any time through the year, maybe as late as September, October, November, Wet season, floods and the need to evacuate people and get people around. All these needs result in expenditure to the bottom line, so it is a pretty naive view of the world to say that that does not occur.
If I go just quickly through some of those expenditures in 2003-04, the Economy and Business general heading of $8.9m; Investing in Territory Tourism, $7.5m. That was made quite late in the year, that commitment. It did not come around budget time. It was a recognition. There are two things: one, we would like to have done it earlier, given the state of the tourism industry and the external factors from September 2001 beyond our control, but we had to rebuild the capacity of government to respond to needs across the Northern Territory because of the basket case, as I said, that we inherited from our predecessors ...
Mr Dunham: Tourism was a basket case? Tourism was a basket case?
Mr STIRLING: The economic situation that we inherited from you blokes, and the deceit …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale!
Mr STIRLING: I would shut up if I were you because you were the one who lied about your Health budget in 2001 ....
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Madam Speaker.
Mr STIRLING: …and if you did not, you were complicit in it.
Mr DUNHAM: While in a censure motion we can say that you lied, you cannot say that I lied.
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale! Member for Drysdale, it is time you settled down. You have been consistently niggling away there. Just give it a rest for a while.
Mr DUNHAM: Speaking to the point of order, Madam Speaker, will you ask him to withdraw the fact that he screamed that I lied?
Madam SPEAKER: It is a censure motion, isn’t it?
Mr DUNHAM: Yes, on him, Madam Speaker. It is pretty clear.
Madam SPEAKER: Yes, it is. All right, Treasurer, withdraw.
Mr STIRLING: I will withdraw, Madam Speaker, I will say I withdraw …
Madam SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, desist for a while. You are becoming a very irritating monotone over there.
Mr STIRLING: There was a great deal of deceit around the Health budget which went on to be subject to a Public Accounts Committee inquiry.
Dr Lim interjecting.
Mr STIRLING: The member for Greatorex has form in there, too, because he asked the telling question, which I would have been tempted to ask myself. The basket case was the economic situation that we inherited from the CLP in August 2001.
So there is $7.5m to put into Territory tourism to boost marketing, followed by $10m in this budget, $10m the year after that, $27.5m over three years. There is one decision that was made outside of budget.
Indigenous Economic Development, $0.4m, was there; Indigenous Art Strategy was there with $1m; Jobs and Training, $6m global figure; Charles Darwin University at the Alice Springs campus, $3m; the Jobs Plan $800 000; the Remote Work Force Development Strategy for the public sector, $1m ongoing; the Territory Research Fund, $1m; Community Safety - and this is the O’Sullivan Review. I am not sure if the Leader of the Opposition suggests: ‘We know you do not have enough police and we are going to get stuck into you over the Estimates Committee about not having enough police, but really you should wait until the next budget before you do anything about it because you will send the figures awry’.
We did not wait for the next budget. O’Sullivan did his work, he reported to Cabinet, Cabinet ticked off the recommendations, a massive expenditure over the next few years and in 2003-04, $9.8m to kick off in a robust fashion the additional recruitment required and it is going very well, according to my colleague, the minister for police.
The Northern Territory Fire Service - now there is a doozey; there is one that had simmered along for a long time, both under the previous government and under this government as well, but when we did get to it, someone has to pay for the report, the assessment and the work that was done there - $800 000. Surely, the Leader of the Opposition does not suggest we should have waited until the next budgetary cycle. I do not think so.
The Pool Grants Scheme, $1.4m; schools, $5.7m; Information Technology infrastructure including additional bandwidth, $2.3m. It is an ongoing cost and an escalating cost within our school system, but a cost that we have to continue to meet because the better these students get at using the IT infrastructure, the more time they stay up there, the more they want to access off the web, the more information they want to drop, the more bandwidth they use, the more schools that get more proficient at it, up goes the bandwidth requirement all the time. It is an issue for all states and something that the Commonwealth is going to have to come to the party with and help, but there was an extra $2.3m in there and an extra additional boost this financial year in the budget, laptops for teachers, coming out of the past EBA there was a commitment to look at it in terms of salary sacrifice. Teachers decided they did not want salary sacrifice. They wanted the department to do it under a lease arrangement, so the department went forward with that; $0.5m in 2003-04, the major expenditure, $5m over four years. But, again, a commitment made at the previous EBA. You have to be able to respond and act with those sorts of things.
Inclusion support assistance for students with special needs in schools. An ongoing need. A further $300 000 went in to satisfy the growing need there. Furniture for remote teachers, something that had not been touched for a long time. We boosted that by $1m last February, and we also put in equipment for schools for another $1m. This all continues to add up. Non-government schools - $600 000.
If we go to Health, there is a range of matters, and I would think all of them would be referred to in Budget Paper 3, but $21.5m is the increase, and the estimated outcome for health reflects the technical accounting change introduced concerning corporate support costs. And the Leader of the Opposition will find that. In fact, he made that comment this morning that the budget papers do not offer any explanation. I refer him to the budget itself, because it does have pages of information on variations, all listed against that agency, of what occurred during the year. The additional funding allocation, $2.1m, made during 2003-04 for Children’s Services and Mental Health, and that was an area, particularly Children’s Services, of growing concern and that is an ongoing boost to the budget over the next few years, with much needed extra resourcing going in to that area of health.
Last year’s budget also formulated in the knowledge that the nurses and doctors EBA negotiations were still to be included. Now, here is a doozey, because the Leader of the Opposition suggests, whilst we put forward perhaps 3% in the forward estimates for enterprise bargaining agreement negotiations, does he suggest that, ‘Oh well, you cannot pay, you cannot satisfy the negotiations with any more than 3% because you blow your budget, because you push the budget out of line.’ Well that would be a nonsense, because what if you were in a situation where wages growth is such that 3% is not going to meet the mark. You say, ‘Well, sorry you are going to throw our budget out. The budget we put in on 18 May 2004 will be a different outcome if you force us to pay you any more than 3%, therefore we are not going to pay you any more than 3%’ and they go on strike. Hospitals start closing, your schools close, all because the Leader of the Opposition demands that the budget expenditure that we put down on 18 May 2004 has to be reflected to the very cent at the end of the financial year and when the finals come through in November 2005. Well, that is just a joke, and it just shows a naivety about outcomes in a budget sense. We do not know, for example, what the outcome for the Northern Territory public sector will be, or for police. There is another group out there, of course, teachers themselves. We do not know what those outcomes will be, but you put 3% in the forward estimates, knowing that it is possibly going to be more than that.
As a result, in the case of Health and Community Services, the doctors and nurses EBA negotiations, 3% wages growth was included in the original budget estimates, and that is a fine thing to do. Government is not going to say, ‘Well, we are going to put 5.6% down for the EBA’. If you wanted to give anything away, that would be a way to do it so that unions could say, ‘Oh they are going to give us 5.6%, so let’s start at 8%’. Well, if you at least start at 3%, you have 3% in there year in and year out, then there is no giving away of that. As it was, the result of the outcome of the negotiations, $8.3m is included there to reflect the costs over and above the initial 3% included in the original budget. So they are an example of the sorts of things that came forward in 2003-04, the Palmerston Magpies relocation - $2m; the Katherine Sports Ground lighting - $0.5m; the Traeger Park grandstand - $700 000; the AFL match support - $0.3m; Northern Territory Soccer administration - $600 000; litter abatement strategy - $300 000; public transport services - $1.1m; parks agenda - $0.5m; regional initiatives, Regional Coordinator on Groote Eylandt – $0.07m this financial year; priority partnerships - $0.1m. There are a number of matters that come before government and ministers and find their way to Cabinet in between budget times. Every time there is a decision of that nature made, it is going to affect the final outcome.
I can recall, prior to being elected, every year - and not long into the financial year - I would hear stories about how the education budget had blown out again. Of course, we well know the story with health budgets under our predecessors. If they blow out with us, it is because we have made conscious decisions to increase the expenditure during the financial year, not because they were chronically under-funded in the first place, which was the case under our predecessors. They did not have the money to properly base the budget, that is why education and health …
Members interjecting.
Mr STIRLING: That is why you got into deceit …
Mr Baldwin: That is our point: we cannot believe your budget.
Mr STIRLING: You never fronted up about that; you have never ‘fessed up about that. However, you must have been pretty close to it because your CEO was right onto it. You would have to guess and assume if the CEO was right onto it, the minister was in the know. However, he has never ‘fessed up in here, and we well know what the Treasurer did because of the document - the infamous document. ‘For presentation purposes only’, I think was the wording. We do not put our budgets for presentation purposes only; we put out the bottom line.
As I said, all of those budgets are carefully monitored and increased only because of the need to provide greater expenditure on services; for example, child protection and health, which I just went through.
In stimulating growth through focussed and real infrastructure - $1.3bn into infrastructure since we came to government. You cannot be serious on this point. As I said, we inherited a capital works budget where the revote was higher than the cash allocated in that financial year. The minor new works budget ran out of cash in November. Do you remember that? ‘We do not have any money’. ‘What do you mean, you do not have any money left? What did they leave you with?’ The minor new works budget ran out of cash in November of our first year of government. Goodness me, not much wonder we had to go to a mini-budget. A contract was let without any cash to pay for it. There were some doozies!
Not only have we increased the government’s infrastructure spend, we cash it: $439m-odd in 2002, $434m in 2003, $441m in 2004. They are significant increases. We have also reduced the revote. We have maintained that high level program. Contracts announced come to fruition quicker than before, and that is not surprising when you had a revote that was bigger than the amount of cash that you are prepared to put against the program.
Regarding population growth, we have heard a fair bit about population. It was positive for the past two quarters - not as strong as we would like, obviously - predicted to be 0.3%. Again, a conservative estimate from Treasury in 2003-04; with 0.3% again estimated for 2004-05, but at least positive. The only time our predecessors were positive regarding population growth was with the relocation of 2nd Cavalry and the massive Defence infrastructure build-up during the 1990s. Nett interstate migration has been negative, and it has been negative since the late 1980s, except for that time when the military was transferring many families to Darwin around 1997-98. Of course, we had that huge construction boost. Therefore, population growth is generally sustained by natural increase.
At the moment, the number of departures is stable. It is too high - we acknowledge that - but it is roughly what it has been for a while. However, the number of arrivals is slow. If conditions are good around Australia and wages are better elsewhere than in the Northern Territory, they are not going to rush here. However, those major projects, the tourism boost as I said, they are getting the economy really moving, and they will bring people back. Booming conditions interstate will keep people where they are, there is no doubt about that, particularly in the construction industry and of course the recession. I do not know whether it was the recession that we had to have under the CLP, but it was a recession we certainly had where our growth plummeted, construction industry was on its knees, and no money anywhere in the economy. Honey, I shrunk the economy. We went through that yesterday.
The major projects are back, the government spending on infrastructure is at record highs. The economy is picking up, 8.5 out of ten from the Chamber of Commerce. I am pretty touched with that; I do like that figure. The population will pick up, we are conservative. We put it at remaining roughly around the current levels of growth. It could be higher but we are serious about addressing the issue substantially. We are training our own, we are making sure the skills that we have here are here for the long run, and we want to minimise that boom and bust cycle of big boost in population numbers and then they go away again.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, less tax, as I said, more jobs, great lifestyle. You cannot get away from the fact that it is record tax cuts to payroll tax, the economic growth that that will cause, the HIH levy is gone, the debits tax will be gone from 1 July 2005. I would have to say I am really not taken with this censure motion at all. It is an improvement on past efforts but really, you do need to get some substance around these issues.
Mr BURKE (Brennan): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I guess if one could do a synopsis of the Treasurer’s comments, it would be something like this: there is the budget, and if the budget figures blow out that is because we do other things, so do not worry about the figures that are in the budget. The difference between us and you is that if our budgets blow out, that is because we are doing more. If your budgets blow out, that is because it is chronic underfunding. Well, that logic does not work because budget papers are supposed to be budget papers that people can have some confidence in.
The same confidence that you expected of the budget papers in the past, Mr Treasurer, is the same confidence that we expect now. The fact that you cannot deliver that confidence to Territorians either through these budget papers or generally, is the reason this censure motion is here today.
It is interesting. The Treasurer is good at recalling all the things that have happened in this parliament in the past. I cannot recall in this parliament when the Chief Minister did not have the courtesy to be in this Chamber on the day the Leader of the Opposition delivered the budget reply. In fact, you can call the CLP all the names you like, Treasurer, but I can tell you what: the CLP was briefed that at the time the Leader of the Opposition, your opposition, responded to the budget, we would have all been in the Chamber and we would have had the courtesy to keep our mouths shut whilst that speech was given.
Not only can you not deliver those basic courtesies, you cannot even have the common courtesy to have the Chief Minister sitting in this Chamber because she has pressing business elsewhere. Pressing business, I might add, that others in this Chamber were invited to attend, others in this Chamber including myself, who were offered a charter flight by ConocoPhillips to attend the same ceremony, and because we had our priorities right. And our priorities are that you sit in this Chamber and you recognise that these are the issues that are most pressing to Territorians. If you want to send a deputy somewhere, you send someone of less significance, and the Chief Minister has an obligation and a responsibility to be in this Chamber and listen to the Leader of the Opposition’s reply.
She may not have any respect for the Leader of the Opposition. I expect that from that woman. But no one member of the Labor Party can surely expect that because you get an endorsement from a luncheon from the Chamber of Commerce, that all Territorians are happy with your budget. Surely the Westminster system of debate demands that the Opposition brings forward concerns and issues with the budget that are being represented on behalf of Territorians. You seem to have lost that message completely. That is why the Chief Minister has an obligation and a responsibility to be standing in this Chamber to hear what the Leader of the Opposition says. The fact that the Acting Chief Minister has to deliver the reply today only compounds that arrogance and that discourtesy.
I sometimes wonder. I watched the Treasurer yesterday get ready for his budget speech, and he put his coat on. There must be someone around the place who says: ‘If you want to look like a Treasurer, wear a suit’. I don’t where that came from. I know that we had previous ministers in this House who used to wear a suit, but somehow it is catching on. If I wear a suit, I look somehow more authoritative in the way I present my budget speech. The Treasurer neither looked authoritative, nor was he convincing in his budget speech. The gloss is all there, and we accept the gloss, but the reality is if you dig down in this budget, it is a continuation of a fraud that has been visited on Territorians.
Who reckons Wicking has a reasonable hold on what Territorians think? Do you reckon Wicking would last five minutes as a cartoonist, if his cartoons bore no relationship to what Territorians thought? Wicking’s cartoon on budget day had a removalist van there, ready to pick up this guy’s belongings, and he is on the phone saying: ‘Hold the removalists van because he’s on standby until I hear the budget’.
That is only a cartoon, but that is what Territorians are thinking. That is why a cartoonist puts that scenario. If you sit here and say, arrogantly, that Territorians are happy, the place is booming, people aren’t leaving, business is expanding - go on and keep doing that; keep believing your own rhetoric. This bloke, Wicking has it right on the mark, and that is what he was saying to Territorians, and that’s what Territorians are saying through him to this government.
You have, in the three years you have been in government, had an opportunity, and you have squandered it. Now, if we were in an economic environment that you claim you were presented with, an economic environment that had you meet all the expanding needs of Territorians with an estimated budgetary situation that was little change from the CLP and you had produced some economic growth and stimulus to the Northern Territory, well, okay, we might give you some credits for it.
But you get this cartoon from Wicking after everything that’s been done, through GST, to stimulate the Northern Territory economy, provided by the Commonwealth through the GST, and all Territorians needed was a government that was capable of delivering. That is all they asked for. I often talk to Territorians and they say: ‘I sometimes wonder why you fight in the Chamber. Why don’t you all work together to promote, enhance and develop the Northern Territory. You spend too much time fighting’. That is what they would like. They don’t understand politics and all this adversarial argument. They want the Territory to be advanced, and if the Territory was advancing at the rate the Territorians expect and you were making your best effort, you wouldn’t have a censure motion.
You have a censure motion because you have been given the resources and you have squandered them. That is the situation you are in. You did it through your own political trickery. You have visited a fraud on Territorians. You did from the day you were elected. You got away with that fraud for about a year, where people kept saying: ‘We have a black hole so maybe the government can’t spend as much as they’d like’.
Territorians have woken up and you have just started realise that you have to get out there and stimulate the economy yourself. There is no absolutely no reason why you cannot because the money that is coming through from the GST is such largesse that anyone - Mr Clerk, anyone around here, get one of the assistant clerks, put a suit on him and stand him up there with a budget speech! A drover’s dog could stimulate this economy with the amount of money that is coming through from GST and you, Labor government, are barely bumping along the bottom. Yet you come in here somehow claiming success.
Let us get it into context: when the CLP government lost power in the Northern Territory, the Commonwealth contribution in untied grants to the Northern Territory government was about $1.29bn. This government went to Territorians and said: ‘We only get that amount of money and the CLP have left us with a $126m shortfall. Woe is me. We are going to put the brakes on. We are going to stifle this economy until we get the budget back into some sort of balance and if it hurts you, Territorians, too bad’.
What you did not tell them was what you wanted was to show Territorians, first, that you were good economic managers, because all of your polling for the last 20 years have shown you - Labor party - that Territorians think you are a rock show when it comes to managing the economy. So the first priority was, let us try and show Territorians that we can actually manage the piggy bank. The way we will do it is, we will try and show that the CLP were so bad, we have inherited such a terrible situation that, first of all, we cannot spend, but we will somehow get it right. And it backfired. It backfired big time. You put your rego tax on, you thought that would really reinforce the terrible situation you had. And Territorians barked and barked big time. What they wanted was that impost taken off, because they knew it was not warranted. You threw a HIH levy on business and that did not work either. And it is only now that you are starting to realise how wrong that was.
But let us get into perspective. The CLP government, with a growing economy over 27 years, when we left government, in August 2001, the Commonwealth contribution to the Northern Territory’s new Labor government was, in untied grants, $1.29bn. Now this government claims they inherited a $126m shortfall and therefore, woe is me, they could not do anything and they put the brakes on the economy.
The real situation shown out in the budget papers is this. In the first year of the Labor government, they received $212m extra from the Commonwealth government. $212m extra for the first year of their government. Now, that should have been a warning bell for anyone to say, let us start spending and let us get the brakes off, because if we do not, things are not going to work. But they did not. They continued with the situation. The next year, the 2003-04 year, this government received, on top of the $212m, another $88m from the Commonwealth. Next year, 2004-05, they received an extra $20m on top of that, and for 2005-06, they are projected to get $140m extra from the Commonwealth. For 2005-06 and 2006-07, another $69m. If you add up the amount of money over this term in government that the Labor government will receive from the Commonwealth, on top of what they have received, in the past the CLP government has received in the past, the amount of resources – which is dough – that you have to stimulate, manage, promote and advance this economy, is another $1.292bn. Now let us just get that in perspective, because that is what Territorians need to get into perspective. Over the term of this government, you will have received double the untied grants that the CLP government received in its last year of government.
It is in that context that the CLP have put this censure motion today. That, with that amount of money coming in extra from the Commonwealth, given the fact that you have not built one school, I mean, you can talk about how the economy is improving and the population numbers are wrong, but the reality is, you have not built one school.
Mr Henderson: We fixed up a lot of schools.
Mr BURKE: Not one school.
Mr Henderson: We fixed a lot that had not had any money spent on for years.
Mr BURKE: Not one school. There were years the CLP was not only building a school per year, sometimes we were building more than two. At least one per year. You can have all the sheets of paper you like, but you have not built one school.
They have doubled the budget from the Commonwealth. In less than five years, they will receive as much again, on top of what the CLP government received in total in its last year of government, and they cannot even build one school. And they wonder why Territorians are saying to themselves, this mob cannot manage the economy. And you wonder why this censure motion is in here today. You have a fiscal strategy that has been blown out, and the question that I asked today was an important question, because the fiscal strategy, stated by the Under Treasurer, is what underpins confidence in the Territory government’s ability to manage its own economy. You can give all the reasons why you depart from your fiscal strategy. What you have to admit, is that it was wrong from the start. The CLP told you it was the wrong fiscal strategy from the start. We told you it would hurt business. We told you it would stop economic growth, and you went blindly ahead and did it for political reasons trying to score points. It is only now you have said: ‘We have to change tack and change tack fast’. That is why the fiscal strategy now says: ‘We are going to boost additional support and stimulate the economic sector’. That is why it says it. However, the bottom line is you have dropped your own fiscal strategy. If that is not an admission that you are wrong from the outset, well, nothing is.
Therefore, this government tried to tell Territorians they were good economic managers and, in less than three years, they have dumped their fiscal strategy. That is why you cannot manage the economy, and that is why you will never manage the economy. That is why the polling was right and why, at the end of the day, if you take away all the public servants advisors you have, you still cannot manage a chook raffle. Territorians should not have any faith in this government.
Controlled departmental expenditures targets: the Treasurer talked about how all of this spending is well and good, and that these are the normal spending that occurs. Of course, even though they have put estimates and projected expenditures and said in the past that they will sack CEOs if they do not stick to them, and they have their estimates for the end of that financial year in the budget and that is how they do all their projections, if we depart from all of that – ‘Do not worry about it, we have other compelling reasons for doing them all’ – it just does not work. You just cannot swallow that sort of stuff; it does not work. I will point to one. Let us look at the Health budget. The Health budget is a classic, because in this current financial year, it has gone from the 2003-04 estimate of $611.694m up $24m in the 2004-05 budget. I suppose you could say $24m in the budget over the next year, if they are doing all increased works - well okay, we will allow them that. They obviously have more money from the GST, so they need more money to spend on health initiatives. However, if you look at the budget the year before - the 2003-04 budget for health - what do you see? You see that the budget that was given to health in 2003-04 was $546.8m. That was the estimate for 2002-03 which was what their outcome was expected for 2002-03. The outcome expected for 2002-03 was $546.8m. Do know what they came in on? Their budget then was allocated as $561.35m, which is an increase of $14m. However, the actual outcome for that budget was $611.694m based on the 2003-04 final estimates.
Therefore, in that context we see a Health budget that not only has been increased by another $24m in this budget but, in the budget for 2003-04, it blew out by $50m. The Deputy Chief Minister is trying to tell us that we should accept the fact that this is all well and good, and this is all normal spending within the Health Department. Well, no one would swallow that. This is a department that is clearly out of control. By the Treasurer’s comments in Question Time today – silent comments because he was nodding his head – he actually said: ‘We are looking at it’. That is what is happening; because Treasury is continuing to look at an unmanageable mess which is the Health budget.
If you go into the Health budget a little further, into employee costs, it is interesting because the estimate of employee costs for 2002-03 was $279m, and the budget was set at $289m for 2003-04 budget. Therefore, for that period from 2002-03 to 2003-04, the estimate of employee costs rising would be $10m. If you see where the actual employee costs on the estimate came in on, the revised estimate for employees for 2003-04 is $307m. A budget estimate for 2002-03 final outcome of $279m has now been increased to $307m for 2003-04. That is an indication of how much that particular Health budget has gone out, and it has been increased again by another $15m.
I would like to know, and I am going to find out in estimates too, what proportion of those employee costs are in the executive areas, because those used to be in the departments in the past. How many high price public servants have been imported from interstate in the Health department that are being paid massive amounts of money in the executive salary area that has caused the Health department’s employee costs alone to go through the roof? It is one example, an absolute indictment, of the budget that the Health budget can blow out in one year of not only $50m but if you compare it to the year before it has blown out by many tens of millions on top of that. So that is on the path; it is absolutely out of control.
In infrastructure spending, focus on the real infrastructure spending is not being adhered to. We have said that in the motion; there have been examples given. A classic example is to look at the revotes that are going on in this particular budget. First of all, if you look in the infrastructure program budget, the budget as I said has only been increased by $3m and that does not keep pace with GST. If we look at the revotes, the revotes are classics. The Department of Employment, Education and Training, the revotes from 2003-04 to 2004-05 is a revote that was new works in 2002-03. So, that is why you are not building any schools, that is why you are not doing anything. Palmerston High School, as I have mentioned before, has appeared in the budget paper now three times, it has certainly been announced by the government at least five times and it has not had one stone turned. It is a revote in the 2004-05 budget, a line item that appeared in the 2002-03 budget.
Kalkarindji Community Education Centre - check your previous budget books, a revote from the 2002-03 budget. So we are now on our third year and have not turned a rock.
Ms CARTER: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that so much of standing orders be suspended as would prevent an extension of time being granted to the member for Brennan to complete his speech.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 10 Noes 12
Mr Baldwin Mrs Aagaard
Mr Burke Mr Ah Kit
Ms Carney Mr Bonson
Ms Carter Dr Burns
Mr Dunham Mr Henderson
Mr Elferink Mr Kiely
Dr Lim Ms Lawrie
Mr Maley Mr McAdam
Mrs Miller Ms Scrymgour
Mr Mills Mr Stirling
Dr Toyne
Mr Vatskalis
Motion negatived
Dr LIM (Greatorex): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move an extension of time such that my colleague, the member for Brennan, may conclude his remarks, pursuant to Standing Order 77. It is a different motion.
Motion negatived.
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, obviously the government sorry will be voting against this motion. It really is a very thin motion presented today on a budget that has been broadly applauded by the people across a large section of the business community here in the Northern Territory and, really, this has just been brought in today as a bit of a filler given that there is nothing on the Notice Paper of any substance during General Business Day. We have the dog and cat fur bill and random drug testing, but they had to put something of substance on this General Business Day and it is in the guise of this motion here today.
As Minister for Business and Industry in this government since we came to government, I am quite prepared to stand here and say, yes, it has been tough. It has been a very tough economic circumstance in the Northern Territory for a number of years now. Obviously, when you are in government, as well as taking the credits, you take the brickbats as well, as they come. And it has been a tough 2 years since we have been in government. However, let us not forget, and the member for Brennan, in his contribution, seems to have a blind spot and delusion about how tough the economy was doing at the time that the last election was held in August 2001, how tough it had been for a couple of years before that, and certainly, as politicians - and we are all in here as politicians - at the last election, we would all acknowledge that the state of the economy at that time, and the failure of the government of the day to boost economic activity, was one of the key reasons why people voted for a change of government. So, to stand in here today and say that everything was rosy under the CLP, we had people flocking to the Northern Territory, we had projects everywhere, that everything was going fine and the day it all turned sour was in August 2001 when we took the Treasury benches is a reminder of the arrogance of the former administration, and the fact that they are still in denial, that at the time that they lost government, the economy was going very tough.
Again, the member for Daly, fails to acknowledge that. He fails to acknowledge history and the status of the economy at the time when we came to government. I was just thinking, where do you go in this debate, and it is always good to go back to the electorate and to think about the people who have elected you, and you have the responsibility of representing them. I remember, in the lead up to the last election, doorknocking in Wanguri Terrace, and being invited into a home there, Greek contractors, we all know those Greek contractors, and this family was in absolute despair. The husband had not worked for a …
Mr Dunham: You been back?
Mr HENDERSON: I have been back on a number of occasions, and he is working. The last time I went round to visit, I came away with a feed of mud crabs and reef fish, so happy was he with his current employment prospects. Yes, absolutely desperate times on that family. The kids had grown up. One of them had come back to stay in the house to help mum and dad with income into the home, and poor old mum was working double shifts as a cleaner at Darwin Private Hospital trying to make ends meet. As long-standing Territorians, they had nowhere else to go. They were distraught about having to put their home on the market and sell their home. That was the pain that was in the community, and has continued to be in the community, but it is good for all of us, in spite of the rhetoric and hot air that goes around in here, the responsibility to those people who elect us, and the genuine pain that has been out there for quite a considerable number of years.
To come in here in the censure motion and basically try and put a case that the whole thing has gone wrong since August 2001 is certainly a denial of their performance, certainly in the last term of CLP administration over that 26 year period in the Northern Territory. And if they continue to deny it, it will continue to come back to haunt them. We can certainly see, through the publications, here in the budget paper, if we go to the Northern Territory Economy Overview, and go to the second page, there is a chart there that talks about the annual change to GSP since 1994-99 to the forecast 2004-05. Those numbers bounce around all over the place.
There is a very clear articulation in the comments there as to the reason for the fluctuating GSP figures over that period, and we can see in the boom years, and we are talking around 1997-99, and the earlier period during the early 1990s, all coincided with the relocation of 2nd Cavalry Regiment to the Northern Territory, and the huge boost that that gave to not only our economy, construction sector and employment, but also to population in the Northern Territory. As a result of that construction activity and those thousands of Defence Force personnel and their families who, at no making of the previous CLP government but a decision of a federal Labor government – actually Kim Beazley as Defence minister made to relocate those Defence personnel to the Northern Territory - had a huge boost on our economy. It was nothing to do with the CLP - absolutely nothing to do with the CLP, but a decision of the federal government of the day.
If we look at those comments there, and we go to 1999-2000 we had GSP of minus-1.2% in that year. We all remember that year. That was the year where there was zero economic growth in the Northern Territory. The comments are ‘downturn, loss of Defence impetus, weak construction, decline in the motor vehicle sales, and negative employment growth’, coinciding with the end of those Defence-related projects and a minus-1.2% GSP for that financial year. We then moved to 2000-01 and we had that huge 7.2% turnaround in GSP bouncing up to 6% with ‘onshore activity, headline GSP boosted by offshore oil, falling retail sales, rising unemployment, major nett interstate migration outflow’. This was at the time of August 2000, or the 2000-01 financial year leading into the Territory election. The number there was 6%. Yes, huge GSP, but that coincided with a significant oil production from the Laminaria oil field, the largest producing oil field in Australia at that time. Those statements there say it all: ‘falling retail sales, rising unemployment rate, major nett interstate migration outflow’ – under a CLP government. It was understandable at the time, as a result of many hundred, possibly thousands, of people coming to the Northern Territory to work on those Defence-related projects. Once those projects had completed, there was no activity left in the construction industry, no work to keep those people employed, high cost of living in the Northern Territory and, of course, they took off.
Therefore, to say that the population decline is all this government’s fault, again is a total denial of history in regards to the CLP at the particular time when they lost the election. We then see those numbers there. We had growth in 2001-02 of 2.2%. In 2002-03, we went back to minus-0.08%. In 2003-04, it was up to 0.3% and, in 2004-05 forecasting 5.8%. We can see the comments there. However, during that period of time, we also had inherited and unsustainable budget. Whatever members opposite may wish to say, four years of deficit budgets running concurrently around $70m a year over those four years, peaking in 2000-01 of $126m deficit – if that is not unsustainable, I do not know what is. How long they would have continued with unsustainable budget deficit who knows? It was certainly wrecking this economy. Compounded on that, obviously, was 11 September, HIH, Ansett, terrorism, wars - you name it, we have had it.
However, we are moving forward now as the global economic climate is stabilising and tourism is starting to bounce back. We all understand in this House …
Ms Carney: After you ignored it for two-and-a-half years, and you were one of four ministers who laughed every time we said to you: ‘Put some money in, Paul’.
Mr HENDERSON: Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, Biddy Marchant over on the other side can be rude and interject here …
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker! I have no idea who Biddy Marchant is but I assume he is using it in a very vulgar and selective way.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Drysdale, what is your point of order?
Mr DUNHAM: That he should withdraw the phrase ‘Biddy Marchant’ if he is using it as a label for my colleague.
Ms Carney: You are not a man who likes the truth; you never have been.
Mr HENDERSON: Unless I get a ruling, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, it is certainly not unparliamentary and the term refers to a television character in an ABC sitcom that was running. If the member for Drysdale is so out of touch with popular culture, well, I suppose that is his problem.
What we had was an unsustainable budget …
Mr DUNHAM: A point of order, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker. I assume that is a refusal to withdraw. Can you rule, please?
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I understood that the Leader of Government Business withdrew. Is that right?
Mr HENDERSON: If you instruct me to withdraw, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I shall.
Mr DUNHAM: There we go. That was easy, wasn’t it?
Mr HENDERSON: I withdraw, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker.
Moving on. We understand why the opposition is sensitive. If we look at the comments from the Leader of the Opposition, he talked about dishonest budget papers. That is a total slur on those Treasury officials who put those budget papers together and have a tough accountability regime to do so under the Fiscal Integrity and Transparency Act.
Certainly, if we want to go to dishonesty in the budget papers, they will never live this down, because the greatest deceit that was ever brought on to the people of the Northern Territory in regards to the budget papers were the final budget papers that were presented here in the lead up to the last Territory election. That was exposed totally during the Public Accounts Committee hearings of the day and testimony by Ken Clarke, the former Under Treasurer, to the Public Accounts Committee. I will read into Hansard, because if they are going to bring up allegations about dishonesty and budget papers I will continue to remind members opposite of their proven dishonesty in regards to the 2000-01 budget that was handed down in this Parliament eight weeks prior to that election. I will go to question from the Chairman to Mr Clarke, and he goes onto say:
If I could just sort of start of with your written submission in that you detail a conversation that you had
with the Treasurer, Mr Reed.
So this is the Under Treasurer to the Treasurer.
It occurred at the height of the budget finalisation process and basically just paraphrasing what Mr Reed
has or what you have written there in your written submission, you say that in May 2001 Mr Reed, as
Treasurer, became concerned about the lack of growth in the 2001-02 budget numbers for Health, Education
and Police. Is that correct?
Mr Clarke: Lack of growth; he was concerned about the comparison between one year and next. Yes, I guess
that is correct.
Mr Chairman: Yes, and then subsequent to that meeting and at Mr Reed’s direction, ultimately at his direction,
the estimated expenditures for 2000-01 for Health, Education and Police that were originally circulated in May
or March were reduced at his direction so that growth could be apparent.
Mr Clarke: So that growth could be apparent - I suppose that is correct, yes.
Mr Chairman: So, I guess at the bottom of it, my question is: without Mr Reed’s intervention would these budget
estimate figures gone forward into the budget papers unchanged.
Mr Clarke: Yes they would have.
So, here we have testament from the Under Treasurer of the day to the Public Accounts Committee that the Treasurer was the person who directed the figures that were to be in the Treasury papers and that he changed those figures at his direction from the figures that the Under Treasurer was to present to the parliament to show growth. To show growth in the budget. Absolute deceit to Territorians.
Then we had the genius of the member for Greatorex bouncing in trying to help:
Can I follow on from the question you just asked? Would a Treasurer always intervene on Treasury figures
on any budget in the sense that he gives direction to Treasury?
Mr Clarke: Oh no, no.
For members opposite to talk about deceit in the budget papers, well, certainly they not only have priors but they have certainly been convicted in the court of the Public Accounts Committee. If any member wants to stand up in here and say that those directions were not given, then they are calling a former Under Treasurer of this particular Treasury a liar and I would like them to go outside and make that allegation.
To talk about dishonest budget papers is a total slur on those Treasury officers because these budget papers are produced at total hands-off position from the Treasurer as opposed to under complete direction from the last Treasurer of the previous CLP administration, the former member for Katherine. The member for Drysdale, I am not going to put back on public record again, but of course his former CEO certainly banged him up in the whole dreadful process in the last system.
Territorians are not going to forget, regardless of what the shortcomings of this government may or may not be, they will think long and hard about being able to trust any CLP administration in regards to government finances. Their last budget was nothing other than a glorious fraud on the people of the Northern Territory.
The Leader of the Opposition said that the place is in ruins. I agree that some people are still doing it tough. I am the business minister, and I get out and I meet with business people all the time, I have forums - I was in Palmerston last week. About 25 people turned up, and not one of them was saying to me that they were doing tougher than last year. They all said they were doing much better than this time last year. The percentage of raised turnover from about 20% ahead of where they were last year to about 120%. I am not saying that is everyone, but everywhere I go, people are saying things are looking up.
Where the Leader of the Opposition got the quote from in Question Time yesterday, that I had somehow had some secretive briefings from someone who said 72%, I think his number was, of businesses in the Northern Territory we are technically insolvent - I would like you to produce that evidence. I have certainly had no such briefing whatsoever. Somebody had pulled the wool over the Leader of the Opposition’s eyes because if they were trading insolvent, they would be in breach of the Corporations Act, and that is a slur on Territory business. Territory businesses do not trade whilst they are insolvent, and it is a total slur on Territory businesses that they are.
The prosecution that people are fleeing here in absolute droves, again, people come and go from the Territory all the time - always have, always will. As people retire and what have you, they do leave the Territory after many, many years. We all know that people do leave the Territory. Some do come back. I am pleased to say that my in-laws are coming back from Newcastle. They have just bought a property in Millner. But people come and go all the time and we will go to an interview with Sue Shearer, who everyone knows is the Executive Officer of the Real Estate Institute of the Northern Territory, by Julia Christensen on Friday 7, May talking about the increase in property values in the Northern Territory. I will quote from this. Julia Christensen asked:
What do you think is driving the market at the moment? Where are all these buyers coming from?
Everybody is leaving in droves. Somebody must be buying these houses, and they are paying more for them, but the Leader of the Opposition cannot come to that. Sue Shearer:
They are actually coming locally and, obviously, a few from interstate. But our sources say that while last year
when there were, as it were, record sales in both September and December, some of that was fuelled by interstate
investors, but a lot of these figures, people are moving to the Northern Territory. Again, our vacancy rate has
dropped as well. There was only 7.2% in the December quarter. I believe there is probably 6.9%, our figures will
show when they are released next week, for the March quarter. So people are coming back to the Northern Territory
and also people are staying.
Julia Christensen:
That’s incredible, because there are so many units being built, particularly around Darwin, and everybody you
speak to says, you know, that they are going to be empty, but these figures are showing the opposite.
Shearer:
That’s right. I guess everybody is entitled to their opinion, but our figures are also from the ABO, our sales figures,
and our figures are from our members. As I’ve said, we’ve got 98% membership and all throughout as a sample,
I think Mindil on Hastings has only nine left, and that’s in the high bracket. As I said, the figures are saying that
people are coming back and people are staying. These units aren’t empty or are the houses. There is 6.2%
vacancy rate considering, again, you have to remember that all those units are coming on-line as well.
So if everybody was fleeing the Northern Territory, nobody was coming here, why are vacancy rates coming down and property values going up? It just doesn’t make sense.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, this censure motion does not stand any credibility at all. The Leader of the Opposition failed to prosecute his case that the place is in ruins. The economy is coming back and will certainly be boosted by this great budget from the treasurer of the Northern Territory.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the motion be put.
Motion agreed to.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: My understanding is that the opposition has called the wrong…
Members interjecting.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is that the question be put.
Motion agreed to.
Mr ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question now is that the motion be agreed to.
Motion negatived.
CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 212)
(Serial 212)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I move the bill be now read a second time.
Today I introduce a bill that should be obvious in its intent, reasonable in its aims, and supported by all members in this place. This is a part one of a two-part package that will be expanded in my second-reading speech in relation to the Summary Offences Amendment Bill (Serial 214). The amendment is introduced with the intent of protecting emergency workers, with specific concentration on ambulance officers. During my deliberation regarding the shape of this bill, I was content in the first instance to cover ambulance officers only. Nevertheless, there is an obvious question why all emergency workers should not be covered by a bill such as this. This is the reason for the new definition in the bill of ‘emergency worker’. I quote:
An emergency worker means a person who works, whether paid or unpaid, for an emergency relief
organisation, and includes an ambulance officer and volunteer member of the Fire and Rescue Service.
It is intended that the court should read that interpretation as being particularly broad. I invite the courts to maintain a broad interpretation methodology when dealing with that interpretation.
There are sections in the Criminal Code that protect public servants and police in the execution of their duties. I by no means suggest that these sections should be seen as redundant or obsolete by this bill. Rather, this bill is an attempt to cast a wider net than the Criminal Code does now. For example, an ambulance officer is neither a public servant nor a police officer. I ask honourable members if a volunteer fire fighter is a public servant. Perhaps they are. If there if is an ambiguity, then it should be removed. Therefore, I bring this bill as a genuine attempt to tie up some loose ends, and bring protection to those who do not yet have it.
I remind honourable members that an assault is an unlawful application of force, and an application of force is defined as, ‘striking, touching, moving, the application of heat like noise, electrical or other energy gas over a substance or thing, when it is applied to such a degree as to cause injury or personal discomfort’.
Considering this, is screaming into the ear of an ambulance officer working on a patient an assault? My word, it is, and it happens all the time. It is my submission to members here today that it should be more than just a common assault, but should be considered to be an aggravated assault. That is the intent of this bill. Why? To send a signal to the community that those who work to aid others in the community are held in esteem by this parliament, and to let those who would do something like that to an ambulance officer when they are working on a patient, know that they will go to jail for interfering with their work - and so it should be. We need to protect our emergency workers in the community. This will be one of the tools that the courts may look to for guidance when dealing with miscreants who would interfere with those who protect us.
Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, I commend the bill to honourable members and to government.
Debate adjourned.
POLICE ADMINISTRATION AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 213)
(Serial 213)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, the bill that I bring before honourable members today does not represent a major shift in existing law. It intends to repeal the existing section 163 of the Police Administration Act and replace it with a much more simple and sensible section. As current law stands, the existing section 163 creates an environment of joint civil liability between the member of the police force and the Crown. In the act as it stands at the moment, a member of the police force stands as the joint tortfeasor with the Crown. That is to say that the Crown stands as a legal entity to be sued if the action of a member of the police force becomes the subject of civil action. The only way that the Crown may suggest that liability does not extend to the Crown through vicarious liability is to argue that the particular officer is on a frolic of his or her own. I can only envisage that such circumstances would involve wickedness or recklessness.
Section 163(4) gives the Crown the option of choosing to pay damages, other than punitive damages, should the case against the member be made out. The proposed amendment seeks to change that. On the face of it, it is a radical change but, in practice, will do little more than to give peace of mind to operational police officers in most instances.
I begin with the observation that the proposed amendment has constructed into its terms the concept of acting in good faith. I do not propose to enter into a lengthy debate as to what is or is not good faith. I will leave that to the courts to decide on both the facts of the particular case and the law, as to what constitutes good faith. The current act considers the issue of the recovery of punitive damages. It is difficult for me to envisage a circumstance in which an act of good faith, albeit negligent, could attract punitive damages. Therefore, I would suggest to honourable members that the full liability of a police officer who acts with malice or wickedness in their heart, or acts with reckless abandon, is not going to be protected by this change - and nor should they be. Nevertheless, the current section still renders police officers liable to joint tortfeasors and, therefore, even if they are acting in good faith, may make mistakes that are still within the scope of general negligence principles. It will be up to the plaintiff to make out to the balance of probabilities that the police were not acting in good faith.
Police officers make decisions every day. Some of these decisions are made in circumstances that are less than entirely perfect. Certainly, it has been my own experience as a former police officer, that I had to make decisions even when all of the facts surrounding a particular set of circumstances were not known to me, and it is with trepidation that police officers hurl their good names, reputation and possibly their careers into the abyss of the unknown, hoping that they have read the circumstances correctly. Ninety-nine times out of 100, nothing flows from such circumstances and all ends well. Nevertheless, there are times when police do have to make decisions that lead to outcomes that someone feels strongly enough about, or sees an opportunity to bring an action.
I ask honourable members the simple question: is it good enough that police officers doing their job to the best of their ability, and against individuals who would relish an opportunity to make their lives miserable, that they be exposed to stressful actions that could drag on for years? I think not. I would think it unlikely that the Crown represented by the Commissioner of Police would leave a member out on a limb, if the member was subjected of such an action. The Crown is also subject to an action when it is booked. Nevertheless, there are times when the Commissioner of Police may choose to forego the opportunity of paying damages which flow and seek payment from the member. Subsection 6 of section 163 contemplates such a circumstance.
Section 163(7) gives the court, which is asked by the Crown to make an order for the recovery of damages, the opportunity to introduce equitable principles. Presumably this is to prevent an excessive claim being made against the member by the Commissioner of Police. The existence of such a section means that this parliament in the past has felt that there is a possibility for the Commissioner of Police to act in a way that it needed to introduce an arbiter with the powers of equity to intervene. Honourable members, this is altogether clumsy in its structure and when seen within scope of powers that the Commissioner of Police has in setting standards and making clear the commissioner’s requirements of its members. The commissioner has powers of discipline at his or her fingertips so that if a member did act in a way that was contrary to the good operation of the police force and its objectives that there are many tools available for the commissioner to act both proactively and reactively.
I am not aware of any time that the commissioner has sought to go down this path in the past. That does not necessarily mean that it cannot happen in the future. The parliament in the NT at another time also considered this matter and decided it was conceivable for the commissioner to act in a way that had the flavour of being punitive. So much so, honourable members of the parliament believed it was necessary to invoke the principles of equity and an arbiter to offset such an action. Why, honourable members, do we want leave such a construct in place when this simple change would close that door and merely remove an unused tool from the bottom of very full toolbox at the commissioner’s disposal regarding the conduct of his personnel? The parliament has also left the member exposed as a tortfeasor. This bill is an attempt to make a member of the police force a small target by allowing the member the extra grace of human frailty in the case of circumstance. It is not an attempt to close the door on mitigation as it does not remove liability of the Crown. This is not unusual. Indeed, many acts go one step further in allowing immunity from criminal liability for an individual exercising their powers under those acts. Considering the unique role of police officers in our society, I am yet to be convinced of the merits of such a broad immunity. Nevertheless, in the terms of civil immunity, this amendment would do much to bring police into line with other agencies.
Honourable members, it is also not beyond imagination that police officers will become the subject of vexatious litigation, even speculative litigation, from time to time. But of course it is up to a court to decide what is vexatious and speculative and therefore I make no attempt in this instance to prevent actions being brought. But let them brought against the master and not the servant. There are many people in our community, sadly, who would seek to bring pressure on to individual members so that they would not feel comfortable in doing their duty. It is within the realms of imagination that there would be individuals who would bring civil actions against officers so that they may use evidence of such an action to discredit those officers as witnesses in criminal proceedings.
Finally, I would like to know that a police officer feels comfortable knowing that if he or she makes a decision in good faith that it will not ultimately expose their families to unnecessary difficulty either financially or by the stress of proceedings.
Madam Speaker, as I said at the outset today the bill does not represent an enormous shift in law reform. Nevertheless, it does mean a very real difference to the minds of police officers who have a clear and succinct message from this parliament – if you act in good faith we will not stand idly by. I commend the bill to honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
SUMMARY OFFENCES AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 214)
(Serial 214)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
Today, I bring before members a bill that is frankly a reflection on society. Sadly, there is now a need for a bill that protects emergency workers in the workplace, be they volunteers or professional officers. It has been my experience as a former volunteer ambulance officer, police officer, and spouse of an ambulance officer to know that emergency workers, ambulance officers in particular, have a dangerous workplace, not because of the nature of the emergencies they attend, but rather the deliberate obstruction of those workers by third parties who prevent them from doing their work.
Is it within the contemplation of a normal society that such a circumstance exists? Depressingly, the answer to that question is yes. Is it within my contemplation that being aware of the deterioration of workplace safety and the safety of others for these people that I, as a legislature, should sit inert and not bring some form of protection to those who protect us? The answer is a clear and resounding no. So it should be for all who sit in this Chamber.
We are here to provide good governance, to promote the welfare of the people of the Northern Territory. Every morning we pray to God almighty for guidance in our deliberations to these very ends. But I put it to honourable members that God almighty has given us sufficient common sense to know that we should not be relying on divine intervention to make the correct judgment in this place and in this case. If it takes an act of God to get it right in something as straight forward and sensible as this, then it would give the legislative equivalent of people who have trouble walking and chewing gum simultaneously.
In December 2003, Gary Carter of the St John Ambulance service wrote an article in Outback Ambulance entitled Hazards of the Job. Two photographs appear in that article: the first is a star picket that has been driven through the driver’s side of a windscreen of an ambulance. As I understand it, the picket narrowly missed the driver of the vehicle. Needless to say, such a thing constitutes an aggravated assault and it could be argued that there are already laws in place to protect the innocent in such cases. I agree. What if the driver was not in the car and it was merely some form of damage? Alternatively, it could be argued that it was a criminal damage and there are laws to prevent such things, and again, I agree.
Nevertheless, while it is true that a criminal damage charge may flow from such actions, it does not go to soul of the issues, which this bill attempts to capture. Any windscreen may be the subject of criminal damage. What the general charge of criminal damage does not capture is that in the case of an ambulance window, there may be an innocent third party who suffers because of delays that such damage causes. In the case of the windscreen of the fire truck or grass fire unit, one can imagine the anguish that would flow should a fire vehicle not be able to respond. Certainly, for the purposes of sentencing in such instances, the courts could and indeed should exercise sentencing practices that reflect the consequences of such damage. I do not say they should not, However what this bill does attempt to do is embolden the courts so they can clearly turn their minds to the matter of the effects not only of the emergency worker’s safety, but the effect of the hindrance and obstruction on innocent third parties: the recipients of the care and protection of that emergency worker attempts to bring them.
Should this bill become law, I would expect the courts to consider themselves unrestrained when they cast a grim eye upon the actions of a perpetrator so brought before them in circumstances contemplated by this bill. The gravity of such matters should not be underestimated. If it were a member of my family who suffered because of some irresponsible lout who got in the way of an emergency worker coming to my family’s aid, I would be beside myself with rage. Who wouldn’t be?
Nevertheless, such irresponsible louts do exist and, tragically, in such numbers as to justify the bill that I bring for members consideration.
I recently went on a ride along with ambulance officers on a night shift in Alice Springs. During that shift, we attended Keith Lawrie flats in the member for Araluen’s electorate. When we pulled up, the crew refused to go in because on a prior occasion, their ambulance was stolen by a person who was trying to escape an attack by others at that location. The ambulance in that instance was seriously damaged but those who attacked it. It was later recovered, away from the flats, and the person who took it was not charged, nor was any other person as I understand it. The reason charges were not laid was because the person who took it was acting in fear of his life. But what of the others there? Surely, more can be done.
The reason we attended on that occasion of my ride along was because a little girl had a stake through her foot. The ambulance officers did do a good job, but the girl had to be carried by a relative to the ambulance from the flat because the ambulance was waiting at the front gate. The actions of some very foolish and selfish people months earlier meant that the ambulance officers could only provide a limited service as they had to look after themselves first. So they should.
Surely, this is unacceptable. Surely, we as a parliament can do much better. Surely, a government that sees this happening will take some action. Yes, it is unacceptable. Yes, we can as a parliament do better. But no, the government has not taken action. So I have, and we should.
In the article by Mr Carter, he describes a shocking case where he was attacked. Ultimately, he had to escape after becoming the subject of several criminal offences perpetrated against him. It is my opinion that it should be a criminal offence against the person Mr Carter and his partner were trying to treat. A police unit needed to attend the scene and protect the ambulance officers in doing their work. I wonder what would have happened if the patient had been dead, or had had a heart failure whilst ambulance officers were forced to wait a few hundred metres away. I find it a matter of some reflection that Mr Carter deems it necessary to quote Napoleon Bonaparte in his article.
While it is true that those with upon their uniforms the cross of the Knights, of St John of St Johns Hospital in Jerusalem, were armed fighters and soldiers, it would be a long bow to draw indeed that in the modern concept such a person would need to rely on their military heritage to bring succour to the injured. Indeed, it is not a bow I can or am prepared to draw, but essential to the Knights of the Order of St Johns to cast their swords in the furnace a century ago, and turn them not so much into ploughshares, but universal shears, oxygen cylinders, ambulances, stretchers, for the tools of life. Now they are back in an environment which is from time to time an environment described as a war zone by some of their number. This is not Mogadishu or Chechnya, although some days you could be forgiven for thinking that it was. Mr Carter finishes his article with the simple observation that, ‘It is your responsibility to watch your partner’s back’. Those words should echo in our ears as an explosion should echo in an empty auditorium. He is correct. It is the responsibility of ambulance officers and indeed all emergency workers to look out for each other, just as it is our responsibility to look out for them and the people they seek to help.
Notwithstanding that this second reading speech is concentrated almost solely on ambulance officers, indeed, it must go beyond them. I advise honourable members that during my deliberations regarding this matter, it became evident to me that all emergency workers may be affected in similar ways when doing their jobs. Consequently, not only should this bill affect ambulance officers, the initial inspiration for this bill, but all who work for emergency relief organisations, whether they are paid or not. It only stands to reason that we should do this now, rather than wait for a circumstance that means we have to extend this bill to them into the future. I commend the bill honourable members.
Debate adjourned.
Madam SPEAKER: Honourable members, someone has their mobile phone in the Chamber. It has rung twice in the last five minutes. It may be switched to silent, but it is interfering with Hansard. Those members who are in the Chamber, please check, and any member listening, please make sure that your mobile phone is not in the Chamber. If it is and I find it, it will be confiscated and never returned.
MOTION
Postponement of Business
Postponement of Business
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move that consideration of General Business Notice No 7 relating to a reference to the Environment and Sustainable Development Committee on the cotton industry be postponed until a later hour.
Motion agreed to.
SUMMARY OFFENCES
AMENDMENT BILL (No 2)
(Serial 232)
AMENDMENT BILL (No 2)
(Serial 232)
Bill presented and read a first time.
Ms CARNEY (Araluen): Madam Speaker, I move that the bill be now read a second time.
Madam Speaker, this bill has four main parts to it. First, it defines various restricted substances, such as petrol, glue, paint and solvents. Others can be prescribed by the minister in clause 7. The definition is different and broader than the volatile substances contained in section 18 of the Misuse of Drugs Act and specifically includes paint and petrol, whereas the Misuse of Drugs Act refers to ‘paint thinner’ and ‘product derived from petroleum’. That is the difference in the two definitions.
Second, this bill makes administering restricted substances referred to in clause 6 illegal, and prescribes a $2000 fine or two year gaol term in clause 8. Clauses 8 and 9 are based on the Misuse of Drugs Act. The juvenile pre-court diversion scheme ensures that this bill is not about sending juveniles to gaol, although I will be talking more about that later.
Third, clause 11 of the bill provides the police with the power to seize, empty or destroy an open or unopened container in the possession of a person who commits an offence under clause 8.
Fourth, the bill makes the selling or prescribing of a restricted substance to someone who a person knows, or ought to know will sniff it, an offence under clause 10. This offence already exists in the Misuse of Drugs Act. However, having regard to the slight difference in the definition of the volatile substances in the Misuse of Drugs Act and the definition containing clause 6 of this bill, it was felt that it should be included, especially given that it was consistent with what we are trying to achieve with this bill in its entirety. I am keen to hear from the business community as to what, if any, difficulties they might have in relation to this part of the bill, especially clause 7 given that the minister may declare other substances to be illegal in future. However, the fact is, the main elements of the bill are to provide the police with extra powers and to make sniffing illegal.
Madam Speaker, that is the bill in a nutshell. It is fairly straightforward and it is not essential that I go through it in any more detail. Although this bill is about the sniffing of volatile substances in its many forms, I do not propose to outline at length the harmful effects of sniffing these substances. This is being done on countless occasions in this parliament and, indeed, increasingly in other parliaments around the country. There have been mountains of research, inquiries, workshops, meetings, summits, strategies, etcetera, all of which are becoming a blur for many people. We know the problems and we know the effects. What we want is some solutions. The bill is not the sole answer. However, it is part of an overall package - a new direction - and that is why it has merit.
Members will recall during the last sittings, that members of the substance abuse committee spoke at some length about the effects of sniffing that members had seen first-hand. Members will recall the unusually eloquent speech made by the member for Sanderson on this issue, and one which I congratulated him for then and congratulate him for again. The member for Sanderson said on the 30 March, and I quote:
We need to bite the bullet on this by enacting legislation that will make petrol sniffing an offence.
I agree with him; the CLP agrees with him; and many other Territorians agree with him. The member for Sanderson supports making sniffing illegal. One of the health ministers appears to support it as well. I note with interest she has talked about legislative reform, and I welcome her comments. However, the Minister for Health has been, as I understand, fairly consistent. He does not want to make sniffing illegal, although there seems to have been on my reading of media reports something of a turnaround in the last week or so.
Having said that, though, perhaps we could all do something really different with this debate; and that is to take politics out of it so that we can discuss this bill with level heads, with the long-term interests of young Territorians governing our deliberations. I will do my best to do so, and invite members on the other side to join with me so that all of us might actually achieve an agreed outcome.
It is appropriate at this juncture, before turning to specific clauses of the bill to outline the CLP’s position paper released a couple of weeks ago in Alice Springs. The proposal has five key points to address sniffing in the Territory by combining increased enforcement methods with improved treatment options. This growing problem, we believe, can be tackled more effectively. The main points are as follows:
1. making the sniffing of petrol and other toxic substances illegal;
2. giving police powers to dispose of petrol and other toxic substances, similar to that of pouring out
alcohol that is consumed within 2 km of hotels or central business district areas;
3. develop, in conjunction with existing health services, a state-of-the-art treatment program targeting
substance abuse including sniffing, and investigating the benefits of establishing a residential rehabilitation
facility;
4. legislate to give courts the power to order sniffers to attend detoxication program; the resources for which
our CLP government would provide; and
5. legislate so that children who are sniffing can be taken into care for their own protection and so that they can
undergo treatment.
The bill before the House today deals with the first two parts of the plan; namely making sniffing illegal and giving police increased police powers. I would like to deal with one of the more apparently contentious aspects of the bill and that is giving police the power to seize and dispose of substances. Police have lacked this power in the past and the bill gives them similar powers they have in relation to alcohol. Under this bill they will be able to seize and dispose of substances; currently the police are unable to do so. In urban areas this means that when the police, or indeed a local member like me, receive phone calls from people saying they have a bunch of 20 sniffers sitting over the road from their home creating a nuisance, the police will be able to step in. At the moment sniffers are not breaking the law but under this bill the police will now at least be able to intervene and remove the substance. This is desirable for sniffers. It is a protective strategy. It is also desirable for and wanted by the people who live in the streets where sniffers congregate.
In bush areas the police are similarly powerless. When they see young people sniffing they can do little. I am however aware that some police in the bush do take substances away from sniffers and tell them to stop. Currently, they are empowered to do so but they do it and they do it because they cannot sit by and watch. There is no lawful basis for them to do this but they do it anyway, and hope that no one will report their actions to senior officers. This is how desperate things have become. Police and others are stepping in.
The ability to seize and dispose is similar to what police do with alcohol. The policy was started by the CLP and Labor has not indicated that they want to change that. Hence if it is not unreasonable to dispose of alcohol within two kilometres of pubs why isn’t it appropriate to provide police with similar powers in relation to sniffers? Finally, on this point, it is noteworthy that police have been given extended powers, including the power to seize in Queensland, Western Australia and Victoria. So government and critics can be comforted by the fact that it is not just the CLP which favours this approach; other Labor states have done it albeit in somewhat different ways.
Some people who oppose this aspect of the bill insist that police do not need more powers because they can act already by reporting children at risk to the Health department to advise of children at risk pursuant to the sections of the Community Welfare Act. If that were happening regularly, and with positive outcomes, then the police would presumably have no need to step in and remove substances from those children who are sniffing. If everyone reported then we would have seen a decrease in the number of sniffers not an increase. I doubt anyone in this Chamber would believe that in bush communities a report to FACS about children sniffing would receive the attention it deserves. I doubt that many would agree that Welfare in any event or FACS is equipped to send workers to bush a community every time to deal with these children. So no, sadly, the Community Welfare Act does not of itself hold all of the answers.
It is obvious that something else needs to be done. I wish that were not the case but it is. And members of this parliament and all Territorians need to face that fact. The CLP maintains that by giving police more powers to intervene is in fact a starting point not the whole solution. While this will not work in isolation it is a start and is of assistance to police, sniffers, their families and those otherwise affected by sniffing. We know that the very best way of solving a problem like sniffing is to address the underlying problems that cause young people to sniff. But most of the time it is the police officers who are the ones who sees these kids and are expected to deal with them. They must be supported and given the right tools. We say this is one way of doing this.
Madam Speaker, it is not possible in the time I have to exhaust every point in favour of this proposal. However, I hope that I have demonstrated that there exists some strong arguments in support of this part of the bill, namely to give police the power to seize substances from sniffers, and in the process perhaps I have rebutted some of the arguments that exist in opposition to this proposal.
I now turn to another part of the bill that does not have universal support either and that is making sniffing illegal, and that is proposed in clause 8 of the bill. The CLP believes that sniffing is at a point where it should be made illegal and there are many reasons for this. First and foremost, a strong message must be sent to those who sniff dangerous substances and we ask why it is not reasonable to send a message to sniffers. In our society the community expresses its displeasure and abhorrence about a number of matters. The most obvious example in the context of this debate is drug taking. We express our disdain for a number of reasons but mainly because this activity is harmful. Why on earth then would not we then send the same message in the case of sniffing dangerous substances? Is it the case that we say to young people that taking drugs is not okay, but feel free to fry your brains by sniffing petrol, glue and paint? Surely not. What do we say to those young people who hear endless requests, pleas and dissertations from health workers, police and other adults and then say: ‘But it is not illegal’. It is difficult to reconcile the fact that the consequences are so very harmful but people are permitted to do it. Of course, we should make it illegal. If we do not make it illegal, arguably we can all be accused of condoning it.
We know the array of arguments against making sniffing illegal. We have read the literature and we know that some people and experts generally think that you should not make sniffing illegal. My parliamentary colleagues and my party have considered this issue at length and we have resolved that, on balance, the better case is to make it illegal. However, this has not been an easy decision. We believe that there are potential benefits and on that basis alone, we now press the issue in the form of this bill. We know that there are no quick solutions and we know the area is a complex one, but the stakes are high and it is worth doing and certainly little else appears to be working.
At Mt Liebig in Central Australia, I am told that the community is using the Trespass Act to get sniffers out of their community. They are telling sniffers to go away. In other communities, people want to use the council’s by-laws to ban sniffers. Indeed, over the years, some communities have called for the right to make sniffing illegal. I mention this to illustrate that many people and many communities actually have different views and the issue of making sniffing illegal is not new. It is not the case that all Aboriginal people or communities are opposed to this. There is a divergence of views.
We think it should be made illegal, and this bill has created a debate that Territorians should have. Certainly, the Police Commissioner is of that view as well. Another argument in support of making it illegal is that it is inconsistent to make the selling and supply of products illegal, whether it is in this bill or, as things presently stand, in the Misuse of Drugs Act and not to make administering it to people illegal. If it is illegal to sell or supply to sniffers, surely common sense dictates that the act of doing it should be illegal as well.
There are many good and different reasons why it should be made illegal, although I have just cited a few. There are as many objections to making sniffing illegal as there are reasons to make it illegal. Opponents argue that sniffing is something that should be left up to the parents and we do not need to make it illegal. The member for Braitling issued a media release dated 31 March in response to the CLP’s proposal, saying, and I quote:
Protecting the lives of the young is the responsibility of parents, the family and the community, not just the police.
We need education programmes. We would only be producing more work for the police while taking responsibility
away from parents and the community.
Such arguments, with respect, Madam Speaker, warrant a fairly basic reply: it is not working. Blair McFarland from the Central Australian Youth Link Up Service told the ABC Radio on 31 March that it is a rising problem out bush and that there is anecdotal evidence that it is on the rise in Alice Springs. I am told that it is increasing in other parts of the Territory. People have eyes and ears. We know that there are some improvements in some areas such as Yuendumu and some other communities. Certainly, there are some successful programs but, on balance, when one takes a step back, it is clear that a change in the way governments tackle the problem must be made. Action needs to be taken not only for the protection of sniffers, but also for those who are the victims of crimes they are committing. Hence, leaving it to parents and community education are no longer the answers. Perhaps they used to be, but that is not the case any more. Clearly the approaches of the past no longer work.
The second major concern about making sniffing illegal is that young people will end up in our gaols. This is not the intention of this bill and imprisonment will be the last resort. Concerns expressed over the years preceded the Juvenile Diversion Scheme. I will detail that system shortly and, in the process, will demonstrate why it is the fears of the past do not need to be expressed now.
In fact, under the CLP’s proposal, not only are juveniles unlikely to go gaol, but courts can have powers to direct that they attend treatment programmes. This is surely a win-win outcome. Some people who oppose this bill assert that the CLP’s policy is about locking kids up. That is nonsense. We understand the importance of the legal or enforcement options combined with the health or treatment options for sniffers. That is why our policy is based on the two working hand in hand. To suggest that if sniffing is made illegal, kids will go to gaol, is simplistic and misleading, and it is misleading for a number of reasons.
First, I quote: ‘The number of juveniles detained in the Territory is small.’ That is a quote from page 80 of the last crime statistics. In fact, the daily average for juveniles in gaol: ‘ranged between 14 and 27 over the period December quarter 2001 to the current quarter’. In the last quarter, 16 juveniles were in custody. I believe that this illustrates the preference for courts not to send juveniles to jail.
Second, those who say in ignorance that this policy is about locking up kids clearly do not understand what juvenile diversion is. The fact is that all juveniles who would be caught sniffing will be diverted. They will be diverted because this would be considered a minor offence. That is what happens now with minor offences, and that is what will happen in the event that sniffing is illegal. To suggest otherwise is simply wrong.
The aim of the scheme is to divert juveniles away from the formal justice system and the courts.
That is from a document which I will table shortly, from the Northern Territory Police called Juvenile Pre-court Diversion Scheme and Overview. The next quote:
The principles of the scheme are to treat young people fairly, reduce youth crime, support and involve
victims, encourage parental responsibility, foster closer police and community interaction, and foster
positive social change.
Again, that is from the police overview.
Juvenile diversion offers a number of programs. Contained elsewhere in the overview, it states that: ‘Programs associated with drug or alcohol, substance abuse education will be favoured’. Hence, juveniles will be diverted, they will not go to court, and they will be placed on or directed to programs to assist them. At present, we wait until sniffers get in trouble with the law and then the system steps in. The CLP maintains that it is entirely appropriate and entirely consistent to get these young people when they are offending, when sniffing, and divert them. In other words, this is a process that is helping them before they become entangled with the justice system as a result of their sniffing. It is a form of getting them early, and we ask, what is wrong with that. It is consistent with the ethos of early intervention. To oppose this measure is to accept that we must wait until sniffers break into houses, siphon petrol from cars, or otherwise break the law, at which point they finally come to the attention of the police. This is not a form of, to use government speak, crime prevention, something that government goes on about ad nauseam.
I would suggest that the arguments are very persuasive.
Diversion is not a let-off for juveniles. It is recognised that as part of growing up, many juveniles will make
mistakes and should be given opportunities to correct their behaviour without resorting to the formal justice
system as an early option.
Again, that is from the police overview, and I seek leave to table that.
Leave granted.
Ms CARNEY: On ABC television on 31 March, Superintendent Trevor Bell said:
In the last three months, we’ve had something like 60 reports from the public that kids are wandering the
streets sniffing petrol, glue etc. Right in the town centre, police are finding children as young as eight sniffing
petrol, glue or paint, often in broad daylight.
And the police blame a group of about 30 hardcore sniffers for a spate of local crime. They commit crimes to get money to buy petrol, then, if they do get aggressive, they assault people and commit other crimes. These kids are on a collision course with the criminal justice system. Diversion will work and, in fact, is well suited to sniffers. If anyone says that juvenile diversion will not work, then they undermine the whole system of diversion, and implicitly they favour a policy of simply locking everyone up. Those people must account to the hard working police officers who work in the area of juvenile diversion, and must say to them, we have no faith in your system. Surely not even opponents of this bill would do that.
In essence, what I have said so far can be summarised in the following way. Police must be given some help, police are not able to get rid of substances, and they want to, and they need to. In the bush, they are already doing it. The Community Welfare Act is not enough and the case is compelling for this part of the bill.
Second, sniffing should be made illegal. A clear message should be sent to the people who do it that it is illegal. Some communities want it, some do not, but we are set to change the direction given the increase of sniffing in the Northern Territory. There is an inconsistency with the Misuse of Drugs Act. If it is illegal to sell and supply, we say it should be illegal to use. Education is not enough. In addition, these kids will not go to gaol although many of them are, in fact, colliding with the criminal justice system. Whether government or other critics accept it or not, the reality is that sniffers, in the majority, are heading for gaol. Our policy is not about locking them up, but it is a last resort. I say again that those who insist that the CLPs policy is about locking up children - they do not understand what juvenile diversion is.
The foregoing represents the main reasons we argue in support of the bill. In the context of debate about drugs and young people, it is appropriate that I refresh members’ memories of the appalling pictures on the front of the NT News on 1 April of a five-year-old smoking dope. The Territory community was appalled, and it even received national exposure. Days later, another article detailed what the minister and her department had planned to do with that family and those children. I wonder what the reaction would have been had those photos been of five-year-old and six-year-old Aboriginal kids sniffing petrol, glue, or paint. I note that everyone became quite agitated when little white kids smoking dope appeared on the front page of the paper, yet we know kids the same age - mainly Aboriginal kids - are doing as much damage - arguably more - with other substances.
If this bill is not supported in one way or the other, I will always wonder whether things might have been different if the front page of the NT News had photos of little black kids sniffing petrol, glue, or paint. Perhaps that might get us, as a community and as a parliament, moving instead of seemingly devoting a great deal of time and energy thinking up ways not to act, not to make sniffing illegal, and not to give police the powers to take dangerous substances away from sniffers.
In conclusion, we are aware of the wealth of research about sniffing and what can be done about it. We have chosen not to go through all of the research and the many views in this debate because we know what it is and we know that there are conflicting views. It is possible that in response government will throw some of the research from the some of the experts at us, and rely on those experts when arguing, if it does, that sniffing should not be made illegal. We can go tit-for-tat, but we have elected not to from the outset because shopping for experts to support a view wastes too much time and achieves little in the context of such a serious debate.
We propose this bill because very little appears to be working. Sniffing is not new, but it is getting worse. Certainly, there are some encouraging results in some communities, but they are relatively minor when one steps back and looks at the big picture across the Northern Territory. Notwithstanding all of the money, the programs and the views expressed by many people with varying degrees of expertise, the facts are inescapable: things are grim and probably getting worse.
Surely, we ask, this proposal is worth doing at least on a trial basis. I ask: what do we have to lose? The answer is a generation of young people who are likely, one way or another, to end up in the criminal justice system; a generation at risk of dying before our very eyes; a generation of young people who will become even more marginalised while causing despair and destruction in their communities and to others affected directly by their behaviours. That is what we have to lose if we do not act. We cannot sit by and leave the problem alone in the belief that things are working when, on balance, they are not. We cannot sit by and hope that sniffers and their families can fix the problem alone. We cannot sit by and watch the statistics increase. We cannot sit by and watch more young Aboriginal people kill themselves by sniffing, or watch as young people get involved in the justice system. We must act. This bill is not the sole answer, but it is a start and new direction.
I will conclude by quoting what I regard as one of the most important speeches made in this parliament since I was elected:
The list of statistics demonstrating the dysfunction in our indigenous communities is staggering. So much so
that counting them here in any detail would be pointless. There have been a thousand reports and a hundred
inquiries to the point where it is easy to become numb to the reality and incapable of acting. However, we must
not remain numb or blind. We must act.
Madam Speaker, they are the words of the Minister for Community Development made on the 7 March 2002 in this Chamber. He told it how it is. I agree with his sentiments and I know my colleagues do as well. Indeed we must act and I implore the government members to support him, to support the member for Sanderson, to support the CLP, and to support the Territorians affected by sniffing, and finally to support an act in the best interest of all Territorians by supporting the bill. If government members are not persuaded by my words, perhaps they might look to the words of their own, namely the Minister for Community Development, and do something. We can act and we must act and all members can act by supporting the bill and I implore them to do so.
Debate adjourned.
ORDER OF BUSINESS
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I move that consideration of General Business Notice No. 9 relating to references of explanatory memoranda/statements be postponed until later hour.
Motion agreed to.
TRAFFIC AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 124)
(Serial 124)
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, before I withdraw my Traffic Amendment Bill, I would just like to thank the government for introducing its own Traffic Amendment Bill which was based on the Traffic Amendment Bill which I introduced in February 2003. I would just like to say to the Minister for Primary Industries and Fisheries whilst he did believe that a ABC reporter had initiated this bill, I certainly had it well and truly in hand before that happened. It has certainly been an issue that had arisen over many years on local government and the number of complaints I received about hooning especially on gravel roads was quite considerable. There was, of course, an opportunity, being an independent member, to introduce a bill which would outlaw those sort of practices and that is where this bill originated from.
I am pleased that the government has taken this bill on. I am also pleased that the opposition has supported it and therefore the support in this parliament has been unanimous. Of course, that makes my bill redundant and therefore I move that General Business Orders of the Day No 1 relating to Traffic Amendment Bill 2003 (Serial 124) be withdrawn.
Motion agreed to.
SENTENCING AMENDMENT BILL
(Serial 126)
(Serial 126)
Continued from 13 August 2003.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling)(by leave): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that General Business Orders of the Day relating to consideration of the Sentencing Amendment Bill 2003 (Serial 126) standing in my name be postponed until a later date.
If I continue with this bill today, the government has indicated that it will defeat it. Rather than do that, I prefer to keep it alive and work with the government on several measures aimed at ensuring that the intent of the bill is achieved so that Aboriginal women and girls are heard in the court process.
This bill was drafted after the Northern Territory Supreme Court sentenced a 49 year old Aboriginal man to 24 hours in jail for sexual assaulting a 15 year old girl, his promised wife. It was my aim to ensure that a sentence such as the one in the Pascoe case never arose again.
I remind members that the main purpose of this amendment was to provide for Aboriginal girls in the Northern Territory the same protection under law as other girls. I want them to have clear and unambiguous protection under our laws. At this moment, many assaults are never reported for the simple reason that there seems to be little justice for young women and girls if they do go ahead. I have received support from the wider community for this bill but, more importantly, from many Aboriginal people - not just Aboriginal women, but Aboriginal men who have decided that the interests of aboriginal women and girls should become a priority.
The strongest indication of support came from ATSIC last year when they decided not to fund the Pascoe appeal to the High Court because the case conflicted with its Family Violence policy. ATSIC’s then Northern Queensland Commissioner, Lionel Quartermaine, said ATSIC did support customary law and the defendant’s right for appeal, but that the rights of women and children came first.
The YMCA in Darwin welcomed the ATSIC decision saying and I quote:
No means no, no matter what the age or relationship.
It is important to remember that when the 15 year old girl tried to leave Pascoe’s camp, he fired shots in the air to deter her. The announcement that ATSIC would not fund the appeal came on top of the decision by a national ATSIC committee. The Committee on Social and Physical Wellbeing came out in support of my bill, saying the child had to come first in any conflict between Aboriginal and the wider Australian law and that Aboriginal girls under 16 should have the same protection as other Australian girls.
The NPY Women’s Council also supports this bill. The Council is made up of women from across border communities in the Territory, South Australia and Western Australia. It includes representatives from the Territory’s Docker River and the Finke communities. The women commented and I quote:
We are all too aware of the abuse that is inflicted on children and young girls in their community.
They also said that one of the main objectives of the Council’s domestic violence service was to ensure that the Australian legal system protected Aboriginal women and girls from violence. I question whether the legal system does that at the moment.
The Chief Minister’s own Domestic Violence and Aboriginal Family Violence Advisory Council recommended that the Chief Minister support this bill. The council met on June 13 last year and, according to the minutes of that meeting, it had a long discussion on aspects of customary law that relate to the protection of women and children. Members were concerned that the Northern Territory courts appeared willing to accept evidence from Aboriginal male defendants and their lawyers on aspects of customary law that mitigated sexual offences against children. Members of the advisory council noted that this sent a negative message to children, young women and to the police officers who take the initial complaints and investigate such matters.
The council recommended to the Chief Minister that the courts in the Territory not take into account any evidence or arguments about Aboriginal customary law when sentencing an offender found guilty of a sexual offence involving a child under the age of 16. That is the important aspect of this bill. It relates only to a sexual offence against a minor. I am not arguing that all customary law claims should be negated, and I have not been arguing that traditional marriage should be outlawed.
I have presented to parliament the views of the largest Aboriginal women’s council in the Territory, the NPY, and the views of ATSIC. These two representative bodies support this legislation and so I am reluctant to abandon them. It is very difficult for Aboriginal women to make their voices heard. Some legal services and land councils have ignored them, although very recent developments in a land council meeting indicate that things may be changing and that women may be having a stronger voice. Coincidentally, the issue under discussion was promised marriages.
In its submission to the Territory’s Inquiry into Aboriginal Customary Law the Federal Human Rights Commission said this:
Of all the identical groups of women whose concerns have been presented to the commission, Aboriginal
women are the least well served by the legal system.
The Commission concluded that the mainstream institutions and processes needed to make the views of Aboriginal women central in relation to recognising Aboriginal customary law. The Attorney-General has acknowledged that problems have arisen where Aboriginal women have not had the opportunity to place their views before the court. With the Pascoe case, this was indeed the problem, leading to my conclusion that the court was supporting the rights of the man to the detriment of the girl’s rights. The Attorney-General said in November that work had begun on implementing a case by case approach to ensure that the human rights of the victim would be upheld. He also said the case by case approach might involve the development of legislation that would regulate the way in which courts were informed about customary law issues and the sentencing process, and the way in which courts would test customary law claims.
The Pascoe case restarted the debate on the relationship between Aboriginal customary law and criminal law. Since then, the government has removed the defence of traditional marriage and that, might I say, was a very good thing, but that was not the problem thrown up by the Pascoe case. The man pleaded guilty to having sex with a minor. He pleaded guilty, and then argued for mitigation, or a lesser sentence, on the grounds of his traditional marriage. The Attorney-General has made it clear the government will continue to support the presentation of customary law claims during the sentencing process.
I do not necessarily agree with the reasons for his position, but I have been advised that my bill might breach the Racial Discrimination Act, or even long-established sentencing principles. As I do not have a legal background, and for these legal reasons, but also because of the strong support I have received for this bill, I am looking forward to working with the Attorney-General and women’s representatives to come up with concrete processes that will address this problem in other ways, so that evidence of customary law presented to the court is properly tested, so that the victim’s view is always heard in the court, and so that the woman’s view of the customary law claim is heard too.
I wish to defer this bill rather than have it defeated, so that I can be assured the government is sincere in what it claims to do, and the results of their actions will be of benefit to the young women and girls found in this dilemma. Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that the bill be deferred.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, this bill provides for an amendment to the Sentencing Act so that the court can not have regard to any Aboriginal customary law when it sentences an offender found guilty of a sexual offence against a child under the age of 16 years.
The staff from my office and the Department of Justice recently met with the member for Braitling to discuss some of the legal issues in the bill, and identified a number of problems. These problems include that the bill would have a discriminatory effect as it would only exclude the customary beliefs of one particular group in our society, as it is only directed against Aboriginal customary law, and not other types of customary law. This runs counter to high court decisions, and I am advised that this bill, were it passed into law, might be subject to legal challenge. The bill also fails to recognise that, in some cases, customary law can be considered an aggravating factor as well as the mitigating circumstances that led the member to bring this proposed legislation forward. We have proposed that we take the following course of action.
Like the member for Braitling, the government recognises that there are cases where claims of customary law in criminal proceedings can disadvantage Aboriginal women and children who are too often the victims of violence and sexual offences. This can occur where custom or tradition is distorted to suit the needs of the more powerful members of the community, or may be involved in committing offences against weaker members of the community. We also recognise that Aboriginal customary law does not always provide an adequate response to violence against women and children, and that customary law has been used by people accused of violence to excuse or minimise their actions.
Mr ELFERINK: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker! Just a procedural thing, and I am not sure what is going on here, I heard the member for Braitling say that she moved that the bill be deferred. I am listening carefully.
Dr TOYNE: And I am speaking to that motion.
Mr Elferink: You are speaking to the motion?
Dr TOYNE: Yes.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: Please continue.
Dr TOYNE: The views of Aboriginal women and children on these issues are not always properly argued or put before the courts. The government recognises that these are the issues driving the member for Braitling, and we agree these issues must be resolved. We cannot agree to this bill in its current form, however. We will work with the member for Braitling and other opinion offerers on researching and developing a legislative response to the issues including the application, quality and effectiveness of evidence concerning customary law. We will particularly be looking at ways to ensure Aboriginal women have the opportunity to put their views to the court. The overriding principle will be that Aboriginal women and children have a right to equal treatment by the law. I know that that is at the heart of the concern of the member for Braitling, and I certainly share the same concerns. I hope to be able to bring forward a response, developed and agreed to by the member for Braitling and other stakeholders during the second half of this year.
Motion agreed to; bill postponed.
CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT BILL (No 3)
(Serial 173)
(Serial 173)
Continued from 26 November 2003.
Dr TOYNE (Justice and Attorney-General): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, this bill would create an offence in the Criminal Code of manufacturing, selling, offering to sell, purchasing or possessing any dog or cat fur product in the Northern Territory. The bill would also provide a defence where the fur was obtained entirely from a feral animal. The bill is meant to be a deterrent to the international trade in cat and dog fur, which involves breeding and killing animals in captivity in inhumane or cruel circumstances.
There are several problems with the bill. These include that, first, it still does not and cannot address the main deterrent to this cruel international trade; that is, controls on the import of such fur. This is within the legislative power of the Commonwealth, and I am informed that the federal Minister for Justice and Customs is currently considering this issue.
A second problem is that a comprehensive, consistent approach is required to really address the issue at a national level. At the moment, no other jurisdiction in Australia has prohibited the possession, manufacture or sale of dog or cat fur.
A third issue is that there are some technical problems with the bill itself. For example, there is a defence available where the fur was obtained from a feral animal. This aspect of the bill might prove unworkable as, in many cases, it is likely to be difficult for the prosecution to determine whether the fur was from a feral animal or not.
In the November sittings last year, this bill was deferred whilst we sought the advice of the NT Animal Advisory Committee established under the Animal Welfare Act. One of the roles of that committee is to advise my colleague, the Minister for Local Government, about animal welfare issues and legislation. I am advised by minister Ah Kit that the federal government is still in the process of considering the issue of whether it will ban dog and cat fur imports, and will most likely opt for stringent labelling laws. The federal Minister for Justice and Customs has initiated consultation with other ministerial colleagues, including Hon Warren Truss MP, federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, and a whole-of-government approach has been developed to effectively address this issue.
The Animal Welfare Advisory Committee has advised minister Ah Kit that it does not consider there is currently a problem within the NT. Domestic dogs and cats are not in danger here, on their judgment. Further, the AWAC believes Commonwealth legislation is the most effective way to deal with imports. The Commonwealth is currently looking at amendments to its Customs Prohibited Imports Regulations, which would prohibit the importation of this fur. Commonwealth legislation would ensure uniformed coverage around Australia and stop the importations where it would be most effective; and that is at the borders. Given the developments towards national uniform laws, the advice of AWAC and the technical problems with the bill, the government opposes the bill now before parliament.
Ms CARTER (Port Darwin): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to thank and congratulate the member for Goyder for making the effort and pursuing this issue on behalf of Territorians and the domestic animals that we have here in the Northern Territory and those that also live overseas.
Unfortunately, it has become very obvious to us, and you only have to go to places like Mindil Beach markets to understand that in other countries in particular, domestic dogs and cats are being bred for their fur. I have been unfortunate enough to see some television footage of the sort of conditions in which they are kept while the breeding and growing is occurring. It is, for those of use who do hold our domestic pets in some level of esteem, terribly distressing to realise that cats and dogs were being kept for this purpose. Often to be killed the animal has its neck wrung which once again seems a fairly cruel way of causing the death of the animal. And quite frankly, the products that are then produced by this process and imported into Australia are really quite pointless products: a furry key ring, a fluffy doorstop, nothing much of any real use to human beings. Australians do not need these products.
It is not like we are so destitute that we need to import cheap animal skins because we need warm clothing, or that we need to import cat and dog meat for food because we are so destitute because that is all that we can afford, if it was in fact cheap as a product. We in Australia do not need these products and we should not encourage this activity occurring overseas by importing them and purchasing them once they turn up in our country. Quite frankly, these are gross products and they should offend the sensibilities of all modern Australians because it is a fact that we do hold our domestic animals, and in particular cats and dogs, at a level of esteem. For most Australians who have a cat or dog, that animal becomes part of their family and they know through the interactions that they have with their pets that these animals have little personalities. They have their own way of doing things. I note that the member for Goyder has arrived with a sample of this sort of thing from the Mindil Beach markets.
It is a very serious situation and it is very sad to see product like that available here in Darwin. I am sure anyone who actually has access to that product will realise that it once was a small cat. We do hold these animals in esteem in our lives and for people like me who do; it is quite unfortunate and sad to see that other people in other cultures are happy to exploit these animals to the maximum in a cruel and inhumane way.
I will be supporting this bill. One of the reasons I will be doing that is because we as human beings need to think about the animals which are in our control. We have power in many cases over animals, for example, the buffalo, the cattle, the sheep in southern Australia, cats and dogs. Human beings work to control animals and because of that we have a responsibility to them to treat them with respect and to treat them with care and to do all that we can to reduce cruelty to them. We may enjoy a steak sandwich or a sausage at a barbecue. We may well be carnivores or herbivores or omnivores but when we choose to eat meat, I am certain all of us eat meat with the knowledge that the animal was kept and then killed in a humane way, and I believe that in the vast majority of cases they are. But when you see the television footage of how these cats and dogs are kept the last thing you could ever imagine at any strength of the imagination is that what is happening to them is any way humane. I believe we do have a responsibility to the animals which do come under our control to treat them in a humane way and with an element of respect.
I certainly urge all members to support the bill. It would be pretty sad that members from across the chamber do not support it. I would like to again congratulate again the member for Goyder for bringing this to our attention. We all know he is a very keen supporter of the RSPCA in the Northern Territory and has worked for them on a pro bono basis over the years off and on. I am sure that the RSPCA appreciate the support that he has given them.
We have heard from the minister just now the reasons why the government is not going to be able to support this bill, and a number of those reasons seem quite sensible. I hope that the government is able, over time to come, to work in with other jurisdictions and the federal government with regards to imports, to come up with some sort of a system that will preclude the importation of these unnecessary and inhumanly grown products.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Speaker, I remember when the member for Goyder came into this place and did his second reading speech. There was much mirth and laughing and joking on the other side of the house and the Leader of government business thought: ‘Oh, what a joke! 101 Dalmatians!’ and they laughed at the member for Goyder for presenting the bill.
What the members opposite were going to learn a short time later was that there were people in the gallery, as I understand it at that time, who were representatives of the RSPCA and they were less than entirely delighted with the attitude of members opposite. I know in is this Chamber from time to time, you are inclined to have a bit of a joke at the expense of your political opponents, but we have to consider that there are people who actually take some of this stuff particularly seriously.
The fact that there are no longer jokes and mirthful laughs coming from the other side of the House indicates that they understand that there are people who do take this sort of stuff seriously. At least the members opposite have learnt to keep those sorts of jokes to themselves if that is the way they think because they know that there is political damage that can be caused when you start laughing and joking about matters that other people take very seriously. That is a lesson for all members, not just members opposite.
The argument from the Attorney-General as to why this should not happen included several reasons, the first one I want to concentrate on is when he said this is something for the federal government in terms of importing stuff. This is a federal issue. That is true, but that does not prevent us as a jurisdiction trying to kill the marketplace off in this jurisdiction.
If we were to pursue the logic of the Attorney-General in relation to this, then the possession of child pornography should not be an offence in this jurisdiction. But it is, and why? Because we are trying to kill the marketplace in the Territory. It is often produced overseas. In fact, I believe that it is exclusively produced outside of this jurisdiction and it is imported, illegally, into this country through breach of federal legislation. That process of importing is rightfully illegal because it is disgusting stuff. But that does not prevent this parliament tyring to make an item illegal inside this jurisdiction and just because the member for Goyder is asking that this parliament becomes the leader in the community on this issue, that we will be the first in Australia to ban these products because we do not like the way these animals are treated when they are being grown up for the purposes of being killed. Surely, we should not be scared of being leaders. Do we need a national agreement every time that we want to introduce legislation in our jurisdiction? Surely, the purpose of the whole federal system is that different jurisdictions can take different approaches to certain issues. Do we need a hand shake and permission from the federal government before we make a decision in relation to something like this? I would like to think not because it defeats the purpose of federalism in its very essence if we need to go cap in hand to the federal government every time we want to pass a bill.
In fact, we have remonstrances on the books of this House, taking it to the federal parliament and trying to stick it up them because they have taken actions against the wishes of this parliament and it has happened more than once. We have done it before. All the member for Goyder is asking is let s do it again, let’s not be afraid of this.
The Attorney-General said: ‘Oh, we do not like the shape of the bill. It has a few problems’. Where are your amendments? Surely, if you say the idea is not too bad but there are problems with the structure, I take it there has been a contact with the member for Goyder, saying: ‘Look, we would like to take this on and we would like to make some amendments because we have a few functional problems with the way the bill operates’.
Mr Maley: No contact.
Mr ELFERINK: No contact, I presume. But even so, if there was or was not contact, if the government does not disagree with the idea, but they do have problems with the technical nature of the bill, then it is a case of just bringing in a few amendments. I am sure that even if the Attorney-General said, we have a problem with the structure of this because it has a few problems attached to it, but we think the idea is workable and we bring this amendment, I am sure on the floor of this House the member for Goyder would say, fine. Not a problem in the world, we can easily accommodate you, Mr Attorney-General. I would have liked some sort of communication about this beforehand, but what is the intent of the bill. The intent of the bill is stop animals in cages in South-East Asia living in despicable situations, and being brought up in despicable situations, because there is a marketplace for it in the Northern Territory. That is what this bill is attempting to do.
How do those animals live? Well, they live in tiny little cages. A pussy cat, sweet little pussy cat, spends its whole life from being a kitten onwards, living in its own urine and faeces, in a cage probably six inches by six inches by 12 inches. Then what happens to that cat when it has been spending all its time living in one cage of many hundreds? Well, it has to share its partner’s faeces and the urine of the other cages around it and, of course, if it is on the bottom cage it cops everything from the top and it is a despicable, disgusting way for any creature to live. And probably the greatest mercy that is ever brought to bear upon these animals is their eventual death.
I am no great hard-core greenie by any stretch of the imagination, in fact, on numerous occasions in my life I have been hunting. I certainly have no love for feral animals. But, at the end of the day, just suffering of that nature, for an industry to produce, what, dead cat fur caps that you can buy in the marketplace, some mock-up of a cat made out of real cat fur. It is just bizarre. And these things are available in the Northern Territory. There is no point for the Attorney-General to come in here and say, look at this sort of marketplace does not exist, well it does exist. It is here. And where do these things get produced? They get produced in South-East Asia. Is it an offence to import them? No, it is not. So, we cannot do anything about that. We cannot charge excises of that nature as a state. We cannot put tariffs or anything else on these products. The only thing we can do as a jurisdiction is prevent the marketplace from occurring, in the same way that we as a jurisdiction prevent child pornography being sold, or bestial pornography being sold, we are simply saying that this particular act, bestial act if you like, is also something that we want to remove from our shop shelves or from our marketplace. And that is what the member for Goyder is trying to achieve.
The government has not stood up in here and said we dislike the idea, we just dislike the form. But because we do not like the form, we are going to ignore the whole thing altogether. Well, that is a shame. Because if this government was serious about doing something about this, they would have brought in some amendments and those amendments would have reflected the intent of the member for Goyder. The government could have claimed them as their own, as they have done with so many other bits of legislation, like hooning legislation, fire setting legislation and the like, I mean, let them claim it as their own. But I do not want to see the marketplace for these products exist in the Northern Territory, and as a result of this government’s decision here today, that is exactly what is going to continue to exist. Damn shame.
Mr MALEY (Goyder): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I am indebted to the member for Port Darwin and the member for Macdonnell for their supportive comments. I am also indebted to my friends at the RSPCA and also the members of the Humane Society who have been contacting me. I spoke about this bill with them at length, and the numerous e-mails of support certainly do not go unnoticed.
In relation to what the Attorney-General has said, it is a tragedy sometimes that this particular government and this particular Attorney-General does not take the time to look at the bill himself, as opposed to reading blindly what exists as some sort of cheat sheet which is placed before him. If he had read it himself he would have realised that the bill quite clearly states, in the first paragraph:
A person who manufactures, sells or offers for sale, purchases or possesses any dog or cat fur product in the
Territory is guilty of an offence and is liable to imprisonment for 2 years.
Then it goes on to some defensive provisions. The bill is really aimed at the Northern Territory and, though there was some reference in my second reading speech to the international trade, of course, there has to be legislation by the federal government. This bill deals with the possession, the sale and the purchase and manufacture of these types of products in the Northern Territory at a local level. Therefore, his first reason for not supporting the bill is without grounds and clearly erroneous.
Second, the bill is distilled from the Dog and Cat Protection Act 2000 from the United States, and I am indebted to members of the Parliamentary Counsel for their help in drafting it. To come in and say: ‘I am not happy with some of the technical aspects to it’, when you will not actually point out what they are suggest any amendments, is really a pathetic cop-out. The second reason the government has said, on behalf of all Territorians, why they will not support this bill, is because nobody else is doing it - it is being considered, but no one else is doing it at this stage. Well, that is pathetic. If the government had adopted that attitude when the Motor Accidents Compensation Act was introduced, then that would not have occurred. At some stage, someone has to take the lead. At some stage, someone has to have enough vision and forethought to say: ‘Okay, this type of conduct we think is reprehensible, and here is a piece of legislation which will send out the message that it is completely unacceptable’.
We have heard this government say tort law reform has occurred interstate and we will follow and, whilst there are a whole heap of measures we are going to introduce which may not be strictly applicable to the Northern Territory, it sends out the right message. That was the rationale for introducing a number of provisions relating to doctors saying sorry and all that and, yet, one of the rationales the government now uses is: ‘We do not think it is a problem up here, therefore we are not going to take it any further’. Well, in my right hand I have what seems to be fairly accurate evidence that something seems to be going on up here. Whilst I have not conducted a DNA test to confirm whether this is a real cat pelt, it looks to be real. I am told that was purchased at the Mindil Beach Market. Somebody in the Northern Territory is marketing a cat fur product. Clearly, if that was a domestic cat and this particular bill was supported by the government, it would make that type of conduct illegal and unlawful and send the right message out.
Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, the bill was introduced by me on 13 August 2003, and there was a second reading speech. Then, in November 2003, the Attorney-General, on one of the opposition’s rare General Business Days, quite reasonably said he agreed with the sentiment of the bill and, at face value, he was certainly sympathetic to what the opposition was trying to do. He gave an undertaking to me that the matter would be referred to a committee which was conducting some sort of review of the Animal Welfare Act and that, when that committee had looked at it and made a decision of the precise form it was going to take, he was going to allow me to sponsor that particular bill into parliament and, in a bipartisan way, the bill would receive support.
Well, I have heard absolutely nothing from the Attorney-General. I wrote a letter to him very recently, asking what the status of the review was and whether the committee had come to any conclusions. I received absolutely no response to that. I erroneously went back to the RSPCA and said: ‘I am surprised, but it seems the Attorney-General and the government are not trying to gazump the opposition with political expediency. They seem to be saying this is a reasonable issue and I believe there might be a situation where there might be some sort of bipartisan support’. They were, quite frankly, happy with that and, credit where credit is due, I said: ‘You are in government and, of course, the government has more resources than the opposition, and it is probably not an unreasonable request for the Attorney-General to say that we put it through the committee stage, and make sure the form is right so that, at the end of the day they are with us and support us’. I gave the Attorney-General some credit for that. I gave him credit publicly for that and despite the fact that some members of the government were laughing and jeering and making fun of this issue when it was first brought to parliament on 13 August 2003, the members of the RSPCA who attended the meeting were comforted to hear that at least the government on a more serious note were taking the issues seriously.
Well, it just goes to show that that expectation that has been created has been dashed like many other expectations this government creates in the minds of the community, because come D-day, the minister stands up and parrots off a very poorly written and short response as to why the government will not support the bill. He dismisses the bill in a cavalier fashion. Coupled with that, he is technically wrong with what he said. His rationale for not supporting it is just outrageous, it is wrong. It just smacks off contempt for the system, contempt for the members of the RSPCA and the Humane Society who actually put a fair bit of work into this. It has been published on their Australia-wide web that the local Northern Territory government is leading the way here, they are having a crack at this, and really to say that no one else has done is pathetic, and a let down.
You would find a number of other jurisdictions who are currently looking at this precise problem would have followed the Northern Territory’s lead. That is not going to happen and that is a very sad indictment on the current Labor government. It is just another example where they have deliberately created an expectation. They have abused the trust which the Territory people have placed in them. I expect that the people who are interested in this bill will remember the way they have been treated in relation to this very important topic.
The Assembly divided:
Ayes 11 Noes 12
Mr Baldwin Mrs Aagaard
Mr Burke Mr Ah Kit
Ms Carney Mr Bonson
Ms Carter Dr Burns
Mr Dunham Mr Henderson
Mr Elferink Mr Kiely
Dr Lim Ms Lawrie
Mr Maley Mr McAdam
Mrs Miller Ms Scrymgour
Mr Mills Mr Stirling
Mr Wood Dr Toyne
Mr Vatskalis
Motion negatived.
LIQUOR AMENDMENT BILL (No 3)
(Serial 189)
(Serial 189)
Continued from 26 November 2003.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I move that General Business Orders of the Day No 4 relating to the Liquor Amendment Bill (No 3) be withdrawn.
Members will recall that in November last year, the government adopted the amendments that were included in this bill.
Motion agreed to; bill withdrawn.
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY MEMBERS (RANDOM DRUG TESTING) BILL
(Serial 199)
(Serial 199)
Continued from 26 November 2003.
Mr HENDERSON (Business and Industry): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, the government will not be supporting this bill for a number of reasons that I will go through, but, first and foremost, government sees this bill as nothing other than a cheap political stunt by the member for Drysdale and members opposite.
Why do we see this as a cheap political stunt? Simply because taking illicit substances is illegal in the Northern Territory. If any member of this House has any evidence that any member of this parliament is taking illicit substances, that member has an obligation to report that observation to the police for investigation. That is the bottom line.
Why this parliament would seek to create a regime whereby the bar the is lower for members of parliament and, via a testing regime, that members of this House could be referred, on a positive test, to the Privileges Committee is something that we do not support. If any member of this parliament is using illegal substances, they should be reported to the police and if the police believe they have sufficient evidence, then that member should see their day in court and be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, not by a committee of politicians. We see this as a complete political stunt and it is one that we do not support.
The member for Drysdale admits that he has no knowledge or information that drug use is a problem in this Chamber. Why would we go about creating a regime in order to halt a practice when, by his own admission, there is no knowledge or information of the practice being prevalent in this Chamber. This is an attempt of making laws for the sake of making laws for a headline for a member of parliament. Already, it has cost the taxpayer money because, not only does Parliamentary Counsel have to waste time drafting this legislation responsibly, we have had the police do some work on the cost of administering this particular piece of legislation if it were to come to pass, and advice from police is that drug testing from a person’s blood supply as provided for in the bill can only be performed by a doctor or a nurse. The costs for laboratory tests alone would be about $500 each.
We are talking, subject to annual and random tests, plus the cost of the doctor to administer, administration, we are talking in excess of $60 000 per annum to administer a process for which the proponent of this bill is on the public record saying he has no knowledge or information that drug use is a problem in this Chamber. So we are not going to commit taxpayers money, time and effort, effort not only from people to collect blood samples, but the Clerk of this Assembly, who has a lot of important work to do to other than run around and arrange blood tests from 25 members of parliament once a year, we are not going to do it because, on his own admission, if it is not broken why would we try and fix something.
However, the bottom line here is that this is a government that takes illicit drug use very seriously. We have addressed a raft of legislation to give police the powers. The previous government refused to give them, such as witness protection legislation.. They did not even acknowledge that we had a significant problem in our community, to close down drug houses, to seize the assets of people who profit from the proceeds of running drugs in our community. The police are doing a great job, but to create an act of parliament that compels members in this House to a random drug testing regime when there is absolutely no evidence that it is a problem in this place, and to commit the taxpayer to the tune of $50 000 or $60 000 a year to administer a pointless exercise is something that the government is not convinced is a priority for Territorians.
The proposal would see a doctor or nurse, and a parliamentary official, spending over $60 000 a year. It is hard to fathom what the CLP is trying to achieve. Is it seeking to make a point? Are they seeking to make a point that we welcome the advent of random drug testing in the Northern Territory if it is politicians first, who is next? Will it be public servants? The whole concept of random drug testing, where it does take place, out in the community, on mine sites, or amongst the ADF, and certainly out at Bechtel at the moment, is that from an employer’s point of view, in their duty of care to the employee, and in providing a safe workplace, that, when working in a hazardous occupation that any taking or consumption of an illicit substance which may impair your capacity to do the job you are employed to do, not only endangers yourself as an individual, but also endangers your work colleagues. That is something, quite rightly, that a responsible employer’s supported by unions, I have to say, believe has no place in a workplace and that is the reason for the random regime.
It is not a case of double standards, one rule for blue collar workers, and one rule for white collar politicians; it is purely a principle in this place. Yes, we have to make decisions, and we have to be of clear mind when we make those decisions but, if, for example, there was one member of this House who was under the influence of any substance, whether it be alcohol or an illicit substance, the capacity for that one individual to pass legislation that would have a detrimental impact on the Northern Territory population, it just could not happen under those processes. But in a workplace, a single individual who is under the influence of alcohol or any other illicit substance, and causes an accident in that workplace, could potentially harm or kill his fellow colleagues.
There is no rationale, under any circumstance, to bring this bill before this House. There is no evidence provided by the member who is proposing this bill - and I assume he has support from his colleagues. There is no evidence that has been tendered so far that it is a problem in this particular parliament and, certainly, the criminal law should apply. The law should apply to all Territorians equally and, if members opposite have any evidence of members of this parliament indulging in drug use, then they should report that to the police and let the police deal with it, and not be dealt with by a committee of this parliament.
There is no problem, so why are we passing legislation? It is going to cost $50 000 to $60 000 a year to administer, and I am sure the taxpayer of the Northern Territory would believe that there is better things to spend that money on. The principle of why random drug testing is in place in some workplaces is all about individual safety and occupational health and safety for other employees in the workplace, and it is hard to argue that that is the bar in this particular Chamber. This is nothing short of a political stunt and the government is going to oppose it.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Absolutely fascinating, Madam Speaker. Let us go and test the quality of the argument that we have just been given by the Leader of Government Business. If I understand the Leader of Government Business correctly, because there is no perceived problem and because we do not want to apply a different standard to members of parliament than are out there in the community there is, therefore, no reason to introduce this piece of legislation or pass this bill before us today, because we have no evidence of a problem.
Well, I am pleased to hear that because, if that is the case, then I should not have to fill out my declaration of interests form. There is no suggestion that I have every conducted myself with any impropriety in relation to my declaration of interests or any of the property that I own. Yet, there is a different standard that applies to me; there is a very different standard. That is what this issue is about before this House today.
Getting rid of facile arguments such as it is all going to cost too much; it costs $60 000. It costs $5000 an hour to run this parliament and, yet, we have no complaints about that from members opposite. Why? Because the parliamentary process is fundamental to the operation of the Northern Territory. Indeed, with the code of conduct that the members opposite are stridently trying to bring forward, it is not unreasonable to suggest that we do have different standards that apply to us. I am quite prepared, as a member of this House, to be drug tested or alcohol tested, for that matter, at any time. I can stand up here quite comfortably and say that, at not one occasion in the last six-and-a-half years that I have been a member of this House, have I ever had so much as a single drink of liquor in my system, or a single drug on board, other than caffeine, when I have been in this House. Yet, I am still prepared to subordinate myself to this, as I am prepared, quite happily, to subordinate myself to a set of rules which make me fill out my declaration of interests. Why? Because the conduct of parliaments and parliamentarians should not only be beyond reproach, but should be seen to be beyond reproach.
Is the cost of testing really that outrageous that, if we were to spend $60 000, considering the cost of running this whole Legislative Assembly, would it be that unreasonable an impost to the taxpayer to know that their parliamentarians were clean and sober when they were passing laws on behalf of the people of the Northern Territory? Absolutely not. Yet, we hear the members opposite saying: ‘No, no, no, no. You do not have to worry about their members’ conduct in here. The only thing we are really worried about in the code of conduct, this set of rules’. Well, why do we have a set of rules for one lot of things like ownership of shares, ownership of property, interest in business and those sorts of things, and not another set of rules? That is because the only thing that this government is really interested in is trawling through members’ property to see if they can catch them out in some sort of illicit deals or naughtiness.
This code of conduct should be a much broader thing if they are truly interested in conduct. They are not interested in conduct. They are only interested in discovering things about others that might be used to embarrass them. Well, I believe a code of conduct should be a much broader animal, broader in the sense that I should be subject at any time to an alcohol test or a drug test, and would be happy to at any time. I would like to be able to demonstrate to the people of the Northern Territory that I am clean and that I am sober when I am deliberating on their behalf. It is a great responsibility which has been placed upon our shoulders. What the member for Drysdale was quite rightly arguing, is that if you have a great responsibility then you have a higher level of accountability. That is the reason we have the declaration of our property and interests, and it is why we should also be able to declare that we are sober when we come into this place and we are drug free.
The minister says that the bar is being lowered by something like this. No. The bar is being raised. The test which should apply to me as a parliamentarian should be raised. That is what the member for Drysdale is suggesting; that there is going to be a higher standard for us, in the same way that our declaration of interest and our conduct should be beyond reproach, in how we deal with financial issues, share ownership, business ownership, property ownership, those sorts of things; should also apply to how we conduct ourselves out there, and we are often dragged through the press because of conduct of individual members out there. So why should not the test also apply to what is inside our systems? Now, to run the argument that it is illegal and therefore that it is already being looked after; well, it is not illegal to own shares, it is not illegal to own businesses, it is not illegal to own property, yet different standards apply. So, if this government was going to be consistent, then surely it should be consistent with the whole approach to the way it does these things.
Sports people need to be tested. Why do sports people need to be tested? Because it reflects on their conduct as sportsmen, as to whether they cheat or not. That is why sportsmen are tested. It is not a duty of care thing. It is a reasonable standard which we expect from professional sportsmen. They are then automatically tested. As a professional legislator, surely it should be reasonable that I be tested from time to time to see whether or not I am taking any substances which may affect my ability to do that job. The public have a right to know about that, as they have a right to know about what our share interests are, and what our business interests are, and what property we own. Why do they have that right to know? Because if we are making decisions in here that reflect and affect that ownership, then that needs to be declared. That is why we declare interests when we stand up.
Surely we also should be declaring our interest in being able to conduct ourselves as parliamentarians, as clean and sober people. To suggest that the member is wasting the time of Parliamentary Counsel, surely the whole purpose of this parliament is to bring forward ideas and suggestions and put them to the people of this Chamber and the people of the Northern Territory, so that ideas can be explored. Now, not every idea that comes into this Chamber is perfect. There might be drafting problems; there might be problems with the idea on a fundamental level. But that does not mean that members should say, oh, I am too afraid to bring forward an idea. That is an absurd proposition; you are wasting the time of Parliamentary Counsel if you bring in any piece of legislation that the government will not immediately accede to, so you should not waste the time of Parliamentary Counsel.
That actually puts the government ahead of the parliament regarding what happens in this place. And that is one of the downsides of the unicameral system that we have in the Northern Territory, that there is no review process. Effectively, the government is in control. The government can do whatever it pleases and the parliament is subordinate as far as the government is concerned. What happens now is that there is an attitude creeping in amongst the ministers of this government and that attitude is that the parliament is almost an irritation, and that irritation is something that needs to be dismissed, and how dismissive has this government got? Well, let us have a look. The minister talks about blood testing. Has he read this bill? Evidently not because blood testing is not in the bill. There is no mention of it.
This is an interesting thing: the minister stands up for seven minutes, says that the opposition is being irritating and wasting the time of Parliamentary Counsel and he has not even read the bill. He has not a clue what is inside this legislation. He has not even bothered to get himself briefed on it. He has not referred to any of the notes that they say often and normally refer to. As far as I am concerned, the contempt with which he deals with this parliament is reflective of the contempt that the government has for the people of the Northern Territory. Realistically, the question needs to be asked; if this government is so scared of testing members in this Chamber, really the question begs: what have you to hide? I can tell you all the members on this side of the House have no problem with it.
What really do these members opposite have to hide? What are they so scared of that they would find? They are not scared of having a look at people’s financial details, but they are certainly scared of having a look at people’s saliva and urine samples not doubt.
The government is just being a little bit too cute with this by far. They say it is a cheap political stunt. It is not a cheap political stunt; it is a genuine attempt to make sure that there are standards applied to parliamentarians so that the people of the Northern Territory can have at least a little confidence in the parliament in the Northern Territory because it is clear that this minister and the government has no confidence in this parliament of the Northern Territory and would rather be without it if they had there way.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Speaker, I want to say a few words about this bill and I should make it clear that I do not support it. That does not mean that I necessarily support the argument that the government is putting against it. I support the sentiment of the bill and understand what the member for Drysdale is trying to say, but I do not believe this is the right approach.
It was interesting listening to the member for Macdonnell talk about how one declares their interests in things. I believe that as a politician, people trust me to do the right thing, especially in matters relating to the law and if I do the wrong thing, I certainly will pay the consequences at the next election.
There is perhaps an alternative response to what the member for Drysdale is doing. I believe that it would be becoming of members of parliament perhaps voluntarily to declare that they neither use or illicit drugs, nor support or promote their use. I have said those very same words in document. I would like to table that document and have it on record. That is how I believe we should declare our non support for the use of illicit drugs.
Leave granted.
Mr WOOD: I believe that this is what is needed. Even that should be up to the individual member to declare. If I am found to have made a false declaration, I will, I am sure, pay the consequence at the next election and probably through the court system.
This would be a better way. I have argued about the Code of Conduct before because, in some ways, when it referred to a person’s personal living habits, I believe that it is the voters who will judge you on how you have conducted yourself in public, in parliament or anywhere. In the end, the voters will decide whether you are honest or not. I have no problem promoting the idea that the use of illicit drugs is a bad thing throughout our community.
I have advocated that kids, especially our young people, should be steered more into sport, music, the arts and reading and getting their high from those activities. We should be showing young people by example. It would be good if we made a public statement as members of parliament here that we oppose the use of these drugs, that we do not use them. I feel that would be sufficient. I understand where the member for Drysdale is coming from, but in this case it is overkill.
I am not really concerned about any other arguments that may come up. This is perhaps a better way of doing something on which the voters in my electorate can judge me.
Dr BURNS (Essential Services): Madam Speaker, I speak to the Legislative Assembly Members (Random Drug Testing) Bill 2003 moved by the member for Drysdale. The title of this bill purports to be about random drug testing but, as the Leader of Government Business has pointed out, it is probably more about political grandstanding by the member for Drysdale than anything else. I will deal with the second issue, after firstly looking at the important issue of random drug testing in the workplace.
Random drug testing in the workplace is a very serious and contentious issue, and although this debate centres on the workplace, I wish to once again lay my concern in relation to the harmful effects of drug use generally in our community on the Parliamentary Record. Drug abuse in our community is extremely serious, and has harmful effects at every level of society - for the individual, for family and friends, for the economy, and for particularly those workplaces where there is a direct threat of real physical danger to fellow workers or the public through alcohol or drug use. The impact of drug use on health, wellbeing and happiness is profound. In the wake of drug abuse there is misery broken lives, broken homes, suicide and despair.
Drugs of abuse are sometimes properly described within three sometimes overlapping categories: narcotic drugs, sometimes known as dangerous drugs, including opiates such as heroin, stimulants such as cocaine, LSD and amphetamines. The second group, or so-called recreational drugs, like ecstasy, cannabis and alcohol, and the third group, often referred to as prescription drugs, including commonly abused prescription drugs such as Benzodiazepines, antidepressants and opiates amongst others. They all have a proven record of harm, and that harm should never be underestimated. In particular, I have spoken a number of times in this House about the way in which the harmful effects of cannabis have been seriously underestimated, particularly by those who blindly advocate its use as a totally benign recreational drug.
In essence, the member for Drysdale has proposed a bill which includes random drug testing of all members of the Northern Territory Legislative Assembly at least once a year. The test involves analysis, contrary to what the member for Macdonnell might believe. Reading the bill, I see in definitions, clause 3, that the test involves analysis of a urine or blood sample provided by the member on request. The Clerk of the Parliament is to oversee the testing and must refer refusal to supply a sample to the Privileges Committee. This next bit is very important. If the test is positive, the Clerk must also refer the results to the Privileges Committee which, and I quote from the bill, ‘must investigate the reasons for the presence of the drug and report its findings to the Legislative Assembly’. No ifs or buts about that; that is in the proposed bill. In addition, the report that I just mentioned, and I quote: ‘… may include the recommendations about the actions to be taken as a consequence of the report’.
Apart from those workplaces where drug and alcohol use presents a real and direct danger to the physical safety of other workers or the general public, I believe there is little justification for random drug testing in the workplace. Furthermore, inherently, this bill is fatally flawed for a whole raft of reasons, and I will demonstrate the reasons why clearly, concisely and in a detailed fashion. I will follow that by a critical appraisal of the evidence, or lack of it, relating to random drug testing in the workplace, because this whole argument about random drug testing in the workplace is central to what we are talking about. As the Leader of Government Business has said, this not only applies in the first step to the 25 members of this Legislative Assembly, but potentially to all members of the Northern Territory Public Service, and I will talk about that within this speech tonight.
Apart from the exceptions I have already outlined - and to say them again; that is, in workplaces where alcohol and drug use presents a real and direct danger to the physical safety of other workers or the public - random drug testing in the workplace has not been demonstrated by properly designed, scientific studies to achieve any of the spectacular results so often attributed to it. I will quote extensively from an Australian book called Drugs and Work, edited by Steve Allsop, Mike Phillips and Carlo Calogero, published in 2001, which extensively reviews international and Australian study on the efficacy of workplace and drug and alcohol testing to improve safety and productivity. The findings of this particular review also reinforce the conclusions of a study undertaken in 1994 under the auspices of the prestigious US National Academy of Science, or NAS, titled Under the Influence – Drugs and the American Workplace. Indeed, there is one important statistic highlighted by one of the authors of the Australian publication, Mike Phillips, on page 28:
Raised blood alcohol levels appear to contribute to at least 4% of all working deaths. On the other hand,
they remarked that drugs appeared to contribute to 2% of working deaths.
Also, it comes as no surprise that excess alcohol consumption has been demonstrated to be associated with increased absenteeism, aggression in the workplace, and impaired decision-making. Thus, it can be seen that, if there is to be a focus on drug use in the workplace, alcohol should be a primary focus. It does not even rate a mention within the member for Drysdale’s bill. Indeed, the Opposition Leader was questioned on this issue by Pete and Lisa on Mix 104.9 on 27 November 2003. This is to the Leader of the Opposition, the member for Blain:
Pete: So would you go the whole hog? I mean, if you were going to test for drugs you would have to test for booze as well.
Mills: Oh, look, I think we might be going a bit too far there.
It will be interesting to hear the opposition’s current position on this matter. Indeed, in this context, it is also interesting to see the genesis of this bill, which lies not with the member for Drysdale on 25 November 2003, but with the esteemed CLP member for Solomon, Mr Dave Tollner. I refer to another news article in the NT News, on 13 February 2002. It says:
Tollner in gas pledge.
Top End MP Dave Tollner is to carry on pushing for random drug testing of federal MPs.
But he said it would be an issue with him only after gas from the Timor Sea has arrived in Darwin
and the Territory has become a state.
Mr Tollner, 36, whose driving licence was suspended for six months in December when he admitted
to drink-driving, made his vow to pursue MPs who illegally used drugs during last year’s election campaign.
There we have it! The CLP federal member for Solomon, David Tollner, on Wednesday 13 February 2002. He probably has first claim on this.
However, enough said - back to the authoritative Australian review mentioned earlier, where conclusions are drawn about the effects of alcohol and other drugs in the workplace, and I quote from the article by Phillips on page 40:
The evidence allows us to make rough estimates of the contribution of alcohol to occupational injuries and
fatalities. For illegal drugs, the evidence base is much weaker and the estimates lower. In the most robust of
studies that point to an association between drug use and negative work outcomes, the relationship is nevertheless
minor.
It is worthwhile to keep in mind the relative contributions to workplace injuries and fatalities in perspective. I will further quote from Jim Nolan on page 60 of the Australian Review. He says:
Evidence suggests that it is fatigue, not impairment through drug and alcohol use, that leads to the majority
of accidents.
I am attempting to put random drug testing in the workplace into perspective. Nevertheless, given the association with injury and fatalities, particularly for alcohol, it is not surprising that a number of major employers in Australia, including BHP, transport authorities and the mining industry, have adopted random workplace drug testing for alcohol and illicit drugs, with safety as a very understandable concern. In these days, where public and corporate liability are both major considerations, most people would accept that this is a very responsible safeguard. However, beyond those workplaces where alcohol and drug use may pose a direct physical danger to other workers and the public, I believe that random drug testing in the workplace is difficult to justify on the evidence already presented. This view, particularly related to workplace accidents and injuries, will also be argued in an upcoming extensive publication in Australia by Midford et al. So we have a continuity of views there by all the reviews about this particular issue.
Also, I strongly believe it is difficulty to justify such testing in work settings beyond those I have already mentioned because it strikes at the very foundation of individual rights and our legal system which has as its basis the presumption of innocence. In other words, because there is no other evidence except the suggestion that there may be illicit drug users in any group in our society, all members of that group should be drug tested to prove their innocence. Madam Speaker, what sort of big brother mentality is that?
This is what the member for Drysdale is arguing. He has used an estimate in the 1998 National Drug Strategy Household Survey, which he has quoted, to say that 20% of the Australian population has used an illicit drug in the last 12 months, thereby alleging that five amongst 25 MLAs in this House are illicit drug users. He then argues that all 25 should undergo drug testing to prove each individual’s innocence. On the same somewhat questionable statistical extrapolation is he also accusing 20% of the 15 000 strong Northern Territory public servants of being illicit drug users - some 3000 people - and proposing that all 15 000 public servants in the Northern Territory should undergo random compulsory drug testing in their workplaces? If he is going to apply the same reasoning, then that is what he is saying.
In the days following his announcement of this bill, the member for the Drysdale and the Leader of the Opposition both talked of leadership on this issue. In his second reading speech, the member for Drysdale mentioned – I am quoting here – ‘was endorsed by the CLP party wing’. So obviously, random drug testing in the workplace is CLP policy and this bill is the first step to implementing this policy. NT public servants should therefore be aware that the CLP would implement random drug testing throughout the public service. So here you have it. At the core of this bill is a philosophy by the CLP that a person is guilty until their sample can prove their innocence. A quite different context to what the member for Macdonnell was mentioning about the declaration about pecuniary interest which I am in favour of and believe is right. It brings transparency to dealings that government and members of this place might have financial dealings, but this is an entirely different issue. Despite what the member for Drysdale asserts in his second reading speech, and he said, ‘that such sampling is not intrusive’; it certainly is.
Let me quote from a letter from a female employer in the United States which underscores the fact that a crucial part of the testing procedure is to directly observe the urine being passed and I quote:
I was led into a very small room with a toilet, sink and desk. I was given a container in which to urinate by the
attendant. I waited for her to turn her back before pulling down my pants but she told me she had to watch
everything I did. I pulled down my pants, put the container in place, as she bent down to watch I gave her
the sample and even then she did not look away. I am a 40 year old mother of three and nothing I had ever
done in my life equals or deserves the humiliation, degradation and mortification I felt.
Madam Speaker, this is what the CLP wants to impose on every public servant in the Northern Territory. In addition, despite what the member for Drysdale asserts, blood testing is considered to be an invasive technique. For this reason medical researchers need to provide very strong reasons for collecting blood samples to an ethics committee. The member for Drysdale has not provided compelling reasons in his second reading speech or his public comments for the imposition of this regime, firstly on MLAs and then on 15 000 public servants in the Northern Territory.
Furthermore, this bill is unworkable and unfair at an operational level for a significant number of reasons. This is where some of the arguments that I am going to put now all members need to think about very carefully.
First, in his bill, the member for Drysdale has identified the presence of a dangerous drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act as a trigger for a whole range of processes and sanctions within his bill. If the member for Drysdale wants me to quote, I will quote it, but basically, that is what it is all about.
It says under section 3 Definitions:
‘dangerous drug’ has the same meaning as in the Misuse of Drugs Act.
So there is a drug test. If the drug test reveals the presence of a dangerous within the Misuse of Drugs Act, or, for that matter, would also unnecessarily mean the presence of the drug or its metabolites or breakdown products either within blood or urine, that would trigger a whole range of processes and sanctions underneath the member’s bill.
This is critical, and I would demonstrate how the member for Drysdale’s bill has a potential to embarrass members of this House and potentially 15 000 Northern Territory public servants through no fault of their own.
Schedule 2 of the Misuse of Drugs Act, which I have here, lists a whole range of substances, over 220 of them in all. I have been through the list and scrutinised it very carefully. This list includes analgesics such as codeine and morphine and a range of other common medicines it is quite legal to use in certain circumstances, but illegal to possess, traffic or administer in unauthorised circumstances.
Now, that is fair enough. We all understand the context of the Misuse of Drugs Act. This is exactly where the member for Drysdale’s bill starts to unravel. I will explain why; it is not too complicated. I will illustrate. Codeine, for example, is a commonly used painkiller analgesic and can be quite legally purchased in any chemist shop. I suppose most members here might have purchased either Codral or Panadeine, which are well known and widely used.
Should a member of this House take these tablets for a headache, toothache or other minor pain and be tested, they would test positive for both codeine and morphine. This is because codeine is broken down in the body to morphine. So you come in the parliament or whatever, going to work, you have a headache or some minor pain, you purchase one of these analgesics quite legally over the counter, you are randomly tested and, hey presto!, either your blood and/or your urine test positive to both codeine and morphine.
Because both of these substances are scheduled under the Misuse of Drugs Act, the member would then be called upon to explain themselves to the Privileges Committee, which, under this proposed legislation, must report to parliament.
We see the media interest when an athlete is called before authorities to answer questions about drug tests. I believe similar interest would centre on parliamentarians. But it does not end there. Pholcodine is also on the list within the Misuse of Drugs Act. Pholcodine is a very common ingredient in over the counter pharmacy cough mixtures, but a positive test would see a member before the Privileges Committee and the subsequent report to parliament.
There are many other examples of medicines that are included in Schedule 2 of the Misuse of Drugs Act that a doctor might have legitimately prescribe: Lomotil or Diphenoxylate for diarrhoea; strong painkillers for a cancer; hormonal preparations for endometriosis in women; and steroids such as testosterone for testicular dysfunction in males; agents used in anaesthesia - in other words, if you go to hospital and you have some surgical technique and you are randomly tested the day after that, those things would turn up in your bloodstream, in your urine and you would test positive.
There were many, many others. The list goes on and on. Members would then have to explain intimate and confidential medical conditions to the Privileges Committee whose membership includes their political opponents, not to mention the fallout once the information became public.
Such confidential medical information must become public under the member for Drysdale’s bill. To quote clause 5 section 4:
The Privileges Committee must investigate the reasons for the presence of a drug and report findings
to the Legislative Assembly.
Madam Speaker, to repeat what I said earlier, the member for Drysdale’s bill has a very real potential to embarrass members of this House, and potentially 15 000 Northern Territory public servants through no fault of their own.
As the member for Macdonnell said, yes, we are subject to a greater level of scrutiny than other members of the community, but surely we should have the privacy, if we do have sensitive medical conditions, if we have been into hospital for surgery, if we are taking hormonal preparations for whatever reasons under medical supervision, all of that sort of thing would become public in this House, and I do not think that is a good thing.
This is even apart from the well documented cases of false positives in urine testing - between 3% and 8% dependent on the specific urine test. These false positives include opiates mistaken from poppy seeds on bread or bagels, that is quite a common one when you look through the literature. Ranitidine, which is a drug used in ulcer treatment, is sometimes mistaken for amphetamines in urine testing, and many others. There is also the issue of what is known as innocent positives, through the inadvertent exposure of an individual or adulteration of samples. This sort of thing has been documented within the sporting world.
A lot has been talked about the screening and tests, I suppose I am someone in this House who has analysed for drugs and metabolites in urine in blood, and let me tell you, that there are 220 substances in here, and some of them are very complex substances within the schedule of the Misuse of Drugs Act. Some of those analyses would be very complex, indeed. We are not just talking about a common test battery, that the police or the hospital does of opiates, cannabis, amphetamines or whatever, we are talking about a whole range of 220 substances, one of which, I might add, is bufotenine, the venomous toxin from the Bufo marinus, the cane toad, so that is a fairly complex alkaloid bufotanis, but it is in the schedule.
I made the point there. It is unworkable on operational levels for all sorts of reasons. It does away with the presumption of innocence, which is a basic corner stone of our justice system. It has all sorts of technical difficulties as well as privacy issues.
No doubt, the member for Drysdale will attempt to deny reality. The reality being that this bill is unnecessary, unworkable and fatally flawed. In his wrapping up, he will probably say, well anyone who rejects this bill, or if the government rejects this bill it has something to hide. We also have the Leader of the Opposition going along this track, and he offered the bizarre simile of searching schoolchildren’s bags as the basis for the implementation of the CLP policy of random drug testing.
Here he is, once again, on Pete and Lisa; Pete and Lisa are an absolute mine field. They are talking about this issue on Thursday 27 November 2003, and basically he is talking about random drug testing and all the rest of it and he says:
‘Look, as a former school principal, when I would occasionally need to inspect student’s bags, the only ones
who would be a little bit troubled about that were those who had something in their bag they might have been
worried about. So if there is any sort of opposition to this, or feathers get ruffled, I would also think that
suspicion would also warrant closure scrutiny. But the issue here is really setting a community standard’.
So here is the spectre of the Leader of the Opposition going through the school kid’s bags – pity help them if they have a bit of parsley on the egg sandwich - it is all about guilt. Well, if you do not like it you have something to hide. Well, I do not like it and I do not think I have anything to hide. I do not want to live in a big brother state, with a big brother mentality. Our forefathers went to war against that sort of thing and that is why I oppose it.
On this whole thing of imputation of guilt or accusation, if you like, or implicit accusation, as the Leader of Government Business said, there is a challenge for the member for Drysdale: put up or shut up. As the police minister said in his press release at the time:
If the CLP has concerns or evidence that any parliamentarians are using illicit drugs, then I urge them to
report this activity to the police so it may be dealt with.
Madam Speaker, there are lots of arguments about this. I would just like to tender this cartoon here. It is a Patrick Cook cartoon and is captioned here: ‘Mr Speaker, is the honourable member half full or half empty?’ The arguments put forward on the bill by the opposition, is political grandstanding; they are empty arguments. This bill is unnecessary, unworkable and fatally flawed. It is based on political grandstanding and I am not supporting it, and I know the government is not supporting it.
Mr DUNHAM (Drysdale): Madam Speaker, ignorance is being paraded here. I really do not know where to start, but I should start with the first speaker, the police minister who, obviously, has not read the second reading speech. For starters, he talks about politicians being the first, and who will follow next, the public service? Then he cites various other instances, such as the oil and gas and Defence. We are definitely not the first. This is not some thing where the politicians are right out the front. There are many members of our society who are tested, and I said that in the second reading speech.
The second thing he talked about was blood tests. While we have put in there that the tests may include saliva, urine and blood testing, I did mention in the second reading speech that there are very simple kits that are available now that are merely saliva tests, and very unobtrusive and very easy to use.
The other thing he talked about was the cost, $60 000. This is remarkable. He has a report from the police - a report which he has been unable to table here, saying it is going to cost us $60 000. If that were true - let us assume it is true ...
Mr Henderson: Why would the police lie?
Mr DUNHAM: No, I am assuming it is true. If it costs us $2400 or something for each member of this House, how do you reckon Bechtel are going out there? They have put on 1100 staff, mate. That is about $2.5m in drug testing. Is that what you are telling me they are testing? It is a ludicrous proposition and you know it is, and you know it is because there are some very simple tests that do not cost that amount of money. If you believe it is that expensive, go and talk to the Army, to Bechtel, to sporting groups, because they use them now and they are much, much cheaper than that. You obviously did not read it.
The member for Macdonnell raised a very good point about us requiring members’ registers and whatever. Like him, I do not object to it. Given that the government read them frequently, they will know that one of the reasons I do not object to it is I am not a holder of vast reserves of wealth. However, it is an intrusion of privacy, and something that the last speaker, the member for Johnston, found terribly offensive - this business about people stickybeaking into your affairs. Well, should people know how much your wife has in the bank account? Should they know her property holdings? I would say that some of that privacy we forgo when we come into this place. We forgo it, maybe by a declaration of this type, which is not being asked of the community in general, but could well be asked of us. That is an interesting proposition.
The member for Nelson’s pledge - or whatever he calls it - is a good idea, and I hope that it is circulated and that every member signs it. I do not see it as, necessarily, an argument against this. I see it as ancillary to it. Some of the behaviours and some of the things we do in this place as leaders spill into the wider community, and there is a call that the bar for us is higher. This is another foolish notion of the police minister, where he thought we were lowering the bar when, in fact, we are asking for a standard in here that is higher than for many in the general community.
Regarding the vast contribution by the member for Johnston, I am absolutely astounded that he has this idea that this is about workplace safety. If he talks about illicit drugs killing 2% in the workplace, well, I do not think this workplace has ever had a fatality. It is more than that. I used to like to watch Ben Johnson run. I thought he was a great runner. I used to absolutely adore the way he would run down the hundred metres. But he was a cheat. In his community, in his circle of friends, what he did was highly offensive to them. There was a bar that was set for him that was much higher than just for somebody who was running around the paddock at Little Athletics. If you are just going to look at this as we might do something here that endangers the health of somebody or the public, it is a bit foolish. The main reason we are doing it is because we have decided things certain things are illicit. So it is an issue of hypocrisy. The issue is if you say this parliament finds littering offensive, you should not litter. If it says that there are fines for various things that we believe as a parliament applied to all of society, we should adhere to that.
The origin of the idea that there is some collusion with Mr Tollner, I can assure you that that is not the case. The people who came to me came from defence, and they came out of oil and gas. Their basic argument was there was an issue of vast hypocrisy for this parliament to make the laws and not adhere by them. They saw it not as an issue of somehow one of us tripping over somebody else here while you are spaced out on some sort of drug and taking their life through that accident. They saw it as an issue of this parliament making laws for the benefit of people and those of us that sit here in this high moral judgment abiding by those laws. That is how they saw it. I have to say I am attracted to that proposition myself.
This whole argument that these people out there said, ‘Well, it is only 2% and alcohol is 4%, well, who cares?’ It is really not so much about workplace safety, I would suggest. He is also saying fatigue is a big culprit. Well, big deal. The fact is we are not after some sort of a workplace safety audit. We are after this House adhering to the very standards we set for the rest of the community.
The business about the presumption of innocence is a good one. One wonders why this government has random breath tests. Because random breath tests pull up everybody. They pull up grandmas, old people, young people, males and females, Aboriginal people, and they make the assumption that if they test a certain amount of the society, some people will have a level of intoxication.
Mr Henderson: So they will introduce random drug testing as well.
Mr DUNHAM: No, no, listen to the argument. So if this argument holds true that you cannot test somebody because it is actually an intrusion on their civil liberties, why do we have random breath testing at all? It is exactly the same proposition. What you are doing is saying is that in this society there is a proposition that there is a certain amount of people will be driving while intoxicated and we can extrapolate that with a test and sometimes we can find that that proposition holds true, that is, we catch people driving when they are drunk.
Now, the whole notion that if I see somebody out there consuming illicit drugs I will go and tell the coppers and that is how you fix it up because that is the only way. Well, that is a little bit foolhardy too because the same proposition would apply to RBTs. You would say if you saw a person drink that much beer you worked out on your little calculator given your drugs and alcohol, you saw them get in and start a car, then you should call the police that is probably true. But I can assure you that that tactic would not get half as money people as RBT.
We get to the vexed issue of statistics and the scientists amongst us, the member for Johnston, had some great difficulty with my extrapolation of saying that in a report up to 20% of adults in society it has been suggested they have used illicit drugs in the last year. It could be that we are representative of society. That is what I was saying. It could well be that the 20% could well be replicated here. I am not saying it is or it is not. It could be over or it could be under. Maybe we are not represented. I still think it is a reasonable extrapolation to make. The extrapolation had problems because where he says, ‘I have a bill here about random drug testing of politicians and that means the public servants.’ So he has extrapolated from 25 to 16 000 public servants, and he accuses me of having some quick and dirty scientific methodology.
That is the most bizarre thing I have heard in my life. We are not talking about public servants in the same way as we are here. We are not talking about going to the Committee of Privileges because it is inappropriate for them. We are not talking about divulging their assets on an Asset Register; we are not talking about them making the laws to which they should then adhere. This is specifically an issue about us 25 politicians.
If he wants to start a little scary thing out there saying: ‘Dunham is going to come and get you if you vote for the CLP; you will all be drug tested’, that is stupid, absolutely trite and stupid. It is also attributing unbecoming motives to me, I should add, along with various allegations that this is entirely political. If this is a political stunt, drug matters are not an issue of importance for us. They are. They are an issue of importance, and we have talked about them long and hard in here.
If we cannot at least say our own behaviour should be above reproach, some of the debate has been empty rhetoric. We have to get to the stage where we say it is so important that we believe that we can demonstrate to the community that there are issues that we will take on that demonstrate absolutely that we are adhering to our own laws.
On that same note, I was a bit surprised that the Leader of Government Business took umbrage at the fact that Parliamentary Counsel was used to draft this bill. I am surprised at that. Before your arrogance kicks in too much, this is the people’s House. The people who come in here are called politicians, and they represent the people. I have absolutely no shame at all about representing the people of my electorate on this issue or seeking to have a bill drafted that will strike a chord with many in society – maybe not with others, but many people in society would see that as good law. I have absolutely no problem about going to the offices of this parliament that have been set aside to provide such a service.
If you want to talk to me about improper use of Parliamentary Counsel, you should probably look at your own pool fencing laws. There must have been an exhaustive amount of work to get pool fencing number 1 up. That was amended on the floor of the parliament, I might add. Pool fencing number 2 is just as messy and, I suggest, we will see it again. So do not give us this: ‘We are in government; we make laws. No one else should have the temerity to make a law and, anyway, you have some little, slippery motive’.
That sort of arrogance is: ‘We are the government, we will govern; you just listen’. What I am saying to you is: you listen, because this is the voice of the people speaking, and they are speaking through me. They are speaking through me because I have been elected to this place to make laws and I am suggesting that this is a good law.
If we have the long and sorry story about the member for Johnston who is worried that he might be supervised or scrutineered having a pee, and he is worried about it, we have Oraline saliva drug screen for cannabinoids, cocaine, methamphetamines and opiates. Fifty bucks. Basically, it is a saliva drug screen. I am quite happy to take this in front of cameras, in front of the media at any time.
If you want to run scare stories that all the old ladies in the public service will be scrutinised having a pee in a pot and the CLP are going to do this to you – it is nonsense. It is nonsense. There is the device, Mr Scientist, and you should have looked this up on the web. There is even a little picture here: place the test in the mouth to collect saliva samples. Read the results after 15 minutes. There is a little chart on the back and …
Dr Burns: We can only judge it on what you put before us.
Mr DUNHAM: Okay, we will go there later, but at the moment, what I am saying is that there is a very simple, unobtrusive $50 test that the Clerk is quite capable of taking – he does not have to wear his plastic gloves; we do not have to get the three doctors and the lawyer here; we do not have to have all the cameras in the toilets. That is all scare stuff.
You, Mr Pharmacist, should know this. You should know that people like Bechtel and the Defence Forces would not be spending the sort of money that you are talking about, a couple of grand a head! There is no way they would be spending that. If your policy gets to them, which, I might add, is much worse than this policy, and that is there should be no drug testing in the workplace, that it is an offence …
Dr Burns: No, I did not say that.
Mr DUNHAM: Well, what about a clerk in the Army? He is not going to kill anyone. He does not have a gun. What you are saying is there should be no drug testing unless you are going to do something dangerous, unless you are driving around in a tank or lifting a crane or something. It is an intrusion on people’s civil liberties and, anyway, the literature says that it does not do any good. That is a very poor message to be sending to employers and employees myself.
So there you go, advanced saliva drugs test. It is pretty simple. The boss will tell you it is safe and clean, easy to administer, accurate result in 15 minutes. Now, I do not mind taking this test and, in fact, I will probably do it myself. But it is the sort of things that that pledge does. The difference between that and the pledge is that anybody can sign a bit of paper saying. ‘I never had sexual relations with that woman’. Now, scientifically, that was found out to be a lie, right? So what we have here is the words that come of the mouth of politicians and the science. I do not have any problem with that test. I would be very surprised if anybody in this parliament fails. It is not some sort of a little trap. People came up to me at the Christmas party and said, ‘Who is it, who are you trying to trap’. And I said, ‘Hopefully, no-one’. I hope that all of us would stand up in this parliament and say we are against drugs and that is, in fact, the case.
A member interjecting.
Mr DUNHAM: Okay, we can talk about licit drugs as well. However, what I am talking about is the things that this parliament has said are offensive. So let us start with that. Things we said are illegal and wrong, and should be able to be referred to the police for appropriate investigation, prosecution, and incarceration. What I am saying to you is, if we can say that in this parliament, we should adhere to it.
There are number of wondrous things also said by our former pharmacist that are just out in space somewhere. The reason the Misuse of Drugs Act was called up, and I did say this in the second-reading, was that we wanted to use the same statures that are available now. The Misuse of Drugs Act is available for people who use illicit drugs, and licit drugs, illicitly. People who use drugs they can get over the counter for some nefarious purpose. That is why it was called up. It would be foolish to suggest that we have to test every member for the 220 drugs on it. And neither does Bechtel, the Defence Force, the Olympic Games Selection Committee or anybody else. So do not go running this case that, I am a scientist, and I can tell you, , it cannot be done, it costs too much, and you have all these problems. You, Mr Scientist, must know it is being done, day after day after day, in workplaces here in Darwin. It is a very common thing.
I mentioned also in my second reading speech that my son is 17 years. He signed a contract saying that he can be randomly drug tested, and he can have his employment terminated if he has illicit drugs on him. This is a kid training to be a ringer. For God’s sake, if he has to do it I cannot see why we cannot. I cannot see why I cannot say to my son, do not worry, we do the same thing in parliament. It is one of those things where society demands we have that level of adherence to the laws that we set.
We go to a couple of other little furphies. One is the definition of a drug test includes, may take a blood or urine sample. The reason that is there, and the Parliamentary Counsel will tell you that, is so that it is inclusive. So, if somebody says I do not want to take that, I prefer to take a blood test. It is the same with random breath testing, exactly the same thing. You could say I prefer not to do that because I do not think that is definitive, and it is my preference. So, okay, it allows that test to proceed.
There is no doubt that we would opt for the most effective, cheapest, and best system. And the best system is the $50 Oraline saliva drug screen, not the pee in the pot. So if that is what is worrying you, if your great sense of chastity, bashfulness and being a fiend, to prove that you are, is worrying you, do not worry, we do not want to look at it either. I certainly would not want the Clerk to look at it. It is possible to do this and protect your chastity and your worry about people seeing various rude bits of you by using this device.
I am aware that this bill is not going to get passed. I leave the Assembly with a couple of things. We have unfinished business. Okay, you can go out to society and say, it was fatally flawed, it was too expensive, intrusion of civil liberties, all that stuff. But we know, in here, it is a good idea that we abide by the laws that we set out in this place. Now, if there is a problem with this device, just how I have used it, just pick another one, and I do not parade it as the person who thought up the idea.
If we all want to sign the Gerry pledge, let us do it. What is wrong with that? If we are trying to convey to the community that we believe that illicit drug taking is an offensive, illegal behaviour, we have set laws out to try and suppress and, hopefully, get rid of those behaviours and we will abide by them. That is a good message for this parliament to send. Do it by way of motion. You can do it; I do not have to do it. If you are really worried that, somehow, this is political grandstanding on my part, you take the lead; you do it. However, what you leaving here is a void. The void is something that I believe people are going to want us to fill up. They are going to say: ‘So how come I am going for a job in the oil and gas industry and I have to have a breath test, and one of the members of parliament thinks that is intrusive and an affront to my civil liberties? How come you have random breath testing out there when you make the assumption I am guilty and I have been a teetotaller all my life?’
Some of the issues that you believe are reasons to dismiss this proposition are actually government policy now. Therefore, you either have to have another look at some of your government policies, find some other way to do this, or here is an undertaking: let us do it by voluntary code of behaviour. Have a voluntary code of behaviour. I will try and attempt to obtain 50 of these, and let us just do it because we think it is a good idea. We do not need a bill.
Mr Baldwin: Put it in the code of conduct.
Mr DUNHAM: That is an interesting proposition too, because the code of conduct, which seems to be a bean-counters attempt to scrutinise the affairs of politicians – that is, how much money you have, where are your shares, stocks, bonds, and property. I did write to the chairman of that committee and they said that this matter will be discussed in this forum here rather than in committee. Well, okay, that is fair enough. I would have liked to have had the considered opinion of that committee, but that is not available to me now. We have stood up here and held our hands over our hearts and said that it is very important people see transparently all our financial dealings. I do not think people are really that worried about that. I believe they are more worried about our behaviours and our ethics and about how we deport ourselves. As the member for Nelson says, maybe that is only judge and that is at election time.
However, there are several ways of doing this. I would suggest if you think tonight that you defeat the bill and that it is all gone away, that you are mistaken and you are misleading yourself. I would suggest that, if you rely on some of the rebuttals that you have provided from the other side, you have significant policy problems in some of your other areas, particularly random breath testing and protecting those industries that are using tests of this type to keep their work force drug free. However, if you want to use that as your rebuttal, feel free. I will leave it there because we have canvassed most of the issues. You will see that, if the contributors from the government had at least read the second reading speech, half of what they said would not have been said because they would have known the answer.
Motion negatived.
ADJOURNMENT
Mr HENDERSON (Leader of Government Business): Madam Speaker, I move that the Assembly do now adjourn.
Mrs AAGAARD (Nightcliff): Madam Speaker, tonight I speak on a rather delightful topic, the recent Danish royal wedding where Australia’s Mary Donaldson married Crown Prince Frederik of Denmark. I have never been a royal watcher and, in fact, know virtually nothing of the Danish royal family. However, recently I have become quite interested in the Danish royal family through my involvement with the Darwin Danish community.
Around two months ago, I was approached by several members of Darwin’s Danish community about assisting that community to raise funds to organise a gift for the royal couple. They were very excited that an Australian was marrying their Crown Prince, and felt it important that they recognised this special occasion.
Many people believe that my name is Danish but, in fact, it is Norwegian. Although I understand that Norway did not become a separate country from Denmark until 1920, I guess there is a connection there through my husband’s family. I also understand that my own paternal great-grandfather was Danish and moved to Australia in 1860. Therefore, I do feel some connection with Denmark.
Mrs Annette Pedersen and Mrs Vita Gustafson were the key players behind organising the gift. Their fellow Dane, Teresa Chan organised Central Australian artist, Lanita Numina, to paint a beautiful gift for the royal couple - a magnificent painting of the sand goanna and honey ant dreaming.
It was my pleasure to offer hospitality to 15 members of the Danish community on 13 April 2004, where members of the community were able to meet the artist and her family and view the painting prior to it being mailed to the royal couple that day, so that the painting could arrive in Copenhagen in time to be on public display before the wedding. It was a delight to be part of this event and it was a pleasure to meet Vita and Frank Gustafson, Teresa Chang, Annette and Knud Pederson, Thrvald Clausen, Elinor Karlson, and Vibeke Hauge and others.
As members would be aware, the wedding of Prince Frederik took place last Friday, 14 May, in Copenhagen and the event was watched by millions of viewers across the world, including millions of Australians. I must say, I was one of the many people who tuned in for the wedding and found myself surprisingly entranced by the ceremony. The gracious, natural and obviously very much in love couple was a delight to watch and Mary Donaldson was a credit to all Australians with her serene and poised manner. I am fairly certain that this wedding will increase the number of tourists from Denmark to Australia and vice versa, and most likely increase trade as well. In fact, today I heard that trade has already increased from Australia to Denmark. I note also the large number of people I know who watched the ceremony commented on what an uplifting piece of television it was: a living fairytale, such a stark contrast to the terrible world happenings at the moment.
I thank the Danes for inviting me to be part of this event, and I look forward to being invited to a special ceremony for the winter solstice at the end of June. I would also like to thank the Chief Minister and Minister for Ethnic Affairs for their assistance with the gift as well.
It was also my pleasure to be involved with the ‘Great Shave for Leukaemia’ on Friday, 12 March. The Nightcliff community got right behind this fund raiser from our shops and restaurants to school students. It was a real community event with many people either shaving their heads or dyeing their head for leukaemia. I dyed my hair a bright purple, not perhaps my best colour but worthwhile for such an important cause. I thank those constituents who sponsored me in this fund raising endeavour. As I mentioned previously, the whole Nightcliff community got behind this event and the Essington School had a major fund raiser with two teachers shaving their heads, and the principal, Mr David Cannon, dyeing his hair a very bright green despite students petitioning him to shave his hair. I know the school community is hoping that next year he will do the full shave. It was wonderful to see almost every student had dyed their hair and their awareness of leukaemia research and treatment was a testament to the quality of the teaching and community spirit of the school.
Other members of the Nightcliff community also need to be recognised. Marie Kearney of the Nightcliff Five Star Supermarket together with Paul Bayetto of the Groove restaurant at Nightcliff organised a special function on the evening of 12 March for a major ‘shave in’ and hair dye session. Marie raised over $2000, Paul Bayetto raised over $300, Mary Anne Butler from the NT Writers Centre raised $1062, while Nightcliff Primary School student, Kelsie Hampson, raised $175 on the night, when she had her head shaved. I would like to extend my congratulations to all of these people for their community spirit and generosity. I would also like to thank the Leukaemia Foundation for their hard work in organising this important fund raising event to support research into Leukaemia.
I also rise tonight to recognise the Mellor family of King River station, especially Joy Mellor. One of my constituents, Mr Frank Constanzo of Nightcliff, found himself together with many other motorists, stranded at the beginning of the year, when the King River was flooded and motorists were unable to continue on the Stuart Highway. Joy Mellor and members of her family assisted many stranded motorists by guiding them along the old disused railway embankment, so they could continue their journey. Mr Constanzo was so impressed with the help that this family gave him that he sent them a gift, and also asked me to recognise them in some way. It is my real pleasure to recognise the Mellor family and thank them for their Territorian spirit of goodwill, and I hope I get the opportunity to thank them in person at some stage.
It is also my pleasure to rise tonight to recognise a very special constituent of mine, Mr Dave Byars. Mr Byars is visually impaired and has lost 95% of his vision over the last few years, and can no longer work in his trade as a builder. However, he has remained very positive and has gone about creating a new life for himself, and helping to create a better life for others with vision loss. Mr Byars created the NT Chapter of Vision Loss Support, a national organisation that devotes its energies to helping people who have lost their sight. He has brought together people with vision loss and a range of professional people who work in the field. He drove the process of getting the group incorporated and setting up the network of people who make the organisation. The group now receives direct government grants that allow it to extend its work and services. It is the kind of self help group that really improves the quality of life for its membership. It is also my pleasure that this group meets monthly in my electorate office.
One of the ways the group works is to encourage the visually impaired into sports. In this, Dave Byars is exemplary. Dave pursues several sporting interests, but his most significant is bowling. Dave recently travelled to Perth with the Northern Territory Blind Bowlers for the national championships. Dave was part of a team of four blind bowlers and their helpers. The helpers assist by giving directions and explaining the results of each bowl as they are delivered. It is a real team effort.
Dave won in the Pairs with Dennis Wormald and he won silver in the Singles. All up, he did so well that he has been selected as a national representative. It is believed that he is the first Territory bowler to make a national team in bowls, either blind or sighted. His first challenge will be a Test Match against New Zealand to be played in Melbourne in August, then next year, it is off to Johannesburg, South Africa, for the World Blind Bowling Championships.
Dave Byars’ achievements since becoming blind seven years ago are remarkable. The things we take for granted, and which are difficult for the visually impaired, particularly such as dealing with documents, Dave does not just manage; he succeeds in dealing with their bureaucratic complexities. He gets the grants, he published newsletters, and he fights for his members to improve services.
His efforts and achievements are an inspiration to others and he deserves every success in his sporting endeavours. I congratulate him on his successes so far, I know we will continue to hear about Dave Byars.
Mrs BRAHAM (Braitling): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, Alice Springs was hoping to see many visitors in October this year for the Masters Games, and we have certainly heard the Minister for Sport and Recreation speak strongly about encouraging people to go to the Masters Games, and hear support as well.
Unfortunately, there will be one sporting group that may not be offering the number of events that they would normally because of a decision by the Northern Territory Policing Firearms and Policy Unit. I refer to two shooting complexes, the Alice Springs Shooting Complex and the Sporting Shooters Association who will have difficulty in conducting their program of events due to a decision by the Northern Territory Police Range Inspectors to close some of their ranges.
The clubs will have to cancel two pistol disciplines, totalling 14 events because they now do not have the ranges to use. I wanted to mention this tonight and, hopefully, draw it to the minister’s attention as both the Alice Springs Sporting Complex and the Sporting Shooters Association will have to rebuild two pistol ranges in time for the Masters Games if they are going to offer the usual number of disciplines. This is because of the safety templates that the police have now decided to implement.
The Sporting Shooters Association will be conducting six disciplines of shooting, which total over 40 events for the games. Some of these pistol events cannot now be offered because the ranges have been closed.
I had a briefing on 29 March with police officers here, and they advised me that the issues were not as complex and perhaps could be resolved. However, that has not proven to be the case.
Range safety, of course, is of utmost concern to anyone, certainly to the clubs that have been using the rifle and pistol ranges at the shooting complexes for 17 years - since the Northern Territory government first built the complex. That means they have been using the ranges for 17 years without incident. Those ranges, I might add, are also used by the police themselves for training, NORFORCE, Correctional Services, and Primary Industries for their rangers. To suddenly raise these current issues of safety seems, to me, quite ridiculous.
On 21 April, the Northern Territory Police Range Inspector visited the Alice Springs Shooting Complex and the Sporting Shooters rifle and pistol ranges, and subsequently closed the two ranges that face the MacDonnell Ranges. I am sure members of this House understand that if you go through The Gap in Alice Springs out to the sporting complex, it is situated between the two ranges, so the shooting ranges actually face the mountains.
They have a 300-foot high back-stop to their pistol ranges and behind it is the MacDonnell Ranges. But now, pursuant to the police template, they have said it is unsafe because bullets may ricochet over the range.
I am a simple person, and I am not a shooter, but I cannot see for the life of me how, after all this time, these bullets are going to ricochet and become a danger to the people on the other side of the ranges. The police are quite adamant that this is the template, this is what must be, regardless of the fact there are these ranges in between, and so the clubs are going to have to rebuild ranges if they are going to have these disciplines in time for the Masters Games. I just find it unbelievable that anyone can contemplate that there is a danger shooting into a range - at the height we are talking about - to people or animals on the other side. But that is basically the argument of the police, and they are quite determined about it and they will not budge from it. So to rebuild and put in place the new infrastructure in time for the Masters Games, the club is looking at an enormous amount of money which, quite frankly, they do not have. They would need to put in shelters, concrete firing lines, benches, powerlines for the power lighting, target frames, new stop butts, brick dividing walls on the ranges, you name it, and it is going to cost a lot of money which the club frankly does not have.
I would like the Minister for Sport and Recreation to think about this. Does he really support the Masters Games in Alice Springs, or is he going to allow this ridiculous situation to continue, or is he going to give the club funding so that they can actually build these ranges to the specifications of the Police Policy Firearms Unit. We have heard a lot about the minister’s support for the games, and we have heard a lot about the Chief Minister and her support for tourism. And that is what the Masters Games is all about - sport and bringing people to the town. But we now face the dilemma where the shooting associations will have to omit at least 14 events from the Masters Games, resulting in fewer competitors coming to Alice Springs and, of course, Alice Springs then getting a bad reputation because the people who would normally come say, oh well, we are not going this year and we probably will not go anymore.
I believe this is bureaucratic decision-making gone wrong. I know the police will say we have to have these templates for safety sake, but how can they justify it when they know that they themselves have used it for training in the past, apparently with no concern raised - seventeen years. I call on the Minister for Sport and Recreation to fund these new ranges if this is what the club has to do. It is not something the club can build quickly. They certainly should not have to, because it was not their decision to move the ranges. It is a decision that has been forced upon them by the bureaucracy of the police department, and I believe if the minister really believes in supporting the Masters Games, he will either talk reason to the police, or he will find the funding and assist the clubs to make sure they can have the ranges in time for the Masters Games.
Mr BURKE (Brennan): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise this evening to raise the issue of the Palmerston Multifunction Recreation Centre that has arisen out of this 2004-05 budget, and certainly the disappointment that is being expressed by Palmerston City Council and interested members of the Palmerston community.
The background of the Palmerston Multipurpose Centre is, essentially, that there was design money put in the 2000-01 budget by the previous government for the design of that facility. It was a promise to the community of Palmerston for some time, and there was a clear expectation that design would move to capital works funding in subsequent budgets. Under partnership agreements between the Palmerston City Council and the Northern Territory government, again, put in place prior to the last election, but certainly progressed under this current government and, I believe, with all due credit to Palmerston City Council, in a very cooperative way by them, with the Northern Territory government to cooperate as fully as possible in a way to progress the partnership agreement and prioritising areas of common agreement for Palmerston.
The number one priority agreed by both parties was the Palmerston Multipurpose Centre. It involves, amongst other things funding by government, and significant funding by the Palmerston City Council, as part of the partnership agreement, that they would incorporate their library for which they have had funds for sometime, and have held off building that library to incorporate it as part of the multifunction centre. Also the government has wanted to put is some cultural facility in there, and it has agreed and progressed to this multifunctional cultural centre including a library.
The scope of works is over $8m, I believe, and the undertakings that were given by government to Palmerston City Council was that it would be completed by September 2005, or at the latest at the end of 2005. To not do that would certainly delay the Palmerston City Council in completing their library as they had intended and as they have funds for. As I said, it has only been delayed because of this agreement to incorporate it into the multipurpose centre.
Imagine their shock when - after meeting almost fortnightly for a long time - at a recent community Cabinet council - where the government claims it consults and listens - in interviews with the Chief Minister and the Mayor at the community Cabinet held there, no mention was made by the government that any delay could be expected to this facility.
We now find that the only money that has been provided in this current budget is $1.8m, supposedly for headwork preparation for the site. That does not satisfy anyone. The Palmerston City Council has put out a press release expressing their dissatisfaction, saying that they will lobby as far and as wide as they can to get a commitment from government that the money will be there. Sadly, that has been responded to publicly in a press release by the Minister for Local Government, Mr Ah Kit, in unusual fashion, I believe, for him, because he is generally - or always when I have seen him publicly - a gentleman in the way he conducts business. As I am in close contact with the Mayor of Palmerston, she holds him in high regard and not the least for his gentlemanly manner in the way he deals with her. Imagine her disappointment when, in the press release, it basically said: ‘Mayor Burke should take a Bex and lie down’.
She and I probably would agree that that is probably something done by a staffer but, certainly, is not the way you would expect the minister to speak to the Mayor on such an important issue. Also, the press release claimed that this is only grandstanding in preparation for the council elections. I believe those comments alone or together do a great disservice to the Mayor of Palmerston. She has championed this particular multipurpose centre for many years, and will continue to champion it if she is elected again by the people of Palmerston. It is only the announcement of this budget that has forced her to publicly say: ‘How can you say to Palmerston council that you will have this thing completed by September 2005, in an undertaking given by you, minister and by your officers and, yet, we only see $1.8m in the budget?’. Compounding that suspicion, of course, is the fact that the officers cancelled a meeting without reason that was scheduled prior to the budget coming down.
The minister has forwarded a letter to the Palmerston council which I would like to mention in part. He says:
The Northern Territory government is committed to funding the full cost of the Palmerston Recreation
Centre. In yesterday’s budget $1.8m was allocated for headworks for the recreation centre.
Basically, the Palmerston Recreation Centre Steering Committee which oversights the project, will continue to meet. I say that it would be a sad thing if it continues to meet in isolation from the council, because you may as well say goodbye to your partnership agreement. That issue needs to be resolved.
He says:
I look forward to the steering committee finalising the design costs and design brief for the project. There
appears to be an expectation by the Palmerston City Council that a further funding allocation for construction
of the project would be provided in yesterday’s budget. This expectation is premature. Funding allocations will
follow the finalisation of costings and the design brief. The Palmerston partnership agreement envisages the
recreation centre project being completed by September 2005. While this timetable will be tight, the government
is still keen to see us meet it. I would encourage council to maintain its commitment to the effective work to date
of the steering committee.
From that I gather this: the government is giving a clear commitment that it will find the funds to complete that facility by the end of 2005. That is the implication in this letter.
However, for the minister to say that it is premature to expect funding allocations to be in this particular budget is plainly wrong. We have talked about the fact that this government promises and does not do, and this is a case in point. Surely any government that is committed to having a facility worth more than $8m completed by September 2005, knowing the extent of work that has to be put into that facility and claims it is committed to that facility, would have included the money in this particular budget? To not do so is a sleight of hand and naturally raises the suspicion that it will not be done.
It is not as if it is without precedent. If one looks at the infrastructure budget in these budget papers, the Palmerston new secondary school facility is a classic case in point. It is in revoted works for the 2004-05 budget. It is funded to $10m. It first appeared in the budget papers 2002-03 so it has appeared in three lots of budget papers, fully funded by the government; not yet built, of course, but fully funded, so the money is there; and it says, Palmerston new secondary facility with design and scope of work subject to stakeholder and community consultation. Now, that is the government showing a commitment that this facility is definitely going to be built and that commitment is evidenced by the $10m that is put aside. The fact that nothing has happened is just another example of the ineptness of this particular government in getting works from paper onto the ground, but the money is there clearly in the budget, put aside, $10m for that facility.
Why, then, I ask, can the minister say that somehow they can complete a facility by September 2005 yet there is no money in the budget, in this particular budget, $1.8m only? For him to say if we need more money, funding allocations will follow, makes a joke of the whole budgetary process. That is what I have been saying today. On the one hand, you bring down a budget and you expect people to have confidence in the budget, but you essentially say do not worry about any of those figures. If we want more money, we will find it. It shows certainly a lack of organisation by the government in ensuring the monies are available for a project that they would expect people to believe they are committed to, and it is nonsensical for a minister to say confidently he would give a commitment without reference to the Treasurer to get something like $7m of monies that does not appear in the budget papers at all. So either the minister is telling lies or …
Mr HENDERSON: A point of order, Madam Acting Deputy Speaker. The member well knows he cannot accuse anybody in this House of lying unless he does so by way of substantive motion.
Madam ACTING DEPUTY SPEAKER: I take your point of order.
Mr BURKE: Either the minister is deliberately misleading the Palmerston City Council by leading them to believe that somehow he can pull $8m out of mid-air from the Treasurer, or the money is not there, or thirdly, he is confident the money will be there but it will not be there until the next budget. If that is the case, it begs the question, how the hell is this facility going to be finished by the end of 2005 if the money is not even provided until next year’s budget? Palmerston City Council is rightly left with a whole heap of questions that need answering.
I intend to ask those questions of the minister on their behalf because they need answering, and they are these: can the minister give us, or can the government - it is probably more important that the Treasurer does it - can you give assurances that the planned Palmerston Multipurpose Recreation Centre and associated facilities will be operational by the end of 2005, as committed to by one of your ministers, Acting Chief Minister? If so, where is the budget to ensure that necessary construction occurs in 2004-05 to enable opening of the facility early in the following financial year? This is just commonsense. There is ongoing work that needs to occur, a whole heap of work, well in excess of the headworks provided in the budget, and it needs to occur during this financial year, and monies need to be put aside. How can Palmerston City Council know that any funding, hidden as it is, is sufficient to deliver a viable and complete facility to the people of Palmerston and the wider sub region? The Treasurer can give those assurances very quickly. If there is no specific budget allocation, does the government have extra funds set aside of the kind required to complete such a large scale initiative; that is, well over $8m for the facility alone, and above the allocated $1.8m for site preparation? Only the Treasurer can answer that. Just reinforce the undertaking that your minister has given.
If they do not have such funds set aside, this begs the question of why was this not reported to the budget? And also to the broader question which is now put: does the government think that this kind of budget reporting, where there are large sums of unaccounted funds, is part of a transparent and accountable budget reporting to the Northern Territory community?
This is from a council in the Northern Territory, so you can lampoon the CLP and say: ‘You are asking for too much of the budget. We give you the figures, but if the figures change, well you will just have to cop that. That is an expanding and proactive and working government’. There is the council asking the same questions that we asked in the censure motion today. How can you expect Territorians to believe a budget that will deliver outcomes, as you state, reinforced by so-called commitments from your ministers when you do not have any allocation in your budget put aside for it? If you have not done that, you are either poor managers or you have so much money you can just pluck it out of the bag whenever you need it, which is also, as we know, the truth.
In particular, are they aware that detailed and professional costings have already been undertaken in relation
to the centre and that there is thus extensive information on which to base a facility cost estimate for inclusion
in the budget and fair and open reporting in the community?
Again, this is a fair statement. They had design money put aside in 2000-01. So to say we are going to do more design, a little bit of headworks, get agreement - they already know what they want. The officers have all agreed. It is just a matter of the government making the commitment. Knowing all of that information, they say:
Why was an estimate not included in the process? If there is no such fund, then by what miraculous
means does the government anticipate in essence completing over a year’s construction in the first three
months of 2005-06?
That is a good question, too. Unless the Treasurer gives a commitment that reinforces to Palmerston City Council what the minister appears to be committing to, tells them that the money will be there and, certainly, they can be comfortable that as needed it will be provided in this financial year above the $1.8m, how can anyone possibly believe a commitment that a facility would be completed at a cost of over $9m by September 2005 when it will not even get any real funding until the budgetary year that begins on 1 July 2005?
Treasurer and Acting Chief Minister, I would ask you to take those comments seriously. It would be very sad if the Labor government is playing politics with the people of Palmerston. It would be very sad if they lead the people of Palmerston along for another 12 months so that just before the next election, if they plan to go after the next budget, they can come out with some grand announcement saying we are going to put $8m into this budget and we will fund it and finish it by September because the Palmerston people by then will know full well not to trust the government because if they win government, they are quite likely to delay it for another four years.
This could be put to bed very quickly. Most importantly, the relationship of Palmerston City Council should be quickly rebuilt. Someone should give a kick in the rear to the staffer who wrote media release. It is unsavoury and uncalled for and does no justice to the fine relationships that have already been established between Palmerston City Council and the current NT government, relationships we would like to see continued.
Mr STIRLING (Nhulunbuy): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I say to the member for Brennan that I have taken note of those comments and we will be going through the questions he asked when we get a copy of Hansard of it so we know exactly what he said.
Mr Burke: Thank you. I will include your comments back to them.
Mr STIRLING: Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, Youth Week saw the launching of Connect, a youth and family initiative organised through Anglicare and gave the youth in the Nhulunbuy community the opportunity to participate in a great national event. The week of activities provided a great opportunity to promote the many organisations in the community and give the youth of town an opportunity to try out new ideas and challenges.
The Gove Yacht Club was very pleased with the response to the sailing day and finale of Youth Week. Other popular events on the program included the Saturday night discos, the camp fire at Camp Wirrawoi and various sporting activities on offer throughout the week.
Youth Week activity organiser Michelle Kay is very optimistic that the high profile activities of Youth Week 2004 now open the door for groups and individuals to work together for an even better Youth Week next year.
I would like to welcome Scott Fullerton and his family to Nhulunbuy. Scott is the new Animal Control and Parking Regulation Officer. Scott is planning to spend time with community and school groups, combining his enforcement role with that of community education and responsible pet ownership. I hear he has already joined the volunteer fire brigade, made himself available at Dhimurru and the Parks and Wildlife to assist in wildlife issues around the region.
The Nhulunbuy High School tennis team proudly represented the Arnhem cluster at this year’s tennis championships in Darwin. The team included Anthony Trudgen, Talitha Mason, Wayne Roberts-Barlow, Elizabeth Akapita, Mitchell Hinchcliffe, Thomas Parrish and Monica O’Hanlon.
The talent ability and sportsmanship of Anthony Trudgen and Elizabeth Akapita was recognised with the presentation of plaques at the closing ceremony. Both players competed in the true spirit of the championship and I congratulate them both.
Yirrkala school children were very happy top have the Athletes as Role Models team visit them last month. The visit to Yirrkala was part of a Top End tour. The team included Melbourne Storm player, Robbie Ross, basketballer, Mark Thomson, and Australian netballer, Sharon Finnan. They interacted with the kids, not only through sport, but they also spent time in the classroom working with literacy and numeracy skills and spoke of the importance of getting a good education and staying healthy.
Representing the Chief Minister at the Downunder International Film Festival Awards, I was pleased to present Nhulunbuy High School with the Short Film Award for their film titled We Are The Future. Congratulations to Linda Barrett, the Class 9A SOSE, director, Peta Murphy and editor, Jasmine Hodge. The class entered two films, and both were short listed and screened at the end of April as part of the Downunder International Film Festival. Well done.
Approximately 50 darts players from across the Northern Territory competed in the NT Championships in Darwin over the Easter weekend. Congratulations to Nhulunbuy’s player, Fran Pikos, who won the finals in five games to one; best of nine; ending with a massive 18.5 finals average. Fran’s win put here in the NT State rep team. It also put her in the top 20 ranked players in Australia. Well done Fran, a great effort.
We had a great turn out this year in Nhulunbuy for the 89th Anniversary of the Gallipoli Landings. Denis Airens, a member of the Townsville Caledonian Pipe Band, was in town to celebrate the birthday of his sister-in-law, Leonie Dutch. He provided quite a haunting element to the Dawn Service with his piper’s lament and a jaunt to the step of the veterans in the march.
Nhulunbuy Primary School Choir sang Lest We Forget, and the Maori Choir sang the New Zealand National Anthem in Maori and English, as well as the Australian Anthem, and one voice ensemble sang an excellent a capella version of We Are Australians. The Nhulunbuy Town Band, conducted by Alan Fleming, provided an excellent musical accompaniment to the singing. I was very proud as I stood among the many people who turned out to honour those who have served their country.
Northern Territory Police and the Australian Customs Services are working together to reduce the distribution of drugs into remote communities. A drug detector dog was used in Nhulunbuy recently to search several light aircraft, goods storage areas, passengers and freight consignments, and other venues, as well as a cargo ship. As a result of dog detection, Nhulunbuy police issued three drug infringement notices. Access to a drug detector dog of this calibre has resulted in a large number of individual seizures of illegal drugs that were potentially destined for remote communities across the Territory. The operation has been highly successful and is ongoing.
Nhulunbuy’s new tip is fully operational. Expressions of interest for the management of the new waste management facility were advertised in December and include the twice weekly town garbage removal. Michael Jackson was the successful tendered – he sings as well. A prerequisite of the tender was commitment to Aboriginal employment. Michael Jackson’s company is responsible for the overall functioning of the waste management facility, and has the rights to recycling of materials. Mike is keen to implement some new ideas such as a community compost heap where our keen gardeners can dispose of their garden refuse and in return have access to the compost heap. Mike will also be keen to assist community groups with recycling for fundraising.
A couple of retirees and recognition of long service serving employees with the Department of Employment, Education and Training. Ellen Varley, is currently on long service leave, prior to officially retiring in December 2004. Her first appointment in the Northern Territory was as a classroom teacher at Bamyili in 1978. She has made a significant impact on schools in Central Australia during her career, and has been actively involved in professional associations, including the Assistant Principals Association Northern Territory, Northern Territory Principals Association, NTPA, the Association of Northern Territory Senior Education Leaders. I did this at Bamyili as a student teacher in 1978, and I do not recall whether I met with Ellen or not, I assume I would have on that day. For the last seven years, Ellen has been principal of Larapinta Primary School in Alice Springs. Her intimate involvement in the establishment and development of this outstanding school is a credit to her personal commitment and dedication to education.
Val Martins retired on 31 January 2004 after a lengthy career teaching in the Northern Territory. Val started teaching at Tennant Creek primary School in 1968, and transferred to Pine Creek in 1969. After two years in South Australia, he returned to the Territory in 1971, teaching at many schools, including Katherine Area School, Elsey, Utopia, Adelaide River and Wagaman Primary. In 1977, Val moved to Wulagi Primary School, where he spent four years, including a period as acting principal. From 1985 to 1987, Val was principal of Jabiru Area School, followed by five years as principal at Anula Primary School. Val then transferred to be the principal education officer, performance appraisal, career development and human resources branch.
In 1996, Val became Principal of Howard Springs Primary School, where he remained until his retirement. He was known as a great leader and mentor throughout his career. Val has always nurtured and encouraged others. His insight and analysis has been valued by many throughout his 36 years of exemplary service. There are many years of high-quality service from those two employees as they go into retirement with the best wishes of government and, indeed, all their colleagues in the department.
A final issue I wanted to raise comes from The DRUM the police May journal. It refers to ‘The Heat’, the hot Holden that the police use, which was at the Freds Pass Show. I will just read quickly from this:
From the outside it looks like any one of a number of police vehicles seen throughout the Territory.
But inside and more important where it counts, under the bonnet, this baby is different.
With 8 cylinders and more horsepower than the stables at Fannie Bay racecourse, The Heat – a 2003 VYSS
Generation III Commodore - is the star recruit of The Heat racing team, a policing initiative aimed at promoting
road safety.
Beat the Heat (NT) is an extension of the US based ‘Beat the Heat’ program designed to educate young drivers
about the dangers of involvement with drugs and alcohol while driving through police involvement in the
adrenalin-charge sport drag racing. Whilst the NT program continues to uphold the goals and objective of
its US-based cousin, it is primarily geared towards combating the growing incidence of hooning and antisocial
driving in the community.
Staffed by a crew and off duty police officers - seven men and one woman - The Heat has pedigree any racing
enthusiast would be proud of. It is powered by an engine once used by Australia’s own King of the Mountain,
and Peter Brock during his recent foray into Targa Tasmania racing – the car is producing times in the high
13 second mark …
This vehicle is down to about around 12.6, I think, for the quarter mile now.
‘While fast times and speed is all part of racing out over the quarter mile, The Heat has more importantly been
put in place as an initiative to encourage young drivers to race their cars legally and safely on the track against
us rather than on the street’, said Superintendent Mark Jeffs, the main instigator of NT’s The Heat …
I have to say about Superintendent Mark Jeffs – you would not get a more enthusiastic person when it comes to involvement with a car of this nature, and his very close involvement with it.
‘Our goal is to break down the barriers between young drivers and the police. We want to humanise what we do
and attracts street races to the track to take us on and as such we have to gain their trust’.
We need to relate to these young drivers if we hope to influence them and as such we appeal to them through
the common interest in motor sport’.
The aim is to reduce and prevent hooning behaviour on the streets and put it in a controlled and safe
environment of the racetrack.
The Heat was launched by the commissioner in November. The car has been fully sponsored via ‘in kind support’
from local businesses.
News of The Heat is spreading fast, both nationally and internationally. The NT program has already featured
twice in Automotive Performance News, the official magazine of Beat the Heat USA – it made the front page in January.
Superintendent Jeffs said he was really excited about the promotional aspects of the car and the team. Aside from
racing, The Heat will be used at public displays, promotional activities such as recruiting, the NT Public Safety Expo
and will be featured at the V8 Supercars.
‘I am also exploring opportunities for us to be involved with Camp Quality. A lot of people have backed us and that’s
a great opportunity for us to give something back and make a few wishes come true’, Supt Jeffs said.
‘Whilst the team is getting pretty settled now, we are always looking for people interested in helping out’.
We have a valuable asset and we have to learn how to drive it and look after it. It takes a lot of commitment by the
members involved. But if you are committed to road safety, interested in getting your hands dirty and have an
interest in motor sport …
Superintendent Mark Jeffs would love to hear from you.
The team drivers are Superintendent Mark Jeffs, Sergeant Kerry James, Senior Constable Ross Bohlin, Senior Constable Dean Barrett, Senior Constable Steve Hazel, Senior Constable Phil Palmer, Senior Constable Meghan Funnell, and Constable Shane Humphries. The Pit Crew are: Dave Cunnington, John Sorrenson, First Class Constable John Gregory, Damon Jeffs, Michael Humphreys, Adrian James, and Kurt Barrett.
I commend every one of those officers and crew for what they are doing. Okay, they have a love of motor sport. They have a fantastic vehicle, but that is not what it is about; it is about encouraging youth to get out on the track rather than on the highways and the roads and take them on. They welcome it and they get beaten. They get beaten regularly by some young guys with their Supercars, and that is what it is all about because, if they were to go out there and win every time, I do not expect the kids would continue to turn up. They get between 50 and 80 vehicles out there at Hidden Valley. It is all controlled; it is a safe environment and everyone has a great time. I pay credit to these police officers. It is all in their own time, but they put in an enormous amount of a work and effort into it. I hope to get down there with the Corvette some time, and we will just see how good this heap really is.
Mr WOOD (Nelson): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I would just like to continue on from last night, about the visit of Judi and Payden Green, who were relations of Captain Al Strauss. Last night, I mentioned that Bob Alford had taken them down to Adelaide River to see the airstrip where Strauss took off on his last flight. After they had visited that airstrip, they visited the Adelaide River Cemetery, and we stopped off for some coffee at the country store. It was interesting to notice that there were some differences when we ordered coffee, because Payden wanted cream in the coffee and jelly on the toast, which translated into Australian means she wanted some jam and milk, but we were able to sort that out.
We then moved on to Batchelor and stopped at the Batchelor Airstrip. Batchelor Airstrip, for those who do not know, was a large World War II airstrip and still is used today by the parachute clubs down there. It was a site where General Douglas MacArthur landed after he left the Philippines due to the Japanese invasion. We then travelled on to Litchfield National Park, and as it was a holiday it was quite busy, a lot of people in the park, and they visited Florence Falls, and they certainly enjoyed the cool dip that you can get in the park without the worry of crocodiles. After that, we travelled on to Berry Springs and had a look at the Wildlife Park and came back and had a barbeque with my family that night. On their third day in Darwin, they went down to Taminmin High School, and this was a special day.
Originally I had been told that the Taminmin High School history class was going to adopt Strauss Airstrip and that Judi Green was going to talk to the history class. However, what happened was that the entire school had an assembly to welcome Judi and Payden. They were greeted by the beautiful tones of the new Taminmin High School Choir, which is being conducted by Tania Ham who last year used to work at Howard Springs Primary School, where she did exactly the same thing. Sadly, or I should not say sadly but unfortunately, the choir is made up of all girls at the present time. It would be nice to see some young blokes get involved in singing.
The assembly was a very emotional time, as, when the Greens came, the choir sang Imagine by John Lennon. Bill Buckley then played the Last Post, and all the school stood up at that time, and then the department of heritage people which included Iolanthe Sutton from the Charles Darwin University and Steve Sutton from the department of heritage, presented the Greens with a beautiful silver platter which had engraved on it, ‘To the Strauss family’. So there were a few more tears again. It was a very special and moving day.
Judi Green stood up to thank the school. Now, a school assembly, especially at Taminmin, is normally a fairly noisy sort of affair, but Judi Green must have known how to handle these kids. She works at a high school in Marysville, Ohio, and she just got up and said she felt like she was at home. There were baseball hats on backwards and bags all over the place full of books that teachers keep tripping over, and immediately she was able to relate to these kids. They were quiet while she spoke about her uncle who had come out here from America to fight in this part of the world. That was in itself an amazing thing, I thought, that here was a whole bunch of kids, about 500 of them, pretty well quiet when they listened to this lady from the other side of the world talk about something that had occurred 62 years ago.
After we left Taminmin, we moved over to Bees Creek Primary School. The reason we went there is because the school sports houses are named after the airstrips in the region. I took them over to the Bees Creek Primary School and introduced them to Peter Collins, who is the principal, and Ken Brodie. They showed them around the school and then presented them with two sports shirts representing the Strauss House, and, again, they were overwhelmed by people’s generosity.
We then went on to Palmerston High School, and I would like to thank the minister for arranging the meeting with Ross and Evelyn who look after the children who do not turn up to school. They had an hour-long discussion with those people, which they enjoyed immensely because Judi looks after the same sort of children in Marysville and Payden is also a teacher, so they appreciated the time that the minister for education had allowed them to speak to people engaged in the same work as they are in the United States.
After that, we rushed back to Coolalinga to have a coffee at Chianti and Coffee, which is a little shop where famous people tend to sign their names on the brick work. The names include Rolf Harris and Shane Stringer. In this case, Judi and Payden signed their names and noted that they were the niece and grand niece of Captain Al Strauss. There is something, you might say, concrete left of their trip out here.
The rest of the day was spent doing a bit of shopping. One thing I gather they had not seen in the United States is elastic-sided boots. Judi went around to the NT General Store and bought a pair of Bloodstones, which is what I am wearing tonight, to take home to her husband in America. I will be interested to hear, one, did they fit, and, two, whether we have started a trend in the United States. I hope no one tries to take the name Bloodstone like they have taken the name Ug Boots. We may have started an export industry by accident.
That night, we went down to the Trailer Boat Club and that was a special night because it was the 62nd anniversary of Strauss’ death. He was shot down over Fannie Bay and, just as the sun went down, Judi and Payden walked down to the beach with a basket of flowers that my secretary kindly put together from her garden, and they threw those into the water right on sunset. It was another very moving occasion.
After that, we had a glorious meal of barramundi and toasted Captain Strauss at the same time. As happened on all the other days, they were exhausted and I dropped them back at the hotel.
On the last day, which was Wednesday 28 April, I gave them a quick tour of Parliament House and I do appreciate the staff on Level 5 allowing me to take the Greens up to the top to have a look at the beautiful view of the harbour. They went around and saw Peter and Sheila Forrest who are historians and have done quite a bit of work talking to them via e-mail and had put an article in the NT News about Captain Strauss.
We, of course, could have stayed a lot longer, but we did not have the time. We drove out to the Aviation Museum and, for those who have not been there for a while – and I had not been for a number of years – it is a fantastic place to visit. As is the case when you live locally, you do not visit these places; you have to wait until you have visitors before you go for a look. Well! It is getting better and better. Bob Alford showed us around the Aviation Museum with one of his staff. He has quite a few paintings in that building, and he of course knows much about the history of WWII. He was able to show them relics of 49 Squadron, to which Captain Strauss belonged. Again, it was a fairly emotional time.
After that, we returned to Darwin city, did a little bit more shopping, we had a nice cup of coffee – they like their coffee – and something to eat at Louis in Raintree Park. We drove around by the casino, had a last look at Fannie Bay, out to East Point to view the harbour and we were just in time for them to catch their plane to Sydney before continuing on to the States.
In all that time, of course, they were struggling for luggage. They had no luggage when they came. On the first full day they were here, they received one small bag. On the second day, they received another bag and they finally got the rest of their luggage in Sydney. The funny thing about it was that when they realised that in our climate, you do not need many clothes to wear, they said they would have been totally embarrassed if they had pulled some of the clothes out of their luggage, had it arrived. In many ways, it worked out well that the luggage went missing.
I believe it is really important that we have this contact with these people in the United States. One day I will probably write a little book about how it came to be. I have said to other people I am sure this is providential we have made this contact because other people would call it a fluke, because all the way through the history of finding out about Strauss Airstrip and who built the Strauss Cricket Ground and who was Strauss himself is nearly all by accident. The only thing I can say is that only good has come out of this. The cricket match we had an Anzac Day, the community loved it. It was just a fantastic day.
Kids played cricket, parents played cricket, and we were playing with the army. We had fair dinkum bowling from the Administrator who was also there. Even though Judi said, ‘wow, I saw your Administrator bowling and I thought he was going to have a cardiac’. She thought he might have been a little bit heavy there. He had a great day. By coming out they brought the community together as well. Everybody enjoyed themselves. I feel now that I have two sisters in the United States, as that is how close we became on this trip. I would like to go back to Marysville and reciprocate the visit, and also visit the grave of Strauss, who is buried in Wadesville, Indiana. I believe when he was killed he was buried at a cemetery at Berrimah, and then after the war, as I suppose happened with many American servicemen, he was exhumed and his body taken back to where he was born, or where he lived most of his life, in this case, Wadesville, Indiana.
I believe to have that contact is really important. It is not like we are going on a trade delegation somewhere, or we are going to visit someplace to look at new developments, it is about person to person contact. I really think that is important, not just because I am a politician, but it is good as our society would get to understand another society. Americans get a fair hammering in Australia, even though we regard them as our friends, we always talk about the Yanks and that, but these people are just ordinary folks like you and I. From a small town in the United States, lived on a farm, had the same complaints about the local council, except their complaint was snow and ours might be mud and corrugations and pot holes. Exactly the same. They live with tornados, we live with cyclones. They teach at a school, a high school just like the one at Taminmin, same sort of kids and that is why Judy Green was so much able to connect with those kids. It did not matter about her accent, she understood exactly what those kids were about. That sort of contact is good.
Litchfield and the region from where I come from have that relationship with another place in the United States, recognising the importance of these American servicemen who came out to Australia during the war, and died. We forget that sometimes, because we look at our own forces and we say, they went over to Gallipoli or France and they died. A long way from here, but some of us may forget that Ohio, or Indiana, a little town called Wadesville, is an awful long way to Adelaide River, in 1942. Strauss came out here in March 1942, and he was killed on April 27 1942. He was here for a very short time. He was commanding officer and he fought for our country. Whilst we might have our criticisms about the Unites States at times, we are very much worse off if we just criticise without understanding what happened in the past in this country. The relationship between Australia and United States has just been cemented a tiny bit down at the Strauss Cricket Ground by a group of ordinary people meeting another couple of ordinary hay-seeders, they call themselves, from the mid-west, who got on just like blockies in the rural area. I will not forget the trip. I hope I can reciprocate, as I said, and go back to Marysville and meet the people and I hope that relationship will last forever.
Mr KIELY (Sanderson): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, tonight I talk about a great event at a great club in the electorate of Sanderson. For those members who might not be aware exactly of where Sanderson is, those who are not out in the northern suburbs, it takes in the suburbs of Wulagi, Anula, Northlakes and a little of Malak.
In Northlakes, we are very fortunate to have a great club, which is the Darwin Golf Club. It is a great community club. A lot of people who live around the edge of the course in Northlakes are actually members of the club. It has a good social feel about it, the course is always very busy, and I believe it is very busy because the club has a great committee, a great management team, and great greenkeeping staff, and they look after the club and they look after their members. They have good open days, both for men, women and juniors. I believe that women in sport is an important area of focus of this government, and I am really glad to say that at the Darwin Golf Club, women in sport is very serious and supported quite strongly by the club.
What I am talking about in particular now is the Women’s Golf Open that was held there quite recently on the May Day weekend. The open is held each year on May Day weekend and is now on a rotation basis around the three 18-hole golf courses in the Territory; being Darwin, Alice Springs and Palmerston. Toini Norman, who is the mother of Greg Norman, is the Women’s Golf NT’s patron, could not attend this year due to family commitments but she sent a letter of support to the open. This year was the first time after a long absence that the open had a representative from Women’s Golf South Australia, which the Northern Territory is affiliated through, to attend and compete. Joan Lyons, the president of Women’s Golf South Australia, was a representative, and from the letter she has now forwarded, she thoroughly enjoyed her visit to the Top End and the hospitality offered to her.
There were 140 players competing in the championships. For women in sport that is a great effort and, for golf in particular, it is superb. There were 140 players competing. I went to the opening night, to the cocktail night. It was fabulous to see all those women there, some in club colours, all looking forward to the weekend ahead. Twenty-year-old Verity Knight from the Gold Coast, who plays off a three handicap, took out the open, with Toni McCormack from Darwin Golf Club - one of our own - taking out the closed NT open champion.
Two juniors, Matika Mitchell form Alice Springs Golf Club and Elisca McKinnon from Humpty Doo Golf Club, competed in the open and performed exceptionally well against the adults. Elisca took out the overall handicap, the Perpetual Trophy, which is donated by Toini Norman.
Such events as these cannot be held unless a lot of volunteers get in and help. Of course, the Territory is famous for the way the people get behind and volunteer, no more so that what happened at the NT Open. I would like to just get these recorded. The following is a list of the volunteers from the NT Ladies Open held at the Darwin Golf Club on 1-3 May 2004: Robyn Winter, ladies captain of the match committee, and the senior ladies and male member volunteers were Val Ingram, Vicki Purser, Marg Fairless, Val Durand, Alec Ingram, Terry Foster who did the media, Jeff Heap, Norm Bouffler, Shane Horton, Dave Conn, Jane Lutz, Timmy Arthur, Kathy Curby, Ray Webb, Sue Woods, Jude Eastaway, Tricia Clarke, Robyn Vincent, Lyn Heap, Jan Jones, Kath Chambers, Louise Penman, Lyn Mounsey, Helen Koch, Val Ingram, Judy Yuke, Sundra Salvadura, Graham Clarke, Ros Cron, Graham Cron, Chris Gorst, and Joe Smith. A lot of these people, as I said, live around the golf course, play quite regularly, and they do not tire of golf. They get in there and support it all they can, and that was fabulous to see.
A big thank you must also go to the sponsors of the event as, without the sponsor support, the events cannot function so successfully. The sponsors were Carlton Sterling, Paspaley Pearls, Timika Charters, Mix 104.9, L’Oreal, Bill Passmore Consultants, Coates Hire, Crocodylus Park, Darwin Pro Shop, Drummond Golf, Frost Ford, Fujitsu, Harvey Norman Electrical, Harvey Norman Furniture, Jenny Cooper, Klub Golf Rimba Irian, Majestic Orchids, NT Senior Women Golfers Association, National Australia Bank, Palmerston Pro Shop, Agnese Rinaldi, Sheraton Timika Hotel, Sports Agencies, Gove Golf Club, Humpty Doo and Rural Golf Club, Palmerston Golf and Country Club, and RAAF Darwin Club.
I am one of the most fortunate members: my back door looks straight at the front door of the Darwin Golf Club. Jude Eastaway popped over because she knows that I am a supporter of the Darwin Golf Club and she asked me whether I would be interested in being a sponsor. I happily put my hand up and sponsored a hole. I suggested that the minister for sport would do likewise because I know that he is a great supporter of the Darwin Golf Club and we have been to many a function down there, particularly their mid-season soiree out on the driving range. So she gave minister Ah Kit a ring and he sponsored a hole. We were both happy to get in there and help sponsor the Women’s NT Open.
From the open, two NT representative training squads were selected. The Bronze Squad is for handicaps between 21 and 29 and the successful players were Glenys Cummings from Gove, Shirley Shervill from Darwin, Matika Mitchell from Alice Springs, Paula Mitchell from Alice Springs, Rhonda Laurie from Darwin, Coral Dennerly from Gove, Agnese Rinaldi from Palmerston, Di Howard from Darwin and Denese Fincham from Gove. The Gold Squad, for handicaps up to 12, was Toni McCormick, Val Smith, Carol Kroger, Jude Eastaway and Sue McWilliam all from Darwin, and Barbara Postans from Palmerston. I congratulate them all and wish them well.
All in all, it was a great effort for the locals to put on a beaut show. We have the whole of the Territory represented there on the golf course as well as interstate. The club did the Territory proud. I was very proud of what people from my electorate could put on to host. Golf was a big winner out of this and I look forward to helping out the NT Women’s Open in any way I can in the future.
Mr ELFERINK (Macdonnell): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise to speak briefly tonight. I was listening with some interest to the member for Nelson’s contribution about the death of Captain Strauss which is a sort of a lead-in to what I want to talk about. Captain Strauss died in defence of democracy but in our communities in the Northern Territory we have had people who have been injured and died in defence of our civil liberties. I am thinking particularly of police officers. People like Glen Huitson who died on duty defending the people of the Northern Territory against a gunman. He was a close and personal friend of mine. We had worked together for many months when he was a recruit in Alice Springs.
Then tonight I turn on the television set and although I have yet to find out who it is, I hear that a police officer in Yuendumu has been flown interstate as a result of being flogged by a person armed with a nulla nulla. I wish that police officer and that police officer’s family the very, very best and hope and pray that that police officer is okay. Apparently the injuries are fractures to an arm and hands, and the injuries are serious enough to warrant that police officer being sent elsewhere. I hope that in the morning the police minister can come into this House during ministerial reports and provide a full report as to the circumstances of the incident. It is important that Territorians note the length and extent that police officers go to on a daily basis to defend the rights of the law abiding citizens of the Northern Territory.
I would like to place on the record my best wishes to the police officer concerned and to that police officer’s family. I will be seeking advice from the police minister tomorrow sometime, either by way of ministerial report or through a briefing as to the circumstances of that incident and to see what action is being taken to assist that police officer’s family as well as what actions are being taken to protect the officers who are left there on the ground who may be affected by some sort of ongoing problem. I am utterly unaware of the circumstance of the attack, however, I would like to hear what the minister has to say about it and what the minister is going to do to protect the rights of this particular police officer and other police officers in Yuendumu at the moment.
Ms LAWRIE (Karama): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I rise this evening to continue debate that I started last sittings, to acknowledge the work that is being done at the local primary schools in my electorate and specifically to acknowledge the terrific support that our schools receive from parents of students at the schools, from the teachers and the students themselves.
First, I would like to acknowledge Malak School, which is a terrific school within my electorate. It has magnificent grounds, thanks to the work of the grounds keeper there. Bill is a fantastic person, very committed to the school and he has the school looking terrific, as usual, even though we are heading into the Dry. It is still a very green, very pretty school.
We have a very enthusiastic new principle at the school this year, who has come up from Katherine, Russell Leg. Russell is doing a terrific job at the school. He has full support of the school community behind him. There is really a lovely mood at the school, a great feeling that he has engendered there. They have generously agreed to host a Malak Neighbourhood Watch Meeting that I have in the area later this month. It is the can-do attitude that Russell Leg as principal is showing since he has been at the school since the start of the year, and it has engendered a great deal of community support for him in his methods as principal.
He has a good school council around him. The School Council is chaired by Lynne Chong, a very active mother of students at the school. Her children do very, very well at the school. She has every reason to be proud. I see her kids receiving awards at assembly. Lynne is a terrific new chair this year and I wish her all the best. She is very ably supported by the secretary Jillian Furness. Jillian has been a secretary in the past, and does a great job. She is a great woman, full of life, vigour and enthusiasm and she is very reliable. They are backed up by other parents at the school, Claire Dodt, Donna Smith, Chris Kelly, Tamara Tartaglia, Karen Jipp, Mark Munich, Tania Hill. We have fantastic work from Loene Wilson and teachers Natalie Eerdon, Nicky Honan and Shannon Pope.
I want to single out for thanks Donna Smith, who took on the unenviable task of the fund raiser for the school. Donna was not so sure about the task. She had not really taken on something like that in the past. After some encouragement, she proceeded with it and I have to say she is doing a magnificent job. There has not been a period in the school this year without Donna having organised some kind of a fund raiser. Really, the students at assembly are very excited about the many raffles. She created an Easter raffle. She went out to Casuarina Shopping Centre and sold tickets in the Easter raffle. It was a highly successful raffle. She is busy at the moment organising a quiz night for the school and regularly beats a path to my door and manages to fleece things out of the local member. Well done, Donna. She is doing a terrific job and I am more than happy to support her and indeed the full Malak School Council, who are true symbols of just what parents can do to enhance a school.
The Malak Student Council representatives, it was my honour to present as the local member to present them with their Captain’s badges and their SRC badges at a school assembly recently. School captains, I have to say, are dominated by girls at Malak School. We have Jessica Marris and Kasi Chong as school Captains. The School Vice-Captains, again dominated by girls, are Karly Fisher and Jennifer Mu and the class delegates are Ashley da Silva, Jane Abril, Angela Carter-Ritter, Katrina Orian, Marc Errington and Margaret Harrison. Hats off to Marc Errington. He is the only boy who stuck his hand up on the SRC. I have spoken to his very proud parents and they are delighted. There is a desire amongst school councils parents to encourage more boys in the future to step up to that really terrific role of being SRC reps.
The school has a very positive outlook on the year. The students have settled in well. Learning outcomes have already been quite significant. The principal has a great array of work in his office. It is a very encouraging school. I am delighted to be able to assist them through the year in the various tasks they set themselves.
Anther school in the electorate, which is doing incredibly well, again with a new principal this year because last year’s principal has gone on long service leave, is Manunda Terrace Primary School Dr Terry Quong is the new Principal there. Terry is well known throughout the education sector. He has been a leader in training for teachers throughout the sector in education and he was really looking forward to settling down to being a school principal. Terry has taken on the role at Manunda Terrace with gusto. He has very quickly settled in to what is a very close school community who are very active in the broader community. Terry is working hand in hand with the not too long standing, but of some several years, the school council president, the school council chair, Mr Barry Brown.
Barry is an incredible work horse. He oversees an enormously successful fundraising effort each year, which is the school council auction, and they manage to fleece me of several hundred dollars each year, I must say, I am a bit of a sitting duck at that auction. He is assisted by Mick Keeley. Mick has been an active member of the school council for some years now. Margaret Harmsen is the secretary, she does a terrific job. Raylee Broome is the ex-officio rep with Marilyn Galt, parent rep, Pornthip Moulding, the parent rep, her husband Keth Moulding. Findlay Campbell, Peter Evans and Michelle Collins are also parent reps, and the able staff reps of Jan-Marie Cooper and Paulina Motlop. They are a terrific school council. I have worked fairly closely with them now for some years. They are inquisitive about curriculum, about how to improve the school, they are forever coming up with new ideas.
We are really enjoying, at that school at the moment, the success of the Breakfast Program. I take my hat off to the volunteers of Red Cross who are in that school every morning providing breakfast to the children. It has been a very successful Breakfast Program. On average, some 30 students are using that Breakfast Program each morning at the school. It is a school that has had its chances. At the moment, the school is working hard to incorporate into the school community students who really have not had much experience with attending school, even kids who live out at Knuckeys Lagoon, not far from Manunda Terrace Primary School. They are brought into the school and dropped back by various parents and volunteers, and these kids are having their first real opportunities at education. It is really good to see the way that Manunda Terrace has embraced them, is catering to their learning needs, and it is good to see the way the other students at the school are being very accepting of these kids. I wish the school all the best in that initiative. I am glad the Breakfast Program is occurring there, it certainly has enhanced the lives of the kids who, in the past, have had to go to school on empty stomachs. It is a terrific program and it has great outcomes.
There are some leaders at the school, amongst the students, of course. We have the SRC reps, Michael Bennett, Bing Ramilo, Zachary Stanislaus, Pandelis Magripilis, Luke Drennan and Diana Micairn. They are terrific kids. I also take my hat off to Emma Martin, Natasha Lee, Sean Quinn and Charlie Hourdas. I get a great deal of pleasure out of attending Manunda Terrace Primary School assemblies and talking to the kids regularly, and also visiting them in their classrooms. Anything that the school asks me to do, pretty well I am there and assisting in, because the kids are just so open and really inquisitive about my role in the community. They know I am a parent, they see me down the shops with my kids, and so they do not have any hesitation in coming up to me and having a chat to me. I really like the way these kids come from such a variety of backgrounds, and certainly Manunda Terrace Primary is located in a lower socio-economic area, so the kids do not have a life of luxury at home, but they are tremendously high achieving kids regardless. It is just great to be there and encourage them, and help the school whenever they need assistance.
The electorate of Karama feeds into the public high school of Sanderson High School, which I, of course, share in terms of assistance with my colleague, the member for Sanderson, who has a very close relationship as well with Sanderson High School. Greg Gibbs, again, is the chair of the Sanderson High School council, he has done a tremendous job at that school for many years now, and he shares the co-chair position with Sharon Clark. Treasurers are Denise Thomas and Gayle De La Cruz, with Tom McCall as secretary. The principal, Denise Wilkowski, has been at the school for some years now and is well known in the community, and works really well with the teacher rep, Sally Black and Cath Greene, and the parent council members are Fran Davies, Doreen Walsh, Anne-Marie Tully, Gerry De La Cruz and Vickianne Purcell.
I know many of these parents from primary school era, when they had their kids in primary school, but also having worked with them throughout the community. Sanderson High School have a very strong and a very active school council. They are very well regarded and I am sure that they will have a very successful year. I also have the opportunity to deal with the ASSPA committee at Sanderson High from time to time, and I congratulate Gail Ah Kit who is working as the chair there; indeed, the wife of our minister, and she has a deputy chair, Gail Laughton Gibbs, and Cheree Groves, D’elise Keitaanpaa, and Bill Rofe is the teacher there, and he is very active in assisting the indigenous students at Sanderson High School.
The SRC at Sanderson High is Tatiana de Castro, Brilee Jaques, Shelly Keast, Ben Keitaanpaa, Christopher Lalor, Peta Boots, Kevin Kadirgamar, Sophia Hoving, Ira Racines and Aimee Slocombe. In the senior school we have Brock Hall, Shane Boots, Ceah David, Ashlee McIinnes and Danielle Pukeroa. Sanderson High SRC does a lot of work in the school. They are the role models and the leaders of their high school. They do a terrific job and I hope that they have a fantastic 2004.
I am delighted to be able to work with these local schools. As we all know, schools are often the centre of communities. They certainly are incredibly important to the future of the Territory. We are turning out terrific Territorians in these schools in my electorate. I am very proud to have the opportunity to work with them. Any task they set me is always fair and reasonable, and I am happy to dig in and give the assistance a local member can provide. Congratulations to the parents and the students and the teachers who have all put their hand up to do that extra work of being on the council or the SRC. There is always a lot of things and a lot of tasks to take on. I know there is a lot of interest in the government’s secondary review of education. However, again they are not rushing into any hasty views on that. They are in the stage at the council levels of finding out information, and it has led to some very interesting debates and discussions at school council level, which a lot of us are enjoying. So, all the best to those members of our community, both the future leaders in the SRC reps, as well as the parents and teachers who are putting in a tremendous effort in our school communities. I congratulate them for that effort and I look forward to continuing to work with them.
Mr BALDWIN (Daly): Madam Acting Deputy Speaker, I would like to put an issue dear to my heart on the record this evening, and that is funding of regional events.
We have heard a fair bit in the last day or so from government members regarding major events and how they are funding all sorts of big programs such as cricket and Aussie Rules and so on, but we have not heard much at all about regional events funding. We know the story of the Croc Fest and the funding it did not receive from this government. In fact, this government decided, very consciously, to pull out of funding it, which is a disappointment reflected right across the community.
I have more and more people who are organisers of smaller regional events coming to me about the lack of funding from the Northern Territory government, funding they expect to receive on past experience. The CLP government used to fund them. For a while, although reduced, the Labor government funded them but the funding for those events now seems to be drying up.
One such event that came close, albeit they were saved at the 11th hour, was the Katherine Country Music Muster. They were initially totally knocked back by the Chief Minister. They were told that the Major Events unit would be able to assist them in reviewing their event and reporting back to the Chief Minister.
Nothing was heard until a letter was written to the Chief Minister at the 11th hour, just a couple of weeks before the Country Music Muster, and money was forthcoming at long last. I will put on the record that was much appreciated by the organisers and it allowed them to move in a much more relaxed situation to hold, yet again, another fantastic and very successful Katherine Country Music Muster.
Another event of significance is the Merrepen Arts Festival, which historically has been funded, supported in funding by the Northern Territory government regardless of its political persuasion. In the past, the CLP has ensured that funding was available. Until recently, even the Labor government funded it, but this year no funding has been forthcoming and that is a major disappointment.
It is all very well for government members to come in here and talk about the major events coming up in Darwin and Alice Springs, but it is the small regional events, particularly events that showcase our smaller communities such as Nauiyu community on the Daly River. Merrepen is an event that is well attended: the arts festival itself on the Sunday; the sports program on the Saturday prior; and the Saturday music events.
The Chief Minister and the members for Arnhem and Arafura would know, having attended in the past and - I believe the member for Arafura was down to open it last year - the musical events that are held on the Saturday night included the Darwin Symphony Orchestra attending. They will not be attending this year but, regardless of that, there is still a musical program of entertainment.
The Merrepen Arts Festival is a showcase of Aboriginal art. It is an opportunity for the community to open up its doors, not that it is a closed community in any way - in fact, they pride themselves that it is very much an open community - but it is a great opportunity to showcase their unique art and for the festival to be an annual festival on the calendar of events. It attracts a huge crowd of tourists as well as people from Darwin.
This year, it has not received any notification, albeit they have applied to the government, of any assistance whatsoever. I know the Chief Minister has been there and I know that she has reasonably close contact with the people in the community. I can tell her directly, or somebody can tell her directly, that they are very disappointed that they have not received any assistance to date unless it has been in the last day or so. I am sure they have not. It is something that needs rectifying very quickly given that this festival is to be held not this coming weekend but on the following weekend.
I expect a reply if not from the member for Arafura, certainly from the Chief Minister, who knows exactly what I am talking about and, I am sure, knows how disappointed the people of Nauiyu are feeling with regard to their funding applications for this very important festival.
Motion agreed to; the Assembly adjourned.
Last updated: 04 Aug 2016